(1.) The 2nd respondent-New India Assurance Company Limited filed this appeal, having been aggrieved by the Order/Award of the learned Chairman of the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal-cum-I Additional District Judge, Visakhapatnam, (for short, 'Tribunal') in M.V.O.P.No.758 of 2004, dated 11.03.2010, awarding compensation of Rs.7,90,000/-(Rupees Seven lakhs Ninety thousand only) with interest at 7.5% per annum as against the claim of the claimant of Rs.12,50,000/-(Rupees Twelve lakhs fifty thousand only) in the claim petition under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicle Act, 1988 (for short, 'the Act').
(2.) Heard Sri Naresh Byrapaneni, the learned counsel for the appellant-2nd respondent, Sri G.Sai Narayana Rao, learned counsel for respondents 1 to 4 and Sri P.N.A.Christian learned counsel for the 6th respondent. Against the appeal 5th respondent notice served, but not appeared, thus taken up the appeal to decide on merits. Perused the material on record. The parties hereinafter are referred to as arrayed before the Tribunal for the sake of convenience in the appeal.
(3.) The contentions of the insurer in the grounds of appeal as well as in course of hearing in nutshell are that the quantum of compensation is exorbitant and excessive, that the driver K.Maheswara Rao of the crime bike of claim petition 1st respondent insured with 3rd respondent under Ex.B-1 policy was holding only a learner's licence as can be seen from Ex.B-5 extract coupled with the evidence of R.W-2 and 3 and the charge sheet Ex.B-4 also speaks the offence committed for not having regular licence and thereby the Tribunal erred in fixing joint liability instead of exonerating the insurer hence to exonerate. In the course of hearing, the appellant-2nd respondent reiterated said contentions by drawing attention of the Court to the provisions of the M.V.Act. The 6th respondent i.e., claim petition 3rd respondent insurer of the moped of the deceased stated that there is no liability to the insurer fixed as no claim can be passed against the owner of the bike other than any claim of personal insurance accidents claim if at all for policy claimed outside the purview of the claims tribunal, hence, there is nothing to interfere with said finding of the Tribunal in the appeal filed by the insurer of the crime bike of the 1st respondent of the claim petition. Whereas, it is the contention of the claimants-contesting respondents to the appeal that the Tribunal having come to a right conclusion by referring to the expressions of the Apex Court in National Insurance Company Limited Vs. Swaran Singh & Others, 2004 3 SCC 297 from particularly paras 93 to 97 that a learning licence is an effective driving licence and thereby for this Court while sitting in the appeal, there is nothing to interfere either to exonerate the insurer on that count or to reduce the quantum of compensation or rate of interest; hence, to dismiss the appeal.