The main legal point established in the judgment is that an insurance company should pay the compensation as ordered by the tribunal and then recover the same if they can prove fraud or tampering of the document.

JUDGMENT

Ashok G. Nijagannavar, J. - Though this appeal is listed for admission with the consent of learned counsel for both sides, arguments are heard for final disposal.

2. This appeal is filed by the Insurance Company assailing the judgment and award dated 01.10.2010 passed in M.V.C. No. 10/2010 by the Senior Civil Judge & MACT, Challakere (hereinafter referred to as Tribunal for the sake of brevity). The Insurance Company has assailed the judgment and award on the question of liability alone.

3. For the sake of convenience, the parties shall be referred to as per their status and ranking before the Tribunal.

4. The facts briefly stated are that the claimants have filed claim petition under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicle Act (hereafter referred to as Act for the sake of brevity), seeking compensation in respect of death of Palaiah @ Palanaik, s/o. Kumaraswamy, in a road traffic accident which occurred on 30.05.2007 at about 2.40 p.m. near Kukkambudi village, Challakere Taluk. It is contended that, on the fateful day of the accident, the deceased was going on his motor cycle bearing registration No. KA-16-J-9629 near Gowrasamudra to Bukkambudi and when he had parked his motor cycle on the road side near Bukkambudi channel to attend nature call, a lorry bearing registration No. KA-06/1544 came from the opposite direction in a rash and negligent manner and dashed to the deceased, as a result of which, he sustained grievous injuries. The petitioner was shifted to Government Primary Hospital, Bedareddihalli, and thereafter, he was taken to C.J. Hospital, Davanagere. But, he succumbed to the injuries sustained in the accident. The petitioners have incurred medical expenses of Rs. 1,00,000/-. Due to the untimely death of the main earning member of the family, the petitioners have become orphans and have lost financial support.

5. On service of summons, the respondent No. 1 appeared, but has not filed the objections. The respondent No. 2 Insurance Company appeared and has filed objections denying the averments made in the claim petition. The respondent No. 2 has specifically taken up a defense that the driver of the lorry had no effective driving licence and the said lorry was not insured with the respondent No. 2.

6. On the basis of the aforesaid pleadings, the Tribunal framed the following issues:

i. Whether the petitioners prove that the alleged road traffic accident that took place on 30.05.2007 at about 2.40 p.m., near Bukkambudi village, Challakere Taluk, Chitradurga District, on account of actionable negligence of the driver of lorry bearing No. KA-06/1544?

ii. Whether the petitioners prove the death of Palaiah @ Palanaik, s/o. Kumaraswamy and they are entitled for compensation? If yes, how much and from whom?

iii. What order and award?

7. On appreciating the oral and documentary evidence placed on record, the Tribunal has come to the conclusion that the accident occurred due to the rash and negligent driving of the driver of the lorry bearing registration No. KA-06/1544 and has awarded a compensation of Rs. 4,21,000/- under various heads and has further directed the respondent Nos. 1 and 2 jointly and severally to pay the compensation.

8. Being aggrieved by the judgment and award passed by the Tribunal, the Insurance Company has preferred the appeal challenging the liability.

9. Heard the learned counsel for the appellant and learned counsel for respondent Nos. 1 to 3 and perused the judgment.

10. The learned counsel for the appellant strenuously contends that in the present case, the lorry involved in the accident was not insured with respondent No. 2 as on the date of the accident. The Policy issued by the respondent No. 2 Insurance Company was only for the period from 28.12.2005 to 27.12.2006. But, whereas the accident has occurred on 30.05.2007. The respondent No. 2 Insurance Company had not issued the Policy for the said period. As such, the appellant - Insurance Company was not liable to pay the compensation. The Tri