M.A.C.M.A. No. 2489 of 2007 was filed by the claimants challenging the finding of the Tribunal that the Tribunal having specifically held that the claimants are entitled for an amount of Rs.4,06,000/- as compensation, restricted to the amount of Rs.3,00,000/- which was actually claimed in the claim petition and that the same is not in accordance with law. M.A.C.M.A. No. 2368 of 2007 is filed by the second respondent-New India Assurance Company Limited challenging the quantum of compensation as well as the finding of the Tribunal that the appellant/insurance company is liable to pay compensation to the claimants.

2. Since both the appeals arise out of the award passed by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal-cum-7th Additional Metropolitan Sessions Judge, City Criminal Court, Nampally, Hyderabad-cum-21st Additional Chief Judge, City Civil Court, Hyderabad in O.P. No. 1242 of 2006 and the common questions of law and fact would arise for consideration, they are being disposed of by the following common judgment.

3. The contention urged by the appellants (claimants) in M.A.C.M.A. No. 2489 of 2007 involves only questions of law whereas the M.A.C.M.A. No. 2368 of 2007 filed by the Insurance company involves both questions of law and fact.

4. On the grounds urged by the appellants in both the appeals, the following points would arise for determination by this Court:

1. Whether the finding of the Tribunal below that since the appellant/insurance company in M.A.C.M.A. No. 2368 of 2007 failed to prove that the driver of the offending vehicle had no valid driving licence, it is liable to pay compensation to the claimants is justified or requires any interference?

2. Whether the quantum of compensation arrived at by the Tribunal below is just and reasonable or whether it requires any modification?

3. Whether the Tribunal having arrived at the finding that the claimants are entitled for compensation of Rs.4,06,000/- restricting the same to Rs.3,00,000/- which is actually claimed by the claimants in the claim petition is not in accordance with law?

Point No.1:

5. The appellant/insurance company in M.A.C.M.A. No. 2368 of 2007 specifically contended in its counter filed before the Tribunal that though the offending vehicle was validly insured with it at material time, the driver of the vehicle had no valid driving licence and, therefore, it is not liable to pay compensation. However, the burden lies on the insurance company to establish that the driver of the vehicle had no valid driving licence. To discharge the said burden, the insurance company examined it’s Assistant Manager as R.W-1 who stated in his evidence that Mr. Mohammad Jahangir driving the offending vehicle at relevant time had no driving licence at all, the first respondent being aware of the said fact appointed him as a driver and permitted him to drive the vehicle which is in violation of stipulations of Ex.A-2 insurance policy and, therefore, the insurance company is not liable to pay compensation. He also further stated that Ex.A-5 certified copy of charge sheet filed by the claimants indicates that the driver of the offending vehicle was charge sheeted for the offence under Section 181 of the Motor Vehicles Act for driving the vehicle without having any valid driving licence.

6. In the course of his cross-examination, R.W-1 stated that the investigator of their company informed them that the driver of the offending vehicle had no valid driving licence,but he did not file the report of the investigator and also admitted the said fact. He also further admitted that he did not file any document showing that the driver had no valid driving licence as on the date of accident.

7. Thus, according to the insurance company, it's contention has to be upheld basing on Ex.A-5 charge sheet which shows that the driver of the offending vehicle was charge sheeted for the offences under Section 304-A of IPC and also under Section 181 of the Motor Vehicles Act for causing death