The New India Assurance Company Limited, respondent No.2 in M.V.O.P.No.372 of 2004 on the file of the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal-cum-III Additional District Judge, Tirupati (for short, “the Tribunal”), is the appellant in this appeal. This appeal is preferred feeling aggrieved by award dated 17.03.2006 of the Tribunal in the said O.P., whereby it has fixed joint and several liability on the appellant and respondent No.6, the owner of the Tractor and Trailor, which was involved in the accident resulting in death of one G. Raja Ramesh (for short, “the deceased”).

On 13.01.2004, when the deceased, a coolie, was traveling in the Tractor and Trailor along with other two coolies for loading sand and when they reached near Thondawada bridge on Chandragiri bypass road, the driver of the Tractor drove the same in a rash and negligent manner leading to front wheel of the Tractor being broken and the Tractor along with Trailor falling in a ditch. The deceased, who is sitting on the Trailor, jumped due to fear and the Trailor ran over on the back of the deceased. The deceased was declared dead, after he was shifted to the Government hospital, Chandragiri. Respondent Nos.1 to 5, who are the legal heirs of the deceased, filed the above O.P. claiming compensation. The Tribunal framed the following issues:

“1) Whether the pleaded accident occurred resulting the death of the deceased and if so was it due to fault of the driver of the Tractor cum Trailor of 1st respondent bearing No.AP 09 E 7625 and ATW 7589?

2) Whether the Tractor cum Trailor in question belong to R-1 and stood insured with R-2/insurance company by the date of accident and if so whether policy covers the risk of the deceased?

3) Whether the petitioners are the legal representatives of the deceased and entitled to compensation and if so to what amount and from which of the respondents?

4) To what relief?”

Under issue No.1, the Tribunal held that the accident occurred due to the fault of the driver of the Tractor-cum-Trailor. Under issue No.2, the Tribunal held that the Tractor and Trailor belong to respondent No.6 and were insured with the appellant and it has further held that the policy covers the risk of the deceased. Under issue No.3, the Tribunal held that respondent Nos.1 to 5 are the legal representatives of the deceased and that they are, therefore, entitled to compensation. Under issue No.4, the Tribunal held that the appellant and respondent No.6 are jointly and severally liable to pay the compensation.

At the hearing, Sri C.V. Rajeeva Reddy, learned counsel for the appellant – insurance company, advanced two contentions, namely; (i) that the driving licence of the driver of the Tractor was valid only up to 24.01.2002 and that therefore the driver did not hold valid licence when the accident has taken place on 13.01.2004 and hence the liability of the appellant is excluded by the statute itself under Section 149 (2)(ii) of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (for short, “the Act”) and (ii) that as the insurance company is not liable to pay compensation, the award of the Tribunal, fixing joint and several liability on the appellant along with the owner, cannot be sustained.

Opposing the contentions of the learned counsel for the appellant, Sri P. Govinda Reddy, learned counsel for respondent Nos.1 to 5, submitted that the Tribunal has drawn a legal inference on the factum of renewal of driving licence and therefore no exception can be taken to the award fixing joint and several liability on the appellant and respondent No.6. He further submitted that even assuming that there was no liability on the part of the appellant, in view of the settled legal position, the appellant – insurance company is liable to pay the compensation amount first and then recover the same from respondent No.6. In support of his contention, the learned counsel relied on the judgment of the Supreme Court in National Insurance Company Limited vs. Swaran Singh and others (2003) 3 SCC 297 =