The High Court · 2025

Amlapu Srinu, S/<t Narsimlu. Aged.52 years , Occ. Driver of ()il Tanker Lorry bearing No. AP-1r3-TD-4511, Rro Raafadu Village of Govapuram Mandal, Vijayanaga ram. ...Respondent Nos.1 to 3/Petitoners -v / 5 Bharath Kumar Appana, S/o.Kishore Babu Ag-edMajor, Owner of Oil Tanker b";;i; r.ro Ap-r6:ro-4511, R/o H No. 1-3-16, Dr B R Ambedkar Road. Vidhyatharapuram, VijaYawada AP ...Respondent No.4 & S/Respondent No'1 & 2' Counsel for the Appellant : Sri A.Ramakrishna Reddy Counsel for the ResPondents : Sri A.RajaShekar ReddY and Sri S.Surender ReddY The Court made the following : COMMON JUDGMENT THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE GADI PRAVEEN. KU]VIAR M.A.C.M. A. Nos.22 and 922 of2024 COMMO N JLDGMENT: Heard Sri A.Ramakrishna Reddy, learned courrsel for the appellant and llri A'Rajashekar Reddy and Sri S'surcrrder Reddy' learned Counsl]l lor the respondents at length and :lerused the record

2. M.A.C.VI.A.N o.22 ol 2024 is filed by th': Appellant- Insurance Cornpany being aggrieved by the order ;'iLssed by the Motor Accide nts claims Tribunal-cum-Principal Distr.ict Judge at Nizamabad (lbr short 'the Tribunal') in M'V'O'P'N<''67 of 2018 dated 03.08.11023 in respect of deceased Badavath Ravi Kumar' who. while travelling along with his friend Sandeep orr motor bike' met with an accident with an oil tanker bearing N<' AP- l6TD' 4-5l 1 (crime vehicle), atlowing the claim granting cc'rnpensation of Rs.31,08,500/- along with interest @7 '5oh p'a'

3. M.A.C.M.A.No.922 of 2024 is filed by tre appellant- Insurance (lompany being aggrieved by the award dated 2

29.12.2023 passed in M.V.O.P.No.32 of 2018 by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal-cum-l Additional District Judge at Kamareddy in respect of deceased Sandeep, who along with his friend Badavath Ravi Kumar was travelling on a motor cycle met with an accident with an oil tanker bearing No'AP-16TD-45 I I allowing the claim granting compensation of Rs' 16,55,625l- ' proportionately along with interest @7 .5'/o p.a.

4. Since, the accident occurred on 22.11.2017 al about 2 30 hours where both the deceased while travelling on bike met rvith an accident by dashing against an oil tanker' Therefore, both these Appeals are clubbed together and are being disposed of by this common judgment.

5. The facts leading to file claims by the respective claimants before the respective leamed Tribunals are that on 22-ll-2017 at about 2.30 hours near Dharma kanta enroute to Nizamabad- Dichpally Main Road, Dichpalli, the deceased Badavath Ravi Kumar along with his friend Sandeep started on their motor bike bearing No.TS-l6EN-5541' and in the meantime, the driver of tanker (torry) bearing No.AP-I6TD-4511 parked on the road 3 without taking any precautions or giving any signals. CLre to which the deceased Cashed into the backside of the lorn. ls result of which both the deceased sustained grievous injuries:nd died on the spot.

6. 'Ihe police ol Dichpatly registered a case in ,-:.No.220 of 2017 under Sr:ction 304-4, IPC against the driver o1't're oflending vehicle.

7. It was contended before the respective leamed I ribunals that the deceased Badavath Ravi Kumar in MACMA 11o.22t2024 is aged 26 years working as Chemical Engineer in ( rranules India Limited. Jeeiimetla and eaming Rs.20,7171-, in wh ch the father, mother and sisters are the claimants before the leam -',,1 Tribunal in MVOP No.6ilof 2018.

8. In resp,:ct of MACMA No.922 of 2024, the deceased viz., Badavath Sandeep was also aged about 26 yeat:. and was a Govemment employee working as Branch Pos Master at Thumpatly r,illage of Sirikonda Mandal and eaminrl Rs.16,0001 ' i|. ;( .- \ ----"r 4 p.m.. His parents along with brother are the claimants before the leamed Tribunal in M.V.O.P.No.l2 of 2018.

