HONOURABLE SMT. JUSTICE TIRUMALA DEVI EADA

JUDGMENT:

This appeal is filed by the Insurance Company aggrieved by the Order and Decree dated 17.09.2019 in M.V.O.P.No.664 of 2015 passed by the Chariman, Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal-cum-V Additional District and Sessions Judge, Karimnagar (for short “the trial Court”).

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

3. The case of the petitioner before the Tribunal was that on 03.10.2011 at about 2:30 p.m., while the deceased was crossing the road by walk near water tank, Old Mancherial, respondent No.1 has driven his Hero Honda Splendor motor bike bearing No.AP-01-AA-7563 in a rash and negligent manner and dashed against the deceased, due to which the deceased sustained greious injuries and succumbed to death. The petitioners sought a compensation of Rs.3,50,000/-.

4) The respondent No.1 remained set ex-parte.

5) The respondent No.2 and 3 filed counter denying the averments of the petition with regard to the occurrence of the accident, the age, avocation and income of the deceased. They further contended that the respondent No.1 did not possess a valid driving license as on the date of the accident. Thus, the Insurance Company is not liable to pay any compensation.

6) The respondent No.4 to 6 are the other legal heirs of the deceased and they filed counter submitting that they are the daughters and daughter-in-law of the deceased and thus, they too are entitled for compensation.

7. Based on above pleadings, the Tribunal has framed the following issues:

1) Whether the accident had occurred due to rash and negligent driving of the Hero Honda Splendor motor cycle bearing No.AP-

01-AA-7563 driven by its driver?

2) Whether the petitioner is entitled to compensation. If so, to what amount and from whom?

3) T o what relief?

8. To prove their case, the petitioners got examined PW1 and 2 and got marked Exs.A1 to A8. On behalf of the respondents RW1 and 2 were examined and got marked Exs.B1 to B4.

9. Based on the evidence on record, the Tribunal has awarded a compensation of Rs.2,20,000/-. Aggrieved by the said order and decree, the present appeal is preferred by the Insurance Company. 10. Heard the submission of Sri K. Ajay Kumar, learned counsel for the appellant. No representation on behalf of the respondents.

11. Learned counsel for the appellant has submitted that the Tribunal has made an error in awarding compensation to the claimants and that it has fastened the liability against the Insurance Company inspite of the evidence that the driver of crime vehicle did not possess a valid driving license as on the date of the accident. He argued that they have adduced ample evidence to prove that the respondent No.1 who was the rider of the motor bike did not possess a valid driving license, the Court has observed in its discussion about the said fact, but failed to appreciate the same in the result portion. There is a violation under Section 181 of the Motor Vehicles Act, thus their company is not liable to pay any compensation. He therefore, prayed to set aside the order and decree of the Tribunal.

12. Based on the above rival contentions, this Court frames the following points for determination:

1. Whether the driver of the crime vehicle did not possess a valid driving license as on the date of the accident. If so, whether the appellant is liable to pay any compensation to the claimants?

2. Whether the order and decree of the Tribunal need any interference?

3. To what relief?

13. POINT NO.1:

a) A perusal of the charge sheet under Ex.A4 reveals that it is filed against the rider of the motor bike bearing No.AP-01-AA-7563 and under Section 304-A Indian Penal Code and Section 181 of the Motor Vehicles Act. The contents of the charge sheet also reveal that the accused has driven his Hero Honda Splendour bearing No.AP-01-AA-7563 in a rash and negligent manner at a high speed and dashed the deceased, as a result of which the deceased sustained seve