HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE P. SWAROOP REDDY CIVIL MISCELLANEOUS APPEAL No.1365 OF 2002 JUDGMENT: Being dissatisfied with the quantum of compensation, claimant filed this Civil Miscellaneous Appeal against the order in O.P. No.359 of 1986 dated 15-09-1989 of the learned Chairman, Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal – cum – District Judge, Nizamabad, seeking enhanced compensation for the injuries sustained by him in the accident that occurred on 11-04-1986. 2. For the sake of convenience, the parties are referred to as arrayed in the O.P. before the Tribunal. 3. Heard both sides perused the impugned award and other material made available on record. 4. The case of the claimant is that while he was going on scooter bearing No.ATJ – 4814 along with pillion rider, lorry bearing No.ATJ – 207, belonging to respondent No.1, driven by its driver at a high speed and in a rash and negligent manner, dashed against his scooter, as a result, he fell down and suffered injuries, for which, Tribunal awarded a compensation of Rs.10,000/- to him and Rs.35,000/- to the pillion rider, who is claimant in O.P. No.360 of 1986 (which was also disposed of along with the impugned order by common order). 5. The main contention of the learned counsel for the claimant is that claimant is also entitled to the compensation similar to the pillion rider. 6. The record reveals that no medical certificate is filed by the claimant and there is no other material to show that he suffered any grievous injury or disability. In the circumstances, there is no possibility for enhancement of the compensation. 7. Further, grievance of the claimant is that no liability is fixed against respondent No.3, the New India Assurance Company Limited. 8. It is seen that by the same order (common order) in O.P. No.360 of 1986, compensation was awarded to the pillion rider, claimant therein, and respondent No.3, Insurance Company, was also made liable. Therefore, in the case of the claimant herein also respondent No.3 shall be made liable for payment of compensation and is accordingly made liable. 9. Accordingly, the Civil Miscellaneous Appeal is allowed in part. There shall be no order as to costs. __________________ P. SWAROOP REDDY, J July 2, 2010. PV