The Branch Manager vs Gorantla Ramakrishna Reddy ...
2022 Latest Caselaw 1122 Tel

              THE HON'BLE JUSTICE G. SRI DEVI

                 M.A.C.M.A. No.1654 of 2013

JUDGMENT:

This appeal is preferred by the appellant-Insurance

Company, questioning the judgment and decree, dated

3.05.2013 passed in M.V.O.P.No.354 of 2011 on the file of the

Chairman, Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal-cum-V Additional

District Judge, Medak at Sangareddy (for short, the Tribunal).

2. For the sake of convenience, the parties have been

referred to as arrayed before the Tribunal.

3. The claimant filed a petition under Section 166 of the

Motor Vehicles Act claiming compensation of Rs.8,00,000/- for

the injuries sustained by him in a motor vehicle accident. It is

stated that on 24.07.2005 the claimant and his friend were

proceeding on a motor cycle and when they reached the limits

of Isnapur village, an auto bearing No.AP 23 V 4253 came from

opposite direction, in a rash and negligent manner at high speed

and dashed against the motor cycle. As a result of which, the

claimant sustained multiple fractures to his left leg below the

knee and other injuries all over the body. The claimant filed

GSD, J Macma_1654_2013

aforesaid O.P. against respondent Nos.1 and 2, being owner and

insurer of the aforesaid auto, respectively, claiming

compensation of Rs.8,00,000/- for the injuries sustained by him.

4. Before the Tribunal, the 1st respondent remained ex

parte.

5. The 2nd respondent also filed counter denying the

averments of the claim petition and contended that the driver

of the auto was not having valid and effective driving licence at

the time of accident and also contended that the amount

claimed is excessive and prayed to dismiss the claim petition.

6. Basing on the above pleadings, the following issues are

framed before the Tribunal:-

1) Whether the petitioner sustained injuries in the motor accident with the auto bearing No.AP 23 V 4253 due to the rash and negligent driving by its driver?

2) Whether the petitioner is entitled for compensation as prayed for, if so, at what amount and from whom?

3) To what result?

7. During trial, on behalf of the claimant, P.Ws.1 to 4 were

examined and got marked Exs.A1 to A30 and Ex.X1. On behalf

GSD, J Macma_1654_2013

of the respondents, R.Ws.1 and 2 were examined and Exs.B1 to

B4 were marked.

8. After considering the oral and documentary evidence on

record, the Tribunal came to the conclusion that the accident

occurred due to the rash and negligent driving of driver of the

Auto and awarded total compensation of Rs.6,73,000/- with

interest @ 8% per annum. Aggrieved by the said order, the

appellant-Insurance Company filed the present appeal.

9. Heard and perused the record.

10. The only ground raised by the learned Standing Counsel

for the Insurance Company is that though the driver of the auto

was not having valid driving licence, the Tribunal erred in fixing

the liability on the insurance company.

11. Admittedly, the crime vehicle is a transport vehicle and

R.W.1, who is the Senior Assistant working in R.T.A. Office,

Sangareddy, deposed that as per Ex.B2-driving licence, the

driver of the auto was not having auto rickshaw transport

licence at the time of accident, therefore, there is a breach of

GSD, J Macma_1654_2013

terms and conditions of the Insurance Policy as rightly held by

the Tribunal. But the fact remains that by the time of accident,

the offending vehicle was insured with the appellant-Insurance

Company and Ex.B.1 policy was very much in force. Admittedly,

the injured is a third party.

In case of third party risks, as per the decision in

National Insurance Company Ltd. V. Swaran Singh and

others1, the insurer had to indemnify the compensation amount

payable to the third party and the insurance company may

recover the same from the insured. In the said decision, the

Apex Court considered the doctrine of "pay and recover"

examined the liability of the insurance company in cases of

breach of policy condition due to disqualifications of the driver

or invalid driving license of the driver and held that in case of

third party risks, the insurer has to indemnify the compensation

amount to the third party and the insurance company may

recover the same from the insured. Recently, the Apex Court in

the case of Shamanna v. The Divisional Manager, the

(2004) 3 SCC 297

GSD, J Macma_1654_2013

Oriental Insurance Company Limited and Others2, following

its earlier decision in Swaran Singh (1 supra), reiterated that

"even if the driver does not possess any driving license, still the

insurer is liable to pay the compensation and that he can

recover the award amount from the owner of the offending

vehicle after paying the amount." In view of the above, the

appellant-Insurance Company is directed to pay the

compensation amount determined by the Tribunal at the first

instance and then recover the same from the owner of the

vehicle.

12. To the extent indicated above, the M.A.C.M.A. is disposed

of. There shall be no order as to costs.

13. Miscellaneous petitions, if any, pending shall stand closed.

__________________ JUSTICE G. SRI DEVI 10.03.2022 gkv

2018 ACJ 2163