THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE D.S.R.VARMA CIVIL MISCELLANEOUS APPEAL No.883 of 2003 ORAL JUDGMENT: Heard learned counsel for the appellant-claimant as well as the learned Standing Counsel for the 2nd respondent-insurer. 2. Aggrieved by the order and decree, dated 01.05.2002, in M.V.O.P.No.930 of 1999, passed by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal-cum-I Additional District Judge, Kadapa (for brevity “the Tribunal”), awarding a sum of Rs.30,000/-, as against the claim of Rs.50,000/- for the injuries sustained by the claimant in a motor accident that occurred on 7.1.1999 at 4-30 p.m., while the claimant was travelling from Apsara theatre to Krishna theatre in an auto and reached near Amaraswami petrol bunk, due to the rash and negligent driving on the part of driver of the lorry, bearing registration No.AP 03V 556, the present civil miscellaneous appeal has been preferred by the claimant. 3. The appellant herein is the claimant, 1st respondent-insured is the owner of the offending lorry and 2nd respondent is its insurer, in the O.P., before the Tribunal. 4. This is a case of injuries sustained by the claimant in the motor accident. The other particulars regarding the accident and the aspect of negligence are not referred to since not in dispute. 5. The Tribunal, after appreciating the evidence on record, both oral and documentary, awarded a sum of Rs.30,000/- only towards compensation. Even the said amount was also directed to be recovered from the 1st respondent-owner of the offending lorry. Hence the present appeal. 6. The points that arises for consideration in this appeal is whether the quantum of compensation awarded by the Tribunal is proper and justified and whether the Tribunal was right in directing to recover the same from the owner of the offending vehicle? 7. As regards the quantum of compensation awarded by the Tribunal, it is to be noticed that the claimant had suffered simple injuries. Therefore, taking into consideration the nature of injuries and also the expenses incurred towards treatment, the Tribunal had rightly awarded a sum of Rs.30,000/- towards compensation. 8. Further, it is the case of the insurer that the driver of the offending vehicle had no valid driving licence. Hence, the liability cannot be fastened against the insurer. 9. In this regard, following the judgments of the apex Court in NATIONAL INSURANCE CO. LTD., v. BALJIT KAUR – 2004 (1) ALD 98 (SC) = 2004 ACJ 428 (SC); NATIONAL INSURANCE CO. LTD., v. BOMMITHI SUBBHAYAMMA – 2005 ACJ 721 (SC); NATIONAL INSURANCE CO. LTD., v. SWARAN SINGH – 2004 (2) ALD 36 (SC) = 2004 ACJ 1 (SC); NEW INDIA ASSURANCE CO. LTD. v. KAMALA – 2001 ACJ 843; ORIENTIAL INSURANCE CO. LTD. v. NANJAPPAN – 2004 ACJ 721; UNITED INDIA INSURANCE CO. LTD. v. LEHRU – 2003 ACJ 611; and UNITED INDIA INSURANCE CO. LTD. v. TILAK SINGH – 2006 (3) ALD 75 (SC) = (2006) 4 SCC 404, a Division Bench of this Court, to which I am (DSRV,J) a party, in UNITED INDIA INSURANCE CO., LTD., GUNTUR v. D. PRAMEELA DEVI[1] observed as under: “The question of fastening the liability on the insurer, as a matter of basic principle of redemption, would arise when initial liability is fastened against the insured. But, in cases like ‘fake driving licence’ or ‘inadequate driving licence’, as already pointed out, a fundamental duty is cast upon the insurer to prove that the insured was negligent in allowing the vehicle to be driven by a person with ‘fake driving licence’ or ‘inadequate driving licence’.” The Division Bench further held— “that the insurer would not be allowed to avoid its liability to pay the compensation, and, on the other hand, is girdled with the initial liability of paying the amount of compensation and recover the same from the insured or the driver, as the case may be.” 10. Therefore, in view of the principle laid down by the apex Court and as followed by a Division Bench of this Court, I am of the view that the initial liability of the insurer to pay the compensation to the claimant cannot be erased. 11. Accordingly, the amount of Rs.30,000/- (Rupees thirty thousand only) awarded by the Tribunal towards compensation to the claimant shall be paid by the 2nd respondent-insurer and the same can be recovered from the 1st respondent-owner of the offending lorry or the driver of the offending lorry, as the case may be. 12. In the result, the civil miscellaneous appeal is allowed as indicated above. There shall be no order as to costs. _______________________ JUSTICE D.S.R.VARMA 01.07.2010 Msr. THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE D.S.R.VARMA CIVIL MISCELLANEOUS APPEAL No.883 of 2003 01.07.2010 (Msr) [1] 2007 (4) ALD 495 (DB)