IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD MONDAY, THE TWENTY FOURTH DAY OF AUGUST TWO THOUSAND AND NINE PRESENT THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE R. KANTHA RAO CIVIL MISCELLANEOUS APPEAL NO : 3488 of 2000 (Appeal under Section ____ against the order/decree in OP no. : 189 of 1997 dated 26/07/2000 on the file of the court of thePrincipal District Judge, Medak at Sangareddy) Between: Teh National Insurance Co.Ltd 17, Madhavinagar, Bowenapalli, Secunderabad. ..... APPELLANT AND 1 The General Manager, Ordinance Factory Project, 2 Smt.M.Sujatha. ....RESPONDENTS Counsel for the Appellant :MR.T.RAMULU Counsel for the Respondents : . The Court delivered the following JUDGEMENT: HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE R. KANTHA RAO CIVIL MISCELLEANEOUS APPEAL No.3488 OF 2000 JUDGMENT: Heard the learned counsel appearing for the appellant. Though R1 served with notice none appeared. Since, R2 remained ex parte in the lower Court the service of notice in this appeal is not necessary and it was rightly dispensed with earlier. The short question that requires consideration in this appeal is as to what is the extent of liability of the Insurance Company in respect of the damage to any property of a third party caused in a motor vehicle accident. The Tribunal below granted compensation of Rs.38,800/- in respect of the damage caused to vehicle belonging to R1 against the claim of Rs.1,15,968/- made before it under section 166 of Motor Vehicle Act, 1988. The challenge against the award is only on the ground that the Insurance Company is not liable to pay any compensation which is in excess of Rs.6,000/- and the Tribunal without going into the relevant provisions of the Act and without examining Ex.B1, copy of the policy, erroneously granted an amount of Rs.38,800/- towards damages to the mini bus. A bare reading of section 147 (2) (b) clearly indicates that the liability of the Insurance Company in respect of the damage to any property of a third party in a motor vehicle accident is limited to Rs.6,000/-. In the instant case the accident occurred after the amended Act 1994. Further, a perusal of the copy of Ex.B1, policy, furnished by the learned counsel for the appellant reveals that no extra premium was paid to the Insurance Company in this regard. As such the contention urged by the Insurance Company in this appeal has to be upheld. Consequently, the award passed by the tribunal is modified directing the appellant/Insurance Company to pay an amount of Rs.6,000/- instead of Rs.38,800/- as directed by the Tribunal. Accordingly, the appeal is allowed. There shall be no order as to costs. ___________________________ JUSTICE R. KANTHA RAO 24th August, 2009 MD