Liability determination in insurance disputes requires examination of policy validity at the time of accident; remand for further evidence necessary.

JUDGMENT :

RAMACHANDRA D. HUDDAR, J.

Heard the arguments of both sides. In view of the rival submissions of both sides, for deciding this appeal, certain factual aspects are necessary for writing this judgment.

2. The petitioner by name Sundar M., S/o Monta, filed the claim petition under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicle Act, claiming compensation of Rs.20,00,000/- on account of he suffering accidental injuries in a road traffic accident that took place on 21.01.2014 at 12.30 p.m. when he was proceeding on his Spendar plus motorcycle bearing registration No.KA-17-W-2361 as a rider. It is his case that, when he was proceeding towards Anemahal, Hanbal road, Sakleshpura Taluk, at the same time, a driver of a Goods Ape Auto, bearing registration No.KA-45- 2951, being driven by its driver in a rash and negligent manner, dashed to his motorcycle. Because of this impact, he sustained grievous injuries and was immediately taken to the Government Hospital, Sakaleshpura and thereafter, after first aid, he was shifted to Wenlock hospital, Mangalore. It is his case that, both the respondents arrayed in the petition are liable to pay the compensation as respondent No. 1 is the owner and respondent No. 2 is the insurer of the said vehicle.

3. Respondent No. 2 appeared before the tribunal and contested the petition, denying the entire assertions made in the petition. It is contended that, the insurance policy in respect of said offending Ape Auto was not in force as on the date of the accident. Therefore, the insurance company is not liable to pay the compensation and it was prayed by respondent No.2 to dismiss the petition, whereas respondent No.1 has not contested the petition by filing objection statement.

4. The learned tribunal framed relevant issues. To substantiate the case of the petitioner, he himself entered the witness box as PW1 and also examined Dr. Rathnakar Kini as PW2. Got marked Exs. P1 to P9 and closed petitioner's evidence. To rebut the evidence of the petitioner, one Madhumathi Hegde, the official of respondent No. 2, entered the witness box as RW1, through her Exs. R1 and R2 are marked, and even Exs. C1 to C4 are also marked on behalf of the Court.

5. The learned tribunal, on hearing the arguments and on evaluation of the evidence placed on record, answered issue Nos.1 and 2 in the affirmative and held that, the petitioner is entitled for the compensation of Rs.2,17,714/- together with interest @ 9% per annum and it is held that, both the respondents are liable to pay the compensation. However, respondent No. 2 is directed to deposit the compensation amount under law of Indemnity. This is how, now the appellant-insurance company is in appeal in this MFA No. 2235/2020. Whereas, the petitioner also has preferred an appeal in MFA.No.823/2020 seeking enhancement of the compensation, being dissatisfied with the compensation awarded by the tribunal, vide judgment dated 27.11.2019 in MVC.No.402/2015. As both these appeals are arising out of the same judgment, with consent of both sides, both these appeals are taken up together.

6. Sri. B.Pradeep, learned counsel for the appellant-insurance company submits that, in respect of the Goods Ape Auto bearing registration No.KA-45-2951 covering the risk from 21.01.2014 at about 17.30 hrs to 20.01.2015, it is admitted. He submits that, the accident took place on 21.01.2014 at 12.30 p.m. and during that period the insurance policy was not in force. The learned tribunal has failed to consider the said aspect, though brought on record, and has wrongly fastened liability on the insurance company to pay the compensation amount.

7. On the other hand, the learned counsel for respondent No. 1 submits that, as per the instructions rec