1 APHC010060872019 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) [3505] THURSDAY,THE SEVENTH DAY OF AUGUST TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE T.C.D.SEKHAR MOTOR ACCIDENT CIVIL MISCELLANEOUS APPEAL NO: 122/2019 Between: The New India Assurance Company Limited., Kurnool ...APPELLANT AND S Sumalatha and other ...RESPONDENT(S) Counsel for the Appellant: 1. P SATYA MANJULA Counsel for the Respondent(S): 1. The Court made the following: 2 3 The Court made the following Judgment: The present appeal is preferred by the Insurance company aggrieved by the order dated 25.07.2018 in M.V.O.P.No.607 of 2012 on the file of Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal-cum-IV Additional District Judge, Kurnool. 2. The first respondent filed claim petition under Section 140 and 166(1)(c) of Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 claiming compensation of Rs.1,00,000/- for the death of her grandfather M.Narayana, who died in the accident on 09.10.2007 near bus stand, Nannur village, due to rash and negligent driving of one Mahendra and Mahendra Jeep bearing registration No.AP 04 TC 92/2007 by its driver. After considering the case of the parties, the Tribunal allowed the petition by awarding a total compensation of Rs.1,34,000/- with proportionate costs against both the respondents No.1 and 2/appellant and the appellant herein is directed to deposit such amount within 30 days from the date of passing of decree with subsequent interest @ 7.5 % p.a., from the date of filing of petition till the date of deposit. 3. It is the case of the appellant that, the vehicle involved in the accident was not insured and no policy was issued to the owner of the said vehicle. It is further stated that, the risk of third party is not covered by the policy and contended that the question of paying compensation by the appellant does not arise. It is further argued that the tribunal did not consider the contention raised by the appellant in its proper perspective and erroneously directed the appellant to deposit the compensation. 4. Heard counsel for the appellant. Despite service of notice, none appeared for the respondents. 4 5. The only ground on which the present appeal is filed that the offending vehicle is not insured with the appellant and no policy was issued in favour of the 2nd respondent. It is specifically pleaded that, RW1 deposed that no policy was issued in favour of the 2nd respondent. But on perusal of the impugned order, a specific finding was given by the tribunal stating that the offending vehicle was insured on 08.10.2007 bearing policy No.167625 with the appellant herein. 6. Apart from the same, on perusal of the deposition of RW1, it makes further clear that, initially he deposed that no policy was issued in favour of the 2nd respondent and he further stated that the risk of third party is no covered under the policy. From the above it is clear that, RW1 is blowing hot and cold in the matter. Having considered the oral evidence of RW1, the tribunal had given finding holding that the appellant herein did not choose to place any evidence on record to discharge its burden. 7. During the course of hearing, the counsel for the appellant submitted that the appellant is not aggrieved in respect of the quantum of compensation awarded by the Tribunal as a whole, but while awarding compensation, fastened the liability on the appellant without there being any liability on it. The contention of the counsel for the appellant is liable to be rejected inasmuch as the appellant herein did not choose to discharge its burden before the tribunal by producing material evidence. In the absence of the same, the contention of the appellant cannot be accepted more particularly when RW1 deposed that the policy did not cover the risk of third party. 8. It is represented by the counsel for the appellant that by virtue of the interim order, the appellant has already deposited the 5 50% of the amount awarded by the tribunal and requested this court to pass appropriate orders in the matter reserving liberty to recover the same from the owner of the offending vehicle. 9. For the foregoing reasons, this Court does not find any illegality in the order impugned and accordingly the appeal is hereby dismissed. Further, the appellant is directed to deposit the remaining 50% of the compensation within a period of 30 days from the date of receipt of this order. It is needless to mention that, the appellant is at liberty to take appropriate steps against the 2nd respondent herein for recovery of compensation, if it is otherwise entitled to in accordance with law. 10. With the above direction the appeal is dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs. As a sequel, pending applications, if any, shall stand closed. _____________________ JUSTICE T.C.D. SEKHAR 07.08.2025/GRL. 6 179 THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE T.C.D.SEKHAR M.A.C.M.A.No.122 of 2019 07.08.2025. GRL