IMPORTANT POINT
The court confirmed the liability of the insurer for compensation in a motor vehicle accident, emphasizing the validity of the driver's license and the assessment of damages.

JUDGMENT :

(K. Sreenivasa Reddy, J.) :

Challenge in this M.A.C.M.A. is to the Award, dated 07.06.2013, in M.V.O.P.No.11 of 2006, on the file of the Chairman, Motor Accident Claims Tribunal-cum-Principal District Judge, Krishna at Machilipatnam (for brevity ‘the Tribunal’), whereunder the Tribunal, allowed the claim for compensation made by respondent No.1 herein/claimant for a sum of Rs.3,00,000/-, on account of sustaining grievous injuries in a motor vehicle accident occurred on 07.12.2003 at 10.30 AM.

2. The parties to this M.A.C.M.A. will hereinafter be referred to, as described before the Tribunal, for the sake of convenience.

3. The case of the claimant before the Tribunal, in brief, according to the averments set out in the Motor Vehicle accident claim, is that on 07.12.2003 the claimant and his brother viz. Jannu Srinivasa Rao intended to go to their house situated at Pochigani Lanka village from wharf and when they reached near 60 KM stone, one auto bearing registration No.AP 07X 8913 (hereinafter referred to, as ‘the offending vehicle’) driven by respondent No.1 in a rash and negligent manner without blowing horn, came in opposite direction and dashed the claimant; as a result, the claimant fell on the road and sustained head injury with bleeding and lost conscious; 3 the claimant was shifted to Saumya Apollo Hospital, Vijayawada for treatment; on 11.12.2003, Avanigadda Police recorded the statement of Jannu Srinivasarao and registered a case in Crime No.169 of 2003 for the offences punishable under Sections 337 and 338 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (for brevity ‘IPC’) and Section 134 (a) & (b) read with 187 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (for brevity ‘the Act’). The respondent No.1, who drove the offending vehicle, holds valid driving licence and it was in force by the time of accident. The offending vehicle was insured with respondent No.2 and it was in force at the time of accident.

The claimant was aged about 30 years and was doing banana sales business and supplies curry banana to Challapalli, Avanigadda and Vijayawada wholesale markets and earning an amount of Rs.5,000/- profit from his business. The claimant is married and his entire family members are depending upon his earnings; due to the head injury sustained by the claimant, his brother Jannu Srinivasa Rao was assisting him in service and accompanied with him in the hospital. The claimant was inpatient for two months and the Doctor operated and treated the claimant’s brain, but he did not recover. The claimant spent a sum of Rs.80,000/- towards his medical expenses. Hence, the claim petition.

4. Respondent No.1/driver-cum-owner of the offending vehicle remained ex parte. Respondent No.2/Insurance Company filed counter contending that as per Section 64VB of the Insurance Act, 1938, no risk on the part of the insurer commences unless the premium in full is paid in advance by the insured and as such, there is no liability on respondent No.2. The accident occurred due to gross negligence on the part of the claimant as he was walking on the road in a zigzag manner and due to his confusion the claimant fell down under the auto. Respondent No.2 is not liable to pay any compensation unless and until it is proved that the person at the wheel was having valid and effective driving licence to drive the vehicle. The claimant has to prove that he was doing business of supplying curry banana to different places. Hence, prays to dismiss the claim.

5. Basing on the above pleadings, the Tribunal settled the following issues for inquiry:

1. Whether the accident was occurred due to rash and negligent driving of the vehicle/auto bearing No.AP 07X 8913 by its driver/R1?

2. Whether the petitioner is entitled to pay compensation and if so, to what amount and fro which of the respondents?

3. To what relief?

6. During the course of inquiry, before the Tribunal, the claimant was examined as P.W.1 and got marked Exs.A1 to A8 and got examined P.W.2, Doctor, who treated the claimant.