9. Belore the leamed 'I'ribunals, the appellant-lnsurance Company denied the allegations made against it inctuding rts liability to pay compensation to the respondents herein, and pleaded that on verification of the records, it is revealed that the said policy No.l -2MCCWVVT was issued in favour of one Appanna Kishore Babu lor the vehicle bearing No.AP-161'8-2240 and the period of insurance covered by the said policy is from

02.03.2014 to 01.03.2015. It was further contended that the appellant-Insurance Company has not issued any insurance policy No. l-2MCCWVVT vatid lrom 05.03.2017 to04.03.2018 in favour of owner of vehicle bearing No.AP- I 6TY-45 I 1 . Therefore, the said policy is a fbrged and fabricated document. It is also contended that the amounts claimed are excessive.

10. It was contended by the appellant respect of M.V.O.P.No.32 of 2018 that the policy document submitted before the police and mentioned in the Claim Petition are false and fabricated, which were brought into existence with a mala fide ) 5 rntentron The Oil Tanker (torry) bearing No.AP-16---l)-45 ll was not issued with the said policy and that there was negl gcnce on the part of the driver of the motor bike since at the time of rrccident, the rider of the m,ctor cycle bearing No.TS-16EN-5541 tJrove the said vehicle in rash and negligent manner and dashed tlrr: oil tanker, which was stationed on the road by taking full preca-rrions. It was lurther contended that the accident occurred duc to the total negligence on the part of the deceased only. And rlat the claim petition is ba,l for non-joinder of necessarv parties I s thc owner and insurer of motor cycle bearing No.TS- 161:N-5.541 are necessary an<l proper parties. Theretbre, contendec that on this ground, the claim petition is liable to be dismissed

11. ln M.V.O.P.No.67 of 2018, the leamed Tribuna: lramed the following issrres and Additional issue for consideratic r: "l) ll/hethtr the uccident look place on 22.1 1.201- at uhr,ut 2 30 hours neu Dlurnta Kanta, Opp. ./io Shop, Dichpull.t RS on Nizamobaa' Dic'hpalll' Main Road, Dit'hpally ,Vurulal. !t-i: r nruhad Districl utrler thc limits of PS Dichpalty due lo t t ,h tmJ negligent a'riving ry' Oil'funkar bearing No.AP-16'tD-15 t t by irs ov,ner caulinN the death oJ Badatath Rayi Kumar'l 1t1 .F-- 5 .l 2) Whether the petitioncrs are tntitletl.[or compensotion? IJ so, to u)hot extenl andfrom v,hom? 3) To what relie/? Additional Issue 1) Whether Ihe owner of rhe vchicle bearing No.AI'-l6TD-451 I obtained insurunce poliq, s6"rrofo for the said vehicle by the time of accident? "

12. In M.V.O.P.No.32 of 2018, the leamed Tribunal framed the following issue fbr consideration: "11 l{hether the accident octurred dut to rash and negligent driving o.f driver of oil tunker krry bearing No.AP-|6TD- 151t?" 2) Wether the petitioners ure cntilled.fbr the compensation, if so, from u,hom arul what jusl anounl? 3) To what relic/?

13. In respect of M.V.O.P.No.67 of 2018, the claimants examined P.Ws.l and 2 and Exs.A-l to A-9 were marked. On behalf of the appellant-lnsurance Company, R.W.l was examined and Exs.B-l to B-9 were marked.

14. In respect of M.V.O.P.No.32 of 2018, the claimants examined P.Ws. I and 2 and Exs.A-l to A-10 were ;n arked. On behalf of the 7 appellant-Insurance Colnpany, R.W. I was examined and Exs.B_l to 8-6 were marked

15. Sri ./\.Ramakrishna Reddy, learned counse I .or the appellant vehemently contended that the leamed T'rirr rnars raired to appreciate, that the appe I lant-Insurance Companv lever issued any policy to rhe crime vehicle bearing No.Ap-r6TD.45 r r and that the policy produced before the leamed Tribunars is li t.e and rabricated one.

