GOLAKOTI DURGA Vs. DODDAPANENI KEDARNADH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The appeal is filed, against the award of the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal-cum-II Additional District Judge, East Godavari District, At Amalapuram, (for short, 'Tribunal') in M.V.O.P.No.95 of 2008 dated 29.09.2010, by the Claimants, who are no other than wife, two daughters, son, widow daughter in law and parents of the deceased late Nageswara Rao @ Peda Abbulu, aged about 38 years (as per Ex.A3 Post Mortem Report), having been aggrieved by the award of the Tribunal, awarding compensation of Rs.3,00,000/- (Rupees three lakhs only) with interest 7 1/2% per annum against the claim of Rs.4,00,000/- (Rupees four lakhs only) only against the respondent No.1- owner without fixing joint liability on respondent No.2-insurer of the crime vehicle (lorry bearing No.AP 37 W 5858) despite the vehicle is covered by insurance policy-Ex.B1 on the ground of so called non renewal of driving license of the said driver prior to the date of accident, filed the appeal impugning the said award.

(2.) Heard Sri G.Rama Gopal, learned counsel for the appellants, Sri G.Ramachandra Reddy, learned standing counsel for the 2nd respondent -New India Insurance Company Limited and the 1st respondent-owner of the crime vehicle, who was served with notice is called absent with no representation and thus taken as heard the 1st respondent for the absence to decide on merits and perused the record. The parties hereinafter are referred to as arrayed before the Tribunal for the sake of convenience in the appeal.

(3.) (a). The contentions in the grounds of appeal in the nutshell are that the award of the Tribunal is contrary to law, weight of evidence and probabilities of the case, on erroneous conception and misunderstanding of law particularly chapter 12 of M.V. Act and is liable to be set aside, that there is nothing to show that the accident resulted was from the direct consequences of non renewal of the so called license apart from any proof to the conscious knowledge of the owner, thus does exempt the insurer at least to the extent pay and recover and thereby sought for setting aside said findings of the Tribunal and allow the appeal as claimed in the claim petition with costs.