Even if the driver of an insured vehicle does not have a valid driving licence, the insurance company is still liable to pay compensation to third parties under Section 149 read with 168 of the Motor Vehicles Act.

JUDGMENT

Battu Devanand, J. - Challenging the award dated 19.07.2010 in M.V.O.P.No.38 of 2009 passed by the Chairman, Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal-cumPrincipal District Judge, Kadapa (for short "the tribunal"), the insurance company preferred this appeal.

2. The parties hereinafter called as petitioners and respondents as arrayed in the Tribunal.

3. The factual matrix of the case of the claimants is that on 25.08.2008 at about 11-00 a.m., the deceased was proceeding on a motorcycle from Bayanapalli to Vonthadu along with petitioners 1 and 2. The deceased was driving the motorcycle. The petitioners 1 and 2 were the pillion riders. By the time the motorcycle reached Kumbagiri cross road, tractor and the trailer of the 1st respondent bearing No.A.P.04U 4354 and A.P.04W 4355 (hereinafter referred to as "offending vehicle") carrying sand load was driven by its driver in a rash and negligent manner at high speed, which came from a byroad on to the main road and dashed the motorcycle proceeding on the main road. The petitioners 1 and 2 sustained injuries in the said accident. The deceased met with instantaneous death in the said accident. The accident was purely due to the rash and negligent driving of the driver of the offending vehicle and the 2nd respondent is the insurer thereof. The petitioners assessed compensation at Rs.50,00,000/-, however, they confined the claim to Rs.15,00,000/-. The petitioners claimed compensation jointly and severally from the respondents 1 and 2 at Rs.15,00,000/- for the death of the deceased.

4. The 1st respondent filed counter putting the petitioners to strict proof. The 1st respondent contended that he has been running a medical stores at Kadapa. He handed over the offending vehicle to his uncle by name Siva Reddy, a resident of Yerraballi. The villagers are under the impression that the offending vehicle belongs to Siva Reddy, uncle of the 1st respondent. The offending tractor and trailer are insured with the 2nd respondent. He did not commit any breach of the terms and conditions of the policy. He further contended that in the event, the 1st respondent becomes liable to the claim, the 2nd respondent is liable to indemnify the 1st respondent.

5. The 2nd respondent filed a counter putting the petitioners to strict proof and contended that the tractor and trailer of the 1st respondent were not involved in the accident. Perhaps, the tractor and trailer of Siva Reddy of Yerraballi were involved in the accident. The 1st respondent is arrayed as the owner of the offending vehicle by the petitioners for a wrongful gain. The accident was on account of the rash and negligent driving of the deceased himself. The 2nd respondent is not liable to answer the claim as the tractor and trailer insured with the 2nd respondent were not involved in the accident and prayed to dismiss the O.P. The 2nd respondent was accorded permission under Section 170(b) of M.V. Act to take up all defences.

6. During trial PWs.1 and 2 were examined and Exs.A.1 to A.12 were marked on behalf of the petitioners. On behalf of the respondents, R.Ws.1 to 3 were examined and Exs.B.1 to B.10 were marked.

7. On perusal of the award would show that tribunal basing on the oral and documentary evidence has held that the accident was occurred due to rash and negligent driving of the offending tractor and trailer by its driver. With regard to the compensation is concerned, the tribunal awarded Rs.12,75,000/- with costs and interest at the rate of 6% per annum from the date of the petition till the date of the deposit. Aggrieved by the award passed by the tribunal, the appeal filed by the 2nd respondent-insurance company disputing the liability and quantum of compensation.

8. Heard Sri Kota Subba Rao, learned counsel for the appellant-2nd respondent and Sri D. Kodananda Rami Reddy, learned counsel for the respondents/petitioners.

9. The learned counsel for the 2nd respondent-insurance company argued that the driver of the tractor and trailer beari