JUDGMENT :

This appeal is preferred by the appellant-Insurance Company questioning the Order and Decree of the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal-cum-I-Additional District Judge, Rangana Reddy (for short, the Tribunal) in O.P.No.996 of 2011, dated 16.11.2015.

2. The brief facts of the case are that on 01.05.2011, when the respondent/claimant and another were standing by the side of the road beside a motor cycle bearing No.AP29BB 6418 at Kallem Janga Reddy Garden, Bongloor gate, Ibrahimpatnam, Ranga Reddy District at about 6.30 P.M., a car bearing No.AP28AD 3434 came at high speed in a rash and negligent manner and dashed the respondent/claimant and another. As a result, the respondent/claimant sustained injuries. Immediately, he was shifted to Gandhi Hospital, Secunderabad, where he took treatment as inpatient and he underwent two surgeries on 03.05.2011 and 07.06.2011. His right leg was amputated above the knee joint and he was discharged from the hospital on 15.06.2011. He filed the aforesaid petition against the owner (respondent No.2 herein) and insurer of the car (appellant herein), claiming compensation of Rs.10,00,000/- for the injuries sustained by him.

3. Before the Tribunal, the owner of the car, remained ex parte. The appellant-Insurance Company filed its counter denying the allegations and contended that the policy was not in force on the date of accident and that the amount claimed by the respondent/claimant is highly excessive and that it is not liable to pay any compensation, therefore prayed to dismiss the claim petition.

4. 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 the driver of the car and awarded total compensation of Rs.12,28,000/- under various heads, with interest at the rate of 9% per annum. Aggrieved by the said Judgment, the appellant-Insurance Company filed the present appeal.

5. Sri A. Ramakrishna Reddy, learned standing counsel appearing for the appellant-insurance company, submitted that the Tribunal failed to appreciate that the policy was issued to the car bearing No.AP28AD 3434 for a period of one year commencing from 03.05.2011 to 02.05.2012, whereas the accident took place on 01.05.2011 i.e., before commencement of the policy period, therefore, it is clear that the appellant insurance company has no liability to indemnify the insured owner, but the Tribunal relying on the cover note, fastened liability on the appellant insurance company.

6. Sri Nageswara Rao Repakula, learned counsel appearing for respondent submitted that the Tribunal has passed a well reasoned Judgment and therefore sought to dismiss the appeal.

7. Admittedly, the earlier policy was in force from 29.04.2010 to 28.04.2011. The appellant insurance company issued cover note in respect of the policy for the vehicle is 2300567818 and as per the cover note, cheque was issued to the agent of the company on 29.04.2011, but the insurance company has not mentioned the date of presentation of the cheque for realization. The appellant insurance company also has not produced the bank statement to show that on which date the cheque was issued towards the premium and when it was presented for realization.

8. The perusal of record reveals that the accident took place on 01.05.2011 and the proposal for insurance was received on 02.05.2011 and the vehicle was inspected on 02.05.2011 i.e., subsequent to the accident. When the accident took place on 01.05.2011, it is not known why the inspection was made on the next date for issuing the insurance policy and what made the insurance company to issue the policy from 03.05.2011 to 02.05.2012 when the previous policy was in force from 29.04.2010 to 28.04.2011. It shows that the cheque was received on 29.04.2011 and cover note was issued on the same day and when the accident was occurred on 01.05.2011, the insurance company conveniently issued the policy from 03.05.2011 to escape from the