The Insurance company is liable to satisfy the award in favor of the 3rd party at the first instance and later recover the award amount from the owner of the offending vehicle.

JUDGMENT :

1. The appellants are claim petitioners and the respondents are respondents in M.V.O.P.No.396 of 2006 on the file of the Chairman, Motor Accident Claims Tribunal-cum-IV Additional District Judge, East Godavari at Kakinada. The appellants 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 petitioners filed the petition under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 read with Rule 455 of the A.P.M.v. Rules, 1989 claiming compensation of Rs.3,50,000/- for the death of their father, namely, Vaddi Arjuna Rao, in a motor vehicle accident that took place on 09.02.2004.

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

On 09.02.2004 at about 2.00 a.m. the deceased was proceeding on his bicycle and when he reached near the Driver’s colony at Pithapuram, an auto bearing registration No.AP 5Y 4515, which was coming from uppada and proceeding towards Pithapuram, being driven by its driver in a rash and negligent manner came and dashed against the deceased, as a result, the deceased sustained injuries and later succumbed to injuries on the way to hospital. The 1st respondent is the driver cum owner and the 2nd respondent is the insurer of the offending auto, hence, both the respondents are jointly and severally liable to pay compensation to the petitioners.

5. The 1st respondent was set ex parte. The 2nd respondent/Insurance company filed a written statement by denying the manner of accident and age, avocation and income of the deceased. It is pleaded that the 1st respondent did not have a valid driving licence at the time of accident, the auto involved in the accident was not having a valid permit and it was not in road worthy condition, the accident occurred because of negligence on the part of the deceased himself, as such, 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 by the use of the auto rickshaw bearing No.AP 5Y 4515 by its driver in a rash and negligent manner, who is employee under the 1st respondent herein, resulting in the death of the deceased-Vaddi Arjunarao?

2) Whether the petitioners are entitled to claim compensation, if so, to what amount and from which of the respondents.

7. During the course of enquiry in the claim petition, on behalf of the petitioners, P.Ws.1 and 2 were examined and Exs.A.1 to A.8 were marked. On behalf of the 2nd respondent/Insurance company, R.W.1 was examined and Exs.B.1 and B.2 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 the offending auto and accordingly, allowed the petition in part and awarded an amount of Rs.2,30,000/- with proportionate costs and interest at 7.5% p.a. from the date of petition till the date of deposit against the 1st respondent only and dismissed the claim petition against the 2nd respondent/Insurance company. Aggrieved against the exoneration of the Insurance company from the liability of payment of the compensation amount and granting of meager compensation, the appellants/petitioners preferred the present appeal.

9. Heard learned counsels for both the parties and perused the record.

10. Learned counsel for the appellants/petitioners 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. It is also contended that the Tribunal erred in arriving the monthly income of the deceased at Rs.2,000/-.

11. Now,