THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE B. VIJAYSEN REDDY
MACMA.No.335 of 2011
JUDGMENT:
This appeal is preferred by the appellant - insurance company challenging the order dated 31.01.2008 in OP.No.452 of 2006 passed by the VII Additional District Judge, Mahabubnagar.
2. The claimants are the family members and dependants of the deceased, Chitkala Ramulu, who died in a road accident. It is the case of the claimants that on 04.04.2006 at about 4.30 PM the deceased was travelling from Kondurg to Parigi in an auto bearing No.AP 22 U 5772 in order to purchase paints. On the way, on the outskirts of Kondurg, the driver of the auto drove the auto in a rash and negligent manner in a high speed and dashed an unknown vehicle going in the opposite direction, as a result of which the inmates of the auto i.e. Ramulu and others sustained grievous injuries and Ramulu succumbed to the injuries on the way to hospital. Thus, the claimants filed the OP seeking compensation of Rs.2,00,000/-. As such, the respondents being the owner and insurer of the vehicle respectively are liable to pay compensation.
3. The claimants examined P.Ws.1 and 2 and marked Exs.A1 to A10. On behalf of the respondent No.2, R.W.1 was examined and Exs.B1 to B3 were marked.
4. Chekala Venkataiah, P.W.2, is the eye witness to the accident. He stated that the driver of the auto drove the vehicle in a rash and negligent manner and dashed against an unknown vehicle, as a result, the deceased succumbed to the injuries. The tribunal below, taking into consideration the evidence of P.W.2 coupled with the charge sheet, Ex.A7 and owing to the fact that there is no rebuttal evidence 2 from the respondents, opined that the accident occurred due to the rash and negligent driving of the driver of the offending vehicle. Insofar as the quantum of compensation is concerned, as against the claim of Rs.2,00,000/-, the tribunal below, by taking into account the annual income of the deceased as Rs.18,000/-; age of the deceased as 48 years and applying multiplier '13', arrived at a figure of Rs.2,16,000/-. After deducing 1/3rd towards personal expenses, the compensation towards loss of dependency was arrived at Rs.1,44,000/-. The tribunal below awarded Rs.15,000/- towards loss of consortium, Rs.2,000/- towards funeral expenses and Rs.2,500/- towards loss of estate. Thus, in total, Rs.1,63,5000/- was awarded as compensation along with interest at 7.5% per annum. Aggrieved thereby, the present appeal.
5. Heard both sides.
6. The learned counsel for the appellant - insurance company submitted that the accident, allegedly, occurred when the auto collided with an unknown vehicle. There is no proof adduced by the claimants that the driver of the auto was solely responsible for the accident. He further submitted that the driver of the offending vehicle did not have an effective license as on the date of the accident. Ex.A6, driving license, clearly shows that the license was renewed on 06.04.2006 whereas the accident took place on 04.04.2006. Thus, the insurance company is not liable.
7. In the evidence of R.W.1, it was asserted that the driver of the auto did not have valid license. It is stated that some unknown vehicle hit the auto; the police could not trace the unknown vehicle and the driver of the auto is unnecessarily involved and the insurance company is not liable at all.
3
8. However, in the light of the evidence of P.W.2, the tribunal below came to the conclusion that it was the driver of the auto, who was primarily responsible for causing the accident. Since according to the evidence of P.W.2, the driver of the auto drove the vehicle in a rash and negligent manner and dashed an unknown vehicle, this Court, being an appellate Court, is not convinced to take a different view.
9. On the point of liability of the insurance company, since the driver of the auto was not holding valid license on the date of the accident, it is settled law that the insurance company cannot be exonerated merely because the owner of the crime vehicle or the driver of the vehicle has violated the terms of the insurance policy. The Supreme Court in NATIONAL INSURANCE CO. LTD. v. SWARAN SINGH1 laid down the principle of 'pay and recover'. The insurance company is liable to pay the compensation and later recover the same from the owner/driver of the vehicle in case there is violation of terms of the insurance policy.
In view of the above, this Court does not find any merit in the appeal and it is accordingly dismissed. As a sequel, the miscellaneous applications, if any, shall stand closed. There shall be no order as to costs.
__________________ B. VIJAYSEN REDDY, J February 15th, 2021 DSK 1 2004 ACJ 1