THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE B.PRAKASH RAO AND THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE P.DURGA PRASAD L.P.A.NO.129 OF 2002 JUDGMENT: {Per the Hon’ble Sri Justice B.Prakash Rao} The appellant-Insurance Company filed the present L.P.A. under Clause 15 of the Letters Patent Act, inter alia, seeking to assail the correctness of the judgment of the learned Single Judge of this Court in dismissing C.M.A.No.777 of 1991 filed under Section 110-D of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 {“the Act” for brevity}, against the order dated 15.09.1990 in O.P.No.203 of 1989 on the file of the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal- cum-Additional District And Sessions Judge, Vizianagaram, in allowing the petition filed under Section 110-A of the Act, read with Rule 514 of the Motor Vehicles Rules, 1989, seeking compensation of Rs.4,00,000/-, costs and interest at 12% per annum towards the death of the deceased, Kunche Venkata Narasayya. The facts, in brief, which are necessary for disposal of this appeal, are that on 30.04.1989 while the deceased was standing on the left side of the road, a van bearing No. ADN 3299 came in a rash and negligent manner and dashed against the deceased, as a result of which, the deceased died on the spot. Hence, the legal representatives of the deceased filed the claim petition seeking compensation of Rs.4,00,000/-, costs and interest at 12% per annum. The respondents therein contested the claim denying the allegations made in the petition. After holding regular enquiry, the trial Court has taken into consideration the evidence adduced on both the sides and fixed the compensation at Rs.1,70,400/- along with interest at 12% per annum from the date of the petition till the date of realization. Challenging the same, the present appeal has been filed by the Insurance Company along with CMP.No.6864 of 1991 to receive additional evidence i.e., policy bearing No.550701/6302572/89, as Ex.B1. The case of the appellant-Insurance Company before the learned Single Judge was that since the claimants did not come out with any particulars of the Insurance Policy, it could not be produced in the Court below. By taking into consideration the reasons given in support of the application, the learned Single Judge did not find favour with the request of the appellant and hence, dismissed the appeal and the application as well. Learned Single Judge further held that there is no evidence even in regard to the nature of the vehicle, whether it is a goods vehicle or a passenger vehicle. Hence the L.P.A. Considering the submissions made and on perusal of the material available on record, it is seen that absolutely no jurisdictional error has been established by the appellant before it seeks leave to raise such plea. We do not find any reason to show any indulgence at this stage of Letters Patent Appeal to accept the said plea. Learned counsel for the appellant submits that having regard to the nature of policy, necessarily, it is to be restricted to Rs.50,000/- even though the vehicle is a goods vehicle. However, we are not acceding to such request for want of evidence on record. Hence, there are no merits in the appeal. The L.P.A. is, accordingly, dismissed. No costs. _________________ (B.PRAKASH RAO, J) __________________ (P.DURGA PRASAD, J) 9th February 2011 RRB