16. It was fufther contended by the leamed ,:ounsel fbr the appellant that the leamed Tribunals lailed to apprt.t.iatc the fact that in order to prove the insurance policy, the appel ant_company has adduced its evidence by examining R.Ws. I an<i i and exhibiting Exs.B-l kr B-9, wherein it was brought to Lhe notil:e ol.the leamed Tribunal t.nat the Motor Insurance policy p400 issrrcd by it consists of 8 digits i.e- Number or Alpha-numeric, where a s in lhe case on hand, as per the Motor Vehicle [nspector reporl the particulars Inentioned in the claim petition p400 policy i. mentioned as 9968567, which is of 7 digits only. Therefore, it i. contended that the policy produced by the appellanrs is a fak,: poticy and the i' '1 s[ ' .l appellant Insurance Company never issued any policy to the crime vehicle and that the learned Tribunals without appreciating the same, erroneously mulcted the liability

17. Leamed counsel fbr the appellant vehemently contended the leamed Tribunals failed to appreciate the fact that the photocopy of the policy produced and marked by the claimants i.e. I-2MCCWVVT is issued in respect of vehicle bearing No.AP- l6TB-2240 vide poticy No. l-2MCCWVVT-P400-8691 341 2 which is valid from 02.03.2014 to 01.01.2015. whereas the crime vehicle in the present case is AP- l6TD-45 I t and the date of accident is

22.11.2017, and that in spite of bringing the said fact to the notice of the leamed Tribunals, the Tribunals, without considering the same, eroneously fastened the liability.

18. It was lurlher contended by the leamed counsel for the appellant that the leamed Tribunals failed to appreciate the fact that immediately after noticing the fake policy, the appellant [nsurance Company has lodged complaint before the Commissioner of Police, Vijayawada and also issued notices to the l" respondent and also to the Road Transport Authority, Vijayawada, which itself 9 is a bona fide truth of taking positive steps which arc .ccluired to be taken by the appcllant company, and that the learned I -ibunals, lor the best reas()ns known, fastened the tiability on rhc appellant holding that il is a dispute between the Owner of th: vehicle and lnsurance company and rights of third party cannot bc ilfected, and the said finding of the leamed Tribunals is erroneous .rnd contrarv to the settled law.

19. I-eamed counsel for the appellant further conre rrded that the leamed 'Iribunals have failed to appreciate the basi,: principle of contract of insurance that it is not a violation or bn.ach as to the tenns and corditions of the Policy, but there is no pc,licy issued at all by the app,:llant Company. As such, the findings :t-the leamcd 'fribunals that the dispute is between the owner of rI.e vehicle and Insurance Cornpany and rights of third party cannot b., afl-ected, is not at all colrect and it is erroneous and contrarv t.o the basic principle of contract of insurance, and as such, on thi ; tround also, the claims made by the claimants are liable to be reje r tr:d. 1

0. Learned counsel for the appellant further conten,l.:d that when there is no cc,ntract of insurance, ordering pay and r.t,covery does -=--; ------- -- ---T--:W I.ffiK 10 \. \ not and cannot arise at all and that the appellant-insurance Company is not liable to satisfr the awards passed by the respective Tribunals undcr Section 168 ol the Motor Vehicles Act,' 1989 (for short 'the Act') and that the lnsurance Cornpany is entitled to seek protection under Section 149 of thc Act.

