THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE VILAS V. AFZULPURKAR MA CMA NO. 575 of 2007 Date of order: 29.7.2010 Between: The United India Insurance Company Ltd. …Appellant and K. Sarala Devi ..Respondent THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE VILAS V. AFZULPURKAR MA CMA NO. 575 of 2007 JUDGMENT: This appeal is by the Insurance Company against the award for compensation passed in favour of the respondent-claimant in OP No. 140 of 2004 on the file of the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal-cum-Addl. District Judge, Mahabubnagar, dated 18.12.2006. The claimant approached the Tribunal seeking a compensation of Rs.3,15,000/- towards damages, repairing charges, loss of earnings arising out of an accident caused to Excavator (JCB) bearing No. AP-22-U- 864. There is no dispute that the said vehicle was insured with the appellant-insurance company. It is alleged in the claim petition that the said vehicle accidentally slipped into a tank as a result of loose soil on the road due to heavy rains and sustained damage and the vehicle was shifted to M/s. Engine Tech Services, 91, Compound, Sarojini Devi Road, Secunderabad for repair and after undertaking repairs, the claimant has been using the said vehicle. It is also alleged that the claimant suffered loss of earning during the period of its repair. The appellant-insurance company raised a defence that the driver of the vehicle was having a fake and bogus driving licence and therefore sought to avoid its liability. It is also alleged that the claim relates to own damage of the insurer, which is not covered by the insurance policy. The claimant examined PWs 1 to 4 and marked Exs.A1 to A6, of them Ex.A1 being original driving licence and Ex.A2 being letter dated 7.8.2002 repudiating the driving licence of the claimant by the insurance company and on behalf of the appellant-insurance company R.Ws. 1 and 2 were examined and Exs. B1 to B8 were marked. On consideration of the oral and documentary evidence, the Tribunal found that the said vehicle slipped into the tank as a result of loose soil on the road due to heavy rains and it required extensive repairs. To the extent of defence of the insurance company that the claimant had a fake driving licence was not accepted by the Tribunal in view of the fact that the insurance company had neither filed any complaint nor had taken any action based thereon at any point of time. Ex.A1 was, therefore, accepted as a valid driving licence of the claimant. The Tribunal had also examined the bills produced by the claimant and accepted the bill under Ex.B2 for Rs.52,112/- and granted damages of Rs.52,000/- to the claimant as against his total claim of Rs.3,15,000/-, with interest at 7% P.A. In this appeal, the learned counsel for the appellant- insurance company contended that own damage of the vehicle in question is not covered by the insurance policy and as such the Tribunal committed an error in making the insurance company liable for damages to the vehicle. He also contended that if it was a case of own damages, the Tribunal would not have jurisdiction to entertain the claim petition. Both the aforesaid contentions have been refuted by the learned counsel for the claimant by stating that a separate premium was paid by the claimant to cover the own damages also and that the ground of jurisdiction taken by the learned counsel for the insurance company in this appeal was never raised by it before the Tribunal. I have verified Ex.B8-insurance policy which specifically shows that the claimant had also paid premium to cover the own damages of the vehicle. It is, therefore, not as if that the appellant-insurance company could avoid its liability on that ground. Further the second ground of lack of jurisdiction was not urged before the Tribunal as there is hardly any discussion even in the impugned order of the Tribunal. It is to be noted as against the claim of Rs.3,15,000/-, the Tribunal has awarded only a sum of Rs.52,000/- and in the absence of any appeal by claimant, on facts, interference is not warranted. For the above reasons, I do not find any infirmity warranting interference in the impugned order. The appeal is, therefore, without merits and liable to be dismissed. Accordingly the appeal is dismissed, however, no order as to costs. _________________________ VILAS V. AFZULPURKAR, J Dt. 29.7.2010 KR