The court affirmed the principle of 'pay and recover' in cases of unauthorized passengers and lack of valid driving license, emphasizing the insurer's obligation to compensate claimants first.

JUDGMENT :

These appeals are directed against the order of the Chairman, Motor Vehicle Accident Claims Tribunal-cum-V Additional District Judge at Rayachoty (hereinafter called as ‘the Tribunal’) in M.V.O.P.Nos.102 of 2011 and 23 of 2012 dated 23.07.2013.

2. Since these appeals arise out of same accident and as the material facts are common, the same are being disposed of by this common judgment.

3. Both the M.A.C.M.As. are preferred by the insurer of the Tractor-cum-Trailer bearing No.AP 04 W 4897 and AP 04 W 4898 (hereinafter referred to as “crime vehicle”). The respondent Nos.1 to 3 in M.A.C.M.A.No.170 of 2025 are the children of one Pagadala Nagamma (hereinafter called as “deceased”). The respondent Nos.1 and 2 in M.A.C.M.A.No.179 of 2015 are the injured/claimant and owner of the crime vehicle respectively.

4. For the sake of convenience, the parties hereinafter referred to as they arrayed before the tribunal.

5. The case of the claimants, in the petitions before the Tribunal in both M.V.O.Ps. is that:

i). On 16.05.2011, while the deceased, injured/claimant along with others proceeding on the crime vehicle with load of date leaves from Koriakunta to Kalakada, when they reached near Devapatla Mitta at Kasthuri Bai School, the driver of the said vehicle drove the same in a rash and negligent manner at high speed, lost control over the same, resulted the vehicle turned turtle, the deceased died on the spot and injured sustained severe bleeding injuries.

ii). They claimed compensation of Rs.7,00,000/- and Rs.3,00,000/- respectively against the owner and insurer of the crime vehicle.

6. The respondent No.1/insured filed counter in both the matters before the Tribunal denying the averments in the petition and pleaded that the vehicle was validly insured with the 2^nd respondent and the policy issued in respect of the crime vehicle is in force by the date of incident; that the accident occurred was not due to negligence on the part of the driver of the crime vehicle.

7. The respondent No.2/insurer filed written statement in both the matters before the Tribunal denying the averments in the petition and pleaded that the driver of the crime vehicle is not having valid driving license to drive the same by the date of incident, thereby, the owner of the vehicle violated the terms and conditions of the policy; that the seating capacity of tractor is one and the trailer has to be used for agricultural purpose only; that the compensation claimed by the claimants is excessive, thereby, prayed to dismiss the petition against this respondent.

8. The Tribunal settled the following issues for enquiry basing on the material in M.V.O.P.No.102 of 2011:

“1. Whether the deceased Pagadala Nagamma died in road accident on 16.05.2011 due to rash and negligent driving of tractor and trailer bearing No.AP 04 W 4897 and AP04 W 4898 of 1^st respondent by its driver as pleaded?

2. Whether the 1st respondent violated insurance policy conditions as pleaded by 2^nd respondent?

3. Whether the petitioners are entitled for compensation, if so, to what amount and from which of the respondents? and

4. To what relief?”

9. The Tribunal settled the following issues for enquiry basing on the material in M.V.O.P.No.23 of 2012:

“1. Whether the petitioner met with road accident and sustained injuries on 16.05.2011 due to rash and negligent driving of tractor and trailer bearing No.AP 04 W 4897 and AP04 W 4898 of 1^st respondent by its driver as pleaded?

2. Whether the 1st respondent violated insurance policy conditions as pleaded by 2^nd respondent?

3. Whether the petitioners are entitled for compensation, if so, to what amount and from which of the respondents? and

4. To what relief?”

10. During enquiry, in both the matters, on behalf of the claimants, PWs.1 and 2 were examined and Exs.A.1 to A.4 were exhibited. On behalf of the respondent No.2/insurer, R.Ws.1 and 2 were examined and Exs.B.1 to B.3 were marked.

11. On the material, the Tribunal, having concluded that the accident occurred due t