Point of law: Motor Accident claim - Offending vehicle was not under insurance with the appellant company at the time of accident and the policy certificate Ex.P-3 produced by the claimant is a fake document, for extraneous reasons has overlooked the overwhelming evidence and had entertained the claim petition against the insurance company which had no privity of contract with the owner of the offending vehicle on and at the time of the accident

JUDGMENT :-

(Prayer: This Civil Miscellaneous Appeal has been filed under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 against the decree and judgment dated 23.02.2017 made in M.C.O.P.No.4 of 2015 on the file of the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal (Sub Court), Hosur.)

1. The appeal is filed by the Insurance Company being aggrieved by the award of the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal ( Sub Court ), Hosur fixing liability on it to pay a sum of Rs.2,28,000/- with 7.5% interest from the date of petition till th date of deposit, to the claimant / 1st respondent herein.

2. The claim petition filed by the accident victim alleging on 16.12.2013 at about 11.00 a.m., while he was returning home in his two wheeler Bajaj CD motor cycle bearing registration No. TN 24 V 9355, near Attibele – Andhivadi Check Post Road, Bommandapalli Gate cure, the Bolero car bearing registration No. KA 35 M 4655 owned by on Bala subramani and insured under the TATA AIG General Insurance Company, Limited dashed against the claimant and caused fractured injuries. He was admitted in the hospital for 5 days as inpatient and got discharged after surgery on his right toe. Due to deformed toe, he is not able to carry on his avocation as lorry driver, hence compensation of Rs.20,00,000/- claimed against the owner of the Bolero car and its insurer.

3. The Insurance Company filed its counter stating that the Bolero car was not insured under them for the period from 14.12.2013 to 13.12.2014 as claimed by in the petition. The photocopy of the insurance policy produced to the Motor Vehicle inspector by the vehicle owner is a fake document. As per the records maintained by the Insurance Company, the said vehicle was insured for the period 16.12.2013 to 15.12.2014. In this regard for fabricating fake insurance policy to make unlawful gain, police complaint has been given against Bala subramani, the vehicle owner. There was no valid insurance contract between the owner of the vehicle and the Insurance Company at the time of accident. Therefore, the Insurance Company is not liable to indemnify the vehicle owner nor to pay any compensation to the claimant.

4. Before the tribunal, the claimant examined as PW-1 and marked 11 exhibits. On behalf of the respondent Insurance Company RW-1 was examined and 6 exhibits were marked.

5. The tribunal allowed the claim petition. Awarded Rs.2,28,000/- with 7.5% interest from the date of petition till the date of deposit, payable by the Insurance Company.

6. The appellant assail the tribunal award on the ground that the tribunal failed to appreciate that the owner of the offending Bolero car bearing registration No. KA 35 M 4655 had no valid insurance cover for the vehicle at the time of accident. The insurance policy copy Ex P-3 produced by the claimant is a fake policy note. It is a xerrox copy and not original. However, same was accepted by the tribunal despite the fact that the claimant failed to produce the original of it. The tribunal erred in misunderstanding the entry in the Motor Vehicle Inspector report. It erroneously held that 14.12.2013 as date of commencement of coverage instead of date of expiry. The true fact that at the time of accident the vehicle had no insurance coverage. This fact had been overlooked by the tribunal, in spite of the evidence of RW-1 and Ex R-1 to Ex.R-6, which proves that the insurance policy of the offending vehicle expired and when the accident occurred on 16.12.2013 at 11.00 a.m., there was no valid insurance coverage. The insurance policy produced by the claimant is fake. The vehicle owner suppressing the accident occurred in the morning, took policy only at 08.00 pm on 16.12.2013 and the original policy is Ex.R-6. The tribunal erred in observing that the offending vehicle would have been recovered by the police immediately after the accident and if the vehicle was insured after the accident, then the insurance agent would have noticed the damage to the vehicle. In fact the FIR ( Ex P-1) was registered only on