THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE N.R.L.NAGESWARA RAO M.A.C.M.A. No.1346 OF 2011 JUDGMENT: The appeal is filed by the insurance company challenging the award in O.P.No.445 of 1998 on the file of the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal-cum-I Additional District Judge, Eluru, where-under for the death of the son of the petitioners in a motor accident, a compensation of Rs.60,000/- was granted. 2. According to the case of the petitioners, the deceased while travelling in the lorry bearing No.ABK 9669 due to the rash and negligent driving of the driver, the accident happened and subsequently the deceased died. The deceased was said to be carrying agricultural implements in the lorry and while so, another vehicle bearing No. AP 12 T 5299 driver in a rash and negligent manner, dashed the lorry, in which the deceased was travelling, as a result of which, he received injuries and died. The compensation was claimed for Rs.1,00,000/-. 3. 3rd respondent filed a counter contending that the driver, owner and insurer of the lorry, in which the deceased was travelling, are necessary parties. But, he is not liable to pay the compensation. 4. The lower Tribunal after considering the material on record, granted compensation of Rs.60,000/-. 5. The appellant herein contended that the vehicle is not insured with the 3rd respondent and the particulars are not furnished and in support of it, RW.1 the Senior Assistant was examined. He deposed that without particulars being mentioned, it is very difficult to furnish the particulars of the policy. It was contended by the petitioners that this plea was not taken in the written statement and therefore, it cannot be allowed. 6. According to the evidence of RW.1 there was some correspondent between the office at Eluru and Visakhapatnam. But, the policy was not there. In fact, even in the column 17 of the claim petition, the particulars of the policy are not furnished. Without giving the particulars of the policy, it is difficult to expect the insurance company to produce the policy and when an effort was made to trace the same and if it is not found, it cannot be taken as a valid insurance. 7. Therefore, in view of the above circumstances, the inference drawn by the lower tribunal and fixing the responsibility on the 3rd respondent is not proper. However, taking into consideration that there was no specific denial in the counter and half of the amount was paid by the insurance company, the liability of the insurance company is confined to the amount already paid and the balance amount if any shall be recovered from the owner of the vehicle by the petitioners. The insurance company is also at liberty to proceed against the owner of the vehicle for the amounts already paid. 8. Accordingly, the appeal is disposed of. No costs. ________________________ N.R.L.NAGESWARA RAO,J Date: 08.07.2011 INL