APHC010505502021 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) [3311] FRIDAY, THE THIRTY FIRST DAY OF JANUARY TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT THE HONOURABLE MS JUSTICE B S BHANUMATHI MOTOR ACCIDENT CIVIL MISCELLANEOUS APPEAL NO: 5/2022 Between: Alakunta Dhana Lakshmi ...APPELLANT AND P Venu Gopala Reddy and Others ...RESPONDENT(S) Counsel for the Appellant: 1. A RAJENDRA BABU Counsel for the Respondent(S): 1. GUDI SRINIVASU 2. GANDHAM SR PRASAD The Court made the following: 2 MACMA.No.5 of 2022 JUDGMENT: This appeal is filed under Section 173 of Motor Vehicles Act, against the judgment and decree dated 27.08.2013 in MVOP.No.1075/2011 on the file of the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal- cum-II Additional District Judge, Guntur, awarding compensation of Rs.3,18,000/- with interest @8% per annum from the date of the petition till the date of deposit by directing only the 1st respondent to pay the compensation and dismissing the claim against the 2nd respondent/insurance company. 02. The petitioner/claimant sought an amount of Rs.3,00,000/- as compensation, however, the Tribunal assessed the amount of compensation at Rs.3,18,000/-. However, the petitioner/claimant is aggrieved by the fact that though the Tribunal held that the insurance company can be directed to pay the amount of compensation to the claimant and recover the same from the 1st respondent in view of the decision of the Supreme Court in National Insurance Company Limited vs. Swaran Singh and others1 , while passing the result of the decision, such a direction was not given to the 2nd respondent and the claim against the 2nd respondent was dismissed in total. In fact, the Tribunal observed that the 2nd respondent was not liable to pay any amount of compensation, but in view of decision of the Supreme Court (supra) it can be directed to pay the amount of compensation to the claimant and later recover the amount from the 1st respondent. 03. The 2nd respondent contended that the impugned award does not require interference, however further submitted that, in case if this Court is inclined to modify the award, liberty may be given to the 2nd respondent to recover the amount from the 1st respondent as observed by the 1 2004 ACJ page 1 3 MACMA.No.5 of 2022 Tribunal and further the claimant may be restricted to make claim of interest during the period of the delay in filing the appeal i.e., 2,840 days. 04. As against the observation of the Tribunal regarding the liability to pay and then recover from the 1st respondent, no appeal has been filed by the insurance company/2nd respondent. Therefore, the finding has become final. It is obvious that in spite of such observation, the Tribunal failed to mention such a condition in the result part of the award, which led to non-incorporation of such direction in the decree. As rightly contended by the appellant, this Court is of the view that the award as well as decree to that extent are liable to be modified, without interfering with the quantum of compensation and the rate of interest. 05. Accordingly, the appeal is allowed and the impugned decree and award dated 27.08.2013, is altered with the following direction: i. The amount of compensation awarded by the Tribunal shall be first paid by the 2nd respondent and then recover the same from the 1st respondent by filing execution petition without filing any separate suit. ii. Further the appellant/claimant is not entitled to interest for the period of 2,840 days (from 11.03.2014 to 20.12.2021). Interim orders granted earlier, if any, shall stand vacated. Pending miscellaneous applications, if any, shall stand closed. ________________________ JUSTICE B.S.BHANUMATHI Date: 31.01.2025 NSM 4 MACMA.No.5 of 2022 69 HON’BLE Ms. JUSTICE B.S.BHANUMATHI MOTOR ACCIDENT CIVIL MISCELLANEOUS APPEAL NO: 5/2022 Date: 31.01.2025 NSM