Back
2024 Supreme(Online)(AP) 20017
HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH
V. SRINIVAS, J
THE ORIENTAL INSURANCE COMPANY LIMITED – Appellant
Versus
CHEKURI VIJAYA – Respondent
MACMA 162/2020
V RAGHU, CHAKRADHARA RAJA Y
The insurer is liable to pay compensation to third parties despite policy violations, which can be recovered from the insured subsequently.
Headnote:(A) Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 - Sections 149 and 166 - Insurer's liability - Appeal against the Tribunal's order for compensation for death in accident involving a vehicle with no valid driving license or permit - The Tribunal found the driver negligent and awarded Rs.5,13,000/- with interest at 9.5% per annum - Insurer claimed no liability due to policy violations. (Paras 8, 12, 15, 17, 18)
(B) Insurance - Third-party rights - It is a statutory right for third parties to recover compensation from the insurer, who may subsequently seek recovery from the insured for policy violations. (Paras 16, 17)
Facts of the case:
The deceased was involved in an accident on 21.12.2013 while traveling in a vehicle that overturned due to the driver's negligence, resulting in death. Claimants sought Rs.8,00,000/- in compensation. (Paras 4, 5)
Findings of Court:
The Tribunal found the accident was due to the driver’s negligence and awarded compensation of Rs.5,13,000/- with interest, directing the insurer to pay and recover from the owner. (Paras 8, 15, 18)
Issues: The main issues included whether the insurer is liable for compensation in light of policy violations and the validity of the driving license and vehicle permit. (Paras 12, 13)
Ratio Decidendi: The court held that the insurer is liable to pay compensation first and can recover from the insured if there are policy violations, reaffirming third-party statutory rights. (Paras 17, 18)
Result: Appeal dismissed.
JUDGMENT:
This appeal is directed against the order of the Chairman, Motor Vehicle Accident Claims Tribunal-cum-X Additional District Judge at Narsapur (hereinafter called as ‘the Tribunal’) in M.V.O.P.No.31 of 2015 dated 21.10.2019.
2. The appellant is the insurer of the Tractor and Trailer bearing No.AP 37 BF 0985 and AP 37 V 9096 (hereinafter referred as “crime vehicle”). The respondent Nos.1 to 4 herein are the wife, children, and mother of one Chekuri Krishna (hereinafter called as ‘the deceased’) respectively. The respondent Nos.5 and 6 are the driver and owner of the said crime vehicle, respectively.
3. For the sake of convenience, the parties hereinafter referred to as they arrayed before the tribunal.
4. The case of the claimants, in the petition before the Tribunal is that:
i). On 21.12.2013 at about 10.30 a.m., while the deceased along with other coolies proceeding on crime vehicle by sitting on the paddy bags, when they reached the road, due to rash and negligent driving of the 1st respondent, the crime vehicle was turned turtle, resulted the deceased died on the spot.
ii). Being dependents, they claimed compensation of Rs.8,00,000/- against the driver, owner, and insurer of the crime vehicle.
5. The respondent No.3/insurer filed written statement denying the averments in the petition and pleaded that there is no valid driving license to the 1st respondent to drive the crime vehicle as well there is no permit to the crime vehicle by the time of incident, as such, 2nd respondent violated the terms of the policy; that by the time of incident the deceased was travelling in the crime vehicle as unauthorized passenger; that the compensation claimed by the claimants is excessive and thereby, prayed to dismiss the petition.
6. The Tribunal settled the following issues for enquiry basing on the material:
“1.Whether the accident occurred on 21.12.2013 due to rash and negligent driving of driver of Trailer bearing No.AP 37 V 9096?
2.Whether the petitioners are entitled for compensation if so what amount and from which of the respondent?
3.Whether the vehicle involved is covered with policy as on date of incident by Respondent No.3?
4.Whether the deceased was an unauthorized gracious passenger travelling in the vehicle
5.Whether Respondent No.3 has no liability to pay any compensation? and
6.To what relief?”
7. During enquiry, on behalf of the claimants, PWs.1 and 2 were examined, Exs.A.1 to A.5 were exhibited. On behalf of the respondent No.3, R.Ws.1 and 2 were examined and Exs.B.1 to B.5 were marked.
8. On the material, the Tribunal, having concluded that the accident occurred due to the negligent riding of the crime vehicle by the 1st respondent, held that the claimants are entitled for the compensation of Rs.5,13,000/- with interest at 9.5% per annum from the date of petition till the date of realization against the respondent Nos.1 and 2, for the death of the deceased in the accident and also directed the respondent No.3 to deposit the said compensation amount within one month and shall recover the same from the owner of the said crime vehicle.
9. It is against the said order; this appeal was preferred by the insurer of the crime vehicle.
10. Heard Sri V.Raghu, learned counsel for the appellant/insurer.
11. Sri V.Raghu, learned counsel for the appellant/insurer submits that the Tribunal erred in ordering pay and recovery against the appellant/insurer in the absence of valid driving license to the respondent No.1 as well permit to the crime vehicle and thereby, prays to consider the present appeal.
12. Now, the only point that arises for determination is “whether the appellant/insurer is liable to satisfy the award passed by the Tribunal at the first instance when there is violation of any condition of the insurance policy issued in respect of the crime vehicle?”
13. POINT
The only contention of the appellant/insurer is that in the absence of valid driving license to drive the crime vehicle by the 1st respondent as well valid permit to the cri