21. Learned counsel for the appellant also contended that the leamed Tribunals failed to appreciate that the deceased drove the motor cycle with uncontrollable speed rashly, negligently without following traffic rules and wearing helmet, and because of his speed, he could not control his vehicle and dashed to the lorry fiom behind and contributed for the cause of accident, and therefore, the deceased himself is the main instrumental to the commission of offence and thereby the Insurance Company is not liable to pay the compensation. Learned counsel fbr the appellant fufther contended that in the absence of examination of employer, the leamed Tribunals relying on the self-serving statement of clairnants held the eamings of the deceased persons as Rs.20,717l- and Rs. 16,0001 per month respectively and calculated the 11 compensation on that amount, is excessive and cor,lrary to the settled la\v. )', l.earned counsel for the appellant finally conter(led that the claim of the claimants is liable to be dismissed for n,r'r-joinder ol' necessar] and proper parties i.e. the insurance compan \ o1' the two wheeler has not been made as a party. -) On the other hand, Sri A.Rajashekar Redd y and Sri S.Surcnder Reddy, learned counsel for the responden:s in both the Appcals vehcrnently contended that orders passed b). the learned I'ribunals are wcll reasoned based on material availablc on record and evidence lhcrein. It is further contended that in trr: absence of anv crime beir-rg registered against the owner of the rcl.icle nor any FIR is lodged against the fake document, the burdcr of prool'lies on the lrlsurlnce Company to disprove the versi,rn. Leamed counsel lbr the respondents further contended that the claimants being a third party, can only produce photocopy ol'the insurance policy docunrent whereas the owner of the crime v,:hicle is not examined. arLd as such, the liability is cast upon tlie Insurance Company to pav the compensation. :)', :trr {l ,f 12 I \J

24. Learned counsel for the respondents finally contended that the orders passed by the respective leamed Tribunals are well reasoned and do not calI for any interference and the Appeals are liable to be dismissed.

25. On perusal of the evidence adduced beflore the respective leamed Tribunals, during cross-examination of P.W. I Badavath Balkishan, one of the claimant in M.V.O.P.No.67 of 2018 admitted that he is not an eye-witness to the incident and he is not in a position to say the registration number ol the crime vehicles. During cross-examination of P.W.2 Pawar Mohan,, another claimant deposed that the deceased belongs to his caste and that the motor cycle hit the stationed lorry tanker lrom the back side and the accident occurred at 2.30 A.M., and that the road where the accident took place is of 80 feet width with a divider

26. R.W. I D.V.K. Prasad, Manager - Claims Legal of appellant Company deposed during his chief-examination that the Oil Tanker bearing No.AP-16TD-45 l1 is not insured with the appellant- Insurance Company and that there is no existing policy in respect of the said Oil Tanker covering the risk of accident as on the date 13 ofaccident, and that the Insurance Policy on which thE respondents relying was not issucd by the appellant-Company arrl it is a fake and labricaterl insurance policy and as such, in the absence of contract ol insurance between the appellant and ttLc respondent Nos. I and 2, the appellant Company has no liabilitv io indemnity the owner ol the vehicle and as such, the clainr against the appellant is tiable ro be dismissed. R.W.1 further dr posed that on veriflcation ol records of the appellant-Company, the Xerox copy of the policy submitted by the claimants i.e. 1-2M('( WVV'I was issued to velricle bearing No.AP-l6T8-2240 vide nolicy No. l- 2MCCQCCR-P100-86913412 valid fiom 0t 03.2014 ro

01.03.20 15, and as such, the appellant Company has rot issued any policy coverir.rg the datc ol toss (22.1 1.2017) for thc :rime vehicle bcaring No.,\P- l6TD-45 I I and that the policy rited by the clairnants is t-abricated lor the purpose of false clainr. and pteaded that the appellant-Company is not liable to pay comprnsation to the claimants. R W. I further deposed in his evidence tl.,at the claim petition was filed suppressing the fact of No policl ('overage and the clainr petition is liable to be dismissed with hea,,v costs under :j t4 Section 35(A) of the Act and that the claim petition is bad for mis- .j joinder of parties.

27. With respect to the evidence of R.W.2, he also pleaded that the Oil Tanker is not insured with the appellant Company and there is no existing policy in respect of the said Oi[ Tanker covering the risk of accident as on the date of accident i.e. 22.11.2017, and the insurance policy, on which claimants are placing rellance, is not issued by the appellant-Company and it is a fake and labricated insurance policy created for the purpose of this case and as such, there is no contract of insurance between the appellant Company and the owner to indemniff the owner and sought fbr dismissal of the claim petition. R.W.2 further deposed that as per the lnsurance Prcmium Register dated 05.03.2017, the Appellant Insurance Company has not collected any premium for vehicle bearing No.AP-I6TD-4511 and there is no existing policy for the said vehicle covering the risk as on the date ofaccident. To substantiate the same, R.W.2 produced the Premium Register dated 05.03.2017 lor the insurance policies issued by the appellant-company and the same is also marked as Ex.B-9. 15

