IMPORTANT POINT
The court established that insurers can be held liable to pay compensation even if the driver lacks a valid license, following the 'pay and recover' principle.

JUDGMENT :

V Srinivas, J.

This appeal is directed against the order of the Chairman, Motor Vehicle Accident Claims Tribunal-cum- Principal District Judge, West Godavari at Eluru (hereinafter called as ‘the Tribunal’) in M.V.O.P.No.506 of 2009 dated 01.07.2011.

2. The claimants, who are the wife and children of one A.Venkata Ratnam (hereinafter referred to as “deceased”) respectively, are the appellants. Respondent Nos.1 and 2 are the owner and insurer of the Auto bearing No.AP 37 W 9063 (hereinafter referred to as “crime auto”).

3. For the sake of convenience, the parties hereinafter referred to as they arrayed before the tribunal.

4. The case of the claimants, in the petition before the Tribunal is that:

i). On 27.05.2009 at about 03.00 p.m., while the deceased travelling in the crime auto and when they reached Kakatiya Nagar of Pulaparru Village, the driver of the said auto, drove the same in a rash and negligent manner, applied sudden breaks, resulted the deceased fell down on the road, sustained grievous injuries. While undergoing treatment, he succumbed to injuries on the same day.

ii). Being dependents, they claimed compensation of Rs.9,00,000/- against the owner and insurer of the crime vehicle.

5. The respondent No.2/insurer filed written statement denying the averments in the petition and pleaded that there is no rash and negligence on the part of the driver of the crime vehicle in causing the incident; that the compensation claimed by the claimants is excessive and thereby, prayed to dismiss the petition.

6. The Tribunal settled the following issues for enquiry basing on the material:

“1.Whether the accident dated 27.05.2009 in which the deceased Aripaka Venkata Ratnam died occurred due to the rash and negligent driving of the Auto bearing No.AP 37 W 9063 by the 1st respondent is alleged in the petition?

2.Whether the petitioners are entitled for compensation and if so, for what amount and from which of the respondents? and

3.To what relief?”

7. During enquiry, on behalf of the claimants, PWs.1 to 7 were examined and Exs.A.1 to A.7, X.2 and X.3 were marked. On behalf of the 2nd respondent, R.Ws.1 and 2 were examined and Exs.B.1 to B.4 and X.1 were exhibited.

8. On the material, the Tribunal, having come to the conclusion that the accident occurred due to the rash and negligent driving of the crime auto by its driver and the driver of the said auto is not having valid driving license to drive the auto rickshaw passenger carrying vehicle by the time of incident, thereby, 2nd respondent is exonerated from its liability, held that the claimants are entitled for the compensation of Rs.5,02,000/-, with interest at 7.5% per annum from the date of petition till the date of realization against the respondent No.1 only, for the death of the deceased in the accident.

9. It is against the said award; the present appeal was preferred by the appellants/claimants.

10. Heard Sri B.V.Krishna Reddy, learned counsel for the appellants/claimants and Sri Maheswara Rao Kuncheam, learned counsel for the 2nd respondent/insurer.

11. Sri B.V.Krishna Reddy, learned counsel for the appellants/claimants submits that the Tribunal failed to consider the earnings of the deceased as Rs.15,000/- per month and erroneously taken as Rs.4,000/- per month; that the Tribunal ought to have granted compensation as claimed; that even the 1st respondent is not having valid driving license to drive the same, the insurer cannot be exonerated from its liability, when the policy is in force and thereby, prays to consider the present appeal. In support of the above contentions, he relied upon various pronouncements of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in National Insurance Company Limited v. Swaran Singh, 2004 ACJ 1, New Indian Assurance Company Limited v. Korukonda Apparao 2010 (2) ALT 229, Gurmail Singh v. Bajaj Allianz General Insurance Company Limited 2019 ACJ 713, Shamanna v. Divisional Manager, Oriental Insurance Company Limited 2018 ACJ 2163, Neeta v. Divisional Manager, Maharashtr