JUDGMENT : Heard Sri Rama Mohan Rao Kotha, learned counsel for the appellant/respondent No.3/Insurance Company and Sri G.Divyatheja, learned counsel representing Sri Nimmagadda Satyanarayana, learned counsel for the respondent No.3/owner of the lorry. None appeared for the respondent No.1/claimant. 2. This appeal directed by the appellant/respondent No.3/Insurance Company challenging the Order and Decree dated 26.09.2011 passed in M.V.O.P.No.598 of 2006 by the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal-cum-XII Additional District Judge (Fast Track Court), Vijayawada (hereinafter referred to ‘Tribunal’). 3. Parties are referred to as they were arrayed in the proceedings before the learned Tribunal, for the sake of convenience. 4. The claimant filed petition under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (for brevity ‘the Act’) claiming compensation of Rs.3,00,000/- for the personal injuries sustained by her in a motor vehicle accident occurred on 20.04.2005. 5. The case of the claimant is that on 20.04.2005 at about 7.45 AM the claimant being a differently abled person, was going on a four-wheeler moped at Mylavaram road; a lorry bearing registration No.AP16 TV 1853 driven by the respondent No.1, came in opposite direction to the moped in a rash and negligent manner at a high speed, dashed the moped of the claimant; as a result, the claimant fell down on the road and sustained grievous injuries all over her body; a case in Crime No.126 of 2005 was registered against the respondent No.1 for the offence punishable under Section 338 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (for brevity ‘IPC’); the claimant was working as a teacher and earning a sum of Rs.6,000/- per month by the date of accident. 6. Respondent Nos.1 and 2 remained ex parte. 7. Respondent No.3/Insurance Company i.e., Insurer of the lorry bearing registration No.AP16 TV 1853 filed counter contending that the accident occurred due to negligence of the claimant; the claim of the claimant is excessive; police did not furnish relevant documents of the offending vehicle to the respondent No.3 as per Section 158 (6) of the Act. 8. The learned Tribunal, basing on the rival contentions, framed the following issues for trial: 1. Whether the petitioner sustained injuries in a motor vehicle accident that occurred on 20.04.2005 due to the rash and negligent driving of the crime vehicle i.e., lorry bearing No.AP16 TV 1853? 2. If so, whether the petitioner is entitled for compensation as prayed for? 3. To what relief? 9. Whether the petitioner sustained injuries in a motor vehicle accident that occurred on 20.04.2005 due to the rash and negligent driving of the crime vehicle i.e., lorry bearing No.AP16 TV 1853? 2. If so, whether the petitioner is entitled for compensation as prayed for? 3. To what relief? 9. During enquiry, on behalf of claimant, she examined herself as P.W.1 and examined the Doctor who treated her as P.W.2; exhibited eight (08) documents as Ex.A1 to Ex.A8 and Ex.X1/Discharge Summary was got marked through the evidence of P.W.2/Doctor. On behalf of the respondent No.3/Insurance Company, the Assistant Manager of its company was examined as R.W.1. The Junior Assistant of RTA Office, Nuzvid was examined as R.W.2 and through him Ex.B1, Ex.B2 and Ex.X1 Ex.X2 documents were marked. 10. The learned Tribunal under the impugned Order and Decree, awarded a sum of Rs.1,20,000/- towards justice compensation to the claimant for the injuries sustained by her in the motor vehicle accident and fastened joint and several liability against the owner of the offending vehicle and the insurer of the vehicle i.e., appellant in the case. 11. The contention of the respondent No.3/Insurance Company is that the driver of the offending vehicle was having Light Motor Vehicle (Transport) license only at the time of accident; whereas, the offending vehicle is a goods carrying commercial vehicle and therefore, the driver of the offending vehicle was not competent to drive the crime vehicle and hence, the owner of the insured vehicle violated the terms and conditions of the policy by allowing the driver, who had no valid driving license to drive a Heavy Goods Vehicle and hence, the respondent No.3/Insurance Company is not liable to indemnify the insured. 12. Learned counsel for the respondent No.3/Insurance Company would submit that the Tribunal erred in holding that the Insurance Company did not a take plea in the counter regarding the license of the driver and therefore, the evidence placed by the respondent No.3/Insurance Company does not carry any weight. 13. 12. Learned counsel for the respondent No.3/Insurance Company would submit that the Tribunal erred in holding that the Insurance Company did not a take plea in the counter regarding the license of the driver and therefore, the evidence placed by the respondent No.3/Insurance Company does not carry any weight. 