JUDGMENT: This appeal is preferred by 3rd respondent/Insurance company challenging the award dated 29.11.2012 passed in M.V.O.P.No.448 of 2011 on the file of Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal-cum-VI Addl. District Judge, Krishna, at Machilipatnam, wherein the Tribunal while partly allowing the claim petition, awarded compensation of Rs.4,93,000/- with interest @ 7.5% p.a., from the date of petition till the date of deposit or realization, to the petitioners for the death of the deceased Md.Shakhasim @ Saleem. 2. For the sake of convenience, the parties are arrayed as referred in the trial Court. 3. As seen from the record, originally, the petitioners filed an application U/s 166 of Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (for brevity “the Act”) claiming compensation of Rs.10,00,000/- with interest and costs on account of the death of the deceased in a motor accident occurred on 21.05.2011 at 7.30 a.m., near Vivekananda Park, Brahmapuram, Pedana Town while the deceased was proceeding from Guduru towards Pedana on his cycle, under the jurisdiction of Pedana Police Station. 4. The facts of the case, in brief, are that the deceased was working as Supervisor under a contractor Borra Seshagiri Rao at Machilipatnam and Pedana and used to earn Rs.10,000/- p.m., On 21.05.2011 the deceased started on his cycle from Guduru to Pedana village on the contract works and when he reached Vivekananda Park at Brahmapuram, Pedana town, at 7.30 hrs., the 1st respondent, who was the driver of crime Auto bearing No.AP 16TA 5804 while proceeding from Kappaladoddi towards Pedana, drove the crime auto in a rash and negligent manner in high speed, lost control over the auto and dashed the cycle of the deceased from its back, due to which the deceased fell down and sustained injuries on the head, other parts of the body and died on the spot. The deceased was shifted to Government Hospital, Machilipatnam, where post mortem was conducted and issued a report to that effect. Pedana Police registered a case in Cr.No.75 of 2011 against the 1st respondent under Section 304-A IPC. 5. The deceased was shifted to Government Hospital, Machilipatnam, where post mortem was conducted and issued a report to that effect. Pedana Police registered a case in Cr.No.75 of 2011 against the 1st respondent under Section 304-A IPC. 5. Before the Tribunal, the appellant, who is the 3rd respondent in the claim petition, filed counter resisting while traversing the material averments with regard to proof of age, avocation, monthly earnings of the deceased, manner of accident, rash and negligence on the part of the driver of the crime auto and liability to pay compensation and contended that the 1st respondent did not possess valid driving licence at the time of the accident to drive the crime auto and it amounts to violation of the terms and conditions of the insurance policy on the part of the 2nd respondent/insured, as such 3rd respondent is not liable to pay any compensation to the petitioners. 6. On the strength of the pleadings of both parties, the Tribunal framed the following issues: 1. Whether the accident has taken place on account of rash and negligent driving of 1st respondent being the driver of crime vehicle i.e., Auto bearing No.AP 16TA 5804? 2. Whether the claim petitioners are entitled to any compensation, if so, from whom and to what extent? 3. To what relief? 7. To substantiate their claim, the petitioners examined P.Ws.1 and 2 and got marked Exs.A1 to A8. On behalf of 3rd respondent, R.Ws.1 and 2 were examined and Exs.B1 to B3 were marked. The respondents 1 and 2 before the trial Court were set exparte. 8. The Tribunal, taking into consideration the evidence of P.Ws.1 and 2 and Exs.A1 to A8 coupled with the evidence of R.Ws.1 and 2 and Exs.B1 and B2, held that the accident took place due to the rash and negligent driving of the driver of crime auto bearing No.AP 16TA 5804 and awarded a compensation of Rs.4,93,000/- with interest @ 7.5% p.a., from the date of petition till the date of deposit or realization with costs, fixing the liability on all the respondents 1 to 3, however the 3rd respondent insurance company was given liberty to reimburse the amount of compensation from the 2nd respondent owner of the crime auto as there was violation of terms and conditions of insurance policy. 9. 9. The plea of the insurance company is that there was violation of the terms and conditions of the insurance policy by the 2nd respondent/insured as he allowed the 1st respondent to drive the crime auto without possessing valid driving licence at the time of the accident, and hence 3rd respondent is not liable to indemnify the insured. 10. The contention of the appellant/insurance company is that the accident was occurred due to the negligence of the deceased and therefore, the insurance company is not liable to pay any compensation and that insured vehicle is a passenger carrying commercial vehicle, and thus the driver must have transport endorsement to drive such vehicle, but the 4th respondent, who was the driver of offending vehicle was having licence only to drive motor cycle with gear and light motor vehicle and therefore, conditions of the policy were violated by the insured and hence, the insurance company is not liable to indemnify the insured for the compensation amount awarded by the Tribunal. 