JUDGMENT : Common judgment against the Award of the Chairman, Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal-cum-District Judge, Ongole, in MVOP Nos. 336 of 2007 and 531 of 2009, dt. 13.04.2010. 2. On 29-04-2007 at about 11.30 am, there was an accident near Kamineni Hospitals, Narkatpally, between a Maruthi Car bearing No. AP 28 AS 5792 and a lorry bearing No. AP 37 W 1012. On account of the said accident, four of the five occupants of the Maruthi Car passed away. M.V.O.P.No.336 of 2007 is filed by the parents and sister of Sri A. Srikanth (hereinafter referred to as claimants in MVOP No.336 of 2007). Similarly, M.V.O.P.No.531 of 2009 was filed by the mother of Sri T. Srikanth, who had passed away ( the claimant in MVOP No. 531 of 2009). 3. After due enquiry in the matter, the Motor Accidents Claim Tribunal (for short “the Tribunal”) awarded compensation of Rs.17,95,000/-in MVOP No.531 of 2009. The Tribunal awarded compensation of Rs.12,01,000/-in MVOP No.336 of 2007. 4. Aggrieved by the said Awards, the Insurance Company has filed MACMA No. 925 of 2010 against the Award in MVOP No.336 of 2007 and MACMA No.926 of 2010 against the Award in MVOP No.531 of 2009. In both these cases, the Appeals are pressed by the Appellants on two grounds namely contributory negligence and the lack of a driving license for the driver of the Lorry. 5. As both these issues are common to both cases, the two appeals are being disposed of by a common order. 6. The Appellant assails the Award on the ground that the Tribunal having found contributory negligence on the part of the driver of the Maruthi Car should not have apportioned the negligence in the ratio of 75% on the lorry and 25% on the driver of the car and consequently directed compensation on that basis. 7. The Tribunal went into the question of contributory negligence by considering the evidence of the witnesses to the accident as well as the contents of the charge sheet and rough sketch of the crime scene in Cr.No. 49 of 2007 of Narkatpalli Police Station, which was registered in relation to this accident. 8. The Tribunal also went into the damage caused to the car as well as the lorry. 8. The Tribunal also went into the damage caused to the car as well as the lorry. After a careful examination of all this material, the Tribunal had come to the conclusion that the contributory negligence would have to be apportioned in the ratio of 75% on the driver of the sand lorry and 25% on the driver of the car. Learned counsel for the Appellant has not been able to demonstrate any grounds on which this Court should take a different view on the percentage of contributory negligence. As recorded in the Award, the sand lorry was in the middle of the road and as such, the impact of the hit from both the vehicles pushed the car away and the fracture sustained by the surviving member of the car which showed that she was sitting at the rear left side of the car was the reason for the Tribunal to attribute the ratio of contributory negligence. I do not find any reason to interfere with the said finding. 9. The second ground raised by the learned counsel for the Appellant was that the driver of the lorry was not having any effective driving license at the time of the accident as the driver was hold a Light Motor Vehicle Non-Transport Driving License valid up to 25.03.2018 as the driver of the lorry had failed to renew his HGV Transport driving license after 07.09.2006. However, this license was renewed only on 2.05.2007, which is after the accident. On the basis of this fact, the learned counsel for the Appellant submits that the Appellant/Insurance Company would not be liable to pay any compensation inasmuch as there was a clear violation of the terms of the insurance policy which requires the driver of the vehicle to have a valid license. 10. This aspect was raised before the Tribunal, which considered various judgments including the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in United India Insurance Co. 10. This aspect was raised before the Tribunal, which considered various judgments including the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in United India Insurance Co. Ltd. V/s. Lehru and Others, 2003 ACJ 611 and Oriental Insurance Company Ltd. v. Shri Nanjappan & Ors, 2004 SAR ( Civil) 290, wherein the Hon’ble Supreme Court had laid down the principle that non availability of a driving license for the driver would not amount to violation of the provisions of the insurance policy unless it is demonstrated that the owner was also fully aware of this violation and permitted the driver to drive the vehicle in clear violation of such policy. Since, in the present case, no such material was placed before the Tribunal, the insurance company was directed to pay compensation jointly with the owner of the vehicle and to recover the same from the owner of the vehicle. 11. As this ground also would not be available to the insurance company, there are no merits in either of the appeals, and hence, both the appeals are dismissed without costs. Consequently, miscellaneous application, if any, shall stand closed.