IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD WEDNESDAY, THE SECOND DAY OF FEBRUARY TWO THOUSAND AND ELEVEN Present HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE G. BHAVANI PRASAD CIVIL MISCELLANEOUS APPEAL No.1867 of 2003 Between: The United India Insurance Co. Ltd. .. Appellant AND B. Kurmayya alias Jangamayya & 2 others .. Respondents The Court made the following: HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE G. BHAVANI PRASAD CIVIL MISCELLANEOUS APPEAL No.1867 of 2003 JUDGMENT: This appeal is directed against the award in M.V.O.P.No.162 of 1997, on the file of the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal-cum- I Additional District Judge, Srikakulam, dated 07.06.2001. 2. The first respondent herein claimed to be travelling by tractor-trailer No.AAS 3126 and 3127 for bringing a load of sand to Palasa on 24.09.1994 at about 1.30 p.m. and near Sunnadevi Gate, the first respondent drove lorry No.WB/33/0886 rashly and negligently in high speed and dashed the tractor-trailer from behind. The first respondent herein claimed to have sustained a fracture of the right thigh and to have been treated at Government Hospital, Palasa, and then at K.G. Hospital, Visakhapatnam, where he underwent a surgery and was discharged after about 45 days. He claimed to have taken treatment at a private hospital in Kasibugga for about 15 days later and to have suffered pain, agony, loss of income, etc. He claimed a compensation of Rs.45,000/- from the appellant and respondents 2 and 3 herein who are the insurer, driver and owner of the lorry and he claimed the lorry to be insured under Policy No.0303689/31/196502 valid from 15.12.1993 to 14.12.1994. 3. The claim was dismissed for default against the driver of the lorry, while the owner remained ex parte before the Tribunal. The insurer claimed the accident to have occurred due to the rashness and negligence of the tractor-trailer driver and the claimant was put to strict proof of the existence of a valid insurance policy. 4. The petition was first referred to the Lok Adalat, Srikakulam, and on a joint memo filed by the claimant and the insurer, the claim was settled before the Lok Adalat for Rs.40,000/-. However, for want of confirmation of the insurance policy, the matter was pending and the Tribunal examined P.W.1 and marked Exs.A-1 to A-4, C-1 and C-2 during the enquiry. 5. The Tribunal decided in the impugned award the right of the claimant to compensation and interest. The Tribunal referred to the evidence and pleadings in detail and particularly noted that Ex.A-2-Motor Vehicles Inspector’s Report was after inspection of the lorry No. WB/33/0886 which was covered by the insurance policy No.0303689/31/196502 of the appellant valid from 15.12.1993 to 14.12.1994. While deciding on merits the right of the claimant to compensation agreed before the Lok Adalat, the Tribunal concluded that the owner and the insurer of the lorry are jointly and severally liable to pay the same with interest at 9% per annum and proportionate costs. 6. The appellant is before this Court solely on the question of the verification having disclosed that no insurance policy was issued by the appellant. Hence, the appellant desired the impugned award to be reversed, more so, due to non-verification as to whether the claimant received any compensation direct from the owner. 7. Heard Sri E. Venugopal Reddy, learned counsel for the appellant and Sri A. Rama Rao, learned counsel for the claimant. 8. The only point for consideration is about the existence of a valid and subsisting insurance policy, the quantum of compensation being agreed before the Lok Adalat and having become final. 9. Ex.A-2-Motor Vehicles Inspector’s Report can be presumed under Section 114 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872, to have been duly prepared following the prescribed procedure and in the absence of any evidence in rebuttal, the contents therein need not be doubted. The Motor Vehicles Inspector stated in the report about the number of the existing insurance policy issued by the appellant and the appellant did not produce any evidence to the contrary before the Tribunal. If it had found on verification that no such policy was issued by it, it ought to have stated the same before the Tribunal through appropriate oral or documentary evidence and in its absence, the contents of Ex.A-2 should be taken as disproving the claims of the appellant. The impugned award cannot be, therefore, interfered with. 10. In the result, the Civil Miscellaneous Appeal is dismissed without costs. _____________________ G. BHAVANI PRASAD, J Date: 2nd February, 2011 KL HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE G. BHAVANI PRASAD CIVIL MISCELLANEOUS APPEAL No.1867 of 2003 Date: 2nd February, 2011 KL