Insurance Company cannot repudiate its liability on technical grounds.

Aggrieved by the Award dated 23.02.2007 in M.V.O.P. No.627 of 2004 passed by the Chairman, Motor Accidents Claim Tribunalcum District Judge, Mahabubnagar (for short the Tribunal), the 2nd respondent Insurance Company preferred the instant M.A.C.M.A.

2) The factual matrix of the case is thus:

a) The claimants are the wife, minor son and parents of the deceased A.Ramulu of Veltoor Village, Mahabubnagar District. Their case is that on 06.10.2003 at about 9.00 P.M., when the deceased was returning from Hyderabad to his Village on his scooter bearing No.AP 09 G 6505 and when he reached Punjabi Dhaba in the village limits of Rajapur, one car bearing No.ADY 2239 came with high speed being driven by its driver in a rash and negligent manner and dashed the deceased, thereby he fell down and sustained multiple fractures and died on the same night while undergoing treatment in Osmania General Hospital at Hyderabad. It is averred that the car driver was responsible for the accident. It is further averred that due to sudden demise of the deceased, the claimants became destitutes. On these pleas, the claimants filed M.V.O.P. No.627 of 2004 against the respondents, who are owner and insurer of the offending vehicle and claimed Rs.5,00,000/- as compensation under different heads under Section 166 of M.V.Act. Later they got amended the petition to Section 163-A of M.V. Act.

b) First respondent remained ex parte.

c) R2Insurance Company filed counter and opposed the claim by denying all the material averments in the petition. R2 opposed the claim mainly on the contention that as per F.I.R. allegations the deceased was hit by an unknown vehicle and case was registered by the police as such. However, later the claimants created a false story in collusion with one Yousuf Khan as per which he came to police station along with one Shaik Saleem on 28.05.2004, i.e.7 months after the accident and the said Yousuf Khan introduced himself as the owner of the car and Shaik Saleem as his driver and surrendered his driver being responsible for accident. R2 further contended that as per the records, one Mangamma was the original owner of the vehicle and policy was issued in her name. Hence, the claimants colluded with the owner and driver of the vehicle to get compensation. R2 further denied the age, avocation and income of the deceased. Finally, R2 contended that the claim is excessive and untenable.

d) During the trial, PWs.1 to 3 were examined and Exs.A1 to A8 were marked on behalf of the claimants. RW1 was examined and Ex.B1 was marked on behalf of R2.

e) Perusal of the award would show that the Tribunal believed the case of claimants and held that car was involved in the accident and its driver was responsible for the accident. The Tribunal awarded Rs.3,07,000/- under different heads with interest at 7.5% P.A. and with proportionate costs against the respondents. Hence, the appeal by the Insurance Company.

3) Heard Sri Kota Subba Rao, learned counsel for Insurance Company and Sri Bajrang Sing Thakur, learned counsel for respondents/claimants.

4a) Learned counsel for appellant challenged the award mainly on two grounds. Firstly, he argued that admittedly the deceased was hit by an unknown vehicle as is evident from Ex.A1FIR. However, surprisingly after a long lapse of 7 months PW2 allegedly appeared before police along with Shaik Saleem introducing himself as owner and Saleem as driver who committed the accident and surrendered him. Learned counsel argued that but for the alleged voluntary surrender of the driver, the police investigation did not independently detect the crime vehicle. Ex.A4charge sheet was laid by the IO solely on the strength of alleged confession of driver. He vehemently argued that the surrender of driver after a long gap creates any amount of doubt regarding involvement of car in the accident and the doubt further intensifies from the fact that the descriptive particulars of the vehicle were sourly missing in FIR. He argued that