HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE B.PRAKASH RAO M.A.C.M.A. No. 1273 of 2010, C.R.P. No. 3913 of 2007 & C.M.A. No. 1159 of 2007 COMMON ORDER: Since all these three matters arise out of the same proceedings, they are taken up together and disposed of by this common order. The insurance company, who is the appellant, filed the appeal in M.A.C.M.A.No.1273 of 2010 challenging the order and decree dated 21.2.2007 made in O.P. No. 15 of 2003; whereas C.R.P. No. 3913 of 2007 is filed by it questioning the order and decree dated 21.2.2007 in O.P. No. 154 of 2003. The respondent, who is the claimant filed C.M.A. No. 1159 of 2007 challenging the order and decree dated 21.2.2007 in O.P. No. 15 of 2003. Briefly stated the facts which gave rise to the present proceedings are that on 23.11.2002, while the claimant was proceeding along with another on the scooter, an auto rickshaw bearing No. AP 22T 6889 came from opposite direction and in a rash and negligent manner and dashed against the scooter. As a result of the which, the claimant and his friend sustained grievous injuries. The police also registered a case in Crime No.134 of 2002. Hence, they filed claim petitions before the Tribunal claiming compensation. The case was contested by the insurance company and the owner denying the various allegations. The Tribunal after framing appropriate issues and after considering the evidence adduced on behalf of both the sides, has awarded compensation of Rs. 20,000/- along with interest at 7.5% per annum from the date of petition till the date of realisation in respect of O.P. No. 15 of 2003. The Tribunal directed the insurance company to pay the compensation amount at the first instance, but, it however, gave liberty to the insurance company to recover the same from the owner of the vehicle. In so far as the other O.P., namely, O.P. No. 154 of 2003 filed by the other claimant is concerned, the Tribunal awarded an amount of Rs.3,500/- as compensation along with proportionate costs and interest at 7.5% from the date of petition till the date of realisation. Aggrieved by the same, the insurance company filed C.R.P. No. 3913 of 2007 and the appeal, being M.A.C.M.A. No. 1273 of 2010 denying its liability to pay compensation amount; whereas the claimant in O.P. No. 15 of 2003 filed C.M.A. No. 1159 of 2007 seeking enhancement of the compensation amount. The main contention on behalf of the insurance company is that for the purpose of coverage of insurance, the owner issued a cheque towards premium on 28.6.2002, which was dishonoured on 2.7.2002; whereas the accident in question occurred on 23.11.2002. He further stated that immediately after the cheque was dishonoured, the insurance company issued a notice cancelling the policy and after the cheque was bounced, the owner did not pay the premium amount. Further there is no valid policy subsisting as on the date of the accident and therefore it is not liable to pay the compensation amount. In so far as the appeal filed by the claimant seeking enhancement of the compensation amount is concerned, learned counsel stated that the claimant did not adduce any medical evidence to show the nature of the injuries sustained by him in the accident, in the absence of which, the compensation cannot be enhanced. Be that as it may, the fact remains that as on the date of the accident, there is no policy validly subsisting between the owner and the insurance company and the Tribunal erroneously placed the burden on the insurance company. It is also seen from the record that the claimant also did not file any material to show that there was a valid policy subsisting as on the date of the occurrence of the accident, in the absence of which, it has to be held that the insurance company cannot be fastened with the liability of payment of compensation amount. Hence, to that extent the appeal and the C.R.P. filed by the insurance company are allowed. Now, coming to the other appeal, namely, C.M.A. No. 1159 of 2007 filed by the claimant for enhancement of the compensation amount is concerned, in the absence of any medical evidence adduced by the claimant to show that he has sustained injuries in the accident in question, it is not open for the claimant to seek further enhancement. Hence, I do not find any merit in the appeal filed by the claimant for enhancement of the compensation amount. Accordingly, C.R.P. No. 3913 of 2007 and M.A.C.M.A. No. 1273 of 2010 are allowed holding that the insurance company is not liable to pay the amount of compensation and the claimant can proceed against the owner of the vehicle for recovery of the amount of compensation; whereas the other appeal, namely C.M.A. No. 1159 of 2007 filed by the claimant is dismissed. No costs. ________________ B. PRAKASH RAO,J Date: 10th February, 2011 pnb