NATIONAL INSURANCE COMPANY LIMITED Vs. YARRASANI APARANJI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE Civil Revision Petitions and the Civil Miscellaneous Appeals totalling to 18 at the instance of National Insurance Company Limited, the insurer of the offending vehicle involved in the accident, are against the common order passed by the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal-cum-IX Additional District Judge, Guntur, on 30- 09-2005 in M.V.O.P.Nos.800 to 811 of 2002 and 913 to 918 of 2002 on its file arising out of the same accident.

(2.) ALL the 18 petitions for compensation by the legal representatives of the victims or the injured, as the case may be, were against the owner of the tipper lorry No.AP- 31- V-595, the insured and the National Insurance Company Limited, the insurer, seeking to make both of them jointly and severally liable for the compensation claimed. The victims were travelling in the subject vehicle on 15-06-2002 at 8.30 p.m. from Sathenapalli side towards Guntur side, when the vehicle met with an accident near Paladugu cross-road and turned turtle, which resulted in two deaths and injuries to 16 persons. The accident was claimed by the claimants to be due to the rash and negligent driving of the vehicle by the driver and after registration of Cr.No.89 of 2002 at Medikonduru Police Station, the injured were referred to the Government General Hospital, Guntur for treatment. Sums specified in each of the Claim Petitions were claimed as compensation on the specific grounds raised in each of them and the owner of the vehicle impleaded as the 1st respondent in all the cases remained ex parte. The insurer contested the claims contending that there was no rash and negligent driving of the vehicle and that the driver did not have an effective and valid driving licence and that the vehicle had no valid permit and fitness certificate. It is also contended that there is no valid insurance policy and the vehicle insured as a goods vehicle carried unauthorized passengers, the liability in respect of whom cannot be imposed on the Insurance Company in violation of the terms and conditions of the insurance policy. The insurer sought for protection under Section 170 of the Motor Vehicles Act in the written statements filed in the petitions and requested for dismissal of the claims.

(3.) THE common order is under challenge in these Civil Revision Petitions and the Civil Miscellaneous Appeals at the instance of the insurer contending that when the conditions of the insurance policy were violated, the insurer is not liable to deposit the compensation and recover the same from the insured in the light of the principles laid down in National Insurance Company Limited v. Bommithi Subbhayamma and others (2005 ACJ 721) and M.V. Jayadevappa and another v. Oriental Insurance Company Ltd., (2005 ACC 472). THE insurer claimed that the compensation is to be recovered only from the owner of the vehicle and also questioned the quantum of compensation fixed and the multiplier adopted in each of the cases alleging the same to be not substantiated by any evidence.