COMMON JUDGMENT:

1. M.A.C.M.A.No.2461 of 2014 is filed by the insurance company questioning the compensation granted by the Tribunal and M.A.C.M.A.No.2557 of 2019 is filed by the claimants seeking enhancement of compensation. Since both the appeals are questioning the order dated 03.03.2014 in M.V.O.P.No.829 of 2009 passed by the Principal Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Warangal, both the appeals are disposed of by way of this Common Judgment. 2. The manner in which the accident has taken place is not disputed and accordingly, the details are not discussed.

3. The deceased died on 31.05.2009 on National Highway due to the accident caused by the offending vehicle, which is a lorry, insured by the appellant/insurance company.

4. Learned counsel appearing for the insurance company would submit that the driver of the lorry did not hold a valid driving licence and for the said reason, the insurance company cannot be made liable to pay compensation, since it is in violation of the policy conditions. To discharge the burden of the insurance company, R.Ws.1 and 2 were examined and Exs.B1 to B3 were marked.

Learned counsel submits that in accordance with the Motor Vehicle Inspector’s report Ex.A4 and Ex.A5, charge sheet, the driver of the lorry was not holding valid driving liecence. In fact, the company had addressed Ex.B2 letter to the owner for seeking details of the driving licence particulars of the driver. However, owner failed to do so. In the said circumstances, it has to be concluded that the driver was not holding valid licence and the insurance company cannot be made liable. Consequently, the compensation as directed to be paid by the Tribunal, has to be set aside.

5. On the other hand, claimants filed appeal seeking enhancement. The Tribunal found that only the first appellant/wife of the deceased is eligible for the compensation and second and third appellants who are married daughters of the deceased cannot be granted compensation.

6. Having gone through the record, learned Judge of the Tribunal found that the Motor Vehicle’s Inspector R.W.2 had inspected the vehicle in the absence of the driver of the vehicle and his testimony regarding the driver not holding valid driving licence, cannot be believed. Since the policy was subsisting as on the date of the incident, compensation was granted.

7. The Motor Vehicle Inspector had admittedly not examined or made any efforts to collect the particulars of the driver whether he had a valid driving licence or not. Merely making a note in the report while inspecting the vehicle that the driver did not hold valid driving licence, is not enough proof to conclude that the driver was not holding a valid driving licence. Further, charge sheet was filed under Section 181 of the Motor Vehicles Act on the allegations of the driver not holding valid driving licence. The said filing of the charge sheet cannot be made basis to refuse compensation on the ground that the driver did not have valid licence. The charge sheet is not the evidence and the allegations made in the charge sheet have to be proved before the Court below. Unless the Criminal Court convicts the driver for the offence under Section 181 of the Motor Vehicles Act for not holding valid licence, it cannot be said that on the basis of the charge sheet and the Motor Vehicles Inspector’s report, the driver was not holding a valid licence. Accordingly, the contentions raised by the learned counsel for the Insurance Company cannot be accepted.

8. Having gone through the heads under which the compensation was granted, I do not find any infirmity or any ground to enhance the compensation.

9. The quantum of compensation as ascertained by the Tribunal shall be deposited before the Court below at the rate of 7.5% interest on the remaining amount, which is yet to be deposited. As rightly held by the Tribunal, the 1st appellant/wife in MACMA NO.2557 of 2019 is only entitled for the compensation.

10. Accordingly, the Appeal filed by the insurance co