11. When coming to the first contention of the insurance company that the negligence of the deceased caused the accident and there was no rash or negligence on the part of the auto driver of the crime vehicle in the accident occurred on 21.05.2011, the claimants in support of their case have examined the 1st respondent/claimant, who is the wife of the deceased as P.W.1. The claimants to corroborate the evidence of P.W.1, have examined one Mr.P.Naga Mohan Rao, a third party eye witness to the accident. P.W.1 in her chief-examination reiterated the case of the claimants as pleaded in the claim petition about the manner in which the accident was occurred. In the cross-examination she admitted that she was not an eye witness to the accident. But, P.W.1 to corroborate her version about the accident, filed Ex.A1 copy of F.I.R., Ex.A3 copy of Inquest report, Ex.A4 copy of Motor Vehicles Inspector report and Ex.A6 copy of police report (charge sheet). In the cross-examination she admitted that she was not an eye witness to the accident. But, P.W.1 to corroborate her version about the accident, filed Ex.A1 copy of F.I.R., Ex.A3 copy of Inquest report, Ex.A4 copy of Motor Vehicles Inspector report and Ex.A6 copy of police report (charge sheet). P.W.2 in his chief-examination affidavit stated that he knows the deceased in the case and 1 ½ year ago at about 7.30 a.m., the accident was occurred near to his cycle shop and at that time the deceased was coming on a cycle and the crime auto was coming in opposite direction and dashed the cycle from back side and the auto was driven negligently by the driver at the time of the accident and as a result the auto dashed the cycle of the deceased and then the deceased fell down from the cycle and there was head injury and he died on the spot and the accident was caused by the 4th respondent auto driver. The evidence deposed by P.W.2 before the Tribunal supports the version of the police as found in Ex.A6 copy of police report (charge sheet). Against the said evidence produced by the claimants, the appellant-insurance company has examined its Legal Officer Mr.S.Vinod Kumar as R.W.1. In his chief-examination affidavit he did not state anything as to how the accident was occurred. He did not state anything about the manner of accident supporting the case of the insurance company as pleaded in their counter. His evidence was about the case of the insurance company that the driver of the auto was not having valid licence to drive the auto rickshaw as on the date of accident and the auto driver was having only licence to drive Light Motor Vehicles and as per the policy the driver shall hold an effective and valid driving licence to drive the category of the vehicle insured and therefore, the insured violated the terms and conditions of the policy within the meaning of sub-section (3) of Section 66 of the Motor Vehicles Act and therefore, insurance company is not liable to indemnify the insured. 12. The appellant-insurance company has examined Mr.A.Narendra, who was working as Senior Assistant in R.T.A., Office at Machilipatnam. He also did not depose anything about the manner in which the accident was occurred. 12. The appellant-insurance company has examined Mr.A.Narendra, who was working as Senior Assistant in R.T.A., Office at Machilipatnam. He also did not depose anything about the manner in which the accident was occurred. Therefore, the appellant insurance company did not adduce any evidence to disprove the testimony of P.W.2, which shows that the accident was occurred due to rash and negligent driving of the auto by the driver, who is one of the respondents in the claim petition. It is pertinent to note down that the appellant-insurance company did not take any steps to examine the driver of the auto in support of their case that accident was occurred due to the negligence of the deceased. In that view of the matter, I do not find any ground to interfere with the finding of the Tribunal that the accident was occurred due to rash and negligent driving of the auto driver of the crime vehicle involved in the case. 13. When coming to the second contention of the insurance company about violation of the policy conditions, as already stated above, R.W.2 produced Ex.B2 policy and copy of driving licence of the auto driver, which was marked as Ex.B3 and deposed that as per Ex.B2 the auto driver was holding a licence to drive a non-transport light motor vehicle and therefore, it is not valid to drive the auto rickshaw as on the date of the accident and as per Ex.B2 policy any person driving the insured vehicle shall hold an effective and valid driving licence to drive the category of the vehicle insured and therefore, the owner of the auto i.e., insured violated the terms and conditions of the policy by entrusting the vehicle to a person who is not holding valid licence to drive the auto and as such the insurance company is not liable to indemnify the owner of the auto i.e., insured in the case. In the cross-examination of the claimants he admitted that Ex.B2 policy was in force at the time of the accident. R.W.2, who was working as Senior Assistant in R.T.A. Office, Machilipatnam deposed that as per their records the driver was holding licence to drive a light motor vehicle non-transport vehicle and he was not authorised to drive an auto. 14. The Tribunal considering the above facts and circumstances, followed the judgment of the Hon’ble Apex Court in National Insurance Com. R.W.2, who