JUDGMENT : Heard Sri T. Ramulu, learned counsel representing appellant and Sri V.R.Reddy Kovuri, learned counsel representing first respondent. Second respondent was served, but none represents second respondent. 2. The appellant herein is the second respondent in M.V.O.P.no.337 of 2005 on the file of III Additional District Judge, Kadapa (Fast Track Court, Kadapa)(MACT). The second respondent in the present M.A.C.M.A. is the first respondent in the said M.V.O.P, the owner of the vehicle and as already specified above, though the second respondent, owner of the vehicle, had been served, none represents the second respondent. The first respondent in the M.A.C.M.A is the petitioner-claimant in the said M.V.O.P. 3. Sri T. Ramulu, learned counsel representing the appellant-second respondent would maintain that the appellant-insurance company examined its officer as R.W.1 who categorically deposed that the driver of the offending vehicle did not possess valid and effective driving licence to drive the offending vehicle. The counsel also would maintain that two officers from R.T.O were also examined as R.W.2 and R.W.3 who categorically deposed that the driver of the jeep was not competent to drive the jeep with LMV transport as such the driver of the offending vehicle was not having valid and effective driving licence. Hence, the finding of the Tribunal below in this regard is unsustainable. The learned counsel also pointed out to certain other findings which had been recorded and further placed reliance on the decision of the Apex Court in National Insurance Co., Ltd., V. Kusum Rai and others1 and would maintain that in the light of the ratio laid down by the decision of the Apex Court specified above liberty may be given to the insurance company to initiate appropriate proceedings before the executing court to realize the amount from the owner of the vehicle. 4. On the contrary, Sri V.R. Reddy Kovuri would maintain that in the light of the findings recorded by the Tribunal below, the said findings not to be disturbed and the M.A.C.M.A. to be dismissed. 5. In the light of the respective contentions advanced by the counsel on record, the following points arise for consideration in this M.A.C.M.A. (1) Whether the findings recorded by the learned III Additional District Judge, Kadapa (Fast Track Court, Kadapa) (MACT) in M.V.O.P.No.337 of 2005 to be confirmed or liable to be disturbed in the facts and circumstances of the case? In the light of the respective contentions advanced by the counsel on record, the following points arise for consideration in this M.A.C.M.A. (1) Whether the findings recorded by the learned III Additional District Judge, Kadapa (Fast Track Court, Kadapa) (MACT) in M.V.O.P.No.337 of 2005 to be confirmed or liable to be disturbed in the facts and circumstances of the case? (2) If so, to what relief the parties would be entitled to? 6. The parties hereinafter would be referred to as shown in the M.V.O.P.No.337 of 2005 on the file of the Tribunal aforesaid for the purpose of convenience. 7. Point No.1: The said M.V.O.P.No.337 of 2005 was filed under Section166 of the Motor Vehicles Act (hereinafter in short referred to as "the Act" for the purpose of convenience) claiming compensation of Rs.1,00,000/- with costs and subsequent interest. The Tribunal below recorded evidence of P.Ws.1 and 2 and also R.Ws.1 to 3, marked Exs.A-1 to A-5, Exs.B-1 and B-2, Exs.X-1 and X-2 and ultimately allowed the M.V.O.P. in part as against both R-1 and R-2 granting compensation of Rs.50,000/- with proportionate costs and interest at 7.5% per annum from the date of petition till realization. Aggrieved by the same, the second respondent had preferred the present M.A.C.M.A. 8. It is stated in the O.P. that the claimant is a resident of Lakkireddypalli, aged 20 years and he has been cultivating the land and earning Rs.80,000/- per year and that on 13.10.2004 the claimant was travelling in R.1 jeep insured with R.2 from Lakkireddypalli to Rayachoty and when the same was reached near Marrimanu-Kurnoothala cross, the jeep driver drove the same with rash and negligent manner and lost control over the same while the tractor reversing and thereby the jeep turned turtle and the claimant received a fracture injury to left arm. 9. R-2 filed written statement denying the averments made in the petition. Specific stand had been taken that claimant must prove the permanent disability with a certificate from Medical Board. Further it was averred that the offending jeep was a contract carriage vehicle and the same was run as stage carriage in violation of the permit and so R-1 alone is liable to pay compensation. Specific stand had been taken that claimant must prove the permanent disability with a certificate from Medical Board. Further it was averred that the offending jeep was a contract carriage vehicle and the same was run as stage carriage in violation of the permit and so R-1 alone is liable to pay compensation. Further it was specifically averred that the offending vehicle to be run by driver holding L.M.V. transport, but the driver had L.M.V. non- transport driving licence and thus R-1 violated the terms and conditions of the policy and thereby R-1 alone is liable to pay compensation. 10. On the strength of these pleadings, the following issues were settled: (1) Whether the petitioner received injuries in a motor vehicle accident on 13.10.2004 at 8.00 a.m. due to rash and negligent driving of jeep bearing No.AP 04 U 6129 by its driver belonging to R-1? (2) Whether the petitioner entitled for compensation and if so for what amount and from whom? (3) To what relief? 