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. 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 liability”. Mere filing of the First Information Report and charge sheet is not sufficient to say that the negligence was there on the part of the driver of the offending vehicle in causing the accident. Without proof of these facts, the petitioner may not get any compensation from this respondent even under “no fault liability”. Mere filing of the First Information Report and charge sheet is not sufficient to say that the negligence was there on the part of the driver of the offending vehicle in causing the accident. Even if it is proved by the petitioner that the offending vehicle has got valid insurance with this respondent, as on the date of the accident, the liability of this respondent is subject to the statutory provisions of M.V. Act in compliance of 64-VB of the Insurance Act and the policy conditions. This respondent may not be held liable to pay more than Rs.6,000/-. 6) The Tribunal on the basis of the aforesaid pleadings settled the following issues for trial:- (1) Whether the accident, dated 30-07-2003 has occurred due to rash and negligent driving of the lorry bearing No.AP-16-T-3961, by its driver? (2) Whether the petitioner is entitled to any damages, and if so from which of the respondents and, and to what extent? (3) To What relief? 7) The petitioner before the Tribunal examined himself as P.W.1 and got marked Ex.A.1 to Ex.A.9. 8) The representative of the third respondent i.e., Senior Assistant was examined as R.W.1, who put forth the facts in tune with the contents of the counter of the third respondent. 9) The Tribunal on considering the evidence on record, awarded a sum of Rs.50,000/- towards compensation with a direction to the respondent Nos.2 and 3, the owner and insurer of the offending vehicle, to pay the compensation within one month from the date of order and that on such deposit the petitioner is at liberty to withdraw the entire amount. Felt aggrieved of the aforesaid award, the unsuccessful third respondent i.e., insurance company filed the present MACMA. 10) In the present MACMA, the claim against the driver of the offending vehicle was dismissed vide order, dated 18.04.2016. The driver of the offending vehicle is shown as second respondent in the present MACMA. The petitioner i.e., first respondent and further the owner of the offending vehicle i.e., the third respondent having received the notices did not contest the MACMA. The driver of the offending vehicle is shown as second respondent in the present MACMA. The petitioner i.e., first respondent and further the owner of the offending vehicle i.e., the third respondent having received the notices did not contest the MACMA. 11) Now, in deciding the present MACMA, the points that arise for consideration are as follows: (1) Whether the petitioner before the Tribunal proved that the accident occurred was on account of rash and negligent driving made by the driver of the offending vehicle who was shown as first respondent in MVOP and who is no other than the second respondent in the present MACMA? (2) Whether the order, dated 28.02.2007, the Tribunal in awarding compensation of Rs.50,000/- is tenable under law and facts and whether there are any grounds to interfere with the same? Point Nos.1 and 2: 12) The main thrust of the contention of the learned counsel for the appellant, Smt. A. Jayanthi, is that according to Ex.B.1 policy in view of Section 147(2)(b) of MV Act, the liability of the insurance company as against the damage of the property of the third party shall be confined only to the extent of Rs.6,000/-. In other words, the appellant/insurance company is bound to compensate the person who is a third party for the property damage only to the extent of Rs.6,000/-. When this contention was specifically raised before the Tribunal, the Tribunal did not consider it properly and without proper reasons awarded a sum of Rs.50,000/- towards compensation. She would contend that the original claimant was supposed to get insurance coverage with regard to his car for personal accident coverage as well as the damage to the own car and the petitioner did not plead anything in this regard. However, as per law, the liability of the appellant shall be only Rs.6,000/-, as such, the order of Tribunal needs appropriate interference. 13) As seen from the evidence of P.W.1 before the Tribunal, he was a witness to the occurrence and in his chief examination affidavit he put forth the facts in tune with the petition contents. Through his examination Ex.A.1 to A.9 were marked. Ex.A.1 was Surveyor’s report with photos and negatives. Ex.A.2 was Photostat copy of registration certificate of the damage vehicle. Ex.A.3 was office copy of the legal notice. Ex.A.4 was postal receipt. Ex.A.5 was acknowledgment for receipt of legal notice. Through his examination Ex.A.1 to A.9 were marked. Ex.A.1 was Surveyor’s report with photos and negatives. Ex.A.2 was Photostat copy of registration certificate of the damage vehicle. Ex.A.3 was office copy of the legal notice. Ex.A.4 was postal receipt. Ex.A.5 was acknowledgment for receipt of legal notice. Ex.A.6 was certified copy of First Information Report in Cr.No.146 of 2003, dated 30.07.2003 of Bahgadurpura Police Station. Ex.A.7 was certified copy of charge sheet in C.C.No.269 of 2003, on the file of II Metropolitan Magistrate, Hyderabad. Ex.A.8 was certified copy of the judgment of II Metropolitan Magistrate, Hyderabad. Ex.A.9 was cash receipts four in number. 14) A perusal of Ex.A.6 and Ex.A.7 goes to prove that the police basing on the report of P.W.1 registered FIR in Cr.No.146 of 2003 under Section 279 of IPC and after completion of investigation, filed charge sheet in C.C.No.269 of 2003, on the file of II Metropolitan Magistrate, Hyderabad and further the matter was disposed finding the first respondent guilty of the offence under Section 279 of IPC and subjecting him to fine. Thus, as pointed out, the driver and owner of the offending vehicle did not contest the claim. So, the evidence adduced by the petitioner insofar as the fact that the accident was occurred due to rash and negligent act of the driver of the offending vehicle remained unrebutted. Hence, the petitioner is able to prove this aspect before the Tribunal. 