IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD THURSDAY, THIS THE 5th DAY OF AUGUST, 2010 C.MA.Nos.2198, 2199, 2200 and 2556 of 2003 C.MA.No.2198 of 2003 Between National Insurance Company Ltd., rep. by its Branch Manager …APPELLANT(S) A N D Solanki Kishan Singh and others …RESPONDENT(S) C.MA.No.2199 of 2003 Between National Insurance Company Ltd., rep. by its Branch Manager …APPELLANT(S) A N D S.Amar Singh and others …RESPONDENT(S) C.MA.No.2200 of 2003 Between National Insurance Company Ltd., rep. by its Branch Manager …APPELLANT(S) A N D Chawan Lachiram and others …RESPONDENT(S) C.MA.No.2556 of 2003 Between National Insurance Company Ltd., rep. by its Branch Manager …APPELLANT(S) A N D P.Govinda Rao and others …RESPONDENT(S) THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE D.S.R.VARMA C.MA.Nos.2198, 2199, 2200 and 2556 of 2003 ORAL COMMON JUDGMENT: Heard both sides. 2. Challenging the quantum of compensation awarded by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal-cum-District Judge, Adilabad (for brevity “the Tribunal”), by a common order and decrees, dated 19.07.2002, in O.P.Nos.328, 329, 330 and 505 of 2000, for the injuries suffered by the respective petitioners therein, in a road accident that occurred on 23.02.2000, the appellant-National Insurance Company Limited has filed the present Civil Miscellaneous Appeals. 3. In all these appeals, appellant is the insurer, 1st respondent is the respective claimant, 2nd respondent is the driver of offending vehicle i.e. lorry, and 3rd respondent is the owner of offending vehicle. 4. The particulars regarding the method and the manner in which the accident took place and the rash and negligence etc., are not referred to herein, as they are not in dispute. 5. The Tribunal, after appreciating the evidence on record, both oral and documentary, awarded Rs.12,000/-, Rs.25,000/-, Rs.29,000/-, and Rs.34,000/- towards compensation to the respective claimants for the injuries suffered by them in the accident. 6. The only point that arises for consideration, in these appeals, is whether the quantum of compensation awarded by the Tribunal is proper and justified? 7. I have perused the impugned order, along with other material, available on record. 8. All these appeals arise out of the common award passed by the Tribunal. It appears that all the claimants, while travelling in a goods carriage along with some goods, met with an accident. Hence, the respective claimants filed independent claim petitions before the Tribunal. It was contended before the Tribunal as well as this Court that all the claimants were paid passengers but not owners of the goods being carried in the offending vehicle. The Tribunal had categorically recorded that the offending vehicle was a goods vehicle. The objection raised before the Tribunal was that since the claimants were only carrying vegetables and some paper boxes, they are to be treated as unauthorised passengers paying fare and, therefore, they are not entitled to any compensation. That contention was rejected by the Tribunal on appreciation of the evidence on record, both oral and documentary, and also having regard to the totality of the circumstances. 9. Furthermore, what is to be seen in all these appeals is only marginal sums of Rs.12,000/- to Rs.34,000/- have been awarded. In O.P.Nos.328, 329, 330 and 505 of 2000, against which C.M.A.Nos.2198, 2200, 2199 and 2556 of 2003 have been filed, the sums of Rs.12,000/-, Rs.29,000/-, Rs.25,000/- and Rs.34,000/- were awarded, respectively. 10. Therefore, all the appeals deserve to be dismissed only on the ground of triviality of the amounts of compensation. In cases where the Tribunal awarded a minimum amount of compensation, it is inexpedient for this Court to interfere with the award. 11. In the result, all the appeals C.M.A.Nos.2198, 2199, 2200 and 2556 of 2003 are dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs. _________________ D.S.R.VARMA, J 05th AUGUST 2010 CVRK