The Motor Vehicle Accident Claims Tribunal, Krishna at Vijayawada in short the Tribunal accepted the plea.
The insurer resisted the claim on the ground that the insured had number obtained permit to ply the vehicle and therefore in terms of the policy of the insurance the insurer had numberliability.
Background facts in nutshell are as follows Three persons were traveling in an auto rickshaw which met with an accident on 9.5.1992.
1,24,000/ in the case of the death while in case injureds claim a sum of Rs.
Two persons lost their lives while one was seriously injured.
It however, held that the insured was liable to pay companypensation which was fixed at Rs.
The judgment was challenged in appeal before the Division Bench of the High Court of Andhra Pradesh at Hyderabad questioning the companyrectness of the view regarding number liability of the insurer.
Arising out of SLP C No.13208/2003 With C.A.6179/2004 SLP C No.
13210/2003 ARIJIT PASAYAT, J. Leave granted.
Claim petitions were filed by the legal representatives of the two deceased persons while the injured filed separate petition claiming companypensation in terms of Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 in short the Act The auto rickshaw in question belonged to Challa Atchayya hereinafter referred to as the insured .
National Insurance Company limited hereinafter referred to as the insurer calls in question legality of the judgment rendered by a learned Single Judge of the Andhra Pradesh High Court holding the insurer to be liable for indemnifying the award of companypensation.
