1. Two different appeals have been filed against the award passed in M.V.O.P.No.390 of 2016 on the file of the District Judge, Nizamabad, by which
the Court below allowed the petition filed by claimant and awarded a sum of Rs.47,900/-as compensation together with costs and interest @ 7.5% per
annum on the ground of the injuries caused to the claimant in a road traffic accident.
2. M.A.C.M.A. No.649 of 2018 has been filed by the insurance company which is shown as R2 in the said O.P. with a prayer to set aside the award
on the ground that there was no contract between the insurance company and owner of the vehicle involved in the accident to pay the amount on
behalf of owner of the vehicle, whereas, M.A.C.M.A. No.893 of 2018 has been filed by the claimant i.e., petitioner in the above referred O.P. with a
prayer to enhance the compensation from Rs.47,900/- to Rs.2,00,000/-. Since both the appeals are against the same award and arguments of the
respective appellants are common in the appeals, I am proposing to dispose both the appeals under a common Judgment.
3. One Kasam Srinivas Reddy, who herein after will be referred as petitioner has filed M.V.O.P.No.393 of 2016 under Section 166 of the Motor
Vehicles Act, seeking compensation and it was his case that on 09.03.2016 at about 3.00 p.m., while he was standing in front of Syndicate Bank,
Hyderabad road at Nizamabad, the driver of Auto bearing No.TS16UA8171 drove the auto in a rash and negligent manner, dashed the petitioner, ran
over his left foot, thereby, he suffered multiple injuries including fracture of left foot, left leg toes, crush injuries to the left foot. He has filed the petition
seeking the amount of Rs.2,00,000/- as compensation on various grounds and he has claimed that he spent Rs.80,000/- for treatment.
4. The owner of the vehicle who is shown as first respondent did not choose to contest the petition, whereas, insurance company i.e., M/s.
Cholamandalam M.S.General Insurance Company Limited, who herein after will be referred as respondent contested the petition on the ground that
the policy against the above referred auto was issued only on 30.03.2016 and it was effective up to 29.03.2017. Since the accident occurred on
09.03.2017, the respondent is not liable to pay any compensation to the petitioner. The insurance company further pleaded that there was delay in filing
complaint about the accident, as such, sought for dismissal.
5. Both parties adduced oral and documentary evidence. The Court below believed the claim of petitioner/claimant and allowed his petition sanctioning
a sum of Rs.47,900/- only as compensation. The claim of petitioner about physical disability was not accepted. The contention of the insurance
company that there was no valid insurance policy on the date of accident was also not accepted by the Court below.
6. The petitioner who sought for a sum of Rs.2,00,000/-and who was awarded a sum of Rs.47,900/- only filed the appeal stating that he is entitled to
Rs.2,00,000/-. According to the grounds on which the appeal is preferred, it is claimed that the petitioner suffered grievous injuries including fractures
and crush injuries. He has marked Ex.A4/injury certificate and examined Doctor. Therefore, he could prove that he suffered 50% of disability,
thereby, he is entitled to Rs.1,00,000/- towards permanent disability, Rs.1,00,000/-towards medical expenses, Rs.1,00,000/- towards pain and
sufferance a part from Rs.50,000/- towards loss of income.
7. The insurance company filed the appeal on the ground that there was no valid insurance policy issued against the above referred auto on the date of
alleged accident. According to the grounds of appeal, the insurance company has pleaded that they have examined their officer as RW.1 and marked
Exs.B1 and B2. The policy was issued and valid from 30.03.2016 to 29.03.2017. The accident occurred on 09.03.2017. The Court below did not
consider the claim of insurance company and simply relied on Ex.A7, a photo copy of proposal form, which was not issued by the insurance company.
While disputing the correctness of Ex.A.7 and while placing reliance on evidence of RW.1 and Exs.B1 and B2, the insurance company claimed that it
is not liable to pay any compensation to the petitioner/claimant. While disputing the award on other grounds like lack of evidence about the income of
the petitioner, the insurance company sought for setting aside the award.
8. In view of the above pleadings and arguments advanced by the respective counsels, the following points arose for consideration:
1. Whether there is valid insurance company between the insurance company (R2) and owner of the auto?
2. Whether the compensation awarded to the petitioner namely Rs.47,900/- is low and whether the petitioner/claimant is entitled to seek enhancement
of the compensation? If so, to what amount ?
9. The insurance company is disputing the liability to pay the compensation. The main ground is with regard to dates during which the policy was valid.
