ORDER:

1) The present Appeal is filed by the Insurance Company under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicle Act, assailing the Order, dated 13.04.2010, passed in M.V.O.P. No. 530 of 2009 on the file of the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, (District Judge), Ongole.

2) Originally, the Claimants filed an application under Section 166-1(c) of the Motor Vehicles Act seeking compensation of Rs.15,00,000/- as dependants, for the death of K. Udayavarlu, Accountant-cum-Administrative Consultant, in Sahay Data Tech Private Limited and also in Weavers Welfare Trust earning Rs.14,000/- per month in a motor accident that occurred on 29.04.2007 at about 11.30 AM. It is said that, on that day, while the deceased along with his relatives were proceeding to a marriage function from Hyderabad in a Maruthi Car bearing No. AP 28 A5 5792 and when the vehicle reached near Kamineni Hospitals, Narkatpally, the lorry bearing No. AP 37 W 1012 of Respondent No.1 insured with Respondent No. 2 in O.P., driven by its driver in rash and negligent manner, in high speed came in a opposite direction and dashed against the car, as a result of which, all the inmates of the car received injuries. Immediately, thereafter they were shifted to a nearby hospital where one of the injured succumbed to injuries. In respect of this incident, a case in Crime No. 49 of 2007 of Narkatpally Police Station came to be registered for the offences punishable under Sections 337 and 304-A IPC.

3) The 1st Respondent-owner of the vehicle remained ex parte to the proceedings, while, the 2nd Respondent filed written statement disputing the claim including the manner in which the accident took place, involvement of the vehicle and its driver. It was stated that, there was no privity of contract between the parties and that the accident occurred due to rash and negligent driving of the driver of Maruti Car. It is further stated that, the driver of the Maruti Car had no valid driving license at the time of the accident and therefore, the Respondent No. 2 –insurance company is entitled for protection of Sections 147, 149 and 170 of the Motor Vehicle Act. Basing on the above pleading, the Tribunal framed the following issues:

i) “Whether the deceased died due to rash and negligent driving of the driver of the lorry of Respondent No. 1 or that that of Maruthi Car or that of contributory negligence of both the drivers?

ii) What is the correct age and income of deceased as on date of the accident?

iii) Whether the Petitioners are entitled for compensation, if so to what amount and from whom?

iv) To what relief?

4) In support of its claim, the Claimants examined PW1 to PW4 and got marked Ex.A1 to Ex.A8, while the Respondents examined RW1 and got marked Ex.B1 and Ex.B5.

5) Considering the evidence on record, the Tribunal allowed the petition, in part, against Respondent No. 1 and Respondent No. 2 jointly with a direction to Respondent No. 2 to pay Rs.3,03,000/- and recover the same from Respondent No. 1 with interest @9% per annum from the date of petition till realization and with proportionate costs. Challenging the same, the present appeal came to be filed.

6) The main grounds urged were that, the driver of the lorry has no valid driving license and secondly that even the driver of the Car was responsible for his negligent driving and as such the liability cannot be fastened on the insurance company.

7) Insofar as the issue as to whether the driver of the crime vehicle has any driving license at the time of accident, it would be useful to refer to the evidence of RW3.

8) RW3 was a Junior Assistant at RTA Office. His evidence is that, the driver of the crime lorry possessed LMV Non-Transport DL which was valid up to 25.03.2018. The driver was not having HGV Transport DL as on the date of accident i.e., on 29.04.2007, as he did not renew the DL for HGV after 07.09.2006, i.e., within 30 days. The license was renewed only on 2.5.2007 i.e., after the accident. In fact, RW1 and RW3 (RW3 in the connected O.P. No. 3