IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE OF ANDHRA PRDESH:: HYDERABAD THURSDAY, THE TENTH DAY OF NOVEMBER TWO THOUSAND AND ELEVEN PRESENT:: HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE G.V.SEETHAPATHY M.A.C.M.A.No.2465 OF 2009 Between: The New India Assurance Co., Ltd., Rep. by its Divisional Manager, Madan Mohan Building, R.P.Road, Secunderabad. …Appellant A n d J.Narasimha Reddy and three others ..Respondents HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE G.V.SEETHAPATHY M.A.C.M.A.No.2465 OF 2009 JUDGMENT: This appeal is directed against the order dated 15.4.2008 in O.P.No.2643 of 2005, on the file of the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal-cum-V- Additional Metropolitan Sessions Judge, Hyderabad, wherein the said claim application ﬁled by the 1st respondents herein under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, was allowed-in-part awarding compensation of Rs.1,54,000/- with interest at 7.5% per annum from the date of petition. 2. Heard the learned counsel for the appellant. None appears for the respondents. Perused the record. 3. The 1st respondent herein ﬁled claim application seeking compensation of Rs.3 lakhs for the damages sustained to his car in a motor vehicle accident that occurred on 31.05.2005. According to the claimant, on that day, while the car was proceeding towards Shankerpally village at about 04.00 A.M., a lorry bearing No.AP 24 U 5539, driven in a rash and negligent manner by its driver, came in opposite direction and dashed against the car, resulting in death of the driver of the car, besides extensive damage to the car. 4. The owner of the lorry remained ex parte. The appellant insurer ﬁled a counter opposing the claim and denying their liability. 5. During enquiry, P.Ws.1 to 3 were examined and Exs.A-1 to A-11 were marked on behalf of the claimant and no oral evidence was adduced but Ex.B-1 policy was marked on behalf of the insurer. 6. On a consideration of the evidence available on record, the Tribunal awarded a total compensation of Rs.1,54,000/- towards compensation for the actual loss sustained by the claimant for the damage of the car and passed the award fastening joint and several liability against the owner of the lorry and its insurer, the appellant. 7. The only contention raised by the appellant in this appeal is that the liability of the insurer is limited to the extent stipulated in the Act i.e., only to a sum of Rs.6,000/- and the claimant ought to have made the claim before the insurer of his vehicle for reimbursement of the expenses incurred. Section 147(2) of the Motor Vehicles states Act that policy of insurance shall cover any liability incurred in respect of any expenditure to a limit of Rs.6,000/- in respect of damage of any property of a third party. Admittedly, the compensation is claimed in respect of the car belonging to a third party, the claimant. Thus, the liability of the insurer under the policy can be limited only to the said amount of Rs.6,000/-, the limit stipulated under the statute and it is not unlimited. 8. I n NATIONAL INSURANCE CO., LTD., V. JUGAL KISHORE AND OTHERS[1], the Apex Court held that if risk in excess of statutory liability is sought to be covered, it has to be speciﬁed clearly in the policy and separate premium paid therefor under the Tariﬀ Regulations. In the absence of any such stipulation in the contract covering higher liability, the liability of the insurer has to be limited to the extent stipulated under the Statute. 9. I n NATIONAL INSURANCE CO. LTD. V. NATHILAL AND OTHERS[2], no extra premium is paid towards unlimited liability. Mere fact that column against unlimited liability was not ﬁlled will not automatically lead to the inference that the liability was unlimited in the absence of any special premium paid towards that claim. 10. In the circumstances, as the evidence on record does not establish that any special or additional premium is paid to cover the risk of any higher liability, the liability of the appellant/insurer gets restricted to the extent of only R.6,000/- stipulated under the statute. The impugned order is modiﬁed accordingly. It is open to the claimant to recover the balance amount from the owner of the oﬀending vehicle. Alternatively, the claimant is also at liberty to make a claim before the insurer of the car and seek reimbursement for the damage caused. 11. In the result, the civil miscellaneous appeal is allowed as stated above. There shall be no order as to costs. _____________________ G.V.SEETHAPATHY, J 10th November, 2011 Lrkm. [1] 1988 ACJ 270 [2] 1999 ACJ 657