P.S. Narayana, J.
1. This civil miscellaneous appeal is filed under Section 173(1) of the Motor Vehicles Act/1988 by respondent No. 4 in O.P. No. 148 of 1998 on the file of the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal-cum-Additional District Judge, Adilabad.
2. The appellant-respondent No. 4 is United India Insurance Co. Ltd., represented by its Divisional Manager, Divisional Office, Adilabad.
3. The facts in brief are as specified hereunder:
The parents of deceased Gorla Laxmi filed O.P., claiming compensation stating that the said deceased Gorla Laxmi was travelling in a jeep bearing registration No. AP 1-8331 on 17.10.1997 from Boath towards Adilabad and respondent No. 1, the driver of the jeep, drove the jeep in a high speed and in a rash and negligent manner and as a result the jeep went out of control and dashed to a lorry bearing No. AP 7-V 4579 coming in the opposite direction near Devapur Cross Roads on the National Highway No. 7 at about 1.10 p.m. and due to the said accident, one person died on the spot and the deceased Gorla Laxmi sustained grievous injuries and she was shifted to Government Hospital, Adilabad, where she succumbed to the injuries. On a report, the police of Adilabad registered Crime No. 66 of 1997 under Sections 304-A, 337 and 338 of the Indian Penal Code against the driver of the jeep. Deceased was aged about 15 years and was hale and healthy and she was a shepherd and she was also attending to the agricultural work and she used to earn Rs. 1,200/- per month and Used to contribute her entire income to the claimants and she is the only daughter of the claimants and hence it was prayed by the claimants that compensation of Rs. 1,00,000/- may be awarded. In the said O.P. No. 148 of 1998, respondent Nos. 1, 2, 3, 5 and 6 remained ex parte. Respondent No. 4, i.e., the present appellant insurance company of the jeep in question filed a counter denying all the allegations. It was pleaded that the facts leading to the accident, the rash and negligent driving attributed to the jeep driver, the age and income of the deceased all are denied. It was also pleaded that the driver of the jeep had no subsisting and valid driving licence and hence the Insurance Company is not liable to pay compensation in view of the violation of the policy conditions. It was further pleaded that the jeep in question was being plied as a taxi, which is against the terms of the policy. It was further pleaded that the compensation claimed is highly excessive, arbitrary and exorbitant. On the strength of the pleadings of the respective parties, the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal had settled the following issues:
(1) Whether the deceased, viz., Gorla Laxmi died in the accident occurred on 17.10.1997 due to rash and negligent driving of jeep No. AP 1-8331 and lorry No. AP 7-V 4579 by its drivers?
(2) Whether the petitioners are entitled to any compensation? If so, to what amount and against whom?
(3) To what relief?
The mother of the deceased, i.e., petitioner No. 2 was examined as PW 1 and also an eye-witness to the incident was examined as PW 2. Exhs. A-1 to A-9 were also marked. No evidence was led on behalf of the respondents. The Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, on appreciation of the oral and documentary evidence and keeping in view all the facts, had arrived at a conclusion that claimants are entitled to compensation amount of Rs. 70,000/- to be shared equally recoverable with 12 percent interest per annum from the date of claim petition till payment with proportionate costs jointly and severally from respondent Nos. 1 to 4 and time of 30 days had been granted for deposit and advocate's fee was fixed at Rs. 500/- and the rest of the claim was rejected. Aggrieved by the same, respondent No. 4, Insurance Company referred to supra, had preferred the present appeal.
4. Mr. T. Mahendar Rao, the learned Counsel representing the appellant in all fairness had submitted that the findings recorded by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal on issue No. 1 cannot be in any way assailed since the Tribunal had appreciated oral and documentary evidence, the evidence of PWs 1 and 2 and also Exhs. A-1 to A-9 in detail and had given a finding that the respondent No. 1 drove the jeep in question in a rash and negligent manner. However, the learned Counsel had taken me through the findings recorded at para 11 of the judgment and had contended that the view expressed by Motor Accident Claims Tribunal is not in accordance with law since the liability of the Insurance Company should have been negatived when once the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal had arrived at a conclusion that there was violation of the terms and conditions of the policy. The learned Counsel also contended that Exh. A-5, the insurance certificate, shows that the jeep in question was insured as a private vehicle and not as a taxi and the complaint covered by Exh. A-1 shows that there were passengers in the jeep and inasmuch as the vehicle was being plied as a taxi for transporting passengers, i.e., for a different purpose altogether, which is in breach of the policy conditions and hence the Insurance Company is not liable to pay the compensation. Learned Counsel had made elaborate submissions on this aspect and also brought to my notice the different provisions of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988.
