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. 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 any property of a third party exceeding Rs.6,000/-. 13. It is an admitted fact that the 1st respondent/claimant filed the claim petition for a sum of Rs.50,000/-, which includes Rs.10,000/- towards loss of earnings, apart from Rs.40,000/- towards cost of repairs for the damage caused to the auto in the accident. 13. It is an admitted fact that the 1st respondent/claimant filed the claim petition for a sum of Rs.50,000/-, which includes Rs.10,000/- towards loss of earnings, apart from Rs.40,000/- towards cost of repairs for the damage caused to the auto in the accident. 14. The case of the claimant is that on 11.01.2002 at about 07.30 a.m. the driver of auto was proceeding to the village and reached a place near Poddodi village at about 08.00 a.m. The crime vehicle lorry bearing No.AP 9T 1087 came in a rash and negligent manner and dashed the auto from back side. As a result, the auto was damaged and therefore, it was taken to M/s. Sri Durga Automotives at Ananthapur for repairs. The claimant was forced to spend a sum of Rs.50,000/- towards repair and he also suffered loss of earnings during the period of repairs, and he estimated the same at Rs.10,000/-. 15. The claimant filed documents and examined P.W-3 to prove the claim i.e., expenditure incurred by him towards the repair of the auto. Ex. A-5 is a credit invoice issued for Rs.19,127/-, whereas Exs.A-6 and A-7 are cash receipts issued for Rs.5,000/- and Rs.10,800/- only. But the learned Tribunal awarded Rs.50,000/- towards expenditure incurred for repairs. 16. The claimant to establish that accident occurred due to rash and negligence of the driver of the lorry, examined the driver of the auto as P.W-2. The learned Tribunal basing on his evidence held that the accident was occurred due to rash and negligence of the driver of the lorry. The claimant to corroborate the evidence of the auto driver, also placed copy of FIR under Ex.A-1, copy of observation report under Ex.A-2 and coy of police report (charge sheet) under Ex.A-3 and copy of judgment in STC 10/2002. The contents of these documents would corroborate the evidence of P.W-2 and establish that the accident was occurred due to rash and negligence of the driver of the lorry. The appellant/Insurance Company did not place any contra evidence nor examine the driver of the lorry. In that view of the matter, this Court do not find any ground to interfere with the finding of the learned Tribunal that the accident was occurred due to rash and negligence act of the driver of lorry bearing No.AP 9T 1087. 17. The appellant/Insurance Company did not place any contra evidence nor examine the driver of the lorry. In that view of the matter, this Court do not find any ground to interfere with the finding of the learned Tribunal that the accident was occurred due to rash and negligence act of the driver of lorry bearing No.AP 9T 1087. 17. When coming to the quantum of compensation towards damages, as per section 147 (2) (b) of M.V. Act, 1988 in respect of damage to any property of a third party, a limit of Rs.6,000/- is fixed. Section 147 (2) (b) M V Act, 1988 is as under : (2) Subject to the proviso to sub-section (1), a policy of insurance referred to in sub-section (1), shall cover any liability incurred in respect of any accident, up to the following limits, namely:— (a) save as provided in clause (b), the amount of liability incurred; (b) in respect of damage to any property of a third party, a limit of rupees six thousand: Provided that any policy of insurance issued with any limited liability and in force, immediately before the commencement of this Act, shall continue to be effective for a period of four months after such commencement or till the date of expiry of such policy whichever is earlier. 18. The appellant/Insurance Company placed copy of insurance policy issued to the crime lorry as Ex. B-1. The terms and conditions of Ex. B-1 insurance policy would show that it is an act only policy and it limits the liability of the insurer in respect of the claim arising out of section 147 (2) (b) of the M.V. Act, 1988 to Rs.6,000/-. No extra premium was paid by the insured towards unlimited liability for damage to any property of a third party. 