IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) THURSDAY, THE NINETEENTH DAY OF AUGUST TWO THOUSAND AND TEN PRESENT THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE GHULAM MOHAMMED M.A.C.M.A.No.921 of 2005 Between: The Divisional Manager, Oriental Insurance Company Limited, Vijayawada. ..... APPELLANT(S) AND Sundari Kamalamma and others .....RESPONDENT(S) THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE GHULAM MOHAMMED M.A.C.M.A.No.921 of 2005 ORDER: This is an appeal by the insurance company aggrieved by the judgment and decree dated 07.07.1993 passed in O.P.No.581 of 1991 by the Chairman, Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal-cum- District Judge at Nalgonda, whereby and whereunder the respondents herein were awarded compensation of Rs.3,50,000/- against the appellant. The facts, in brief, are that the respondents herein have filed the above claim petition under Sections 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, seeking compensation of Rs.5,50,000/- on account of the death of the deceased Gopaiah in an accident said to have caused by a lorry bearing No.APG-7222. The particulars regarding the manner in which the accident took place are not referred to herein as they are not in dispute. The Tribunal, after appreciating the evidence on record, both oral and documentary, awarded a sum of Rsd.3,50,000/- towards compensation to the claimants for the death of the deceased in the accident. The main contention of the learned counsel for the appellant is that the copy of the insurance policy, which was marked as Ex.B.1 and relied on by the Tribunal for awarding compensation, is not a valid policy and, in fact, the same does not pertain to the offending vehicle i.e. lorry bearing No.APG-7222, but pertains to a Bajaj Scooter and the Tribunal, without taking this aspect into consideration, has erroneously passed the impugned order. Per contra, the learned counsel for the respondents/claimants contended that as per Rule 476 (7)(ii) of the Andhra Pradesh Motor Vehicles Rules, 1989, the Claims Tribunal shall proceed to award the claim on the basis of the Insurance Certificate or Policy relating to the insurance of the Motor Vehicle against the Third party risk and since the appellant itself has produced Ex.B.1 the Tribunal rightly awarded the compensation to the respondents making the appellant liable. A perusal of the impugned order makes it clear that there is no discussion by the Tribunal as to the validity or otherwise of the copy of the insurance policy marked as Ex.B.1. In view of the rival contentions, without going into the merits as to the validity or otherwise of the insurance policy marked as Ex.B.1, I deem it appropriate to remit the case back to the Tribunal for consideration afresh only on this aspect. Therefore, the judgment and decree dated 07.07.1993 passed in O.P.No.581 of 1991 by the Chairman, Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal-cum-District Judge at Nalgonda, is set aside and the matter is remitted back to the Tribunal only for the limited purpose of deciding the liability of the insurance company and the validity or otherwise of Ex.B.1 copy of insurance policy. The Trial Court shall permit the parties to produce relevant evidence only in that regard and pass appropriate orders in accordance with law. At the same time, the appellant is directed to deposit the amount of compensation before the Tribunal within a period of two weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order and on such deposit the respondents/claimants shall be at liberty to withdraw half of the decreetal amount as per the proportions in the judgment of the Tribunal without furnishing any security. However, if the appellant fails to deposit the amount of compensation, the respondents/claimants shall be at liberty to proceed with the execution of the award. The Civil Miscellaneous Appeal is accordingly disposed of. There shall be no order as to costs. ___________________________ GHULAM MOHAMMED, J. 19th August 2010 CVRK Note: Issue copy within one week. B/o CVRK