IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) FRIDAY, THE SEVENTH DAY OF AUGUST TWO THOUSAND AND NINE PRESENT THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE R.KANTHA RAO CIVIL MISCELLANEOUS APPEAL NO.881 OF 2000. Between:- The Oriental Insurance Co.Ltd., Branch Manager, Eluru rep.by Asst.Manager. .. Petitioner And Gurrala Satyavati and others .. Respondents JUDGMENT:- This appeal is filed by respondent No.3/Oriental Insurance Company Limited challenging the Award passed by the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal-cum- District Judge, West Godavari, Eluru in O.P.No.295 of 1991. 2. I have heard the learned counsel appearing for the appellant Insurance Company. 3. None appears for the respondents-claimants. 4. The appellant Insurance Company challenged the Award on the grounds namely that since the offending vehicle has no fitness certificate at the time of accident, the same being in violation of terms and conditions of the policy, the appellant insurance company cannot be held liable to pay compensation to the claimants and nextly that the quantum of compensation arrived at by the Tribunal being on higher side requires to be reduced in the appeal. 5. As regards the contention that the offending vehicle did not possess fitness certificate on the date of accident, the burden is on the appellant/Insurance Company to establish that there was in fact no fitness certificate and also that not possessing the fitness certificate amounts to violation of stipulations in the policy. The appellant relied upon the testimony of R.W.1 –Legal Assistant, who issued Ex.B-1 insurance policy and the evidence of R.W.2 – Motor Vehicle Inspector. Except the oral evidence of P.W.1, there is no material brought on record by the appellant in the course of the trial before the Tribunal showing that the offending vehicle, in fact, did not have a fitness certificate. Similarly, R.W.2 – the Motor Vehicle Inspector stated in his evidence that the lorry bearing No.APW 3535 has no fitness certificate on the date of the accident and no document is filed to show that there was no fitness certificate. Further, R.W.2 admitted in his evidence that there was a fitness certificate which was valid upto 08.02.1991. 6. Therefore, in my considered view, the evidence adduced by the Insurance Company is not sufficient to hold that the offending vehicle had no fitness certificate and the Tribunal did not commit any error to to arrive at the finding that the appellant failed to establish that there was no fitness certificate in fact, on the date of the accident. Further, the policy does not indicate that if there is no valid fitness certificate for the vehicle in question, it amounts to breach of the terms of the policy. Moreover, R.W.1 admitted in his evidence that there is no condition in the policy that the insurance company can avoid its liability if there is no valid fitness certificate to the vehicle. The Tribunal also relied on a decision reported in The Manager, United India Insurance Company, Hindupur Vs. Shekamma and others[1] wherein it was held that the Insurance Company cannot avoid it's liability to pay compensation to the third parties on the mere ground that the vehicle did not possess any fitness certificate as on the date of the accident. Therefore, the finding of the Tribunal that the Insurance Company is liable to pay compensation to the respondents/claimants since the offending vehicle was insured under the valid policy on the date of the accident does not require any interference in this appeal and this point is answered accordingly. 7. As regards the quantum of compensation, the Tribunal considered the income of the deceased at Rs.800/- per month, which in the opinion of this Court is not on higher side and the deduction of Rs.400/- per month and also holding that the deceased was contributing Rs.400/- per month for the maintenance of his family and computing compensation by adopting multiplier 13.5 awarding compensation of Rs.5,000/- and Rs.15,000/- towards loss of estate by placing reliance on Yerra Varalakshmi and others vs. M.Nageswara Rao and others[2] is not unreasonable and the contention of the appellant that the compensation awarded by the Tribunal is on higher side, has no basis at all. Therefore, this point is also answered against the appellant/Insurance Company. 8. For the foregoing reasons, the appeal is devoid of merit and the same is dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs. __________________ R. KANTHA RAO ,J 7th August, 2009 AMD [1] 1994 (2) A.L.T.Page 312 [2] 1998 A.C.J. Page 354