The main legal point established in the judgment is the application of the principle of 'pay and recover' in cases where the vehicle involved in an accident was not holding a valid fitness certificate at the time of the accident. The court also emphasized the importance of compliance with legal provisions under Section 39 and 56 of the Motor Vehicles Act.

JUDGMENT

Hanchate Sanjeevkumar, J. - The MFA No.201596/2016, is filed under Section 173(1) of the Motor Vehicles Act, (for short 'the M.V.Act') by the Insurance Company challenging the judgment and award dated 16.06.2016 passed in MVC No.209/2012 by the court of the Prl. Senior Civil Judge and MACT, Kalaburagi (for short 'the Tribunal') on the ground that the vehicle in question is not involved into the case and also for raising another ground that the lorry bearing Reg.No.KA-28/A-5775 was not holding fitness certificate as on the date of accident.

2. The MFA CROB No.200013/2018 is filed by the claimant/cross-objector seeking for enhancement of compensation as the compensation awarded by the Tribunal is inadequate.

3. The brief facts of the case are as follows :-

It is stated on 26.03.2009, at about 3.00 pm near I.T.I College, Chittapur, the claimant/cross-objector after loading the toor dal bags in the lorry bearing Reg.No.KA-32-A-5677, proceeded from Chittapur to Yadgir at that time a lorry bearing Reg.No.KA-28A/5775 coming from opposite direction with high speed in a rash and negligent manner, dashed the crossobjector due to which he had sustained grievous injuries of fractures as described in the wound certificate. Therefore, for having sustained injuries the cross-objector had filed claim petition before the Tribunal under Section 166 of the M.V.Act and the Tribunal after assessing the evidences on record has granted compensation of Rs.2,56,108/- with interest at the rate of 6% per annum from the date of petition till its realization.

4. The Insurance Company in MFA No.201596/2016 has raised ground that the vehicle bearing Reg.No.KA-28/A-5775 was not involved in the accident but another lorry bearing Reg.No.KA-38-7545 was involved in the accident and in this regard, relied on the complaint and FIR.

5. Further contended that the lorry bearing Reg.No.KA-28/5775 was not holding fitness certificate as on the date of accident and as per Ex.R4 document which has registration particulars and the fitness certificate was valid upto 04.07.2008 but the accident was caused on 26.03.2009, therefore submitted that there is infraction. Thus, the appellant/Insurance Company is not liable to pay the compensation.

6. On the other hand, the learned counsel for claimant/cross-objector submitted that the lorry bearing Reg.No.KA-28-A-5775 was involved in the accident as it is revealed during the course of statutory investigation and it is proved that the said lorry was involved in the accident and it is rightly appreciated the evidences on record by the Tribunal.

7. Further fairly submitted that as per Ex.R4the fitness certificate is valid up to 04.07.2008 but the accident was caused subsequently on 26.03.2009. Therefore, for this infraction an order of 'pay and recover' be made based on the principle of law laid down by the Hon'ble Apex Court in various decisions.

8. In the present case Ex.P.1 is the FIR and Ex.P.1(a) is the complaint. The Cross-objector had lodged complaint that the driver of the lorry bearing Reg.No.KA-38-7545 was driving the said truck with high speed in a rash and negligent manner and caused the accident. Therefore, it is the contention urged by the learned counsel for the appellant/Insurance Company that the contents of complaint and the FIR can be taken into consideration but not the contents in the charge sheet.

9. Upon considering the entire evidences on record as produced by both sides Ex.P.1-FIR, Ex.P1(a)- complaint, Ex.P.2-charge sheet, Ex.P.3-IMV report, Exs.P.4 and 5 are spot panchanamas, Ex.P.6 further statement of the cross-objector and upon careful perusal of these police records even though it is stated that initially in the complaint Ex.P.1(a) the driver of the lorry bearing Reg.No.KA-38-7545 has driven the vehicle in a rash and negligent manner with high speed and caused the accident but subsequently the cross-objector who has lodged complainant as per Ex.P.1(a) had stated that at the time of moment of accid