HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE GHULAM MOHAMMED C.M.A.N0. 2049 OF 2002 JUDGMENT: This Appeal under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, is directed against the order dated 5.9.2000 passed by the Motor Vehicles Accident Claims Tribunal cum Principal District Judge, Warangal (for short ‘the Tribunal’) in OP No. 97 of 1998 filed by the claimants claiming compensation of Rs. 1,52,000/- for the death of the deceased Shantamma in a road accident that occurred on 19.1.1997 while the deceased was going in an autorickshaw along with others and when they reached B.C. Hostel the autorickshaw driven by the second respondent in a rash and negligent manner, turned turtle and as a result of which, the deceased died on the spot. Respondents 1 and 2 being driver and owner of the autorickshaw respectively and field their counter affidavits denying all the averments made in the petition. Third respondent, being insurer of the autorickshaw filed its counter denying the averments in the petition. 2. The Tribunal having held that the accident occurred due to rash and negligent driving of the second respondent, the driver of the auto bearing registration No. AP 36 T 4277 and therefore, all the respondents are jointly and severally responsible for payment of compensation from the date of petition till the date of payment. Aggrieved by the same, United India Insurance Company filed the present Civil Miscellaneous Appeal. 3. Sri Naresh Byrapaneni, learned counsel appearing for the appellant submits that the court below failed to appreciate that the appellant has marked Ex. B-1 Insurance Policy valid from 25.9.1995 to 24.9.1996 where as the accident occurred on 19.1.1997 i.e. after expiry of the Insurance Policy and it clearly establishes that the offending vehicle was not covered by Insurance Policy. 4. Heard the learned counsel appearing for the appellant and also perused the entire material made available on record. 5. As seen from the record, it is no doubt true that the accident occurred on 19.1.1997 due to rash and negligent driving of the auto bearing registration No. AP 36 T 4277 by its driver. It is also no doubt true that from the contents of Ex. A1 and A2 and from the evidence of PW-1 it is established beyond doubt that the accident occurred due to rash and negligent driving of driver of the auto and awarded total amount of Rs. 1,03,000/- towards compensation. Be that as it may, the Tribunal did not mention whether the offending vehicle was covered by valid insurance policy as on the date of accident. Even Ex. B1 Insurance Policy valid from 25.9.1995 to 24.9.1996 where as the accident occurred on 19.1.1997 i.e., after expiry of the insurance policy and it clearly establishes that the offending vehicle was not covered by insurance policy. It is also no doubt true that the Tribunal below did not give any finding with regard to issue No.5 as to whether as on the date of accident, the policy exists or not, which is a crucial aspect and decided the matter by granting compensation. Hence, in my considered view, the Tribunal committed a serious error in deciding the matter, hence, the impugned order is liable to be set aside. 6. Accordingly, the Civil Miscellaneous Appeal is allowed and the impugned order dated 05.09.2000 passed by the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal cum Principal District Judge, Warangal, in O.P.No. 97 of 1998, is set aside and the matter is remitted for deciding the issue as to whether as on the date of accident the insurance policy exists or not. There shall be no order as to costs. __________________________ GHULAM MOHAMMED, J Date: 01.7.2010 KA