IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) PRESENT THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE G.V.SEETHAPATHY C.M.A.No.3579 OF 2002 Date:05.12.2009 Between:- United India Insurance Company Limited, represented by the Manager, Guntur Branch (Lorry No.AP-21U-3609 with its company Policy No.00439 covering from 28.05.1998 to 27.05.1999). ..Appellant/Respondent No.3 And Burra Veeraiah and others .. Respondents/Petitioner and Respondent Nos.1 and 2 JUDGMENT:- This appeal is directed against the order dated 24.06.2002 passed in O.P.No.374 of 1999 on the file of the Chairman, Motor Accident Claims Tribunal-cum-III Additional District Judge, Karimnagar, wherein the claim of respondent No.1 herein was allowed in part, awarding compensation of Rs.1,00,000/- with interest at 9% p.a, for the injuries sustained by him. 2. Heard both sides. Perused the records. 3. As seen from the Award passed by the Tribunal below, the owner of the vehicle-respondent No.3 herein was impleaded as respondent No.2 in the O.P. The claim against owner of the vehicle was dismissed for non-payment of process for service of notice on him. The Award passed against the appellant- insurer, without there being any Award against the owner of the vehicle, is unsustainable, for the simple reason that the appellant-insurer would be liable only to reimburse the amount payable by the owner of the vehicle by virtue of the contract of insurance entered into between the insured and the insurer. The liability of the appellant-insurer is not dehors the liability of the owner of the vehicle. The Tribunal ought to have directed the claimant to take necessary steps for service of notice on the owner of the vehicle. 4. In the Judgment reported in Oriental Insurance Co.Ltd. Vs. Sunita Rathi and others, the Apex Court held as follows:- “It follows that the insurer cannot be held liable on the basis of the above policy in the present case and, therefore, the liability has to be of the owner of the vehicle. However, we find that the High Court, without assigning any reason, has simply assumed that the owner of the vehicle was not liable and that the insurer alone was liable in the present case. This conclusion, reached by the High Court, is clearly erroneous. The liability of the insurer arises only when the liability of the insured has been upheld for the purpose of indemnifying the insured under the contract of insurance. There is, thus, a basic fallacy in the conclusion reached by the High Court on this point.” 5. In the light of the above, the Award passed against the appellant-insurer alone, while dismissing the claim against the insured is liable to be set aside, and the same is, accordingly, set aside. The matter is remitted to the Tribunal for fresh disposal according to law, after giving an opportunity to the claimant to take steps for service of notice against the owner of the vehicle. 6. Accordingly, C.M.A. is disposed of. There shall be no order as to costs. __________________ G. V. SEETHAPATHY, J 5th December, 2009 AMD