L And T Gen. Ins. Com. Ltd, Mumbai vs B Suramma, Nalgonda Dist 4 Others
2023 Latest Caselaw 1243 Tel

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

                M.A.C.M.A. No.2432 of 2016

JUDGMENT:

This appeal is preferred by L & T Insurance Company

Limited, questioning the order and decree, dated

13.10.2015 passed in M.V.O.P.No.263 of 2012 on the file of

the Chairman, Motor Accident Claims Tribunal-cum-I

Additional District Judge, Nalgonda (for short, the

Tribunal).

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

referred to as arrayed before the Tribunal.

3. Brief facts of the case are that the claimants filed a

petition under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act

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

Banne Bixamaiah, husband of claimant Nos.1 & 2, father

of claimant Nos.3 & 4 (hereinafter referred as 'the

deceased') in a road traffic accident that occurred on

10.02.2012. It is stated that on the fateful day at about

03.00 p.m., while the deceased was going on his TVS XL

moped bearing No.AP 07 R 3219 from Nalgonda to Panagal,

MGP, J Macma_2432_2016

when he reached near Indira Gandhi Statue, Panagal Bye

pass road, Nalgonda Town, one lorry bearing No.HR 55E

6410, owned by respondent No.1, insured with respodnent

No.2, being driven by its driver came in rash and negligent

manner with high speed and dashed the vehicle of the

deceased, as a result of which, the deceased sustained

grievous injuries and died on the spot. According to the

claimants, the deceased was hale and healthy, aged 54

years and was earning Rs.10,000/- per month by doing

gunny bag business. The deceased used to contribute his

earnings for the welfare of his family, but due to the

sudden and untimely death of the deceased, the claimants

lost their bread winner, love and affection besides losing

future earnings and dependency on the deceased.

Therefore, the claimants have laid the claim against the

respondents seeking compensation of Rs.6,00,000/- under

various heads.

4. While the respondent No.1 remained ex parte, the

respondent No.2, Insurance Company filed counter

denying the age, income, avocation and health condition of

MGP, J Macma_2432_2016

the deceased and that the driver of the crime vehicle was

not having valid driving licence at the time of the accident.

Further, it is also stated that the quantum of compensation

claimed is excessive, baseless and prayed to dismiss the

petition.

5. Considering the claim and the counter filed by the

respondent No. 2, insurance company, and on evaluation

of the evidence, both oral and documentary, the learned

Tribunal has partly allowed the O.P. and awarded

compensation of Rs.4,45,000/- with interest at 7.5% per

annum. Challenging the same, the present appeal has been

filed by the Insurance Company.

6. Heard both sides and perused the record.

7. A perusal of the impugned order discloses that the

Tribunal has framed issue No.1 as to whether the deceased

died due to rash and negligent driving of the crime vehicle

by its driver, and after considering the evidence of P.W.2

coupled with the documentary evidence i.e., Ex.A1, First

Information Report and Ex.A2, charge sheet, the tribunal

MGP, J Macma_2432_2016

has categorically observed that the accident has occurred

due to the rash and negligent driving of the crime vehicle

i.e., Lorry by its driver and has answered the issue in

favour of the claimants and against the respondents.

Therefore, I see no reason to interfere with the finding of

the Tribunal that the accident occurred due to the rash

and negligent driving of the Lorry by its driver.

8. The main contention of the learned Standing Counsel

for the appellant is that the driver of the offending vehicle

was not having valid driving licence at the time of the

accident and that the driving licence vide

No.DL.No.RJ.14/DLC/07/509803 was issued in favour of

the driver on 03.07.2007 and was valid up to 02.07.2010.

Since the driving licence expired as on the date of alleged

accident and as the driver was not holding valid driving

licence as on the date of the accident, the Insurance

Company is not liable to pay the compensation.

9. A perusal of the evidence on record establishes that

the appellant tried to enlighten the Court that the driver

MGP, J Macma_2432_2016

was not holding valid driving licence as on the date of

accident and that the licence, which was held by the driver

was expired even before the date of accident. But in order

to prove that the driver did not renew his driving licence,

even after expiry of the licence hold by him, the R.T.A

official was not examined. Furthermore, it is not a hard

and fast rule that the driving licence should not be

renewed after its expiry period. Apart from all these, the

witness admitted that the policy was in force at the time of

accident. Even as per the Apex Court decision in

Shamanna v. The Divisional Manager, the Oriental

Insurance Company Limited and Others1, following its

earlier decision in National Insurance Company Ltd. V.

Swaran Singh and others2, reiterated that "even if the

driver does not possess any driving license, still the insurer

is liable to pay the compensation". In view of the above, the

tribunal has rightly directed the appellant to pay the

compensation amount.

2018 ACJ 2163

(2004) 3 SCC 297

MGP, J Macma_2432_2016

10. Insofar as the quantum of compensation is

concerned, the tribunal has rightly awarded just and

reasonable compensation and the same needs no

interference by this Court.

11. Accordingly, the M.A.C.M.A. is dismissed confirming

the order and decree passed in M.V.O.P.No.263 of 2012

dated 13.10.2015, on the file of the Chairman, Motor

Accident Claims Tribunal-cum-I Additional District Judge,

Nalgonda. There shall be no order as to costs.

Miscellaneous petitions, if any, pending shall stand

closed.

_______________________________ JUSTICE M.G. PRIYADARSINI

15.03.2023 gms/pgp

MGP, J Macma_2432_2016

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

M.A.C.M.A.No.2432 of 2016

DATE: 15.03.2023

gms/pgp