Andhra Pradesh High Court - Amravati
Oriental Insurance Company Ltd vs Salapuriappa & Others on 5 March, 2026
APHC010016322004
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH
AT AMARAVATI [2612]
(Special Original Jurisdiction)
Thursday, the Fifth day of March
Two Thousand and Twenty Six
Present
The Honourable Ms. Justice B.S.Bhanumathi
I.A.No.2 of 2017 (C.M.A.M.P.No.1398 of 2017)
in
Civil Miscellaneous Appeal No: 2647 of 2004
Between:
Oriental Insurance Company Ltd. ...Appellant
and
Kusamanchi Krishnajee and others ...Respondents
Counsel for the petitioner:
1. N.S.Bhaskara Rao
Counsel for the respondents:
1. Jayanti S.C. Sekhar
The Court made the following:
2
I.A.No.2 of 2017 in
C.M.A.No.2647 of 2004
ORDER:
This petition is filed by the respondent No.3 under Order XLVII, Rule 1 read with Section 114 C.P.C. to review the judgment dated 08.07.2016 in C.M.A.No.2647 of 2004.
2. The facts leading to filing of this petition are briefly stated as follows:
a. The respondent No.1 herein filed a claim petition on 28.08.1992 against the respondents Nos.2, 3 and the petitioner herein, seeking compensation under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (in short 'the Act') in respect of accident occurred on 11.09.1991. The respondents Nos.1 and 2 before the Tribunal, remained ex parte, whereas the petitioner herein / respondent No.3 before the Tribunal opposed the petition raising various pleas, mainly stating that the claim was barred by limitation because as per Section 166 (3) of the Act, before its amendment in the year 1994, a claim shall be filed within six months from the date of the cause of action and the said period can be further extended to six months in case of sufficient cause shown for not filing the claim within the initial period of six months.
b. The Tribunal concluded that the claimant is entitled to compensation of Rs.1,31,640/-, however, dismissed the claim petition as it was filed beyond the period of limitation as per law applicable to the date of the accident, by referring to the decision of the division Bench of this High Court reported in New India Assurance Co. Ltd., Vs. Salapuriappa & others1 , wherein it was held that the amendment has no retrospective effect.1
1996 (2) ALT 330 3 I.A.No.2 of 2017 in C.M.A.No.2647 of 2004 c. Aggrieved by the award and the decree, the claimant preferred C.M.A.No.2647 of 2004 (with delay of 2000 days condoned by order dated 28.07.2004 in C.M.P.No.9538 of 2003) mainly on the ground that the Tribunal erroneously dismissed the claim on the ground of limitation.
d. Basing on the decision of the Supreme Court in Dhannalal Vs. D.P.Vijayyargiya 2 , followed in New India Assurance Company Limited Vs. C.Padma3, wherein it was held that the claim in respect of the accident occurred before the amendment of 1994 (w.e.f. 14.11.1994) is not hit by the period of limitation as was in the Section 166(3) before its amendment, this Court in C.M.A.No.2647 of 2004 held that the claim is not barred by limitation. Apart from sustaining the amount of compensation of Rs.1,31,640/-, arrived by the Tribunal, this Court granted interest @ 7.5% per annum from 16.10.1995 (the date of registration of the claim petition by the Tribunal) till realization, without costs.
e. Aggrieved by the judgment, this review petition was filed by the insurance company stating that the Court ought to have seen that there was no policy issued by the insurer covering the risk as no details of policy were furnished by the claimant.
3. The learned counsel for the review petitioner submitted that there was no policy issued in respect of the offending vehicle as on the date of the accident and therefore, there is no liability to the insurance company, however, in view of the direction of this Court dated 19.12.2017 in C.M.A.M.P.No.1399 of 2017 filed along with the review petition, to deposit 50% of the compensation amount with accrued interest awarded by this Court, the insurance company had deposited 2 (1996) 4 SCC 652 3 2003 ACJ 1999 (SC) 4 I.A.No.2 of 2017 in C.M.A.No.2647 of 2004 the amount before the Tribunal and by then, no policy could be traced even to comply the direction.
4. No counter is filed. Sri Jayanti S.C. Sekhar, learned counsel for the respondent No.1 / appellant / claimant submitted to pass appropriate order as the respondent No.1 has not given instructions in this petition in spite of information given to him.
5. There is no reference to policy particulars anywhere in the award of the Tribunal or in the judgment of this Court. No specific plea of non- issue of policy was taken in the counter of the insurance company before the Tribunal, nor was any witness examined by the company and consequently, no discussion was made by the Tribunal or the High Court in this regard. But it is mentioned in the counter that the claimant shall prove that there was a valid policy of insurance subsisting as on the date of the accident and that even if there was a policy, for non- compliance of Section 64-VB of the Insurance Act, 1938 read with Rules 58 and 59 of the Insurance Rules, the claim cannot be allowed against the insurance company.
6. In the documentary evidence filed by the claimant, no copy of the Motor Vehicle Inspector's report was found. Had it been filed, the particulars of the policy recorded therein would have been of much help. It is usual practice to file a copy of such report by the claimant as evidence. In this case, its non-filing has significance. That apart, one of the columns of the prescribed format of the application for claim before a Tribunal deals with the particulars of the policy, such as, the period, policy number, name of the insurer etc. These details enable the insurance company to take appropriate defence.
7. Even now, since the claimant failed to provide the particulars of the policy of insurance by filing counter or in any other manner, the 5 I.A.No.2 of 2017 in C.M.A.No.2647 of 2004 contention of the insurance company in this regard remains affirmed. In the absence of proof of existence of valid policy, issued by the insurance company in favour of the owner of the offending vehicle, subsisting as on the date of the accident, there can be no liability fastened against the insurance company.
8. The omission to examine the relationship of insurer and the insured in the judgment dated 08.07.2016 being obvious from the record, it is a fit case to review the judgment on a material aspect of liability. Accordingly, this Court is of the view that the judgment needs review.
9. In the result, the petition is allowed and the judgment dated 08.07.2016 in C.M.A.No.2647 of 2004 is set aside to the extent of liability fastened against the respondent No.3 therein and the rest of the judgment fastening liability on the other respondents remains intact. Since the review petitioner deposited the amount of 50% of the awarded amount with interest as noted above, the review petitioner is permitted to withdraw the same without furnishing any security.
___________________ B. S. BHANUMATHI, J Date: 05.03.2026.
NSM 6 I.A.No.2 of 2017 in C.M.A.No.2647 of 2004 The Honourable Ms. Justice B.S.Bhanumathi I.A.No.2 of 2017 (C.M.A.M.P.No.1398 of 2017) in Civil Miscellaneous Appeal No: 2647 of 2004 Date: 05.03.2026.
NSM