The insurer is liable to pay compensation despite the driver's lack of valid license, with the principle of 'pay and recover' applicable in such cases.

JUDGMENT :

V. SRINIVAS, J.

1. This appeal is directed against the order of the Chairman, Motor Vehicle Accident Claims Tribunal-cum-VII Additional District Judge, West Godavari at Eluru (hereinafter called as ‘the Tribunal’) in M.V.O.P.No.556 of 2017 dated 22.05.2023.

2. The appellant is the insurer of the motorcycle bearing No. AP 16 CX 2389 (hereinafter referred to as “crime motorcycle”). The respondent No.1 herein is the claimant before the Tribunal. The respondent Nos.2 and 3 are the driver and owner of the crime motorcycle respectively.

3. For the sake of convenience, the parties hereinafter referred to as they arrayed before the tribunal.

4. The case of the claimant, in the petition before the Tribunal is that:

i) On 15.03.2017 at about 08.00 p.m., while the claimant returning to his home, when he reached in front of shop of one Polagani Nageswara Rao, Mandavalli, Lingala Village, Mandavalli Mandal, the crime motorcycle driven by the 1^st respondent in a rash and negligent manner dashed against the claimant, resulted he sustained multiple grievous and bleeding injuries. Then he was shifted to Government Hospital at Gudivada and in-turn M.J. Naidu Hospital at Vijayawada for better treatment.

ii) He claimed compensation of Rs.5,00,000/- against the driver, owner and insurer of the crime motorcycle.

5. The respondent No.3/insurer filed written statement denying the averments in the petition and pleaded that the 1st respondent rider of the crime motorcycle is not having valid driving license to ride the same, thereby, violated the terms and conditions of the policy; that there is delay in lodging the F.I.R. that the compensation claimed by the claimant is excessive, thereby, prays to dismiss the petition against this respondent.

6. The Tribunal settled the following issues for enquiry basing on the material:

“1. Whether the petitioner Ede Sriramulu sustained injuries in the motor vehicle accident dated 15.03.2017 at about 08.00 p.m., in front of Polagani Nageswara Rao shop at Mandavalli, Lingala Village, Mandavalli Mandal, Krishna District, due to rash and negligent driving of crime vehicle i.e., motorcycle bearing No.AP 16 CX 2389 by its driver/1st respondent?

2. Whether the petitioner is entitled to claim compensation? If so, to what amount and from which of the respondents? and

3. To what relief?”

7. During enquiry, on behalf of the claimant, PWs.1 and 2 were examined, Exs.A.1 to A.4 were exhibited. On behalf of the respondent No.3, R.Ws.1 and 2 were examined and Exs.B.1, B.2 and X.2 were marked.

8. On the material, the Tribunal, having come to the conclusion that the accident occurred due to the rash and negligent driving of the crime motorcycle by the 1st respondent, held that the claimants are entitled for the compensation of Rs.12,28,000/- with interest at 9% per annum from the date of petition till the date of realization against the respondent Nos.1 to 3, for the injuries sustained by the claimant in the accident.

9. It is against the said award; the present appeal was preferred by the appellant/insurer.

10. Heard Sri Naresh Byrapaneni, learned counsel for the appellant/insurer and Sri Eluru Sesha Mahesh Babu, learned counsel for the respondent No.1/claimant.

11. Sri Naresh Byrapaneni, learned counsel for the appellant/insurer vehemently contended that the Tribunal erred in fixing the liability against the appellant/insurer in the absence of driving license to the 1st respondent in riding the crime motorcycle; that the Tribunal wrongly interpreting that one having L.M.V. license is entitled to drive vehic