Back
2015 Supreme(AP) 170
The High Court of Judicature at Hyderabad
A. SHANKAR NARAYANA, J.
The New India Assurance Company Limited – Appellant
Versus
Boggula Krishna Reddy & Others – Respondent
M.A.C.M.A. No. 1301 of 2006
Decided On : 18-03-2015
Advocate Appeared:
For the Appellant:T. Ramulu, Advocate.
For the Respondents:R1, Y. Koteswara Rao, Advocate, R2, R3, ---------
Headnote:
Motor Vehicles Act,1988 – Section 166 – Accident – Death – Compensation granted – Appeal against – Liability of insurance company – Not possess valid and effective driving license – When liable – Appeal filed by insurance Company aggrieved by the order dated said granting a sum of as compensation with interest per annum, on ground that driver of offending vehicle did not possess valid and effective driving license to drive the said vehicle but still Tribunal has mulcted liability to pay compensation having attended prayer at Colony at the house of one while returning to her house since respondent No.1 being driver of the van bearing registration drove it in rash and negligent manner and at high speed dashed due to which she died instantly and her dead body was shifted to Government Hospital she was declared dead deceased was years old on the date of – Petitioner claims that the deceased was an agricultural coolie and was earning and sought by laying claim under Section 166 of Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 son of deceased is petitioner before Tribunal – Held, Find the judgments relied upon cover the issue in Appellants this Court referred to the provisions of Section 2 and of Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, which are definitions of ‘light motor vehicle’ and ‘medium goods vehicle’ respectively and the rules prescribing the forms for Rule 14 and Form It was concluded instant case, admittedly the driver was holding a valid driving to drive light motor vehicle is no dispute that the motor vehicle in question by which accident took place, was Mahindra Maxi Cab. Merely because the driver did not get any endorsement in the driving to drive Mahindra Maxi Cab, which is a light motor vehicle High Court has committed grave error of law in holding that the insurer is not liable to pay compensation because the driver was not holding to drive the commercial vehicle impugned judgment liable to be set aside – Appeal stand disposed.
1. Respondent No.3-New India Assurance Company Limited in M.A.T.O.P. No.496 of 2002 on the file of the learned Chairman, Motor Vehicles Accidents Claims Tribunal-cum-IV Additional District Judge (Fast Track Court-III), Khammam (for short ‘the Tribunal’), preferred the instant appeal, aggrieved by the order dated 10.11.2005 in the said O.P. granting a sum of Rs.53,000/- as compensation with interest at 7.5% per annum, on the ground that the driver of the offending vehicle did not possess valid and effective driving license to drive the said vehicle, but, still, the Tribunal has mulcted liability to pay compensation.
2. The appellant herein is respondent No.3, while the respondent Nos.1 to 3 herein, who are the claimant, driver and owner of the van bearing registration No.AP 23 T 71 respectively, were the petitioner and respondents 1 and 2 respectively, in the original petition before the Tribunal.
3. For the sake of convenience, parties are hereinafter referred to as they were arrayed in the O.P before the Tribunal.
4. The facts, in brief, are that on 08.10.2000 at about 10.00 hours one Jamalamma, having attended prayer at B.C. Colony at the house of one Narayanamma, while returning to her house since respondent No.1 being driver of the van bearing registration No.AP 23 T 71, drove it in rash and negligent manner and at high speed dashed Jamalamma, due to which she died instantly and her dead body was shifted to Government Hospital, Madhira where she was declared dead. The deceased was 60 years old on the date of accident. The petitioner claims that the deceased was an agricultural coolie and was earning Rs.75/- per day, and, therefore, sought Rs.1,00,000/- by laying claim under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988. The son of the deceased is the petitioner before the Tribunal.
5. Respondent Nos.1 and 2, who are the driver and owner of the vehicle remained ex parte. Respondent No.3 contested the claim petition. A specific plea was taken by the respondent No.3 that respondent No.1 violated the terms and conditions of the R.C. permit of the crime vehicle and the policy conditions as he did not possess valid and effective driving license to drive the van, and, therefore, sought to dismiss the claim against it.
6. Based on the pleadings, the Tribunal framed three issues about the responsibility for the accident. During enquiry before the Tribunal, the petitioner examined himself as P.W.1 and got marked exhibits A.1 to A.3 besides examining one P.Srinivasa Rao as P.W.2. On behalf of the contesting respondent No.3-insurance company, R.Ws 1 and 2 were examined and exhibits B.1 and C.1 were marked.
7. The Tribunal, on appraisal of evidence, both, oral and documentary, let in by the petitioner and respondent No.3, held issue No.1 in favour of the petitioner. On issue No.2, the Tribunal determined the compensation at Rs.53,000/-. Concerning the violation pointed out by respondent No.3 as to respondent No.1 not possessing valid driving license, the Tribunal, having discussed the same in para ‘12’ somehow, observing that respondent No.1 was having transport license from 06.10.1998 to 04.12.2004, despite the fact that the endorsement was taken to drive the non-transport vehicle on 05.10.2001 as per the evidence of R.W.2, fastening liability on the insurance company.
8. The aforesaid order is under challenge in the instant appeal contending in the grounds of appeal that the Tribunal, somehow, did not properly appreciate the evidence of R.Ws 1 and 2, despite the fact that the driver did not hold valid and effective driving license to drive the van, but was possessing only LMV non-transport license, still, fastening liability on it is improper and, therefore, sought to set aside the order and decree under challenge.
9. Heard Sri T.Ramulu, learned counsel for respondent No.3 (appellant). On behalf of petitioner (respondent No.1), there is no representation. Despite service of notice on respondents 2 and 3, none appears for them.
