IMPORTANT POINT
A driver with a Light Motor Vehicle (non-transport) license is deemed valid to drive a Light Motor Vehicle (transport), affirming the insurance company's liability for compensation.

JUDGMENT :

RAVI NATH TILHARI, J.

1. Heard Sri Suri Babu Pappula, learned standing counsel appearing for the appellant-Insurance Company. No representation for the respondent-claimant.

2. This appeal under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (for short “the M.V Act”) was filed by the National Insurance Company Limited challenging the award dated 02.07.2019 in M.V.O.P. No. 38 of 2017 (in short “O.P”), passed by the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal-cum-II Additional District Judge Hindupur (for short “the Tribunal”). By the said award, the claim of the claimant-respondent was partly allowed granting compensation of Rs.1,55,200/- with interest thereon @ 9% p.a. from the date of the claim petition till date of deposit.

FACTS:

3. The claimants-respondent filed the aforesaid O.P. No. 38 of 2017 under Section 166 of the M.V. Act for awarding the compensation of Rs.2,00,000/- for the grievous injuries sustained in the accident dated 05.10.2016 caused by the rash and negligent driving of the driver of Eicher Van bearing No. AP-02-V- 5231 (in short “the offending vehicle”) which dashed against the Auto in which the claimant/respondent was travelling, from the back side, near Agrampalli Village, Hindupur at 12.30 p.m. The 2nd respondent herein (Respondent No. 1 in O.P.) was the driver-cum-owner of the Eicher Van (offending vehicle) and the appellant is the insurer. In the said accident the driver of the auto, namely Hanumanthu and one more person namely G. Ramappa died.

4. The 2nd respondent herein remained ex-parte in O.P.

5. The appellant herein (2nd respondent in O.P.) filed the written statement and denied the main averments of the claim petition. It was pleaded that the owner and insurer of the auto are necessary parties but not being impleaded claim petition was liable to be dismissed. The driver of the offending vehicle had no valid driving license to drive the said vehicle. The owner alone was liable to pay compensation and the Insurance company was not liable to indemnify the insured. It was also pleaded that the offending vehicle did not possess the fitness, registration certificate and permit at the time of accident and was also not insured. The claim was said to be highly excessive and exorbitant.

6. The Tribunal framed the following issues:

“(1) Whether the accident had happened on the account of the rash and negligent driving of the driver of the offending Eicher Van bearing No. AP 02 V 5231?

(2) Whether the driver of the offending Eicher Van bearing No. AP 02 V 5231, possessed valid driving license as on the material date of accident?

(3) Whether the petitioners are entitled for compensation and if so, to what extent and from which of the respondent?

(4) To what relief?”

7. On behalf of the claimant, PW-1 Khaleed and PW-2 Dr. Balaji were examined and he got marked Ex.A.1 attested copy of FIR in Cr. No. 98 of 2016 dated 05.10.2016, Ex.A.2 attested copy of charge sheet, Ex.A.3 true copy of wound certificate, Ex.A.4 medical bills 21 in number for an amount of Rs.12,202/- Ex.A.5 x-rays two in number, Ex.A.6 discharge summary, Ex.A.7 observation/patient book issued by the Victoria Hospital, Bangalore dated 20.10.2016, Ex.A.8 copy of registration certificate of the crime Eicher Van, Ex.A.9 copy of the Goods carriage permit of crime Eicher Van, Ex.A.10 copy of driving licence of R.1, Ex.A.11 attested copy of insurance policy, Ex.A.12 disability certificate, Ex.A.13 x-rays three in number.

8. On behalf of the appellant (2nd respondent in O.P.) P. Manjula was examined as RW-1 and one A. Chaitanya Kumar was examined as RW-2. Insurance company got marked Ex.B.1 authorization letter, Ex.B.2 insurance policy of offending vehicle, Ex.B.3 authorization letter and Ex.B.4 driving license of respondent No. 2 (respondent No. 1 in O.P).

AWARD OF TRIBUNAL:

9. The Tribunal recorded the finding that the accident occurred due to rash and negligent driving of the driver of the offending vehicle in which the deceased died. The insurance policy of the offendi