Insurers are liable to indemnify compensation awarded in motor accident cases, despite policy violations, and can seek recovery from the vehicle owner post-payment.

JUDGMENT :

B.R.MADHUSUDHAN RAO, J.

1. This memorandum of Civil Miscellaneous Appeal is filed under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicle Act, 1988 (for short, ‘the MV Act’) assailing the award passed by the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal (III Additional District Judge) (Fast Track Court), Khammam in M.A.T.O.P.No.882 of 2005, dated 23.10.2008.

2. Appeal against respondent No.2 is dismissed vide docket order dated 08.12.2011.

3. Appellant is respondent No.2, respondent No.1 is the petitioner and respondent No.2 is the respondent No.1 before the Tribunal.

4.1 Respondent No.1 – petitioner has filed claim petition under Section 166 of MV Act claiming compensation of Rs.2,00,000/- with interest at the rate of 12% per annum from the date of accident till the date of realization for the injuries sustained by him in the accident.

4.2 On 09.04.2005 at about 08.00 p.m., respondent No.1 – petitioner loaded his Mirchi bags in the trolley auto bearing No.AP-20-W-587 was proceedings to keep the same in cold storage at Khammam when the auto reached near outskirts of Burugupadu village, driver of the auto by name P.Narasimha Rao drove the same in a rash and negligent manner with high speed without taking minimum care and caution and failed to control the vehicle due to which the auto turned turtle. Due to the accident, respondent No.1 – petitioner right hand got struck in the auto and was totally crushed, he was shifted to Srujan Ortho and Accident Care Hospital, Khammam and was treated by Dr.P.N.V.S.V.Prasad as inpatient for a period of 10 days. During the course of treatment, blood transfusion has taken place and 4^th and 5^th fingers of right hand of respondent No.1 – petitioner were badly damaged and the doctor had amputated the same. The third finger of respondent No.1 – petitioner is also damaged but that was not amputated. Respondent No.1 – petitioner went to police station and on enquiry he came to know that no report was lodged regarding the accident, thereby he lodged a complaint before PS Dornakal, on the said complaint a case in crime No.56 of 2005 was registered for the offence under Section 338 of IPC and police has filed charge sheet. Respondent No.1 – petitioner was hale and healthy prior to the accident, was doing toddy tapping and agriculture and was earning Rs.20,000/- per month on toddy and Rs.80,000/- on agriculture. Due to the accident his life was paralyzed and his dependents have become helpless and 50% of his hand was amputated. Respondent No.1 – petitioner has spent Rs.30,000/- towards medical expenses and Rs.20,000/- towards future medical expenses. He lost his past and future income. Due to the accident he was unable to do his agriculture work and toddy tapping, he engaged labourers for agriculture works and toddy tapping and he had to pay Rs.20,000/- per annum to them. The disability sustained by respondent No.1 – petitioner is permanent in nature and respondent Nos.1 and 2 (respondent No.2 and appellant herein) are jointly and severally liable to pay the compensation.

5. Respondent No.1 (respondent No.2 herein) filed counter in MATOP and contended that there is no negligence on the part of the driver of the auto, auto is insured with respondent No.2 (appellant herein), the policy is in force at the time of the accident and the driver possess valid driving licence to drive the auto. Hence respondent No.2 (appellant herein) is liable to indemnify respondent No.1 and liable to pay the compensation and prayed to dismiss the O.P against him.

6. Respondent No.2 (appellant herein) filed counter in MATOP and denied the age, earning and occupation of respondent No.1 – petitioner. Further denied the income of the respondent No.1 – petitioner apart from the money spent by him for his treatment, the claim of the respondent No.1 – petitioner is excessive, the policy is violated and prayed to dismiss the O.P.

7. T