HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE P. SWAROOP REDDY CIVIL MISCELLANEOUS APPEAL No.378 OF 2003 JUDGMENT: The proceeding sheet of the appeal shows that substantial time was granted to advance arguments on behalf of the respondents, claimants, and in spite of that, none appeared for them. Hence, the matter was listed today under the caption “for dismissal”, but still there is no representation for the claimants. 2. Heard the learned counsel for the appellant, the United India Insurance Company Limited (hereinafter referred to “insurance company”) and perused the material available on record. 3. Questioning its liability for payment of compensation and also quantum of compensation awarded in M.V.O.P. No.859 of 1997 vide award dated 27-07-1999 by the learned Chairman, Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Warangal, insurance company preferred this Civil Miscellaneous Appeal. 4. Respondent Nos.1 to 5, who are wife, children and parents of the deceased Srinivas, are claimants. 5. The case of the claimants before the Tribunal is that on 17-06-1997 at about 7-00 PM while the deceased and one Madhava, pillion rider, were returning on the scooter bearing No.AP36 – E – 2756 after meeting a doctor, near Jalli Cross road, scooter fell in a ditch on the road that was with full of water and both of them died. The deceased in this case was running a ‘Pan Shop’ at Nekkoda and was also having agriculture and he used to earn Rs.3,000/- per month from Pan Shop and Rs.15,000/- per annum from agriculture. Hence, they claimed a compensation of Rs.2,50,000/-. 6. Insurance Company filed its counter denying the case of the claimants contending that the deceased himself was negligent in driving the scooter, as such, claimants are not entitled to any compensation and it is not liable for payment of the same. 7. Based on the pleadings, the following issues were framed for trial by the Tribunal: “1. Whether the accident took place due to the rash and negligent driving of vehicle bearing No.A.P.36.E.2756 by its driver? 2. Whether the petitioners are entitled for compensation of Rs.2,50,000/- if so to what amount and from whom? 3. To what relief ?” 8. To prove their case, wife of the deceased got examined herself as PW.1 and got marked Exs.A-1 to A-5. On behalf of the insurance company, no oral evidence was adduced except marking insurance policy of the offending vehicle as Ex.B-1. 9. Based on the material on record and after an elaborate consideration of the same, Tribunal awarded a sum of Rs.1,65,000/- to the claimants against the insurance company. Aggrieved of the same, insurance company preferred this appeal mainly challenging its liability for payment of compensation. 10. Now contention of the learned counsel for the insurance company, appellant, is that owner of the scooter bearing No.AP36 – E – 2756 involved in the accident is not made as a party to the M.V.O.P. and the deceased, who was driving the scooter at the time of accident, was not holding valid driving licence to drive it and that the scooter was not covered by insurance policy, as such, the order impugned passed by the Tribunal is erroneous. 11. There is absolutely no dispute that owner of the scooter is not made as a party to the O.P. Unless there is liability of the owner of the vehicle, there is no question of insurance company being liable for payment of any compensation. Further, there is no material to show that driver of the scooter, was covered by the insurance policy. For these reasons, it cannot be said claimants are entitled to compensation and the insurance company is liable to pay the same. Hence, the impugned award is liable to be set aside. 12. Accordingly, the Civil Miscellaneous Appeal is allowed setting aside the impugned award dated 27-07-1999 passed by the Tribunal. No order as to costs. ______________________ P. SWAROOP REDDY, J November 24, 2010. PV