The main legal point established in the judgment is the joint liability of the owner and the insurer for compensation in cases of road accidents involving vehicles covered under the Motor Vehicles Act.

JUDGMENT :

B.V.L.N. CHAKRAVARTHI, J.

Heard Smt. Anuradha, learned counsel representing on behalf of Smt. S..A.V.Ratnam, learned counsel for the appellant/Insurance Company and Sri B.Parameswara Rao, learned counsel for the respondent No.1/claimant.

2. This appeal directed by the appellant/respondent No.2/Insurance Company challenging the Order and Decree dated 31.12.2007 passed in M.V.O.P.No.1159 of 2005 passed by the Chairman-cum-District Judge, Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Guntur (hereinafter referred to ‘Tribunal’).

3. Parties are referred to as they were arrayed in the proceedings before the learned Tribunal, for the sake of convenience.

4. The case of the claimant is that on 13.10.2005 around 4.30 PM he along with one J.Rambabu Naik were returning on a cycle from their employer and when they reached Chandravanka bridge of Macherla town, one tractor and Trailor bearing registration Nos.AP7W 1438 and AP7W 1439 driven by the respondent No.1 in a high speed and in rash and negligent manner coming from Macherla towards Guntur side, dashed their cycle and the wheels of the Trailor ran over their legs; as a result, the claimant and the person who accompanied the claimant, fell down and sustained injuries; the claimant sustained fracture to his right leg thigh, injuries on his waist, knees; the claimant was shifted to the Government Hospital; the claimant spent Rs.10,000/- towards medical expenses and in spite of that, the injuries were not healed; the claimant prior to the accident, worked as lorry driver, but due to the said accident he could not work as lorry driver.

5. The respondent No.1/owner of the lorry remained exparte. The respondent No.2/Insurance Company i.e., Insurer of the respondent No.1 filed counter contending that the accident occurred due to the negligence of the claimant and Rambabu Naik, who accompanied the claimant; the injuries sustained by the claimant are completely healed and there is no permanent disability; the amount claimed by the claimant is excessive.

6. The learned Tribunal, basing on the rival contentions, framed the following issues for trial:

1. Whether the accident occurred due to rash and negligent driving of the tractor and trailor bearing Nos.AP7W 1438 and AP7W 1439 by its driver? If so, whether the petitioner sustained injuries?

2. Whether the petitioner would be entitled for compensation? If so, what would be the just amount of compensation that the petitioner would be entitled and against whom?

3. To what relief?

7. During enquiry, the claimant examined himself as P.W.1 and filed five (05) documents which are marked as Ex.A.1 to Ex.A.5 and Ex.X.1 and Ex.X.2 documents. The claimant also examined the Doctor as P.W.2., who issued Ex.A.2/Wound Certificate, On behalf of the respondents, Officer of the respondent No.2/ Insurance Company was examined as R.W1 and Junior Assistant of R.T.O., Office, Narasaraopet as R.W.2 and exhibited Ex.B.1 and Ex.B.2 documents.

8. The Tribunal, on consideration of the evidence placed before it, on issue No.1 regarding rash and negligent driving held that the accident was occurred due to rash and negligent driving of the respondent No.1 i.e., driver of the tractor and trailor.

9. The only contention of the respondent No.2/ Insurance Company is that the driver of the offending vehicle i.e., tractor and trailor had LMV license only and therefore, he cannot drive the tractor and trailor and therefore, the respondent No.2/Insurance Company is not liable to indemnify the owner of the tractor and trailor.

10. Learned counsel for the respondent No.2/Insurance Company would submit that the respondent No.2/ Insurance Company has examined R.W.2, an Officer from R.T.O., Narasaraopet and the evidence of R.W.2 would establish that the driver of the offending vehicle was having LMV license only and therefore, he is not authorized to drive the tractor and trailor and as such, the Tribunal erred in holding that the respondent No.2/Insurance Company is liable to indemnify the owner of t