5. Mr. Harinath Gutpta, learned Counsel representing respondent No. 7, yet another Insurance Company, viz., Oriental Insurance Company Ltd., represented by its Branch Manager, Branch Office, Tenali, had submitted that inasmuch as this company was not fastened with any liability though the Insurance Company was impleaded as a party respondent, there is no necessity for him to advance arguments. However, Mr. Chandra Sekhar, learned Counsel representing the claimants, respondent Nos. 1 and 2, had submitted that the question of breach of condition in a policy and the fastening of the liability as far as the Insurance Company is concerned in case of breach of terms and conditions, the said liability may have to be worked out in between the insurer and the insured, respondent Nos. 2 and 3, only and this question cannot be extended while deciding the liability of the Insurance Company vis-a-vis the claimants while claiming the compensation under the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988. The learned Counsel also submitted that it is no doubt true that at para 11, the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal had recorded a finding on the basis of Exhs. A-5 and A-1 that the jeep in question was taking passengers and the same was in breach of the policy conditions, but, however this ground is not available to the appellant-respondent No. 4 to avoid liability in the light of the view taken by the Supreme Court in New India Assurance Co. Ltd. v. Kamla : [2001]2SCR797 and also this Court in United India Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Lingampalli Mondi : 2002(3)ALD670 .
6. Heard both the learned Counsel and also perused the oral and documentary evidence available on record and also the order impugned in the C.M.A.
7. The factual matrix had already been dealt with by me supra. Except the question of the liability of appellant Insurance Company in the facts and circumstances of the case, no other question had been canvassed before this Court. In my considered view rightly, in the light of the clear oral evidence of PWs 1 and 2 and the documentary evidence Exhs. A-1 to A-9, it is true that the jeep in question was being plied as a taxi and there is an admission of PW 1 to the effect mat there were 20 to 30 passengers in the jeep at the time of accident. There is also an admission of PW 2 that every day the jeep in question plies between Boath and Adilabad carrying passengers. Exh. A-5 is the insurance certificate showing that the jeep in question was insured as a private vehicle and not as a taxi. Exh. A-1, the complaint, also shows that there were passengers in the jeep. Hence in view of these facts it cannot be disputed that the vehicle in question was being plied as a taxi for transporting the passengers on the fateful day. This being finding of fact, this fact also had not been seriously assailed by the Counsel representing the appellant. With all vehemence it was contended inasmuch as the very plying of this vehicle is in breach of the policy conditions and in such a case it will be unjust to fasten the Insurance Company with the liability. The said question raised by the learned Counsel for the appellant is no longer res integra in view of the binding precedents available on the question. In New India Assurance Co. Ltd. v. Kamla (supra), the Supreme Court while dealing with the breach of insurance policy conditions on account of the vehicle being driven without valid licence, it was held that the insurer may be statutorily liable to pay compensation to third parties and can recover from the insured vehicle owner the amount paid to third parties. The same view was expressed by this Court in United India Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Lingampalli Mondi (supra). In view of the ratio laid down in the aforesaid decisions, it is clear that even though there is some breach or violation of the policy conditions, the Insurance Company is still liable to pay the compensation, and at best in the light of the view expressed in the judgment in Lingampalli Mondi (supra), the Insurance Company is entitled to recover the same from the insured, respondent Nos. 2 and 3.
8. In view of the settled legal position on this point and inasmuch as no other question had been raised and no further arguments have been advanced on other aspects, I am of the considered opinion that the C.M.A. is devoid of merits and accordingly the same is dismissed. But, however, since the appeal is preferred only on a question of law, each party to bear their own costs.