THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE N.R.L.NAGESWARA RAO M.A.C.M.A.NOS.1671, 1672 AND 1689 OF 2011 COMMON JUDGMENT:- All these appeals arise out of a common award passed by the Chairman, Motor Accidents Vehicles Claims Tribunal-cum-V Additional District Judge, Vijayawada in M.V.O.P.Nos.577, 623, 569 of 1997 and 131 of 1999 whereunder consequent on the death of the deceased persons in a motor vehicle accident, due to rash and negligent driving of the driver of the Bus on 27-04-1997. The Insurance Company has raised a plea that the vehicle AP16U- 1785 was insured with the appellant but the Insurance Company is not liable to pay the compensation either to the third party passengers or to the injured persons since there was violation of the conditions of the policy of the insurance. It was further pleaded that the driver of the said vehicle dos not possess the badge to drive the transport vehicle at the time of the accident and therefore the respondent is not liable. It was also further pleaded that the driver of the scooter was not having a valid licence and consequently there is no liability. The learned counsel for the appellant contended that from the facts of the case it is quite clear that there is contributory negligence on the part of the opposite vehicle and it was a case of head-on-collision and this is established by the fact that the driver of the scooter had no licence and therefore there cannot be any total liability of the appellant. On this aspect, it is to be mentioned that a plea of contributory negligence was not raised before the Tribunal and in the evidence also no effort was made to establish that the incident was due to the contributory negligence of the driver of the scooter. Therefore, in view of the above circumstances, such a plea having not been taken before the Tribunal nor being raised in the grounds of appeal, I feel at this stage the above plea cannot be considered and the decision reported in Bijoy Kumar Dugar Vs. Bidya Dhar Dutta and others([1]) relied on by the counsel for the appellant has no relevancy to the facts of the case. The lower Tribunal found that the incident was due to the fault of the driver of the lorry which was insured with the appellant and granted compensation after taking into consideration the earning capacity and also taking the necessary multiplier. The lower Tribunal has fastened the liability on the appellant herein. The main contention of the appellant is that the driver of the vehicle was not having a valid driving licence to drive the heavy passenger vehicle on the date of accident and that he was not exhibiting the badge. Reliance is based on the evidence of RW.5 who is said to be Junior Assistant in RTA Office that the badge was given to the driver on 30-12-1997 authorizing to drive the heavy passenger vehicle and consequently there is no badge given to him to drive the heavy passenger vehicle on the date of the incident. It is not a case where the contention of the Insurance Company is that the driver of the vehicle was not having any licence to drive the vehicle. It is a question as to whether the driver has got a licence or not and if so if it is a defective licence. In case when the driver had no licence at all, it is a different case where the liability of the insurance company can be excluded but if the driver of the vehicle has got a licence to drive the vehicle and even if the licence possessed by him is to drive the non-transport heavy vehicle and subsequently only got the licence to drive the transport heavy vehicle, in view of the judgment of the Supreme Court in National Insurance Company Vs. Swaran Singh([2]), the claimants being the third parties, the Insurance Company cannot avoid the liability. It is to be noted in this case that it is not the plea of the appellant that the driver had no licence at all. Therefore, in view of the above circumstances, the order passed by the lower Tribunal does not call for any interference so far as the quantum of compensation is concerned. However, the appellant is at liberty to recover the amounts from the owner for the violations. However, the interest granted by the lower tribunal is at 9% and in view of the settled proposition of law, the interest is reduced to 7.5%. With the above modification with regard to interest, the appeals are disposed of. _______________________ N.R.L. NĀGESWARA RĀO,J 20-08-2011 TSNR [1] (2006) 3 SCC 242 [2] 2004 ACJ 1