An insurance company is not liable to indemnify an owner-driver for injuries sustained due to their own negligence under a standard third-party motor insurance policy, as such policies only cover third-party risks and do not extend to the owner unless a specific personal accident cover exists.

JUDGMENT:

The claimant preferred the present appeal aggrieved by the award and decree dated 09.01.2006 (hereinafter shall be referred to as ‘the impugned order’) passed by the learned Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal (IV Additional District Judge), Khammam (hereinafter shall be referred to as ‘the Tribunal’) in M.V.O.P.No.1073 of 2003, wherein the claim petition filed by the claimant, was dismissed.

2. For the sake of convenience, the parties hereinafter shall be referred to as per their status before the learned Tribunal.

I. BRIEF FACTS:

3. The brief facts of the case as borne out from the record are that the claimant filed claim petition under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicle Act, 1988 claiming compensation of Rs.1,00,000/- against the Respondent No.1 for the grievous injuries sustained by him in a road traffic accident. It is alleged that on 15.02.2003 at 9.00 AM, while the claimant was proceeding along with passengers on his Auto bearing registration No. AP 20 U 4962, which turned turtle near Janakipuram Village.

4. The claimant sustained fractures to radius 1/3rd of the forearm, 4th and 5th metacarpal bones of left hand, proximal phalanges, 1, 2, 3 fingers of left hand and multiple injuries all over the body. A case in Crime No.16/2003 was registered against the claimant for the offence under Section 338 of the Indian Penal Code. The claimant was shifted to Srujana Orthopedic Nursing Home, Khammam.

5. The claimant alleged to have spent Rs.20,000/- towards medical and other expenses. Due to the injuries the claimant alleged to have bedridden for two months. The claimant used to earn Rs.2,000/- per month as driver of the auto. Hence, the claimant filed claim petition seeking compensation of Rs.1,00,000/- against the respondent/insurance company.

6. The respondent filed counter denying the material averments i.e., age, income, expenditure incurred by the claimant towards medical expenses, involvement of the offending vehicle in the accident, injuries sustained by the claimant, treatment obtained by the claimant. It is contended that the claimant drove the vehicle in rash and negligent manner and lost control over the auto. It is further case of the respondent that the claimant is not holding valid driving license at the time of accident and thus, prayed to dismiss the petition.

7. In order to establish the claim before the learned Tribunal, the claimant examined himself as PW1 and got marked Exs.A1 to A3. On behalf of respondent, RW1 was examined apart from exhibiting copy of the insurance under Ex.B1.

8. The learned Tribunal after considering the oral and documentary evidence on record, dismissed the claim application holding that claimant was not holding valid driving license.

9. Heard Sri K. Naupure Mahesh, learned counsel representing Sri K. Rathanga Pani Reddy, Smt. I. Maamu Vani, learned for the respondent No.2 and perused the material available on record including the grounds of Appeal.

SUBMISSIONS ON BEHALF OF THE PARTIES:

a) Submissions on behalf of claimant:

10. The learned counsel for the claimant contended that the learned Tribunal erred in not considering the decision of the Honourable Supreme Court in Swaran Singh’s case, wherein it was held that burden lies on the insurance company to prove that the accident occurred due to not having driving license

b) Submissions on behalf of the respondent:

11. Per contra, the learned Standing Counsel for the Insurance Company contended that the learned Tribunal rightly dismissed the claim peti