IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE OF ANDHRAPRADESH AT HYDERABAD HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE SAMUDRALA GOVINDARAJULU M.A.C.M.A.No.2914 of 2007 DATE:19.11.2010 Between: Branch Manager, United India Insurance Co., Ltd., …… Appellant And E.Srinivas and another …..Respondents HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE SAMUDRALA GOVINDARAJULU M.A.C.M.A.No.2914 of 2007 JUDGMENT: After verification of records, the appellant’s counsel fairly submitted that he did not find any petition muchless order passed by the lower Tribunal giving required permission to the insurance company/appellant under Section 170 of the Motor Vehicles Act. Therefore, the appellant is not legally entitled to file this appeal questioning quantum of compensation awarded by the lower Tribunal to the 1st respondent/injured. For the same reason, the appellant cannot raise the contention based on the alleged contributory negligence of the opposite tempo trax driver. In any event, there is no evidence placed before the lower Tribunal to show that driver of the opposite tempo trax vehicle contributed negligence for this accident. Simply because 18 persons were travelling in the tempo trax as against its capacity of 12 persons, the Tribunal or this Court cannot jump to any conclusion that the tempo trax driver contributed negligence for this accident, in the absence of future evidence that the said overloading caused inconvenience or discomfort to the tempo trax driver resulting in this accident. Thus, this appeal fails. 2) Accordingly, the appeal is dismissed with costs. _______________________________ SAMUDRALA GOVINDARAJULU, J November 19, 2010 ksh