Liability of the Insurance Company to pay compensation in the first instance and recover the same from the owner of the offending vehicle.

JUDGMENT:

The appellant is claim petitioner and the respondents are respondents in M.V.O.P.No.702 of 2007 on the file of the Chairman, Motor Accident Claims Tribunal-cum-V Additional District Judge, Nellore. The appellant filed the appeal questioning the legal validity of the order of the Tribunal.

2. For the sake of convenience, both the parties in the appeal will be referred to as they are arrayed in the claim petition.

3. The claim petitioner filed the petition under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 claiming compensation of Rs.3,00,000/- for the injuries sustained by him in a motor vehicle accident that took place on 02.07.2006.

4. The brief averments in the petition filed by the petitioner are as follows:

On 02.07.2006 at about 3.30 p.m. the petitioner and another boarded an auto bearing registration No.AP 26W 9665 at old bus stand centre, Kaligiri village, to go to M.R.O’s office centre and when the auto reached near Syed Mohammed Tiffin Stall, the driver of the auto lost control over the auto due to his rash and negligent driving and thereby, the auto hit an electrical pole located on the western side of the road, resulting in injuries to the petitioner. The 1st respondent is driver-cum-owner and the 2nd respondent is insurer of the crime auto. Hence, both the respondents are jointly and severally liable to pay compensation to the petitioner.

5. The 1st respondent was set ex parte. The 2nd respondent/Insurance company filed a counter by denying the manner of accident. It is pleaded that the driver of the auto was not holding a driving licence to drive the auto at the time of accident and violated the terms and conditions of the policy and therefore, the Insurance company is not liable to pay any compensation.

6. Based on the above pleadings of both the parties, the following issues were settled for trial by the Tribunal:

1) Whether the accident occurred on account of the rash and negligent riding of the vehicle bearing No.AP 26W 9665 by its rider and whether it resulted injuries to the victim?

2) Whether the petitioner is entitled for compensation? If so, to what amount?

3) Which of the respondents are liable to pay compensation?

4) To what relief?

7. During the course of enquiry in the claim petition, on behalf of the petitioner, P.Ws.1 to 4 were examined and Exs.A.1 to A.12 and Ex.C.1 were marked. On behalf of the 2nd respondent/Insurance company, R.Ws.1 to 3 were examined and Exs.B.1 to B.3 and Ex.X.1 were marked.

8. At the culmination of the enquiry, based on the material available on record, the Tribunal came to the conclusion that the accident occurred due to rash and negligent driving of the driver of offending auto and accordingly, awarded an amount of Rs.1,60,000/- with proportionate costs and interest at 7.5% p.a. from the date of petition till the date of deposit against respondent No.1 only and dismissed the claim petition against the 2nd respondent/Insurance company. Aggrieved by the same, the appellant/petitioner preferred the present appeal.

9. Heard learned counsels for both the parties.

10. Learned counsel for the appellant/petitioner mainly contended that the 3rd respondent/Insurance company cannot escape from liability of payment of compensation on mere absence, fake or invalid license or disqualification of the driver and the Insurance company has to pay third party risks and recover the same from the owner of the offending vehicle, and that the Tribunal erred in dismissing the rest of the claim without appreciating the oral and documentary evidence properly.

11. Now, the point for determination is:

Whether the order of the Tribunal needs any interference of this Court?

12. POINT: On considering the evidence of P.W.2, who is an eye witness to the accident, and Exs.A.1-attested copy of first information report and Ex.A.2-attested copy of charge sheet and taking into consideration of the fact that the evidence of P.W.2 remained unrebutted and the 1st respondent/driver of the auto was not examined in this case