The court affirmed that the Insurance Company is liable for compensation despite the absence of a driving license for the driver, emphasizing the need for sufficient evidence to support claims against liability.

JUDGMENT :

(A. HARI HARANADHA SARMA, J.)

1. Heard both sides.

2. The cl aimant in MVOP No.133 of 2012 on the file of the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal-cum-VI Additional District Judge, Kurnool [for short 'MACT'], Y.Vijay Kumar is the appellant before this Court in MACMA No.275 of 2017 and the 2^nd respondent therein, the Royal Sundaram Alliance Insurance Company Ltd., is the appellant before this Court, in MACMA No.300 of 2017. One Poola Nagaraju and one Masoom Basha, are the owner and driver of the vehicle i.e., Tractor and Trailor bearing Nos.AP 21 TU 8680 and AP 21 E 2691, [herein after referred as ‘offending vehicle’]. They are Respondents 1 and 3 before the MACT and they remained ex parte.

3 [i] Dissatisfied with imposing of liability and quantification and contending that it is on high side, the Insurance Company preferred the appeal.

[ii] Dissatisfied with the quantum of compensation awarded in a sum of Rs.6,81,500/- with interest @ 9% p.a., as against a claim made for Rs.15,00,000/-, the claimant is before this Court.

4. Both appeals are arising out of the same case, heard together and are being disposed of under a Common Judgment, as the points, contentious issues in both the appeals are substantially same, touching the core points viz., the liability of Insurance Company and entitlement of claimant for just compensation.

5. For the sake of convenience, parties will be hereinafter referred to with reference to their status before the learned MACT and as and how they are arrayed in the impugned proceedings,.

Case of the Claimants:-

6. [i] On 03.01.2012 at about 10 'O' clock, when the claimant was travelling on his motor cycle bearing No.AP 25 AB 2084, near Nanoor village, Tractor and Trailor bearing Nos.AP 21 TU 8680 and AP 21 E 2691, came from behind in high speed, and in a rash and negligent manner without blowing any horn, dashed the motor cycle, on which the claimant was travelling, whereby he fell in a ditch on the road side and sustained fracture and multiple injuries: 1) a lacerated wound over right leg 15 x 10 size, exposing broken bones, 2) a fracture of right Tibia and right fibula broken into six pieces at lower thigh of right leg, 3) Multiple injuries all over the body.

[ii] Immediately after the accident, the claimant was admitted in Amrutha Hospitals, Gayatri Estate, Kurnool under care of Dr.K.Venkateswarlu (Ortho) and surgery was conducted, rods were fixed, further surgery was advised, apart from advising complete rest. He was further advised that he has to practice moving with support of a stick in view of multiple fractures and that he should not put weight on his right leg.

[iii] A case in Crime No.4 of 2012 was registered in Orvakal Police Station against the driver of the offending vehicle.

[iv] The claimant was aged about 30 years, hale and healthy and working as Lecturer in Narayana College, Nanoor and was earning Rs.34,000/- per month.

[v] Due to accident, he became permanently disabled and hence, entitled for compensation of Rs.15,00,000/- under various heads.

The case of the respondent Insurance Company:-

7. [i] The claimant shall prove the pleaded accident, negligence of the driver of the offending vehicle, injuries sustained by the claimant, effect of such injuries contributing for permanent disability.

[ii] The claimant shall prove his age, occupation, income and disability contributing for loss of income, valid and effective driving license for the driver of the offending vehicle, valid insurance policy in respect of offending vehicle issued by the 2^nd respondent Insurance Company.

[iii] The quantum of compensation claimed is excessive and that the 2^nd respondent is not liable to pay any compensation.

8. On the strength of pleadings, learned MACT settled the following issues:

1) Whether the petitioner sustained injuries in a road accident due to the rash and negligent driving of the driver of the vehicle bearing No. AP 21 TU 8680 and AP 21 E 2691?

2) Whether the petitioner is entitled to compensation? If so, t