The National Insurance Co. Ltd., vs K. Vidyadhari 2 Others
2024 Latest Caselaw 718 AP

Andhra Pradesh High Court - Amravati

The National Insurance Co. Ltd., vs K. Vidyadhari 2 Others on 25 January, 2024

MACMA No.2613 of 2012                                         BVLNC, J
Date 25.01.2024
                                Page 1 of 10



       HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH :: AMARAVATI

 THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE B.V.L.N.CHAKRAVARTHI

                        M.A.C.M.A.No.2613 of 2012
Between:-
The National Insurance Company Limited
                                      ...Appellant/Respondent No.3
                                  And
K.Vidyadhari and two (02) others
                                                         ...Respondents
                            JUDGMENT

Heard Sri Rama Mohan Rao Kotha, learned counsel

for the appellant/respondent No.3/Insurance Company and

Sri G.Divyatheja, learned counsel representing

Sri Nimmagadda Satyanarayana, learned counsel for the

respondent No.3/owner of the lorry. None appeared for the

respondent No.1/claimant.

2. This appeal directed by the appellant/respondent

No.3/Insurance Company challenging the Order and

Decree dated 26.09.2011 passed in M.V.O.P.No.598 of 2006

by the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal-cum-XII Additional

District Judge (Fast Track Court), Vijayawada (hereinafter

referred to 'Tribunal').

 MACMA No.2613 of 2012                             BVLNC, J
Date 25.01.2024

3. Parties are referred to as they were arrayed in the

proceedings before the learned Tribunal, for the sake of

convenience.

4. The claimant filed petition under Section 166 of the

Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (for brevity 'the Act') claiming

compensation of Rs.3,00,000/- for the personal injuries

sustained by her in a motor vehicle accident occurred on

20.04.2005.

5. The case of the claimant is that on 20.04.2005 at

about 7.45 AM the claimant being a differently abled

person, was going on a four-wheeler moped at Mylavaram

road; a lorry bearing registration No.AP16 TV 1853 driven

by the respondent No.1, came in opposite direction to the

moped in a rash and negligent manner at a high speed,

dashed the moped of the claimant; as a result, the claimant

fell down on the road and sustained grievous injuries all

over her body; a case in Crime No.126 of 2005 was

registered against the respondent No.1 for the offence

punishable under Section 338 of the Indian Penal Code,

1860 (for brevity 'IPC'); the claimant was working as a MACMA No.2613 of 2012 BVLNC, J Date 25.01.2024

teacher and earning a sum of Rs.6,000/- per month by the

date of accident.

6. Respondent Nos.1 and 2 remained ex parte.

7. Respondent No.3/Insurance Company i.e., Insurer of

the lorry bearing registration No.AP16 TV 1853 filed

counter contending that the accident occurred due to

negligence of the claimant; the claim of the claimant is

excessive; police did not furnish relevant documents of the

offending vehicle to the respondent No.3 as per Section 158

(6) of the Act.

8. The learned Tribunal, basing on the rival contentions,

framed the following issues for trial:

1. Whether the petitioner sustained injuries in a motor vehicle accident that occurred on 20.04.2005 due to the rash and negligent driving of the crime vehicle i.e., lorry bearing No.AP16 TV 1853?

2. If so, whether the petitioner is entitled for compensation as prayed for?

3. To what relief?

 MACMA No.2613 of 2012                                BVLNC, J
Date 25.01.2024

9. During enquiry, on behalf of claimant, she examined

herself as P.W.1 and examined the Doctor who treated her

as P.W.2; exhibited eight (08) documents as Ex.A1 to Ex.A8

and Ex.X1/Discharge Summary was got marked through

the evidence of P.W.2/Doctor. On behalf of the respondent

No.3/Insurance Company, the Assistant Manager of its

company was examined as R.W.1. The Junior Assistant of

RTA Office, Nuzvid was examined as R.W.2 and through

him Ex.B1, Ex.B2 and Ex.X1 Ex.X2 documents were

marked.

10. The learned Tribunal under the impugned Order and

Decree, awarded a sum of Rs.1,20,000/- towards justice

compensation to the claimant for the injuries sustained by

her in the motor vehicle accident and fastened joint and

several liability against the owner of the offending vehicle

and the insurer of the vehicle i.e., appellant in the case.

11. The contention of the respondent No.3/Insurance

Company is that the driver of the offending vehicle was

having Light Motor Vehicle (Transport) license only at the

time of accident; whereas, the offending vehicle is a goods MACMA No.2613 of 2012 BVLNC, J Date 25.01.2024

carrying commercial vehicle and therefore, the driver of the

offending vehicle was not competent to drive the crime

vehicle and hence, the owner of the insured vehicle violated

the terms and conditions of the policy by allowing the

driver, who had no valid driving license to drive a Heavy

Goods Vehicle and hence, the respondent No.3/Insurance

Company is not liable to indemnify the insured.

