The main legal point established in the judgment is that the liability of the insurance company for property damage to a third party is limited to Rs.6,000 under Section 147(2)(b) of the MV Act.

JUDGMENT :

This MACMA is directed by the New India Assurance Company Limited, which was shown as third respondent in M.V.O.P.No.232 of 2004, on the file of Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal-cum-I Additional District Judge, Kurnool (“Tribunal” for short), against the award, dated 28.02.2007, where under the Tribunal as against the claim of the petitioner for a sum of Rs.1,00,000/- towards damages of the Car in a motor vehicle accident occurred on 30.7.2003, awarded a sum of Rs.50,000/-.

2) The parties to this MACMA will hereinafter be referred to as described before the Tribunal for the sake of convenience.

3) The original claim before the Tribunal under Section 166 of the M.V. Act was for claiming compensation of Rs.1,00,000/-. The case of the petitioner as set out before the Tribunal, in brief, is that on 30-07-2003 the petitioner was proceeding to Hyderabad from Kurnool with his family members in his car bearing No.AP-28-N-9899. When it reached near Tadbun Cross Roads, near Bahadurpurah, a lorry bearing No.AP-16-T-3961 (hereinafter will be referred to as “offending vehicle”) came with full speed in a rash and negligent manner and ran into the rear portion of the car. On account of the said impact rear portion of the car of the petitioner was hit to the vehicle which was in front of it and thereby there was extensive damage to the car of the petitioner both on rear and front portions of it. Thus, the damage was caused to the car of the petitioner on account of rash and negligent driving of the driver of offending vehicle which was insured with the third respondent with policy No.610902/31/02/20390. The policy was also in force by the date of accident. After the accident the petitioner gave complaint to Bahadurpurah Police Station and basing on his complaint, a case was registered against the driver of the offending vehicle U/Sec.279 of the Indian Penal Code (“IPC” for short). The petitioner got his car repaired with Star Motors at Kurnool by spending Rs.70,000/-. A notice was also given to all the respondents by the petitioner on 01-12-2003 and for the said notice the respondents did not respond. Therefore, he claimed compensation of Rs.1,00,000/- i.e., Rs.70,000/-towards repairs effected to his car and Rs.30,000/- towards the amount spent by him in engaging another car for his own purpose.

4) The respondent Nos.1 and 2 i.e., the driver and the owner of the offending vehicle remained exparte before the Tribunal.

5) It is the third respondent who got filed a counter resisting the claim of the petitioner. The contention of the third respondent according to the contents of the counter, in brief, is that this respondent does not know the fact that Indica Car beating No.AP-28-N-9899 was damaged on account of rash and negligent driving of the offending vehicle by its driver and thereby there was damage to rear and front portions of it and the same is to be proved by the petitioner strictly by placing necessary oral and documentary evidence. It is according to this respondent, negligence was on the part of the petitioner alone, as he drove the car negligently and hit it to another vehicle that was going in front of it. Therefore, the driver, owner and the insurer of the Car are to be added as parties to the petition. The petitioner must prove that he spent about Rs.70,000/- to get his car repaired and he also incurred Rs.30,000/- for engaging another vehicle for his own purpose etc. The particulars furnished by the petitioner in Para No.12 of the petition are false and misleading the quantum of compensation claimed by the petitioner under various heads is excessive, exorbitant and without any basis. The petitioner must prove that the driver of the offending vehicle was holding valid and subsisting driving license by the date of accident and that the above said vehicle was having valid permit, fitness certificate etc. Without proof of these facts, the petitioner may not get any compensation from this respondent even under “no fault liabilit