The court clarified that an insurance company remains liable for damages despite any lapses in the driver's license, determining compensation following laid-down principles for just awards in motor accident claims.

JUDGMENT :

A. HARI HARANADHA SARMA, J.

1. Claimants in M.V.O.P.No.65 of 2010 on the file of Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal-cum-II Additional District Court, Amalapuram (for short “the learned MACT”), feeling aggrieved by the judgment and decree dated 20.09.2012 passed by the learned MACT awarding a compensation of Rs.1,42,000/- as against the claim made for Rs.3,00,000/- filed the present appeal invoking Section 173 of the MOTOR VEHICLES ACT , 1988.

2. The case of the claimants, in brief, is that One Bandaru Ayyanna (hereinafter referred to as “the deceased”) aged '65' years, was a pensioner (retired as Sub-Inspector of Police, Excise Department) getting a pension of Rs.6,044/- per month. On 06.12.2009 at about 02:10 p.m., while the deceased and his grandson started from his house at Godasipalem on two cycles to go to the house of one Arigela Veerendranadh at T.T. Nagar, Mummidivaram, and when they were near AIMS College, Mummidivaram, on NH-214 road, a goods Auto bearing Registration No.AP 05 TX 1451 (hereinafter referred to as “the offending vehicle”) proceeding from Kakinada to Amalapuram with a load of empty gunny bags, came in a rash and negligent manner, driven by its driver, and dashed the deceased, whereby the accident occurred. Deceased was shifted to hospital but while undergoing treatment, the deceased succumbed to injuries on 07.12.2009. The petitioners spent Rs.25,000/- towards medical expenditure, Rs.25,000/- towards funeral expenditure, Rs.10,000/- towards transportation. Death of deceased put the claimants to loss of financial support, dependency and love and affection. Hence, the claimants are entitled for reasonable compensation.

Case of the Respondents:

3. Respondent Nos.1 and 2, the driver and the owner of the offending vehicle remained ex parte.

4. Respondent No.3 Insurance Company, contested the case.

Case of Respondent No.3:

5. The petitioners shall prove the negligence of the driver of the offending vehicle, age, occupation, and income of the deceased, valid and effective driving license of the driver of the offending vehicle, valid and compliance with the conditions of Policy. In any event the quantum of compensation claimed is excessive and Respondent No.3 is not liable to pay any compensation.

6. On the strength of pleadings, the following issues were settled for trial by the learned MACT:

1. Whether the accident occurred due to rash and negligent driving of the vehicle i.e., goods auto bearing No.AP5 TX 1451 by its driver i.e. 1^st respondent?

2. Whether the petitioners are entitled to any compensation, if so, to what amount and against whom?

3. To what relief?

7. Evidence before the learned MACT:

Findings of the learned MACT:

8. Ex.A1 is the attested copy of FIR and Ex.A4 is the attested copy of charge sheet. P.W.1 is not a direct witness to the accident. P.W.2 stated about the occurrence of accident on 06.12.2009 and the neglig