IMPORTANT POINT
Insurance Companies are liable to pay compensation regardless of the driver's licensing status, with the right to recover from the vehicle owner.

JUDGMENT :

M.G. PRIYADARSINI, J.

1. Aggrieved by the order dated 31.10.2017 passed in M.V.O.P. No. 42 of 2016, on the file of the Motor Vehicles Accidents Claims Tribunal-cum-XII Additional Chief Judge, City Civil Court, Secunderabad, the 2nd respondent in M.V.O.P. and Insurance Company filed M.A.C.M.A.N o. 1152 of 2018 seeking to set-aside the order of the learned Tribunal. Also, having not satisfied with the compensation awarded by the learned Tribunal, the claim petitioner in M.V.O.P. filed Cross Objections No. 12 of 2018 seeking for enhancement of compensation.

2. For the sake of convenience, the parties hereinafter be referred as they were arrayed before the Tribunal.

3. The brief facts of the case are that the claim petitioner, who is injured, filed a petition under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 and Section 455 of A.P. Motor Vehicle Rules, 1989 read with Section 140 (c) of Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, seeking compensation of Rs.50,00,000/- along with interest @ 12% per annum for the injuries sustained to him in an accident that occurred on 01.06.2015 at 11.00 A.M. It is stated by the petitioner/inured that on 01.06.2015 at about 11.00 A.M. when the petitioner/injured was proceeding on his motorcycle from Thumukunta to Secunderabad and when reached near Hakimpet Bus Depot, one TATA Vista Car bearing No. TS-10EC-7060 came at a high speed in a rash and negligent manner and dashed the motorcycle of the petitioner, due to which he fell down on the road and sustained severe multiple fractures to left leg, bleeding injuries on left hand, bleeding injuries on left side of the chest, deep cut bleeding injuries on left forearm and deep cut bleeding injuries on left foot. Immediately, the petitioner was shifted to Sree Balaji Hospital, Pet Basheerbad, Medchal Road in ‘108’ Ambulance and later shifted to Kamineni Hospital, where the petitioner underwent surgery to his left leg and was discharged on 05.06.2015. Police of Alwal Police Station, registered a case in Crime No. 378 of 2015 for the offence punishable under Section 338 of IPC against the driver of the Car. It is further stated by the petitioner that he was aged 28 years at the time of accident and was Graduated in Commerce and joined Coffee Day shop for special training in Bar Food Technology and Management and was working as Deputy District Manager in Jubilant Food Works Limited and was getting salary of Rs.40,000/- per month. He was earning a sum of Rs.15,000/- per month from Aluminium Work contract. Due to the said accident, the petitioner was bedridden for four (4) months and was unable to sit, squat and walk and thus became permanently disabled person and was put to suffer economically and socially for balance of life and hence filed the claim petition seeking compensation against the respondent Nos. 1 to 3, who are the owner, insurer and driver of the crime vehicle.

4. Despite service of notices to respondent Nos. 1 & 3, they failed to appear before the Trial Court. As such, they were set ex-parte.

5. Respondent No. 2, who is the insurer of the crime vehicle, filed counter denying the averments made in the claim petition including, age, occupation, income, disability of the petitioner and contended that the accident occurred due to the contributory negligence of the driver of the crime vehicle. It is also contended that the concerned police did not forward the relevant documents to the insurer as required under Section 158(6) of MV Act, 1988. It is also contended that the 1st respondent, who is the owner of the crime vehicle, did not furnish the particulars of the policy, date, time, place of accident, name of the driver and his driving license as required under Section 134(c) of M.V. Act, 1988 and that the compensation claimed is excess and exorbitant and hence prayed to dismiss the claim against it.

6. Based on the rival contentions made by both the parties, the learned Tribunal had framed the following issues for consideration:

1. Whether the pleaded accident oc