N.K. Patil, J.

This appeal is by the owner of the vehicle against the judgment and award passed in M.V.C. No. 2527 of 2001 on the file of the Fifth Additional M.A.C.T., Court of Small Causes, Metropolitan Area (SCCH-20), Mayo Hall Unit, Bangalore (hereinafter called for short 'the Tribunal'). The Tribunal, by its judgment and award, awarded a sum of Rs. 9,64,000 with interest at 6 per cent from the date of petition till the date of payment as against the claim of Rs. 20,00,000 on account of injuries sustained by the claimant in a road accident and fastened the entire liability on the owner of the offending vehicle. Aggrieved by the same, the owner of the vehicle has presented this appeal.

2. The respondent No. 1 herein filed a claim petition u/s 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act claiming compensation of Rs. 20,00,000 for the injuries sustained in a road accident which occurred on 21.5.2001 at about 12.15 p.m. on M.G. Road, near Trinity Circle Signal, when the respondent No. 1 was travelling in a bus as a passenger bearing No. KA 07-7788 from Hoskote to Bangalore. The driver of the said bus drove the same in a rash and negligent manner which made the claimant to fall down on the road and the back wheel of the bus ran over the legs of the claimant, as a result of which he sustained grievous injuries. Immediately he was shifted to Bowring Hospital and then shifted to LNR Orthopaedica & General Hospital, Bangalore. He was treated for 255 days and both his legs were amputated. He was aged 50 years at the time of accident. The claimant was a general merchant and commission agent by profession and was earning about Rs. 20,000 per month.

3. The Tribunal considering the fact that both the legs of the claimant are amputated, the pain and agony he might have suffered and also the fact that he was unable to do the business as effectively as before and after evaluation of the oral and documentary evidence on record, allowed the claim petition in part and awarded a sum of Rs. 9,64,000 with interest at 6 per cent as compensation for the injuries sustained. The Tribunal held that the driver of the vehicle was rash and negligent and as he was responsible for the accident, it fastened the entire liability on the owner of the offending vehicle. Therefore, being aggrieved by the same, the owner of the offending vehicle is before this court in this appeal challenging the said judgment and award of the Tribunal.

4. Learned counsel for the appellant, Mr. K. Suryanarayana Rao, at the outset submits that fastening the entire liability on the owner of the offending vehicle by the Tribunal cannot be sustained and the same is liable to be set aside. To substantiate his submission, he relied on the judgment of the Division Bench of this court in the case of National Insurance Co. Ltd. Vs. Smt. Bhadramma Reddy and Others, wherein the judgment of the Apex Court in the case of New India Assurance Co. Ltd. Vs. C.M. Jaya and Others, has been referred to, which states that the liability of the insurer is strictly in accordance with the terms of the policy. The learned counsel further pointed out that the insured had paid the premium and was issued with the receipt as also the policy to that effect. Therefore, he submitted that fastening the entire liability on the appellant owner cannot be sustained and is liable to be set aside.

5. On the contrary, the learned counsel appearing for respondent No. 2-insurer, Mr. B.C. Seetharama Rao, contended that the judgment passed by the Tribunal, fastening the liability on the insured-owner, is just and proper and the insurer is not liable to satisfy the award passed by the Tribunal. Knowingly the appellant has not insured the liability before the expiry of the earlier policy period. As such there is default on the part of the insured, the liability cannot be fastened on to the insurer on the ground that he has paid the premium and got the receipt. Mere issuance of policy and payment of premium does not give any right to f