M.A.C.M.A. No. 2681 of 2011
The appeal is filed against the judgment dated 23.04.2004 in M.O.P.No.1274 of 2001 on the file of the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal-cum-I Additional District Judge, Visakhapatnam questioning the liability of the insurance company.
A claim for compensation was made for the injuries received by the petitioner in a motor accident on 02.02.2001 while he was going on foot, a goods auto bearing No.AP-31-V-7353 driven by its driver in a rash and negligent manner and dashed against the petitioner, as a result of which, he received multiple injuries.
The appellant herein is said to be 3rd respondent, with whom the vehicle was said to have been insured and the 3rd respondent contended that there is no valid driving license for the driver of the auto and apart from that the petitioner is put to strict proof of rashness and negligence.
The lower Tribunal after considering the evidence on record, accepted the cause of action and granted a compensation of Rs.75,000/- but did not exonerate the liability of the appellant. Hence, the present appeal is filed.
The point for consideration is whether the appellant is not liable to pay compensation?
The lower Tribunal has relied upon the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court reported in the case of National Insurance Company Ltd. v. Swaran Singh and others and found that even if the driver of the vehicle does not have a valid driving license so far as the third parties are concerned, the insurance company is liable to pay the same. The lower Tribunal in para 11 has considered this aspect and considering the evidence of R.W.1 and also the Motor Vehicle Inspector’s report Ex.A-2, it was held that the driver has no driving license. However, the material on record does not show that it is not a case of the driver of the vehicle, who was not having a license at all. The driver of the vehicle was said to be having a non-transport license while driving a goods vehicle. In fact, in the counter, it was pleaded that the petitioner is put to strict proof of the driver holding a valid driving license to drive the goods auto and the evidence of R.W.1, which is relied on and also the First Information Report shows that the driver had no valid driving license to drive the auto at the material point of time. Consequently, it clearly goes to show that the driver of the vehicle was having a particular license and by applying the decision stated supra in Swaran Singh’s case the lower Tribunal has rightly accepted the contention of the petitioner and the insurance company cannot avoid the liability. Therefore, the appellant is at liberty to recover the amount from the owner of the vehicle.
Accordingly, the appeal is dismissed. No costs.
N.R.L.NAGESWARA RAO, J
THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE N.R.L.NAGESWARA RAO
M.A.C.M.A. No. 2681 of 2011
 2004 SCCL COM 22