In motor accident claims, if a breach of policy condition (such as an invalid or expired driving license) is proven, the insurance company is still liable to pay compensation to the third-party victim and may subsequently recover the amount from the vehicle owner.

Appeal filed under Order 41 of CPC praying that the High Court may be pleased to allow this appeal by setting aside the decree and judgment passed in M.V.O.P.No.300 of 2017 on the file of The Motor Accident Claims Tribunal- Cum - Principal District Judge , West Godavari at Eluru, Dated 15th day of September, 2022 and pass

IA NO: 1 OF 2023

Petition under Section 151 CPC praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High Court may be pleased to condone the delay of 41 days in filing the M.A.C.M.A. against the decree and judgment M.V.O.P.No.300 of 2017 on the file of The Motor Accident Claims Tribunal-Cum — Principal District Judge, West Godavari at Eluru, Dated 15th day of September, 2022 , and pass

IA NO: 2 OF 2023

Petition under Section 151 CPC praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High Court may be pleased to grant stay of all further proceedings pursuant to the Judgment and Decree dated 15th day of September, 2022 passed in M.V.O.P.No.300 of 2017 on the file of The Motor Accident Claims Tribunal-Cum — Principal District Judge, West Godavari at Eluru, including the execution proceedings , pending disposal of the main M.A.C.M.A., and pass

The Court made the following:

JUDGMENT:-

The Insurance Company filed the present Appeal challenging the order and decree, dated 15.09.2022 in M.V.O.P.No.300 of 2017 on the file of the Court of the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal-cum-Principal District Judge, West Godavari at Eluru, whereby and whereunder the Tribunal granted compensation of Rs.12,54,556/- to the Claimant/ Respondent No.1 herein, as against the claim of Rs.15,00,000/-, on account of the injuries sustained by him in a motor accident that occurred on 12.12.2015.

For the purpose of convenience, the parties will be referred to as they are arrayed before the Tribunal.

The case of the petitioners, in brief, is as follows:

On 12.12.2015, the Claimant was on duty as a cleaner along with driver i.e Respondent No.1 of the lorry bearing No. AP 36 X 6699 got loaded Charcoal for transportation from HPCL, Visakhapatnam to BSPL Company, Tirhoura, Chhattisgarh. On 13.12.2015 at 11.00 p.m, the Respondent No.1 parked the offending vehicle at BSPL Company compound. On the instructions of Respondent No.1, the Claimant climbed on the top of the tanker (offending vehicle). While so, Respondent No.1 rashly and negligently moved the offending vehicle suddenly and carelessly, due to which the Claimant got connected with high-tension wires and electrocuted and fell down from the top of the offending vehicle and sustained severe multiple grievous crush injuries all over the body. Therefore, the Claimant filed a claim petition seeking compensation.

Before the Tribunal, the Respondents No. 1 and 2 i.e Driver and Owner of the offending lorry were remained ex parte.

The Respondent No.3 filed counter-affidavit denying the material averments made in the claim petition and inter alia contended that there is negligence on the part of the Electrical Department i.e APEPDCL, which is necessary party. As such, the claim petition is bad for non-joinder of proper and necessary party. It is further contended that the Respondent No.1 did not possess valid and effective driving license to drive the heavy goods vehicle and the offending vehicle does not have proper registration, permit and fitness certificates. As such, the Respondent No.2 violated the terms and conditions of insurance policy by handing over the offending vehicle to a person, who does not have valid driving license under Section 170 of Motor Vehicles Act. It was further contended that the compensation claimed by the Claimant is highly excessive and exorbitant and hence, it was prayed to dismiss the claim petition.

Basing on the pleadings, the Tribunal framed the following issues for trial:

“1. Whether the accident dated 13.12.2015 occurred due to rash or negl