Dismissed

Jajjavarapu Papa, v. Bajjivarapu Vishnu Prasad

Telangana HC7 Feb 2012MACMA/3357/2011

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In an appeal against an award by the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, the court upheld the insurer's exoneration. The Tribunal awarded compensation to the deceased's heirs but held the Insurance Company not liable because the vehicle was driven by a person having no licence. The High Court dismissed the appeal, relying on Supreme Court precedents stating no liability when there is no licence at al

What did the court decide?

The appeal is dismissed; the award of the lower Tribunal exonerating the Insurance Company is upheld.

Jajjavarapu Papa, Vs Bajjivarapu Vishnu Prasad — Motor Accident Claims | Telangana HC (2012)

¶1

HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE N.R.L. NAGESWARA RAO

¶2

M.A.C.M.A.No.3357 OF 2011

¶3

JUDGMENT:

¶4

The appeal is filed by the appellants/petitioners challenging the award in M.V.O.P.No.122 of 1997 on the file of the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal-cum- District Judge, Krishna, Machilipatnam, exonerating the liability of the Insurance Company.

¶5

2. A claim for compensation of Rs.1,50,000/- was made consequent on the death of the deceased Koteswara Rao.

¶6

3. According to the case of the petitioners, on 22.09.1995 when the deceased Koteswara Rao was going on his cycle, the lorry of the 2^nd respondent driven by the 1^st respondent came in the opposite direction in a rash and negligent manner and dashed against the cycle, as a result of which, the deceased died on the spot. The 1^st respondent remained ex parte. The 2^nd respondent filed a counter contending that the incident was due to the fault of the deceased only whereas the 3^rd respondent denied the liability and also the validity of the driving licnece of the person, who drove the vehicle. The Tribunal below after considering the evidence on record accepted the nature of the incident and granted a compensation of Rs.1,41,000/-, but exonerated the liability of the Insurance Company. Aggrieved by it, the present appeal is filed.

¶7

4. The point for consideration is whether the claimants are entitled for compensation against the Insurance Company?

¶8

5. POINT:

¶9

As can be seen from the para No.11 of the judgment, it was found that the vehicle was allowed to be driven by a person having no licence. Therefore, the Insurance Company is not liable to pay the same.

¶10

6. The learned counsel for the appellants contended that the Insurance Company can pay the amount and recover the same and in support of his contention, he relied upon the following judgments to claim compensation:

¶11

1) Jawahar Singh Vs. Bala Jain and others^[1]

¶12

2) D.Krishnaveni and others Vs. Mohd. Sikander and another^[2]

¶13

3) Oriental Insurance Company Vs. Zaharulnisha and others^[3]

¶14

4) Rambabu Tiwari Vs. United India Insurance Company Limited and others^[4]

¶15

It was also pleaded that the evidence on record should be on the side of the Insurance Company as to whether the owner of the vehicle knowingly entrusted the vehicle to a person, who had no licence. On the other hand, the learned counsel for the respondents contends that in view of the Judgment of the Supreme Court reported

¶16

i n National Insurance Company Limited Vs. Swaran Singh^[5] , wherein it was held that when the driver had no licence at all the Insurance Company is not liable to compensate even the third parties. In fact, it is necessary to show that the driver had licence and then whether the licence was valid or not is a different matter. But, however, in this case, there was no licence. In the decision 1^st cited supra relied on by the counsel for the appellants, it was case where evidently the owner has entrusted the vehicle to a minor who cannot hold a licence. In the peculiar circumstances of that case, the Supreme Court has directed the Insurance Company to pay the

¶17

amount in spite of different to the decision reported in Ishwar Chandra Ltd., Vs. Oriental Insurance Company^[6] , wherein the liability was held with the owner only. Therefore, I do not find any valid reasons to interfere with the award of the lower Tribunal and the lower Tribunal has rightly exonerated the Insurance Company.

¶18

7. Accordingly, the appeal is dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs.

¶19

_______________________________ JUSTICE N.R.L. NAGESWARA RAO

¶20

Date:07.02.2012 INL

¶21