HONOURABLE SMT. JUSTICE TIRUMALA DEVI EADA

JUDGMENT:

This appeal is filed by the Insurance Company aggrieved by the Order and Decree dated 17.03.2020 in M.V.O.P.No.232 of 2016 passed by the Chairman, Motor Accident Claims Tribunal-cum-Spl. Judge for Trial of Cases Under SCs/STs (POA) Act-cum-V Additional District and Sessions judge, Adilabad (for short “the Tribunal”).

2. For convenience and clarity, the parties herein are referred to as they were arrayed before the Tribunal.

3. The case of the petitioners before the tribunal is that on 26.09.2015 at about 6:30 a.m., the petitioner was going in a Bolero Max Vehicle bearing No.AP-22X-1653 towards Pembi village from Itkiyal and when the vehicle reached near Aktonimada Village, the driver of the said vehicle driven it in a rash and negligent manner at a high speed and dashed to a motor bike which was coming in the opposite direction due to which the rider of the motor bike fell down, and sustained multiple injuries and died on the spot and the said Bolero Max Vehicle turned turtle due to which the deceased sustained multiple injuries and died on the spot. The claimants sought a compensation of Rs.10,00,000/-.

4. Learned counsel for respondent Nos.1 and 2 has filed counter denying averments of the petition with regard to the occurrence of the accident, age, avocation and income of the deceased. It is further contended that as on the date of the accident, the vehicle was kept at the transport adda and further they have insured the vehicle with respondent No.3 and thus, they are not liable to pay any compensation.

5. Learned counsel for respondent No.3 has filed counter denying the averments of the petition with regard to the occurrence of the accident, age, avocation and income of the deceased. It is further contended that the driver of the crime vehicle did not have valid driving license as on the date of the accident and that they are not liable to pay any compensation.

6. Based on the rival contentions of the parties, the Tribunal has framed the following issues for trial:

1) Whether the accident took place as alleged by the petitioners on 26.09.2015 at about 6:30 a.m., due to rash, negligent and speed driving of Bolero Max bearing No.AP-22X-1653 driven by its driver/respondent No.1 and dashed to the motorcycle in opposite direction and turned turtle while the deceased namely Reddimalla Rajeshwar was proceeding in the same Bolero Max bearing No.AP-22X-1653 and due to which the deceased died on the spot or whether there was any negligence on the part of the rider of the motorcycle?

2) What was the age, avocation and income of the deceased?

3) Whether the Bolero Max bearing No.AP-22X-1653 was stood insured with respondent No.3, insurance company? If so, whether it covers the risk of deceased? And if so, was there any violation of policy conditions by the respondent No.2 as alleged by the respondent No.3?

4) Whether the petitioners are entitled to any compensation? If so, what is the quantum and against whom?

5) To what relief?”

7. To prove their case, the petitioners got examined PWs 1 and 2 and got marked Exs.A1 to A6. On behalf of the respondents, RW1 and 2 were examined and Ex.B1, Ex.X1 and X2 were marked.

8. Based on the evidence on record, the tribunal has awarded a compensation of Rs.10,00,000/-. Aggrieved by the said award, the present appeal is preferred by the Insurance Company.

9. Heard the submission of Sri K. Ajay Kumar, learned counsel for the appellant. No representation on behalf of the respondents.

10. Learned counsel for the appellants has submitted that the driver of the crime vehicle was charged under Section 181 of the Motor Vehicles Act as he was not possessing valid driving license and inspite of issuance of notice by the Insurance Company also he has not produced his driving license. Their company also got examined RW2 who is the RTA and his evidence reveals that their office has not issued driving license to the accused driver. He therefore, argued that the driver of the