The main legal point established is that a person holding a learner's licence is considered 'duly licensed' and the insurance company is liable to pay compensation to the claimants and later recover the same from the vehicle owner.

JUDGMENT :

V. GOPALA KRISHNA RAO, J.

1. The appellant is 2nd respondent/Insurance company and the respondents are claim petitioners and respondent No. 1 in M.V.O.P. No. 766 of 2008 on the file of the Chairman, Motor Accident Claims Tribunal-cum-I Additional District Judge, Kurnool. The appellant filed the 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 application.

3. The claim petitioners filed a claim petition under Sections 163-A and 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 against the respondents praying the Tribunal to award an amount of Rs.2,50,000/- towards compensation for the death of P. Narayana Reddy in a motor vehicle accident that occurred on 05.04.2008.

4. The brief averments of the claim petition are as follows:

The 1st petitioner is wife and petitioner Nos.2 to 4 are sons of the deceased. On 25.04.2008 at about 5.00 p.m. the deceased along with one B. Srinivasa Reddy was standing at Peddapothulapadu bus stage on Alampur cross road to Shanthinagar R&B Road in order to go to their village Minnipadu. At that time, one motor cycle bearing registration No. AP 21Q TR 8677, which was coming from Alampur chowrastha side towards Shanthinagar, being driven by its driver in a rash and negligent manner in high speed without blowing horn, came and hit the deceased. As a result, the deceased fell down and received bleeding injuries and later, he succumbed to injuries on 26.04.2008 while undergoing treatment in the Government General Hospital, Kurnool. The 1st respondent is owner and the 2nd respondent is insurer of the motor cycle. Therefore, both the respondents are liable to pay compensation to the claim petitioners.

5. The 1st respondent was set ex-parte.

6. The 2nd respondent/Insurance company filed a counter by denying the manner of accident. It is pleaded that the owner- cum-rider of the motor cycle was not holding a valid and effective driving licence at the time of accident and therefore, the Insurance company is not liable to pay compensation.

7. Based on the above pleadings, the Tribunal framed the following issues for trial:

1. Whether the accident occurred on 25.04.2008 due to rash and negligent driving of the driver of motor cycle bearing registration No. AP 21Q TR 8677 being driven by its driver?

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

3. To what relief?

8. During the course of enquiry in the claim petition, on behalf of the petitioners, PWs. 1 to 3 were examined and Exs.A.1 to A.16 were marked. On behalf of the 2nd respondent/Insurance company, R.Ws.1 to 3 were examined and Exs.B.1 to B.5 were marked.

9. At the culmination of the enquiry, after considering the evidence on record and on appreciation of the same, the Tribunal allowed the petition in part and awarded a sum of Rs.2,40,000/- towards compensation to the claim petitioners. Being aggrieved by the impugned award, the 2nd respondent/Insurance company filed the appeal.

10. Heard learned counsels for both the parties.

11. The grounds urged by the appellant/Insurance company are that the Tribunal failed to see that the owner-cum-rider of the offending motor cycle is having only LLR by the date of accident and though the owner-cum-rider of the offending vehicle had no valid and effective driving licence and thereby, the policy conditions were violated, the Tribunal erroneously awarded compensation to the claim petitioners.

12. Now, the point for determination is:

Whether the order passed by the Tribunal needs any interference?

13. POINT: The 1st petitioner is wife and petitioner Nos.2 to 4 are sons of the deceased P. Narayana Reddy. The 1st respondent is the registered owner-cum-rider and the 2nd respondent is the insurer of the offending vehicle and the policy was in force on the date of accident.

14. The case of the petitioners is that on 25.04.2008 at about 5.00 p.m. the deceased along with