HON'BLE SMT. JUSTICE G. ANUPAMA CHAKRAVARTHY
M.A.C.M.A.No.511 of 2008
JUDGMENT :
The appeal is arising out of the order dated 26.02.2007, in MVOP.No.337 of 2005 on the file of Motor Accident Claims Tribunal-cum-District Judge, Mahabubnagar. For the sake of convenience, the parties are arrayed as in the OP.
2. The appeal is filed by the Insurance Company i.e. respondent No.2 in the O.P. The O.P. is filed before the Tribunal under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, claiming compensation of Rs.3,00,000/- for the death of one Kavali Yadaiah in the accident occurred on 18.11.2004 while going to Samangurthi village.
3. The Tribunal, after considering the oral and documentary evidence on record, has come to a conclusion that the claimants are entitled for a compensation of Rs.1,83,480/- with proportionate costs and interest @ 7.5% per annum and apportioned the said amount amongst the claimants. Aggrieved by the said order, the insurance Company has preferred this appeal. 2
GAC, J MACMA.No.511 of 2008
4. Heard learned counsel for both the parties and perused the record.
5. It is contended by the learned counsel for the appellant- Insurance Company that the Tribunal has not considered the plea that the Driver of the offending vehicle did not possess valid effective driving licence as on the date of the accident, and as such, the Insurance Company is not liable to pay compensation. It is the further contention of the learned counsel for the appellant that the deceased was travelling along with seven other passengers in the crime vehicle and the accident occurred due to the collusion of both the vehicles, and therefore, the appellant is not liable to pay any compensation to the claimants.
6. The dispute is not with respect to the quantum of compensation and it is only related to the liability of the Insurance Company. As there is no cross appeal on behalf of claimants, hence there is no necessity to discuss about the quantum of compensation granted by the Tribunal.
3
GAC, J MACMA.No.511 of 2008
7. In view of the proposition of the Apex Court in National Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Pranay Sethi & others1, even if there are any violations of the policy, the Insurance Company shall first pay compensation to the claimants and later recover the same from the insured. Though it is contended that the driver of the vehicle do not possess valid driving licence as on the date of the accident, in view of the law laid down by the Apex Court, it is for the Insurance Company to pay and recover from the owner/insured, and therefore, this Court is of the considered view that there are no merits in the case and the appeal is liable to be dismissed.
8. Accordingly, the MACMA is dismissed confirming the order dated 26.02.2007, in MVOP.No.337 of 2005 on the file of Motor Accident Claims Tribunal-cum-District Judge, Mahabubnagar. No order as to costs.
Pending miscellaneous applications, if any, shall stand closed.
________________________________ G.ANUPAMA CHAKRAVARTHY, J Date:15.09.2022 ajr 1 2017 ACJ 2700