(1.) MACMA Nos. 170 and 184 of 2009 arise out of a common judgment dated 15 -02 -2008 in MVOP Nos. 201 and 209 of 2003 respectively passed by the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal -cum -II Additional District Judge, Kadapa (for short "the Tribunal"). The factual matrix of the case is thus:
(2.) HENCE , the Insurance Company preferred the two MACMAs aggrieved by the common judgment. Since the two appeals arise out of single judgment, they are disposed of by this common judgment.
(3.) OPPOSING the common judgment of the Tribunal, learned counsel for appellant vehemently argued that the Tribunal erroneously directed the Insurance Company to pay and recover the compensation from the owner though it has no liability at all. Learned counsel disowned the liability of the Insurance Company mainly on two grounds.