28. However. during cross-examination R.W.2 staterl that Ex.B-9 ls a cornputod generated data ol transaction ot,tained from Vijayawada Branch, and that the name of insured an,l the code of the agent are rrentioned therein. He further stated thrrr the data in Ex.B-9 pertairs ro rhe period from 01.03.2017 and l5 (t3.2Ol7,and that the appell;rnt company is not liable to pay any conlpcnsation

29. On perusal ol'the documents marked in M.V.rlr Ir.No.67 of 20ltl, Ex.A-1 is thc certifled copy of the F.l.R., Lx.A_2 is the certified copy of charge sheet, E,x.A-3 is the copy of the post Mortem Exanrination report, Ex.A-4 is the attested cop1, ol the driving licence, Ex.A-5 is the copy of consolidated r,larks Memo of deceased Ravi Kumar, Ex.A-6 is the copy o. provisional Certitlcate of dcceased Ra'".i Kumar. ExA-7 is the atlrsted copy of salary of the <leceased Ravi Kumar and Ex.A-g is th: copy of the insurancc policy certificate issued by the appellant-:,rmpany and Ex.A-9 is the copy of accident report from the Niotor Vehicle Inspector. \\'hereas Ex.B- I is the office copy o1' rrotice dated

15.05.2018 issued to rhe owner of the Oil Tankci.and RTA, Vijayawada, Ex.B-2 is the postal receipts, Ex.B- I is returned ,. -r' H.r. l{: 16 ! postal cover of the owner of oil tanker, Ex.B-4 is the postal acknowlcdgment of RTO Otfice, Vijayawada, Ex.B-5 is the copy of complaint to the Police Commissioner, Vijayawada regarding fake policy dated 27.06.2018 issued by Registered Post With Acknowledgment Due, Ex.B-6 is postal receipt, Ex.B-7 is postal acknowledgment for Ex.B-5, E,x.B-8 is the Insurance Policy No.1- 2MCCWVVT-P400-86913412 (with eight digits) and Ex.B-9 is lnsurance Premium Register dated 05.03.2017 for the insurance policies issued by the appellant-Company

30. On examining the documents marked, in Ex.A-2 copy of charge sheet relied upon by the respondents, it was mentioned that the owner ol the vehicle voluntarily confessed to have committed the offence and produced the driving license, Registration Certificate and lnsurance, and the same were verified as valid document, appears to be issued for the purpose of obtaining bail Simitarly, Ex.A-S is photo copy of the policy of the appellant insurance Company, which as pointed out by the leamed counsel for the appellant that in the said policy at the lefi side, the Registration Number refers to AP-t6TD-4511, but at the right side 17 mentioned as 'Policy :I-2MCWVT P-400 Polic_v lt 9998567, Whereas in the MVI reporr Ex.A-g, the potic i number is mentioned a; 9998567. Leamed counsel for ttre appellant contended that the insurance policy is altered and fabr.icated since, it is a 7 digir. number, it should be specifying the r:xistcnce of 8 digits as it should have been 86913412 as marked at Ir..B-8.

31. Ex.B-l is the office copy olthe notice issued b.' ,he appellant Company to the owner of the vehicle with resfi3ct to Fake Policy/Cover Note bearing No.9968567 of the vclricle bearing No.AP-l6DT-45 I l. Ex.B-5 is rhe complaint datt:rl 27.06.20tg addressed lo the Commissloner of police. Vijayawada complaining regarding registration ol FIR for nvestigation/ Enquiry reg,arding issuance of f'ake/tbrged poiicy bearing No.9968567, which was never issued by the appelJrrnt-Company, and requeste,J the Commissioner of Police to take c.,tgnizance of the matter and register a corrplaint under the provisi,tns ol law and investigate irto the matter in order to penalize the cult-rrits involved in such illega I activities. - -..4 18

32. On carelul perusal of the documentary record discloses marked infrrmities in the policy document relied upon by the claimants. The alleged policy bearing No. l-AMCCWT,/P400 Policy No. 9995677 is deficient in several material respects. It is devoid of any QR code or digital authentication feature, contains no GST number, no SAC code, no record of prior policy history fbr the vehicle tbr the relcvant policy period. The totality of these discrepancies demonstrates that the document does not possess the authenticity expected of a genuine insurance certificate.

