Bharti Axa General Insurance ... vs Irian Khan
2022 Latest Caselaw 2884 Tel

 THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE SAMBASIVA RAO NAIDU

                    MACMA No.1504 of 2018

JUDGMENT :

This appeal has been preferred by the appellant who was

shown as second respondent in M.V.O.P. No.24 of 2012 filed

by the respondent/claimant under Section 166 (1)(a) of the

Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 r/w Rule 455 of the A.P. Motor

Vehicle Rules, 1989, for compensation of Rs.1,50,000/- for the

injuries in a road traffic accident.

This appeal has been preferred against the award passed

by the Additional Motor Accident Claims Tribunal Cum

I Addl. District and Sessions Judge, Adilabad, wherein a sum

of Rs.1,29,958/- has been awarded with costs and interest

@ 9% per annum from the date of petition till the entire

amount is realized.

The appeal is filed on various grounds and it is stated in

the grounds of appeal that the Court below did not consider the

evidence which clearly shows that the driver of Auto Trolley

involved in the accident was not having valid license, thereby, SSRN,J

the insurance company i.e., the appellant herein is not liable to

pay compensation. The appellant disputed the compensation

amount, rate of interest awarded and sought for setting aside

the award.

While advancing arguments in the appeal, the learned

counsel for the appellant has submitted that the Court below

failed to appreciate the evidence which clearly shows that the

driver of Auto trolley was not having license and rate of

interest is not in accordance with the Judgment of Apex Court

in National Insurance Co., Ltd., Vs Pranay Sethi1 case,

thereby, sought for setting aside the decree.

It is true, the appellant herein contested the O.P. on the

ground that the owner of the Auto Trolley violated the policy

conditions by handing over the vehicle to a person without

valid license. In fact, the learned trial Judge considered the

oral and documentary evidence produced by both the parties

and came to a conclusion that the accident occurred due to the

rash and negligent driving of the owner of the Auto and the

(2017) 16 SCC 680 SSRN,J

appellant herein failed to prove that the driver of the Auto was

not holding valid driving license but drove the offending

vehicle. The said finding is supported by reasoned order and

I see no other grounds to set aside the said finding to exonerate

the appellant herein from the liability. It is true that the Court

below awarded interest @ 9% per annum on the compensation

award from the date of petition till the amount is realized.

In view of the Hon'ble Apex Court in Pranay Sethi

(supra) case, the interest has to be scale down to 7.5% per

annum to that extent, appeal can be allowed.

Therefore, the appeal is partly allowed by reducing the

rate of interest 9% per annum to 7.5% per annum on the

compensation amount, the other findings are not disturbed.

Miscellaneous applications, if any pending, shall stand

closed. There shall be no order as to costs.

______________________________ JUSTICE SAMBASIVA RAO NAIDU

17th June, 2022.

PLV