Point of Law: Section 64VB reads as no risk to be assumed unless premium is received in advance.

JUDGMENT :

UMESH M ADIGA J.

Both the appeal and cross-objections are directed against the judgment and award dated 02.02.2019 passed by the Senior Civil Judge and AMACT, Hirekerur in MVC No.28/2015.

2. MFA No.101312/2019 is filed by owner of vehicle challenging the award fastening the liability on the owner of the vehicle, to pay compensation and exonerating the insurance company to indemnify the appellant-owner. MFA Crob.100086/2019 is filed by claimants seeking enhancement of compensation.

3. We refer the parties as per their ranking before the Tribunal.

4. It was the case of the petitioners in MVC No.28/2015 that on 21.05.2015 at about 9.15 p.m. the deceased Sayed Sadatulla s/o Samiulla Killedar had met with an accident while going as pillion rider in motorcycle bearing No.KA-27/X-1939, rode by respondent No.1, in rash and negligent manner near Bhagatsingh Circle of Rattihalli in Haveri District. Due to the same, he sustained severe injuries and while shifting him to the hospital at Davanagere, he succumbed to the injuries. It was further contention of the claimants/petitioners that deceased was aged about 20 years at the time of the accident and he was a student and also doing private work and earning Rs.20,000/--p.m. The petitioners were depending upon his earnings. With these reasons, they prayed to award compensation of Rs.30,00,000/-.

5. The appellant in MFA No.101312/2019 is the owner of the said vehicle and respondent No.1 before the Tribunal. He had contended that he insured the said motorcycle with respondent No.2 and he had valid driving licence to ride motorcycle. Therefore, respondent No.2 was liable to pay the compensation. He has not denied other averments stated in the petition and prayed to dismiss the petition against him.

6. Respondent No.2-insurance company had contended before the Tribunal that alleged accident had taken place on 21.05.2015 at 9.15 p.m. However, the FIR was registered on 22.05.2015 at 8.15 p.m. The police did not inform about the said accident to respondent No.2. Petitioners have fabricated the case to claim compensation by colluding with respondent No.1 and Police. Therefore, claimants are not entitled for compensation. It further contended that at the time of accident, policy of insurance was not in force. The insurance policy was issued by respondent No.2 on the said motorcycle, was valid from 0000 hours on 22.05.2015 to midnight of 21.05.2016. Therefore, before issuance of policy of insurance, the accident had taken place. Therefore, respondent No.2 was not liable to pay compensation or indemnify respondent No.1. Respondent No.2 denied all other averments made in the petition and prayed for dismissal of the petition.

7. From the rival contentions of the parties, the Tribunal had framed relevant issues.

8. Petitioners on their behalf have examined P.Ws.1 and 2 and got marked Exs.P1 to P9. Respondents on their behalf have examined R.Ws.1 to 3 and got marked Exs.R1 to R7.

9. The Tribunal on appreciation of pleadings and evidence on record, by the impugned judgment, held that accident was taken place due to negligence of respondent No.1 and policy of insurance was not in force at the time of the accident and awarded compensation of Rs.15,47,000/under following heads and directed respondent No.1 to pay the said amount of compensation.

10. We have heard the arguments of the learned counsel for the parties.

11. Following points emerge for our determination:

1) Whether the Tribunal was justified in fastening the liability on respondent No.1-owner of the vehicle though he had paid premium before the occurrence of the accident in question?

2) Whether the quantum of co