THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE V.SRINIVAS M.A.C.M.A.No. 2992 of 2016 JUDGMENT: This appeal is filed against the order, dated 28.01.2013 passed in M.V.O.P.No.156 of 2010 on the file of the Chairman, Motor Accident Claims Tribunal-cum-District Judge, Chittoor (hereinafter called as „the Tribunal‟). 2. The appellant is the insurer of an auto rickshaw bearing No. AP 03 X 0015 (hereinafter referred to as “crime vehicle”). The Respondent Nos.1 to 4 herein are the claimants, who are the mother, wife and children of P.Chinna Reddappa Reddy (herein after referred as deceased) and Respondent No.5 herein is the owner of the crime vehicle. 3. For the sake of convenience, the parties hereinafter are referred to as they are arrayed before the Tribunal. 4. The case of the claimants, in the petition before the Tribunal is that: i) On 03.08.2009 at about 5.00 p.m., while the deceased P.Chinna Reddappa Reddy is proceeding on his TVS motor cycle bearing Registration No. AP 2 03 Q 5496 from Kuraparthi in order to sell Pudhina (mint leaves) at Vayalpad, in between Obulampalle village and Sivapuram village, he was hit by auto bearing No.AP 03X 0015, driven by its driver in a rash and negligent manner sustained severe injuries and died on the way to C.M.C. Hospital, Vellore in a rash and negligent manner. ii) On the death of deceased, the claimants claimed compensation of Rs.3,29,000/- against the Respondents. 5. The Respondent No.1/ insurer filed written statement, while traversing the material averments in the petition and putting the petitioners to strict proof of the age and avocation of the deceased, factum and manner of accident, rash and negligent driving of the part of the driver of crime auto and liability to pay compensation and contended that the claim for compensation of Rs.3,50,000/- is highly excessive and without basis. The liability of Respondent No.2 is restricted and strictly governed by the terms and conditions stipulated in the policy of insurance. 6. The Tribunal settled the following issues for enquiry basing on the material: 3 “1. Whether the motor vehicle accident on 03.08.2009 at 5.00 p.m., arose on account of negligence of driver of Respondent No.1, resulting the death of the deceased P. Chinna Reddappa Reddy? 2. Whether the petitioners are entitled for compensation? If so, to what amount and from whom? 3. To what relief?” 7. During enquiry, on behalf of the claimants, PWs.1 and 2 are examined and got marked Exs.A1 to A4. On behalf of the Respondents, R.Ws.1 to 4 are examined and got marked Ex.B1. 8. On the material, the Tribunal, having come to the conclusion that the accident occurred due to the rash and negligent driving of driver of auto, held that the petitioners are entitled for compensation of Rs.3,29,000/- with interest and costs against the Respondent Nos.1 and 2 jointly and severally. 9. It is against the said order; the present appeal was preferred by the appellant/Respondent No.2-Insurer. 10. Heard Sri K. Srinivasa Rao, learned counsel for the appellant/insurer and Sri Chaitanya Polisetty, learned counsel 4 representing Sri K. Suresh Kumar Reddy, learned counsel for the Respondent Nos.1 to 4/Claimants. 11. Now, the points that arise for determination are: 1) “whether there is any flaw in the compensation awarded by the tribunal to the claimants? And the award passed by the Tribunal is liable to set aside, if so, to what extent?” and 2) To what relief? 12. POINT No.1: It is not in dispute about the death of the deceased in the accident and that the claimants did not prefer any appeal against the order of the Tribunal. 13. Sri K. Srinivasa Rao, learned counsel for the appellant/insurance company submits that the driver of the crime vehicle does not have any license, which is nothing but a breach of the policy conditions, thereby there is no liability on the part of the insurance company to pay the compensation as awarded by the tribunal. 14. As against the same, Sri K. Suresh Kumar Reddy, learned counsel for the Respondents/claimants submits that there is no 5 consistency in the defence stated by the insurance company i.e., appellant herein and that the tribunal having considered all the aspects, came to the conclusion and awarded compensation of Rs.3,29,000/- and nothing remains to interfere with the award passed by the tribunal. 15. After hearing both sides, this Court has carefully verified the evidence of R.Ws.1, 3 and 4. R.W.1 driving his chief- examination in one stretch stated that the driver of the crime vehicle i.e., R.W.3-T. Dhananjaya has no valid driving license and on the other hand, say he stated that the driver at the time of accident is having valid and effective driving license is totally denied by the claimants during cross-examination. R.W.3 in his evidence stated that he had obtained a driving license from RTA office, Madanapalle but it was lost and he did not obtain a duplicate. This statement was not challenged by the insurance company, nor they did assert that R.W.3 is having valid driving license. May be true, R.W.4 who is identified as Senior Assistant in the office of Deputy Transport Commissioner, Chittoor, testified that no driving license was issued to R.W.3 according to the database maintained in their office. However, when R.W.3 was in 6 the witness box, no suggestion was put forth that he did not take any valid driving license, particularly from RTC office, Madanapalle or any other place and the insurance company also failed to put such suggestion. Therefore, this Court is of the considered opinion that the insurance company could not prove that R.W.3 is not having any valid driving license. 16. In the light of the above discussions, this Court does not find any fault with the conclusion arrived by the Tribunal and the award passed by the Tribunal warrants no interference. Thus, this point is answered accordingly. 17. In the result, the appeal is dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs. Interim orders granted earlier if any, shall stand vacated. As a sequel, miscellaneous petitions pending if any, shall stand closed. __________________ JUSTICE V.SRINIVAS Date: 07.01.2025 SR