APHC010234972007 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) [3396] THURSDAY,THE EIGHTEENTH DAY OF JUNE TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY SIX PRESENT THE HONOURABLE DR JUSTICE VENKATA JYOTHIRMAI PRATAPA MOTOR ACCIDENT CIVIL MISCELLANEOUS APPEAL NO: 1184/2007 Between: NATIONAL INSURANCE COMPANY LIMITED, REP., BY ITS DIVISIONAL MANAGER, ELURU THE DIVISIONAL MANAGER, NATIONAL INSURANCE COMPANY LIMITED ELURU, W.G. DISTRICT. ...APPELLANT AND 1. ADAVIKALANU RAMAKRISHNA ANR, S/O. BRAHMMA CHARYULU GOLDSMITH R/O.PERAVALI, TJCJC 2. PUVVADA SRINIVASA RAO, S/O VEERAMALLU DRIVER OF LORRY BEARING NO.AP 16 U 7175 R/O.75-9-18A, BHAVANIPURAM VIJAYAWADA-12, KRISHNA DISTRICT ...RESPONDENT(S): Appeal filed under Order 41 of CPC before the High Court allow the appeal Counsel for the Appellant: SHAKE ABDUL AZEEM Counsel for the Respondent(S): The Court made the following: 2 JUDGMENT: 1. The present appeal arises out of the award dated 21.11.20061 passed by the Chairman, Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal-cum-District Judge, West Godavari at Eluru2, in M.V.O.P.No.317 of 20043. 2. The appellant is the insurer of the lorry bearing No.AP16 U 71754. The respondent No.1 is the claimant before the Tribunal. The respondent No.2 herein is the driver-cum-owner of the crime lorry. 3. For the sake of convenience, the parties hereinafter referred to as they arrayed before the Tribunal. Proceedings before the Tribunal 4. The case of the claimant, as set out in the claim petition before the Tribunal, is briefly stated as follows: a) On 14.02.2004, at about 09:00 a.m., while the claimant was proceeding on a motorcycle along with his children and, upon reaching near Anjaneya Swamy Temple at the 'Y' Junction 1hereinafter called as ‘Impugned award’ 2 hereinafter called as ‘the Tribunal’ 3 hereinafter called as ‘Claim petition’ 4 hereinafter called as ‘crime lorry’ 3 Centre, Peravali Village, the offending lorry, driven by the 1st respondent in a rash and negligent manner, dashed against the motorcycle of the claimant. As a result of the impact, the claimant sustained grievous injuries on various parts of his body and underwent medical treatment. Alleging that the accident occurred solely due to the rash and negligent driving of the offending lorry by the 1st respondent, the claimant filed the present claim petition seeking compensation of Rs.1,00,000/- against Respondent Nos.1 and 2, being the owner and insurer of the offending vehicle respectively. 5. The Insurance Company filed a written statement denying the material averments made in the claim petition. It was contended that the accident did not occur due to any rash or negligent driving on the part of the driver of the offending lorry and that the claimant himself was responsible for the accident by riding the motorcycle in a negligent manner. It was further pleaded that the compensation claimed by the claimant was highly excessive, exorbitant, and without any factual basis. On 4 the aforesaid grounds, the 2ndrespondent prayed for dismissal of the claim petition. 6. During enquiry before the Tribunal,on behalf of the claimants, PWs.1and 2wereexamined and Exs.A.1 to A.5wereexhibited. On behalf of the Respondent No.2/Insurance company,no oral and documentary evidence was adduced. 7. Upon appreciation of the oral and documentary evidence on record, the Tribunal held that the accident occurred due to the rash and negligent driving of the crimelorry. Accordingly, a sum of ₹66,000/- was awarded as compensation to the claimant, together with interest at the rate of 7.5% per annum from the date of the claim petition till the date of realization, payable by Respondent Nos.1 and 2, for the injuries sustained by the claimant in the accident. 8. Aggrieved by the same, the insurer of the crime lorry has preferred the present appeal seeking dismissal of the claim petition. Arguments Advanced at the Bar 9. Heard Sri Shake Abdul Azeem, learned counsel for the appellant/insurer. None appeared for the respondents. 