Claims for own damages are not maintainable under the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988; liability of insurers for third-party property damage is limited to Rs.6,000/- under Act only policies.

JUDGMENT :

B.V.L.N. Chakravarthi, J.

MACMA 1000/2012 is directed by the 3rd respondent/New India Assurance Company Limited, Rajahmundry, against the order dated 23.08.2010 passed in M.V.O.P.No.278/2008 on the file of Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal- VI Addl.District Judge (FTC), Rajahmundry, East Godavari District.

2. MACMA 2232/2015 is directed by the 4th respondent/ICICI Lombard General Insurance Company Limited, Rajahmundry, against the order dated 23.08.2010 passed in M.V.O.P.No.278/2008 on the file of Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal- VI Addl.District Judge (FTC), Rajahmundry, East Godavari District.

3. For the sake of convenience, the parties are arrayed as parties before the tribunal.

4. The MVOP 278/2008 was filed U/s.166 of Motor Vehicles Act 1988, seeking compensation of Rs.3,03,000/- for the damage of the car of the claimant against the 1st respondent/driver of the lorry bearing No.AP 30T 6081, owner of the lorry/2nd respondent of the lorry bearing No.AP 30T 6081, 3rd respondent/New India Assurance Company Limited/insurer of the lorry bearing No.AP 30T 6081 i.e., appellant in MACMA 1000/2012 and 4th respondent/ appellant in MACMA 2232/2015/ICICI Lombard General Insurance Company Limited/insurer of the car bearing No.AP 5V 6125 owned by the claimant.

5. The main contention of the appellant in MACMA 1000/2012, the insurer of the lorry bearing No.AP 30T 6081 is that Ex.B-1 insurance policy issued by the company is an Act policy; and therefore, U/s.147(2)(b) of M.V.Act 1988, its liability towards damage of property of a third party is confined to Rs.6,000/- only; in that view, the impugned order and decree of the learned Tribunal fastening liability on the appellant/Insurance Company to pay 50% of the compensation amount i.e., Rs.2,03,000/- is not valid in law.

6. The main contention of the appellant/ICICI Lombard General Insurance Company Limited is that the claim petition is filed U/s.166 of M.V.Act, 1988 for own damages (O.D.) for the car; and therefore, it is not maintainable in view of section 165(1) of M.V.Act, 1988 which permit claims for compensation in respect of accidents involving the death of, or bodily injury, persons arising out of use of motor vehicles, or damages to any property of a third party so arising, or both but the learned Tribunal awarded compensation for own damages (O.D.) against the insurer, and therefore, the order of the learned Tribunal is not valid in law.

7. The case of the claimant is that he is owner of the car bearing No.AP 5V 6125 and it was insured with the 4th respondent/ICICI Lombard General Insurance Company Limited, and while so, on 09.11.2007 at about 07.45 a.m. the deceased Pamu Rajesh and others were travelling in the car from Visakhapatnam to Nidadavolu and the car reached a place near coco gardens of one Palacherla Venkata Rao of Bendapudi Village; the offending vehicle lorry bearing No.AP 30T 6081 coming from Vemagiri village side proceeding towards P.E.Chinnayapalem Centre; came on wrong route and the driver of the vehicle (1st respondent) drove the same in a rash and negligent manner and dashed the car; as a result, the car damaged and the driver of the car and four others travelling in the car died on the spot; Police registered a case, investigated the same and laid police report (charge sheet); Hence, filed petition U/s.166 of M.V.Act, 1988 claiming compensation for damages to the car against the driver of the lorry (1st respondent), owner of the lorry (2nd respondent), insurer of the lorry (3rd respondent), and insurer of the car (4th respondent).

8. The 4th respondent i.e., insurer of the car filed counter stating that the petition is not maintainable under M.V.Act.

9. The learned Tribunal considering the evidence placed before it, found that the accident was occurred due to rash and negligent of driver (1st respondent) of the lorry.

10. When coming to the liability to pay compensation for damages to the car, the learned Tribunal held that the claimant is entitled to Rs.2,03,00