HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE LAXMI NARAYANA ALISHETTY M.A.C.M.A.NO.347 OF 2015

JUDGMENT

Heard learned counsel Sri Mr. Kota Subba Rao, for the appellant-insurance company.

2. The present appeal has been filed by the appellant-insurance company aggrieved by the award passed by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal-cum-XI Additional District Judge (FTC), Ranga Reddy District (for short, ‘MACT’) in O.P.No.1149 of 2010, dated 13.08.2014 and thereby seeking to set aside the award against the appellant-insurance company.

3. The brief factual matrix of the present appeal is as under.

4. On 02.06.2010, at about 10.30 p.m., while the claimant- injured was proceeding on his motor cycle bearing registration No.AP-20-D-5809 and when he reached near turning at Satyanagar Colony of Nagaram village in Keesara Mandal, the driver of the tractor bearing registration No.AP-03-AF-7602 drove the same in a rash and negligent manner and dashed the motorcycle of the claimant, as a result, he sustained multiple fractures and other injuries. The claimant was admitted in Raghavendra Hospital at Kamala Nagar, Hyderabad, and was treated as inpatient from 02.06.2010 to 09.06.2010, that he has been taking treatment as outpatient after discharge from the hospital, that he suffered lot of pain and agony and incurred huge amount towards treatment and medicines and claimed compensation of Rs.3,00,000/-.

5. The respondent No.1, the owner of the tractor remained ex-parte.

6. The 2^nd respondent-Insurance Company appellant herein filed counter denying allegations made in the claim petition and contended that the driver of the tractor was not having valid driving license at the time of accident, that respondent no.1 has violated the terms and conditions of the insurance policy, as such, insurance company is not liable to pay compensation and prayed for dismissal of the claim petition against the insurance company.

7. In order to substantiate the case, on behalf of the claimant, P.Ws.1 and 2 were examined and Exs.A1 to A10 were marked. On behalf of the 2^nd respondent-insurance company, R.W.1 was examined and Exs.B1 to B3 were marked.

8. The MACT on due consideration of evidence placed on record, came to conclusion that the accident took place due to the rash and negligent driving of the driver of the Tractor and awarded compensation to the claimant as follows:

8. The owner of the vehicle and the Insurance company i.e., respondents 1 and 2 were held to be jointly and severally liable to pay the said compensation with costs and interest @ 9% per annum.

9. During the course of hearing of appeal, learned counsel for appellant submitted that MACT failed to see that the driver of the vehicle was not having driving license at the time of the accident, that MACT failed to see that under Section 149 of the M.V.Act, the insurance company can deny the liability and when once there was no liability, the insurance company should be exonerated totally, even without resorting the principles of ‘pay and recovery’.

Consideration:

10. With regard to the driving license of the driver of the tractor, the MACT held that there was no evidence to show that Ex.B2 notice was served on respondent no.1 asking him to show-cause as to why policy should not be cancelled and further, it was not mentioned in the said notice that respondent No.1 was driving the vehicle and that he was not having valid driving license. The MACT further held that though in the charge-sheet, Section 181 of the M.V.Act was mentioned and it was established that respondent no.1 was not having driving license, Section 181 of the MV Act only shows that driver did not produce driving license when demanded by the police and that it does not confirm that there was no driving license in favour of respondent no