Insurers are liable to compensate third parties even if the driver lacks a valid license, with a right to recover from the vehicle owner, as established in prior Supreme Court rulings.

JUDGMENT :

V Srinivas, J.

This appeal is directed against the order of the Chairman, Motor Vehicle Accident Claims Tribunal-cum-VII Additional District Judge, West Godavari at Eluru (hereinafter called as ‘the Tribunal’) in M.V.O.P.No.499 of 2010 dated 19.04.2017.

2. The appellants, who are wife and children of one Kanamala Satyanandam (hereinafter called as “the deceased”), are the claimants before the Tribunal. The respondent Nos.1 and 2 are the rider-cum-owner and insurer of the Bajaj Boxer Motorcycle bearing No.AP 16AH 8539 (hereinafter referred to as “crime motorcycle”) respectively.

3. The case of the claimants, in the petition before the Tribunal is that:

i). On 16.05.2008 at about 05.30 p.m., when the deceased reached Rangannagari street on his bicycle and standing on the left side road margin, the 1st respondent rider of the crime motorcycle, driven the same in a rash and negligent manner at high speed, dashed against the deceased, resulted the deceased sustained multiple injuries all over the body. While undergoing treatment, the deceased was succumbed to injuries on 22.05.2008.

ii). Being dependents, they claimed compensation of Rs.10,00,000/- against the rider-cum-owner and insurer of the crime motorcycle.

4. The respondent No.1/rider-cum-owner filed counter denying the averments in the petition and pleaded that the accident occurred was only due to the deceased, but not 1^st respondent; that the policy issued in respect of the crime motorcycle is in force by the time of incident, thereby, 2^nd respondent is only liable to pay compensation to the claimants, thereby, prayed to dismiss the petition against this respondent.

5. The respondent No.2/insurer filed written statement denying the averments in the petition and pleaded that the claimants ought to have proved that there are no violations of terms and conditions of the policy; that there is no negligence on the part of the 1^st respondent in causing the incident, thereby, prayed to dismiss the petition against this respondent.

6. The Tribunal settled the following issues for enquiry basing on the material:

“1.Whether the accident occurred due to the Bajaj Boxer motorcycle bearing No.AP 16 AH 8539 driven by its driver/1^st respondent?

2.Whether the petitioners are entitled for the compensation as prayed for? If so, to what amount and against which of the respondents? and

3.To what relief?”

7. During enquiry, on behalf of the claimants, PWs.1 and 2 were examined, Exs.A.1 to A.6 were exhibited. On behalf of the respondents, R.Ws.1 to 3 were examined and Exs.B.1 to B.4 and X.1 were marked.

8. On the material, the Tribunal, having come to the conclusion that the accident occurred due to the rash and negligent riding of the crime motorcycle by the 1^st respondent, held that the claimants are entitled for the compensation of Rs.5,61,800/-, with interest at 7.5% per annum from the date of petition till the date of realization against the respondent No.1 only, for the death of the deceased in the accident. The claim against respondent Nos.2 is dismissed due to violation of terms and conditions of Ex.B.1 policy in the absence of driving license to the 1^st respondent by the date of incident.

9. It is against the said award; the present appeal was preferred by the appellants/claimants.

10. Heard Sri S.Syam Sunder Rao, learned counsel for the appellants/claimants and Smt.V.Durga, learned counsel for the 2^nd respondent/insurer

11. The only contention raised by the learned counsel for the appellants/claimants is that even the 1^st respondent is not having driving license to ride the crime motorcycle, the insurer is liable to pay the compensation amount to the claimants/3^rd parties at first instance then recover the same from the insured, when Ex.B.1 policy is in force by the time of incident. In support of the above contention, he relied upon the pronouncements of Hon’ble Supreme Court in Shamanna v. Divisional Manager, Oriental Insurance Company Limited, [2018 LawSuit(SC) 722], Singh Ram v. Nirmala