THE HON'BLE SMT. JUSTICE TIRUMALA DEVI EADA

JUDGMENT:

This appeal is filed by Insurance Company, aggrieved by the order and decree dated 20.05.2020 in M.V.O.P.No.223 of 2016 passed by the Chairman, Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, VIII Additional District Judge (FTC), Warangal (for short “the Tribunal”)

granting a compensation of Rs.14,92,500/-.

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

3. The case of the petitioners before the Tribunal is that the deceased used to work as a Hamali and also used to do Kirana Business and earn Rs.12,000/- per month. On 22.11.2015 after attending his work and while he was returning home on his bicycle at about 1800 hours when he reached at Ekashila Junction one lorry bearing No.RJ-02-GB-2217 driven by its driver in a rash and negligent manner at high speed hit the bicycle, due to which the deceased fell down and front tyres of the lorry ran over his body causing grievous injuries and he died on the spot. The claimants sought a compensation of Rs.15,00,000/- before the Tribunal.

4. Respondent Nos.1 and 2 filed counter affidavit denying the averments of petition with regard to the occurrence of the accident, age, income and avocation of the deceased and further contended that the driver of the lorry was not rash and negligent and that the accident occurred due to the negligence of the deceased.

5. Based on the above rival contentions, the Tribunal has framed the following issues:-

1. Whether the accident occurred on 22.11.2015 at about 1800 hours near Ekashila Junction, Gorrekunta Village, Geesugonda Mandal, Warangal District with a lorry bearing No.RJ-02-GB-2217?

2. Whether the petitioners are entitled for compensation? If so, to what amount and from whom?

3. To what relief ?

6. To prove their case, the petitioners got examined PWs.1 and 2 and got marked as Exs.A1 to A6 and Ex.C1. On behalf of the respondents, RW.1 was examined and Exs.B1 to B7 were marked.

7. Based on the evidence on record, the Tribunal has granted a compensation of Rs.14,92,500/-. Aggrieved by the said order and decree dated 20.05.2020, the present appeal is filed by the Insurance Company.

8. Heard Sri A. Ramakrishna Reddy, learned counsel for the appellant and there is no representation on behalf of the respondents.

9. Learned counsel for the appellants has submitted that the Tribunal has awarded huge amount towards compensation and that the policy was not in force as on the date of the accident, though Ex.B2/Cheque was issued towards payment of premium it was dishonoured for insufficiency of funds under Ex.B3 and that since there is no valid insurance policy, the insurance company is not liable to pay the compensation. He further prayed that in the absence of a valid policy their company may be exonerated from the liability of paying compensation.

10. Based on the above submissions, this Court frames the following points for determination:-

1. Whether the policy was valid as on the date of the accident with regard to the crime vehicle No.RJ-02-GB -2217?

2. Whether the compensation granted by the Tribunal is just and reasonable?

3. Whether the Order and Decree passed by the Tribunal need any interference?

4. To what relief?

11. POINT NO.1:-

The contention of the appellant/Insurance Company is that the policy was not valid as on the date of accident as the cheque issued by the insured was dishonoured. A perusal of Ex.B3/cheque return memo reveals that the cheque was dishonoured for the reason of “Insufficient Funds”, on 03.04.2015. Thereby the insurance company cancelled the policy which is evident from Ex.B4. The Insurance Company has also further addressed a letter to the RTO on 06.04.2015 intimating the said cancellation of the policy and also addressed letter to respondent No.2 who is the owner of the vehicle intimating the cancellation of policy. The Insurance Company has also produced the outward register to establish the said facts and the same is found under Ex.B7. Thus,