Dismissed

National Insurance Company Limited v. Shaik Ajimoon

Andhra Pradesh HC17 Sept 2019MACMA/778/2013

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The appellant insurance company appealed against a liability order, arguing breach of policy terms due to the driver lacking a valid license for goods transport. The court found the appellant's witness had no engineering expertise, rendering his testimony unreliable. The appeal was dismissed, confirming the lower tribunal's liability order.

What did the court decide?

No order as to costs. Miscellaneous petitions pending, if any, shall be disposed of.

National Insurance Company Limited Vs Shaik… — Motor Accident Claims | Andhra Pradesh HC (2019)

¶1

THE HON'BLE Ms. JUSTICE J. UMA DEVI

¶2

M.A.C.M.A. No.778 OF 2013.

¶3

JUDGMENT:

¶4

The 2^nd respondent/National Insurance Company Limited in M.V.O.P.No.681 of 2011, on the file of the Motor Vehicles Accidents Claims Tribunal-cum-XI Additional District Judge (F.T.C), Guntur at Tenali, against whom the joint liability is fixed along with the owner of the transport auto bearing No.A.P.27 W 2272, to pay compensation of Rs.4,32,000/-, has come before this Court by preferring the present appeal, disputing its liability to pay compensation so awarded on several other grounds.

¶5

The first and foremost ground urged by the insurance company is that it has specifically pleaded in its counter that the driver, who drove the offending auto at the material point of time had no valid and effective driving license, as such the Court below ought to have exonerated it from its liability. Its contention is that they have examined the Assistant Manager working in their insurance company and it is deposed by him that their insurance company issued the commercial vehicle package to the 1^st respondent’s goods carriage vehicle covering the risk for the period from 30.10.2010 to 20.09.2011, and as per the terms and conditions of the policy, the driver of such vehicle must possess a valid and effective driving license but the 2^nd respondent who drove the offending vehicle at the material point of time, had no valid and effective driving license and such fact was confirmed by the Additional Licensing Authority by issuing Ex.X.2 mentioning the driving particulars of the 2^nd respondent/Md. Yousuf, that he had license to drive a non-transport vehicle, and despite the establishment of the fact by the insurance company that the driver had no valid and effective driving license by examining the R.W.2, who was deputed by the Deputy Commissioner

¶6

¶7

(Transport), Vijayawada to speak about the driving license particulars possessed by the 2^nd respondent herein who during the course of his examination stated that there was no endorsement of the word “heavy” in the license possessed by the 2^nd respondent/Md. Yousuf, the Court below had made it liable wrongly to pay compensation along with the owner of the offending auto, which was meant for carrying goods.

¶8

From the aforementioned grounds urged by the appellantinsurance company, it is manifestly clear that it has no grievance insofar as the finding recorded by the Court below on the aspect of negligence attributed to the driver of the offending auto bearing No.A.P.27 W 2272 and also the quantum of compensation. Since the only ground urged by the insurance company to dispute its liability is that the terms and conditions of the policy are violated by the owner of the offending auto by handing over the said auto to a person who does not possesses the valid and effective driving license the evidence adduced, in this regard, through R.Ws.1 and 2, and Ex.X.2 needs to be re-appreciated.

¶9

This Court on adverting its attention to the evidence of R.W.2 whom the insurance company summoned to speak about the particulars mentioned in Ex.A.2, noticed that Md. Yousuf, who was driving the offending auto at the material point of time, was issued with a driving license to drive the motorcycle with gear and a light motor vehicle non transport, on 25.06.2004, his non transport L.M.V is valid up to 24.06.2024. It is testified by R.W.2 that Md. Yousuf was issued with license to drive motor cabs on 02.12.2005 and it was valid upto 31.01.2015.

¶10

The only material elicited in the cross-examination of R.W.2 is that the endorsement of the word “heavy” is necessary for driving a goods auto. The Court below on perusal of Ex.B.2, the extract of driving license of Md. Yousuf and also Ex.X.2, which was marked through R.W.2 noticed

¶11

¶12

that Md. Yousouf was holding driving license to drive motor cab transport and transport auto only because of the evidence given by R.W.2 that there must be an endorsement word “heavy” on the license is required to drive the goods auto which admittedly in a light motor vehicle, it is hazardous to hold that the terms and conditions of the policy are breached by the owner of the offending auto. R.W.2, has no diploma in Auto Mobile Engineering and that the only job assigned, to him is to prepare the challan for collecting the driving license fee etc.

¶13

Considering the evidence given by R.W.2, who does not possesses any diploma in auto mobile engineering, it is difficult to hold that Md. Yousouf who was driving the auto at the material point of time had no valid and effective driving license.

¶14

As the contention of the insurance company that the terms and conditions of the policy are breached by the owner-cum-driver of the offending auto has been dealt substantially taking into consideration of the evidence of R.W.2 and Ex.X.2 (who admittedly had no diploma in automobile engineering) by the Court below for fixing of conjoint liability as against it along with the owner of the offending vehicle whose liability, it has agreed to indemnify by virtue of Ex.B.1 policy, the finding if any recorded in this regard cannot be faulted.

¶15

In the light of the afore held discussion, the appeal filed by the insurance company fails and the same is hereby dismissed.

¶16

In the result, the appeal is dismissed confirming the order dated 14.08.2012, passed by the Motor Vehicles Accidents Claims Tribunalcum-XI Additional District Judge (F.T.C), Guntur at Tenali in M.V.O.P.No.681 of 2011. No order as to costs.

¶17

¶18

Consequently, miscellaneous petitions pending, if any, shall also stand disposed of.

¶19

________________ J. UMA DEVI, J Date.17.09.2019. Gk

¶20

¶21

THE HON'BLE Ms. JUSTICE J. UMA DEVI

¶22

M.A.C.M.A. No.778 OF 2013.

¶23

Date:17.09.2019.

¶24

Gk.

National Insurance Company Limited v. Shaik Ajimoon

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

National Insurance Company Limited v. Shaik Ajimoon

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Chitrala Sreenivasulu Vs a. Subahan Saheb and Another

The Oriental Insurance Company Ltd. Vs v.Ramalingeswara Rao and 3 Others.

Rameswarapu Venugopalaswamy, W.G.Dist and 2 Othrs Vs Guttikonda Ashok, Krishna Dist and 2 Othrs

The Managing Director Vs Bandaru Lakshminarayana and 2 Others

United India Insurance Company Ltd., Vs Boya Laxmikanthamma at Suguru Laxmikanthamma and 5 Others

M/s. National Insurance Company Limited, Vs D. Rama Mohan