JUDGMENT :

P.SREE SUDHA, J.

1. This appeal is filed by the Reliance General Insurance Company Limited, appellant-second respondent, aggrieved by the Award dated 06.08.2014 passed in M.V.O.P.No.2062 of 2011 on the file of the learned Motor Vehicle Accidents Claims Tribunal-cum-XIV Additional Chief Judge, (FTC), City Civil Courts, Hyderabad, (for short, the Tribunal).

2. Perusal of the Award shows that Mr.K.Shankar met with an accident on 15.06.2011 at about 6.30 PM due to the rash and negligent driving of the driver of the auto bearing No.AP 29 TB 0367, as a result of which, he died at hospital. Therefore, Respondent Nos.1 to 6 herein filed a claim petition seeking compensation of Rs.30,00,000/-. The Tribunal after appreciation of entire oral and documentary evidence on record awarded compensation of Rs.30,43,800/-. At the time of accident the deceased was earning Rs.20,000/- per month from bore well points contract business.

3. Learned counsel for the appellant herein would contend that the claim petition was wrongly entertained by the Tribunal under Sections 163-A and 140 of Motor Vehicles Act though there is a bar under Section 163-B of the Act.

4. He also raised an objection that the owner and insurer of the motorcycle on which the deceased was travelling were not made parties to the proceedings, though they are necessary parties. Apart from the same, the Tribunal erred in coming to the conclusion that the accident had occurred due to the negligent driving of the rider of the motorcycle, though the accident was head on collision. He would further aver that the driver of the auto was not holding a valid driving licence, which is in violation of the terms and conditions of the policy of insurance. He would also state that the Tribunal ought to have appreciated the evidence of R.W.1 and the contents of Exs.B1 and B2. Learned counsel also relied upon a decision of the Hon’ble Apex Court reported in NATIONAL INSURANCE COMPANY LIMITED V/s. KUSUM RAI, 2006 ACJ 1336 in which it was held that the driver must possess an effective driving licence. Apart from the same, the Tribunal has taken the monthly income of the deceased as Rs.14,500/- without any basis and erred in adding 50% towards future prospects, though original income was not proved. The Tribunal also erred in awarding an amount of Rs.2,25,000/- under the head non-pecuniary damages against the law laid down by the Hon’ble Apex Court. Finally, he contended that the Tribunal grossly erred in awarding interest at the rate of 7.5% per annum instead of 6%, and therefore, requested this Court to set aside the impugned Award.

5. Learned counsel for the claimants also relied upon a decision of the Apex Court reported in MUKUND DEWANGAN’s case (supra) in which the Apex Court considered the entire case as similar that of the present case and held that the effect of amendment of Form 4 by insertion of “transport vehicle” is related only to the categories which were substituted in the year 1994 and the procedure to obtain driving licence for transport vehicle of class of “light motor vehicle” continues to be the same as it was and has not been changed and there is no requirement to obtain separate endorsement to drive transport vehicle, and if a driver is holding licence to drive light motor vehicle, he can drive transport vehicle of such class without any endorsement to that effect. Therefore, the contention of the appellant that there is no valid driving licence to the driver of the offending vehicle at the time of the accident cannot be accepted.

6. The Tribunal while dealing with Issue No.2 and considering the entire case law, held that the driver of the auto was having auto rickshaw driving license (non-transport) which can also be used for driving transport vehicle, and therefore, insurer is not exonerated from paying the compensation on that ground.

7. In MUKUND DEWANGAN V/s. ORIENT