This appeal is directed against the order and decree dated 22.07.2002 passed in O.P.No.536 of 1999 by the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal-cum-District Judge, Adilabad.

The appellant hereinafter will be referred to as claimant for the sake of convenience. She filed this appeal seeking enhancement of compensation.

The brief facts of the case are as follows. On 24.3.1999 at about 4-00 p.m, the claimant and others were travelling in the auto bearing No.1 U 1857 from Kavval to Jannaram Village and when the said auto fell in a pit due to the rash and negligent driving of its driver, she sustained multiple injuries including fracture to her back bone. The claimant filed the above OP claiming total compensation of Rs.50,000/-

The first respondent-owner of the auto remained ex parte. The second respondent-insurance company, with which the auto was insured, denied the material averments made by the claimant and denied its liability on the ground that the driver of the auto had no valid driving licence at the time of the accident.

Basing on the respective pleadings, the Tribunal framed the following issues for trial.

1. Whether the accident occurred on 24.3.1999 due to rash and negligent driving with a vehicle bearing No.AP.1U 1857 (auto) by its driver?

2. Whether the petitioner is entitled to any compensation. If so, to what amount and against which of the respondents?

3. To what relief?

On behalf of the claimant, the claimant herself was examined as PW1 and Exs.A1 to A3 were marked. On behalf of the second respondent insurance company, copy of charge sheet filed by the police against the driver was marked as Ex.B1.

The Tribunal while accepting the recitals of Ex.B1, came to the conclusion that the driver was not having any valid licence and therefore, held that the insurance company is not liable to pay any compensation to the claimant.

Learned counsel for the appellant submitted that the burden lies on the insurance company, but it has neither examined any witnesses nor summoned the driver of the auto/ any RTA official from RTA Department. He also submitted that basing on the recitals of charge sheet, no finding can be given. Reliance has been placed on the judgment in National Insurance Co., Ltd., Kurnool v. Chakali Rangaiah and another (2007 (5) ALD 358).

As far as the finding of the Tribunal that the accident occurred due to the rash and negligent driving of the driver of auto is concerned, the same is not in dispute. The other finding of the Tribunal that the claimant is entitled to compensation of Rs.29,000/-, is also not in dispute.

The only point that arises for consideration is whether the insurance company is able to prove that the driver of the auto was not having any valid licence on the date of accident.

Except, Ex.B1 there is no other evidence in this case. The insurance company has not examined any witnesses on its behalf. The driver of the auto is also not examined. The owner of the vehicle remained ex parte. The insurance company has not taken any steps to summon records from the concerned RTA to show that the driver of the auto had no valid driving licence on the date of accident. Except the recitals of Ex.B1 charge sheet there is nothing on record to show that the owner of the vehicle allowed the driver to the vehicle and thereby consciously violated the terms of the policy. Of course, in Ex.B1, the police alleged that the driver of the auto was not having any valid driving licence. It shows that the driver voluntarily confessed his guilt and disclosed that he is not having any valid driving licence. He was also charge sheeted for the offences punishable under Sections 337, 338 IPC, Section 3/181 of the MV Act. The Sub Inspector of Police, Jannaram who filed the charge sheet is not examined. In the absence of any witness, the allegations made by the police in the charge sheet cannot be taken as gospel truth. It has to be seen that there is no record to show as to what happened in the criminal Court o