THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE K.S. APPA RAO C.M.A.No. 1874 of 2003 ORDER Aggrieved against the judgment and decree dated 28.11.2002 in O.P.No. 1405 of 2001 on the file of the learned Motor Accident Claims Tribunal-cum-III Addl. Chief Judge, City Civil Court, Hyderabad. The present C.M.A. is filed on the following grounds: The Order of the tribunal in awarding the compensation amount of Rs. 18,000/- against the claim of Rs. 1,50,000/- is meagre and that the order awarding only Rs. 6,000/- in favour of Respondent Nos. 1 and 2 against the claim of Rs. 14,000/- is erroneous and contrary to law. The facts of the case in brief are as follows: That on 8.1.2001, the deceased met with an accident while proceeding in his Maruthi Van bearing No. AP 10 D 4812, when it dashed tipper bearing No. APV 9210. For the rash and negligent driving of the driver of the tipper the Van in which the petitioner was traveling was badly damaged and caused loss of Rs. 58,000/-. In the lower Court the petitioner has claimed compensation of Rs. 1,50,000/-. Petitioner has examined P.Ws.1 and 2 and got marked Exs.A-1 to A-10. On behalf of Respondent, R.W.1 was examined and Ex.B-1 was marked in the lower Court. The lower Court while evaluating the evidence came to the conclusion that the dash was due to rash and negligent driving of the driver of the offending vehicle. Ex.B-1 is the policy related to the vehicle involved in the accident and the same is in force as on the date of the accident, therefore, the 1st respondent being the owner and 2nd respondent being Insurer, are jointly and severally liable to pay the compensation awarded. It is the specific case of the petitioner that the Van in which her husband (deceased) was traveling was extensively damaged to a tune of Rs. 59,000/- and hence she applied for compensation. In order to prove the same, she relied on the report of the Surveyor and relevant bills marked as Ex.A-6 to Ex.A-8. The lower Court in 10th paragraph of the judgment discussed the evidence on record in detail and granted an amount of Rs. 20,000/- towards the damage of Maruthi Van in question. I am of the view that the said calculation is justified. During the course of arguments, the learned Standing Counsel for Insurance Company draws my attention to Section 147(2)(b) of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 and urged that the liability of 2nd respondent in respect of the damage to any property of third party is limited to Rs. 6,000/- and placed reliance on Ex.B-1 policy. Therefore, the document Ex.B-1 plays a vital role in deciding the said issue. A careful perusal of Ex.B-1 shows that the liability of 2nd respondent is limited. If that be the case, the damage to Maruthi Van to third party should be limited to Rs. 6,000/- only. Having regard to the facts and circumstances and evidence on record, the compensation granted by the lower Court is sustainable and thereby the C.M.A. is dismissed. ___________________ 11.2.2011 CHV