ORDER
L. Narasimha Reddy, J.
1. The petitioner is resident of a village by name Krishnapuram, Atmakur Mandal of Kurnool District. On 15.02.1995 he met with an accident. It is his case that a jeep bearing No. ANM 8268 hit him from behind when he was walking on the left side of the road after crossing 3 kms. from Bairlooti stage. He was treated as an inpatient in Government General Hospital at Kurnool and the injuries sustained by him are said to have caused permanent disability.
2. The 1st respondent filed O.P.No.269 of 1995 before the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal -cum-IV Additional District Judge, Kurnool, claiming a compensation of Rs.1,00,000/- against the owner of the vehicle-the 2nd respondent herein and the Insurance Company-the appellant. 1st respondent examined himself as P.W.1 and marked Exs.A.1 to A.6. The owner of the vehicle namely the 2nd respondent remained exparte. The appellant contested the O.P. and filed Ex.B.1. The Tribunal, through its judgment dated 31.07.2000 held that the accident took place on account of rash and negligent driving of the driver of the vehicle and awarded a compensation of Rs.21,500/- The respondents were held jointly and severally liable to pay the compensation. This Civil Miscellaneous Petition is filed against the judgment of the Tribunal.
3. Sri Kota Subbarao, learned counsel for the appellant submits that the policy particulars that were furnished by the 1st respondent in his claim petition related to a different vehicle namely motor cycle. According to him, this policy being Ex.B.1 was in force from 19.05.1993 to 18.05.1994, whereas the accident has taken place on 15.02.1995. He submits that in the absence of any policy in relation to the accident vehicle that too for the relevant period, there did not exist any basis for the Tribunal to hold the appellant liable to pay any compensation.
4. Sri K. Rathangapani Reddy, learned counsel for the 1st respondent, on the other hand, submits that the petitioner has placed before the Tribunal Ex.A.5 which is a receipt issued by the appellant to the 2nd respondent in respect of the same vehicle, namely ANM 8268 and that it was sufficient to hold that the appellant is liable to pay the amount.
5. The appellant does not disputed the fact that the 1st respondent sustained injuries in an accident that occurred on 15.02.1995 through the vehicle bearing No.ANM 8268. The owner of the vehicle remained exparte. The finding as to its involvement and rash and negligent driving on the part of the driver, is not contested by the 2nd respondent. The limited objection raised by the appellant herein is that there does not exists any policy covering the said vehicle particularly during the relevant period.
6. It is a matter of common knowledge that the policy documents covering the motor vehicles are in possession of the owners or custodians of the vehicles. Copies of the same are also kept in records of the concerned Insurance Company. Whenever an accident takes place, the victims thereof have to depend mostly on the information furnished by the owner of the vehicle or the concerned Police Station in the matter of coverage of policies. Beyond that, they cannot have any access to the policy documents. On being furnished with certain particulars, the claimants indicate the number of the policy of the accident vehicle in the claim statement. The appellant pleaded that, the policy as regards which the particulars are furnished in the claim statement relates to a different vehicle. If this was all and no further material was available with the Tribunal there was no way, it could have held the appellant responsible.
7. However, the 1st respondent has placed before the Tribunal a receipt being Ex.A.5 which revealed that an amount of Rs.1,253/- was collected by the appellant from the 2nd respondent on 17.11.1994 towards payment of premium for a policy, in respect of the vehicle in question.
8. The appellant did not plead that Ex.A.5 is not genuine that it does not bind it or that the amount was received for a purpose other than payment of premium. None was examined on behalf of the respondent. In the absence of denial as to the genuinity and binding nature of Ex.A.5, the Tribunal was left with no other alternative to draw a presumption that the payment under Ex.A.5 was towards premium for a policy for the vehicle in question and that it covered period of one year from the date of payment. The accident and the liability arising out of it were very much covered by it.
9. What is material in a case like this, is the existence of coverage of insurance, than the production of policy document. Once necessary facts leading to a presumption as to existence of policy are pleaded and proved, the insurance company cannot wriggle itself out of the liability on the ground that the payment was not followed by issuance of policy documents or any other similar steps. In a given case, the Insurance company can certainly plead as to whether the payment of the premium was made at all or whether it was received by a person authorized by it etc. In the absence of such pleadings, a necessary presumption has to be drawn that the payment was made for the purpose of providing an insurance coverage. Any other view would have the effect of defeating the object underlying the provisions of Motor Vehicles Act. Hence, this Court does not find any basis to interfere with the judgment rendered by the Tribunal.
10. The C.M.A. is accordingly dismissed. It is, however, left open to the appellant to proceed against the owner of the vehicle in case, it is of the view that they did not exist any valid policy to cover the vehicle at the relevant point of time. No order as to costs.