33. Per contra, the document produced and relied upon by the appe[[ant-insurer, namely Poticy No. 1-2MCCWVVT-P400- 86913412, is in the insurer's prescribed official format, carries a QR code and digitat authentication, and corresponds with the entries in the insurer's Policy Issue Register and database. The insurer has, therefore, produced verifiable contemporaneous records which prima facie contradict the authenticity of the document presented by the claimants.

34. This court is of the view that it is a fundamental principle of evidence and logic that no litigant can reasonably be required to 19 prove a negati\e fact. It is neither practicable nor jus'. to compel the insurer corrpany to demonstrate atiirmatively that it did not at any time issue a particular instrument which the claitrrrt"rt produces as the basis for a claim. T'he law does not countenanc() requlrtng a pafty to undert;rke the impossible rather, the onus remi ins upon the party who asserts the positive flact. Here, that a va I id insurance policy coverinl; the vehicle existed at the time ol the acr:ident, is to prove that assertion

35. Where art insurer, in proper exercise of its ri:1hts. places before the Tribunal credible and verillable records rregating the existence of the policy relied upon by a claimant, thc evidentiary onus shifts upon the claimant to satisfactoril1' account for and prove the source and genuineness of thc document ltroduced. It is not open for :he claimant to rest on a photocopy o1' trn unverified document when the insurer has produced cogent, o'l'cial records showing non-correspondence between the clairnant's (l,lculnent and the insurer's books.

36. Section 106 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872 :t rtes 20 \ "The procurenrcnt, soLrce and authenticity of an alleged insurance certificate are matters peculiarly within the knowledge and control of the person who asserts lhe existence of that certificate. Accordingly, the claimants. having relied upon the disputed policy, must furnish credible evidence, such as premium paid cash receipts, e-mail conJirmation of the said policy or other contemporaneous electronic communications /rom the insurer to denonstrate the authenticity of the said policy. "

37. This court reiterates that the evidence tendered in support ofa civil liability must be authentic, rcliable and of unimpaired integrity. A photocopy of a document, inconsistent with the issuing authority's official records and lacking all customary authentication marks, cannot bc permitted to lound legal Iiability.

38. Therefore, no privity ol-contract has been established between the owner o[ the off-ending vehiclc (AP- I 6TD-45 I I ) and the appellanrlnsurance Company tbr the relevant period. The leamed Tribunals' finding that the insurer must first discharge the award and therealter recover liorn thc owncr is unsustainable where the 21 - very existence of the asserted contract of insur'.rrrce rcrnains unproved

39. As relierl by the claimant in the judgment ol the I ligh Clourt ol Sikkim, Gangtok befbre the learned Tribunal in Bronch Manager, Oriental Insurance Company Limited Vs. Padam llehadur Rai and otherst wherein there was no complaint lodged. l'tre said case has no relevance to the present case on hand, since a r()mplaint was todged by the appellant-lnsurance Companl befbrc the Commissioner of Police, Vijayawada as well as issurrr noticc to the owner of the crime vehicle.

40. The oth,:r judgment relied upon by the leamed r:,,unsel lbr rhe claimants bcfore the learned Tribunal in Orientul Insurance Company Vs. Iayeshbhai Bhagubhai Pate| n cc,rrl.end that the dispute regarding the fake policy is between the rwner of the vehicle and the Insurance Company and rights ol'rire third party claimant cannot be affected and that the irrsurarr, c policy has neither entered into any notice comespondence witlr thc owner of I MAC Appeal No 7 ro 2020 to 09 to 2020 ' clralnulzoolt dated 28.01.2022 &*ari!*w"rtxE*rHru-G,ii t ?E!. rG:rFRFr- r!{EE9!Elt?*ErrFF .'.I 22 \ t..l the vehicte regarding such policy being f'ake nor any legal proceeding is found to be initiated against the owner of the vehicle or any such other person by the Insurance Company regarding the fake policy. Therefore, the Insurancc Company cannot shrug away its liability to pay the compensation.

