THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE V. ESWARAIAH And THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE K.S.APPA RAO L.P.A.No.18 of 2000 JUDGMENT: (Per K.S.Appa Rao,J) This letters patent appeal is filed against the order of the learned single Judge in A.A.O.No.794 of 1994 dated 20.09.1999 dismissing the appeal filed by the appellant and confirming the order dated 09.03.1994 in O.P.No.10 of 1990 on the file of the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal-cum- Additional District Judge Court, Nalgonda. The Tribunal in the said O.P. granted compensation of Rs.65,400/- as against the claim of the appellant for Rs.1,00,000/-. The appellant herein is the claimant. He filed the said O.P. claiming compensation of Rs.1,00,000/- for the injuries sustained by him in the motor accident that occurred on 23.08.1989. The Tribunal after due enquiry and after evaluating the evidence on record, awarded compensation of Rs.65,400/- out of which an amount of Rs.12,500/- was to be paid by respondents 1 and 2 jointly and severally and the balance amount of compensation was directed to be paid by respondent No.1 who remained ex parte in the O.P. Aggrieved by the same, the claimant preferred A.A.O.No.794 of 1994 praying for enhancement of compensation and the learned single Judge of this Court dismissed the appeal in toto. Being aggrieved by the same, the present letters patent appeal is filed. Learned counsel for the appellant argued that the Tribunal as well as the learned single Judge of this Court erroneously awarded compensation of Rs.65,400/- though the claimant has claimed Rs.1,00,000/- as compensation. He has drawn the attention of this Court to the evidence of PW2. Before the Tribunal, the claimant examined himself as PW1 and examined PW2 who is a doctor viz., Y. Rama Reddy apart from examining PWs 3 and 4. The Tribunal after evaluating the evidence of PWs 1 to 4 and after taking into consideration Exs A1 to A10 fixed the net income of the injured at Rs.750/- per month. While taking into consideration the arguments advanced by the learned counsel for the appellant, the Tribunal had applied appropriate multiplier and rightly awarded compensation as stated supra. Learned counsel appearing for the appellant during the course of arguments submitted that the Tribunal and the learned Single Judge of this Court exonerated the liability of the Insurance Company to an extent of Rs.52,900/- out of the total amount of compensation though there is no evidence to show that the Insurance Company is not liable to indemnify the compensation. From a perusal of the impugned orders, it is clear that the Insurance Company did not examine any witness. Admittedly, the offending vehicle in question is validly insured with the Insurance Company as on the date of accident. Therefore, any amount of liability on the part of the owner of the offending vehicle shall be indemnified by the Insurance Company. As there is no rebuttal evidence on behalf of the Insurance Company, the Insurance Company shall be liable to indemnify the compensation payable by the owner of the vehicle. Therefore, respondents 1 and 2 are jointly and severally liable to pay the compensation of Rs.65,400/-. With the above modification, the appeal is partly allowed. No costs. V. ESWARAIAH,J K.S.APPA RAO,J Dt. 27.10.2011 lvl THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE V. ESWARAIAH And THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE K.S.APPA RAO L.P.A.No.18 of 2000 (Per K.S.Appa Rao,J) Dt. 27.10.2011