The insurance policy was deemed valid at the time of the accident, and the insurance company failed to prove its cancellation, thus liable for compensation.

JUDGMENT:

1. This appeal under section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 is filed by the appellant/ Insurance company impugning the order dated 17.07.2012 of the learned Chairman, Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal – Cum – IV Additional District Judge, Kurnool in MVOP.No.46 of 2010.

2. Heard arguments of Sri K.Srinivasa Rao, the learned counsel appeared on behalf of Sri K.Subba Rao, the learned counsel for appellant/ insurance company and Sri Butta Vijaya Bhaskar, the learned counsel for respondents/claimants.

3. Before the claims tribunal, it was a death claim filed under section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act for a compensation of Rs.9,00,000/-. The deceased was a married man. His wife and two minor children and his parents filed the said claim as against the owner of the alleged offending tractor and trailer bearing registration Nos. AP 21 Y 6708 and AP 21 V 7793. At the material point of time, the deceased was aged 28 years. On 04.03.2009, he was crossing the road to pay a visit to Shirdi Sai Baba Temple at Aspari, Kurnool district. The offending tractor trailer being driven by its driver rashly or negligently dashed him leading to his spot death. Police registered FIR/ Ex.A1 and subjected the dead body to inquest/ Ex.A2 and got his autopsy/ Ex.A3 conducted. The offending vehicle was examined by the motor vehicle inspector who certified that the accident was not out of any mechanical defect of the vehicle/ Ex.A5 thus making it clear that the accident was out of human error. After due investigation a charge sheet/ Ex.A4 was filed against the driver of the offending tractor trailer. R1 therein/ owner of the offending vehicle filed a counter stating that he got the vehicle insured with M/s Cholamandalam General Insurance Company Limited and therefore the liability, if any, should be indemnified by the said insurance company. Insurance company/ R2 therein filed its counter. It denied the narration made out in the claim petition. The specific stand of the insurance company was that at the material point of time there was no insurance policy in force and therefore there could be no liability.

4. On the rival pleadings, learned claims tribunal settled the following issues for trial:

1. Whether the accident occurred due to rash and negligent driving of driver of Tractor Trailor bearing No. AP 21-Y- 6708 and AP-21-V-7793?

2. Whether the claimant is entitle to the compensation of Rs.9,00,000/-or to what just amount and from whom the same shall be recovered?

3. To what relief?

5. The wife of the deceased testified as PW.1. Eyewitness to the incident who happened to be employer of the deceased testified as PW.2. Exs.A1 to A7 were marked. Insurance company examined RW.1 and Exs.B1 to B5 were marked.

6. The age of the deceased was not in dispute. His employment was also not in dispute. His legal representatives claimed that he was earning from agriculture and also towards batta for his duties. After considering the entire material on record and the contentions on both sides, learned claims tribunal found that the deceased was earning Rs.3,000/- per month and thus his annual income was Rs.36,000/-. Towards his possible personal expenses 1/3^rd was deducted and the annual income was arrived at Rs.27,000/-. Going by his age, multiplier 18 was applied. Rs.4,86,000/- was granted towards loss of dependency. Rs.3,000/- towards funeral expenses. Rs.10,000/- towards loss of estate, Rs.10,000/- towards loss of consortium were also granted. A total compensation of Rs.5,09,000/- was arrived at.

7. Considering the investigative outcome of police and the version of the eyewitness/ PW.2, it found that the accident and resultant death was out of rash or negligent driving of the driver of the offending vehicle

8. Ex.B3 was the insurance policy issued by R2/ insurance company therein. The question that fell for consideration was as to whether the insurance policy was in force at the material point of time or not. After a detailed analysis of the oral and documentary e