IMPORTANT POINT
The insurer's liability remains intact unless it can conclusively prove the absence of a valid driving license for the rider at the time of the accident.

JUDGMENT :

V Srinivas, J.

This appeal is directed against the order of the Chairman, Motor Vehicle Accident Claims Tribunal-cum-I Additional District Judge at Ongole (hereinafter called as ‘the Tribunal’) in M.V.O.P.No.339 of 2013 dated 30.10.2015.

2. The appellant is the insurer of the motorcycle bearing No.AP-27AP/8385 (hereinafter referred to as “crime motorcycle”). The respondent Nos.1 to 3 herein are the wife, son, and daughter of Yerramsetty Venkateswarlu (hereinafter referred to as “deceased”) respectively. The respondent Nos.4 and 5 are rider and owner of the said crime motorcycle, respectively.

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 19.03.2023, while deceased proceeding towards Koniki Village from Inkollu on his motorcycle and when he reached near Vasundhara Cold Storage on Inkollu-Koniki road at about 03.00 p.m., the rider of the crime motorcycle driven the same in a rash and negligent manner at high speed and dashed the motorcycle of the deceased, resulted, the deceased sustained multiple injuries, while undergoing treatment, he was succumbed to injuries on 21.03.2013.

ii). Being dependents, they claimed compensation of Rs.4,00,000/- against the rider, owner, and insurer of the crime motorcycle.

5. The respondent No.3/insurer filed written statement denying the averments in the petition and pleaded that the accident occurred only due to the negligence on the part of the deceased, but not due to the 1st respondent/rider of the crime motorcycle and thereby, prays to dismiss the petition.

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

“1. Whether the deceased Yerramsetty Venkateswarlu died in a road accident which took place on 19.3.2013 at about 3.00 p.m. near Cold Storage on Koniki – Inkollu road by the rash and negligent driving of the motorcycle bearing No.AP -27AP/8385 by its rider?

2. Whether the rider of the motorcycle bearing No.AP- 27AP/8385 is having valid and effective driving license at the time of accident?

3.Whether the petition is bad for non-joinder of necessary parties?

4.Whether the petitioners are entitled for compensation? If so to what amount and against whom? and

5.To what relief the petitioners are entitled?”

7. During enquiry, on behalf of the claimants, PW.1 was examined and Exs.A.1 to A.5 were marked. On behalf of the 3rd 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 motorcycle by its rider, held that the claimants are entitled for the compensation of Rs.6,59,000/-, with interest at 6% per annum from the date of petition till the date of realization against the respondent Nos.2 and 3, for the death of the deceased in the accident.

9. It is against the said award; the present appeal was preferred by the appellant/insurer.

10. Heard Sri Muttevi Muralikrishna, learned counsel for the appellant/insurer and Sri Ambati Sudhakara Rao, learned counsel for the respondent Nos.1 to 3/claimants.

11. Sri Muttevi Muralikrishna, learned counsel for the appellant/insurer submits that even as per Ex.A.2 charge sheet the rider of the crime motorcycle is not having valid and effective driving license to ride the same, as such, the appellant is not liable to pay any compensation to the claimants; that the Tribunal failed to consider the same and prays to allow the appeal.

12. Sri Ambati Sudhakara Rao, learned counsel for the respondent Nos.1 to 3/claimants submits that the tribunal after considering the material placed on record, rightly concluded that the claimants are entitled for compensation against the owner and insurer of the crime motorcycle and awarded compensation; that the appellant is failed to prove that the 1st respondent is not having valid and effective driving l