JUDGMENT :

T. Mallikarjuna Rao, J.

1. Aggrieved by the Award and Decree dated 02.08.2012 in M.V.O.P. No.600 of 2009 passed by the Chairman, Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal-cum-III Additional District Judge (F.T.C.), Anantapur (hereinafter will be referred to as ‘Tribunal’), the claimants filed this appeal questioning the correctness of the Tribunal’s Award in not fastening the liability on the 2nd respondent/Insurance company.

2. For convenience, the parties hereinafter will be referred to as per their rankings in the M.V.O.P.

3. The claimants/appellants filed a petition U/s.163-A of the MOTOR VEHICLES ACT , 1988 (hereinafter will be referred to as ‘Act’) for compensation of Rs.4,00,000/-on account of the death of Vallam Narasimhulu (hereinafter will be referred to as 'deceased') who died in a Motor vehicle accident.

4. The claimant's case is that on 17.04.2009, the deceased boarded the auto-rickshaw bearing No.AP02-TRAB 6644 at Kadiri, along with five passengers, when it reached Weavers colony Saraswathi Vidya Mandir while the auto was proceeding on the extreme left side of the road, the lorry bearing No.KA-21-A-1764 (hereinafter will be referred to as ‘offending vehicle') came from the Hindupur side driven by its driver at high speed and dashed the auto, due to which the deceased sustained bleeding injuries; immediately he was shifted to Government Hospital, Kadiri, along with other injured, thereafter while he was moving to Government General Hospital, Anantapur he died on the way. A case was registered against the offending lorry driver vide crime Nos.92 of 2009 under sections 337, 304-A I.P.C., the 1st respondent being the owner of the lorry, the 2nd respondent being its insurer.

5. The 1st respondent remained exparte.

6. The 2nd respondent filed its written statement and contended that the petition is flawed for non-joinder of the necessary party i.e., the offending vehicle’s driver. He did not have a driving license at the time of the accident. There is a violation of policy conditions.

7. The second respondent/insurance company filed an additional written statement stating that one B.S.Harish issued a cheque bearing No.315899, dated 04.08.2008 for Rs.99,445/-drawn on Canara Bank, B.Chaganahalli Branch towards premium for his two vehicles including the crime vehicle bearing No.KA-21-A-1764 for Rs.51,681/-to the second respondent/Insurance company was deposited in H.S.B.C. for collection; it was returned with an endorsement as no sufficient funds. The second respondent issued a letter to the first respondent informing the policy issued to the crime vehicle stands cancelled due to non-receipt of consideration. Thus, the second respondent/Insurance company is not liable to pay any compensation.

8. Based on the pleadings, the Tribunal framed relevant issues. During the trial, P.Ws.1 and 2 got examined and marked Exs.A.1 to A.7 on behalf of the claimants. R.W.1 got examined on behalf of the respondents and marked Exs.B1 to B8.

9. On appreciation of the oral and documentary evidence, the Tribunal held that the deceased died due to injuries in the accident. The 1st respondent was held liable to pay the compensation of Rs.3,37,000/-with interest at 7.5% per annum from the date of the petition. However, the claim against the 2nd respondent is dismissed.

10. I have heard the learned Counsel for the respective parties.

11. To avoid undue duplication, the contentions ardently advocated on behalf of both parties shall be referenced and deliberated upon in the ensuing part of this Judgment. I have given my anxious consideration to the submissions made by the