The burden of proof to establish statutory defenses, such as the negligence of the deceased or breach of policy conditions, rests on the insurance company; failure to provide cogent evidence justifies the award of compensation.

JUDGMENT

This appeal is preferred by the appellant–Insurance Company under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act, aggrieved by the order and decree dated 31.08.2018 passed in M.V.O.P.No.602 of 2013 by the Chairman, Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal-cum-I Additional District Judge, Nalgonda (for short, “the Tribunal”), whereby the Tribunal awarded compensation of Rs.22,17,000/- with interest @ 7.5% per annum from the date of petition till realization in favour of respondent Nos.1 to 5/claimants for the death of one Gongalareddy Venkata Mohan Reddy (hereinafter referred to as “the deceased”).

2. The brief facts of the case are that the respondent Nos.1 to 5/ claimants, who are the wife, minor children and parents of the deceased, filed the aforesaid claim petition before the Tribunal claim petition initially under Section 163-A of the Motor Vehicles Act (for short, “the Act”) and later got it amended under Section 166 of the Act, claiming compensation of Rs.25,00,000/- for the death of the deceased in a motor vehicle accident that occurred on 23.11.2012. It is their case that on the said date, the deceased, while driving the motor cycle bearing No.AP.28.CH.6196, lost control over the vehicle at a turning near Pedaveedu village, as a result of which, the vehicle fell into a roadside pit and the motor cycle fell on him, causing grievous injuries leading to his death on the spot. Upon appreciation of the entire evidence on record, the Tribunal came to the conclusion that the death of the deceased occurred in the accident involving the motor cycle in question and that respondent Nos.1 to 5-claimants are entitled to compensation. Accordingly, the Tribunal awarded a total compensation of Rs.22,17,000/- with interest @ 7.5% per annum and fastened the liability jointly and severally on respondent Nos.1 and 2 in the claim petition i.e., respondent No.6 and the appellant herein respectively. Assailing the said award, the present appeal is filed by the appellant-Insurance Company.

3. Considered the submissions of the learned counsel for the parties and perused the record.

4. A perusal of the record would go to show that the accident in question is not in dispute. Ex.A1–FIR, Ex.A2–inquest report, Ex.A3– postmortem report and Ex.A5–charge sheet clearly establish that the deceased died in the said accident. Though the contention of the appellant is that the deceased himself was negligent, the Tribunal, on appreciation of the evidence, recorded a finding that the Insurance Company failed to establish the said plea by adducing cogent evidence. It is also to be noted that though the claim petition was initially filed under Section 163-A of the Act, the same was later amended under Section 166 of the Act. Even in a claim under Section 166 of the Act, the burden lies on the insurer to establish any statutory defence available to it. In the present case, except examining R.W.1, no material evidence is placed to substantiate the plea that the deceased was solely responsible for the accident or that there was any breach of policy conditions. Further, the evidence of R.W.1 would disclose that the policy in respect of the offending vehicle was in force as on the date of accident. In the absence of any evidence to show that the risk was not covered or that there was violation of policy conditions, the Tribunal is justified in fastening liability on the appellant–Insurance Company.

5. Insofar as the quantum of compensation is concerned, the Tribunal has taken the income of the deceased at Rs.10,000/- per month based on Exs.A8 and A10