15) There is no dispute that the owner of the offending vehicle i.e., A. Shiva Jalender/second respondent in the claim and third respondent in the present MACMA insured the offending vehicle under Ex.B.1, insurance policy, with the appellant, who was shown as third respondent. There is no dispute that the petitioner was no other than third party whose car was said to be damaged on account of the act of the driver of the offending vehicle. Ex.B.1 policy was pertaining to the offending vehicle. As seen from Ex.B.1, a copy of insurance policy, there was a clear whisper limiting the third party liability pertaining to the damage of the property to a sum of Rs.6,000/- 16) At this juncture, it is pertinent to extract here Section 147 of the Act runs as follows: 147. Ex.B.1 policy was pertaining to the offending vehicle. As seen from Ex.B.1, a copy of insurance policy, there was a clear whisper limiting the third party liability pertaining to the damage of the property to a sum of Rs.6,000/- 16) At this juncture, it is pertinent to extract here Section 147 of the Act runs as follows: 147. Requirements of policies and limits of liability:- (1) In order to comply with the requirements of this Chapter, a policy of insurance must be a policy which- (a) is issued by a person who is an authorized insurer; or (b) insures the person or classes of persons specified in the policy to the extent specified in sub-section (2),- (i) against any liability which may be incurred by him in respect of the death of or bodily [injury to any person, including owner of the goods or his authorized representative carried in the vehicle] or damage to any property of a third party caused by or arising out of the use of the vehicle in a public place; (ii) against the death of or bodily injury to any passenger of a public service vehicle caused by or arising out of the use of the vehicle in a public place: It is to be noted that according to Section 147(2), 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: 17) A perusal of the above provision reveals that insofar as the compensation in respect of a third party liability regarding the death or bodily injury is concerned, there was no restriction at all, but insofar as the damage to the third party properties is concerned, the limit is Rs.6,000/-. 18) As seen from the order of the Tribunal though the Tribunal rightly held that the accident occurred was due to rash and negligent act of the driver of the offending vehicle. However, when a contention was canvassed by the insurance company i.e., the appellant that its liability in view of Section 147(2)(b) of the MV Act is only Rs.6,000/-, the Tribunal did not appreciate the contention properly in the considered view of this Court. However, when a contention was canvassed by the insurance company i.e., the appellant that its liability in view of Section 147(2)(b) of the MV Act is only Rs.6,000/-, the Tribunal did not appreciate the contention properly in the considered view of this Court. As rightly contended by the learned counsel for the appellant the vehicle of the petitioner was supposed to be insured with insurance company. There was no pleading at all from the part of the petitioner as to whether his vehicle was insured with any insurance company so as to get compensation under the head of damage to own vehicle. Thus, if the vehicle of the petitioner was insured with the insurance company, there would have been an occasion for the petitioner to claim compensation towards the damages to the own vehicle. Pleadings were silent in this regard. It was the bounden duty of the petitioner to plead necessary things in this regard in the considered view of this Court. 19) Having regard to the overall facts and circumstances and looking into the terms and conditions in Ex.B.1 policy which is in tune with Section 147(2)(b) of the MV Act, this Court is of the considered view that the Tribunal without answering the contention of the insurance company in proper perspective was inclined to award a sum of Rs.50,000/- towards compensation. There were no findings from the Tribunal as to how Section 147(2)(b) of the MV Act can be circumvented. In my considered view, in view of Ex.B.1 policy and Section 147(2)(b) of the MV Act, the petitioner has no right to claim compensation to the damages of his own vehicle being a third party for more than Rs.6,000/- against appellant. 20) It is to be noted that though the petitioner had every right to claim compensation from the original owner, but his pleadings were silent as to whether he made any claim before his insurance company so as to reimburse the damages which he sustained i.e., to his own vehicle. It is a case where there was no proper evidence let in by the petitioner as evident from the order of the Tribunal by examining the person who assessed the damage i.e., the Surveyor. As rightly held by the Tribunal, the petitioner did not prove the damages by examining any Surveyor. It is a case where there was no proper evidence let in by the petitioner as evident from the order of the Tribunal by examining the person who assessed the damage i.e., the Surveyor. As rightly held by the Tribunal, the petitioner did not prove the damages by examining any Surveyor. However, the Tribunal on guess work, awarded a sum of Rs.50,000/- contrary to Section 147(2)(b) of MV Act. 21) Having regard to the overall facts and circumstances, the petitioner is not entitled to claim more than Rs.6,000/- as against the insurance company as he was no other than the third party whose property was damaged in view of restriction under Section 147(2)(b) of the MV Act. Even the petitioner on facts was not entitled to claim more than Rs.6,000/- and he failed to prove the damages which he claimed by examining the Surveyor, etc. The case of the petitioner was not at all clear with true facts as regards as to whether he insured his vehicle with the insurance company so as to get compensation towards damages to own vehicle. 22) Having regard to the above, this Court is of the considered view that even it is not possible to make a direction to the owner of the offending vehicle to pay the difference amount of the compensation to the petitioner for want of proper pleadings and evidence. Hence, the only course left open to the Court is that modifying the award to a sum of Rs.6,000/- instead of Rs.50,000/- directing that the amount is to be paid by the respondent Nos.2 and 3 in the claim. Hence, the appeal is liable to be allowed in part. 23) In the result, the MACMA is allowed in part modifying the amount of compensation of Rs.50,000/- awarded by the Tribunal to that of Rs.6,000/- with interest at 7% per annum from the date of petition till the date of realization, payable by respondent Nos.2 and 3, but under the circumstances, without costs. Consequently, miscellaneous applications pending, if any, shall stand closed.