JUDGMENT:

This appeal is preferred by the appellant–Insurance Company under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act, challenging the judgment and decree dated 22.12.2015 passed in M.V.O.P. No.394 of 2014 by the Chairman, Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal-cum-District Judge, Nizamabad, whereby the Tribunal awarded compensation of Rs.8,92,000/- with interest at 7.5% per annum in favour of the claimants for the death of Vadla Jagan (hereinafter referred to as “the deceased”) in a motor vehicle accident.

2. The brief facts of the case are that on 09.12.2008, the deceased, along with his friend, was proceeding from Ansanpally to Nizamabad as a pillion rider on a Hero Honda motorcycle bearing No.AP-25-R-0177 and when they reached near Dichpally Bus Stand, due to the rash and negligent driving of the rider, the deceased fell down, sustained grievous injuries, and subsequently succumbed to the injuries while undergoing treatment. Respondent Nos.1 and 2 herein, who are the parents of the deceased, filed the claim petition under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act seeking compensation of Rs.10,00,000/-. Upon appreciation of the oral and documentary evidence on record, the Tribunal held that the accident occurred due to the rash and negligent driving of the motorcycle rider and accordingly awarded compensation of Rs.8,92,000/-, fastening liability jointly and severally on the owner and the insurer. Aggrieved by the said award, the present appeal is filed by the Insurance Company.

3. Learned Standing Counsel appearing for the appellant–Insurance Company contends that the Tribunal erred in fastening liability on the insurer. It is argued that the rider of the offending motorcycle did not possess a valid driving licence and was also charge-sheeted under Section 181 of the Motor Vehicles Act. It is further contended that no premium was paid to cover the risk of a pillion rider and therefore, the insurer is not liable. It is also submitted that the notional income fixed by the Tribunal is excessive and the compensation awarded is without proper basis.

4. On the other hand, learned counsel for respondent Nos.1 and 2–claimants contends that the accident occurred solely due to the rash and negligent driving of the motorcycle rider and that the Tribunal rightly appreciated the evidence on record. It is submitted that the Insurance Company failed to establish any breach of policy conditions, including absence of a valid driving licence. It is further contended that the deceased, being a pillion rider, is a third party and the policy covers such risk. Hence, it is prayed that the award requires no interference.

5. With regard to the contention relating to negligence, the Tribunal, on the basis of the evidence of PW.2 (eyewitness) and documentary evidence such as Ex.A1 (FIR) and Ex.A4 (charge sheet), has categorically held that the accident occurred due to the rash and negligent driving of the motorcycle rider. Even the material filed by the Insurance Company, particularly Ex.B6 (statement recorded under Section 161 Cr.P.C.), supports the case of the claimants. Therefore, the said finding is well-founded and warrants no interference.

6. As regards the contention relating to absence of a valid driving licence, though such a plea is raised, the burden lies on the Insurance Company to prove the same by adducing cogent evidence. Except examining RW.1, no official from the RTA was examined to establish that the rider did not possess a valid driving licence. On the contrary, the record indicates that the licence was seized by the police at the time of the accident. In the absence of substantive evidence, the Tribunal rightly rejected the said contention. Mere pleading without proof cannot absolve the insurer of its liability.

7. The contention that the policy does not cover the risk of a pillion rider is also untenable. The policy (Ex.B1) covers third-party risk, and a pillion rider is treated as a third