IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD THURSDAY THE EIGHTH DAY OF JULY TWO THOUSAND AND TEN PRESENT: THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE B.N.RAO NALLA MA.CMA.No. 2190 OF 2007. Between: The Divisional Manager, Oriental Insurance Company Limited Gudivada, Krishna district … Appellant V/s. Yadavalli Mariyamma & 7-Ors. … Respondents Counsel for the Appellant : Sri R.Brizmohan Singh Counsel for the Respondents 1 to 5: Sri S.Ramachandra Prasad Counsel for the Respondents for R6: None appeared Counsel for the Respondent No.7: Saiganga chamarthy The Court made the following : (Judgment follows 2nd page) THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE B.N.RAO NALLA MA.CMA.No. 2190 OF 2007. JUDGMENT : This Civil Miscellaneous Appeal is directed against the award and decree dated 23-4-2007 passed in MVOP.No. 231 of 2002 by VII Additional District and Sessions Judge, Krishna at Machilipatnam, whereby the claimants were awarded total compensation of Rs.1,60,000-00 as against the claim made for Rs.2,50,000/- on account of the death of the husband of the first claimant, Smt.Yadavalli Mariyamma. The Claims Tribunal fastened the liability on respondent Nos. 1, 3 and 4 while the claim-petition was dismissed against respondent No.2 stating that Ex.B1 is an Act Policy and only driver is covered thereunder. Therefore, the Claims Tribunal ought to have absolved the third respondent-Insurance Company from the liability to pay compensation to the claimants and the second ground is that respondent No.1 driver had no valid driving licence at the time of the accident. 2. The learned counsel for respondent Nos.1 to 5 while supporting the impugned award and decree, relied on the decisions in UNITED INDIA INSURANCE COMPANY LIMITED, KURNOOL V/s. LAKSHMAIAH AND ORS[1]., and UNITED INDIA INSURANCE COMPANY LIMITED, WARANGAL V/s. MATTEDU MANIKYAM AND ORS[2] . He further relied on a decision of the Supreme in UNITED INDIA INSURANCE COMPANY LIMITED V/s. SURESH K.K. AND ANOTHER[3]. While relying on the aforesaid decisions, it is contended by the learned counsel that though Ex.B1 is an Act Policy, it covers risk of the third party. 3. It is further contended on behalf of the respondents- claimants that the Claims Tribunal had taken the age of the parents into account and awarded the compensation instead of taking the age of the wife of the deceased, in which case the Claims Tribunal could have awarded more compensation. However, this plea is not sustainable since it is the appeal preferred by the Insurance Company. 4. After hearing both sides and having regard to the decisions relied upon by the learned counsel for respondents 1 to 5 (claimants), this Court is of the view that the impugned award passed by the Claims Tribunal does not suffer from any legal infirmity warranting interference from this Court. 5. In the result, the Civil Miscellaneous Appeal stands dismissed without costs. However, in view of the decisions referred to hereinabove, the appellant-Insurance Company cannot avoid its liability to pay compensation to respondents 1 to 5 (claimants). _________________________ JUSTICE B.N.RAO, NALLA. 08-07-2010. I s L THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE B.N. RAO NALLA MA.CIVIL MISCELLANEOUS APPEAL NO. 2190 OF 2007 Circulation No.141 Date:08-7-2010 Computer No.43 Court Master: I s L [1] ) 2003 (3) ALD-491 [2] ) 2000 (1) ALD-572 [3] ) 2008 (6) ALD-87 (SC)