Insurance liability persists despite premium payment issues if policy was valid at the accident time, ensuring just compensation aligns with social welfare legislation principles.

JUDGMENT :

A. HARI HARANADHA SARMA, J.

I. Introductory:-

1. One Pilla Uma Maheswara Rao (hereinafter referred to as “the Injured No.1 / the deceased”) and Vegi Veera Venkata Ramana Durga Prasad (hereinafter referred to as “the injured No.2”) met with an accident on15.01.2009.

2. Injured No.1 / the deceased filed M.V.O.P.No.399 of 2009 and the injured No.2 filed M.V.O.P.No.400 of 2009. Injured No.1 died on 14.11.2012 during the pendency of case and his legal representatives were added as claimant Nos.2 to 4 in M.V.O.P.No.399 of 2009. Both cases are arising out of same accident.

3. Both claim petitions were decided by the Chairman, Motor Vehicles Accident Claims Tribunal-cum-III Additional District Judge, Bhimavaram (for short “the learned MACT”) under separate orders and decrees in respective M.V.O.P's dated 26.05.2015.

4. The accident has occurred when the injured No.1 / the deceased and Injured No.2 were travelling on Hero Honda motorcycle bearing No.AP 31 AE 9742, the Tata Indica Car bearing No.AP 26 U 4374 (for short “the offending vehicle”) allegedly came in a rash and negligent manner and dashed the motorcycle.

5. Respondent No.1 is the driver of the offending vehicle, Respondent Nos.2 and 4 were the successive owners of the offending vehicle and Respondent Nos.3 and 5 are the successive insurers before the learned MACT.

6. M.A.C.M.A.No.2501 of 2015 is filed by the claimant in M.V.O.P.No.400 of2009.

7. M.A.C.M.A.No.148 of 2016 is filed by Respondent No.5 directed against the order and decree passed in M.V.O.P.No.399 of 2009.

8. M.A.C.M.A.No.154 of 2016 is filed by Respondent No.5 in M.V.O.P.No.400 of 2009.

9. Two appeals i.e. M.A.C.M.A.No.154 of 2016 and M.A.C.M.A.No.148 of 2016 are filed by the Insurance Company questioning both the liability and the quantification of compensation.

10. M.A.C.M.A.No.2501 of 2015 is filed by the injured No.2 / claimant in M.V.O.P.No.400 of 2009, feeling aggrieved by awarding of compensation of Rs.94,180/- only as against the claim made by him for Rs.3,50,000/-. No appeal is filed by the claimants in M.V.O.P.No.399 of 2009.

11. All the three appeals are heard together. Details of the appeals in simple are as follows:

12. For the sake of convenience, parties hereinafter referred with reference to their status before the learned MACT.

II. Case and facts asserted commonly in both the cases by the claimants/injured Nos. 1 and 2:

13.........

(i) On 15.01.2009, injured No.1/the deceased (Pilla Uma Maheswara Rao) along with his cousin by name Vegi Veera Venkata Ramana Durga Prasad (Injured No.2), while returning from Kommara Village near Attili, on Hero Honda motor cycle at about 08:00 P.M., the offending vehicle driven by Respondent No.1 came in a rash and negligent manner in opposite direction and dashed the motor cycle causing accident and both of them sustained injuries. Immediately the injured were shifted to Area Hospital, Tadepalligudem and after first aid they were shifted to Eluru Govt. Hq. General Hospital, Orthopedic Department for better treatment.

(ii) A case in Crime No.8 of 2008 for the offences under Section 338 IPC was registered against the driver of the offending vehicle at Ganapavaram Police Station and subsequently, the charge sheet was laid against him.

14. Respondent No.2 is the owner of the offending vehicle at the time of accident and Respondent No.3 is the Insurance Company with which the offending vehicle was insured. Respondent No.4 was the previous owner and Respondent No.5 was the insurer with whom the previous owner insured the vehicle.

III. Specific case in respect of injured No.1/the deceased:

15. Injured No.1 was hale and healthy; aged about 28 years;