The owner and the insurer are jointly and severally liable for the compensation if the driver of the insured vehicle does not have a valid license and the owner breaches the policy conditions.

JUDGMENT

1. Challenging the order dt.29/12/2009 in M.V.O.P.No.217/2009 passed by the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal-cum-IV Addl.District Judge, Guntur granting compensation of Rs.55, 000.00 against the claim of Rs.1, 00, 000.00, the appellants-claimants preferred the instant M.A.C.M.A.

2. For the sake of convenience, the parties are referred to as they are arrayed before the Tribunal.

3. On 15/10/2008 at 8.00 p.m., while the deceased by name Podili Kotamma was trying to cross the road on the National Highway at Mahakali Ammavari Temple, the motorbike bearing No.AP 07 R 4647 of the 1st respondent driven by its driver at high speed in a rash and negligent manner, dashed the deceased as a result, she fell on the ground and sustained severe injuries due to which, she died on the spot. The deceased was aged about 65 years, she was hale and healthy and was working as a washer woman and earning Rs.100.00 per a day. Due to the sudden death of their mother, the petitioners lost their dependency and they claimed compensation of Rs.1, 00, 000.00 and filed M.V.O.P.217/2009 against the 1st and 2nd respondents.

4. The 1st respondent did not contest the matter. The 2nd respondent filed a written statement opposing the claim mainly contending that the deceased herself was a dependent upon the petitioners and there is no loss of dependency. The accident occurred due to the fault of the deceased. The 1st respondent violated the terms and conditions of the policy by giving the vehicle to an unknown person who was not holding a driving licence. The 1st respondent is liable to pay the compensation and the claim against the 2nd respondent is liable to be dismissed.

5. During trial, P.Ws.1 and 2 were examined and Exs.A.1 to A.5 were marked on behalf of the petitioners-claimants. R.Ws.1 and 2 were examined on behalf of the 2nd respondent-Insurance Company and Exs.B.1 to B.3 and Ex.X.1 were marked.

6. The Tribunal having regard to the oral and documentary evidence, held that the accident occurred due to the fault of the driver of the offending vehicle, who was not holding a valid driving licence, and awarded compensation of Rs.55, 000.00 in lump sum with proportionate costs and interest @ 7.5% per annum against the 1st respondent and since the 1st respondent-owner of the vehicle breached the conditions of the policy, the claim against the 2nd respondent-Insurer was dismissed.

7. Heard the arguments of Sri G.V.S.Mehar Kumar, learned counsel for the appellants, and Sri E.Venugopal Reddy, learned counsel for the 2nd respondent-Insurance company.

8. Learned counsel for the appellants mainly argued that the Tribunal had not taken the correct earnings of the deceased. The Tribunal had not added the future prospects and not awarded amounts under various heads and he relied on the decision reported in the case of National Insurance Company Limited Vs. Parital Venkateswarlu. The insurer is liable to pay the compensation since the insurer failed to prove that the driver of the offending vehicle was not holding a valid licence at the time of the accident. He further argued that the offending vehicle was having an insurance policy that was in force at the time of the accident, but the Tribunal committed an error in fixing the liability against the 1st respondent directing him to pay the awarded amount in contra to the judgment stated supra.

9. Per contra, the learned counsel for the 2nd respondent/Insurance Company argued that there was no record to show that the driver of the offending vehicle has a valid driving licence and it is an admitted fact that the deceased died in the accident due to the rash and negligent driving of the offending vehicle by its driver. He further argued that the Tribunal had rightly taken a view that the driver of the offending vehicle had no valid driving licence and the 1st respondent had committed a breach of the policy conditions, though the policy was in force and therefore, the 2nd respondent is not at all liable to pay the compensation