12. Learned counsel for the respondent No.3/Insurance

Company would submit that the Tribunal erred in holding

that the Insurance Company did not a take plea in the

counter regarding the license of the driver and therefore,

the evidence placed by the respondent No.3/Insurance

Company does not carry any weight.

13. Learned counsel for the respondent No.3/Insurance

Company would further contend that enquiry under Section

166 of the Act is a summary enquiry and therefore, strict

rules of pleading will not apply to the proceedings and

further, the respondent No.3/Insurance Company

examined the officials from Regional Transport Office,

establishing that the driver was holding only Light Motor MACMA No.2613 of 2012 BVLNC, J Date 25.01.2024

Vehicle (Transport) license and in that view of the matter,

the order of the learned Tribunal is not sustainable in law

against the respondent No.3/Insurance Company.

14. Learned counsel for the respondent No.2/owner of the

offending vehicle would submit that there was no specific

plea in the counter filed by the respondent No.3/Insurance

Company to the effect that driver was not having a valid

license at the time of accident and that, the owner had

knowledge that the driver has no valid license to driver

'Heavy Goods Vehicle', allowed him to drive the offending

vehicle and violated the terms of the policy and in the

absence of specific plea, the respondent No.3/Insurance

Company cannot improve its case, by leading evidence

before the Tribunal and further, there is no evidence to

establish that owner had knowledge that driver has no valid

license to drive the offending vehicle and allowed him to

drive the vehicle and in that view of the matter, there are no

grounds to interfere with the finding of the learned

Tribunal.

 MACMA No.2613 of 2012                                            BVLNC, J
Date 25.01.2024

15. Considering the above rival contentions, the points

that would arise for consideration in this appeal are as

under:

1. Whether the Order and Decree passed by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal-cum-XII Additional District Judge (FTC), Vijayawada in M.V.O.P.No.598 of 2006 vide Order and Decree dated 26.09.2011 warrants interference of this Court?

2. To what relief?

16. POINT N O.1:

It is an admitted fact that the claimant filed the

application under Section 166 of the Act claiming

compensation for personal injuries in a motor vehicle

accident occurred on 20.04.2005 at about 7.45 AM at

Kondapalli village of Krishna District. Learned Tribunal

basing on the evidence placed by the claimant, held that

the accident was occurred due to rash and negligent driving

of the offending vehicle by the respondent No.1/driver.

 MACMA No.2613 of 2012                                BVLNC, J
Date 25.01.2024

17. The respondent No.2 is the owner of the offending

vehicle and the respondent No.3 is the Insurer of the

offending vehicle i.e., the appellant.

18. The claimant in the petition at paragraph No.4 made

a specific plea that the respondent No.1/driver of the

offending vehicle was having a valid license and it is in force

on the date of accident. Admittedly, in the counter filed by

the respondent No.3/Insurance Company, this averment

was not denied. No specific plea taken in the counter

stating that the driver of the offending vehicle had only

'Light Motor Vehicle (Transport) license' at the material

point in time.

19. However, the respondent No.3/Insurance Company

examined its official i.e., R.W.1 and an Officer from

Regional Transport Office as R.W.2 and placed Ex.B2 and

Ex.X3 relating to driving license of the respondent No.1/

driver of the offending vehicle. These documents would

show that the respondent No.1/driver of the offending

vehicle was having 'Light Motor Vehicle (Transport) license'

and it is valid up to 07.12.2012.

 MACMA No.2613 of 2012                              BVLNC, J
Date 25.01.2024

20. It is pertinent to note down that no statement was

made in the evidence of R.W.1 that the owner had

knowledge that the respondent No.1/driver of the offending

vehicle is having only 'Light Motor Vehicle (Transport)

licence' and allowed him to drive the offending vehicle at

the material point in time.

21. Therefore, admittedly, there is neither pleading nor

evidence before the Tribunal to prove that the insured i.e.,

owner of the offending vehicle had knowledge that the

driver of the offending vehicle is having only 'Light Motor

Vehicle (Transport) license', and allowed him to drive the

vehicle at the material point in time.

22. In that view of the matter, when there is no evidence

to say that the owner of the vehicle had knowledge that

driver has no valid licence, and allowed him to drive the

offending vehicle at the time of accident, and therefore,

violated the terms of the policy.

23. In that view of the matter, there are no grounds to

interfere with the finding of the learned Tribunal and the MACMA No.2613 of 2012 BVLNC, J Date 25.01.2024

appeal is liable to be dismissed. Accordingly, point No.1 is

answered.

24. POINT N O.2:

In the light of finding on point No.1, the appeal in

M.A.C.M.A.No.2613 of 2012 is liable to be 'Dismissed'.

25. IN THE RESULT, the Appeal in is 'Dismissed' by

confirming the Order and Decree dated 26.09.2011 passed

by the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal-cum-XII Additional

District Judge (FTC), Vijayawada in M.V.O.P.No.598 of

2006. There shall be no order as to costs.

As a sequel, miscellaneous applications pending, if

any, shall stand closed.

JUSTICE B.V.L.N. CHAKRAVARTHI

25th January 2024

DNB