The Reliance General Insurance Co ... vs Penchala Sathya Rama Rao, ...
2022 Latest Caselaw 3214 Tel

                  THE HON'BLE JUSTICE G. SRI DEVI

                     M.A.C.M.A. No. 3266 of 2014

JUDGMENT:

The Reliance General Insurance Company Limited, respondent

No. 3 before the Tribunal, preferred this appeal challenging the award

and decree, dated 02.06.2014, passed in M.V.O.P.No. 331 of 2011 on

the file of the Chairman, Motor Accident Claims Tribunal-cum-Judge,

Family Court-cum-Additional District Judge at Karimnagar.

The claimant, respondent No. 1 herein, filed the O.P. claiming

compensation of Rs.1,60,000/- for the injuries sustained by him in the

motor accident that occurred on 18.04.2009. According to the claimant,

on the fateful day, while he was proceeding on his moped, the driver of

the tractor and trailer bearing No. AP 15N 814/815 i.e. respondent No. 2

herein, owned by respondent No. 3 herein and insured with the

appellant, drove the tractor negligently, lost control over the tractor and

touched the moped, as a result of which, the claimant received severe

injuries. He had to undergo surgery in Prathima Institute of Medical

Sciences and was inpatient for 20 days and incurred a sum of

Rs.70,000/- towards medical expenses. Therefore, he laid a claim for

Rs.1,60,000/- against the driver, owner and insurer of the offending

vehicle. Considering the claim and the counters filed by the driver,

owner and the Insurance Company, appellant herein, and on evaluation

of the evidence, both oral and documentary, the learned Tribunal has

allowed the O.P. in part and awarded total compensation of Rs.87,534/-

with 7.5% interest per annum, holding the owner of the offending

vehicle and the insurance company jointly and severally liable to pay the

compensation.

Now, the main contention of the learned Standing Counsel for the

appellant is that the learned Tribunal ought to have considered the

evidence of R.W.1 and the contents of Exs.B. 2, driving licence of the

driver of the offending vehicle, which clinchingly establish that the driver

of the offending vehicle was not having a valid driving license to drive

the offending vehicle, which is a transport vehicle and as there was

breach of terms and conditions of the insurance policy by the owner of

the offending vehicle, the learned Tribunal ought not to have fastened

liability on the Insurance Company. Therefore, it is contended that in

the circumstances of the case, the learned Tribunal ought to have

directed the Insurance Company to pay the compensation in the first

instance and granted liberty to recover the same from the owner of the

offending vehicle, for breach of terms and conditions of the policy.

On the other hand, learned counsel appearing for respondent No.

1-claimant, contended that the compensation awarded by the learned

Tribunal is just and reasonable and needs no interference by this Court.

Heard the learned Standing Counsel for the appellant and the

learned counsel for the claimant-respondent No. 1 herein. Perused the

material available on record.

There is no dispute with regard to the manner of the accident and

the rash and negligent driving of the offending vehicle by its driver in

causing the accident on 18.04.2009. The only contention of the learned

Standing Counsel for the appellant is that as the driver of the offending

vehicle was not holding valid driving license to drive the offending

vehicle, the learned Tribunal ought not to have fastened liability upon

the insurance company. The learned Tribunal, while answering issue

No. 1, has elaborately discussed the said aspect and rightly held that the

Insurance Company cannot escape from its liability simply because the

driver is not having driving licence of transport vehicle since he is having

licence to drive the non-transport vehicle. Further, in the cross-

examination, R.W.2, the Manager of the Insurance Company clearly

admitted that the transportation of agricultural produce in tractor and

trailer could come within the meaning of non-transport. Admittedly,

Ex.B. 1 police was in force. Such being the case, the findings of the

tribunal in this regard needs no interference by this Court. Since the

learned Standing Counsel for the appellant has not raised any other

grounds, this Court finds no reason to interfere with the order of the

Tribunal and the appeal is liable to be dismissed.

The M.A.C.M.A. fails and the same is accordingly dismissed. No

order as to costs.

Miscellaneous petitions, if any pending, shall stand closed.

__________________ JUSTICE G. SRI DEVI

01.07.2022 tsr

THE HON'BLE JUSTICE G. SRI DEVI

M.A.C.M.A. No. 3266 of 2014

DATE: 01-07-2022