An insurance company is statutorily bound to pay compensation to third-party victims in motor accidents even if a policy breach is proven, with the right to recover such amount from the insured owner (Pay and Recover principle).

The Court made the following:

COMMON JUDGMENT:

1. The Motor Accident Civil Miscellaneous appeal vide MACMA No.393 of 2022 has been preferred by the appellant – 3rd respondent i.e., Oriental Insurance Company Ltd., challenging the award dated 02.05.2022 in M.V.O.P.No.13 of 2019 passed by the Chairman, Motor Vehicle Claims Tribunal-cum-Principal District Judge, Rajamahendravaram, wherein the Tribunal granted compensation of Rs.1,10,000/- (Rupees One Lakh ten thousand only) to the petitioner as against the claim of Rs.5,00,000/-, for the injuries sustained by her in a motor vehicle accident.

The Motor Accident Civil Miscellaneous appeal vide MACMA No.28 of 2023 has been preferred by the appellant – claimant being aggrieved by the same award dated 02.05.2022 in M.V.O.P.No.13 of 2019 passed by the Chairman, Motor Vehicle Claims Tribunal-cum-Principal District Judge, Rajamahendravaram, wherein the Tribunal granted compensation of Rs.1,10,000/- (Rupees One Lakh ten thousand only) to the petitioner as against the claim of Rs.5,00,000/-, for the injuries sustained by her in a motor vehicle accident.

2. For the sake of convenience, the parties are referred to as they are arrayed before the Tribunal.

3. The case of the petitioners in brief as follows: on 24.05.2018 at about 7.00 p.m., the petitioner along with her father was proceeding on motorcycle near Jaggaraju Heights, Malikipuram, at that time one Maruthi Swift Car bearing No.AP-37BD-9799 driven by respondent No.1 in a rash and negligent manner with high speed, came in opposite direction and dashed the petitioner, she sustained grievous fractures to her right leg femur and also fracture to right leg tibia and fibula and multiple injuries all over the body and immediately she was shifted to KIMS Hospital, Rajamahendravaram. She underwent surgery to her right leg and she spent huge amount for the medical expenses.

4. Before the Tribunal, respondent No.1 remained ex parte.

5. Respondent No.2 filed counter denying the material averments made in the petition inter alia contending that there is no rash and negligent driving on the part of respondent No.1. Respondent No.1 was having valid driving license to drive the car by the date of the alleged accident. Respondent No.2 is the owner of Maruthi Swift Car bearing No.AP-37BD-9799 and the same is validly insured with respondent No.3. There is no cause of action to the petitioner to file the petition. Therefore, prayed to dismiss the claim against respondent No.2.

6. Respondent No.3 filed counter denying the material averments made in the petition inter alia contending that the petitioner has to prove the age, income and involvement of the offended vehicle and insurance policy for the vehicle. The father of the petitioner contributed for the accident. The accident occurred only due to rash and negligent driving of her father. The amount claimed is high and excessive as she is not suffering from any disability. Respondent No.3 filed a petition under section 170 of the Motor Vehicles Act, which was allowed. Therefore, prayed to dismiss the petition.

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

1) Whether the petitioner Kandragula Navya, D/o K. Dusyendra Satyanarayana Prasad, sustained injuries due to rash and negligent driving on the part of the respondent No.1/driver of Maruthi Swift Dzire car bearing registration No.AP-37BD-9799 in a motor accident occurred on 24.05.2018 at Malkipuram Village?

2) Whether the petitioner is entitled to claim compensation? If so, to what amount and from which of the respondents?

3) To what relief?”

8