NEW INDIA ASSURANCE COMPANY LIMITED Vs. T SLVARAMLREDDY

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The award of the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Anantapur in OP. No. 259 of 1988 dated 17-9-1990 is challenged by the appellant/insurer in regard to the liability placed on it to indemnify the owner of the vehicle in paying the compensation in a motor vehicle claim lodged under Section 110-A of the MV Act, 1939 (for short, the Act), on the ground that the vehicle involved in the accident was not insured with the insurer to be in force for the purpose of indemnifying the owner of the vehicle.

(2.) The matter is dealt with by the Tribunal in para 6 of the Judgment. R.W.1 an officer of the insurer testified on oath positively that the Tractor-Trailor bearing Nos. MYK 5846 and 5847 which were involved in the accident was insured with effect from 6-5-1987 to 5-5-1988 and it was not renewed subsequently and that there was no insurance on the vehicle existing on 13-6-1988, the date of the accident. He also asserted that he was stating so after due verification of the records. The Tribunal, inspite of such evidence did not accept the same on the ground that the relevant records pertaining to the registration of the policies and the amounts of premium received therefrom were not produced. The perverse approach of the matter has led to the judicial impropriety and serious legal infirmity. The liability of the insurer to indemnify the owner of the vehicle involved in the accident arises only out of the terms of the contract under the policy of insurance. Fundamentally, the Tribunal has to come to the conclusion based on materials on record whether the vehicle was insured or not as on the date of the accident to operate the indemnity clause, both from the terms of the contract and from the effect of the statute. In other words, notwithstanding the burden of proof or otherwise, the liability of the insurer being the very proof of the insurance itself, the absence of the same cannot justify the Tribunal to impose such a liability. It cannot be one of the defences to avoid the insurance, but the basic question is whether at all the vehicle was insured or not. When an officer of the insurance company takes positive oath to the effect that the verification of the records did not disclose the existence of a policy as on the date of the accident (i.e., 13-6-1988) and when the owner of the vehicle did not produce the insurance policy and when the claimant did not furnish any particulars, there was no reason for the Tribunal to reject such evidence. When an expired policy for the period upto 5-5-1988 was produced, it was for the owner to produce any renewed policy or the fresh policy to be operative as on the date of the accident. In the absence of such fulfillment of the conditions to prove the existence of the policy, the Tribunal had no reason to mulct the insurer to indemnify the owner of the vehicle to pay the compensation. Such a finding deserves to be set aside.

(3.) There is no representation for the respondents to persuade this Court to take any other view in the matter.