THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE N.R.L.NAGESWARA RAO M.A.C.M.A.No.3287 of 2011 JUDGMENT: This appeal is filed by the claimants against the award in O.P.No.937 of 2001 on the file of the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal- cum-II Additional District Judge, Warangal. The claim for compensation of Rs.1,00,000/- was made for the injuries received by the petitioner in a motor accident. The allegations in the petition goes to show that on 6.8.2000 when the petitioner was proceeding towards Rampur from Kazipet in an auto rickshaw bearing No.AP-36-U-6503, another auto rickshaw bearing No.AP-36-U-172 came in a rash and negligent manner by taking a sudden ‘U’ turn and dashed, as a result of which the auto collided and the petitioner received multiple injuries. The auto rickshaw bearing No.AP 36-U-172 belonging to the 2nd respondent and it was duly insured with the 3rd respondent. The auto rickshaw of the petitioner was insured with the 1st respondent. The 1sat respondent filed a counter denying the liability and also the nature of the incident. There is compensatory negligence and therefore, the petition is liable to be dismissed. The third respondent filed a counter stating that it has no liability since the incident was occurred due to the fault of the petitioner himself. The nature of the injuries, nature of the treatment and quantum of compensation are disputed by the respondents. After considering the evidence on record, the lower Tribunal granted a compensation of Rs.46,000/- and held that the incident was due to the fault of the petitioner and consequently the respondents 2 and 3 are not liable. Accordingly, the appellant with whom the auto rickshaw of the claimant was injured was held liable to pay the compensation. The point for consideration is whether the appellant is liable to pay the compensation? So far as the nature of the incident is concerned, the finding of the lower Tribunal has become final and it clearly goes to show that the claimant himself was prosecuted in C.C.No.685 of 2000 and he was acquitted. Mere acquittal in the said case does not mean that the petitioner is exonerated of the civil liability of rashness and negligence. Therefore, the contention of the claimant is proved to be false. The learned counsel for the appellants strongly contended that the vehicle was insured and when the petitioner himself being the owner of the vehicle driven the same and causes the incident for his own wrong, the insurance company cannot be held liable. Evidently except the coverage of the risk of the driver, there is no coverage of the policy with regard to the driver cum owner of the vehicle. The lower Tribunal has taken into consideration some of the decisions rendered by the Keral High Court and also Himachal Pradesh High Court. The learned counsel for the appellant has relied upon the decision reported in Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd., v. Sunita Rathi and others[1] wherein it was held that the liability of the insurer arises only when the liability of the insured has been upheld for the purpose of indemnifying the insured under the contract of insurance. He also relied upon a decision reported in New India Assurance Co. Ltd., v. Meenal and others[2]. In that case when the incident happened due to the fault of the driver of the car, it was held that there is no liability for the insurance company. He also relied upon another decision reported in Smt Sakun Kushwaha & others v. Dhaniram and another (DB)[3] In view of the above legal position, there cannot be any liability to the appellant and consequently the award passed by the lower Tribunal in so far as it relates to the liability of the appellant has to be set aside. Therefore, in view of the above circumstances, the appeal is allowed and the claim against the appellant is dismissed. Accordingly, the appeal is allowed. No costs. ___________________________ N.R.L.NAGESWARA RAO,J Date:04.01.2012. Gk THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE N.R.L.NAGESWARA RAO M.A.C.M.A.No.3287 of 2011 Date: 04.01.2012 Gk. [1] AIR 1998 Supreme Court 257 [2] 1993 ACJ 533 [3] AIR 2011 CHHATTISGARH