UNITED INDIA INSURANCE CO LTD Vs. MALLA JANAKI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The lorry APS 5000 belonging to the appellant in CMA No. 585 of 1988, owing to the rash and negligent driving of the driver, dashed against another stationary lorry in the early hours at 5'O'clock on 27-10-1985 near Komarthi junction on NH 5. At the time of the accident, the lorry was carrying on soda gas cylinders belonging to one Anandarao. The said Anandarao was sitting along with two other persons in the cabin of the lorry at the time of the accident. As a result of the accident, the said Ananda Rao sustained grievous injuries and succumbed to the injuries. The Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Srikakulam, after considering the claims of the widow, the children and motter of the deceased, Ananda Rao, awarded a total compensation of Rs. 75,000/- fixing the liability on the owner, the driver and the Insurance Company, which is the appellant in CMA No. 518 of 1988. P.W-2 who was travellin in the same lorry was examined. At the time of the accident, the lorry was transporting soda gas cylinders belonging to the deceased who was travelling in the same lorry. Believing the evidence of P.W.-2 in particular, the Tribunal awarded the compensation as stated above. Aggrieved by the order of the learned Additional District Judge, the Insurance Company filed CMA No. 518 of 1988 and the owner of the lorry filed CMA No. 585 of 1988. The claimants also filed cross-objections in CMA No. 518 of 1988.

(2.) The main contention of the learned counsel for the Insurance Company is that it is not liable to pay the compensation as one of the conditions laid down in the policy has been contravened as the driver was not having a valid driving licence as on 27-10-1985 i.e., the date of accident. In support of his contention he relied on the evidence of R.W-3, a clerk of the R.T.O's office to prove that there was no valid licence on the date of accident. The learned Judge awarded the compensation against the Insurance Company also on the plea that the driver was having a valid licence as on the date of accident though it was renewed at a subsequent date.

(3.) The contention of the owner of the vehicle in CMA No. 585 of 1988 is that the quantum of compensation that has been granted on the high side. In the appeal filed by the Insurance Company, the owner of the vehicle was not a party. But in the appeal filed by the owner of the vehicle, the Insurance Company is made a party. The liability to pay the compensation was fixed jointly and severally.