THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE C.V. RAMULU C.M.A. No. 3601 of 2003 O R D E R: This appeal, under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act, is directed against an order and decree made in O.P. No. 437 of 1998 dated 17.9.2002 on the file of learned Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal-cum-District Judge, Khammam. Appellants 1 and 2 are Oriental Insurance Company Limited, represented by its Branch Managers, Vijayawada and Warangal respectively. Respondent No.1 is the petitioner in the O.P. Respondents 2 to 5 are respondents in the O.P. For the purpose of convenience, the parties are referred to, as arrayed in the O.P. The case of the petitioner-respondent No.1 was that on 3.5.1995, Tata Van bearing Registration No.AP 20 T 2899, owned by her was sent to Hyderabad with a load of mangoes and after unloading the mangoes at Hyderabad on 4.5.1995, the Van left Hyderabad for Wyra. When the Van reached the outskirts of Kattangur (199 km. stone), a Lorry bearing No. AAK 4619, driven by respondent No.1 in rash and negligent manner, came in high speed and dashed the van of the petitioner, as a result of which the driver of the Van i.e. respondent No.4 sustained injuries and the van of the petitioner was totally damaged. Respondent No.1 was prosecuted for the offence punishable under Section 337 and 279 IPC by the Police, Kattangur in Cr.No. 36 of 1995. The vehicle was repaired at Vijayawada, for which petitioner spent Rs.1,50,000/-. Respondent No.5 Insurance Company issued comprehensive policy in favour of petitioner, covering the risk of the van. Since the vehicle was damaged in the accident and the policy was a comprehensive one, petitioner made representation to respondent No.5 along with necessary documents. Though respondent No.5 agreed to pay Rs.98,217/- basing on the surveyor’s report, repudiated the claim on the ground that respondent No.4, who was driver of the Van, was not in possession of transport vehicle licence. Against the said decision of respondent No.5 company, petitioner filed O.P. 598 of 1995 before the District Consumers Forum, Khammam, but the Consumer Forum directed her to file regular O.P. before the Tribunal. Therefore, petitioner filed O.P., claiming damages, against respondents 1 to 5. Respondents 1, 2 and 4 remained ex parte and did not contest the matter. Respondents 3 and 5 filed counter denying the averments made in the petition including involvement of crime vehicle in the accident, rash and negligent driving of 1st respondent, nature of damages caused to the vehicle, amount spent by the petitioner towards repairs etc. It was further stated that respondent No.4 was not having valid driving licence at the time of accident and the vehicle was not roadworthy to ply with a valid insurance policy. Therefore, they sought protection under Sections 147, 149 and 170 of the Motor Vehicles Act and to dismiss the O.P., as the claim was highly excessive. Basing on the above pleadings, the Tribunal framed the following issues for trial: 1. Whether the accident took place due to rash and negligent driving of the driver of the vehicle? 2. Whether the petitioner is entitled to claim any compensation? If so, to what amount and from which of the respondents? 3. To what relief? In support of her claim, petitioner-claimant got examined herself as PW-1 and marked Exs.A-1 to A-9. On the other hand, RW-1 was examined and Exs.B-1 to B-3 were marked on behalf of respondent No.3 Insurance Company. After detailed consideration of the entire evidence available on record, the Tribunal came to the conclusion that the accident occurred on account of rash and negligent driving of the Lorry bearing No. AAK 4619 by its driver – respondent No.1. In so far as issue No.2 was concerned, it was held that respondent No.4 driver of the Van of claim petitioner was not at fault in causing the accident, resulting in damage to the Van. However, since it is an admitted fact that the Van was having a comprehensive policy issued by 5th respondent – Insurance Company and as per the terms and conditions of the policy, the said Insurance Company is liable to pay compensation in respect of damages also, when the driver of the said vehicle was not at fault, the Tribunal awarded compensation of Rs.1,00,000/- (Rupees One Lakh only) with interest at the rate of 9% per annum from the date of petition till the date of realization, with proportionate costs and held that 5th respondent alone is liable to pay the said amount. In so far as the claim against respondents 1 to 4 was concerned, the same was dismissed. Aggrieved thereby, the present appeal is filed. It appears that both the vehicles, namely, Lorry bearing No. AAK 4619 and Tata Van bearing No. AP-20-T-2899 were insured with the same Insurance Company i.e. Oriental Insurance Company Limited. The Tata Van was insured with 1st appellant and the Lorry was insured with 2nd appellant. It is the fallacy of the appellants to say that since the Insurance Company is one, the insured cannot maintain petition under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, claiming damages against the same Company though the owners are different. In this case, admittedly, the Van was insured with 1st appellant Branch and the Lorry was insured with 2nd appellant Branch. But, this is not the criteria to say that a petition under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act is not maintainable. An application under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act is maintainable against third party risk on death, bodily injury and also damages to the property. What is to be seen is, whether the petition filed by the owner of the Van under Section 166 of the M.V. Act is maintainable or not and whether she is entitled to claim any damages? Admittedly, when both the Insurance Company Branches and the owners of the vehicles are separate, what is to be seen is whether ‘A’ vehicle is at fault or ‘B’ vehicle is at fault. In this case, admittedly the driver of the Lorry, which was insured with 2nd appellant, was held to be rash and negligent and responsible for the accident and thus, 2nd appellant was also held responsible for the damages caused to the vehicle, which was insured with 1st appellant Branch. Therefore, the very question raised by the appellants is not only fallacious but also meaningless. Against the damage caused to the Van, the claim against the insurer of the Lorry is a third party claim. A third party claim can be for death, bodily injury or damage caused to the vehicle. Even if both the vehicles are insured with the same Branch of the Insurance Company or they are owned by the same person, the question raised by the appellants does not arise. For the above reasons, the C.M.A. is liable to be dismissed as devoid of merits. It is accordingly dismissed. No order as to costs. JUSTICE C.V. RAMULU. DATE: 7-4-2010. MVB.