Insurance companies can be held liable for compensation despite the driver's lack of a valid license if a valid insurance policy exists covering the accident.

JUDGMENT :

(V.R.K. KRUPA SAGAR, J.)

1. This appeal under section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 is filed by the United India Insurance company impugning the order dated 15.04.2014 of the learned Chairman, Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal – Cum – IV Additional District Judge, Tirupati in MVOP.No.549 of 2010.

2. Heard arguments of Sri Ram Mohan Rao Kotha, the learned counsel for appellant and Sri Gandavalli Mahesh, the learned counsel for respondent No.1 and 2.

3. The following aspects are required to be noticed:

Sri B.Narasimhulu was driving a motor cycle bearing registration No.AP 03 L 4477 on which Sri D.Ramesh was the pillion rider. On 27.02.2010 at about 02.00 pm, while they were travelling on bike on Piler-Kalakada road and when it reached near T.Sandruvaripalle Village, there came from the opposite direction, a tractor and trailer bearing registration No.AP 04 L 4292 and AP 04 L 4293 and its driver Sri P.Bhaskar who also happens to be its owner, drove the tractor and trailer at high speed in a rash or negligent manner and dashed the motor cycle. The two persons on the motor bike fell down and the tractor ran over the body of Sri D.Ramesh and caused the spot death. Sri B.Narasimhulu sustained injuries. Sri B.Narasimhulu gave the written information to police and accordingly, Kalikiri Police Station registered Cr.No.9 of 2010 as against Sri P.Bhaskar for having driven the tractor and trailer in rash or negligent manner causing death and injuries. After due investigation, a charge sheet was laid by the State police. Grieved by the death of Sri D.Ramesh, his wife and his adopted daughter together filed a claim under section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 seeking a compensation of Rs.5,00,000/-. The driver/ owner was made as respondent No.1. At the material point of time, the vehicle was found insured with M/s United India Insurance Company Limited, Tirupati and therefore, it was made as respondent No.2. Before the claims tribunal, respondent No.1 did not choose to appear and contest. The Insurance company laid its contest. It denied the facts averred in the claim petition. It raised the contest stating that the owner/ driver had no driving licence to drive the vehicle. That the tractor and trailer were permitted to be used for agricultural and forest purposes, but it was used for commercial purposes as at the material point of time, it was carrying sand. It was on these two principal grounds, it pleaded before the claims tribunal that it may be excluded from liability.

4. On the rival pleadings, the learned claims tribunals settled the following issues.

1. Whether the deceased viz., D.Ramesh died due to injuries received by him in the motor vehicle accident that took place on 27.2.2010 due to rash and negligent driving of the driver of the Tractor-cum -Trailer bearing R.No.AP 04 L 4292 and AP 04 L 4293 of the first respondent duly insured with the second respondent as alleged?

2. Whether the petitioners being L.Rs., of deceased are entitled for compensation amount? If so, what is the quantum of compensation amount and against whom?

3. To what relief?

5. The wife of the deceased testified as PW.1. The driver of the motor bike testified as PW.2. The brother of the deceased testified as PW.3. Exs.A1 to A8 were marked. On behalf of the insurance company one of its officers testified as RW.1 and an officer from Road Transport Authority testified as RW.2. Ex.B1 insurance policy was exhibited and Ex.X1 authorization given to RW.2 was also exhibited.

6. After considering the material on record and the rival contentions on both sides, the learned claims tribunal held that the accident was only due to rash or negligent driving by respondent No.1 and it further held that respondent No.1 being the owner/ driver was held liable to p