APHC010073702020 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) [3505] WEDNESDAY, THE 12th DAY OF AUGUST 2026 PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE T.C.D.SEKHAR MOTOR ACCIDENT CIVIL MISCELLANEOUS APPEAL NO: 279/2020 Between: Oriental Insurance Company Ltd ...APPELLANT AND Gudabandi Kanakamma and Others ...RESPONDENT(S) Counsel for the Appellant: 1. V RAGHU Counsel for the Respondent(S): 1. P L RAO 2. 2 The Court made the following judgment: The present appeal is preferred by the Oriental Insurance Company Limited, aggrieved by order dated 04.10.2019 in MVOP No.467 of 2007, on the file of the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal-cum-I Additional District Judge, East Godavari at Rajamahendravaram. 2. The claimants preferred claim petition under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, seeking to pay compensation of Rs.6,00,000/-, on account of the death of G.Simhachalam, (husband of the 1st petitioner and son of the 2nd petitioner), in the accident that occurred on 13.04.2005, in which the offending lorry bearing registration No.AP 16 TU 4225 was involved. 3. After thread bare enquiry, the Tribunal, by order under challenge, partly allowed the claim petition by awarding compensation of Rs.3,58,000/-, together with interest at the rate of 7.5% per annum, from the date of petition till the date of realisation, by fastening the liability on respondent Nos.1 & 2, i.e., the driver and the owner of the vehicle. However, the Tribunal through the impugned order directed the 3rd respondent/Insurance Company to deposit the compensation 3 awarded at the first instance, and latter to recover the same from the respondent Nos.1 & 2. Aggrieved by the said order, the present appeal is preferred. 4. Heard Sri V.Raghu, counsel appearing for the appellant and Sri P.L.Rao, counsel appearing for respondent Nos.1 & 2/claimants. Since the respondent Nos.3 & 4 remained ex-parte before the Tribunal, this Court proceeded with the hearing of the appeal. 5. The only contention advanced by the counsel for the appellant is that the Tribunal erred in directing the Insurance Company to deposit the compensation, despite fastening the liability on respondent Nos.3 & 4, i.e., the driver and the owner of the offending vehicle. As can be seen from the record, admittedly the offending vehicle was insured with the appellant company as on the date of the accident. Further, a perusal of the order under challenge would show that, the contention of the Insurance Company before the Tribunal was that, the driver of the offending vehicle had no valid driving license, inasmuch as he was possessing license to drive Light Motor Vehicle, whereas the vehicle involved in the accident was Heavy Goods Vehicle. 4 Therefore, the absence of any valid driving license would amount to violation of the conditions of the policy, thereby the Insurance Company is not liable to pay compensation. The issue involved in the present case is no more res integra, inasmuch as the Hon’ble Apex Court, starting from the decision in the case of National Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Swaran Singh & Ors.,1 had held that, if the driver of the offending vehicle had no valid driving license, the Insurance Company shall first pay the compensation to the claimants and thereafter recover the same from the driver and the owner of the vehicle. Further, the said proposition is reiterated by the Hon’ble Apex Court in Rama Bai v. M/s. Amit Minerals through Incharge Officer/Competent Officer & Anr.,2, wherein at Para 6.1, it was observed as follows: “The High Court… held that if the driver does not possess a valid and effective driving licence, it results in breach of conditions of the insurance policy… However, this Court refused to interfere with the orders of „pay and recover‟…” 6. Having considered the submissions made by the counsel for the appellant, and in view of the judgment referred to above, 1 (2004) 3 SCC 297 2 2025 SCC OnLine SC 2067 5 this Court is not inclined to interfere with the findings recorded by the Tribunal, inasmuch as liberty was granted to the appellant- Insurance Company to recover the amount from the driver and the owner of the offending vehicle. 7. In such circumstances, this Court does not find any illegality in the order under challenge, accordingly the appeal is dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs. As a sequel, pending applications, if any, shall stand closed. ______________________ JUSTICE T.C.D. SEKHAR Dt.12.08.2026 DSB 6 61 THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE T.C.D. SEKHAR MACMA No.279 of 2020 Date 12.08.2026 U DSB