AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
Neelam Sanjiva Reddy, J.—The insurer, respondent No. 3 in O.P. No. 45 of 1987 on the file of the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal-cum-District Judge, Visakhapatnam preferred this appeal.
Romana Welcome, aged about 12 years, studying in 7th standard died on 28.8.1986 in a motor vehicle accident caused due to actionable negligence of the bus ADJ 9522. The father of the deceased filed the above claim petition claiming a total compensation of Rs. 15,000/- from the driver, owner and insurer of the bus ADJ 9522. Driver and owner remained absent and the matter was proceeded ex parte. The insurer resisted the claim by filing a counter pleading that the vehicle was not insured with them and they are not liable to pay any compensation. The Tribunal, after considering the evidence on record, found that the vehicle was insured with the insurer and awarded a compensation of Rs. 15,000/- against the driver, owner and insurer with joint and several liability.
Learned Counsel for the appellant assails the finding of the Tribunal with regard to insurance of the bus with the appellant. The claimant marked Exh. A-3, a certified copy of Motor Vehicle Inspector''s report. It shows that the accident vehicle was inspected by the Motor Vehicle Inspector immediately after the accident and submitted the original of Exh. A-3. Exh. A-3 is a proforma prescribed under the rules to be filled up by the Motor Vehicle Inspector. Column (15) of Exh. A-3 relates to date of expiry of insurance, name and address of the company with the policy numbers and certificates. As against this column, the Motor Vehicle Inspector noted:
I.C. Cover Note No. 176514, the New India Assurance Co. Ltd. valid up to 17.5.1987 (comprehensive).
Inspection and submission of original Exh. 3 by the Motor Vehicle Inspector was done in discharge of his duties as mandated by the Rules. There is no evidence adduced on behalf of the insurer contradicting the information given by Motor Vehicle Inspector in column (15) of Exh. A-3. From Exh. A-3, in the absence of the contradictory evidence adduced on behalf of the insurer, it has to be accepted that the vehicle in question was insured and the policy was in force by the date of the accident.
For the above reasons, I do not find any substance in the contention of the learned Counsel for the appellant.
In the result, the appeal is dismissed with costs.