IMPORTANT POINT
Insurance companies are liable to compensate accident victims even if the driver lacks a valid license, as per the Motor Vehicles Act.

JUDGMENT :

Sumathi Jagadam, J.

This appeal is preferred by the appellant/petitioner against the order dated 08.08.2007 passed by the Chairman, Motor Vehicle Accidents Claims Tribunal - cum - XI Additional District Judge, Guntur at Tenali, (hereinafter referred to as “the Tribunal”) in M.V.O.P.No.83 of 2006, awarding compensation of Rs.39,400/- to the Appellant/petitioner as against her claim of Rs.1,00,000/-.

2. For the sake of convenience and to avoid confusion, the parties hereinafter will be referred to as they are arrayed before the Tribunal.

3. The case of the petitioner is that on 30.09.2005 at about 10.30 p.m., she boarded an auto bearing No. AP 7 TT 4320 and when the auto reached near Kuchinapudi canal in between Purlameraka – Kuchinapudi village, an auto bearing temporary registration No.AP 07 TRAC 0132, being driven by its driver in a rash and negligent manner without blowing horn, came and hit the auto in which the petitioner was travelling. As a result, the petitioner sustained multiple grievous injuries on her right leg and waist region and multiple bleeding injuries all over her body. The matter was reported to Adavuladeevi P.S. of Guntur District, and the same was registered as a case in Crime No.55 of 2005 against the driver of an auto bearing temporary registration No.AP 07 TRAC 0132. The 1st respondent is the owner, and the 2nd respondent is the insurer of the auto No. AP 07 TRAC 0132. Therefore, both the respondents are jointly and severally liable to pay compensation to the petitioner.

4. The 1st respondent was set ex parte. The 2nd respondent filed a written statement denying all the material averments made in the claim petition. It is contended that the alleged accident must have been caused by the rash and negligent acts of the driver of auto bearing No.AP 7TT 4320, there is no fault on the part of the driver of the auto bearing No.AP 7TR AC 0132, and the 1st respondent’s auto was not insured with the 2nd respondent at the time of the accident and the driver of the said auto does not have a valid and effective driving licence; therefore, the claim petition is liable to be dismissed.

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

1. Whether the accident occurred due to rash and negligent driving of the driver of Bajaj Auto No. AP 07 TR AC 0132?

2. To what compensation the petitioner is entitled and from whom?

3. To what relief?

6. In order to establish her claim, the petitioner examined herself as P.W.1 and got the Doctor and the Senior Assistant working at GGH examined as P.Ws.2 and 3 respectively. She marked documents as Exs.A.1 to A.5 and Exs.X1 and X2. The Assistant Manager of the 2nd respondent was examined as R.W.1. The Administrative Officer in the Office of the Deputy Transport Commission, Guntur, was examined as R.W.2. Exs.B1 to B5 were marked on behalf of the respondents.

7. The Tribunal, by an order dated 08.08.2007, allowed the claim petition by granting compensation of Rs.39,400/- with interest at 7.5% p.a. from the date of petition till the date of deposit, while dismissing the claim petition against the 2nd respondent-Insurance company. Questioning the same, the petitioner/appellant filed the present appeal seeking enhancement of compensation.

8. Learned counsel for the appellant/petitioner submitted that the petitioner had boarded the auto on 30.09.2005, and when she reached near Purlameraka – Kuchinapudi village, the 1st respondent drove the auto in a rash and negligent manner and hit the auto in which the petitioner was travelling. As a result, the petitioner sustained multiple grievous injuries. The petitioner was admitted to the Government Hospital, Repalle. Ex.A2 is the wound certificate issued by the Government hospital. P.W.2 is the doctor, who treated the petitioner, who was admitted to the hospital on 01.10.2005 and discharged on 24.10.2005. The petitioner has suffered 10% permanent disability, and it is difficult for her to lie down in a supine position