Andhra Pradesh High Court
MACMA/675/2013 of THE NATIONAL INSURANCE CO LTD Vs THUMPATI KANAKA RATNAM AND 7 ORS on 31 December 2019
MS JUSTICE J.UMA DEVI M.A.C.M.A No.675 of 2013 JUDGMENT: The National Insurance Company Limited has preferred the present appeal assailing the award passed in OP.No.183 of 2005, dated 09.01.2007, on the file of the Chairman, Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal-cum-I Additional District Judge,
THE HON'BLE MS JUSTICE J.UMA DEVI M.A.C.M.A No.675 of 2013
Citations and Judicial Treatment
Cited by
0
Decisions in the index citing it
Cites
0
Decisions referred to
In this index
0
Of the decisions it cites
Overruled / Questioned
0
No negative treatment found
Loading the citing and cited decisions…
This judgment in the centre: on the left the decisions it cites, on the right the decisions citing it. Colour is the treatment; choose a decision to open it.
JUDGMENT:
The National Insurance Company Limited has preferred the present appeal assailing the award passed in OP.No.183 of 2005, dated 09.01.2007, on the file of the Chairman, Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal-cum-I Additional District Judge, West Godavari District at Eluru (for short “the Tribunal”).
The grounds urged by the appellant-insurance company to assail the award impugned are precisely stated as under:
The appellant-insurance company’s contention is that the court below ought not to have fixed liability as against it as the terms and conditions of the policy are breached by the 8[th] respondent by handing over the auto bearing No.AP20-V9382 to a person who does not possess valid driving licence. The appellant-insurance company further contends that the court below has failed to consider that the driver of the auto was possessing licence to drive a non-transport vehicle; Though the driver was not supposed to drive a transport vehicle as he was possessing licence to drive a non-transport vehicle, the court below instead of holding that the terms and conditions of the policy are breached by the owner of the offending vehicle, made the appellant-insurance company liable to pay compensation along with the owner of the crime vehicle who violated the terms and conditions of the policy.
As these being the contentions raised by the appellant-insurance company, the evidence let in by it in support of its contention that the terms and conditions of the policy are breached needs to be reconsidered.
The appellant-insurance company has produced the attested copy of the policy of the crime auto and marked it as Ex.B1. It examined RWs 1
and 2. The authorization letter and the driving licence were marked through RW 2.
The specific stand taken by the insurance company to disown its liability is that the driver of the offending auto was not possessing proper driving licence and that he was possessing licence to drive non-transport vehicle. This was the only contention raised by the appellant-insurance company in the appeal grounds to claim exemption from the liability to pay compensation to the claimants.
The learned trial Judge before arriving to conclusion that the appellant-insurance company is also liable to pay compensation along with the insured has made an elaborate discussion in his order by referring to the evidence of RWs 1 and 2 and the definition of the “light motor vehicle” defined in Section 2(21) of the Motor Vehicles Act. It is pertinent to mention here that the Administrative Officer of RTA Department, Khammam whom the appellant-insurance company examined as RW 1 though deposed that the auto riksha would not fall within the category of “light motor vehicle” under Circular No.49039/D1/94, dated 01.02.1995 and that the driver of the offending auto had licence to drive a non-transport vehicle and that he was not supposed to drive a transport vehicle, he did not produce the circular which he referred in his evidence.
As per the term “light motor vehicle” as defined in Section 2(21) of the Motor Vehicles Act, a transport vehicle and any other vehicle, the weight of which does not exceed 7500 kilograms comes under the category of “light motor vehicle”. In Ex.A5 insurance policy which is synonymous to Ex.B1, the gross weight of the crime vehicle is mentioned as 353 kilograms. The Tribunal taking note of the evidence available on record wherefrom the vehicle involved, the vehicle can be categorized as a “light motor vehicle” has fastened the liability as against the appellant-insurance company holding that the appellant-insurance company cannot escape from the liability of payment of compensation to the claimants on the ground that the terms and conditions of the policy are breached due to non-possessing of licence by the driver to drive a transport vehicle, particularly, in the absence of any evidence let in by it that the skills to drive a transport or non-transport light motor vehicle are different.
Conclusion
The evidence on record suggests that the driver of the crime vehicle was possessing licence to drive light motor vehicle. As the auto which involved in the accident comes in the category of “light motor vehicle” for driving of which the driver was possessing licence, the appellant-insurance company cannot be exempted from the liability to pay compensation on the ground of breach of terms and conditions of the policy by the insured.
In view of the afore held discussion, I find no justifiable grounds to find fault with the trial court in making the appellant-insurance company liable to pay compensation to the claimants.
In the result, the appeal filed by the appellant-insurance company fails and is dismissed accordingly. No order as to costs.
Pending miscellaneous applications, if any, shall stand closed in consequence. No costs.
Date: 31.12.2019 Dsr
__________________
J.UMA DEVI,J