Insurer bears no liability where the accident vehicle is a trolley excluded from the tractor policy.

The appellant, owner of the tractor, challenged the award dated 18 February 2008 in O.P. No. 315 of 2006, by which the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal awarded ₹25,000 to the first respondent/claimant, fastened liability on the appellant, and exonerated the insurer.

The accident occurred on 18 November 2005 when a scooter carrying the deceased Venkataiah and other persons allegedly collided with a stationary tractor-trailer parked on the road without parking lights; the claimant sustained injuries and was treated at Government Hospital, Mahabubnagar.

The FIR identified the tractor as APM-3211 and the trolley as AP-22-T-2486, while the inquest report and scene panchanama also referred to trolley No. AP-22-T-2486. Subsequently, the Motor Vehicle Inspector recorded the tractor number as AP-22-T-2486 and the trailer number as APM-3212.

The appellant contended that the tractor was insured under a valid policy and that the insurer should indemnify him, whereas the insurer maintained that the vehicle involved in the accident was not the vehicle covered by the policy.

Whether the Tribunal was justified in fastening liability on the appellant-owner and exonerating the Insurance Company on the ground that the vehicle involved in the accident was not proved to be the vehicle covered by the insurance policy?

Whether the compensation of ₹25,000 awarded to the claimant for the injuries sustained in the accident was liable to be enhanced or otherwise interfered with?

The Court applied the principle that liability under a motor vehicle insurance policy can be imposed on the insurer only when the claimant or insured establishes that the vehicle involved in the accident is the vehicle covered by that policy.

In determining the identity of the offending vehicle, contemporaneous records such as the FIR, inquest report and scene panchanama were treated as more reliable than a later Motor Vehicle Inspector’s report, particularly where the latter was prepared after a material lapse of time.

The Court also applied the compensatory principle that an award must be supported by the evidence of injuries, treatment and disability; in the absence of medical bills or proof of permanent disability, the assessment may be confined to the material established on record.

No specific statutory provision or judicial precedent was cited in the judgment.

The Court held that the contemporaneous police records consistently identified the trolley involved in the accident as AP-22-T-2486, while the later Motor Vehicle Inspector’s report gave different particulars and was prepared only on 3 December 2005, several days after the accident.

The evidence of P.W.3 was also inconsistent: his initial version in the FIR referred to the scooter colliding with the trolley, whereas his deposition described a tractor bearing a different number.

Since the insurance policy relied upon by the appellant covered the tractor alone and not the trolley/trailer identified in the contemporaneous records, the appellant failed to prove that the offending vehicle was the insured vehicle. Accordingly, the insurer could not be made liable.

As to quantum, the medical evidence, wound certificate and case sheet established grievous injury and hospitalisation from 18 to 28 November 2005, but no medical bills or evidence from an Orthopaedic Surgeon establishing permanent disability was produced. The Court therefore found the award of ₹25,000 to be neither excessive nor inadequate.

It also upheld the compensation of ₹25,000 awarded to the claimant.

The appeal was dismissed, with no order as to costs, and any pending miscellaneous petitions were closed.