JUDGMENT :

1. This appeal is preferred by the appellant-Insurance Company, questioning the award and decree, dated 29.10.2011 passed in O.P.No.754 of 2007 on the file of the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal-cum-III Additional District Judge (I FTC) at Nalgonda (for short, the Tribunal).

2. For the sake of convenience, the parties have been referred to as arrayed before the Tribunal.

3. The 1st claimant (hereinafter referred to as “the deceased”) filed a petition under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act claiming compensation of Rs.3,00,000/- for the injuries sustained by him in a motor vehicle accident occurred on 16.05.2007. During pendency of the claim-petition, the 1st claimant died and the claimants 2 and 3, who are the wife and daughter of the 1st claimant, were brought on record. It is stated in the claim-petition that on the date of accident, while the deceased boarded an auto bearing No.AP 24 U 6333 in order to go to Chakirala Village and when the auto reached near Madina Chicken Centre, N.H.No.9 at Kodada, one Indica Car bearing No.AP 16 TV 6593 driven by its driver in a rash and negligent manner with high speed, dashed the auto, as a result of which, the deceased and other inmates of the auto sustained injuries. Basing on a complaint, a case in Crime No.77 of 2007 has been registered against the driver of the Car. The 1st claimant filed aforesaid O.P. against the respondents 1 to 3, being the driver, owner and insurer of the aforesaid Indica Car.

4. Before the Tribunal, respondents 1 and 2 remained ex parte.

5. The 3rd respondent filed counter denying the averments of the claim petition and contended that the amount claimed is excessive and prayed to dismiss the claim petition.

6. During trial, on behalf of the claimants, P.Ws.1 to 3 were examined and Exs.A1 to A9 were marked. On behalf of the respondents, R.W.1 was examined and Exs.B1 to B4 were marked.

7. After considering the oral and documentary evidence on record, the Tribunal came to the conclusion that the accident occurred due to the rash and negligent driving of driver of the Indica Car and awarded total compensation of Rs.2,26,000/- with interest @ 7.5% per annum. Aggrieved by the said order, the appellant-Insurance Company filed the present appeal.

8. Heard both sides and perused the record.

9. The main contention raised by the counsel for the appellant is that the Tribunal has grossly erred in making the appellant-Insurance Company liable to pay the compensation when the policy issued was not in existence as on the date of the accident and the same was cancelled long back i.e. much before the accident occurred. The Tribunal also ought to have appreciated the fact that the policy was got cancelled on the same day by the owner of the Indica Car and the cheque was taken by the owner as the owner withdrawn to purchase the Car and in this regard the Tribunal ought to have appreciated the evidence of R.W.1 and exhibits marked by the respondents vide Exs.B.1 to B.4. Therefore, the Tribunal ought to have considered that since the owner himself has got cancelled the policy and no premium was remitted to the appellant, as such there is no contract of insurance between the insured and the insurer as required under Sections 146 and 147 of the M.V.Act. Accordingly, prayed to allow the appeal.

10. However, learned counsel for the claimants would contend that the contentions raised by the counsel for the appellant are against the weight of evidence on record and the learned Tribunal has categorically dealt with these issues and has rightly come to the conclusion that the insurance company as well as the owner of the crime vehicle are jointly and severally liable to pay compensation to the claimants. It is also submitted that in support of the contentions, the insurance company has not chosen to examine the owner of the crime vehicle and that the insurance company has also not filed any acknowledgment and nothing was stated in the appendix/proofs that prima facie the policy was i