G. RADHAKRISHNA RAO, J.

( 1 ) THESE four appeals are preferred by the United India Insurance Company Limited, respondent No. 3 in the lower court, challenging the judgments of the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Kurnool dated 11/09/1989, passed in C. P. Nos. 208, 206, 207, and 205 of 1988, awarding various amounts of compensation in favour of the claimants in each petition.

( 2 ) WHILE the petitioners in the first three appeals, viz. , CM. As. 1988,1989 and 1990 of 1989 are the legal representatives or dependants of the respective deceased, the petitioner concerned in C. M. A. No. 1991 of 1989 is the injured person.

( 3 ) THE case of the petitioners in all the appeals is that on the date of incident (i. e. 6-5-1988) at about 10-00 a. m. when the deceased persons, the injured petitioner Ramakka and others were waiting by the side of the road near a culvert at Kanala village to board a bus to get to a shandy, the tractor driven by the 1st respondent, loaded with stones, came at a high speed and dashed against the deceased and the injured petitioner, as a result of which the deceased died and the petitioner Ramakka received injuries. The petitioners have also examined one V. Thirmmanna, who is stated to be the direct eye witness to the accident, as PW 2.

( 4 ) CONSIDERING the evidence, both oral and documentary, adduced on behalf of the petitioners, particularly the evidence of the direct eye witness P. W. 2, the lower tribunal came to the conclusion that the accident took place due to the rash and negligent driving of the driver of the tractor which resulted in death of the three persons and injuries to Ramakka. Ultimately, after considering the age and earning capacity of the deceased and also the nature of injuries sustained by the injured Ramakka, the lower tribunal awarded a total compensation of Rs. 35,000/- in favour of the petitioners in O. P. No. 208 of 1988, Rs. 36,500 /- in favour of the petitioners in O. P. No. 206 of 1988, Rs. 38,000/- in favour of the petitioners in O. P. No. 207 of 1988 and Rs. 25,000/- in favour of the petitioner in O. P. No. 205 of 1988. Having been aggrieved by the grant of respective compensation amounts, the 3rd respondent-insurance company have preferred the present appeal.

( 5 ) SO far as the rashness and negligence on the part of the 1st respondent-driver in driving the vehicle in question at the time of the accident is concerned, there is the direct testimony of P. W. 2 in each case, besides the evidence of P. W. 1 Ramakka, who is the injured person, which clearly establishes the rash and negligent driving of the vehicle by the 1st respondent. With regard to the quantum of compensation also after duly taking into account the earning capacity of the respective deceased and also the injured Ramakka and their respective ages, the lower tribunal has granted various amounts as mentioned above. On an independent appraisal of the entire evidence on record, I too see no ground to interfere with the findings of the lower tribunal. In fact, the Insurance company also did not seriously contest the matters on these aspects of the matter.

( 6 ) THE main thrust of the argument advanced by Sri S. Hanumaiah, learned counsel appearing for the appellants-Insurance company is that the 1st respondent is not holding a valid driving licence as on the date of accident thereby the 2nd respondent-owner has violated the conditions of the policy and so the 3rd respondent-insurance company is not liable to pay the compensation. To prove this contention, the burden heavily lies on the insurance company. We have to see whether the Insurance Company has discharged the burden cast upon it. In this connection, relying upon the decisions of the Supreme Court, Madhya Pradesh and Madras High Courts reported in Narcinva V. Kamat v. Alfredo Antonio Deo Martins, 1985 ACJ 397 (SC) and Karan Singh v. Manoharlal, 1989 ACJ 177 and New India Assurance Co. Ltd. v. C. B. Shankar, 1986 ACJ 82, Sri C. Sadasiva Reddy, learned counsel app

Click Here to Read the rest of this document