Judgment:
ORDER
P.K. Jaiswal, J.
1. This appeal has been filed by the owner of the offending vehicle against the award dated 14-8-1997 passed by Additional Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Mandla in Claim Case No. 50/91, thereby the learned Tribunal awarded a sum of Rs. 10,076/- as compensation to the respondent No. 1/claimant and gave a finding in Para 14 of the impugned award that at the time of accident, Le., on 25-3-1991 the vehicle was not insured with the respondent No. 3-Insurance Company and directed that the appellant and respondent No. 2 are liable to pay the amount of compensation.
2. Learned Counsel for the appellant drew my attention to the order sheet dated 18-2-1995 and Para 2 of the written statement filed by the appellant and submitted that appellant very categorically stated that on the date of accident vehicle was insured with the respondent No. 3. Along with the written statement, he filed photocopy of the policy by which offending vehicle No. MPJ-8727 was insured with the respondent No. 3 for the period from 17-1-1991 to 16-1-1992. He lastly submitted that the learned Tribunal wrongly exonerated the Insurance Company and directed the owner and driver of the offending vehicle to pay the amount of compensation.
3. This Court considering these facts admitted the appeal on 20-2-2002 and after service of notice to the Insurance Company number of times directed the Insurance Company to verify the fact whether the vehicle was insured or not and whether Photostat copy of the policy filed by the appellant is correct or not. In spite of number of opportunities granted to the respondent No. 3, no report has been filed nor Insurance Company verified the said fact.
4. The respondent No. 3 had made no effort to rebut the same or produce its official record to demonstrate that there was no error or lack of authenticity in the copy of the policy in the Court record. As per material available on record the offending truck bearing registration No. MPJ-8727 was public carrier and vide policy No. 190903/31/11/21/02717/90-91 insured with the respondent No. 3 for a period of one year with effect from 17-1-1991 to 16-1-1992, and total amount of Rs. 4385/- was paid as premium vide receipt No. 9137. The respondent No. 3 failed to prove that there was a violation of the insurance policy by the owner in accident by truck resulted into injuries. Insurance Company cannot be exonerated from the liability for payment of compensation along with the owner and driver to the claimant. It is for the Insurance Company to bring on record compelling evidence that the vehicle was plying contrary to the terms and conditions of policy or driver was not holding licence to drive the offending vehicle. The Insurance Company had failed to prove that the vehicle was used for the purposes other than for the purpose, it was insured and vehicle was plying in breach of terms of policy. The burden squarely lies upon Insurance Company and on failure to prove it, insurer would be liable for payment of compensation. In the present case, the photocopy of the policy which is on record covered the risk, and it shall be the burden of the insurer to satisfy by producing the policy that such a risk was not covered by the policy or vehicle was not insured by the respondent No. 3. That is not the position in the case in hand.
5. Considering these facts and in view of the fact that policy was filed in the year 1995 along with the written statement, by the owner of the vehicle, i.e., appellant and he very categorically stated about the fact that vehicle was insured with the respondent No. 3, I am of the considered view that on the date of accident vehicle was validly insured. Mere, denial of the insurer in such circumstances is not sufficient when the photostat copy of policy has been produced by the owner of the vehicle, the learned Tribunal committed legal error in exonerating the Insurance Company and directing the appellant to pay the amount of compensation to the claimant.
6. For the above mentioned reasons, the impugned award is partly modified. The appeal filed by the appellant is allowed. It is directed that the respondent No. 3-Insurance Company is liable to pay the amount of compensation to the respondent No. 1-claimant as awarded by the Claims Tribunal vide award dated 14-8-1997.
7. In the result, the appeal is partly allowed to the extent indicated herein above but without any order as to costs.