IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD MONDAY, THE TWENTYFIRST DAY OF MARCH TWO THOUSAND AND ELEVEN HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE G. BHAVANI PRASAD Civil Miscellaneous Appeal No.2575 of 2003 Between: The United India Insurance Company Limited, having its Regional Office at Basheerbagh, Hyderabad .. Appellant AND 1. Shaik Hyder Valli and 2 others .. Respondents JUDGMENT: This appeal is directed against the award dated 7-2-2003 in O.P.No.96 of 1998 on the file of the Chairman, Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal-cum-Additional District Judge, Madanapalle. The 1st respondent in the appeal along with Siddamatam Ismail was going to his house after tailoring work on 15-06-1997 and near the sweet stall of Kanakanti Ramachandra, the tractor No.AP-03-B-5670 driven by the 3rd respondent herein came from behind rashly and negligently in high speed and dashed against the 1st respondent herein and Ismail. The 1st respondent herein was taken to Government Hospital and then to Saint John’s Medical Hospital, Bangalore for the severe injuries suffered. Dr. Sanjeeva Rayudu, Madanapalle later treated him and the total medical expenses were Rs.50,000/-. Hence, the 1st respondent herein claiming to be unable to attend to tailoring work because of fracture injury to the leg sought for a compensation of Rs.1,00,000/- from the owner, driver and insurer of the offending tractor. The owner and insurer contested the claim, while the driver remained ex parte and the contesting respondents claimed that the claimant himself has to establish his age, occupation and income and the injuries, their consequences and treatment. While the owner claimed that the insurer has to pay the compensation as his vehicle was insured, the insurer claimed that the vehicle was not insured at all with it to fasten any liability. The Tribunal framed issues about the responsibility for the accident and injuries to the petitioner and the entitlement of the claimant-petitioner for compensation and from whom and to what extent. The Tribunal examined PWs.1 and 2 and RW.1 and marked Exs.A.1 to A.5 and B.1 and B.2 during the course of enquiry. The Tribunal rendered the impugned award, firstly accepting the evidence of PW.1, which remained uncontroverted, corroborated by Ex.A.1-First Information Report and Ex.A.3- Charge sheet to conclude that the accident took place due to the rash and negligent driving of the tractor. The driver for his tort and the owner vicariously were considered liable to compensate the injured claimant. The Tribunal did not accept the contention of the insurer about the absence of any subsisting insurance policy between 06-04-1996 and 23-06-1997. While the accident took place on 15-06-1997, the earlier policy lapsed and the subsequent policy did not come into force by the time of accident according to the insurer. But, the Tribunal noted that the insurer raised such a plea earlier and considered the insurer liable to indemnify the owner in respect of compensation payable to the 1st respondent herein. The Tribunal assessed the quantum of compensation on the basis of two fractures received by the 1st respondent herein and 40% disability claimed to have been suffered by him. The Tribunal, hence, awarded Rs.10,000/- towards pain and suffering and Rs.20,000/- towards medical expenses, Rs.35,000/- towards loss of income, Rs.5,000/- towards loss of amenities in life and Rs.10,000/- towards future medical expenses, making a total of Rs.80,000/- carrying interest at 9% p.a. from the date of petition till the date of realization and proportionate costs. The joint and several liability fastened to the insurer was challenged by it in this appeal contending that the driver did not possess a valid driving licence for which offence he was prosecuted and in any view, on the date of the accident, the vehicle in question was not covered by any subsisting valid insurance. The Tribunal went wrong in fastening the liability even without any insurance. Heard Sri G.S. Prakash Rao, learned standing counsel for the appellant and Sri Mahadeva Kanthrigala, learned counsel for the 2nd respondent-owner and Sri Manjunath Alluri, learned counsel for the 1st respondent-claimant. Sri G.S. Prakash Rao, learned standing counsel for the appellant brought to notice that in C.M.A.No.2572 of 2003 against the grant of compensation to the other persons injured in the same accident, this Court delivered its verdict of 24-02-2011 concluding that in the absence of any insurance policy on the date of the accident, the insurer is absolved from any liability to compensate the injured. In the present appeal also, though the ownership of the tractor with the 2nd respondent herein, the same being driven by the 3rd respondent herein at the relevant time and the vehicle being insured with the appellant herein during the periods before and after the accident are not in dispute, it has been established before the Tribunal through Exs.B.1 and B.2-polices that there was no valid and subsisting insurance policy for the vehicle on the date of incident. The insurer had specifically pleaded in its counter that the vehicle was not covered by any insurance policy at the time of incident and it is incorrect to state that the insurer did not raise any objection till after the conclusion of the enquiry. The precedent relied on by the Tribunal was a case where a policy of insurance was in subsistence, but the insurer claimed his right to avoid the policy. It was not a case where there was no insurance policy at all and in view of non-existence of the insurance pleaded, the award against the insurer has to be set aside. In the result, the award in O.P.No.96 of 1998 on the file of the Chairman, Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal-cum-Additional District Judge, dated 07-02-2003 against the appellant-3rd respondent is set aside and the O.P.96 of 1998 is dismissed without costs against the appellant/3rd respondent. The appeal is allowed accordingly without costs. _____________________ G. BHAVANI PRASAD, J Date: 21-03-2011 Ksn