5 10. The only contention advanced by the learned counsel for the appellant/Insurance Company is that, as on the date of the accident, no valid and subsisting insurance policy was in force in respect of the offending lorry. It is submitted that the policy originally issued in favour of the owner of the vehicle had already been cancelled by the Insurance Company prior to the date of the accident and, therefore, there existed no contractual relationship between the insurer and the insured on the date of the occurrence.On the aforesaid ground, learned counsel prays that the award passed by the Tribunal insofar as it fastens liability upon the appellant/Insurance Company be set aside and the present appeal be allowed. Point for Determination 11. In the backdrop of the aforesaid submissions, the following point arises for consideration:Whether the award passed by the Tribunal fastening liability upon the appellant/ Insurance Company suffers from any illegality, irregularity, or perversity warranting interference by this Court? 6 Determination by this Court 12. There is no dispute with regard to the injuries sustained by the claimant in the accident, the involvement of the offending lorry, or the finding that the accident occurred due to the rash and negligent driving of the said lorry by its driver. The findings recorded by the Tribunal on the aspects of negligence and liability have attained finality, as neither the claimant nor the owner of the offending lorry has preferred any appeal challenging the same. Likewise, there is no dispute with regard to the quantum of compensation awarded by the Tribunal to the claimant, and the same has not been questioned by any of the parties.The sole contention advanced by the learned counsel for the appellant/ Insurance Company is that no valid insurance policy was in force in respect of the offending lorry as on the date of the accident, as the policy had allegedly been cancelled prior thereto and the cancellation was intimated to the owner of the vehicle. According to the appellant, in the absence of a valid policy, the insurer cannot be fastened with liability to satisfy the award. 7 13. A careful examination of the record, however, reveals that such a contention was never raised before the Tribunal. Admittedly, in the written statement filed by the appellant– Insurance Company, there is not even a whisper regarding the alleged cancellation of the insurance policy issued in respect of the offending lorry. No plea whatsoever was taken that the policy had been cancelled before the date of the accident or that the owner had been informed about such cancellation.Furthermore, the appellant did not adduce any oral or documentary evidence before the Tribunal to substantiate the plea now sought to be raised before this Court. No witness was examined, nor was any document produced, to establish either the cancellation of the policy or the communication of such cancellation to the owner of the vehicle. In the absence of any pleading and proof before the Tribunal, the appellant cannot be permitted to raise a wholly new factual contention for the first time at the appellate stage.Even before this Court, except taking a specific ground in the memorandum of appeal, the appellant has not placed any material whatsoever to demonstrate that the policy stood 8 cancelled prior to the accident. No cancellation order, notice of cancellation, postal acknowledgment, or any other documentary evidence in support of the said contentionhas been produced. Mere grounds of appeal, unsupported by pleadings and evidence cannot form the basis for setting asidethe award passed by the Tribunal. 14. It is a settled principle that a party seeking to avoid its liability must specifically plead and prove the facts constituting such defence. In the absence of any evidence establishing cancellation of the policy and communication thereof to the insured, this Court is not inclined to accept the contention advanced by the appellant/Insurance Company.Having regard to the above facts and circumstances, this Court is of the considered opinion that the appellant has failed to make out any valid or sustainable ground warranting interference with the findings and award passed by the Tribunal. The award under challenge does not suffer from any illegality, perversity, or material irregularity requiring interference in exercise of appellate jurisdiction. Accordingly, the point is answered. 9 15. In result, the M.A.C.M.A. is dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs. Interim orders granted earlier if any, stand vacated. Miscellaneous petitions pending if any, stand closed. ________________________________________ Dr.JUSTICE VENKATA JYOTHIRMAI PRATAPA Date: 18.06.2026 Krs 10 269 THE HON’BLE DR. JUSTICE VENKATA JYOTHIRMAI PRATAPA M.A.C.M.A.No.1184 of 2007 ( JUDGMENT ) DATE: 18.06.2026 Krs