SHANKERAPPA Vs. NATIONAL INSURANCE CO LTD

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS appeal is filed by the owner of the vehicle to challenge the judgment and award dated 15. 1. 1993 in mvc No. 51 of 1987 passed by the motor accidents claims tribunal, bidar (district judge, bidar ). In passing the same, the m. a. c. t. had fastened the entire liability on the appellant. The grievance of the appellant herein is that the m. a. c. t. would have fastened the liability also on the respondent No. 1 insurance company.

(2.) I heard the learned counsel for the appellant owner, Mr. Manikappa patil and the learned counsel, Mr. G. r. ramesh, appearing for the respondent No. 1 insurance company. The respondent No. 2 is represented by Mr. B. a. chandrashekar, whereas the respondent No. 3 claimant is represented by Mr. M. v. seshachala. I have also perused the case records together with the records of the m. a. c. t. below.

(3.) THE case requires narration of the facts and the same are as hereunder: that the respondent No. 3 had filed a claim petition before the motor accidents claims tribunal, bidar (henceforth in brief as 'm. a. c. t. ') claiming compensation of Rs. 2,54,000 for accident injuries he had suffered in hands of the respondent No. 2 driver of the lorry bearing registration No. Myj 3705. The vehicle in question was originally owned by one mohd. Kasim patel, who had obtained an insurance policy, a copy as at exh. Rl, from the respondent No. 1 insurance company on 3. 12. 1985, covering the third party risk for a period from 3. 12. 1985 to 2. 12. 1986. That, subsequently on 16. 5. 1986, the said kasim patel sold the lorry in question to the appellant and accordingly on 16. 5. 86, the original owner mohd. Kasim patel had also addressed a letter dated 16. 5. 1986 to the respondent No. 1 insurance company under exh. R4 requesting the respondent No. 1 insurance company to transfer the interest vested in the policy in the name and favour of the appellant herein. In so doing, the original owner had also surrendered the insurance certificate under the said letter. That on very date, 16. 5. 1986, the appellant herein had also given a proposal form to the respondent No. 1 insurance company, the original whereof is at exh. R5 on the records of the m. a. c. t. that, in pursuance of the said letter of the original owner, the respondent No. 1 insurance company had issued a policy as per exh. R3, wherein it had been shown specifically that the policy in question would be alive from 16. 5. 86 to 2. 12. 1987. That in the meantime on 11. 12. 1986 the vehicle in question met with an accident resulting in the accident injuries to the respondent No. 3 and further resulting in filing the claim petition before the m. a. c. t. that the appellant owner as well as the respondent No. 1 insurance company had opposed the claim of the respondent No. 3 before the m. a. c. t. disputing every contention of the respondent No. 3 claimant and further contending in the objection statement that his vehicle was insured with the respondent No. 1 insurance company and the insurance was in force on the date of the accident and in the event the compensation was to be awarded by the m. a. c. t. , the respondent No. 1 insurance company was liable to indemnify the liability of the appellant owner. Per contra, the respondent No. 1 insurance company while disputing all the contentions of the respondent No. 3 claimant contended before the m. a. c. t. that the vehicle was originally owned by one mohd. Kasim patel and that he was issued with a policy valid from 3. 12. 1985 to 2. 12. 1986. That subsequently, the vehicle was transferred by the said mohd. Kasim patel to the appellant herein and that the second policy was issued to the appellant, copy as at exh. R3 wherein the expiry date of the insurance coverage was shown as 2. 12. 87 instead of 2. 12. 1986 by mistake and that there was no valid insurance on the date of accident and as such the insurance company was not liable to pay the compensation to the respondent No. 3 claimant. Based on the pleadings, the m. a. c. t. had framed four issues and further framed two additional issues. The respondent No. 3 claimant had examined himself and examined three other doctor witnesses and further marked 15 documents, whereas the respondent No. 1 insurance company had examined its assistant branch manager as rw 1 and further marked 8 documents including the original insurance policy, exh. Rl, true copy of the insurance certificate in the name of the appellant, exh. R3, original consent letter of mohd. Kasim patel, exh. R4, proposal form of the appellant owner, exh. R5, original certificate issued to the appellant owner, exh. R6. Based on the evidence on record, the m. a. c. t. while awarding a global compensation of Rs. 60,500 together with interest at 6 per cent per annum had fastened the liability exclusively on the appellant owner on the ground that there was no valid insurance policy as on the date of the accident and that no premium was paid to cover the insurance coverage for the period beyond 2. 12. 1986, having been aggrieved with the said finding, the appellant owner is before this court resoring to the instant appeal.