Andhra HC (Pre-Telangana)
New India Assurance Co. Ltd. vs Shaik Ashabi And Ors. on 25 November, 1991
Equivalent citations: 1992ACJ811
JUDGMENT G. Radhakrishna Rao, J.
1. Insurance company being dissatisfied with the award of the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Guntur, has filed this appeal.
2. The claim was made on the ground that the driver of the lorry bearing registration No. APK 5373 drove the vehicle rashly and negligently which ultimately resulted in the death of one Shaik Habib, an unmarried boy aged about 19 years. The claimants are mother and younger minor brothers. The court came to the conclusion on the basis of the evidence that the vehicle was driven rashly and negligently and awarded a sum of Rs. 27,500/- with 10 per cent interest. Being aggrieved by the award, the insurance company filed this appeal. The cross-objections also have been filed.
3. So far as the rash and negligent act of the driver is concerned, this court feels on a perusal of the evidence that the finding is correct. It does not warrant any interference. Even the quantum of compensation that has been awarded in the case of the death of a young boy aged about 19 years leaving behind him his mother and two dependants, that means, in all three dependants it cannot be said that it is on the high side. If it is an abnormal amount and not a reasonable amount, this court can interfere. But, taking the loss to the dependants and the death of a young boy of 19 years, this court feels that the award of Rs. 27,500/- would be the reasonable amount.
4. Mr. I.A. Naidu, the learned counsel for the appellant, contended that the production of the policy to show that there is a valid cover subsisting on the date of the accident rests on the claimants and since the claim- ants failed to discharge their duty, the lower court ought not to have fixed the liability on the insurance company. It is true that the claimants have to establish by adducing evidence that there is a valid policy on that day. If they are able to adduce evidence, the burden shifts on the insurance company. The insurance company is at liberty to prove that the policy is not in force or the policy might have been expired. In this case, the vehicle has been inspected and the Motor Vehicles Inspector mentions a particular number, the date of commencement of the policy and the date of expiry of that policy. So we cannot expect the claimants to direct the owner to produce the policy particulars when the owner has turned hostile. When two dates have been given, that is the commencement date and the expiry date, and the number of the policy, it is the duty of the insurance company to prove that on such commencement or expiry dates the policy was not given by that branch. But in this case, they produced one sample policy stating that the digit numbers that are given to the Vijayawada Branch are different from the digit numbers that have been mentioned in the Motor Vehicles Inspector's report. By mere producing a sample policy, it cannot be said that the insurance company can get away saying that there is no policy at all. When the number of the policy, the commencement date and the expiry date and the Branch number have been given, it is not difficult for the insurance company to make a search for those dates and produce evidence to the effect that on that particular day, no policy was given to the vehicle in question. By producing a sample document, it cannot be said that it has rebutted the evidence that has been let in. So long as the entry that has been there in the Motor Vehicles Inspector's report with the expiry and commencement dates and number, it cannot be said that they have failed to prove that there is no valid cover. The learned counsel for the respondents submitted that sufficient time has been given by the Tribunal to produce evidence with regard to the insurance policy and the insurance company has not produced the same. Under these circumstances the finding that has been given by the court below that the insurance company is liable to pay compensation has been confirmed. The claimants are entitled to 12 per cent as against 10 per cent interest awarded by the Tribunal.
5. The C.M.A. and the cross-objections are dismissed. No costs in each.