APHC010066032022 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) [3367] TUESDAY, THE EIGHTH DAY OF JULY TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE V SRINIVAS MOTOR ACCIDENT CIVIL MISCELLANEOUS APPEAL NO:50 of 2022 Between: The New India Assurance Company ...APPELLANT AND Uppada Sai Sai Kiran and Others ...RESPONDENT(S) Counsel for the Appellant: 1. B PARAMESEWARA RAO Counsel for the Respondent(S): 1. The Court made the following: JUDGMENT: This appeal is filed against the order dated 18.09.2019 passed in M.V.O.P.No.139 of 2017 on the file of the Chairman, Motor Accident Claims Tribunal-cum-IV Additional District Judge, Vizianagaram (hereinafter called as „the Tribunal‟). 2. The appellant herein is the insurer of Tata Magic Auto bearing No.AP 35 V 7179 (hereinafter called as “crime vehicle”). The respondent No.1 herein is the petitioner/claimant before the Tribunal and the respondent Nos.2 and 3 are the driver and owner of the said crime vehicle. 3. For the sake of convenience, the parties hereinafter referred as they arrayed before the Tribunal. 4. The case of the claimant, in the petition before the Tribunal is that: i). On 08.08.2016 at 12.30 hours, the minor petitioner boarded Tata magic auto bearing No.AP 35 V 7179 at Asilametta, Visakhapatnam along with others to go to Peddipalem and when they reached Chaitanya College, NH-16 road, the respondent No.1 driven crime vehicle in a in a rash and negligent manner with high speed while going towards SKL and in that speed right side back tyre was burst and he lost control over the auto and it turned at road margin whereby the left leg of petitioner got fractured and he was shifted to Indus Hospital for first aid and later to Kala Hospital, Visakhapatnam. ii). Due to the said injuries, he claimed compensation of Rs.2,00,000/- against the driver of the crime vehicle. 5. The Respondent Nos.1 and 2 remained ex parte before the Tribunal. 6. The respondent No.3 filed counter denying all the averments in the petition and pleaded that the driver of the crime vehicle is not having valid license at the time of accident and violated the terms and conditions of policy and MV Act and that the accident occurred solely due to the rash and negligent driving of the driver of the crime vehicle and thereby, prays for dismissal the petition against this respondent. 7. The Tribunal settled the following issues for enquiry basing on the material: “1.Whether the accident occurred due to rash and negligent driving of vehicle bearing No.AP 35 V 7179 causing injuries to petitioner? 2.Whether the petitioner is entitled for compensation, if so, what amount and which of the respondents are liable to pay the compensation amount? and 3.To what relief?” 8. During the course of enquiry, on behalf of the claimant, PWs.1 to 4 were examined and got marked Exs.A.1 to A.11 and Ex.X1. On behalf of the respondents, RW.1 was examined and got marked Ex.B.1. 9. On the material, the Tribunal, having come to the conclusion that the accident occurred due to the negligent driving of the crime vehicle by its driver and held that the claimant is entitled for the compensation of Rs.1,93,150/-, with interest at 9% per annum from the date of petition till the date of realization against the respondent Nos.1 to 3. 10. It is against the said order; the present appeal was preferred by the appellant/Insurance Company. 11. Heard Sri B. Parameswara Rao, learned counsel for the appellant/Insurance Company. No representation on behalf of the respondents. 12. Now, the only point that arises for determination is “whether the award passed by the Tribunal is liable to be set aside, if so, to what extent?” 13. POINT: It is not in dispute about the injuries sustained by the petitioner, solely due to the rash and negligent driving of the driver of the crime vehicle. 14. The main contention raised by the learned counsel for the appellant/insurer is that the driver of the crime vehicle has no driving license at the time of accident. So, the liability fastened upon the insurer is unjustified. 15. On which, this Court perused the material available on record that the appellant/Insurer filed counter and pleaded that the driver of the crime vehicle is not having valid license and violated the terms and conditions of policy of MV. Act. On which, RW.1, D.Govardhan Rao, Senior Assistant of the Insurance Company representing Respondent No.3, was examined, but in the said evidence, no material has been placed on record to convince this Court that the driving license of Respondent No.1 either fake or no license. Since the defense taken by the Insurance Company that the driver of the crime vehicle has no driving license, it is the appellant's duty to establish that the respondent No.1 has no license at all. But, in fact, no material has been placed on record to substantiate the said evidence. 16. For these reasons, this Court is of the view that there are no merits in this appeal. 17. Hence, the appeal is hereby dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs. Interim order granted earlier, if any, shall be vacated. As a sequel, miscellaneous petitions pending, if any, shall be closed. __________________ JUSTICE V.SRINIVAS Date: 08.07.2025 KNN