HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE GHULAM MOHAMMED MA C.M.A.No. 3178 of 2001 JUDGMENT: United Insurance Company is the appellant who filed the appeal challenging the award and decree passed in OP No. 417 of 1997 dated 19.10.2000 on the file of the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal-cum- I Additional District Judge, East Godavari District at Rajahmundry, filed under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, claiming a compensation of Rs. 1,50,000/- as against which the Tribunal granted Rs. 1,50,000/- as claimed by the claimant. 2. The brief facts of the case are as follows: On 24.11.1991 the deceased-Pisini Apparao boarded the lorry bearing No. APL. 3840 at Vemagiri to go to pallipeta within the limits of Rana Sthalam Police Station and when the lorry reached near Aganampudi Railway gate, a Tipper No. ACV 883 driven by the first respondent- driver in a rash and negligent manner, came in an opposite direction, dashed against the lorry in which the deceased was traveling and due to which the deceased fell down and sustained grievous injuries and succumbed to the same. The deceased was an agricultural coolie at Vemagiri and was earning Rs. 80/- per day by way of loading and unloading work. Hence, the claimants laid a claim for a compensation of Rs. 1,50,000/-. 3. The first respondent-driver and the second respondent owner of the Tipper bearing No. ACV 883 remained ex parte . The third respondent-Insurance Company filed counter denying the material allegations made in the petition stating that the deceased was also traveling in the lorry as a third party and as such the driver, and insurer of the said lorry are necessary and proper parties to the petition and the claim is excessive and therefore, the petition may be dismissed. 4. On the basis of the above pleadings, the following issues were settled for trial. 1. Whether Pisini Apparao died in the motor accident due to rash and negligent driving of Tipper No. ACV.883 by the first respondent? 2. Whether the petitioners are entitled for grant of compensation amount? If so, to what amount? 3. To what relief. 5. On behalf of claimants, first claimant herself examined as PW-1 and also examined PW-2 and Exs. A1 to A4 were marked. On behalf of the respondents none were examined and no document was marked. 6. On consideration of the oral and documentary evidence, the Tribunal came to the conclusion that since the accident occurred due to rash and negligent driving of the driver of the accident Tipper, the respondents 2 and 3 being owner and insurer respectively of the Tipper are jointly and severally liable to pay the compensation to the claimants. In order to determine the loss of dependency, the Tribunal taking into consideration of the evidence of PW-1 and also Exs A-2, postmortem certificate and Ex. A5 inquest report, the deceased was aged 28 years by the time of his death and the deceased must have been earning a sum of Rs. 30/- per day on average as a coolie the monthly incomes comes to Rs. 900/- and if 1/3rd deducted Rs. 600/- per month is the contribution towards family and the annual loss of dependency comes to Rs. 7,200/- (600x12 =7,200) and for the age of 28 years the multiplier applied was 17.086 and estimated the total sum of Rs. 1,23,019/- (7200x17.086). The Tribunal granted conventional sum of Rs. 15,000/- towards loss of consortium and Rs. 15,000/- towards loss of estate totaling to Rs. 1,53,019 and the claim is only Rs. 1,50,000/- the Tribunal restricted the claim to Rs. 1,50,000/-. Being aggrieved by the same, the Insurance Company filed the present Civil Miscellaneous Appeal. 7. The learned counsel appearing for the appellant- Insurance Company submit that the Tribunal ought to have seen that there is no valid coverage of Insurance covering the risk of the vehicle bearing No. ACV 883 on 24.11.1991. He also submits that the Tribunal erred in giving finding that the Insurance Company is liable in the absence of any policy covering the risk of the vehicle. 8. The learned counsel appearing for the respondents submit that the Insurance company cannot escape its liability on mere ground that there is no valid coverage of Insurance covering the risk of the Tipper bearing No. ACV 883. He relied on the judgment reported in VEMIREDDY BHASKARA REDDY VS. BODDU NARENDRA KUMAR AND OTHERS[1]. 9. Heard the learned counsel appearing for both sides and also perused the entire material made available on record. 10. As seen from the record, it is no doubt true that due to rash and negligent driving of the Tipper bearing No. ACV 883 by its driver, accident occurred and due to which the deceased fell down and sustained grievous injuries and succumbed to the injures. The deceased was an agricultural coolie and was earning Rs. 80/- per day by way of loading and unloading work. The Tribunal taking into consideration of the evidence available on record calculated total sum of Rs. 1,53,019/- but awarded Rs. 1,50,000/- restricting the sum as claimed. As far as the liability is concerned, the Tribunal directed the respondents therein to pay the compensation jointly and severally to the claimants. Aggrieved by the same, the Insurance Company preferred the present appeal stating that the deceased was traveling in the lorry as a third party and there is no valid coverage of Insurance covering the risk of the vehicle. But in this particular case a copy of the insurance policy has not been produced by the Insurance Company, which is mandatory as laid down by the Supreme Court in NATIONAL INSURNCE COMPANY VS. JUGAL KISHORE[2], therefore, neither the Tribunal nor this court is in a position to examine the correctness or otherwise of such a defence with reference to the stipulation and the breach therein. In VEMIREDDY BHASKARA REDDY VS. BODDU NARENDRA KUMAR AND OTHERS (Supra-1) this Court clarified that the Insurance Company cannot avoid the liability on the mere fact that the driver has admitted his guilt before the Criminal Court of having no driving license. 11. Be that as it may, even If there is no valid coverage of Insurance, covering the risk of the vehicle bearing No. ACV 883, the insurance Company cannot escape its liability. Therefore, the appeal filed by the Insurance Company is liable to be dismissed. 12. Accordingly, the Civil Miscellaneous Appeal is dismissed. However, the Insurance Company is entitled to recovery the amount from the owner of the vehicle bearing No. ACV 883. There shall be no order as to costs. _____________________ GHULAM MOHAMMED, J Date : 29.7..2010 KA [1] 1997 (1) ALD 420 [2] 1988 (1) ACJ 270