HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE N.R.L. NAGESWARA RAO M.A.C.M.A.No.1544 OF 2011 JUDGMENT: The 3rd respondent in O.P.No.631 of 1997 on the file of Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal-cum- II Additional District Judge), West Godavari at Eluru, is the appellant herein. 2. The application was filed for recovery of compensation of Rs.2,00,000/- consequent on the death of the deceased Gorrela Somanna in a motor accident. 3. The appellant herein disputed the liability on the ground that the vehicle was not insured. The appellant is not seriously disputing about the nature of the incident or about the quantum of compensation. The only contention of the appellant is that the vehicle, which was said to have been insured, was not insured as a lorry and the policy referred and relied on by the petitioners does not relate to the lorry. Of course, Ex.B.1 policy and evidence of RW.1 shows that the policy relates to a Luna but not a lorry. The lower Tribunal found fault with the RW.1 in not verifying the records with reference to the particular lorry. Evidently, without furnishing the particulars of the cover note or the particulars of the policy number, it is very difficult for any insurance company to know whether there was a valid policy or not by referring to the lorry number or the name of the individual, for that reason only Rule 476 sub clause 2 of Motor Vehicle Rules mandates that the particulars of the insurance certificate or policy shall be furnished in the application by the applicant. Therefore, there is no point in blaming the insurance company for not furnishing the particulars of the insurance company when it is the specific plea that the vehicle was not insured. Therefore, the finding of the lower Tribunal is not correct and it cannot be held that the vehicle was insured with the appellant. More so, there are specific allegations in I.A.No.5418 of 2001, where-under the petitioners wanted to add the Sub-Inspector of Police and the Motor Vehicle Inspector as parties to the proceedings alleging that they have not performed their duty properly and that they have not properly noted the policy number. Therefore, in view of the above circumstances, it is quite clear that there is no proof of valid policy of insurance with the appellant. 4. Added to that, the deceased has boarded the lorry after purchasing vegetables at Hanuman junction. The law requires that in order to cover a liability on the insurance company while travelling in a goods vehicle along with the goods, it should be proved that the lorry was booked by the owner of the goods for transportation and intermediaries entering into the lorry for short distances even with goods carried by them are not covered by the risk. Therefore, viewed from any angle, there is no liability for the insurance company and accordingly, the appeal is to be allowed. 5. Accordingly, the appeal is allowed so far as it relates to the liability of the insurance company. However, the claimants are at liberty to proceed against the insurance company in execution if they are able to establish that there was a policy valid covering the risk. No costs. _________________________ N.R.L. NAGESWARA RAO, J Date: 03.08.2011 INL