The insurer is liable to pay compensation to the claimant first, despite the driver's lack of a valid license, based on the principle of 'pay and recover'.

JUDGMENT :

V Srinivas, J.

This appeal is directed against the order of the Chairman, Motor Vehicle Accident Claims Tribunal-cum-I Additional District Judge at Chittoor (hereinafter called as ‘the Tribunal’) in M.V.O.P.No.14 of 2016 dated 29.03.2018.

2. The appellant is the claimant before the Tribunal The respondent Nos.1 to 3 are the owner, insurer and driver of the Lorry bearing No.AP 26 TB 8289 (hereinafter referred to as “crime lorry”) respectively.

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

i). On 23.05.2015 at about 08.00 a.m., while the deceased proceeding on the left side of Chittoor to Tirupati road, near G.V.G.Kalyana Mandapam, Murakambattu village, the crime lorry driven by the 3^rd respondent in a rash and negligent manner at high speed, dashed the deceased from his behind, resulted he sustained severe bleeding injuries all over the body. Immediately after the accident, he was shifted to Government Hospital at Chittoor, in turn, shifted to C.M.A. Hospital, Vellore for better treatment.

ii). He incurred Rs.7,00,000/- towards treatment, transport and attendant charges. Thereby, he claimed compensation of Rs.15,00,000/- against the owner, insurer and driver of the crime lorry.

4. The respondent No.2/insurer filed written statement denying the averments in the petition and pleaded that the respondent No.3 is not having valid driving license to drive the crime lorry; that the compensation claimed by the claimant is excessive, thereby, prayed to dismiss the petition against this respondent.

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

“1.Whether the accident in question caused due to rash and negligent driving of the driver of the Lorry bearing Regn.No.AP 26 TB 8289?

2.Whether the petitioners are entitled for any compensation? If so, to what amount and from whom?”

6. During enquiry, on behalf of the claimant, PWs.1 to 5 were examined, Exs.A.1 to A.11 were exhibited. On behalf of the respondents, R.Ws.1 to 3 were examined and Exs.B.1 to and X.1 to X.8 were marked.

7. On the material, the Tribunal, having come to the conclusion that the accident occurred due to the rash and negligent driving of the crime lorry by the 3^rd respondent, held that the claimant is entitled for the compensation of Rs.10,00,000/-, with interest at 7.5% per annum from the date of petition till the date of realization against the respondent Nos.1 and 3 only, for the injuries sustained by the claimant 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 3rd respondent by the date of incident.

8. It is against the said award; the present appeal was preferred by the appellant/claimant.

9. Heard Sri T.C.Krishnan, learned counsel for the appellant/claimant and Sri V.Srinivasa Rao, learned counsel for the 2^nd respondent/insurer

10. The only contention raised by the learned counsel for the appellant/claimant is that even the 3^rd respondent is not having valid driving license to drive the crime lorry, the insurer is liable to pay the compensation amount to the claimant/3^rd party 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 pronouncement of Hon’ble Supreme Court in Manuara Khatun v. Rajesh Kumar Singh, [(2017) 4 SCC 796]

11. Now, the short point that arises for determination is “whether the insurer is liable to pay the compensation amount to the claimant/3rd party in the absence of valid driving license to the 3^rd respondent/driver of the crime lorry by the date of incident?”

12. POINT It is not in dispute about the injuries sustained by the claimant in the incident, involvement of crime lorry, rash and negligent driving of the crime lorry by its driver in causing the incident, the crime vehicle was validly insured with the 2^nd respondent/insurer by the time of accident under Ex.