JUDGMENT
L. Narasimha Reddy, J.
1. This C.M.A. is filed against the judgment and decree of the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal-cum-Additional District Judge, Vijayanagaram, in O.P. No. 456 of 2000, dated 23-4-2003. The 1st respondent submitted the claim petition alleging that the scooter bearing No. AP9/AD-1599 hit him from behind, when he was travelling on a bicycle and thereby sustained injuries. He claimed an amount of Rs. 1,00,000/- towards compensation. The scooter was driven by the 2nd respondent and is owned by the 3rd respondent. The Insurance Company, the appellant herein, was impleaded as Respondent No. 3 in the OP. The owner and driver of the vehicle remained ex parte, and the matter was contested by the appellant alone.
2. Heard the learned Counsel for the appellant and learned Counsel for the respondents.
3. Before the Tribunal PWs.1 to 3 were examined on behalf of the 1st respondent, and RW-1 examined for the appellant herein. Exs.A-1 to A-9 were marked for the 1st respondent and Exs.B-1 and B-2 for the appellant. On appreciation of the oral and documentary evidence before it, the Tribunal held that the accident took place on account of rashness on the part of the 2nd respondent and awarded a compensation of Rs. 52,000/-.
4. The main contention advanced on behalf of the appellant was that the 2nd respondent did not hold a valid licence, when the accident took place. The same ground is urged in this appeal.
5. The liability arising out of an accident involving a vehicle driven by an unlicensed driver, is no longer in doubt. There used to be conflicting decisions earlier. The Supreme Court resolved the controversy finally through its judgment in National Insurance Company Limited v. Swaran Singh and Ors., . It was held therein that the fact that the vehicle was driven by a person, who did not hold any licence, or held an invalid licence, does not have any bearing on the liability of the Insurance Company. It was observed that, in such an event, the Insurance Company has to meet the claim and thereafter, proceed against the owner, if it so desires.
6. Following the same, the appeal is dismissed, upholding the judgment and decree in O.P. No. 456 of 2000, and leaving it open to the appellant herein to proceed against the 3rd respondent, if it so advised. No costs.