The main legal point established in the judgment is the requirement of valid driving license and the assessment of notional income in determining compensation under the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988.

JUDGMENT :

Heard Sri T.S. Rayalu, learned counsel for appellant/Insurance Company and Sri Jayanthi S.C. Sekhar, learned counsel for respondents/claimants.

2. This appeal is directed by the 2nd respondent/National Insurance Company Limited, Visakhapatnam, against the order dated 01.08.2014 passed in M.V.O.P.No.1072/2011 on the file of Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal-cum-I Addl. District Judge, Visakhapatnam.

3. For the sake of convenience, the parties are arrayed as parties before the learned Tribunal.

4. The claimants filed the claim petition before the learned Tribunal U/s.166 of Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 claiming compensation of Rs.6,00,000/- for the death of Challa Narasimhulu (hereinafter referred as ‘deceased’) in a motor accident occurred on 09.06.2011 near Anandapuram village.

5. The case of the claimants is that they are dependants on the deceased, who was working as a motor worker at Rama Talkies Centre, Visakhapatnam, and earning Rs.9,000/- per month; on the fateful day i.e., on 09.06.2011 morning the deceased was crossing National High Way 5 road at about 11.00 a.m. at the place of accident; the trailer bearing No.NL 01G 5068 came in a rash and negligent manner from Madhurawada side and dashed the deceased; the deceased sustained injuries and died on the spot; police registered a case in Cr.No.71/2011 against the driver of the offending vehicle; the deceased was aged 36 years and maintaining family; due to death of deceased, the dependants lost of their livelihood; hence, the petition.

6. The 1st respondent/owner of the offending vehicle remained exparte before the learned Tribunal.

7. The 2nd respondent/appellant i.e., Insurance Company filed counter, while traversing with the material averments with regard to manner of accident; rash and negligence on the part of the driver of the offending vehicle; nature of injuries; age and avocation of the deceased; liability to pay compensation contended that the driver of the offending vehicle was having fake driving licence at the time of accident; as it was not issued by the concerned D.T.O.; therefore, the owner has violated the terms of the insurance policy; hence, the Insurance Company is not liable to indemnify the owner.

8. Basing on the above pleadings of both parties, the learned Tribunal framed the following issues for trial :

1. Whether the death of Challa Narasimhulu occurred in a road accident that occurred on 09.06.2011 at about 11.00 p.m. on N.H.Road, Kallivaipalem, Anandapuram Mandal, Visakhapatnam due to rash and negligent driving of the trailer bearing Registration No.NL1G 5068?

2. Whether the petitioners are entitled to any compensation? If so, to what amount and from whom?

3. To what relief?

9. Before the learned Tribunal, on behalf of the claimants, the 1st claimant was examined as P.W-1; one eye witness was examined as P.W-2 and Exs.A-1 to A-5 were marked. On behalf of the Insurance Company, its employee was examined as R.W-1 and Exs.B-1 and B-2 were marked.

10. The learned Tribunal basing on the evidence placed before it, on issue No.1 held that the accident was occurred due to rash and negligent driving of the offending vehicle at the time of accident. The learned Tribunal assessed the compensation entitled by the claimants at Rs.7,60,000/- and held that the owner and the insurer are jointly and severally liable to pay the compensation.

11. The appellant/Insurance Company challenged the order and decree of the learned Tribunal, on the ground that the evidence on record would establish that the driver of the offending vehicle was holding fake driving licence at the time of accident, and therefore, the appellant/Insurance Company is not liable for the compensation amount.

12. Sri T.S. Rayalu, learned counsel for appellant would submit that the appellant/Insurance Company placed Ex.B-2 letter issued by the Transport Office establishing that the licence standing in the name of the driver of the offending vehicle is fake driving licence, and therefore, the finding of the