United India Ins. Co. Ltd., ... vs M Rajavva, Adilabad Dist 4 Others
2022 Latest Caselaw 5434 Tel

     THE HON'BLE SMT.JUSTICE M.G.PRIYADARSINI

                 M.A.C.M.A.No.2042 OF 2016


JUDGMENT:

Being not satisfied with the quantum of compensation

awarded in the order and decree, dated 18.03.2015, passed in

M.V.O.P.No.21 of 2011, on the file of the Chairman, Motor

Accidents Claims Tribunal-cum-V-Additional District Judge,

Mahabugnagar, the appellants/claimants preferred the present

appeal seeking enhancement of the compensation.

The facts, in issue, are as under:

The appellants filed a petition under Section 166 of the Motor

Vehicles Act claiming compensation of Rs.6,00,000/- for the death of

the Mabbu Ramulu (hereinafter referred to as "the deceased"), who

died in a road accident that occurred on 20.07.2010 at about 18.00

P.M. while the deceased namely Mabbu Ramulu was grazing his

sheep's on Mancherial-Nirmal Highway at Kannapur bus stage and

was sitting beside the road, all of a sudden an auto bearing No. AP-

MGP, J MACMA No.2042 of 2016

01-V-7492 came from kadam side in high speed in a rash and

negligent manner driven by its driver and dashed Mabbu Ramulu.

Due to which the deceased received severe injuries and died on the

spot and the said auto also dashed one cyclist namely Basa Gopal

and he has also received injuries. The police, Kadam registered a

case in Cr.No.105 of 2010 against the driver of auto, for the offence

punishable under Section 304-A, 377 IPC. Since the 1st respondent

being the owner of the vehicle and the 2nd respondent being insurer

of the vehicle, are jointly and severally liable to pay compensation.

The 1st respondent set exparte.

The 2nd respondent/Insurance company filed counter

denying the manner of accident, age, avocation and income.

Based on the above pleadings, the Tribunal framed the

following issues:

1) Whether the accident in which the deceased died, occurred on 20.07.2010 was due to rash and negligent driving of the offending vehicle by its driver?

2) Whether the petitioners are entitled for compensation as claimed in the petition, if so to what extent and against whom ?

MGP, J MACMA No.2042 of 2016

3) To what relief?

In support of their claim, the appellants examined PWs.1 to 2

and got marked Exs.A1 to A5. Respondent No.2 did not adduce

any evidence either orally or by way of documentary.

After considering the claim and the counter filed by

respondent No.2, and on evaluation of the evidence, both oral

and documentary, the learned Tribunal has partly allowed

the O.P. and awarded compensation of Rs.6,00,000/- with

interest at 7.5% interest per annum to be paid by respondent

Nos.1 and 2 jointly and severally. Being not satisfied with

the said compensation, the appellant filed the present appeal.

Heard and perused the material available record.

The learned Standing Counsel for the

appellant/Insurance Company contended that since there

was no separate endorsement on the driving licence of the

driver of the subject vehicle bearing No. AP-01-V-7492 to drive

the transport vehicle, it is to be construed that the driver of

the subject vehicle had no valid driving licence. On this

ground, the Tribunal ought to have absolved the

MGP, J MACMA No.2042 of 2016

appellant/Insurance Company from the liability and

ultimately, prayed to allow the appeal, as prayed for.

It is not in dispute that the deceased- D.Ramulu died

in the accident that occurred on 20.07.2010, due to rash and

negligent driving by the driver of the offending auto bearing

registration No. AP-01-V-7492. The only question that requires

determination is whether the driver of the subject vehicle No.

AP-01-V-7492 is authorised to drive the subject transport

vehicle.

Here, it is appropriate to refer the decision of the

Hon'ble Apex Court in Mukund Dewangan vs. Oriental

Insurance Company Limited1, wherein it was held that

there is no requirement to obtain separate endorsement to

drive transport vehicle, and if a driver is holding licence to

drive light motor vehicle, he can drive transport vehicle of

such class without any endorsement to that effect. Therefore,

the contention of the appellant/Insurance Company that the

driver of the subject vehicle bearing No. AP-01-V-7492 had no

valid driving licence to drive the subject transport vehicle, is

(2017) 14 Supreme Court Cases 663

MGP, J MACMA No.2042 of 2016

unsustainable. There is no legal infirmity in the impugned

award and decree dated 18.03.2015 passed by the Tribunal

to absolve the appellant/ Insurance from the liability. This

appeal is devoid of merit and is liable to be dismissed.

Accordingly, this appeal is dismissed. No costs.

Miscellaneous Petitions, if any, pending in this appeal,

shall stand closed.

_______________________ M.G.PRIYA DARSINI, J

Date: 28th October, 2022 PSA