Liability of Insurance company to pay compensation despite driver's lack of required endorsement on driving license.

JUDGMENT :

V. GOPALA KRISHNA RAO, J.

1. The appellant is 2nd respondent/Insurance company and the respondents are claim petitioner and respondent Nos.1 and 3 in M.V.O.P.No. 773 of 2011 on the file of the Chairman, Motor Accident Claims Tribunal-cum-VI Additional District Judge, Visakhapatnam. 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 read with Rule 455 of the A.P.M.V. Rules, 1989 claiming compensation of Rs.2,00,000/- for the injuries sustained by him in a motor vehicle accident that took place on 29.10.2010.

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

On 29.10.2010 the petitioner was proceeding on his motor cycle bearing registration No. AP 31AU 9346 from Tallapalem and after crossing Sunkarametta in Sabbavaram road when he reached near the bridge, an oil tanker lorry bearing registration No. AP 35T 3709 being driven by its driver in a rash and negligent manner came in opposite direction and dashed the motor cycle of the petitioner resulting in grievous injuries to the petitioner. The 3rd respondent is driver, the 1st respondent is owner and the 2nd respondent is insurer of the offending lorry, hence, all the respondents are jointly and severally liable to pay compensation to the petitioner.

5. Respondent Nos.1 and 3 were set ex-parte. The 2nd respondent/Insurance company filed a counter by denying the manner of accident. It is pleaded by the 2nd respondent/Insurance company that the 3rd respondent/driver did not possess valid and effective driving licence to drive the lorry at the time of accident and thereby, the 1st respondent violated the conditions of policy, as such, the Insurance company is not liable to pay compensation to the petitioner.

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

(1) Whether the petitioner sustained injuries in a motor accident that occurred on 29.10.2010 due to rash and negligent driving of Oil Tanker bearing No. AP 35T 3709 by its driver?

(2) Whether the petitioner is entitled for compensation? If so, to what amount and from which of the respondents?

(3) To what relief?

7. During the course of enquiry in the claim petition, on behalf of the petitioner, P.Ws.1 to 3 were examined and Exs.A.1 to A.12 were marked. On behalf of the 2nd respondent/Insurance company, R.Ws.1 and 2 were examined and Exs.B.1 and B.2 and Exs.X.1 and X.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 on account of rash and negligent driving of the driver of the offending lorry, as a result, the petitioner sustained grievous injuries and accordingly, allowed the petition granting an amount of Rs.3,45,000/- with costs and interest at 7.5% p.a. from the date of petition till the date of deposit against all the respondents. Aggrieved against the said order, the appellant/Insurance company preferred the present appeal.

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

10. Learned counsel for the appellant/Insurance company mainly contended that the driver of the offending lorry was not having hazardous endorsement on his driving licence to drive the offending lorry at the time of accident.

11. Now, the point for determination is:

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

12. POINT: In order to establish that the accident occurred due to rash and negligent driving of the driver of the offending lorry, the petitioner got examined himself as P.W.1. P.W.1 in his evidence reiterated the contents in the claim petition. There is nothing in the cross-examination of P.W.1 to discredit his evidence. The petitioner also relied on Ex.A