IMPORTANT POINT
A driver with a valid license for light motor vehicles can operate a transport vehicle of the same class without needing a separate endorsement, affirming the insurance company's liability.

JUDGMENT :

B.V.L.N. CHAKRAVARTHI, J.

1. This appeal is preferred by the 3rd respondent/Insurance Company, challenging the award and decree dated 25.02.2013 passed in M.V.O.P. No. 63/2009 on the file of Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal-cum-I Addl. District Judge, Ongole, wherein the learned Tribunal while partly allowing the petition, awarded compensation of Rs.4,77,130/- with interest @ 9% p.a. from the date of petition, till the date of realisation, for the injuries sustained by the petitioner in a motor vehicle accident occurred on 03.08.2006.

2. For the sake of convenience, the parties are arrayed as parties in the trial Court.

3. As seen from the record, originally the petitioner filed an application U/s.166 of Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (for brevity “the Act”) claiming compensation of Rs.5,50,000/- on account of the injuries sustained by him in a motor vehicle accident occurred on 03.08.2006.

4. The facts show that the petitioner has been working as Postman and getting Rs.2,000/- per month and also got Ac. 4-00 of land and getting Rs.60,000/- per annum on it. On 03.08.2006 the petitioner and his friends are going to Hyderabad in a Tata Sumo bearing No. AP 27U 7731. At about 04.30 a.m. on 04.08.2006 when the said Sumo reached Tipparthy, the 1st respondent who was driving the vehicle, drove the same in a rash and negligent manner in high speed without caring the request of the petitioner and others and hit the road side tree, as a result of which the Sumo turned turtle. The petitioner received grievous injuries on his head, left eye, left clavicle bone and chest. Immediately, the petitioner was shifted to local hospital for first aid and subsequently shifted to Kamineni Hospital, Hyderabad, for better treatment. Surgeries were done to the head bone fracture, brain and left clavicle. Later he was admitted in L.V. Prasad Eye Hospital and surgery was done to his left eye. The petitioner also took treatment in Nagarjuna Hospital, Vijayawada and Vijaya Hospital, Ongole and spent more than Rs.3,00,000/- towards medical expenses. The petitioner became chronic patient, lost his memory power, eye vision and suffering from mental and physical disabilities. He is unable to attend any work due to mental disability. He lost his future earning power.

5. The 1st respondent remained ex-parte.

6. The 2nd respondent filed counter denying the material allegations of the claim petition and contended that the 1st respondent is having valid license and he is an experienced driver. There was a pit on left side of road in the place of accident and due to that, the 1st respondent could not control the vehicle at the time of accident. There was no negligence on the part of the 1st respondent. The crime vehicle was insured with the 3rd respondent.

7. The 3rd respondent/Insurance Company filed written statement, while traversing the material averments with regard to proof of age, avocation, monthly earnings of the injured, manner of accident, rash and negligence on the part of the driver of the offending vehicle, and liability to pay compensation, contended that the said Tata Sumo was not insured with the 3rd respondent. The 1st respondent is not having valid and effective driving license to drive the crime vehicle. The compensation and interest claimed in the petition is excessive.

8. On the strength of the pleadings of both parties, the learned Tribunal framed the following issues for trial:

1. Whether the accident occurred due to rash and negligent driving of the Tata Sumo bearing No. AP 27U 7731 by its driver?

2. Whether the petitioner is entitled to claim any compensation? If so, to what amount and from whom?

3. To what relief?

9. To substantiate his claim, the petitioner examined PWs. 1 to 3 and got marked Exs.A-1 to A-14. On behalf of the 3rd respondent, RW-1 was examined and Exs.B-1 and B-2 were marked.

10. The learned Tribunal, taking into consideration the evidence of PWs. 1 to 3, coupled with Exs.A-1 to A-14, held that the accident took place due to the ras