Insurance compensation liability persists even with driving license infractions; initial payment by insurer is admissible, recoverable from the vehicle owner.

JUDGMENT :

V.SUJATHA, J.

The United India Insurance Company Limited filed the present appeal against the order and decree dated 18.01.2019 passed in O.P.No.238 of 2016 by the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal-cum-I Additional District Judge’s Court, Anantapuramu, whereby and whereunder the Tribunal granted compensation of Rs.10,80,342/- (Rupees Ten Lakhs Eighty Thousand Three Hundred and Forty Two only), as against the claim of Rs.20,50,000/-, on account of the death of the deceased M. Krishnaiah in a motor accident that occurred on 16.05.2016.

02. Appellant is the insurer. Respondent Nos.1 to 3 herein are the claimants/petitioners. Respondent No.4 herein is the owner and respondent No.5 is the driver of the offending vehicle.

03. For the purpose of convenience, the parties will be referred to as they are arrayed before the Tribunal.

04. The case of the petitioner/claimant, in brief, is as follows:

a) On 16.05.2016 at about 3.00 p.m., the petitioner was proceeding in an auto to go to Anantapuramu on his personal work and when the auto reached near TV tower, a lorry bearing registration No.AP02-TC-1215, which was coming from the opposite direction, was being driven by its driver in a rash and negligent manner with high speed and dashed against the auto. As a result, the deceased and other inmates of the auto sustained injuries. The deceased sustained grievous injuries all over his body in the accident. Immediately he was shifted to Government Hospital, Anantapuramu for treatment. Later, on the advice of doctors, the deceased was shifted to Sreenivasa Hospital, Anantapuramu, where he succumbed to the injuries. A case was registered in Cr.No.22/2016 for the offences under Sections 337 , 338 and 304(A) IPC by Anantapuramu Traffic Police Station against the driver of the offending vehicle.

b) The petitioners contended that the deceased was hale and healthy prior to the accident and he was an expert agriculturist and he was technically cultivating the lands and earning Rs.3,00,000/- per year. The deceased was also attending the agriculture work of other farmers by implementing his best thoughts to cultivate commercial crops from time to time. The petitioners were completely and solely depending on the income of the deceased and due to his sudden demise, the petitioners have lost their sole bread winner and they were facing financial difficulties.

05. Before the Tribunal, respondent Nos.1 and 3, owner and driver of the offending vehicle respectively, remained ex parte.

06. Respondent No.2/insurer filed counter resisting the claim of the petitioners and contended that there was neither rashness nor negligence on the part of the driver of the offending lorry and that the accident occurred solely due to the negligence on the part of the driver of the auto in which the deceased was travelling, and hence, the 2^nd respondent/insurer of the offending lorry is not liable to pay any compensation to the petitioners. It was further contended that the petition is not maintainable due to non-joinder of insurer and insured of the auto in which the deceased was travelling. It was further contended that the driver of the offending vehicle had no valid driving licence as on the date of accident and his driving licence was under suspension and hence, the 2^nd respondent/insurer is not liable to pay any compensation. Hence, it was prayed to dismiss the claim petition.

07. Based on the pleadings, the Tribunal framed the following issues for trial:

“1. Whether the accident occurred due to the rash and negligent driving of the driver of the crime vehicle i.e. Lorry bearing No.AP02-TC-1215?

2. Whether the petitioners are entitled for compensation, if so, to wh