IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI
SUMATHI JAGADAM, J.
Panditi Bujji W/o Srinivasa Rao – Appellant
Versus
Aluri Narayana Rao S/o Asservadam – Respondent
M.A.C.M.A. No. 2615 of 2007
Decided On : 06-08-2024
Compensation - Motor Vehicle Accident - M.V. Act Sections 149 - The court interpreted the liability of the insurance company under the Motor Vehicles Act, emphasizing that non-registration or lack of a valid driving license does not absolve the insurer from compensating the victim.
Fact of the Case:
The petitioner sustained grievous injuries in a motor vehicle accident caused by the negligent driving of another auto. The Tribunal awarded partial compensation, leading to an appeal for enhancement.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the Tribunal erred in exonerating the insurance company from liability, as the driver’s lack of a valid license did not absolve the insurer from compensating the victim.
Issues: Whether the insurance company can be exonerated from liability for compensating the accident victim due to the driver's lack of a valid driving license.
Ratio Decidendi: The court held that the insurance company is liable to compensate the victim despite the driver's lack of a valid license, as per established legal principles.
Result: The appeal is allowed, enhancing the compensation to Rs.7,61,200/-.
JUDGMENT :
SUMATHI JAGADAM, J.
1. 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:
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 PW-1 and got the Doctor and the Senior Assistant working at GGH examined as PWs. 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 RW-1. The Administrative Officer in the Office of the Deputy Transport Commission, Guntur, was examined as RW-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. PW-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.
Joby Thomas and Another vs. Annamma Augustine
Mallikarjun vs. Divisional Manager, National Insurance Company Limited
Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd. vs. Chimakurthi Venkata Kanaka Raju
R.D. Hattangadi vs. Pest Control (India) (P) Ltd. (1995) 1 SCC 551
Insurance companies cannot evade liability for compensation based on the driver's lack of a valid license or vehicle registration under the Motor Vehicles Act.
Insurance companies are liable to compensate accident victims even if the driver lacks a valid license, as per the Motor Vehicles Act.
Compensation for personal injury must adequately reflect the impact of permanent disability on earning capacity and quality of life, distinguishing between pecuniary and non-pecuniary damages.
The insurer cannot avoid liability to third parties merely due to the insured's breach of policy (lack of valid license); such breaches must be established as fundamental to exonerate the insurer.
Under the Motor Vehicles Act, non-compliance with license conditions does not absolve insurers of third-party liability; pay and recovery principle applies to recover claims from vehicle owners.
Insurance Companies are liable to pay compensation regardless of the driver's licensing status, with the right to recover from the vehicle owner.
An insurer has a statutory duty to pay compensation even if it successfully defends a claim, with the right to recover from the vehicle owner.
Login now and unlock free premium legal research
Login to SupremeToday AI and access free legal analysis, AI highlights, and smart tools.
Login
now!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
Copyright © 2023 Vikas Info Solution Pvt Ltd. All Rights Reserved.