JUDGMENT

Introductory:

1. This appeal is directed against the judgment and decree dated 19.10.2011 passed in M.V.O.P.No.29 of 2008 by the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal-cum- II Additional District Judge, Amalapuram (for short “the learned MACT”). The petitioners before the learned MACT are the appellants herein.

2. Feeling aggrieved and dissatisfied with the dismissal of the claim petition filed under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, wherein compensation of Rs.4,00,000/- was claimed for the death of Palli Bangarayya (hereinafter referred to as “the deceased”), the present appeal is filed.

3. Respondent Nos.1 to 3 herein are the driver, owner and insurer of the tractor bearing Registration No.AP 5P 5228 and Respondent Nos.4 and 5 herein are the insurer of trailer bearing No.AP 5X 7352 and the registered owner of tractor respectively.

Case of the Claimants:

4(i). On 10.06.2007 at about 10.00 a.m., the deceased Palli Bangarayya, a coconut plucker, after completion of coconut plucking work at Chinnagullapalem, was returning to Kothapeta on his bicycle. When he reached near Old Ramalayam Centre, Kothapeta, East Godavari District, the tractor coming from the opposite direction in a rash and negligent manner dashed and ran over him, as a result of which the deceased died on the spot.

(ii). As on the date of accident, the deceased was aged 38 years, hale and healthy, working as a coconut plucker and earning Rs.200/- per day. On account of his untimely death, the petitioners lost their sole breadwinner and suffered irreparable loss.

5. During the pendency of the petition, respondent No.2 died and the petitioners filed an application under Order I Rule 10 CPC to implead respondent No.5 as owner of tractor, which was allowed.

6. Respondent Nos.1 and 5 remained ex parte before the learned MACT.

Case of the Respondent–Insurance Company:

7(i). The age, occupation, income of the deceased and the manner of accident shall be proved.

(ii). Unless the petitioners/appellants establish ownership and insurance coverage in respect of the vehicle i.e. tractor-cum-trailer, the insurer is not liable.

(iii). There was no negligence on the part of the driver of the vehicle.

8. On the strength of pleadings, the following Issues were settled for trial by the learned MACT:

(1). Whether the accident occurred due to rash and negligent driving of the vehicle i.e., Tractor-cum-Trailer bearing No.AP 5P 5228 and AP 5X 7352 by its driver i.e., 1st respondent?

(2). Whether the petitioners are entitled to any compensation, if so, to what amount and against whom?

(3). To what relief?

Evidence before the learned MACT:

9(i). The 1st petitioner/ one Palli Durga, was examined as P.W.1, One Palingi Chittibabu, an eye witness, was examined as P.W.2 and one Palli Abbulu, Coconut plucker and third party examined as P.W.3.

(ii). The petitioners relied on Ex.A1-FIR, Ex.A2-Inquest Report, Ex.A3- Postmortem Report and Ex.A4- Charge Sheet.

(iii). On behalf of the respondents, Ex.B1 and Ex.B2-copies of insurance policies were marked.

Findings of the learned MACT:

10(i). The accident occurred due to the rash and negligent driving of the vehicle and that the deceased died on the spot.

(ii). The policy under Ex.B1 was in force on the date of accident.

(iii). Petitioners failed to establish that respondent No.5 was the owner/insured of the tractor on the date of accident, as no original registration certificate was produced.

(iv). In the absence of proof of ownership in favour of the person impleaded, the insurer cannot be fastened with any liability.

Arguments in the Appeal:

For the Appellants:

11(i). The learned MACT failed to consider the statutory effect of Section 157 of the Motor Vehicles Act, which provides that on transfer of a vehicle, the insurance policy is deemed to be transferred.

(ii). The learned MACT erred in holding that non-production of the original registration certificate is fatal.

(iii). The learned MACT ought to have held that the insurer is liable.

For the Respondents:

12(i). The petiti