In the event of a breach of insurance policy conditions, such as the driver lacking a valid licence, the insurance company remains liable to satisfy the compensation award to the third-party victim and may subsequently recover the amount from the insured owner.

JUDGMENT:

Heard,

Mr.B.Rama Shankar Rao, learned counsel for the appellant/claimant and Ms.T.V.Sri Devi, learned counsel for the 3rd respondent, M/s. Bajaj Allianz General Insurance Company Limited.

1. The parties are arrayed as arrayed before the Tribunal.

2. The present appeal is filed, being aggrieved by the Judgment and Decree, dated 11.05.2011, in M.V.O.P.No.753 of 2011, by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal-cum-Principal District Judge, Kurnool (hereinafter referred to as “the Tribunal”), fixing the liability on respondent No.2 to pay the compensation to the claimant and the 3rd respondent, being the Insurance Company, was exonerated on the ground that the driver of the offending vehicle was not having driving license at the time of accident.

3. In nutshell, the facts of the case germane to the issue are that the deceased by name Boya Hanumanthu, on 13.12.2006 in the evening hours, boarded an auto bearing registration No.AP21X2192 at Kodumur so as to go to his village and when the auto was proceeding towards R & B Buildings, Kodumur, another auto bearing registration No.AP21V7532 belonging to respondents 1 and 2, came from behind at high speed in a rash and negligent manner, without blowing horn, and hit the right side of the auto in which the deceased was travelling, due to which, the deceased fell down and died instantaneously. The deceased, Boya Hanumanthu, aged about 18 years, was working as a coolie, used to earn Rs.150/- per day and because of his sudden demise, love and affection is lost including the dependency and sought for a compensation of Rs.4,00,000/-.

4. The sole claimant is the mother of the deceased, respondents 1 and 2 are the owners of auto bearing registration No.AP2V7532, while the 3rd respondent is the Insurance Company with which the auto is insured.

5. Respondents 1 and 2 remained ex parte, while the 3rd respondent, being the Insurance Company, filed counter denying the material averments made in the petition and, inter alia, contending that the petitioner has to prove the involvement of auto bearing registration No.AP21V7532 in the accident and is put to strict proof regarding the age, income, avocation of the deceased. The other contention raised before the Tribunal is that the driver of the offending vehicle was not having valid and effective driving license and, thus violated the conditions of the policy, which was in force at the time of accident and thereby, the Insurance Company cannot be saddled with liability to pay the compensation to the claimant/petitioner.

6. The Tribunal, after considering the pleadings, framed the following issues:

i. Whether the accident that occurred on 13-12-2006 at about 5.30 p.m. near R & B Buildings, Kodumur, was due to rash and negligent driving of the driver of the auto bearing registration no.AP21V7532, which resulted in the death of Boya Hanumanthu?

ii. Whether the auto bearing registration no.AP21V7532 is owned by the first respondent and stood insured with the third respondent by the date of the accident, and if so, whether the policy covers the risk of the deceased?

iii. Whether the petition is bad for non-joinder of necessary and proper parties?

iv. Whether the petitioner is the legal heir of the deceased and entitled to compensation, and if so, what amount and against which of the respondents?

v. To what relief?

7. To prove the case, the petitioner got examined PW1 and PW2 and marked Exs.A1 to A3. On behalf of the 2nd respondent, RW1 and RW2 were examined and Exs.B1, B2 and Exs