Insurance companies may be liable to indemnify third-party claims even if the driver lacked a valid license, based on principles of social security and judicial precedents.

JUDGMENT:

1. By this appeal under section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 an injured claimant impugns the award dated 09.08.2012 of the learned Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal – Cum – IV Additional District Judge, (Fast Track Court), Tanuku in MVOP.No.691 of 2009 to the extent of absolving the insurance company from liability.

2. The offending vehicle is Bajaj Boxer Motorcycle bearing registration number AP 05 R 3356. Respondent No.2 herein is the owner of the said motorcycle. He got it insured with Bajaj Allianz General Insurance Company Limited/ R3. On the fateful day, this motorcycle was driven by R1.

3. The appellant/injured claimant was a small time seller of plantain clusters earning about Rs.5,000/- per month. On 08.05.2009, he was going on his bicycle and at about 10.30 pm, R1 drove the offending motor cycle rashly or negligently on NH 5 road and dashed the bicycle and as a result of it, the appellant fell down and the motor cycle ran over his left leg and crushed it and as a result, the appellant’s lower part of the left leg was amputated and he also suffered some more injuries in this accident. In terms of Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, he made a claim for compensation of Rs.3,50,000/-. The driver of the motor cycle and the owner of the motor cycle did not choose to contest the claim. The Insurance company/ R3 raised its contest denying all the facts and contended that at the material point of time, the driver of the motor cycle did not possess valid and effective driving licence and the owner of it negligently entrusted the same and therefore the insurance company could not be made liable.

4. Considering the rival pleadings, the learned claims tribunal framed the following issues for trial.

1. Whether the accident dated 08.05.2009 occurred due to the rash or negligent driving of the Bajaj Boxer Motor Cycle bearing No.AP 05 R 3356 by the respondent No.1?

2. Whether the 1^st respondent was having valid and effective driving licence to drive Motor Cycle at the time of accident?

3. Whether the petitioner is entitled for compensation and if so, for what amount and from which of the respondents?

4. To what relief?

5. To prove their respective contentions, on behalf of the injured claimant, PW.1 to 3 testified and Exs.A1 to A8 were marked. On behalf of the insurance company, RW.1 to 5 were examined and Exs.B1 to B6 and Exs.X1 and X2 were marked.

6. The subject matter accident was registered as Cr.No.59 of 2009 for the offence under section 338 IPC as per Ex.A1 which is the attested copy of FIR. It was duly investigated into by the police and as against the driver of the offending motor cycle a charge sheet was laid and Ex.A4 is its attested copy. The driver of the vehicle was charge sheeted for the offences under section 338 IPC as well as section 3 read with section 77 of the Motor Vehicles Act. Considering the evidence of the injured and the investigative reports of the police, the claims tribunal concluded that the accident was due to rash or negligent driving of the offending motor vehicle by R1.

7. Besides the evidence of injured/ PW.1, there was on record evidence of two doctors/ PW.2 and 3 and Ex.A2 wound certificate and Ex.A6 bunch of medical prescriptions and Ex.A7 bunch of medical bills and Ex.A8 x-ray films and Ex.A5 disability certificate issued by District Medical Board, West Godavari District, Eluru.

All that evidence was considered in detail by the learned claims tribunal. It found that because of the amputation of leg, the claimant suffered 60% working disability. The income of the claimant was notionally assessed at Rs.3,000/- per month and thus, Rs.36,000/- per annum and his