The judgment establishes the importance of strict compliance with the mandatory provisions of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 and the Tamil Nadu Motor Vehicles Accident Claims Tribunal Rules, 1989, in determining the liability of insurance companies in motor accident claims.

P. Sathasivam, J.

United India Insurance Company, Madras-2 aggrieved by the Award of the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal (VI Small Causes Court), Madras dated 23-8-1995 made in M.C.O.P.No. 2428 of 1992, has preferred the above appeal.

2. In respect of injuries sustained in a motor accident on 02-08-92, the claimant/first respondent herein made a claim for Rs.43,000/- before the Tribunal. According to the claimant, on 02-08-92 at about 12.10 Hours, when he was riding a bicycle along with Selliamman Koil Street from north to south, an autorickshaw bearing registration No. TSK.2563 coming from behind in the same direction, driven in a rash and negligent manner, hit against his bicycle, causing grievous injuries to him and damaging his bicycle. It is further stated that the first respondent therein, as owner of the autorickshaw and the second respondent therein, as insurer of the same are liable to pay compensation. Before the Tribunal, the owner of the autorickshaw, first respondent therein did not contest the claim and he was set ex parte. The second respondent-Insurance company alone filed a counter affidavit wherein it is stated that in the absence of insurance details, the vehicle in question had no valid insurance in the name of the owner at the time of the accident and hence the Insurance company is no way liable for the compensation. Before the Tribunal, 4 witnesses were examined as P.Ws.1 to 4 and documents-Exs. P-1 to P-10 marked on the side of the claimant, whereas the Insurance company has examined one Jayakumar as R.W.1 and marked 2 documents as Exs.R-1 and R-2. On appreciation of evidence, both oral and documentary, the Tribunal after holding that the accident was caused due to the negligence of the driver of the autorickshaw TSK 2563 and the second respondent-Insurance Company is liable to pay compensation, passed an award for Rs.20,000/- with interest at 12 per cent per annum from the date of petition till date of deposit in favour of the claimant. Questioning the award on the ground of its liability, the Insurance company alone has preferred the present appeal.

3. Though both the respondents were duly served notice from this court, they have not chosen to contest the appeal by engaging a counsel.

4. We heard Mr. M.S. Krishnan, learned counsel for the appellant-Insurance company.

5. Mr. M.S. Krishnan, learned counsel for the appellant, after taking us through the details in the claim petition, particularly in column 16, would contend that in the absence of details of policy such as branch code and other particulars and in view of the attitude of the owner of the vehicle in not responding to their direction for production of policy, the award of the Tribunal fastening liability to pay the amount cannot be sustained. The appellant has no grievance regarding finding relating to negligence and quantum arrived by the Tribunal.

6. In the light of the said contention, the only point for consideration in this appeal is whether the Tribunal is justified in fastening the liability on the Insurance company? and whether the claimant has furnished the required details in the claim petition?

7. In order to find out answers for the questions raised, we have to refer the relevant provisions from the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 and the Tamil Nadu Motor Vehicles Accident Claims Tribunal Rules, 1989.

"Section 146. Necessity for insurance against third party risk.- (1) No person shall use, except as a passenger, or cause or allow any other person to use, a motor vehicle in a public place, unless there is in force in relation to the use of the vehicle by that person or that other person, as the case may be, a policy of insurance complying with the requirements of this Chapter.

158. Production of certain certificates, licence and permit in certain cases.- (1) Any person driving a motor vehicle in any public place shall, on being so required by a police officer in uniform authorised in this behalf by the State Government, produce-

(a)