IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) PRESENT THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE G.V.SEETHAPATHY M.A.C.M.A.No.1385 OF 2006 Date:14.12.2009 Between:- The United India Insurance Company Ltd., Rep.by its Manager, Kakinada. ..Appellant/Respondent No.4 And Mendu Venkata Durga Chandra Sekhar Azad and others .. Respondents/Petitioner and Respondent Nos.1 to 3 JUDGMENT:- This appeal is directed against the order dated 25.01.2006 passed in O.P.No.915 of 2002 on the file of the Chairman, Motor Accident Claims Tribunal-cum-Principal District Judge, East Godavari District, Rajahmundry wherein the claim of respondent No.1 herein was allowed in part awarding compensation of Rs.2,45,595-90ps. 2. Heard learned counsel for the appellant and learned counsel for respondent Nos.2 and 3. None appeared for respondent No.1- claimant and respondent No.4. Perused records. 3. Respondent No.1 herein filed the claim application seeking compensation of Rs.5,00,000/- for the injuries sustained by him in a motor vehicle accident that occurred on 01.11.2001. According to the claimant, on that day, while he was going on a Hero Honda Motor cycle bearing No.AP 5L 7669 as a pillion rider near District Police Office, Kakinada, a Fiat car bearing No.AAK 1716 driven by respondent No.2 herein in a rash and negligent manner dashed against him resulting in multiple grievous injuries. Respondent No.3 herein is stated to be the owner of the car. Respondent No.4 herein – owner cum driver of the Hero Honda remained ex parte. Respondent Nos.2 and 3 herein filed a counter opposing the claim and denying their liability to pay compensation. The appellant and insurer also filed a counter opposing the claim and stating that the two wheeler is insured with them but not the car. 4. During the enquiry, P.Ws.1 and 2 were examined and Exs.A-1 to A-14 were marked on behalf of the claimant. No oral evidence was adduced on behalf of the appellant but Ex.B-1-copy of the policy pertaining to the two wheeler was marked. (mistakenly noted as insurance policy relating to the accident car in the appendix of evidence). 5. On a consideration of the evidence available on record, the Tribunal held that the accident occurred due to the rash and negligent driving of the car bearing No.AAK 1716 by its driver – respondent No.2 herein. It is further held that the driver of the motor cycle-respondent No.4 herein did not contribute to the accident. The Tribunal further held that the claimant is entitled for a total compensation of Rs.2,45,595.90ps. However, the Tribunal passed the Award not only against respondent Nos.2 and 3 herein but also against the appellant while exonerating respondent No.4 herein. It is stated that initially the driver and owner of the car alone were impleaded. Aggrieved by the same, the appellant, who is respondent No.4 in the O.P., filed the present appeal. 6. The main contention of the learned counsel for the appellant is that the appellant has not insured the car at all and they were insurers only for the motor cycle and the Tribunal having held that the driver of the motor cycle was in no way responsible for the accident and having exonerated the owner of the motor cycle from any liability, ought to have fastened any liability against the appellant, who is the insurer for the motor cycle. It is stated that initially the claim application was filed against the driver and owner of the car and subsequently, the appellant-insurer was impleaded on the premise that they are the insurers for the motor car whereas in fact, the appellant is insurer only for the motor cycle but not the car. As seen from the Award, no liability was fastened on the owner of the motor cycle and respondent No.4 was exonerated totally in view of the specific finding that the driver of the motor cycle has not contributed to the accident in any manner. When that is so, the question of fastening any liability on the appellant, who is the insurer for the motor cycle, does not simply arise. It appears that the liability was fastened on the appellant under the mistaken impression that the appellant is the insurer for the car. The Award passed against the appellant in fastening joint and several liability for payment of compensation is, therefore, clearly unsustainable and the same is liable to be set aside. 7. Though the driver of the car is found to be responsible for the accident and an Award is passed against the driver and owner of the car, the insurer of the said vehicle not having been impleaded, no liability was fastened on the insurer of the car. It is, therefore, considered that ends of Justice would require that the insurer of the car is also duly impleaded and the matter is disposed of afresh in the presence of all the concerned parties. With a view to give an opportunity to the claimant to implead the necessary party namely the insurer of the car, it is considered appropriate to remand the matter to the Tribunal so that the same can be disposed of afresh in the presence of all proper and necessary parties. 8. In the circumstances, the impugned Award is, accordingly, set aside and the matter is remitted to the Tribunal for fresh disposal according to law. Having regard to the fact that the claim is of the year 2002, the Tribunal is directed to dispose of the same within a period of four (4) months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. 9. The appeal is allowed accordingly. The appellant is permitted to have refund of the amount deposited by them. ____​______________ G. V. SEETHAPATHY, J 14th December, 2009 AMD