HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE V.ESWARAIAH C.M.A.NO.2730 OF 2002 Dt.15.7.2010 Between: The Oriental Insurance Company Ltd. ..Appellant And Kakara Yesubabu and others ..Respondents HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE V.ESWARAIAH C.M.A.NO.2730 OF 2002 JUDGMENT: The Oriental Insurance Company Limited is the appellant herein. The 1st respondent herein filed O.P.No.386 of 1998 on the file of the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal-cum-IV Additional District Judge, East Godavari, Kakinada, claiming compensation of Rs.80,000/- for the injuries sustained by him in the motor vehicle accident on 28.1.1998. The Tribunal held that the accident took place due to rash and negligent driving of the driver of the vehicle bearing No.AP 16U 8087 owned by the 2nd respondent therein. In so far as the finding of the Tribunal below that the accident occurred due to rash and negligent driving of the driver of the offending vehicle is concerned, the said finding has not been questioned. But, the only grievance of the appellant is that the offending vehicle is not covered by the insurance policy and not insured with the appellant. Learned counsel for the appellant relying on the judgment of this Court in C.M.A.No.271 of 2001, dated 28.8.2008, contended that the insurance company is not liable to pay compensation if the vehicle is not insured with the insurance company. On the other hand, learned counsel appearing for the 1st respondent claimant submits that the claimant has furnished the policy number and coverage of insurance in respect of the said lorry with the appellant insurance company and therefore it cannot be said that the said vehicle is not insured with the appellant. The claimant was examined as P.W.1 and filed Ex.A-1 copy of F.I.R in Cr.No.7 of 1998 of Prathipadu P.S., which indicates that the accident occurred solely due to rash and negligent driving of the driver of the said offending vehicle. In the instant case, the driver as well as the owner of the vehicle remained ex parte. The said criminal case was investigated by P.W.3 and as per the investigation report and as per Ex.X-1 copy of case diary the policy number of the crime vehicle was specifically mentioned as valid up to 10.7.1998, whereas the accident occurred on 28.1.1998. To controvert the said particulars mentioned in Ex.X-1, the insurance company examined R.W.1 as well as R.W.2 and contended that the owner did not intimate about the so- called accident of the crime vehicle and he kept quiet and though a letter was addressed to the owner and driver of the vehicle to furnish the particulars of the insurance policy, they failed to furnish the same and therefore it is the case of the insurance company that the vehicle was not insured. But, however, R.Ws.1 and 2 in their examination have admitted that they did not verify with the R.T.O and they have not appointed any investigator to verify about the truth or otherwise of the number of the policy mentioned by the claimant as well as the particulars furnished in Ex.X-1 case diary. As the insurance company did not make any attempt to know the truth or otherwise and place the real facts before the court and as the claimant specifically furnished the policy number of the crime vehicle and about its validity, the Tribunal came to the conclusion that the insurance company was unable to rebut the particulars furnished by the claimant and therefore it cannot be said that the crime vehicle was not insured with the insurance company. More over, they have not even appointed an investigator and did not verify with the R.T.O to know the real facts and in view of the oral and documentary evidence available on record, the Tribunal came to the conclusion that the insurance company failed to disclose the real facts and suppressed the facts to take advantage of the lacuna and laches on the part of the owner and the driver to disown the liability and accordingly rejected the plea of the insurance company. In the light of the aforesaid facts and circumstances of the case and in view of the oral evidence P.Ws.1 and 3 coupled with Ex.X-1 case diary, it cannot be said that the said crime vehicle was not covered by the insurance policy and therefore the judgment relied by the learned counsel for the appellant in C.M.A.No.271 of 2001, dated 28.8.2008, has no application to the facts of the present case. Therefore, the contentions of the learned counsel for the appellant cannot be accepted. I do not see any merit in the appeal. The appeal is accordingly dismissed. No order as to costs. ________________ V.ESWARAIAH, J. 15.7.2010 kpr