was working as Senior Assistant in R.T.A. Office, Machilipatnam deposed that as per their records the driver was holding licence to drive a light motor vehicle non-transport vehicle and he was not authorised to drive an auto. 14. The Tribunal considering the above facts and circumstances, followed the judgment of the Hon’ble Apex Court in National Insurance Com. Ltd. vs. Swaran Singh, AIR 2004 SC 1531 , wherein the Hon’ble Apex Court held that even in case of violation of the terms and conditions of the insurance policy regarding non-possession of a valid driving licence, by virtue of the fact that the crime vehicle was under the coverage of the valid insurance policy at the time of the accident, the concerned insurance company has to first pay the awarded compensation to the 3rd party victims and then, it can seek reimbursement from the owner of the crime vehicle. The Tribunal accordingly ordered that the appellant-insurance company shall first pay the awarded compensation to the claimants and then it can seek reimbursement from the owner by initiating the appropriate legal proceedings and the Tribunal awarded a sum of Rs.4,93,000/- with simple interest at 7.5% p.a., from the date of petition till the date of deposit under various heads as discussed in the Award. 15. Admittedly, in the case on hand, even as per the evidence of R.W.1 the policy was a valid policy, and it was in force as on the date of accident. The driver of the auto in the case was holding a valid licence to drive light motor vehicle non-transport as on the date of accident. The crime vehicle i.e., the auto involved in the case was a light motor vehicle which comes under the category of transport. The Hon’ble Apex Court in Jagdish Kumar Sood vs. United India Insurance Co. Ltd. and others, AIR 2018 SC 2906 held that vehicle involved in an accident was light goods vehicle and the driver possessing light motor vehicle licence cannot be said to be not authorised to drive transport vehicles and the order of the Tribunal observing insured to pay compensation is erroneous and set aside the same. Ltd. and others, AIR 2018 SC 2906 held that vehicle involved in an accident was light goods vehicle and the driver possessing light motor vehicle licence cannot be said to be not authorised to drive transport vehicles and the order of the Tribunal observing insured to pay compensation is erroneous and set aside the same. The Hon’ble Apex Court in Shamanna and another vs. Divisional Manager Oriental Insurance Company Ltd. and others, AIR 2018 SC 3736 held that when driver was not possessing valid driving licence and drove the vehicle negligently, due to which 3rd party suffered, insurer is liable to pay compensation and recover the same from the owner as laid down in Swaran Singh case. The Hon’ble Apex Court in Santalal Appellant Vs. Rajesh and others, 2017 AIR (Civil) 734 observed and held as follows:- “This Court has considered the question whether the holder of licence for light motor vehicle can drive tractor attached to the trolley carrying goods and also whether separate endorsement is required authorising him to drive such a transport vehicle? We have answered the question that driver having licence to drive light motor vehicle can drive such a transport vehicle of LMV class and there is no necessity to obtain separate endorsement, since tractor attached with the trolley was transport vehicle of the category of light motor vehicle. Hence, there was no breach of the conditions of the policy. Accordingly, in view of the answer given to reference by the three Judge Bench of this Court in Mukund Dewangan vs. Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd., (Civil Appeal No.5826 of 2011), these appeals have to be allowed and are hereby allowed. The right given to the insurer to recover amount from owner is hereby set aside. The liability is held to be joint and several of owner, driver and insurer.” 16. Further, the Hon’ble Apex Court in Parminder Singh vs. New India Assurance Co. Ltd. and others, AIR 2019 SC 3128 held that the insurance company shall pay the compensation and can recover the same from the owner when the driver of the offending vehicle was not holding a valid licence. 17. Further, the Hon’ble Apex Court in Parminder Singh vs. New India Assurance Co. Ltd. and others, AIR 2019 SC 3128 held that the insurance company shall pay the compensation and can recover the same from the owner when the driver of the offending vehicle was not holding a valid licence. 17. In the light of the above facts of the case, and the principles of law, I do not find any reason to interfere with the finding of the Tribunal that the insurance company shall first pay the awarded compensation to the petitioners/claimants and then it can seek reimbursement of the same from the owner by initiating the appropriate legal proceedings. 18. In view of the above, discussion, I do not find any substance in the appeal and no reason to interfere with the impugned order, accordingly the appeal being devoid of merits, is liable to be dismissed. 19. In the result, the Civil Miscellaneous Appeal is dismissed confirming the Award dt.29.11.2012 passed in M.V.O.P.No.448 of 2011 on the file of Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal-cum-VI Addl. District Court (F.T.C.), Krishna, Machilipatnam. There shall be no order as to costs. As a sequel, miscellaneous applications pending, if any, shall stand closed.