The New India Assurance Company ... vs Kavali Bharathamma 7 Others
2022 Latest Caselaw 4660 Tel

     HON'BLE SMT. JUSTICE G. ANUPAMA CHAKRAVARTHY

                    M.A.C.M.A.No.511 of 2008

JUDGMENT :

The appeal is arising out of the order dated 26.02.2007, in

MVOP.No.337 of 2005 on the file of Motor Accident Claims

Tribunal-cum-District Judge, Mahabubnagar. For the sake of

convenience, the parties are arrayed as in the OP.

2. The appeal is filed by the Insurance Company i.e. respondent

No.2 in the O.P. The O.P. is filed before the Tribunal under

Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, claiming compensation of

Rs.3,00,000/- for the death of one Kavali Yadaiah in the accident

occurred on 18.11.2004 while going to Samangurthi village.

3. The Tribunal, after considering the oral and documentary

evidence on record, has come to a conclusion that the claimants are

entitled for a compensation of Rs.1,83,480/- with proportionate

costs and interest @ 7.5% per annum and apportioned the said

amount amongst the claimants. Aggrieved by the said order, the

insurance Company has preferred this appeal.

GAC, J MACMA.No.511 of 2008

4. Heard learned counsel for both the parties and perused the

record.

5. It is contended by the learned counsel for the appellant-

Insurance Company that the Tribunal has not considered the plea

that the Driver of the offending vehicle did not possess valid

effective driving licence as on the date of the accident, and as such,

the Insurance Company is not liable to pay compensation. It is the

further contention of the learned counsel for the appellant that the

deceased was travelling along with seven other passengers in the

crime vehicle and the accident occurred due to the collusion of

both the vehicles, and therefore, the appellant is not liable to pay

any compensation to the claimants.

6. The dispute is not with respect to the quantum of

compensation and it is only related to the liability of the Insurance

Company. As there is no cross appeal on behalf of claimants,

hence there is no necessity to discuss about the quantum of

compensation granted by the Tribunal.

GAC, J MACMA.No.511 of 2008

7. In view of the proposition of the Apex Court in National

Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Pranay Sethi & others1, even if there are

any violations of the policy, the Insurance Company shall first pay

compensation to the claimants and later recover the same from the

insured. Though it is contended that the driver of the vehicle

do not possess valid driving licence as on the date of the accident,

in view of the law laid down by the Apex Court, it is for the

Insurance Company to pay and recover from the owner/insured,

and therefore, this Court is of the considered view that there are no

merits in the case and the appeal is liable to be dismissed.

8. Accordingly, the MACMA is dismissed confirming the order

dated 26.02.2007, in MVOP.No.337 of 2005 on the file of Motor

Accident Claims Tribunal-cum-District Judge, Mahabubnagar.

No order as to costs.

Pending miscellaneous applications, if any, shall stand

closed.

________________________________ G.ANUPAMA CHAKRAVARTHY, J Date:15.09.2022 ajr

2017 ACJ 2700