THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE P. SWAROOP REDDY C.M.A.Nos.3877 and 3919 of 2004 COMMON JUDGMENT: Since both these appeals arise out of same accident, even though two different O.Ps. are filed by different petitioners, they are being disposed of by this common judgment. Both these civil miscellaneous appeals are filed by the appellants-petitioners against the judgments and decrees of the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal-cum-V Additional District Judge(Fast Track Court), Ranga Reddy District, in O.P.Nos.559 of 2000 and 560 of 2000 respectively. Heard. The case of the petitioners in both the O.Ps. is that on 06.02.2000 while the petitioners and some others were traveling in an auto bearing No.ABT-2803 from Vikarabad to Munnuru Somaram village and when they reached Ananthagiripally outskirts, at about 4.00p.m. the auto turned turtle on account of the rash and negligent driving of the driver of the auto, on account of which, both the petitioners received injuries. The petitioner in O.P.559 of 2000 received fracture on lower 1/3rd of the left femur, while the petitioner in O.P.No.560 of 2000 received a crush injury on the head. There was said to be bleeding from the nose and she was referred to ENT hospital, where tracheotomy was performed. Petitioners in both the O.Ps. claimed compensation of Rs.1.00 lakh each. In both the O.Ps., the insurance company filed counters contending that there is no liability on the insurance company as the auto in which the petitioners were traveling was overloaded. The court below granted compensation of Rs.30,000/- in O.P.No.559 of 2000 and held that the insurance company is not liable as the auto was overloaded. In other O.P.560 of 2000, compensation of Rs.15,000/- was awarded. Aggrieved by the finding of the court below that the insurance company is not liable, the present appeals are filed. As far as the quantum of compensation awarded in O.P.No.559 of 2000 is concerned, there was only one fracture, that too, the lower 1/3rd of the left femur, the injury cannot be said to be much serious and the compensation awarded by the trial Court cannot be said to be inadequate. However, considering all the circumstances and the fact that the petitioner was hospitalized for about a period of ten days, the compensation can be enhanced by granting another amount of Rs.5,000/-. As far as O.P.No.560 of 2000 is concerned, the compensation of Rs.15,000/- awarded cannot be said to be inadequate as petitioner suffered only a simple injury, though on the head. There is no material to show that the injury lead to any complications. The tracheotomy, the petitioner has allegedly underwent perhaps has nothing to do with the injury she received in the accident. Coming to the question of liability of the insurance company, on account of overloading, the insurance company cannot be totally absolved as held by our High Court in NEW INDIA ASSURANCE COMPANY LTD. v. KOMMA VENKATESWARLU(DIED) THROUGH L.Rs.[1] the insurance company has to pay the compensation to the claimants and recover the same from the owner. In view of my above findings, it is held that in both the O.Ps. the insurance company has to pay the compensation to the petitioners-claimants and recover the same from the owners. The compensation awarded in O.P.No.559 of 2000 is enhanced from Rs.30,000/- to Rs.35,000/- and the compensation awarded in O.P.No.560 of 2000 is confirmed. No costs. ______________________ P. SWAROOP REDDY, J. 18th November 2010, Rns [1] 2007 ACJ 2760