HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE P. SWAROOP REDDY CIVIL MISCELLANEOUS APPEAL No.2749 OF 2004 JUDGMENT: Aggrieved of the quantum of compensation awarded in O.P. No.335 of 1998 dated 17-02-2000 by the learned Chairman, Land Reforms Appellate Tribunal – cum – III Additional District Judge, Karimnagar, the Oriental Insurance Company Limited filed this Civil Miscellaneous Appeal. 2. Appellant, who is insurer of the jeep bearing No.AP12 – T – 1982 involved in the accident, is respondent No.3, respondent No.1 is claimant, respondent Nos.2 and 3, who are driver and owner of the above jeep respectively, are respondent Nos.1 and 2 respectively, and respondent Nos.4 to 6, who are driver, owner and insurer, respectively, of the tractor-trailer bearing No.AP15 – T – 4471/4472, are respondent Nos.4 to 6 respectively in the O.P. before the Tribunal. 3. For the sake of convenience, the parties are referred to as arrayed in the O.P. before the Tribunal. 4. The claimant being a minor, his mother represented him. The case of the claimant before the Tribunal was that on 13-05-1996, while he was proceeding along with his parents to Ramakrishnapoor from Vangara Village in the jeep bearing No.AP12 – T – 1982 belonging to respondent No.2 and being driven by respondent No.1, at 1-30 AM, near Kannala Village, as the driver of the jeep drove it at a high speed and in a rash and negligent manner and dashed to a stationed tractor-trailer bearing No.AP15 – T – 4471/4472, which was parked on the road without parking lights, claimant sustained injuries and a person died on the spot. Claimant sustained injury on the head and fracture of his left shoulder. He took treatment in Area Hospital, Godavarikhani, where he was inpatient from 13-05-1996 to 16-05- 1996 and thereafter he was shifted to Area Hospital, Ramakrishnapoor and there he took treatment till 28-05-1996. Hence, he claimed a compensation of Rs.50,000/-. 5. Respondent Nos.1, 2, 4 and 5 remained ex parte and respondent No.3, the Oriental Insurance Company Limited, insurer of the jeep, alone filed its counter denying the case of the claimant. 6. Based on the pleadings, the following issues were framed for trial by the Tribunal: “1. Whether the accident took place due to the rash and negligent driving of the vehicle i.e., Jeep bearing No.AP-12- T-1982 by its driver of respondent No.1 and negligence of respondent No.4 driver of Tractor-trailer bearing No.AP-15- T-4471/4472 ? 2. Whether the petitioner is entitled to compensation, and if so, to what amount and from whom ? 3. To what relief ?” 7. To prove his case, mother of the claimant was got examined as PW.1 and got marked Exs.A-1 to A-4. On behalf of the insurance company, RW-1 was examined and Ex.B-1 true copy of the insurance policy was marked. 8. Based on the evidence on record, Tribunal awarded a compensation of Rs.14,000/- and odd against all the respondents making them jointly and severally liable for payment of compensation and apportioning the compensation between the two vehicles i.e., jeep and the tractor-trailer involved in the accident directing to pay 90% of the compensation by respondent Nos.1 to 3 and 10% of the compensation by respondent Nos.4 to 6. Aggrieved of the same, the appellant herein, who is insurer of the jeep, preferred this appeal. 9. Now the question that arises for consideration is whether there are any grounds for allowing this appeal ? 10. The compensation awarded to the claimant is Rs.14,000/- and odd. Thus, what is granted is only a paltry amount and perhaps there is no necessity for the insurance company to file any appeal against the trivial compensation awarded to the claimant by the Tribunal. Maybe because, other O.Ps. were filed on behalf of the other persons who sustained injuries in the accident and also lost life, this appeal is filed. As per the grounds of appeal, in the accident, totally four persons died and six persons received injuries. 11. In the circumstances and particularly as paltry compensation is awarded, I see no ground to entertain this appeal, as such, the same is liable to be dismissed. 12. Accordingly, the Civil Miscellaneous Appeal is dismissed. No order as to costs. However, it is made clear that dismissal of this appeal shall not be treated that the insurance company is liable to pay compensation to the victims, who sustained injuries or lost life in this accident. This appeal is purely dismissed, as the claim is petty. The other cases arising out of this accident have to be decided on merits. ______________________ P. SWAROOP REDDY, J October 28, 2010. PV