HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE GHULAM MOHAMMED MA C.M.A.No. 4476 OF 2003 JUDGMENT: United India Insurance Company is the appellant who filed the appeal challenging the award and decree passed in MVOP No. 374 of 2000 dated 27.05.2003 on the file of the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal-cum-Additional District Judge, Nizamabad, filed under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, claiming damages of Rs. 1,00,000/- as against which, the Tribunal awarded Rs. 38,969/-. 2. The brief facts of the case are as follows: On 24.6.1999 while the claimant and others were traveling in a matador van bearing No. MH 167508 from Kothagudem to Hyderabad and when reached the limits of Veliminedu Village on National Highway No. 9 at 9.15 PM a lorry bearing No. APF 5857 came from behind with high speed and in a rash and negligent manner dashed the matador van. As a result of which, the van got totally damaged and the innates of the van sustained serious injuries and the damages to the van were estimated at Rs. 1,00,000/-. Hence, she laid a claim petition seeking compensation of Rs. 1,00,000/- towards damages. 3. The first respondent- Owner of the lorry remained ex parte and the second respondent-Insurance Company filed its counter denying the allegations made in the petition about the accident and the manner in which it is said to have occurred and the very involvement of the lorry in the accident and the amount claimed is highly excessive. 4. On the basis of the above pleadings, the following issues were settled for trial. 1. Whether the petitioner sustained injuries due to rash and negligent driving of 1st respondent’s lorry by its driver? 2. whether the petitioner is entitled for compensation, if so, to what amount and from whom? 3. To what relief? 5. On behalf of the claimant, she herself examined as PW-1 and Exs. A1 to A4 were marked and on behalf of the second respondent no oral or documentary evidence was adduced. 6. On consideration of oral and documentary evidence, the Tribunal came to the conclusion that the driver of the lorry of the first respondent caused the accident by driving the vehicle in a rash and negligent manner and caused damages to the van of the claimant. With regard to awarding of damages, the Tribunal taking into consideration of Ex. A3, issued by registered surveyor and 12 photographs Ex. A4, to prove what damages the van sustained, awarded Rs. 38,969/- as compensation against respondents 1 and 2, along with 9% interest per annum. Being aggrieved by the same the Insurance Company filed the present Civil Miscellaneous Appeal. 7. The learned counsel appearing for the appellant- Insurance Company submits that the Tribunal ought to have seen that it was an Act policy and no extra premium was paid to cover a wider liability, especially regarding property of the third party as per Section 147 (2)(b) of the Motor Vehicles Act. He also contended that the Tribunal ought to have awarded Rs. 6,000/- towards the liability of the Insurance Company and not burdened with the entire amount of Rs. 38,969/-. 8. The point that arises for consideration is whether the Insurance Company can be burdened with the entire amount awarded by the Tribunal? 9. As seen from the record, it is no doubt true that the accident occurred due to rash and negligent driving of the driver of the accident lorry and the first respondent- owner of the lorry and the appellant –Insurance Company being insurer, are jointly and severally liable to pay the compensation to the claimant. As seen from the contents, the claimant relied upon her testimony and on the loss sustained report Ex. A3 issued by registered surveyor and loss assessor and the 12 photographs Ex. A4 and after the accident, the vehicle was totally damaged and was kept idle for more than six months and it was stated that she spent more than Rs. 70,000/- towards repairs. The Tribunal taking into consideration of all the aspects granted Rs. 38,969/- to the claimant making appellant-insurer of the lorry liable for payment of compensation. For ready reference, Section 147 (2) (b) of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 reads as under: “(b) in respect of damage to any property of a third party, a limit of rupees six thousand. Provided that any policy of insurance issued with any limited liability and in force immediately before the commencement of this Act, shall continue to be effective for a period of four months after such commencement, or till the date of expiry of such policy whichever is earlier” 10. A plain reading of the above Sub-section 2(b) of Section 147 of the Motor Vehicle Act clearly postulates that in respect of damage to any property of a third party, a limit of rupees six thousand is fixed. Hence, the liability of the claimant- Insurance Company is imposed to an extent of Rs. 6,000/- and for the rest of the amount, the claimant is at liberty to recover the same from the owner of the lorry bearing No. APF 5857. 11. In the circumstances, the appeal filed by the appellant- Insurance Company is allowed in part fixing the liability of Rs. 6,000/- on the Insurance Company and for the balance amount of Rs. 32,969/- out of total compensation awarded by the Tribunal at Rs.38, 969/-, the appellant is at liberty to recover the same from the owner of the lorry bearing No. APF 5857. There shall be no order as to costs. _____________________ GHULAM MOHAMMED, J Date: 29.07.2010 KA