The insurance company's failure to prove the driver's lack of a valid licence and the equal contribution to the accident by the deceased were pivotal in affirming the Tribunal's award of compensation.

JUDGMENT :

V.R.K.KRUPA SAGAR, J.

The insurance company preferred this Appeal under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 assailing the award dated 16.06.2010 of the learned Chairman, Motor Vehicles Accidents Claims Tribunal-cum-IV Additional District Judge, Guntur (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Claims Tribunal’) in M.V.O.P.No.1039 of 2009.

2. Heard arguments of Sri V.Veerabhadra Chary, the learned counsel for appellant and Sri B.Parameswara Rao, the learned counsel for respondent Nos.1 to 4/claimants.

3. The following facts are required to be noticed:

Sri K.Srinivasulu @ Srinu along with two pillion riders was driving a motorbike at 10:30 P.M. on 15.02.2009. From the opposite direction Tata Indica Car bearing registration No.AP-5Y- 6280 coming at high speed being driven by its driver rashly or negligently dashed the motorcycle. Sri K.Srinivasulu @ Srinu who was driving the motorcycle fell and sustained serious injuries and was admitted in hospital and succumbed to the injuries on 20.02.2009. The wife, their child and the parents of the deceased filed M.V.O.P.No.1039 of 2009 under Section 163A of the Motor Vehicles Act praying for compensation of Rs.4,00,000/-.

The owner of the offending Tata Indica Car was shown as respondent No.1 and the insurance company which insured the vehicle was shown as respondent No.2. The owner did not choose to appear and contest. The insurance company filed its counter attributing total negligence on part of the deceased in driving his motorcycle. It further contended that the driver of the alleged offending car did not possess a valid and effective driving licence and there was breach of insurance policy.

4. The learned Claims Tribunal settled the following issues for trial:

1) Whether the accident occurred due to the rash and negligent driving of the driver of the Tata Indica Car bearing No.AP-5Y-6280?

2) Whether the petitioners are entitled to compensation, if so, to what amount against whom?

3) To what relief?

5. Before the Claims Tribunal there was evidence of PWs.1 and 2 and RWs.1 and 2 and Exs.A.1 to A.6 and Exs.B.1 to B.6 and Ex.X.1.

6. The claim was filed under Section 163A of the Motor Vehicles Act which dispensed with any pleading and proof of the fault on part of the offending vehicle. However, the learned Claims Tribunal had to grapple with the contentions raised by the insurance company about rash or negligent act on the part of the deceased in driving the motorcycle. Finally, it held that both vehicles were responsible for the accident in equal measures and thus, recorded that the deceased contributed 50% for the accident.

7. Before the Claims Tribunal the insurer raised contention that the driver of Indica Car bearing registration No.AP-5Y-6280 did not possess a valid and effective driving licence. As against that, the claimants contended that the driver should be presumed to hold licence and that presumption stood fortified since in Ex.A6-charge sheet the police did not allege any offence against the driver for violation of provisions of driving licence under the Motor Vehicles Act. The Claims Tribunal concluded stating that the driver had valid and effective driving licence.

8. Ex.B.1 was the insurance policy issued for the offending Tata Indica Car. It was found to be in force at the material point of time.

9. The claimants contended that the deceased was aged 24 years. That was disputed by the insured. No positive evidence was brought on record to show the real age of the deceased. It was in such circumstances the Claims Tribunal concluded that the deceased was in the age group between 30 and 35 years. Multiplier ‘17’ was applied. Monthly income of the deceased was considered as Rs.3,000/- and annual income was considered as Rs.36,000/-. Considering the ratio in Sarla Verma v. Delhi Transport Corporation , [(2009) 6 SCC 121] , the Claims Tribunal stated that towards future prospects 50% was added and it found that the claimants were entitled to Rs.7,18,500/-. However, as the facts disc