The central legal point established in the judgment is the liability of the insurance company to indemnify the legal heirs of the deceased owner of the vehicle, based on the renewal of the insurance policy in the name of the deceased and the settlement of the claim amount under the personal accident policy.

JUDGMENT :

Heard Smt. A.Jayanthi, learned counsel for the appellant/Insurance Company. None appeared for the respondent Nos.1 to 3/claimant Nos.1 to 3 though, posted under the caption ‘For Judgment’.

2. This appeal directed by the appellant/respondent No.2/Insurance Company challenging the Order and Decree dated 06.11.2009 passed in M.V.O.P.No.6 of 2005 by the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal-cum-Principal District Judge, Kurnool (hereinafter referred to ‘Tribunal’).

3. Parties are referred to as they were arrayed in the proceedings before the learned Tribunal, for the sake of convenience.

4. The claim petition was filed under Sections 140 and 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (for brevity ‘the Act’) claiming compensation of Rs.5,00,000/- for the death of one Balija Gajula Padmavathi (hereinafter referred as ‘deceased’) in a motor vehicle accident occurred on 24.03.2003 at about 9.30 AM.

5. The case of the claimant is that on 24.03.2003 at about 9.00 AM, the deceased along with other boarded the tractor-cum-trailer bearing registration No.AP21T 6558 and AP21T 1262 near Yerraguntla village to go to her village; when the tractor-cum-trailer reached a place near Chinna Malkapuram village; a lorry bearing registration No.AP21T0128 (hereinafter referred as ‘offending vehicle) came in a rash and negligent manner and dashed the tractor-cum-trailer; as a result, the deceased sustained injuries and died; Dhone Police Station registered a case in Crime No.52 of 2003 for the offence punishable under Section 304-A of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (for brevity ‘IPC’); the deceased was aged 25 years and doing coolie works, she was earning a sum of Rs.3,000/- per month; the claimants are dependants of the deceased; the offending vehicle was insured with the respondent No.2/Insurance Company on the date of accident. Therefore, the respondents are jointly and severally liable to pay the compensation.

6. The 1st respondent died pending the petition. Respondent Nos.4 and 5 remained ex parte.

7. The 2nd respondent/Insurance Company filed counter contending that the 1st respondent is the owner of the offending vehicle and same was insured with the respondent No.2/Insurance Company and that, policy was in force on the date of accident; the policy was issued after death of the respondent No.1; the death of the respondent No.1 was not informed to the respondent No.2/Insurance Company at the time of taking policy; the accident was occurred due to rash and negligent driving of the tractor-cum-trailer; the tractor-cum-trailer belongs to the son of the deceased; the involvement of the offending vehicle in the impugned accident is false; the owner of the tractor-cum-Trailor in collusion with the owner of the offending vehicle, filed the claim petition; the registered owner of the offending vehicle M.Suryanarayana died on 17.12.1997, but respondent Nos.1 and 2 and another legal heirs did not choose to transfer the vehicle to their name; the legal heirs of M.Suryanarayana suppressed the material facts and obtained the policy by playing fraud; therefore, there was no existing contract between the respondent No.2/Insurance Company and the respondent No.1/owner of the offending vehicle on the date of issuance of policy; the amount of compensation claimed is excessive.

8. The respondent No.3 filed memo adopting the counter of respondent No.6.

9. The respondent No.6 filed counter contending that the offending lorry stood in the name of respondent No.1/late M.Suryanarayana; he is the brother of respondent No.6, husband of respondent No.3 and father of respondent Nos.4 and 4; the respondent No.1 was the insurer of the offending vehicle died in a road accident occurred on 16.12.1997; He obtained personal accident policy for Rs.5,00,000/- from respondent No.2/Insurance Company; after death of the respondent No.1, the respondent No.2 paid the amount under the personal accident policy to the respondent No.3; after death of respondent No.1, the respondent Nos.3 to 6 paid renewal