The court emphasized the importance of considering crucial documents and evidence in fastening liability, and highlighted the mandatory nature of proving breach of policy conditions.

P.B. Bajanthri, J.

Appeals by the Insurance Company against the award dated 05.03.2012 passed in MVC No.74/2011 and MVC No.75/2011 on the file of the Principal District Judge MACT-I at Raichur.

2. Accident occurred on 26.06.2010 between autorickshaw bearing Reg.No.KA-36/7146 and unknown truck. Claimants arising out of the aforesaid accident filed claim petitions before the MACT. MACT proceeded to pass award dated 05.03.2012 while fastening liability on the Insurance Company. Insurance Company dissatisfied and aggrieved by the award dated 05.03.2012 to the extent of fastening liability on the Insurance Company have filed these appeals.

3. Learned counsel for the Insurance Company vehemently contended that Ex.R-3 C.C. of endorsement of permit reveals that autorickshaw bearing Reg.No.KA-36/7146 did not have permit. The said document has not been appreciated and dealt by the MACT to the extent of fastening of liability on the Insurance Company instead of on owner of the autorickshaw Rajashekar. Thus, MACT has committed error in fastening liability on the Insurance Company.

4. Per contra, learned counsel for the claimant vehemently contended that during the cross-examination of DW-1 Thimappa there is no elicitation of permit issue. It was further contended that competent authority to depose in respect of endorsement of permit is the Regional Transport Officer who has not been examined and cross-examined. In support of this contention, learned counsel for the claimant respondent Nos.1 to 3 relied on a decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Fahim Ahmad and others vs. United India Insurance Co. Ltd. and others, (2014) AIR(SC)(Civ) 1200. In view of the aforesaid defects, there is no infirmity in fastening liability on the Insurance Company.

5. Heard the learned counsel for the parties.

6. Core issue in the present appeals is:

Whether fastening liability on the Insurance Company is in order or not?

7. Undisputed facts are that accident took place on 26.06.2010 between the autorickshaw bearing Reg.No.KA-36/7146 and unknown truck which has resulted in injuries to seven persons. Among seven persons, three were dead and four were injured. Autorickshaw bearing Reg.No.KA-36/7146 was plying with the claimants and others as passengers. The said autorickshaw did not have permit as is evident from Ex.R-3. MACT has not considered Ex.R-3 or discussed so as to fasten liability on the owner of the autorickshaw Rajashekar, since he did not have permit in terms of the Motor Vehicles Act and Rules. It is a case for remand in view of the fact that MACT has failed to take note of Ex.R-3 and there is no discussion regarding Ex.R-3, which is crucial document for the purpose of fastening liability. Accident relates back to the year 2010. Therefore, it is not appropriate to remand the matter for consideration of Ex.R-3. The contention of the claimant relating to cross-examination of DW-1 Thimappa, and examination and cross-examination of RTO is mandatory and para-6 of the cited decision reads as under:

"6. Although the plea of breach of the conditions of policy was raised before the Tribunal, yet neither any issue was framed nor any evidence led to prove the same. In our opinion, it was mandatory for respondent No. 1-Insurance Company not only to plead the said breach, but also substantiate the same by adducing positive evidence in respect of the same. In the absence of any such evidence, it cannot be presumed that there was breach of the conditions of policy. Thus, there was no reason to fasten the said liability of payment of the amount of compensation awarded by the Tribunal on the appellants herein."

8. In the present case, Ex.R-3 is a very crucial document which is part and parcel of the record and the same has not been taken into consideration by MACT. Hence, the cited decision is distinguishable to the extent that in that decision there was not even a piece of evidence, whereas in the present case crucial document Ex.R-3 is on record to t