The court affirmed that insurance companies bear the burden to prove policy violations; failure to establish absence of driving license led to liability for compensation, emphasizing the need for just compensation aligned with the deceased's income.

JUDGMENT :

A. HARI HARANADHA SARMA, J.

1. This is an appeal filed under Section 173 of the MOTOR VEHICLES ACT directed against the decree and order dated 20.03.2012 passed in M.V.O.P.No.803 of 2006 by the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal-cum-IV Additional District & Sessions Judge, Vijayawada (for short “the learned MACT”) and the appellant herein is Respondent No.2 before the learned MACT.

2. Respondent Nos.1 to 6 herein are the claimants and Respondent No.7 herein is the owner of the Motorcycle bearing registration No.AP 16 TR 336 (hereinafter referred to “the offending vehicle”).

3. Claim made for Rs.8,00,000/- by the claimants was allowed-in-part, granting compensation of Rs.6,22,500/- with interest at 7.5% per annum for the death of one Nagidi Venugopala Rao (hereinafter referred to as “the deceased”) in a motor vehicle accident. Feeling aggrieved by the same, questioning the liability and quantum of compensation, the present appeal is filed by the Insurance Company with which the offending vehicle is insured.

4. For the sake of convenience, parties will be referred to as the claimants and the Respondents as and how they are arrayed before the learned MACT.

Case of claimants:

5. Claimant No.1 is the wife, claimant Nos.2 to 4 are the children and claimant Nos.5 and 6 are the parents of the deceased.

6. On the fateful day i.e. 21.05.2006 at about 14:15 hours when the deceased was going on his scooter bearing registration No. AP 5G 314 and when he reached near at 4^th Pillar of Prakasam Barrage, Vijayawada, the rider of the Pulser motorcycle / the offending vehicle came in a rash and negligent manner from the Guntur side and dashed the deceased. With the result, the deceased sustained severe, multiple, and grievous injuries on his head and other parts of the body and suffered instantaneous death.

7(i). A case in Crime No.280 of 2006 was registered at I Town Police Station, Vijayawada, for the offenses under Section 304(A) of IPC, and the charge sheet was laid against the driver of the offending vehicle.

7(ii). The deceased was aged about „40‟ years; hale and healthy; working as a mechanic in Motors having own Mechanic Shop in the name and style of „Chakradhara Auto Works for Two-Wheeler Vehicles‟ and earning Rs.10,000/- per month. He was contributing his entire income to the family. Claimant No.2 was studying Engineering. Claimant No.3 was studying B.Com and Claimant No.4 was studying VI Class. Claimant Nos.1, 4 and 6 are dependents on the deceased and all the claimants suffered financial, emotional and every sort of loss on account of the untimely death of the deceased due to the motor vehicle accident which has occurred due to the rash and negligent driving of rider of the motor cycle which is owned by Respondent No.1 insured with Respondent No.2. Hence, all the respondents are liable to pay the just and reasonable compensation.

8. Respondent No.1 remained ex parte.

9. Respondent No.2 / Insurance Company filed its written statement.

Case of Respondent No.2 / Insurance Company:

10. The allegations in the claim petition are invented and incorrect. The claimants shall prove all the allegations. The offending vehicle was insured with Respondent No.2. However, subject to terms and conditions. The policy was in force from 30.03.2006 to 29.03.2007.

11. Respondent No.1 was driving the offending vehicle but not holding a valid and effective driving licence. Charge sheet was laid under Section 3, read with Section 77 of the MOTOR VEHICLES ACT , along with Section 304(A) of IPC. A notice sent to Respondent No.1 requesting him to produce the driving license was left unanswered. Therefore, there is violation of conditions of policy. Hence the Insurance Company is