HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE P. SWAROOP REDDY CIVIL MISCELLANEOUS APPEAL No.3588 OF 2003 JUDGMENT: Questioning its liability for payment of compensation and also quantum of compensation awarded in O.P. No.227 of 1986 dated 27-09-2002 by the learned Chairman, Motor Accident Claims Tribunal – cum – I Additional District Judge, Khammam, the New India Assurance Company Limited preferred this Civil Miscellaneous Appeal. 2. The driver of the lorry bearing No.APW – 6595 involved in the accident and its owner are respondent Nos.1 and 2 respectively and insurer of the above lorry and Vijayawada Branch of the said insurer are respondent Nos.3 and 4 respectively in the O.P. before the Tribunal. This appeal is preferred by respondent No.3 in the O.P. 3. For the sake of convenience, the parties are referred to as arrayed in the O.P. before the Tribunal. 4. The case of the claimant before the Tribunal is that he was working as Cleaner under respondent No.2 on lorry bearing No.APW - 6595. While so, on 28-02-1986, when he was on duty and standing behind the lorry to give signals as the driver of the lorry, respondent No.1, was taking the lorry in the reverse direction, the lorry driver drove it in a rash and negligent manner without observing the signals being given by him and dashed against him, as a result, he sustained injury to his left leg. A case in Crime No.27 of 1986 was registered against respondent No.1 for the offence under Section 337 IPC and investigated into. Immediately after the accident, he was shifted to Government Hospital, Khammam Head Quarters, Khammam in the same lorry by respondent No.1 and from there shifted to a private hospital where he was treated for a period of one month and spent Rs.6,000/- towards medical expenses. Due to the injuries sustained by him, he lost his source of income and working capacity. Hence, he claimed a compensation of Rs.50,000/-. 5. Respondent No.1, driver of the lorry, did not file counter. Respondent No.2, owner of the lorry, filed his counter denying the case of the claimant and contending that the lorry is insured with respondent No.3 insurance company’s Branch at Vijayawada (respondent No.4), as such, respondent No.3 is liable for payment of compensation, if any. 6. Respondent No.3 filed counter contending that no insurance policy was issued by it covering the lorry involved in the accident. Respondent No.4, which is a branch of respondent No.3, adopted the counter filed by respondent No.3. 7. Based on the pleadings, the following issues were framed for trial by the Tribunal: “1. Whether the accident occurred on account of the rash and negligent driving of the first respondent? 2. Whether the petitioner is entitled to claim compensation of Rs.50,000/- towards general and special damages? 3. Whether the petitioner is entitled to interest? If so, at what rate? 4. To what relief?” 8. To prove his case, claimant got examined PWs.1 and 2 and got marked Exs.A-1 to A-3. On behalf of the respondents, RWs.1 to 3 were examined and Exs.B-1 to B-4 were marked. 9. Based on the material on record and after an elaborate consideration of the same, Tribunal awarded a total compensation of Rs.45,000/- to the claimant fixing the liability on all the respondents for payment of compensation with interest at 12% per annum from the date of petition till the date of award and thereafter at 6% per annum till realization. Aggrieved of the same, insurance company alone preferred this appeal questioning its liability for payment of compensation. 10. As far as the quantum of compensation is concerned, as the claimant sustained a grievous injury i.e., crush injury to his left foot exposing flesh and bones, the compensation of Rs.45,000/- awarded by the Tribunal cannot be said to be on higher side. 11. Learned counsel for the insurance company (appellant) contends that the offending lorry was not insured with it, as such, it is not liable for payment of compensation. 12. In the circumstances, the point that arises for consideration is whether the lorry that involved in the accident has valid insurance policy as on the date of accident ? 13. RW.1 was examined on behalf of the insurance company. His evidence is that it is not possible to locate the insurance policy since required details of the policy were not furnished either by the claimant or owner of the lorry. Evidence of RW.2, owner of the lorry, is that lorry was insured with respondent No.4, Vijayawada Branch of the insurance company – respondent No.3, and he has given number of the insurance policy as “045143.” 14. RW.3 is Motor Vehicle Inspector. According to him also insurance policy was in force as on the date of accident and number of the insurance policy is “045143.” Thus, insurance policy number was revealed by RWs.2 and 3 in their evidence, but still no efforts were made by respondent Nos.3 and 4 to verify whether any insurance policy was issued with the number “045143.” RW.1 was examined even prior to RWS.2 and 3. Even in the counter filed on behalf of the owner of the lorry, respondent No.2, in paragraph No.5, policy number and date are given. Still, RW.1, manager of the insurance company, could not get details of the policy. On the other hand, in his chief examination, he has stated that insurance policy number “E. No.403391” furnished to them does not pertain to any policy number. But, he did not speak about policy number “045143” mentioned in the counter of respondent No.2. 15. In the circumstances, I am not inclined to accept that insurance company has proved that the offending lorry was not insured with them as on the date of accident. Thus, I see no ground to entertain this appeal and is liable to be dismissed. 16. Accordingly, the Civil Miscellaneous appeal is dismissed. No order as to costs. ___________________ P. SWAROOP REDDY, J November 19, 2010. PV