THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE K.S.APPA RAO C.M.A.No. 567 of 2002 Date: 25-02-2011 Between: R.M. Gopal Reddy …..Appellant And Syed Ioothlur Ali & another …..Respondents THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING: THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE K.S.APPA RAO CIVIL MISCELLANEOUS APPEAL No. 567 of 2002 JUDGMENT Aggrieved by the order dated 14-2-2001 passed in M.V.O.P.No.126 of 1999, by the III Additional District Judge–cum-Chairman, Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Kurnool, the claimant filed this appeal. The brief facts of the case are as follows: Respondent No.1 is the owner of lorry bearing No.AHT 9200. Respondent No.2 is the insurer of the said vehicle. On 1-7-1998 at about 3-00 PM, the driver of the 1st respondent drove the said lorry in a rash and negligent manner at a high speed, without blowing horn dashed against the tractor bearing No.AP 21-T-2817 belonging to the petitioner, near Tungabhadra Bridge, resulting heavy damage to the tractor. On behalf of the petitioner, PW1 was examined and Exs.A1 to A3 were marked. On behalf of the respondents, RWs.1 and 2 were examined and Ex.B1 was marked. The Tribunal after consideration of the entire material placed before it and after hearing the learned counsels on either side, came to the conclusion that the petitioner failed to adduce evidence to the effect that there was any damage to the tractor and that he effected repairs to the tractor by incurring expenditure of Rs.25,000/-, dismissed the petition. Feeling aggrieved, the claimant filed this appeal seeking compensation. Learned counsel for the appellant urged that the Tribunal erred in holding that the appellant-claimant did not prove the rash and negligent driving on the part of the driver of the 1st respondent. He further urged that Ex.A3-charge sheet clearly established that the accident occurred due to the rash and negligent driving of the driver of 1st respondent, resulting damages to the tractor of the petitioner. He also urged that the Tribunal did not distinguish between the criminal case and the claim petition under M.V. Act, wherein the appreciation of evidence shall altogether different from that of criminal case. He further urged that the Tribunal erred in observing that the appellant-claimant did not establish the loss caused to the tractor, without appreciating the fact that the tractor was repaired by keeping it in the shed for five months and marked the photographs of the same under Ex.A-2, incurred Rs.25,000/- expenditure for repairs and hired tractor for agricultural operations during five months period and incurred expenditure of Rs.30,000/-. Learned counsel for the 2nd respondent-insurance company urged that the liability of 2nd respondent, if any, is subject to compliance of Section 64 VB of Insurance Act. He further urged that the 2nd respondent issued the insurance policy in respect of lorry bearing No.AHT 9200, covers only third party insurance. He also urged that no additional premium was paid to cover high risk of third party property damages and as such the liability of the respondent, if any, is limited to Rs.6,000/- only and anything over the said amount, has to be paid by the 1st respondent only. Now the point for consideration is whether the appellant-claimant is entitled to any compensation? It is not in dispute that the offending vehicle was insured with the 2nd respondent. The Tribunal dismissed the claim of the appellant on the ground that the claimant failed to prove that he is the owner of the ill-fated vehicle on the date of accident. Ex.A-3 is attested copy of petty case charge sheet by Station House Officer, Kurnool Taluk Police Station. The fact remains that ill-fated vehicle sustained damages in the accident. Admittedly, the vehicle in question i.e., the lorry bearing No. AHT 9200, covers only third party risk and no additional premium was paid to cover the risk of third party property damages and as such the liability of the 2nd respondent should be limited to Rs.6,000/-. In the present case, no additional premium was also paid to that effect. 1st respondent did not produce any positive evidence. In the absence of any such evidence, it should be construed that the offending lorry covers only third party risk. Therefore, 2nd respondent is only liable to pay an amount of Rs.6,000/- as per the policy conditions. Accordingly, the petitioner is entitled to Rs.6,000/-. With this modification, the civil miscellaneous appeal is allowed in part. There shall be no order as to costs. ________________________ JUSTICE K.S. APPA RAO Dt: 25.02.2011 Tjmr THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE K.S.APPA RAO C.M.A.No. 567 of 2002 DATE: 25.02.2011