THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY M.A.C.M.A NO.1577 OF 2007 Dated 17th February, 2010 Between: The National Insurance Co. Ltd …Appellant And Chilakala Polamma and others …Respondents Counsel for the appellant : Sri Kota Subba Rao Counsel for respondents 1 to 5: Sri J.Ugranarasimha Counsel for respondent No.6: None appeared The Court made the following JUDGMENT: The National Insurance Company Limited represented by its Branch Manager, Tirupati, filed this Motor Accidents Civil Miscellaneous Appeal against order dated 24.01.2007 in I.A.No.989 of 2006 in MVOP No.741 of 2005 on the file of the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal- cum- III-Additional District Judge (for short “the Tribunal”), Tirupati. The deceased C.Maraiah, while travelling in a mini lorry bearing registration No.AP26 W 1291, insured with the appellant, died on 18.06.2005. Respondents 1 to 5, who are the legal heirs of the deceased, filed MVOP No.741 of 2005 under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (for short “the Act”) claiming compensation against respondent No.6, the owner of the lorry, and the appellant-insurance company. Pending the MVOP, the claimants filed I.A.No.989 of 2006 under Section 140 of the Act claiming compensation towards no fault liability. The Tribunal allowed the said I.A pending the MVOP and held the appellant and respondent No.6 jointly and severally liable for payment of the compensation of Rs.50,000/-. The Insurance Company filed this appeal, inter alia, contending that the deceased was travelling in a goods vehicle and that the policy did not cover the risk of such passengers. During the pendency of this appeal, the appellant has deposited half of the awarded amount and this Court, considering the said fact, granted interim stay of the award by order dated 03.08.2007. The proceeding sheet does not show that the claimants were permitted to withdraw the said amount. The appellant filed MA CMP No.5194 of 2009 for receiving additional evidence pertaining to the decree and judgment in MVOP No.741 of 2005. This application was directed to be posted along with this appeal. Today, having considered this application and after hearing the learned counsel, I have allowed the same by a separate order. A perusal of the said judgment and decree shows that the plea of the appellant that it is not liable to pay compensation was accepted by the Tribunal and the claim against it was dismissed. The learned counsel for respondents 1 to 5 has not disputed this fact. Inasmuch as I.A.No.989 of 2006 was disposed of awarding no fault liability pending the main MVOP and the main MVOP itself having been dismissed against the appellant, the finding rendered therein binds the parties. In this view of the matter, the award passed in I.A.No.989 of 2006 making the appellant jointly and severally liable to pay the no fault liability compensation to respondents 1 to 5 cannot be sustained. The Motor Accidents Civil Miscellaneous Appeal is, accordingly, allowed qua the appellant. Respondents 1 to 5 shall be free to execute the award against respondent No.6, the owner of the lorry. It is, however, made clear that if respondents 1 to 5 succeed in getting the award in MVOP No.741 of 2005 reversed and in the event, the appellant is made liable to pay compensation in the appeal, if any, filed by respondents 1 to 5, this order shall be subject to the outcome of such an appeal. The appellant is permitted to withdraw the part of the compensation amount deposited by it to the credit of I.A.No.989 of 2006 in MVOP No.741 of 2005. C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY, J Dated 17th February, 2010 vrn