Back
2025 Supreme(Online)(AP) 4771
HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH
Ravi Nath Tilhari, Challa Gunaranjan, JJ
Gudivada Rajesh – Appellant
Versus
N.Kireeti Raju & Ors. – Respondent
M.A.C.M.A. Nos.1863, 2534 and 2556 of 2017
For the Appellants/Petitioners: Sri G. Ram Gopal
For the Respondents: Sri K.M.R. Bala Prasad, Sri K.Gopal, Sri P. Durga Prasad, Sri Naresh Byrapaneni, Sri A.N. Krishna Swamy
Learner's licenses must comply with specific conditions to be deemed valid under the Motor Vehicles Act; insurers are liable to compensate third parties despite policy violations, followed by recovery from liable parties.
Headnote:(A) Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 - Section 166 - Accident occurred on 23.08.2008 resulting in severe injuries to the claimant; claim of Rs.30,00,000/- for compensation sought - Tribunal awarded Rs.68,89,703/- with 7.5% interest but exonerated the Insurance Company from liability - Claimant's appeal led to ruling that LLR does not equate to valid driving license without compliance to conditions under the Act - Insurance Company held responsible for compensation with the right to recover from the owner post-payment. (Paras 1, 14, 50)
(B) Driving License - Conditions attached to learner's licenses - Must be accompanied by a valid driving license holder, failure leading to violation of insurance policy terms - Precedent set establishing that insurers must indemnify until recovery is sought. (Paras 23, 47)
Facts of the case:
Accused involved in the accident led to the claimant suffering 100% disability; medical treatment costs incurred were well-documented, supporting the claimant's request for damages against the parties held responsible.
Findings of Court:
The accident's causation was established as due to the negligent conduct of the 1st respondent, the driver without a valid license, and the Tribunal's compensation was justified based on the claimant's medical condition.
Issues: Determination of negligence, entitlement to compensation, and the liable parties concerning insurance coverage.
Ratio Decidendi: LLR cannot be treated as a full driving license without compliance to driving laws; insurance obligation exists despite policy violations under the auspices of pay and recover principles.
Result: All appeals concluded; compensation awarded to the claimant with adjustments for liability.
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. multiple appeals concerning motor vehicle accident. (Para 1 , 2 , 3 , 4 , 5) |
| 2. accident caused by negligent driving leading to serious injuries. (Para 6 , 7 , 8 , 9 , 10) |
| 3. arguments about valid driving licenses and insurance company liability. (Para 14 , 15 , 18) |
| 4. provisions related to driving licenses under the motor vehicles act. (Para 19 , 20) |
| 5. breach of policy condition leads to liability on insurance, following 'pay and recover' principle. (Para 41 , 46) |
| 6. appeals disposed with directed compensation payment by insurance. (Para 50) |
COMMON JUDGMENT: (per Hon’ble Sri Justice Challa Gunaranjan)
All these appeals arise out of the accident occurred on 23.08.2008 resulting in the injured-claimant preferring claim before the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Visakhapatnam, under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (for short, “the Act”), for compensation of Rs.30,00,000/- with costs and interest, which came to be allowed, by order, dated 22.02.2017, in M.V.O.P. No.1472 of 2010 on the file of the VI Additional District Judge-cum-Chairman, Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Visakhapatnam (for short, “the Tribunal”), awarding compensation for a sum of Rs.68,89,703/- with interest at the rate of 7.5% p.a. against the respondents 1 and 2 therein and dismissed the claim against the 3rd respondent Insurance Company.
2. M.A.C.M.A. No.1863 of 2017 is preferred by the claimant aggrieved by the order of the Tribunal in dismissing the claim qua Insurance Company for payment of compensation.
3. M.A.C.M.A.No.2534 of 2017 is preferred by the 1st respondent before the Tribunal, who drove the offending motorcycle, aggrieved by awarding of compensation holding him to be negligent.
4. M.A.C.M.A. No.2556 of 2017 is preferred by the 2nd respondent before the Tribunal, who was arrayed as owner of the offending motorcycle, but driven by the 1st respondent, challenging the order of the Tribunal fastening liability on her as owner.
5. For the sake of convenience, the parties hereinafter are referred to as they were arrayed in the M.V.O.P. before the Tribunal.
6. The facts relevant for disposal of these appeals are set out as under:
(a) On 23.08.2008 at about 10.00 A.M. while the claimant proceeding on motorcycle bearing Registration No.AP 31 AK T/R 5145 on reaching Old T.B. Hospital Junction, Visakhapatnam, another motorcycle bearing Registration No.AP 31 AJ 1679, driven by the 1st respondent, dashed the claimant’s motorcycle from rear side and thereby he fell down and sustained severe injuries. The claimant was immediately taken to Care Hospital where underwent medical treatment for the injuries of dislocation of L.1, L.2 and C Parapleges, dislocation of Humerus sub capital and was discharged on 29.09.2008 and later for better treatment was shifted to Christian Medical College, Vellore, on 19.11.2008 where he was operated for various procedures and undergone treatment upto 10.02.2009. Subsequently, the claimant was shifted to NEMANI Hospital, Bangalore for further treatment and has been under continuous medical treatment.
(b) Upon occurrence of the accident, a case in Crime No.66 of 2008 of IV Town Traffic P.S., Visakhapatnam, for the offence punishable under Section 338 of IPC, came to be registered against the 1st respondent, rider of motorcycle bearing Registration No.AP 31 AJ 1679.
(c) The claimant aged 24 years, studied M.Tech. in Chemical Plant Design Engineering at National Institute of Technology, Surathkal, Karnataka, claimed to have bright future and prospects of getting good employment in America and because of the accident, was completely paralyzed with 100% functional disability besides incurred expenditure of about Rs.8.00 Lakhs for the treatment thereby claimed compensation of Rs.30,00,000/-, under the following heads:
| 25. Amount of compensation claimed For Special damages. a. Loss of earnings b. Transport to Care Hospital to House, House to C.M.C., Vellore 4 Trips, House to NEMMANI, Bangalore. c. Extra Nourishment & Medicin | |
