MACMA/399/2021 of THE ORIENTAL INSURANCE COMPANY LTD Vs Kunapareddy Dhanalakshmi, on 6 August 2026

1. V RAGHU Counsel for the Respondent(S):

1. CH NAGA MEHAR BABA The Court made the following:

The Court made the following judgment:

The present appeal is preferred by the Oriental Insurance Company Limited aggrieved by order dated 22.08.2016 in MVOP No.207 of 2010 on the file of the Chairman, Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal-cum-XI Additional District Judge, Gudivada.

2. For the sake of convenience, the parties are referred to as they were referred before the Tribunal.

3. The claimants filed claim petition under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, claiming compensation of Rs.1,00,000/- (Rupees one lakh only), on account of death of one Sri K.Venkata Sriramulu, who was the husband of petitioner No.1 and father of petitioner Nos.2 to 4. The said claim was resisted by the Insurance Company stating that, as on the date of accident, the rider of the scooter had no valid driving license and, therefore, the Insurance Company is not liable to pay any compensation as claimed. The Tribunal, after enquiry, by order under challenge, allowed the claim petition by awarding compensation of Rs.1,43,000/- (Rupees one lakh and forty three thousand only), together with interest @ 7.5% per annum from the date of petition till the date of payment, by fastening liability on respondent Nos.1 to 3. Aggrieved by the same, the present appeal is preferred.

4. Heard Sri V.Raghu, learned counsel appearing for appellant and Sri Ch.Naga Mehar Baba, learned counsel appearing for respondent Nos.1 to 4. Despite service of notice, there is no appearance for respondent No.6. As respondent No.5 remained ex- parte before the Tribunal, this Court proceeded with the matter.

5. Learned counsel for the appellant would strenuously contend that the Insurance Company is not liable to pay compensation inasmuch as the rider of the scooter did not possess valid driving license as on the date of accident. In support of its contention, the Insurance Company examined one Smt K.Arundhathi Devi, Junior Assistant in the office of Regional Transport Authority, Gudivada, as R.W.2.

6. A perusal of the evidence of R.W.2 would show that no driving license had been issued in the name of Sri V.Anjaneya Prasad, the rider of the scooter. However, during the cross examination, she had admitted that the said V.Anjaneya Prasad might have taken license from any other RTA office. In such circumstances, the evidence of R.W.2 cannot be relied on to come to a conclusion that, on the date of accident, the rider of the scooter, namely, V.Anjaneya Prasad, had no valid driving license. Having considered all the aspects of the case, the Tribunal, while allowing the claim petition, granted liberty to the appellant/Insurance

Company to recover the amount from respondent Nos.1 and 2, i.e., the owner and rider of the offending scooter.

7. In such circumstances, this Court does not find any illegality in the order impugned, inasmuch as, admittedly, as on the date of accident, the offending scooter was insured with the appellant Company. Though the Tribunal fastened the liability on respondent Nos.1 to 3, as can be seen from the order under challenge, the 3rd respondent/Insurance Company was granted liberty to recover the same from the rider and owner of the offending scooter. In the circumstances, this Court does not find any illegality in the impugned order.

8. Accordingly, the appeal is dismissed.

There shall be no order as to costs. As a sequel, pending applications, if any, shall stand closed. _____________________ JUSTICE T.C.D.SEKHAR

Dt.07.08.2026 JLV

THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE T.C.D.SEKHAR

MACMA.No.399 OF 2021 Date: 07.08.2026

JLV