13. Learned counsel for the respondent No.3/Insurance Company would further contend that enquiry under Section 166 of the Act is a summary enquiry and therefore, strict rules of pleading will not apply to the proceedings and further, the respondent No.3/Insurance Company examined the officials from Regional Transport Office, establishing that the driver was holding only Light Motor Vehicle (Transport) license and in that view of the matter, the order of the learned Tribunal is not sustainable in law against the respondent No.3/Insurance Company. 14. Learned counsel for the respondent No.2/owner of the offending vehicle would submit that there was no specific plea in the counter filed by the respondent No.3/Insurance Company to the effect that driver was not having a valid license at the time of accident and that, the owner had knowledge that the driver has no valid license to driver ‘Heavy Goods Vehicle’, allowed him to drive the offending vehicle and violated the terms of the policy and in the absence of specific plea, the respondent No.3/Insurance Company cannot improve its case, by leading evidence before the Tribunal and further, there is no evidence to establish that owner had knowledge that driver has no valid license to drive the offending vehicle and allowed him to drive the vehicle and in that view of the matter, there are no grounds to interfere with the finding of the learned Tribunal. 15. Considering the above rival contentions, the points that would arise for consideration in this appeal are as under: 1. Whether the Order and Decree passed by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal-cum-XII Additional District Judge (FTC), Vijayawada in M.V.O.P.No.598 of 2006 vide Order and Decree dated 26.09.2011 warrants interference of this Court? 2. To what relief? 16. POINT NO.1: It is an admitted fact that the claimant filed the application under Section 166 of the Act claiming compensation for personal injuries in a motor vehicle accident occurred on 20.04.2005 at about 7.45 AM at Kondapalli village of Krishna District. 2. To what relief? 16. POINT NO.1: It is an admitted fact that the claimant filed the application under Section 166 of the Act claiming compensation for personal injuries in a motor vehicle accident occurred on 20.04.2005 at about 7.45 AM at Kondapalli village of Krishna District. Learned Tribunal basing on the evidence placed by the claimant, held that the accident was occurred due to rash and negligent driving of the offending vehicle by the respondent No.1/driver. 17. The respondent No.2 is the owner of the offending vehicle and the respondent No.3 is the Insurer of the offending vehicle i.e., the appellant. 18. The claimant in the petition at paragraph No.4 made a specific plea that the respondent No.1/driver of the offending vehicle was having a valid license and it is in force on the date of accident. Admittedly, in the counter filed by the respondent No.3/Insurance Company, this averment was not denied. No specific plea taken in the counter stating that the driver of the offending vehicle had only ‘Light Motor Vehicle (Transport) license’ at the material point in time. 19. However, the respondent No.3/Insurance Company examined its official i.e., R.W.1 and an Officer from Regional Transport Office as R.W.2 and placed Ex.B2 and Ex.X3 relating to driving license of the respondent No.1/ driver of the offending vehicle. These documents would show that the respondent No.1/driver of the offending vehicle was having ‘Light Motor Vehicle (Transport) license’ and it is valid up to 07.12.2012. 20. It is pertinent to note down that no statement was made in the evidence of R.W.1 that the owner had knowledge that the respondent No.1/driver of the offending vehicle is having only ‘Light Motor Vehicle (Transport) licence’ and allowed him to drive the offending vehicle at the material point in time. 21. Therefore, admittedly, there is neither pleading nor evidence before the Tribunal to prove that the insured i.e., owner of the offending vehicle had knowledge that the driver of the offending vehicle is having only ‘Light Motor Vehicle (Transport) license’, and allowed him to drive the vehicle at the material point in time. 22. In that view of the matter, when there is no evidence to say that the owner of the vehicle had knowledge that driver has no valid licence, and allowed him to drive the offending vehicle at the time of accident, and therefore, violated the terms of the policy. 23. 22. In that view of the matter, when there is no evidence to say that the owner of the vehicle had knowledge that driver has no valid licence, and allowed him to drive the offending vehicle at the time of accident, and therefore, violated the terms of the policy. 23. In that view of the matter, there are no grounds to interfere with the finding of the learned Tribunal and the appeal is liable to be dismissed. Accordingly, point No.1 is answered. 24. POINT NO. 2: In the light of finding on point No.1, the appeal in M.A.C.M.A.No.2613 of 2012 is liable to be ‘Dismissed’. 25. IN THE RESULT, the Appeal in is ‘Dismissed’ by confirming the Order and Decree dated 26.09.2011 passed by the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal-cum-XII Additional District Judge (FTC), Vijayawada in M.V.O.P.No.598 of 2006. There shall be no order as to costs. As a sequel, miscellaneous applications pending, if any, shall stand closed.