The court established the principle of pay and recover, holding the insurance company liable to pay first and then recover from the insured.

JUDGMENT :

This appeal is preferred by 2nd respondent/Insurance company challenging the award dated 25.02.2019 passed in M.V.O.P.No.554 of 2015 on the file of Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal-cum-Prl. District Judge, Kurnool, wherein the Tribunal while allowing the claim petition, awarded compensation of Rs.12,74,600/- with interest @ 7% p.a., from the date of petition till the date of realization, to the petitioners for the death of the deceased Nellipogu Amadaguntla Dasthagiri @ N.Dasthagiri.

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 (1) (c) 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 06.08.2015 at about 2.00 a.m., near K.C. Canal Culvert at the outskirts of Kurnool while the deceased along with a pillion rider was going on a motor cycle from G.Singavaram village to his native village, Parla, under the jurisdiction of Kurnool Taluk Police Station.

4. The facts of the case, in brief, are that the deceased worked as an auto rickshaw driver and earned Rs.9,000/- p.m., and maintaining his family which consists of the petitioners. On 06.08.2015 early hours the deceased along with Uppari Sunil was going on a motor cycle from G.Singavaram village to his native Village Parla and when he reached K.C. Canal culvert at the outskirts of Kurnool, an auto rickshaw bearing No. AP 21TY 7019 driven by the 1st respondent in a rash and negligent manner at high speed came behind the motor cycle driven by the deceased and dashed the same, as a result the deceased as well as the pillion rider fell on the culvert and sustained grievous injuries. Both the injured were shifted to Government General Hospital, Kurnool in 108 Ambulance for treatment, where both of them died on the same day while undergoing treatment. The 1st respondent was the owner-cum-driver of the offending auto rickshaw and the 2nd respondent was the insurer.

5. The 1st respondent before the Tribunal remained exparte. The appellant, who is the 2nd respondent in the claim petition, filed written statement 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 accident was occurred on account of the fault of the deceased and the 1st respondent had not complied the terms and conditions of the insurance policy and the driving licence of the 1st respondent was suspended at the relevant time of the accident by the Regional Transport Authorities and therefore, the 2nd respondent was not liable to pay the amount of compensation.

6. On the strength of the pleadings of both parties, the Tribunal framed the following issues:

1. Whether the accident occurred due to rash and negligent driving of the owner-cum-driver of auto rickshaw AP 21TY 7019?

2. Whether the deceased Nellipogu Amadaguntla Dasthagiri @ N.Dasthgiri died in a road accident?

3. Whether the petitioners are entitled to compensation, and if so, what amount and against whom?

4. To what relief?

7. To substantiate their claim, the petitioners examined P.Ws.1 and 2 and got marked Exs.A1 to A5. On behalf of 2nd respondent, R.W.1 was examined and Exs.B1 to B6 were marked.

8. The Tribunal, taking into consideration the evidence of P.Ws.1 and 2 and Exs.A1 to A5 coupled with the evidence of R.W.1 and Exs.B1 to B6, held that the accident took place on account of the involvement of the 1st respondent as claimed by the petitioners and awarded a compensation of Rs.12,74,600/- with interest @ 7% p.a., from the date of petition till the date of realization with costs, fixing the liability on 1st respondent only on the ground that the 1st respondent did not have valid and effective d