( 1 ) THESE two appeals are directed against the order, dated 19. 8. 2002, passed by the Motor accident Claims Tribunal-cum-District judge, Kadapa in M. V. O. P. No. 470 of 2000. While the insurer is the appellant in m. A. C. M. A. No. 3870 of 2003, the owner of the vehicle is the appellant in m. A. C. M. A. No. 141 of 2006. ( 2 ) FOR the sake of convenience, the parties herein are referred to as they are arrayed in M. A. C. M. A. No. 3870 of 2003. ( 3 ) THE first respondent, who is since dead and represented by her parents-respondents 3 and 4, suffered injuries in an accident on 17. 8. 1999. When she was proceeding from Padmasri Book Stall at rajampet, a lorry bearing No. AP 09-U-291, is said to have dashed her from behind, resulting in several injuries. She filed o. P. No. 470 of 2000, claiming a sum of rs. 3,00,000/- as compensation. It was pleaded that the accident occurred, only on account of the rash and negligent driving on the part of the driver of the lorry. The owner of the lorry, second respondent herein, did not file any counter. The matter was contested by the appellant herein alone. It was pleaded that the injuries suffered by the first respondent were simple in nature and that the driver of the lorry did not hold proper licence. Through its order, dated 19. 8. 2002, the Tribunal awarded a sum of Rs. 1,61,000/- as compensation with interest at the rate of 9% per annum. ( 4 ) SRI Meherchand Noori, the learned counsel for the appellant-Insurance company pleads that it was clearly established before the Tribunal that the driver of the accident vehicle possessed only a light motor vehicle licence and he was not authorized to drive a heavy vehicle. He further contends that when there is a clear violation of the policy condition, the Tribunal was not justified in fastening the liability upon the appellant. ( 5 ) MRS. Rajeswari, the learned counsel for the second respondent-owner of the vehicle, submits that the Tribunal awarded compensation in excess of the entitlement of the first respondent. He further contends that when there is a clear violation of the policy condition, the Tribunal was not justified in fastening the liability upon the appellant. ( 5 ) MRS. Rajeswari, the learned counsel for the second respondent-owner of the vehicle, submits that the Tribunal awarded compensation in excess of the entitlement of the first respondent. She also contends that the liability ought to have been fastened exclusively upon the appellant ( 6 ) SRI Manjunath, the learned Counsel for respondents 3 and 4, the legal representatives of the first respondent, submits that there was any amount of uncertainty, as to who drove the vehicle, and unless that fact was clear, there was no basis for the appellant or the second respondent to plead that the driver did not hold valid driving licence. ( 7 ) THOUGH in the appeal preferred by the owner of the vehicle, the quantum of the compensation is also challenged, this court is not inclined to interfere with the same. The reason is that the Tribunal had undertaken extensive discussion, appreciated the evidence on record properly and applied the relevant principles of law, in determining the compensation. ( 8 ) THE principal question that arises for consideration is as to whether the appellant-Insurance Company can avoid its liability, on the ground that the driver of the vehicle did not possess valid licence. In view of the judgment of the Supreme court in Employees' State Insurance corporation v. All India ITDC Employees' union, (2006) 4 SCC 257 , it is no longer in dispute that in case, an insurer establishes that there is a violation of policy condition, particularly with reference to the absence of valid licence with the driver, it can either avoid the liability as a whole or pay and then recover from the owner of the vehicle. To apply this principle, two conditions are essential. First is that there should not be any dispute as to the identity of the person, who drove the vehicle; and the second is that it must be proved that the licence held by such driver is not valid or adequate. ( 9 ) IN the instant case, there is any amount of dispute as to the identity of the person, who drove the vehicle. ( 9 ) IN the instant case, there is any amount of dispute as to the identity of the person, who drove the vehicle. Neither he is impleaded as a party nor any endeavour was made either by the appellant or the second respondent, to examine the driver as a witness. It is no doubt true that the appellant examined an officer from the regional Transport Authority, and got marked the record, in relation to the licence of a driver, by name Mr. R. Hussainaiah. Unless the said Hussainaiah was proved to be the driver of the vehicle, at the relevant point of time, any amount of oral or documentary evidence was of no avail. ( 10 ) THE reliance placed by the learned counsel for the appellant on the judgment of this Court in United India Insurance company Limited v. M. Gangaratnam alias Ratnamma, 2003 (3) ALD 328 , is of no avail, for the reason that the identity of the driver itself is in doubt. The Tribunal discussed this aspect at length and arrived at a conclusion that the appellant failed to prove that the driver, who was responsible for the accident, did not hold valid driving licence. Therefore, this Court does not find any basis to interfere with the finding recorded by the Tribunal. ( 11 ) THE learned Counsel for the appellant submits that the rate of interest awarded by the Tribunal is excessive. In the recent past, the Supreme Court took the view that in the matters of this nature, interest at the rate of 7. 5% would be adequate. ( 12 ) FOLLOWING the same, M. A. C. M. A. No. 3870 of 2003 is partly allowed, reducing the rate of interest from 9% to 7. 5% and upholding the award in all other respects. ( 13 ) IN view of the orders passed in m. A. C. M. A. No. 3870 of 2003, no further orders are necessary to be passed in m. A. C. M. A. No. 141 of 2006 and it is accordingly closed. There shall be no order as to costs. - .