Andhra Pradesh High Court - Amravati
M/S.National Insurance Co.Ltd., vs Pujari Chennappa on 12 September, 2024
APHC010916122017
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH
AT AMARAVATI [3367]
(Special Original Jurisdiction)
THURSDAY ,THE TWELFTH DAY OF SEPTEMBER
TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FOUR
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE V SRINIVAS
MOTOR ACCIDENT CIVIL MISCELLANEOUS APPEAL
NO: 3212/2017
Between:
M/s.national Insurance Co.ltd., ...APPELLANT
AND
Pujari Chennappa and Others ...RESPONDENT(S)
Counsel for the Appellant:
S A V RATNAM
Counsel for the Respondent(S):
K NARSI REDDY
The Court made the following:
JUDGMENT:
This appeal is directed against the order of the
Chairman, Motor Vehicle Accident Claims Tribunal-cum-IV
Additional District Judge at Anantapuramu (hereinafter
called as 'the Tribunal') in M.V.O.P.No.190 of 2013 dated
01.09.2017.
2. The appellant is the insurer of Auto bearing No.AP 02 X
4735 (hereinafter referred to as "crime auto"). The respondent
Nos.1 to 4 are husband and children of one Pujari
Lakshmidevi (hereinafter called as 'the deceased')
respectively. Respondent No.5 is the driver-cum-owner of the
said crime auto.
3. For the sake of convenience, the parties hereinafter
referred to as they arrayed before the tribunal.
4. The case of the claimants, in the petition before the
Tribunal is that:
i). On 05.11.2012 at about 01.00 p.m., when the
deceased along with her husband boarded the crime
auto to go to Dharmavaram Town, the driver of the
said auto drove the same in a rash and negligent
manner due to which its front wheel raised up,
resulted the deceased fell down from the auto and
sustained head injury on the backside. While
undergoing treatment, she was succumbed to
injuries.
ii). Being dependents, they claimed compensation of
Rs.6,00,000/- against the driver, owner, and insurer
of the crime car.
5. The respondent No.2/insurer filed written statement
denying the averments in the petition and pleaded that the
crime auto was not involved in the incident, thereby, prayed
to dismiss the petition.
6. The Tribunal settled the following issues for enquiry
basing on the material:
"1.Whether the accident occurred on 05.11.2012 at
about 01.00 p.m. due to rash and negligent driving of
Auto bearing No.AP 02 X 4735 by its driver and
caused death of deceased Pujari Lakshmi Devi?
2.Whether the petitioners are entitled to compensation
and if so, to what amount? and
3.To what relief?"
7. During enquiry, on behalf of the claimants, P.Ws.1 and
2 were examined, Exs.A.1 to A.5 were marked. On behalf of
the respondent No.2/insurer, R.Ws.1 and 2 were examined
and Exs.B.1, X.1 and X.2 are exhibited.
8. On the material, the Tribunal, having come to the
conclusion that the accident occurred due to the negligent
driving of the crime auto by its driver, held that claimants are
entitled for the compensation of Rs.5,30,000/-, with interest
at 7.5% per annum from the date of petition till the date of
realization against the respondent Nos.1 and 2, for the death
of the deceased in the accident.
9. It is against the said award; the present appeal was
preferred by the appellant/insurer.
10. Heard Sri S.V.Ratnam, learned counsel for the
appellant/insurer and Sri K.Narsi Reddy, learned counsel for
the respondents/claimants.
11. Now, the point that arise for determination is "whether
the order of the Tribunal is liable to be set aside, if so, to
what extent?"
12. POINT:
It is not in dispute about the death of the deceased in
the incident, involvement of the crime auto, rash and
negligence on the part of the 1st respondent, who is driver of
the crime auto, in causing the incident, quantum of
compensation awarded by the Tribunal as well Ex.B.1 policy
issued in respect of the crime auto is in force by the time of
incident. It is also not in dispute that no appeal was preferred
by the claimants against the findings of the Tribunal.
13. The only contention raised by the learned counsel for
the appellant/insurer is that the driver of the crime auto is
not having valid driving license to drive the same by the time
of incident and he only possess non-transport driving license.
Thereby, the appellant/insurer is not liable to pay any
compensation to the claimants.
14. In view of the above contention, this Court perused the
material placed on record. It is a categorical finding made by
the Tribunal on this aspect that "Ex.X.2 is the driving license
extract of the driver of the crime Auto clearly goes to show
that the driver of the Auto having non transport driving
license at the time of accident. In view of the legal position in
"Kulwantha Singh" case the driver of the crime Auto is
authorized to drive transport Auto and he need not obtain
any endorsement on this driving license."
15. As per the testimony of R.W.2, who is a Record
Assistant in RTO Office, as per Ex.X.2 the said driver is
having LMV non transport and motor cab driving license. He
has no transport driving license to drove the auto and he is
not authorized to drive the transport auto. It is not in dispute
that R.W.2 is not an expert person to categorize the clause
and nature of vehicle.
16. However, on perusal of Ex.X.1 it clearly shows that the
respondent No.1/driver was issued Light Motor Vehicle Non-
Transport driving license on 31.03.2007 vide
DLFAP00238022007 and later on 27.01.2009 he was issued
Transport driving license for MTL Motor Cab by RTA
Anantapur valid up to 22.01.2019. The incident was said to
be occurred on 05.11.2012. Thereby, it is categorically
established that the respondent No.1/driver is authorized to
drive the crime auto, which is a light motor vehicle, by the
time incident and he need not obtained any other
endorsement. As such, the contention raised by the appellant
that the 1st respondent is not having valid driving license to
drive the crime auto by the time of incident has no legs to
stand.
17. The above findings arrived by this Court unequivocally
fortified by the pronouncement of Hon'ble Supreme Court in
S.Iyyapan v. M/s.United India Insurance Company
Limited1, wherein at paragraph No.19 categorically observed
that "In the instant case, admittedly the driver was holding a
valid driving license to drive light motor vehicle. There is no
dispute that the motor vehicle in question, by which accident
took place, was Mahindra Maxi Cab. Merely because the
1 AIR 2013 SC 2262
driver did not get any endorsement in the driving license to
drive Mahindra Maxi Cab, which is a light motor vehicle, the
High Court has committed grave error of law in holding that
the insurer is not liable to pay compensation because the
driver was not holding the license to drive the commercial
vehicle. The impugned judgment is, therefore, liable to be set
aside." (emphasis supplied)
18. Having regard to the above settled legal position, this
Court has no hesitation to say that the contention of the
appellant that respondent No.1 is not having valid driving
license to drive the crime auto by the time of incident is
absolutely baseless and frivolous. Consequently, this Court is
of the considered opinion that the insurer cannot disown its
liability.
19. It is needless to say that the Tribunal by considering all
these aspects rightly calculated the amounts entitled by the
claimants and awarded compensation, which is not in
dispute.
20. In view of the above discussion, no interference
warrants to the findings recorded by the Tribunal regarding
all aspects, as there is no need to disturb the well-articulated
order passed by the Tribunal, as such, the appeal preferred
by the appellant is liable for dismissal. Thus, the point is
answered against the appellant/insurer.
21. In the result, M.A.C.M.A. is dismissed. There shall be
no order as to costs.
Interim orders granted earlier if any, stand vacated.
Miscellaneous petitions pending if any, stand closed.
_____________________
JUSTICE V.SRINIVAS
Date: 12.09.2024
Krs
THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE V.SRINIVAS
DATE: 12.09.2024
Krs