19. The learned Tribunal under the impugned judgment and decree failed to consider the above aspect though the leaned counsel for the appellant/Insurance Company contended that the third-party property damage is confined to Rs.6,000/- as per section 147 (2) (b) of M.V. Act, 1988. It came to an erroneous conclusion that the claimant is entitled to Rs.50,000/- towards compensation. The reasons assigned by the learned Tribunal for awarding the said amount are not based either on established facts or as per law. It came to an erroneous conclusion that the claimant is entitled to Rs.50,000/- towards compensation. The reasons assigned by the learned Tribunal for awarding the said amount are not based either on established facts or as per law. The learned Tribunal failed to consider section 147 (2) (b) of M.V. Act, which limit the liability of the insurer to Rs.6,000/- in respect of damages to third party. 20. The learned counsel for the appellant before the learned Tribunal relied on judgment of High Court of Andhra Pradesh in the case of Kolla Venkateswarlu and Abdul Kareem and another, 2004 (2) APLJ 443 (HC), where under this Court considered the law relating to payment of damages to property of third party on section 147 (2) (b) of M.V. Act, 1988 and held that the liability of the insurer was limited to Rs.6,000/- U/s.147 (2) (b) of M.V. Act, 1988. 21. The learned judge of the Tribunal though referred the above ruling, did not fallow the ratio laid in the said judgment, without assigning any reason, and came to an erroneous finding that the claimant is entitled to Rs.50,000/- towards compensation. 22. In the said circumstances, the judgment and decree of the Tribunal is liable to be set aside, holding that the liability of the appellant/Insurance Company is limited to Rs.6,000/- only. Hence it shall indemnify the insured to the extent of the said amount. Therefore, the appellant insurance company is jointly and severally liable to pay an amount of Rs.6,000/- only. The owner of the crime lorry bearing No. AP 9T 1087 is personally liable for the remaining compensation amount awarded by the Tribunal. Accordingly, the point is answered. 23. POINT No.2: To what relief? In the light of finding on point No.1, the appeal is liable to be allowed by setting aside the judgment and decree dated 27.09.2006 passed by the learned Tribunal in M.V.O.P.No.200/2003 on the file of Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal-cum-III Addl.District Judge(FTC), Anantapur holding that the liability of the appellant/Insurance Company is limited to Rs.6,000/- only. Hence it shall indemnify the insured to the extent of the said amount. Therefore, the appellant insurance company is jointly and severally liable to pay an amount of Rs.6,000/- only. The owner of the crime lorry bearing No. AP 9T 1087 is personally liable for the remaining compensation amount awarded by the learned Tribunal. 24. Hence it shall indemnify the insured to the extent of the said amount. Therefore, the appellant insurance company is jointly and severally liable to pay an amount of Rs.6,000/- only. The owner of the crime lorry bearing No. AP 9T 1087 is personally liable for the remaining compensation amount awarded by the learned Tribunal. 24. In the result, the appeal is allowed, by setting aside the judgment and decree dated 27.09.2006 passed by the learned Tribunal in M.V.O.P.No.200/2003 on the file of Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal-cum-III Addl.District Judge (FTC), Anantapur, holding that the appellant/Insurance Company is jointly and severally liable to pay an amount of Rs.6,000/- only (Rupees Six Thousand only) towards compensation, out of the amount awarded with interest @ 7.5% p.a. from the date of petition, till the date of deposit, instead of Rs.50,000/- as awarded by the learned Tribunal. Remaining amount of compensation with interest awarded by the learned Tribunal be recovered from the owner of the crime lorry bearing No. AP 9T 1087. There shall be no order as to costs. 25. The appellant/Insurance Company is directed to deposit the compensation amount of Rs.6,000/-(Rupees Six Thousand only), along with accrued interest thereon, within six (04) weeks from the date of judgment. In the event of the appellant/Insurance Company had already deposit some amount, the said amount be excluded, and the balance amount shall be deposited within six (04) weeks from the date of judgment. 26. On such deposit, the 1st respondent/claimant is permitted to withdraw the amount of Rs.6,000/-(Rupees Six Thousand only) along with accrued interest thereon. The claimant can recover the balance amount with interest awarded by the learned Tribunal from the owner of the crime lorry bearing No. AP 9T 1087, in the same proceedings. As a sequel, miscellaneous applications pending, if any, shall stand closed.