A valid light motor vehicle license includes transport vehicles, and insurers cannot deny liability without proving negligence by the vehicle owner.

JUDGMENT:

RAVI NATH TILHARI, J.

1. Heard Dr. P.B. Vijay Kumar, learned senior counsel, assisted by Sri K.R.S. Prakash Rao, learned counsel for the appellants and Smt A. Jayanthi, learned standing counsel for the 2 nd respondent-the New India Assurance Company Limited.

2. This appeal under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (for short, “the M.V Act”) was filed by the claimantsappellants, challenging the award dated 03.10.2011, in M.V.O.P. No.582 of 2007, passed by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunalcum-Principal District Judge, Kadapa (in short, “the Tribunal”).

3. The Tribunal partly allowed the claim petition of the appellants-claimants for an amount of Rs.21,83,840/- with interest thereon @ 6% p.a against the 1st respondent-owner of the offending vehicle but dismissing the same against the New India Assurance Company Limited-2 nd respondent.

4. The facts briefly stated are that the deceased Bandaru Sreeram Lakshmi Radha Krishna, of whom the appellants are the 4 legal representatives, died in a road accident which occurred on 24.08.2007 at about 6.30 p.m, while he was coming on motorcycle, when TATA Sumo Jeep bearing No.AP 03-U-4182 coming from the opposite direction at high speed being driven in a rash and negligent manner by its driver dashed the vehicle of the deceased. He was aged about 45 years and was working as Lecturer in S.K.M. Junior College, Sidhout, earning Rs.14,210/- per month. The claimants claimed, total compensation of Rs.30,00,000/- under different heads.

5. 1st respondent the owner of the offending vehicle remained ex parte. No representation in this appeal as well.

6. 2nd respondent insurer filed counter denying the petition averments. It was the case of the insurance company that the deceased was over taking the offending vehicle which caused the accident. The driver of the offending vehicles possessed only Light Motor Vehicle non transport, whereas the offending vehicle was a passenger carrying transport vehicle. So, there was violation of the main condition of the policy by handing over the vehicle by the owner to a person not having the valid driving license. The insurance company claimed no liability to indemnify.

7. The Tribunal framed the following issues:

“1. Whether the deceased Bandaru Sreeram Lakshmi Radha Krishna, S/o. Late B. Sreeramulu died due to rash and negligent driving of the driver of TATA SUMO bearing No.AP03-U-4182 owned by Respondent No.1 on 24.08.2007 at about6.30 p.m at Kanumakopalli on KadapaTirupati road?

2. Whether respondents 1 and 2 are jointly and severally liable for the compensation claimed by the petitioners?

3. Whether the petitioners 1 to 4 are entitled for compensation as claimed by them?

4. To what relief?”

8. In order to prove the case of the claimants, the 1st claimant wife who gave the report Ex.A.1 examined as P.W.1. They also examined P.W.2 the Principal of the College in which the deceased was working as Lecturer and who also happened to be the brother of the deceased. They marked Exs.A.1 to A/.3 certified copies of First Information Report, P.M report, charge sheet, Ex.A.4 the salary certificate, Ex.A.5 the pass book of Andhra Bank, Ex.A.6 is the proceedings of the Director of Intermediate Education, Ex.A.7 the S.S.C certificate, Ex.A.8 the Proceedings of the Correspodnent of the College, Ex.A.9 the Joint report, Ex.A.10 the Transfer Certificate and Ex.A.11 and Ex.A.12 the certified copies of inquest report and the M.V.I report, Ex.A.13 proceedings of the correspondent of the college, Ex.A.14 periodical increment certificate, Ex.A.15 the revised scales of pay Rules, 2005, Ex.A.16 Statement of fixation of pay revised scales of pay rules, 2005, Ex.A.17 the Form No.16-A issued by L.I.C, Ex.A.18 form No.16-A issued by L.I.C, and Ex.A.19 letter of L.I.C issued by the Branch Manager, Rajampet.

9. In order to prove the case of respondent No.2 Insurance Company, Assistant Manager of the Insurance Company was examined as R.W.1. The Administrative Officer of R.T.O?s office, K