41. The facts of the afbresaid case are not applicable to the facts and circumstances o[the present case. though in the above case the insurer had atteged that the policy produced by the claimant was fabricated, the Court therein had reached its conclusion on account of the insurer's failure to substantiate such allegation with any contemporaneous record or ofticial proof. The finding was thus based on the insufficiency of the insurer's evidence, not on any legal principle absolving clairnants lrom proving the authenticity of the policy they rely upon. In the case on hand, the situation is materially different, the appellant- [nsurance Company has produced original poticy and a complaint todged with the Commissioner of Police, Vijayawada, thereby providing affirmative and verifiable proof that the disputed policy was never issued by it. 23

42. l;or the a{bresaid reasons and mindful of synrp 'th1' lor the grievous human loss to the claimants, this Court is r rablc to frx any liabitity on the appellant-Insurance Company in tr,.r absence of t existence ol'a valid insurance policy covering the crirn,: vehicle on 22nd November.20ll t l

43. In view ol- the above discussion, this Court lLolds that the findings recorded by the leamed Tribunals are cr.oneous and orders passed are liable to be set aside.

44. Accordingly, M.A.C.M.A.No.22 of l021 and M.A.C.M.A.l{<t.922 of 2024 are allowed. Consequertll', thc orders passed by the leamed Tribunals in M.V.O.P.No.6I of 20 I8 and M.V.O.P.No.32 of 2018 respectively are set aside.

45. However, liberty IS granted to the claimrirts to avail appropriate remedies open to them at law against th: owner ol'the of the vehick:1o claim compensation by proving the t,:nuincness of the insurancr: policy. 24

46. As a sequel, interim olders, if any granted in the Appeals stands closed. Miscellaneous applications pending, if any, shall stand closed. No order as to costs ,TRUE COPY// SD/.A.V.S.PRASAD DEPUTY REGISTRAR @ SECTION OFFICER One Fair Copy to the Hon'ble Sri Justice Gadi Praveen Kumar (For His Lordships kind Perusal) To, 'l . The Chairman, Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal - Cum - Principal District Judge, Nizamabad.

2. The Chairman, [\rlotor Accidents Claims Tribunal - Cum - I Additional District Judge, Kamareddy.

4. 11 LR Copies 5. The Under Secretary, Union of lndia, Ministry of Law, Justice and Company Affairs, New Delhi

6. The Secretary, Advocates Association Library, High Court for the State of Telangana, High Court Buildings at Hyderabad

7. OneCC to SriA.Ramakrishna Reddy, Advocate[OPUC] 8. One CC to Sri A.RajaShekar Reddy and Sri S.Surender Reddy Advocate loPUCl 9. Two CD Copies S\ s's \ II HIGH COURT DATED:1 511012025 \ I . ,.... .- . irir 1,,17.' .-j (t COMMON JUDGMENT + DECRE MACMA.No.22 AND 922 of 2024 I 7 'i[l\l ?[25 . t; . ,..:,. ALLOWING THE MACMA NO.22 OF 2011.4 AND MACMA NO.922 OF 2024 ) b rt IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AT HYDERABAD WEDNESDAY. THE FIFTEENTH DAY OF OCTOBER TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE GADI PRAVEEN KUMAR MOTOR ACCIDENT CIVIL MISCELLANEOUS APPEAL NO: 22 AND 922OF 2024 MOTOR ACCIDENT CIVIL MISCELLANEOUS APPEAL NO:22 OF 2024: Between : IFFCO TOKIO General lnsurance H.No.40-1-53, lst Floor, Annapurna Vijayawada Andhra Pradesh State. Co Ltd., Building Represented by its Manager, Near Benz Circle, M.G.Road, ...AppellanURespondent No.2 AND 1 Badavath Balkishan, S/o Tariya Aged 50 years R/o Pakal Village, Sirikonda Mandal, Nizamabad Dist 2 a Smt.Badavath Keeri, Wo.Balkishan, Aged 48 years, Household R/o Pakal village, Sinkonda Mandal, Nizamabad District. Badavath Swarna, Dio Balkishan. Aged '19 years, Student R/o Pakal village, Sirrkonda Mandal, Nizamabad District.

