ORIENTAL INSURANCE CO LTD Vs. KAMMIDI RAJIREDDY

JUDGEMENT

(1.) In both the CMA Insurance Company is the appellant. The CMA 46 and 65 of 91 arise out of OP No.229 of 88 and 227 of 88 respectively which were clubbed together and a common order was passed on 30-8-1990. In CMA No.46 of 88 the petitioner Kommireddi Rajireddy who sustained injuries claimed compensation of Rs.30,000.00, whereas CM A 65 of 91 which arose out of OP 227 of 88 filed by the wife of the petitioner in OP 229/88 claimed compensation of Rs.55,000.00 on the ground that by virtue of the accident occurred on 11-4-1988 the child in the womb died. The brief facts of the case are as follows:

(2.) The claimant/petitioner in OP 227/ 88 was resident of Kamareddypalli village and on the date of accident she came to the bus stand of Kamareddypalli to go to Hanamakonda along with her husband Mr. Raji Reddy. The petitioner at that time was carrying nine months of pregnancy, at that time a Jeep bearing No. ATI 4275 going towards Hanamakonda agreed to give lift to both the petitioners/claimants and some others and they boarded the said Jeep bearing No.ATI 4275 and unfortunately when the said jeep reached near to the agricultural farm at about 9.30 a.m. a bus bearing No.AAZ 8523 belonging to A.P.S.R.T.C. was coming in the opposite direction and the jeep hit against the R.T.C. bus. Due to the said accident the claimants/petitioners fell down and received injuries. Due to the said injuries petitioner lost her unborn child. On 12-4-1988 the driver of the jeep died due to the injuries at M.G.M. Hospital, Warangal. The petitioners/claimants were also admitted in the M.G.M. Hospital. The result of the accident was so grave that the child in the womb of the petitioner died and the same was removed by conducting an operation.

(3.) Respondent No.4 who is appellant herein in both the appeals had taken the defence that he is not aware of the accident and the said jeep which was involved in the accident was having an Act Policy and the said policy subsisting in the name of Respondent No.3 and stated that he is not liable to pay the compensation and the amount claimed is excessive. On the said pleading the Tribunal has settled two issues for consideration.