THE UNITED INDIA INSURANCE COMPANY REPRESENTED BY ITS BRANCH MANAGER, ARMOOR, NIZAMABAD DISTRICT NO. 2 Vs. G. MANIK PRABHU AND ANR.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) CMA . No. 4432 of 2003 is filed by the United India Insurance Company Limited, which was respondent No. 2 before the Claims Tribunal. Whereas CMA. SR. No. 73994 of 2003 is filed by the appellant -claimant (injured) against the award and decree dated 31 -07 -2003 passed by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal (District Judge), Nizamabad, in OP. No. 86 of 1995. CMA. No. 4432 of 2003 is filed by the United India Insurance Company Limited challenging the award passed by the Claims Tribunal on the grounds. namely that failure of kidney and its subsequent transplantation of the claimant is not the result of the injuries sustained by the claimant in the accident, the claimant received only simple injuries and the Claims Tribunal ignoring the evidence available on record erroneously granted compensation of Rs. 4,00,000=00 to the claimant and thus it seeks to set aside the finding.

(2.) WHEREAS the claimant preferred CMA. SR. No. 73994 of 2003 assailing the award and decree passed by the Claims Tribunal on the ground that in the claim -petition, the injured claimed compensation of Rs. 6,90,000=00, the learned Claims Tribunal arrived at a finding that the claimant is entitled for compensation of Rs. 5,62,942=00 but restricted the award to the claim made by the claimant for an amount of Rs. 4,00,000=00 which according to him is not in accordance with law. The appellant -injured seeks enhancement of the compensation from Rs. 4,00,000=00 to Rs. 11,90,000=00 in the appeal filed by him.

(3.) THE claimant, an Advocate practicing at Armoor while travelling in the auto bearing No. 25/T -2046 from New Bus Stand towards MRO Office in Armoor town received injuries in the accident alongwith his wife and daughter when the said auto turned turtle near Ambedkar statue on account of the rash and negligent driving of the driver of the said auto. The learned Claims Tribunal recorded a finding that the accident was due to rash and negligent driving of the auto by its driver and accordingly held that the second respondent, owner of the auto and the United India Insurance Company Limited the appellant in CMA No. 4432 of 2003 with which it was insured were jointly and severally liable to pay the compensation. The said finding having not been appealed by the United India Insurance Company and attained finality.