Insurers are only liable for claims if a valid insurance policy exists at the time of the accident; an unverified deposit agreement does not suffice.

JUDGMENT :

RADHAKISHAN AGRAWAL, J.

1. This appeal has been preferred by the appellant/Insurance Company under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, against the award dated 04.04.2015 passed by the 4^th Additional Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Ambikapur, District Surguja (C.G.) in Claim Case No. 56/2008, whereby a total compensation of Rs.4,39,000/- has been awarded along with interest at the rate of 6% per annum from the date of application till realization, while fastening the liability jointly and severally on the Insurance Company (non-applicant No.3) and the owner (non-applicant No.1). However, the Tribunal further held that the primary liability of paying the compensation would be of Insurance Company.

2. As per averments made in the claim petition, on 03.04.2000 at about 10:00 am, deceased-Madhusudhan Yadav was driving a Tractor bearing registration No.CG-L-9297 attached with trolley (hereinafter called as 'offending vehicle'). During the course of driving, the said offending vehicle turned turtle, due to which, deceased got crushed under the said offending vehicle and died on the spot. At the time of accident, the offending vehicle was owned by non-applicant No.1 and insured with appellant/Insurance Company.

3. On claim petition being filed by the claimants under Section 163-A of the Motor Vehicles Act seeking compensation to the tune of Rs.8,70,000/- under various heads, inter alia, stating that at the time of accident, deceased- Madhusudhan Yadav was aged about 25 years and was working as driver under the employment of non- applicant No.1 and used to earn Rs.2,000/- per month. The Tribunal, considering the evidence led by both the parties, passed an award as mentioned above.

4. Learned counsel for the appellant / Insurance Company would submit that the learned Claims Tribunal has erred in fastening liability upon the Insurance Company as on the date of the incident, the offending vehicle was not insured with the appellant / Insurance Company. He would further submit that the alleged deposit challan (Ex.D-18), which pertains to an Act-only policy, was not issued by any officer duly authorized by the Insurance Company. The authority of Shri B.L. Khess, Development Officer, who is said to have issued the said deposit challan, to issue cover notes was revoked on 22.05.1992, and he was subsequently suspended on 02.12.1999. To inform the said fact amongst the public, a notice was published in various newspapers, including 'Navbharat Daily'. Thereafter, the insurance proposal submitted by non-applicant No.1 along with the premium amount by cheque dated 31.03.2000 was returned to Shri B.L. Khess and a written intimation of the same was also sent to non-applicant No.1 by registered post. Thus, it is evident that no valid policy or cover note was ever issued by the Insurance Company which would construe that the offending vehicle was not insured with the appellant / Insurance Company on the date of incident. Therefore, the Insurance Company cannot be held liable for payment of compensation to the claimants. On these premises, learned counsel for the appellant would urge that the Insurance Company deserves to be exonerated from its liability. With regard to quantum of compensation, counsel for the appellant would submit that the amount of compensation assessed by the learned claims Tribunal is on higher side and needs to be reduced suitably.

5. Learned counsel for respondent No.3, the owner of the offending vehicle, would submit that at the time of the accident, the offending vehicle was duly insured with the appellant / Insurance Company, and that for payment of premium, cheque dated 31.03.2000 had been handed