IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE OF ANDHRA PRADESH : HYDERABAD FRIDAY, THE SIXTEENTH (16TH) DAY OF SEPTEMBER, TWO THOUSAND AND ELEVEN Present: HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE G.V.SEETHAPATHY M.A.C.M.A.No.488 OF 2008 Between: Tumula Malleswara Rao and others … Appellants And: Gokada Srinivasa Rao and others … Respondents HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE G.V.SEETHAPATHY M.A.C.M.A.No.488 OF 2008 JUDGMENT: This appeal is directed against the order dated 28.02.2005 in O.P.No.300 of 1999, on the file of the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal (I-Additional District Judge), Srikakulam (for short ‘the Tribunal), wherein the said claim application filed by appellants herein, the claimants, seeking compensation, was allowed, awarding compensation of Rs.1,72,000/- with interest at 6% per annum against the 1st respondent, the driver, and 2nd respondent, the owner of the crime vehicle i.e., lorry bearing No.AP 31 T 4761 and dismissing the application against the 3rd respondent/insurer. 2. Heard both sides. Perused the record. 3. According to the claimants, the crime vehicle was insured with 3rd respondent. The particulars of insurance are, however, not furnished by the claimants. The 2nd respondent, owner of the vehicle, filed a written statement stating that the vehicle is insured with the 3rd respondent. He too did not furnish the particulars of insurance. The 3rd respondent denied that the vehicle was insured with their company. After due enquiry, the Tribunal, while awarding compensation against respondents 1 and 2 in a sum of Rs.1,72,000/-, exonerated the 3rd respondent from liability to pay the same on the ground that it is not established on evidence that the vehicle was insured with the 3rd respondent. Aggrieved by the same, the claimants filed the present appeal. 4. At the time of hearing of the appeal, the appellants filed a cover note said to have been issued by the 3rd respondent in respect of the crime vehicle and they also filed copy of the Motor Vehicle Inspector’s report which makes a reference to the cover note. The learned counsel for the 3rd respondent would submit that the number of the cover note mentioned in the MVI’s report is not tallying with the number mentioned in the cover note filed by the appellants and on verification it was found that no policy was issued by the 3rd respondent in respect of the crime vehicle with reference to the said cover note numbers. Be that as it may, it is considered a fit case where an opportunity be given to both parties to adduce necessary evidence in support of their respective contentions regarding the issuance or otherwise of the said policy by the 3rd respondent in respect of the crime vehicle. 5. In the circumstances, the impugned order, insofar it exonerates the 3rd respondent from liability, is set aside and the matter is remanded to the Tribunal to consider the said aspect of insurance coverage afresh after giving opportunity to both sides to adduce necessary oral and documentary evidence regarding the same and thereafter record a finding as to whether or not the crime vehicle is insured with the 3rd respondent insurer and the policy, if any, was in force as on the date of the accident and whether or not the 3rd respondent-insurer can be fastened with any liability for the compensation awarded. Having regard to the fact that the claim is of the year 1999, the Tribunal is directed to dispose of the matter at an early date, preferably within a period of four months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. 6. The appeal is disposed of accordingly as stated above. There shall be no order as to costs. ____________________ G.V.SEETHAPATHY, J 16th September, 2011 Lrkm.