THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE G.V.SEETHAPATHY M.A.C.M.A. No.794 OF 2008 JUDGMENT: This appeal is directed against the order, dated 05.10.2007, in O.P.No.109 of 2006 on the file of the learned Chairman, Motor Accident Claims Tribunal-cum-VI Additional District Judge (FTC), wherein the claim of the appellants herein for compensation was allowed in part, awarding a sum of Rs.1,50,000/- with interest @ 7.5% p.a. from the date of the petition against the 1st respondent- owner and dismissing the claim as against the 2nd respondent-insurer on the ground that Ex.A6-copy of the insurance policy does not relate to the relevant period but pertains to the earlier year. 2. Heard learned counsel for the appellants and the learned counsel for the 1st respondent. None appeared for the 2nd respondent. Perused the record. 3. The finding of the Tribunal that the accident occurred due to the rash and negligent driving of the tractor bearing No.AP-02-U-6601 by its driver is not challenged by way of an appeal by the respondents. The Tribunal on a consideration of the evidence available on record, awarded compensation of Rs.1,50,000/- and the quantum of the said compensation is also not seriously disputed. Along with the appeal, appellants filed copy of the policy No.551000/31/04/6300001674 pertaining to the crime vehicle-tractor for the period from 08.12.2004 to 07.12.2005. The accident occurred on 22.06.2005. Thus, there was a valid insurance coverage for the crime vehicle as on the date of the accident. The engine number and chasis number as mentioned in the said policy are found to be tallying with those mentioned in Ex.A6 filed before the Tribunal, which was in force for the previous year ending with 07.12.2004. Under those circumstances, the copy of the policy now filed for the relevant period from 08.12.2004 to 07.12.2005 is received as additional evidence and marked as Ex.A8. 4. Learned counsel for the appellants would submit that by mistake the policy for the earlier period under Ex.A6 was filed before the Tribunal and the respondents- insurers have also not produced the copy of the policy for the relevant period and therefore the Tribunal exonerated the 2nd respondent-insurer from the liability on the ground that the policy for the relevant period was not filed. Now that the copy of the said policy for the relevant period is filed in the appeal and is marked as Ex.A8 showing that there was a valid insurance coverage for the crime vehicle as on the date of the accident, it is held that the 2nd respondent-insurer is also jointly and severally liable along with the 1st respondent-owner for payment of compensation of Rs.1,50,000/- awarded by the Tribunal with interest @ 7.5% p.a. from the date of the petition. The impugned order is modified accordingly. 5. In the result, appeal is allowed to the extent stated above. There shall be no order as to costs. Documents marked Ex.A8-copy of policy _______________________ G.V.SEETHAPATHY, J 27th September, 2011. Tsy