11. On behalf of claimant he had examined himself as P.W.1 and Exs.A-1 to A-5 were marked. The doctor was examined as P.W.2. On behalf of R-2, an employee of R-2 was examined as R.W.1 and Ex.B-1 the policy copy, Ex.B-2 the D.L. extract also had been marked and two employees of R.T.O had been examined as R.Ws.2 and 3. Exs.X-1 and X-2 also had been marked. 12. The Tribunal below recorded reasons in detail in paras 9 to 14 and ultimately granted compensation of Rs.50,000/- with proportionate costs and interest at 7.5% per annum from the date of petition till realization. Further it was directed that the insurance company/R-2 in the M.V.O.P. the appellant herein, to deposit the amount within two months and on such deposit the claimant was given liberty to withdraw the same. 13. In the light of Ex.A-4 disability certificate; Ex.A-5 medical bills and also Ex.A-1 certified copy of F.I.R; Ex.A2 certified copy of charge sheet; Ex.A- 3 certified copy of wound certificate coupled with the evidence of P.W.1 well supported by the evidence of P.W.2 the quantum of compensation awarded as such cannot be found fault. It is needless to say that the Tribunal was in fact cautious in awarding interest only at 7.5% per annum while awarding proportionate costs. 14. It is needless to say that the Tribunal was in fact cautious in awarding interest only at 7.5% per annum while awarding proportionate costs. 14. Hence, this Court is not inclined to disturb the quantum of compensation awarded with proportionate costs and interest at 7.5% per annum from the date of petition till realization and accordingly the same is hereby confirmed. But however though no specific finding as such had been recorded by the Tribunal, the evidence of R.Ws.1, 2 & 3 and also Exs.B-1, B-2, Exs.X-1 and X-2 are available on record and it is clear that the driver of the vehicle at the relevant point of time had no valid driving licence. In such circumstances the Apex Court in National Insurance Co., Ltd., V. Kusum Rai and others (1 supra) observed at paras 9, 16 and 17 as hereunder: "It has not been disputed before us that the vehicle was being used as a taxi. It was, therefore, a commercial vehicle. The driver of the said vehicle, thus, was required to hold an appropriate licence therefor. Ram Lal who allegedly was driving the said vehicle at the relevant time, as noticed hereinbefore, was holder of a licence to drive a light motor vehicle only. He did not possess any licence to drive a commercial vehicle. Evidently, therefore, there was a breach of condition of the contract of insurance. The appellant, therefore, could raise the said defence. In Nanjappan, 2004 ACJ 721 (SC), this court opined: "(8) Therefore, while setting aside the judgment of the High court we direct in terms of what has been stated in Baljit Kaur's case, 2004 ACJ 428 (SC), that the insurer shall pay the quantum of compensation fixed by the Claims Tribunal, about which there was no dispute raised, to respondents-claimants within three months from today. For the purpose of recovering the same from the insured, the insurer shall not be required to file a suit. It may initiate a proceeding before the concerned executing court as if the dispute between the insurer and the owner was the subject-matter of determination before the Tribunal and the issue is decided against the owner and in favour of the insurer. It may initiate a proceeding before the concerned executing court as if the dispute between the insurer and the owner was the subject-matter of determination before the Tribunal and the issue is decided against the owner and in favour of the insurer. Before release of the amount to the insured, owner of the vehicle shall be issued a notice and he shall be required to furnish security for the entire amount which the insurer will pay to the claimants. The offending vehicle shall be attached, as a part of the security. If necessity arises the executing court shall take assistance of the concerned Regional Transport Authority. The executing court shall pass appropriate orders in accordance with law as to the manner in which the insured, owner of the vehicle shall make payment to the insurer. In case there is any default it shall be open to the executing court to direct realization by disposal of the securities to be furnished or from any other property or properties of the owner of vehicle, the insured. The appeal is disposed of in the aforesaid terms, with no order as to costs." Although, thus, we are of the opinion that the appellant was not liable to pay the claimed amount as the driver was not possessing a valid licence and the High Court was in error in holding otherwise, we decline to interfere with the impugned award, in the peculiar facts and circumstances of the case, in exercise of our jurisdiction under Article 136 of the Constitution of India but we direct that the appellant may recover the amount from the owner in the same manner as was directed in Nanjappan, 2004 ACJ 721 (SC)." 15. Point No.2: In the light of the same though the first respondent-claimant is at liberty to withdraw the said amount of Rs.50,000/- with proportionate costs and interest at 7.5% per annum granted by the Tribunal, the appellant-second respondent is at liberty to recover the same from the second respondent herein i.e., first respondent in M.V.O.P, the owner of the offending vehicle, in accordance with law as specified in the decision of the Apex Court referred to supra. 16. Subject to the above direction, the civil miscellaneous appeal is disposed of. No costs.