NEW INDIA ASSURANCE COMPANY LTD Vs. KOTANA APPANNA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This appeal is filed by the Insurance Company which is the second respondent in MAOP No. 15 of 1989 on the file of the District Judge-cum-Chairman, Motor Vehicle Accident Claims Tribunal, Visakhapatnam questioning the award dated 27-7-1989 by which compensation was awarded to the claimants against the owner of the vehicle as well as the appellant/ Insurance Company.

(2.) Respondents 1 to 3 herein are the claimants, 4th respondent herein is the owner of the lorry while the appellant herein is the second respondent in the said O.P. with which the above said lorry is said to have been insured by the time of accident. Claimants 1 and 2 are the parents and the third claimant is the minor brother of the deceased Demudu who was working as labourer under the owner of the lorry and who was travelling in the said lorry on 23-5-1986 when the lorry met with the accident and the deceased received injuries and died on account of such injuries subsequently. The claimants filed the O.P. seeking compensation of Rs.50,000.00 from the owner of the lorry as well as the appellant/ Insurance Company on account of the dealh of deceased in such accident, contending that the accident was on account of rash and negligent driving of the lorry by its driver. On the basis of the evidence placed before it, the Tribunal came to the conclusion that the deceased died on account of the accident which was caused due to the rash and negligent driving of the lorry by its driver. On the basis of the material before it, the Tribunal came to the conclusion that an amount of Rs.28,500.00 shall be awarded as compensation to the claimants and directed the owner as well as the appellant/Insurance Company with joint and several liability lo pay such compensation. The claimants and the owner of the lorry have not questioned the award. The Insurance Company has, however, filed the present appeal questioning the award contending that by the time of accident the lorry was not validly insured with it and there is therefore no liability for it to pay the compensation amount to the claimants.

(3.) Heard both the Counsel.