Liability of the insurance company to satisfy the award in favor of a third party, even in the case of absence, fake, or invalid license of the driver, and the procedure for the insurance company to recover the award amount from the owner of the offending vehicle.

JUDGMENT :

1. The appellant is claimant and the respondents are respondents in M.V.O.P.No.387 of 2012 on the file of the Chairman, Motor Accident Claims Tribunal-cum-VI Addl. District Judge, Kadapa. Aggrieved against the dismissal of the claim petition against the 2nd respondent/Insurance company and awarding of meager compensation, the appellant preferred the instant appeal.

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 against the respondents claiming compensation of Rs.3,00,000/- for the injuries sustained by him in a motor vehicle accident that took place on 14.04.2011.

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

On 14.04.2011 the petitioner along with his mother and others was proceeding to Edamadaka village from Peddavangali village in an auto bearing registration No.AP 21V 9810 and when the auto reached near Peddavangali village, another auto bearing registration No.AP 21TT 1955 being driven by its driver in a rash and negligent manner came in opposite direction and dashed against the auto in which the petitioner was travelling, as a result, the said auto turned turtle and the petitioner sustained grievous injuries. The 1st respondent is owner and the 2nd respondent is the insurer of the auto bearing registration No.AP 21TT 1955. The 3rd respondent is owner of auto bearing registration No.AP 21V 9810 and he was added as a formal party. Therefore, all the respondents are jointly and severally liable to pay the compensation to the petitioner.

5. Respondent Nos.1 & 3 were set ex parte. The 2nd respondent filed a written statement by denying the manner of accident. It is pleaded that the accident occurred due to collision of two vehicles and due to negligence of the drivers of both the autos, and the claim of the petitioner is highly excessive and exorbitant.

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 is due to rash and negligent driving of the driver of auto bearing No.AP 21TT 1955 resulting injuries to the petitioner on 14.4.2011?

2) Whether the petitioner is entitled for compensation, if so, what amount and payable by whom?

3) To what relief?

7. During the course of enquiry in the claim petition, on behalf of the petitioner, P.Ws.1 and 2 were examined and Exs.A.1 to A.6 and Exs.X.1 and X.2 were marked. On behalf of the 2nd respondent, R.Ws.1 and 2 were examined and Exs.B.1 to B.3 were marked.

8. At the culmination of the enquiry, after considering the evidence on record and on appreciation of the same, the Tribunal came to the conclusion that the accident occurred due to rash and negligent driving of the drivers of both the autos and accordingly, allowed the petition in part and granted an amount of Rs.1,16,000/- towards compensation to the petitioner with proportionate costs and interest at 7.5% p.a. from the date of petition till the date of payment by respondent Nos.1 & 3 equally, and dismissed the claim petition against the 2nd respondent. Aggrieved against the said order, the petitioner preferred the present appeal.

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

10. Learned counsel for the appellant/petitioner would contend that the Tribunal erred in exonerating the 2nd respondent from its liability of payment of compensation on the ground that the driver of the 1st respondent was not having driving licence, and the Tribunal erred in awarding meager compensation.

11. Now, the points for determination are:

1) Whether the petitioner is entitled for enhancement of compensation as prayed for? and

2) Whether the order of the Tribunal needs any interference, if so, to what extent?

12. POINTS 1 & 2: A perusal of Ex.A.3-certified copy of charge sheet clearly proves that the accident occurred due