IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) FRIDAY, THE ELEVENTH DAY OF SEPTEMBER TWO THOUSAND AND NINE PRESENT THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE VILAS V. AFZULPURKAR CIVIL MISCELLANEOUS APPEAL No.2703 OF 1999 BETWEEN New India Assurance Company Limited. …APPELLANT AND M. Chandraiah and another. …RESPONDENTS Counsel for the appellant: Mr. Kota Subba Rao Counsel for the Respondents: None appeared The Court made the following: - JUDGMENT: This appeal is preferred by the insurance company against the compensation of Rs.18,000/- with interest awarded in favour of the respondent/claimant by the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Mahbubnagar, in O.P.No.802 of 1992. 2. The claim arises out of the accident dated 09.04.1992 wherein the claimant/first respondent while traveling in a car came across a she-buffalo on the road and to save the she-buffalo dashed against the bridge. The claimant suffered injuries to his left hand and he was inpatient for two months. The claim petition was filed seeking compensation of Rs.50,000/- on account of the injuries. The appellant herein, who was the second respondent before the tribunal, pleaded that though the vehicle was insured, the insurance company is not liable to pay the said compensation as it is an act policy. The tribunal answered the question of rash and negligent driving against the driver of the vehicle and with regard to the compensation, tribunal came to the conclusion that as P.W.1 has to remain in hospital for long period on account of the treatment for 27 days and as he might have spent at least Rs.2000/- on that and keeping in view the age of the deceased, an aggregate compensation of Rs.18,000/- was awarded with interest at 12%. 3. In this appeal, the learned counsel for appearing for the appellant- insurance company submits that the policy being an act policy is not in dispute and as such, except third parties no other risks are covered under the said policy. Thus, the present claim also is not sustainable so far as the appellant is concerned. 4. There is no appearance on behalf of the second respondent herein, who is the owner of the vehicle and with regard to the first respondent herein, the appeal already stood dismissed in default by order dated 24.02.2008. During the pendency of this appeal, as per the interim order, the appellant had already deposited half of the amount awarded, which the claimant was entitled to withdraw. As stated above, the appeal does not survive against the first respondent and the second respondent has not contested the matter. In view of the fact that the policy in question is an act policy and the claimant being not a third party, the liability cannot be imposed on the insurance company. The civil miscellaneous appeal is accordingly allowed. However, half of the awarded amount deposited in pursuance of the interim order of this Court, pending the appeal, must have been withdrawn by the claimant as he was permitted earlier and the same shall not be liable to be recovered from the claimant and if the appellant so chooses, it is at liberty to recover the said withdrawn amount from the owner of the vehicle – second respondent herein. Similarly, the claimant shall be at liberty to recover the balance half of the awarded amount from the owner of the vehicle – second respondent, as the owner alone is liable for the compensation in favour of the appellant. There shall be no order as to costs. _____________________ VILAS V. AFZULPURAKR, J September 11, 2009 DSK