The main legal point established in the judgment is the determination of the maintainability of compensation claims under Section 163-A of the Motor Vehicle Act, 1988, based on negligence and involvement, as well as the liability of the insurance company in cases of absence of a valid driving license.

JUDGMENT :

These appeals filed under Section 173(1) of the Motor Vehicle Act, 1988 (hereinafter referred to as 'the MV Act') are arising out of common judgment and award dated 03.03.2011 in MVC.490/2010 and 491/2010.

2. MFA.No.6788/2011 is filed by petitioners in MVC.No.491/2010. MFA.No.6789/2011 is filed by petitioners in MVC.No.490/2010.

3. MFA.No.8300/2011 and 8301/2011 are filed by respondent No.2 - Insurance company against the judgment and award in MVC.No.490/2010 and 491/2010 respectively.

4. Since these appeals are arising out of common judgment and award, they are clubbed together and disposed of by a common judgment.

5. Since in both these petitions the respondents are common, for the sake of convenience they are referred to as respondent Nos.1 and 2. Since in the accident in question, two deaths have occurred giving rise to two separate claim petitions claiming compensation by their respective legal representatives, for the sake of convenience petitioners in MVC.No.490/2010 are referred to as LRs of Krishnamurthy Reddy and petitioners in MVC.No.491/21010 are referred to as LRs of Reddappa Reddy.

6. FACTS: Brief facts leading to the filing of claim petitions are that on 02.08.2009 at about 8.15 p.m. deceased Krishnamurthy Reddy was riding motor cycle bearing registration No.AP-03-AA-7037. He was proceeding from Chittoor to Chigurakolapalli. When he was infront of Anand Processing and Food Juice factory, rider of motor cycle bearing registration No.AP-03-P-2831 (hereinafter referred to as offending vehicle) i.e, deceased Redappa Reddy, came form the opposite direction in a high speed, in a rash or negligent manner and dashed against the motor cycle of deceased Krishnamurthy Reddy. As a result of the accident, both Krishnamurthy Reddy and Redappa Reddy sustained grievous injuries and died on the spot.

7. During the course of petition averments, LRs of Redappa Reddy have pleaded that at the time of accident, both Krishnamurthy Reddy and Redappa Reddy rode the offending vehicle in a high speed, in a rash or negligent manner and dashed against the motor cycle of each other. As a result of the accident, both riders died on the spot.

8. LRs of both deceased have pleaded that deceased were earning Rs.40,000/-p.a. Under Section 163-A of the MV Act, they are seeking compensation under no fault liability against the respondents i.e., the owner and insurer of the offending vehicle.

9. In his written statement, respondent No.1 i.e., the owner of the offending vehicle has admitted the ownership and coverage of the offending vehicle, date, time, place of accident and the death of both riders in the said accident. He has pleaded that charge sheet is filed against the riders of the both motor cycles and as the both riders died, the charge sheet is abated. However, he has denied that the accident occurred due to the rash or negligent driving by the rider of the offending vehicle. In MVC.No.491/2010, respondent No.1 has specifically pleaded that petition under Section 163-A of the MV Act is not maintainable against the owner and insurer of the offending vehicle by the LRs of deceased Redappa Reddy as he was not a third party. In the event of allowing the petitions, respondent No.1 has pleaded that respondent No.2 -Insurance company is liable to indemnify him.

10. In the written statement, respondent No.2 has denied the accident, relationship between the deceased and the petitioners, death of deceased in the said accident. Though respondent No.2 admit the coverage of the offending vehicle, it has taken up a specific defence that deceased Redappa Reddy who was riding the offending vehicle was not holding a valid driving license and as such respondent No.2 is not liable to indemnify the owner. Respondent No.2 has also pleaded that petition in MVC.No.491/2010 is not maintainable for not impleading the owner and insurer of motor cycle bearing registration No.AP-03-AA-7037.

11. Based on the pleadings, the Tribunal has framed necessary issues.

12. In MVC