According to the case of petitioner and as per the arguments advanced by the learned counsel for the petitioner, it was the case of petitioner that
proposal to obtain insurance policy i.e., auto was generated on 29.02.2016 and the policy was valid from 29.02.2016 to 28.02.2017. In support of this
plea, the petitioner relied on photo copy of proposal said to have been obtained from the respondent insurance company. Whereas, the insurance
company has specifically claimed that insurance policy against the vehicle was obtained on 30.03.2016 and the policy was valid from 30.03.2016 to
29.03.2017. Since, the accident occurred on 09.03.2016, the Insurance company is not liable to pay any compensation. It is a fact that the claim of
petitioner with regard to the validity of policy based on Ex.A7, a photo copy of proposal said to have been obtained from the insurance company. As
per the evidence of RW.1, the number of engine and chassis mentioned in Ex.A7 and Exs.B1 and B2 are one and the same. The contact number of
the owner of the vehicle is mentioned on Ex.A7. RW.1 has admitted that RTA will not register the vehicle unless a valid insurance policy was
obtained. It is also elicited from RW.1 that bar code on Ex.A7 differs from bar code on Ex.B1. It is true that RW.1 was admitted that the premium
amount of Rs.9,007/- is mentioned on Ex.A7 and Ex.B1. Ex.A7 is not tallied with Ex.B1. The learned counsel for the insurance company has argued
that Ex.A7 is a fake document. The original of Ex.A7 is not summoned and there is no evidence before the Court to believe that it is valid and true
copy of the proposal obtained from the insurance company. It may be true that the Registration Authority may not register the vehicle, in the absence
of an insurance policy. But simply because registration cannot be obtained, the liability to pay compensation cannot be fastened to the insurance
company without there being a supporting evidence that a valid policy was obtained from the insurance company. It is true the engine number, chassis
number of the vehicle and contact number of the owner of the vehicle correctly mentioned on the document. The owner of the vehicle who is shown
as R1 did not choose to contest the petition. It is very easy for him to furnish those details for creating a document like Ex.A7. In the absence of any
proof or evidence that Ex.A7 was obtained from a genuine document, the same cannot be accepted. Ex.B1 and Ex.B2 clearly shows that the policy
was obtained and valid only from 30.03.2016. Therefore, there was no contract between the insurance company and owner of the vehicle, thereby,
the liability to pay compensation cannot be fastened to the insurance company. Therefore, the appeal preferred by insurance company can be allowed.
10. The Court below gave reasoning for awarding Rs.47,900/- as compensation on various heads. According to the petitioner, he suffered fractures
and crush injuries and to prove this claim, he has examined one Dr. J.Rakesh as PW.2. However, as per the record, one Dr. Badrish Singh examined
the petitioner soon after the accident and issued a wound certificate. PW.2 gave evidence only on the basis of the entries in the injury certificate. In
order to prove his claim that he suffered 50% disability, the petitioner has marked Ex.A5. In fact Ex.A5 was issued by one Dr.K.Laxminarayana but
he was not examined before the Court below. The petitioner could not produce any evidence to prove that he suffered 50% disability. Having
accepted the evidence of PWs.1 and 2 and entries in Ex.A4, the Court below awarded a sum of Rs.50,000/- towards compensation against injuries
and Rs.15,000/- towards loss of income. The petitioner did not produce any evidence in support of his income, though he claimed that he is a private
employee. Therefore, the Court below considered his monthly income as Rs.5,000/- per month and awarded Rs.15,000/- towards loss of income for
three months. In addition to the above Rs.10,000/- was awarded as transportation charges and Rs.7,900/- towards medical expenses based on Ex.A6
bills. Therefore, there is no material to award additional compensation to the petitioner.
11. In view of my finding that the insurance company is not liable to pay compensation, the petitioner can claim the amount from the owner of the
vehicle. In the absence of a valid policy between the owner and insurance company, the petitioner/claimant is not entitled to get the compensation
amount from the insurance company. While filing appeal and after depositing Rs.25,000/- against the decretal amount, insurance company moved
application vide I.A.No.1 of 2018 and stay was granted.
12. The petitioner/claimant is entitled to claim the remaining amount from the owner of the vehicle and the insurance company since already deposited
Rs.25,000/- can recover the amount from the owner of the vehicle.
13. In the result, M.A.C.M.A. No.893 of 2018 filed by the petitioner/claimant is dismissed. M.A.C.M.A. No.649 of 2018 filed by the insurance
company is allowed setting aside the award against the insurance company. However, since the insurance company already deposited Rs.25,000/-, it
can recover the said amount from the owner of the auto involved in the accident. The petitioner/claimant is entitled to get the balance amount and
interest thereon from the owner of the auto by which he suffered injuries.
Miscellaneous applications, if any pending, shall stand closed. There shall be no order as to costs.
