Liability of the insurance company to pay compensation to the petitioners in the first instance and recover the same from the owner of the offending vehicle.

JUDGMENT :

The appellant is 2nd respondent/Insurance company and the respondents are petitioners and respondent No.1 in M.V.O.P.No.503 of 2011 on the file of the Chairman, Motor Accident Claims Tribunal-cum-IV Additional District Judge, Kadapa. The appellant filed the present 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 claiming compensation of Rs.16,00,000/- for the death of S. D. Babji, who is husband of 1st petitioner and father of petitioner Nos.2 & 3, in a motor vehicle accident that took place on 26.07.2006.

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

On 26.07.2006 at about 9.00 p.m. when the deceased was crossing a road in front of the office of Biotechnology Research Centre, Karakambadi road, Tirupati, a motor cycle bearing registration No.AP 04K 2103 of the 1st respondent came from Karakambadi side in a rash and negligent manner and dashed the deceased, as a result, the deceased sustained severe injuries and died on the spot. The 1st respondent is the owner and the 2nd respondent is the insurer of the motor cycle, hence, both the respondents are jointly and severally liable to pay compensation to the petitioners.

5. The respondents filed counters separately by denying the manner of accident, age, avocation and income of the deceased and pleaded that the accident occurred due to non-observance of traffic rules by the deceased.

It is pleaded by the 2nd respondent that the rider of the motor cycle was not having valid driving licence at the time of accident and thereby, there is a clear violation of policy conditions, as such, the Insurance company is not liable to pay any compensation to the petitioners.

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

1) Whether the deceased S.D. Babji died in a motor vehicle accident that occurred on 26.07.2006 at 9.00 p.m. opposite Biotrim, Tirupati on Tirupati-Karakambadi road due to rash and negligent driving of the rider of the motor cycle bearing No.AP 04K 2103 of the 1st respondent being insured with 2nd respondent?

2) Whether the respondents are jointly and severally liable to pay compensation?

3) Whether the petitioners are entitled for compensation, if so, to what amount and from whom?

4) To what relief?

7. During the course of enquiry in the claim petition, on behalf of the petitioners, P.Ws.1 to 3 were examined and Exs.A.1 to A.6 were marked. On behalf of the respondents, R.Ws.1 and 2 were examined and Ex.B.1 was 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 rider of offending motor cycle and accordingly, allowed the petition in part granting an amount of Rs.12,82,000/- towards compensation to the petitioners with proportionate costs and interest at 7.5% p.a. from the date of petition till the date of deposit against both the respondents. Aggrieved against the said order, the 2nd respondent/Insurance company preferred the instant 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 Tribunal failed to see that the rider of the offending motor cycle was not holding a valid driving licence at the time of accident which is a gross violation of the conditions of the policy.

11. Now, the point for determination is :

Whether the order of the Tribunal needs any interference of this Court and to what extent?

12. POINT: In order to prove the rash and negligent driving of the driver of the offending motor cycle, the petitioners relied on the evidence of P.Ws.1 and 3. P.W.1 is none other than the wife of the decea