THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE R. KANTHA RAO CIVIL MISCELLANEOUS APPEAL No.2693 of 1999 JUDGMENT: This appeal is filed by the appellant-Insurance Company challenging the award dated 27.05.1999 passed by the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal-cum-III Additional District Judge at Guntur in M.V.O.P.No.747 of 1997. Though several grounds have been urged in the grounds of appeal, at the time of arguments, the learned counsel appearing for the appellant has contended on the issue, whether the appellant is liable to pay the compensation to respondents 1 to 5-claimants. I have heard Sri T. Mahender Rao, learned counsel appearing for the appellant, and Sri A. Rajendra Babu, learned counsel appearing for respondents 1 to 5- claimants. It has been contended by the appellant before the Tribunal that the driver of the offending vehicle, which was insured with it, had no valid and effective driving licence at the relevant time of the occurrence of the accident, and therefore, it is not liable to pay the compensation. In the cross-examination of P.W.2 before the Tribunal, it was elicited that the contractor hired the offending vehicle i.e. jeep bearing No.AP 7T 5086 which was involved in the accident. Further, it is also noticed by the Tribunal that the evidence of R.W.1, who is Senior Assistant in M.V.I. Unite Office, Tenali, that their office issued driving licence No.662/TU/97 dated 10.03.1997 in favour of one T. Bajibabu, S/o Issak, for driving non-transport vehicles and a badge is required for a driver, who works for remuneration on a transport vehicle. Thus, for driving a taxi, as per the version of R.W.1, a badge is required for its driver, if he is a paid employee. The true copy of the driving licence of the driver of the offending vehicle, which was marked as Ex.B.1, revealed that a badge was issued to the driver of the offending vehicle on 16.04.1998 i.e. after the occurrence of the accident. Therefore, it was vehemently contended by the appellant before this Court that the driver of the offending vehicle did not possess the badge to drive the transport vehicle, which is in violation of the conditions of the policy. The learned counsel for respondents 1 to 5- claimants repelled the contentions of the appellant by submitting that just because the driver had no badge, the insurance company cannot be absolved from liability, and that in the absence of any badge, it cannot be said that the driver had no valid driving licence. It is the opinion of the learned Tribunal that since Ex.B.1-driving licence does not prohibit the driver to drive a transport vehicle or a taxi, it cannot be said that there is any violation of the terms and conditions of the policy, and thus, ultimately held that the appellant is liable to pay the compensation to the respondents-claimants. The said finding has been challenged by the appellant. In support of his contention that there is difference between a light motor vehicle and a commercial vehicle, the learned counsel appearing for the appellant relied upon a decision in “National Insurance Co. Ltd. Vs. Kusum Rai and others”[1] wherein the Supreme Court held that where the driver had licence to drive light motor vehicle, but he was driving a jeep, which was being plied as a taxi, a commercial vehicle, it amounts to breach of conditions of contract of insurance by the insured, and therefore, the Insurance Company is exempted from liability. The Supreme Court further held that it is a case where the driver did not possess a valid driving licence to drive a commercial vehicle, the Insurance Company may pay the amount to the claimants in the first instance and then recover it from the owner of the vehicle. The above referred judgment relied on by the learned counsel appearing for the appellant-Insurance Company rendered by the Apex Court is almost on identical facts to that of the case on hand, and therefore, in the instant case, in view of the fact that the driver of the offending vehicle did not have any badge i.e. authorization to drive a transport vehicle or a taxi, which amounts to breach of stipulation of the policy, the appellant-Insurance Company is not liable to pay the compensation to respondents 1 to 5-claimants. However, in view of the above cited decision and also on account of the fact that it is very difficult at this point of time for respondents 1 to 5-claimants to recover the amount from the owner of the vehicle, the appellant-Insurance Company is directed to pay the amount awarded as compensation by the Tribunal below to respondents 1 to 5-claimants in the first instance and then recover it from the owner of the offending vehicle without initiating any separate proceedings. In the result, the civil miscellaneous appeal is allowed in part. The appellant-Insurance Company is directed to pay the compensation awarded to respondents 1 to 5-claimants by the Tribunal below and then recover it from the owner of the offending vehicle without initiating any separate proceedings. No costs. ______________​_ R. KANTHA RAO, J 27th November, 2009 CBS HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE R. KANTHA RAO C.M.A.No.2693 OF 1999 (Allowed in part) 27th November, 2009 CBS [1] 2006 ACJ 1336