IMPORTANT POINT
The insurer is liable for compensation even if the claimant lacked a valid driving license, provided the insurance policy was valid at the time of the accident.

JUDGMENT :

Sumathi Jagadam, J.

Challenge in this Motor Accidents Civil Miscellaneous Appeal is to the Order, dated 15.06.2006, in O.P. No.10 of 2005 on the file of the Chairman, Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal-cum-I Additional District Judge, Vizianagaram (for short, ‘the Tribunal’) whereunder the Tribunal, dealing with the claim laid under Section 163-A of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (for short, ‘the MV Act’) for a sum of Rs.2,00,000/- as compensation with regard to the injuries sustained by the petitioner in a motor vehicle accident occurred on 09.12.2004, awarded a sum of Rs.65,600/- as compensation with interest at 7.5% p.a., from the date of petition till the date of realization against respondent Nos.1 to 3.

2. Appellant herein is no other than the Insurance Company, which was shown as the third respondent in the aforesaid O.P.

3. The parties to this Appeal will hereinafter be referred to as described before the Tribunal, for the sake of convenience.

4. This Appeal is preferred by the third respondent/insurer, mainly challenging the validity of Ex.B-1 – insurance policy. As per Ex.B-1, the insurance policy covers only the driver of the Jeep but not the cleaner therein. Only on payment of the additional premium to the cleaner or to any other inmate therein, the Insurance Company can be held liable to pay the compensation. Apart from this, the petitioner did not have a valid driving license to drive the Jeep; hence, the appellant/insurer is not liable to pay any compensation.

5. The claimant's case, in brief, according to the averments set out in the claim filed under Section 163-A of the MV Act before the Tribunal, is that the petitioner, who is a resident of Vedullavalasa village, sustained injuries in the motor vehicle accident that took place on 09.12.2004 at 07:00 a.m. The petitioner was a cleaner of the jeep bearing No.AP 31 X 4887 at the time of accident. They started at Railway Bridge, Cheepurupalli to Rajam and when the Jeep reached the outskirts of Cheepurupalli, it dashed against a stationed Lorry bearing No.AP 28 U 8599. A case in Crime No.146 of 2004, dated 09.12.2004, on the file of Cheepurupalli Police Station was registered for the offences under Sections 337, 338 and 279 IPC. As a result, the petitioner sustained injuries and, immediately, he was shifted to the Government Hospital, Cheepurupalli and from there to the Government Hospital, Vizianagaram for better treatment. Hence, the respondents, being driver, owner and insurer of the Jeep, are jointly and severally liable to pay the compensation. Hence, the claim.

6. Respondent Nos.1 and 2, being the driver and owner of the Jeep, remained ex parte.

7. The third respondent, the Jeep insurer, filed a written statement resisting the petitioner's prayer and contending that the petitioner, a cleaner at the time of the accident, drove the Jeep without having any driving license. The Jeep was not validly insured with the third respondent/insurer; as such, the compensation claimed by the petitioner was highly excessive, unreasonable and prayed to dismiss the Petition.

8. On behalf of the petitioner, petitioner himself was examined as PW.1 and the Doctor who treated him was examined as PW.2 and got marked Exs.A-1 to A-9. On behalf of the contesting third respondent/insurer, RW.1 was examined and marked Exs.B-1 and B-2.

9. The Tribunal, after hearing both sides and considering the oral and documentary evidence on record, answered the issues in favour of the petitioner and awarded a sum of Rs.65,600/- towards compensation, fixing the liability against all the respondents i.e., the driver, owner and insurer of the Jeep.

10. Aggrieved by the order of the Tribunal, the unsuccessful third respondent/insurer filed the present Appeal.

11. Heard the arguments of learned Standing Counsel, appearing on behalf of the appellant/insurer, and the learned counsel, appearing on behalf of the first respondent/claimant.

12. Now, in deciding the present Appeal, the simple question that falls for