HONOURABLE SMT. JUSTICE TIRUMALA DEVI EADA

JUDGMENT:

This appeal is filed by the Insurance Company aggrieved by the Order and Decree dated 03.03.2020 in M.V.O.P.No.562 of 2016 passed by the Chairman, Motor Accident Claims Tribunal-cum-I Additional Chief Judge, City Civil Court, Secunderabad (for short “the Tribunal”).

2. For convenience and clarity, the parties herein are referred to as they were arrayed before the Tribunal.

3. The case of the claim petitioners before the Tribunal was that on 24.08.2016 at 11:00 a.m., while the deceased was going on his motor bike from Cherlapally towards Nacharam and when he reached near IDA Nacharam Petrol Bunk, and was waiting for his friend, who went to fill the petrol, suddenly lorry tanker bearing No.AP-29-V-1444 came in a rash and negligent manner and dashed the motor bike of the deceased from behind and ran over him, due to which he died on the spot.

4. The respondent Nos.1 and 2 remained ex-parte.

5. The respondent No.3-Insurance Company has filed counter denying the averments of the petition with regard to the occurrence of the accident, age, avocation and income of the deceased. They further contended that the driver of the lorry tanker was not holding valid driving license as on the date of the accident and their company is not liable to pay any compensation.

6. Based on the rival contentions of the parties, the Tribunal has framed the following issues for trial:

1) Whether the pleaded accident occurred resulting in death to the victim viz., Sri K. Sivaramaprasad @ Prasad, S/o K. Samudralu, due to rash and negligent driving of the driver of lorry tanker bearing No.AP-29V-1444, by its driver?

2) Whether the petitioners are entitled to any compensation and if so, at what quantum?

3) To what relief?

7. To prove their case, the petitioners got examined PW1 to 3 and got marked Exs.A1 to A8. On behalf of the respondents, RW1 and 2 were examined and Ex.B1 to B12 were marked.

8. Based on the evidence on record, the trial Court has awarded a compensation of Rs.18,64,400/- holding that respondent No.2 and 3 are jointly and severally liable to pay compensation. Aggrieved by the said award, the present appeal is preferred by the Insurance Company.

9. Heard the submission of Ms. A. Anasuya, learned counsel for the appellant. Inspite of service of notice, learned counsel for the respondents failed to appear in this matter.

10. Learned counsel for appellant has submitted that the order and decree passed by the learned Tribunal is contrary to law and that the Tribunal failed to consider the evidence adduced by the Insurance Company and has not properly appreciated the facts and circumstances of the case. She further argued that the Tribunal failed to take notice of the fact that the Insurance Company has cancelled the policy due to dishonour of cheque and that without any subsisting policy, the Tribunal has fastened the liability on the Insurance Company, which is not proper. She therefore, prayed to set aside the order and decree of the Tribunal by allowing this appeal.

11. Based on the above rival contentions, this Court frames the following points for determination:

1. Whether the lorry tanker bearing No.AP-29V-1444 was covered under a valid insurance policy as on the date of the accident? If so, whether the insurance company is liable to pay compensation?

2. Whether the order and decree of the trial Court need any interference?

3. To what relief?

12. POINT NO.1:-

a) The grievance of the appellant is that the crime vehicle was not covered by the insurance policy as on the date of the accident. It is their case that the cheque issued by the insured towards payment of premium was dishonoured and that the said fact was intimated to the owner of the vehicle. In support of their contention, they got examined RW1 and 2 and also got marked Ex.B4 to B12. Ex.B4 is the Proposal Form for obtaining insurance policy submitted by the owner of the vehicle-Mohd. Jameel to Oriental Insurance Company i.e., the appellant herein