THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE V.V.S. RAO CIVIL MISCELLANEOUS APPEAL No.2004 of 1998 16.11.2009 Between: Gonikunta Venkataramana, S/o.Ganganna And others … Appellants and Pattam Chandrasekhara Reddy, S/o.Venkata Reddy And others … Respondents THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE V.V.S. RAO CIVIL MISCELLANEOUS APPEAL No.2004 of 1998 ORDER: Respondents 4 to 7 here instituted O.P.No.24 of 1993 claiming compensation for the death of wife of fourth respondent and mother of respondents 5 to 7. They alleged that the death occurred due to accident involving the Tractor bearing No.AP 3T 8638 owned by Pattem Reddeppa Reddy. Initially, he was not made a party. Therefore, claimants filed I.A.No.289 of 1998 seeking impleadment of owner of tractor, appellant herein. By an order dated 21.4.1998, Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal-cum-Additional District Judge, Madanapalle, allowed the application. Aggrieved by the same, owner of tractor, who is admittedly insured, filed the instant appeal. Learned Counsel for appellant contends that vehicle of appellant was not involved in the accident and in any case offending vehicle was not registered in the name of appellant. This is refuted by learned Counsel for claimants. In Oriental Insurance Co.Ltd., v Sunita Rathi[1], the Supreme Court considered the question of maintainability of a motor accidents claim in the absence of owner/insured of the vehicle involved in the accident wherein it was held. It follows that the insurer cannot be held liable on the basis of the above policy in the present case and, therefore, the liability has to be of the owner of the vehicle. However, we find that the High Court, without assigning any reason, has simply assumed that the owner of the vehicle was not liable and that the insurer alone was liable in the present case. This conclusion, reached by the High Court, is clearly erroneous. The liability of the insurer arises only when the liability of the insured has been upheld for the purpose of indemnifying the insured under the contract of insurance. There is, thus, a basic fallacy in the conclusion reached by the High Court on this point. In this case, no doubt there is a dispute whether appellant is owner of vehicle and whether vehicle is transferred in the name of appellant as on the date of accident. These questions have to be gone into in the enquiry before the Tribunal, as O.P. itself is not maintainable due to non-making owner of vehicle as a party. This Court does not find any infirmity in the order passed by the Tribunal and the appeal deserves to be dismissed. Accordingly, the civil miscellaneous appeal is dismissed. Learned Tribunal is directed to dispose of O.P. itself within a period of four months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. _____________ (V.V.S.RAO, J) November 16, 2009 NOTE: The office is directed to dispatch order copy to lower Court along with the records if any received, within one week. (By order) YS [1] AIR 1998 SC 257: 1998 ACJ 121