HONOURABLE Dr. JUSTICE B.SIVA SANKARA RAO M.A.C.M.A.No.2919 of 2008
JUDGMENT :
The appellant-insurer filed this appeal aggrieved by the order/award dated 13.02.2008 in M.V.O.P.No.753 of 2006 on the file of Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal–cum-Principal District Judge, Warangal (for short, ’Tribunal’) awarding compensation of Rs.75,000/- with interest at 7.5% p.a. against the claim of Rs.2,40,000/- in the claim petition under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicle Act, 1988 (for short, ‘the Act’).
2) Heard Sri Meherchand Nori the learned standing counsel for the appellant and Sri C.A.R.Seshagiri Rao learned counsel for the claimant. Perused the material on record. The parties hereinafter are referred to as arrayed before the Tribunal for the sake of convenience in the appeal.
3 ) The contentions in the grounds of appeal as well as oral submissions by the appellant-insurer in nutshell are that the Judgment and decree of the Tribunal is contrary to law, weight of evidence and probabilities of the case, that the Tribunal merely relied on Exs.A-1 to A-4 and there is no document which gives proof with regard to the existence valid insurance policy between the owner of the Auto and the insurance Company, that the Tribunal ought to have seen that the auto bearing No.AP 36 V 4694 but the averment of the owner of the auto that it was validly insured with the 2nd respondent which is situated at Maharastra, gives rise to a suspicion, inasmuch as normally the vehicles which registered in a State will have insurance policy of the same State, unless it is transferred from another State, that in the instant case, the owner of the auto who filed the counter and contested the matter has not taken any plea for taking the insurance policy in Maharashtra, that he did not take steps file a copy of the insurance policy, which gives rise to suspicion that there is no valid insurance policy, that the Tribunal ought to have seen that burden heavily lies on the owner of the vehicle that the policy subsists between the owner and insurer and in the absence of filing of insurance policy, the Court below should have drawn adverse inference that there is no valid insurance policy exists or the 1st respondent-owner is alone liable to pay compensation, that the Tribunal ought to have seen that the initial burden lies on the owner of the crime vehicle to prove that the vehicle was validly insured with 2nd respondent-insurance company, but in the instant case, the owner of the auto failed to discharge is part for proving that the auto is validly insured, except for filing counter, the owner of auto did not choose to lead evidence, which itself crystallizes that he failed to discharge his initial burden and prayed to allow the appeal as prayed for. Learned counsel for the appellant reiterated the same during the course of hearing. On the other hand, the learned counsel for the Respondent-claimant contended that the above contentions are untenable and there is nothing to interfere with the award of the Tribunal, but for want of cross-objections to enhance the compensation awarded since utterly low and to dismiss the appeal.
4) Now the points that arise for consideration in the appeal are:
1. Whether the compensation awarded by the Tribunal fixing liability on the insurer is unsustainable and requires interference by this Court and if so with what observations?
2. To what result?
POINT No.1:
5) There is no dispute as to the manner of accident, the injuries received by the claimant due to the motor accident which took place due to the rash and negligent driving of the driver of the crime auto. The only dispute is regarding fixing of liability on the insurer.
6) The main contention of the insurer is that there is no document filed to show there is a valid and existing policy between the owner of the auto and the insurance company to indemnify and the Tribunal below should have seen that the auto is bearing No.AP 36 V 4694 and claimed as validly insured with the 2nd respondent insurance company of branch at Yeotmal of Maharashtra State and it gives any suspicion for the reason the vehicles registered within a State will have insurance policy of the same State unless it is transferred from another State and owner also did not produce the copy of the policy and thereby the insurer cannot made liable. As pointed out by the Tribunal particularly at para No.4 from the counter filed by the appellant (claim petition 2nd respondent) i.e., insurer, there is no specific denial of the policy got furnished in the claim petition para No.17 of policy No.163401/2006/11752 of Bajaj Allianz Insurance Company policy valid from 05.12.2005 to 04.12.2006 of the accident taken place on 23.01.2006 and the 2nd respondent is the insurer showing Bajaj Allianz Insurance Company, Branch manager of Yeotmal, Maharashtra State. Ex.A-3 is the charge sheet where the owner was arrayed as accused, but for the driver of the auto and there is no M.V.Act penal provision of no policy and the 1st respondent as owner by name E.Chandra Sekhar filed counter before the Tribunal that the vehicle is validly insured and the insurer is liable to compensate. Even same is the case before the Tribunal, there is no independent evidence adduced by the insured who is 2nd respondent muchless confronted with P.W-1 injured-claimant with any particulars of the policy furnished by the claim petitioner incorrect and not co-relating and no such policy issued by 2nd respondent. In the absence of which the vague contentions raised in the grounds of appeal that there is a suspicion regarding genuineness of the policy from the particulars furnished as relates to Maharashtra State and no possibility of coming to the vehicle of Andhra Pradesh erstwhile State is thereby notable. Thus, there is nothing to interfere for this Court while sitting in the appeal since the award of the Tribunal fixing joint liability holds good.
POINT No.2:
7) In the result, the appeal is dismissed. No order as to costs.
8) Miscellaneous petitions, if any pending in this appeal, shall stand closed.
Dr. B. SIVA SANKARA RAO, J Date:23-12-2014 ksh