The main legal point established in the judgment is the liability of the Insurance Company to pay compensation despite the violation of the insurance policy terms, and the application of the 'pay and recovery' principle.

JUDGMENT :

This appeal is preferred by the 2nd respondent/TATA AIG General Insurance Company Limited, Hyderabad, challenging the order dated 13.04.2015 passed in M.V.O.P.No.413/2012 on the file of Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal-cum-VII Additional District Court, Kakinada, East Godavari District, wherein the Tribunal while partly allowing the petition, awarded compensation of Rs.17,09,200/-with interest @ 7.5% p.a. from the date of petition, till the date of deposit to the petitioners/claimants, for the death of Singampalli Babu Rao, in a motor vehicle accident.

2. For the sake of convenience, the parties are arrayed as referred before the Tribunal.

3. As seen from the record, originally the petitioners filed an application U/s.166 of Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (for brevity “the Act”) claiming compensation of Rs.45,00,000/-on account of the death of Singampalli Babu Rao, who is the husband of the 1st petitioner, father of the petitioners No.2 and 3, in a motor vehicle accident that occurred on 13.05.2012.

4. The facts would show that on 13.05.2012 the 1st respondent along with Singampalli Babu Rao (deceased) as pillion rider went to Jaggampeta on a motor cycle bearing No. AP 05 BW 6532 belonging to 1st respondent; and when they reached opposite to Navodaya School, Peddapuram, at about 03.30 p.m., the 1st respondent drove the motor cycle in a rash and negligent manner and lost control over the same; and dashed against one Simma Rambabu, who is standing by the side of the road; and then hit the cement electrical pole on the road margin; as a result, S.Babu Rao fell down from bike and sustained severe bleeding injuries and died on the spot; the injured S.Rambabu also sustained injuries and he was shifted to Govt. General Hospital, Kakinada; and while undergoing treatment S.Rambabu died on 14.05.2012.

The Station House Officer, Peddapuram Police Station registered a case in Cr.No.115/2012 U/s.304-A and 337 of Indian Penal Code against the rider of motor cycle/1st respondent. The accident occurred due to rash and negligent driving of motor cycle by the 1st respondent. The deceased S.Babu Rao was aged 50 years by the time of accident and working as Public Health Worker and earning Rs.25,000/-per month. Due to the sudden and unexpected demise of S.Babu Rao, the petitioners lost their love and affection; and bread winner of the family.

The 1st respondent is the rider of the motor cycle and the 2nd respondent is insurer of the said motor cycle and both are jointly and severally liable to pay compensation to the petitioners.

5. Before the Tribunal, the 1st respondent filed counter by denying the material averments of the petition; and contended that there was no negligence on his part while driving the motor cycle; and he is not responsible for the accident; The crime vehicle is having valid insurance policy issued by the 2nd respondent; the 2nd respondent is liable to pay the compensation. The compensation claimed by the petitioners is exorbitant.

6. The 2nd respondent/Insurance Company filed counter resisting, while traversing the material averments with regard to proof of age, avocation, monthly earnings of the deceased, manner of accident, rash and negligence on the part of the driver of the offending vehicle, liability to pay compensation, and contended that the accident was not occurred due to rash and negligent driving on the part of the 1st respondent; The 1st respondent was not holding valid and effective driving license, and thus, he committed breach of terms and conditions of the insurance policy, which exonerate the Insurance Company to pay compensation to the petitioners; The petitioners No.2 and 3 are not dependents on the deceased, as they are majors and living separately; The alleged insurance policy issued to the crime vehicle is not covering the risk of the pillion rider of the motor cycle.

7. The 2nd respondent/Insurance Company filed additional written statement contending that at the time of accident, the rider of the motor cy