The insurer's liability for third-party property damage is limited to Rs.6,000 under Section 147(2)(b) of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988.

JUDGMENT :

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

Challenging the judgment dated 27.09.2006 passed in M.V.O.P.No.200/2003 on the file of Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal-III Addl.District Judge (FTC), Anantapur, the appellant/United India Insurance Company Limited filed the appeal.

2. The respondent/claimant filed claim petition before the learned Tribunal U/s.140 and 166 of Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 claiming compensation of Rs.60,000/-, alleging that the claimant is owner of Auto No. AP 21V 3582; On 11.01.2002 at about 07.00 a.m. the driver of Auto loaded two bags of jonnalu and proceeding to his village; the Auto reached Poddodi village, at about 08.00 A.M; one lorry bearing No. AP 9T 1087 came from backside being driver by its driver in a rash and negligent manner and dashed against the auto; as a result, the auto severely damaged and all its parts are broken; The accident occurred only on account of rash and negligence of driver of lorry; Peapully police registered a case in Cr.No.3/2002 U/s.279 of Indian Penal Code against the driver of the crime vehicle; The respondents 1 and 2 are jointly and severally liable to pay compensation to the claimant.

3. Before the learned Tribunal, the 2nd respondent/Insurance Company filed counter, while traversing the material averments with regard to manner of accident, rash and negligence on the part of the driver of the crime vehicle, liability to pay compensation, contended that the crime lorry was insured under act only policy, and the liability of the 2nd respondent is confined to Rs.6,000/- as per section 147(2)(b) of M.V. Act 1988; and the claim of the petitioner is excessive.

4. The 1st respondent remained ex-parte.

5. Basing on the pleadings of both parties, the Tribunal framed the following issues :

1. Whether the accident occurred on 11.01.2002 due to rash and negligent driving of lorry bearing No.AP 9T 1087 by its driver and dashed against the auto and caused damage to the auto of the petitioner?

2. Whether the petitioner is entitled to compensation? If so, to what amount and from which respondent?

3. To what relief?

6. To substantiate the claim, the claimant examined P.Ws-1 to 3 and got marked Exs.A-1 to A-9. On behalf of the 2nd respondent, R.W-1 was examined and Ex.B-1 copy of insurance policy was marked.

7. The learned Tribunal, taking into consideration the evidence of P.Ws-1 to 3, coupled with Exs.A-1 to A-9, held on issue No.1 that the accident occurred only due to rash and negligence on the part of the driver of the lorry, and further held on issue No.2 that claimant is entitled for compensation and awarded total compensation of Rs.50,000/- with interest @ 7.5% p.a. from the date of petition till the date of payment with proportionate costs.

8. The contention of the appellant/Insurance Company is that the learned Tribunal failed to see that the insurance policy was act only policy and therefore, third party property damage is limited to Rs.6,000/- as per Section 147 (2) (b) M. V Act,1988.

10. The contention of the claimant is that the learned Tribunal basing on the facts and circumstances of the case and also considering the oral and documentary evidence adduced by both sides, awarded a sum of Rs.50,000/- with interest @ 7.5% per annum from the date of petition, till the date of payment; and that the learned Tribunal awarded just compensation as per law, and it does not warrant any interference by this Court.

11. In the light of above rival contentions, the points that would arise for consideration in this appeal are as under :

1. Whether the judgment and decree passed by the learned Tribunal warrants interference of this Court?

2. To what relief?

12. POINT No.1:

The learned counsel for the appellant/Insurance Company would submit that the learned Tribunal committed error in holding that the Insurance Company is liable for a sum of Rs.50,000/- against section 147(2)(b) of M.V. Act, 1988. He would further submit that in view of the above provision, the appellant is not liable in respect of damage to an