4. Bharath Kumar Appana, S/o.Kishore Babu Major, Owner of Oil Tanker bearing No AP-l6-TD-4511 Rro H no. 1-3-16, Dr.B.R.Ambedkar Road, Vidhyadharapuram, Vijayawada.AP. ...Respondent Nos.1 to 3/Petitioners ...Respondent Nos.4 / Respondent No.1 Appeal filed under Section 173 of M.V.Act against the order and decree, dated 03-08-2023, passed in M V O P.No 67 of 2018, on the file of Chairman, Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal - Cum - Principal District Judge, Nizamabad. MOTOR ACCIDENT CIVIL MISCELLANEOUS APPEAL NO: 922 OF 2024: Between : IFFCO TOKIO General lnsurance Co Ltd, Represented by its Branch Manager, H.No.6-74lA, N.H-65, Madinaguda. Hafeezpet, Hyderabad' ,..AppellanURespondent No.3 AND 1 2 Badhavath Chandru, S/o Mothiram, Aged 54 years Caste.ST Lambada, Occ Nit Smt.Badhavanth Ammr, Wo Chandru, Aged 50 years, Caste. ST Lambada, Occ.House wrfe. 3 Badhavath Shankar, S/o Chandru, Aged 30 years, Castr ST t-ambada Occ Labour All are R/o. H BNo.1-78l1, Pakala Village of Srrikonda h./ardal, Kamareddy District. Presently residing at Annaram Village of Ramar:Jdy tt4andal, Kamareddy D strict. ...Respondent lrl os.1 to 3/Petitoners

4. Amlapu Srinu, S/o Narsimlu, Aged 52 years , Occ Driver :rf Oil Tanker Lorry bearing No. AI']-16-TD-45'l 1, Rio Raapadu Village of Go'r;rpuram Mandal, Vijayanagaranr. 5 Bharath Kuma- Appana, S/o.Kishore Babu Aged.Malor, Oruner of Oil Tanker bearing No AF'-16-TD-451'l , R/o H No 1-3-'16, Dr B R A r,bedkar Road, Vidhyadharapr ram, Vijayawada. AP. ...Respondent No.4 & S/Re,spondent No.1 & 2 Appeal filed under Sectron 173 of M.V.Act against the : order and decree, fite of Chairman, dated 2911212023, passed in M V.O.P.No.32 of 2018, on th€ Motor Accidents Clairns Tribunal - Cum - I Addrtronal Drstrict J I lge, Kamareddy. These appeal coming on for hearing and upon perusilg the grounds of appeal, the Judgmenl and Decree of the Lower Court and the 'naterial papers in the case and upon hearing the arguments of Sri A.Rar-akrrshna Reddy, Advocate for the Appr:llant in MACMA No.22 of 2024, and in lVAClrilA No 922 of 2024 and Sri A.Ra1a Sihekar Reddy & Sri S.Surender Reddy ,\dvocates for the Respondents in MACI\IA No 22 of 2024, and in MAC[/A No.922 of 2024 This Court doth Order and Decree as follows:

1. That the IVIACIIIA No22 of 2024 and MACTVA No921l of 2024 be and hereby are allou,ed.

2. Ihat the orders cassed by the learned Tribunals in tvl.V O P No.67 of 2018 and It/ V.O.P No.32 of 20'18 respectively are set aside.

3. That however, iiberty is granted to the claimants to irvail appropriate remedies open Io them at law against the owner of thr, vehrcle to claim compensation by proving the genuineness of the insuran<;r- policy.

4. That there shall be no order as to costs in this appeal. //TRUE COPY// St, -A.V.S.PRASAD DEPIJ-TY REGISTRAR G SECTION OFFICER To, 1 2 3 S vs's..r The Chairman, Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal - Cum - F'rincrpal District Judge, Nizamabad. The Chairman. Motcr Accidents Claims Tribunal - Cum - I p (lditional District Judge, Kamareddy Two CD Copies I HIGH COURT DATED:1 5t10t2025 t I DECREE MACMA.No.22 AND 922 ot 2OZ4 ALLOWING THE MACMA NO.22 OF 2024 AND MACMA NO.922 OF 2024 al,tl6'