IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) TUESDAY, THE SIXTEENTH DAY OF FEBRUARY, TWO THOUSAND TEN PRESENT: THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY MACMA No.2784 of 2006 Between: The Branch Manager, The New India Assurance Company Ltd., Park lane No.1708, Secunderabad. … Appellant And Meenaga Venkateswara Rao & others. … Respondents Counsel for the petitioner : Sri B. Devanand Counsel for respondent No.1: Sri T.P. Acharya This Court made the following: THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY MACMA No.2784 of 2006 ORDER:- This appeal is filed by the New India Assurance Company Limited represented by its Manager, which was respondent No.4 in MVOP.No.76 of 2001, against award dated 30.06.2006 of the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal (III Additional District Judge), Ongole (for short, “the Tribunal”), whereby the Tribunal has fastened the joint and several liability on the owner of the two lorries and the insurance companies with which the said lorries were insured. I have heard Sri B. Devanand, learned counsel for the appellant and Sri T.P. Acharya for respondent No.1. In the accident that has taken place involving the two lorries, namely, lorry bearing Nos.AP 7V 1175 and AP 9V 14, respondent No.1 sustained injuries. Respondent No.1 was in lorry bearing No.AP 9V 14 insured with the appellant when the accident has taken place. A criminal case was registered in which respondent No.2, driver of lorry bearing No.AP 7V 1175 insured with respondent No.3, was shown as accused. A charge sheet was also filed against the said person. However, in the award of the Tribunal, while correctly stating that FIR was filed against respondent No.2, the Tribunal has, however, misstated the fact that charge sheet was filed against respondent No.4, the driver of lorry bearing No.AP 9V 14 insured with the appellant. The Tribunal observed that the said respondent did not appear and contest the criminal case and held that the insurance companies with which both the lorries were insured, including the appellant, are jointly and severally liable for compensation. In my considered opinion, the Tribunal has held the appellant jointly and severally liable along with respondent No.3 insurance company on a complete misunderstanding of the fact regarding registration of the criminal case and filing of charge sheet. The finding that charge sheet was filed against respondent No.2, the driver of the vehicle, which is insured with the appellant, is wholly incorrect and contrary to the record, as evident from Ex.A10 charge sheet. In this view of the matter, there is no justification to hold the appellant as jointly and severally liable. Accordingly, this part of the award is set aside and respondent No.1 is entitled to recover the compensation from other respondents including respondent No.3. The civil miscellaneous appeal is partly allowed. As a sequel to disposal of the appeal in the manner indicated above, MACMAMP.Nos.6684 of 2006 and 5914 of 2009 are disposed of as infructuous. _____________________________ C.V. NAGARJUNA REDDY, J Date: 16.02.2010 ES