THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY CIVIL REVISION PETITION No.814 of 2009 Date:04.02.2011 Between: United India Insurance Company Limited ..... Petitioner AND Potnuru Ganesh Gupta and others .....Respondents Counsel for the Petitioner: Sri A.V.K.S. Prasad Counsel for Respondents: None appeared The Court made the following: ORDER: This civil revision petition arises out of the award dated 21.02.2008 in M.V.O.P.No.512 of 2004 on the file of the Motor Accidents Claim Tribunal-cum-I Additional District Judge’s Court, Srikakulam. The petitioner – insurance company is respondent No.3 in the O.P. Respondent No.1 herein filed the said O.P. for recovery of Rs.20,000/- towards compensation for the injury suffered by him in a motor accident involving a tractor-trailor bearing No.AP 30T 5363/5364. The said O.P. was partly allowed by the Tribunal by awarding a sum of Rs.8,000/- towards compensation with interest at 7.5% p.a. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner raised two contentions, namely, (i) that neither the order nor the decree passed by the Tribunal has fixed the liability on the owner of the tractor-trailor and therefore, the petitioner, which merely indemnified the liability of the owner, ought not to have been saddled with the liability to pay compensation, and (ii) that the offending vehicle is not insured with the petitioner and that in spite of a specific plea taken by it, no finding has been rendered by the Tribunal in this regard. I have carefully considered the submissions of the learned counsel for the petitioner with reference to the material available on record. As regards the first contention of the learned counsel, from the decree passed by the Tribunal, it is evident that respondent No.1 herein has filed the O.P. with the prayer to award a sum of Rs.20,000/- towards compensation for the injuries suffered by him with the direction to the respondents therein, who are the driver and owner of the tractor-trailor and the petitioner herein, to pay the same with interest at 18% p.a. In the first clause of the decree, it is stated that “the petition be and the same is hereby allowed in part”. Though the Tribunal has not held in express terms that all the respondents are liable to pay the compensation, by allowing the petition in part, it is implied that the prayer of claimant to direct the respondents in the O.P. to pay the compensation has been accepted by the Tribunal, which necessarily means that the owner is also made liable to pay apart from the insurance company. As regards the second contention of the learned counsel, no material is placed before this Court to show that such a contention was raised in the counter-affidavit filed by the petitioner. Therefore, I am not inclined to go into this issue at this stage. For the aforementioned reasons, the Revision Petition is dismissed. As a sequel to dismissal of the revision, interim order dated 02.03.2009 in C.R.P.M.P.No.1165 of 2009 is vacated and C.R.P.M.P.No.1165 of 2009 is dismissed as infructuous. ________________________ C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY, J 04th February, 2011 GHN