IMPORTANT POINT
Insurers are liable to pay compensation for accidents caused by their insured vehicles, even if policy conditions are violated, as long as the driver is found negligent.

JUDGMENT :

(V. Srinivas, J.) :

This appeal is directed against the order of the Chairman, Motor Vehicle Accident Claims Tribunal-cum-XII Additional District Judge at Guntur (hereinafter called as ‘the Tribunal’) in M.V.O.P.No.152 of 2010 dated 19.03.2014.

2. The appellant is the insurer of the Tata Indica Car bearing No.AP 13N 7835 (hereinafter referred to as “crime car”). The respondent Nos.1 to 3 herein are the wife and children of one Kummari Sekhar Roofus @ Sekhar (hereinafter referred to as “deceased”) respectively. The respondent No.4 is the owner of the said crime car. The respondent Nos.5 and 6 are owner and insurer of Lorry bearing No.AP 7TU 7939 (hereinafter referred to as “lorry”) 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 10.04.2009, at about 03.00 a.m., while the deceased along with family proceeding towards Vijayapuri South in crime car, on the way near IBP Petrol Bunk, near Indira Nagar of Dachepalli, the driver of the said car drove the same in a rash and negligent manner, lost control over the steering and hit the backside of the lorry, resulted, the deceased, who sit in the left front seat, died on the spot.

ii). Being dependents, they claimed compensation of Rs.5,00,000/- against the owner and insurer of the crime car as well as the owner and insurer of the lorry.

5. The respondent No.2/insurer of the crime car filed written statement denying the averments in the petition and pleaded that the driver of the crime car is not having valid driving license to drive the same; that the accident occurred only due to the negligence on the part of the driver of the lorry, who parked the vehicle without putting the rear lights and thereby, prayed to dismiss the petition.

6. The respondent No.4/insurer of the lorry filed written statement denying the averments in the petition and pleaded that there is no negligence on the part of the driver of the lorry and the accident occurred only due to the negligence on the part of the driver of the crime car; that the charge sheet also filed against the driver of the crime car; that the claimants have no cause of action to file petition against this respondent and thereby, prayed to dismiss the petition

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

“1.Whether the accident occurred due to rash and negligent driving by the drivers of

1) Tata Indica car bearing No.AP 13N 7835

2) Lorry bearing No.AP 7TU 7939?

2.Whether the petitioners are entitled to compensation, if so, from whom? and

3. To what relief?”

8. During enquiry, on behalf of the claimants, PWs.1 and 2 was examined and Exs.A.1 to A.4 were marked. On behalf of the respondents, R.Ws.1 and 2 were examined and Exs.B.1 to B.4 were exhibited.

9. On the material, the Tribunal, having come to the conclusion that the accident occurred due to the rash and negligent driving of the crime car by its driver and that there is violation of terms and conditions of Ex.B.4 policy by the owner of the said car, held that the claimants are entitled for the compensation of Rs.6,85,000/-, with interest at 7.5% per annum from the date of petition till 21.01.2011 and from 21.06.2012 to till the date of realization against the respondent No.1, for the death of the deceased in the accident. As well directed the respondent No.2 to deposit the said compensation at first instance and then recover the same from respondent No.1 by filing execution petition.

10. It is against the said award; the present appeal was preferred by the appellant/insurer of the crime car.

11. Heard Smt.S.A.V.Ratnam, learned counsel for the appellant/insurer of the crime car, Sri K.Venkata Ramarao, learned counsel for respondent Nos.1 to 3/claimants and Sri S.Murali Mohan, learned counsel for the respondent No.6/insurer of the lorry.

12. Sri Smt.S.A.V.Ratnam, learned counsel for the appellant/i