THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE T.AMARNATH GOUD
M.A.C.M.A. NO.1470 OF 2016
JUDGMENT:
This appeal is preferred by the appellant-Insurance Company questioning the Order and Decree of the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal-cum-I-Additional District Judge, Rangana Reddy (for short, the Tribunal) in O.P.No.996 of 2011, dated 16.11.2015.
2. The brief facts of the case are that on 01.05.2011, when the respondent/claimant and another were standing by the side of the road beside a motor cycle bearing No.AP29BB 6418 at Kallem Janga Reddy Garden, Bongloor gate, Ibrahimpatnam, Ranga Reddy District at about 6.30 P.M., a car bearing No.AP28AD 3434 came at high speed in a rash and negligent manner and dashed the respondent/claimant and another. As a result, the respondent/claimant sustained injuries. Immediately, he was shifted to Gandhi Hospital, Secunderabad, where he took treatment as inpatient and he underwent two surgeries on 03.05.2011 and 07.06.2011. His right leg was amputated above the knee joint and he was discharged from the hospital on 15.06.2011. He filed the aforesaid petition against the owner (respondent No.2 herein) and insurer of the car (appellant herein), claiming compensation of Rs.10,00,000/- for the injuries sustained by him.
3. Before the Tribunal, the owner of the car, remained ex parte. The appellant-Insurance Company filed its counter denying the allegations and contended that the policy was not in 2 force on the date of accident and that the amount claimed by the respondent/claimant is highly excessive and that it is not liable to pay any compensation, therefore prayed to dismiss the claim petition.
4. After considering the oral and documentary evidence on record, the Tribunal came to the conclusion that the accident occurred due to the rash and negligent driving of the driver of the car and awarded total compensation of Rs.12,28,000/- under various heads, with interest at the rate of 9% per annum. Aggrieved by the said Judgment, the appellant-Insurance Company filed the present appeal.
5. Sri A.Ramakrishna Reddy, learned standing counsel appearing for the appellant-insurance company, submitted that the Tribunal failed to appreciate that the policy was issued to the car bearing No.AP28AD 3434 for a period of one year commencing from 03.05.2011 to 02.05.2012, whereas the accident took place on 01.05.2011 i.e., before commencement of the policy period, therefore, it is clear that the appellant insurance company has no liability to indemnify the insured owner, but the Tribunal relying on the cover note, fastened liability on the appellant insurance company.
6. Sri Nageswara Rao Repakula, learned counsel appearing for respondent submitted that the Tribunal has passed a well reasoned Judgment and therefore sought to dismiss the appeal.
7. Admittedly, the earlier policy was in force from 29.04.2010 to 28.04.2011. The appellant insurance company issued cover 3 note in respect of the policy for the vehicle is 2300567818 and as per the cover note, cheque was issued to the agent of the company on 29.04.2011, but the insurance company has not mentioned the date of presentation of the cheque for realization. The appellant insurance company also has not produced the bank statement to show that on which date the cheque was issued towards the premium and when it was presented for realization.
8. The perusal of record reveals that the accident took place on 01.05.2011 and the proposal for insurance was received on 02.05.2011 and the vehicle was inspected on 02.05.2011 i.e., subsequent to the accident. When the accident took place on 01.05.2011, it is not known why the inspection was made on the next date for issuing the insurance policy and what made the insurance company to issue the policy from 03.05.2011 to 02.05.2012 when the previous policy was in force from 29.04.2010 to 28.04.2011. It shows that the cheque was received on 29.04.2011 and cover note was issued on the same day and when the accident was occurred on 01.05.2011, the insurance company conveniently issued the policy from 03.05.2011 to escape from the liability and therefore, the action of the appellant insurance company cannot be accepted. The appellant insurance company instead of renewing the policy from 29.04.2011 to 28.04.2012, postponed the renewal from 03.05.2011 to 02.05.2012 for the reasons best known to it. There are laches on the part of the appellant insurance company and it approached the Court by suppressing the real facts and therefore, the relief sought by the appellant cannot be granted. 4
9. During the course of arguments, this Court has pointed out with regard to the policy period in the cover note from 29.04.2011 to 28.04.2012, so what made the insurance company to issue another policy from 03.05.2011 to 02.05.2012. The learned standing counsel appearing for the appellant insurance company submitted that some mischief has taken place in issuing the insurance policy, but he could not convince this Court with regard to the said mischief. If this is the case, the entire fault cannot be thrown against the insurer. The policy will not be issued unless the insurance company officials are convinced and keeping their eyes wide open, issued the policy. For the deliberate action of the insurance company officials, the legitimate claim made by the claimant cannot be denied.
10. The learned standing counsel for the appellant insurance company has not placed before this Court and also not submitted that if the subject policy is obtained by playing fraud and by suppressing the accident, nothing prevented the insurance company from initiating action against their staff members who are involved in issuing the policy. It is also not answered before the Tribunal as well as in the High Court with regard to the cheque received from the policy holder by the insurance company on 29.04.2011. No evidence has been placed before the Tribunal to show that the cheque was issued ante date with a malafide intention to obtain the policy by playing fraud. Since the insurance company has not properly established its case before the Tribunal, it cannot improve the same at the appellate stage. In view of the same, this Court is 5 not inclined to consider the contentions of the appellate insurance company and finds that the judgment passed by the Tribunal is just and proper and it needs no interference.
11. In view of the above discussion, the Motor Accident Civil Miscellaneous Appeal is dismissed and the Judgment dated 16.11.2015 in M.V.O.P.No.996 of 2011 on the file of Motor Accident Claims Tribunal-cum-I-Additional District Judge, Ranga Reddy is confirmed. Miscellaneous petitions pending, if any, shall stand dismissed. No order as to costs.
________________________ T.AMARNATH GOUD, J Date:15-09-2021 Shr