IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD TUESDAY, THE TWENTY SEVENTH DAY OF DECEMBER TWO THOUSAND AND ELEVEN PRESENT THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE N.R.L. NAGESWARA RAO M.A.C.M.A.No.3414 OF 2011 Between: United India Insurance Company Limited ..... APPELLANT AND Pudipeddi Seetharama Murthy and others ....RESPONDENTS The Court made the following: THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE N.R.L. NAGESWARA RAO M.A.C.M.A.No.3414 OF 2011 JUDGMENT: This appeal is filed against the judgment in M.O.P.No.1073 of 2001 on the file of the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Visakhapatnam, by the Insurance Company questioning the liability. A claim for compensation of Rs.1,00,000/- was made by respondent No.1/petitioner for the injuries received by him in a motor accident. On 14.06.2000, when respondent No.1 was going on a motorcycle, a Car bearing No. AP 31 T 2471 came in a rash and negligent manner and dashed him. Respondent No.2 herein is the Driver and respondent No.3 herein is the Owner of the Car. The appellant herein is the Insurance Company. The appellant filed a counter before the Tribunal disputing the insurance of the vehicle, the rashness and negligence of the driver of the Car, and the driver was having a valid driving licence. The Tribunal after considering the material on record accepted the case of respondent No.1 herein and granted compensation of Rs.55,500/-. Being aggrieved by the said award, the present appeal is filed. The point for consideration is whether the appellant is liable to pay the amount? Point: So far as the nature of the accident and the quantum of compensation are concerned there is no serious dispute. But, however, the learned counsel for the appellant contends that a specific plea has been taken denying the insurance of the vehicle and that the particulars of the policy are not given and in the absence of such material, the observation of the lower Tribunal that the appellant has accepted the insurance of the vehicle is not correct. According to him, there was a specific plea on this aspect. Reliance is sought to be made on the Motor Vehicle Inspection Report, which is Ex.A2, referring that the vehicle was insured with the appellant only. The said report Ex.A2 is also silent as to the particulars of the policy. Therefore, in the absence of such material evidence on record and when both parties have not adduced any evidence to that effect, I fell the parties may be given an opportunity to adduce further evidence to prove the liability or non-liability of the Insurance Company. Therefore, while confirming the quantum of compensation granted by the lower Tribunal, the matter is remanded for the limited purpose for determining whether the vehicle was insured with the appellant or not. In case respondent No.1/petitioner feels that there is an error in impleading the appellant - Insurance Company, the lower Tribunal shall permit to add such party to the proceedings and determine the liability. Accordingly, the point is answered. Accordingly, the appeal is allowed with the above liberty of remanding the matter. The lower Tribunal is directed to dispose of the case within three months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. There shall be no order as to costs. ____________________________ N.R.L.NAGESWARA RAO, J December 27, 2011 MD THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE N.R.L. NAGESWARA RAO M.A.C.M.A.No.3414 OF 2011 December 27, 2011 MD