THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE N.R.L.NAGESWARA RAO M.A.C.M.A.No.1956 of 2011 And M.A.C.M.A NOS.2606 & 2519 OF 2005 COMMON JUDGMENT:- All the appeals arise out of the common accident. M.A.C.M.A No.1956 of 2011 was filed by the Insurance Company against the order in O.P.No.813 of 2000 whereunder the liability of the Insurance Company is disputed. M.A.C.M.A No.2606 of 2005 was filed by the claimant in O.P.No.823 of 2000 questioning the quantum of compensation, which was granted as Rs.2,000/- as against the claim of Rs.50,000/-. M.A.C.M.A No.2519 of 2005 was filed by the petitioner in O.P.No.813 of 2000 challenging the quantum of compensation awarded by the lower Tribunal to a tune of Rs.1,08,948-75 paise as against the claim of Rs.5 lakhs. The allegations in the petitions go to show that on 20.09.1999 at about 5.00 P.M the petitioners were travelling in a jeep bearing No.MH- 31-G-8663 from Nirmal to Godavarikhani and when they reached near Dharmajipet, the driver drove the jeep at high speed in a rash and negligent manner, as a result of which, the jeep turned turtle and the petitioners received injuries. The first respondent is the owner and the second respondent is the Insurance Company. The first respondent remained ex parte and the second respondent filed a counter contending that the jeep was carrying more than 20 passengers and it was being run on hire and there is violation of the conditions of the policy and, therefore, there is no liability. The lower Tribunal clubbed both the O.Ps and common evidence was recorded and held that the incident was due to the rash and negligent driving of the jeep by its driver. So far as the injuries to the petitioner in O.P.No.813 of 2000 is concerned, he claimed that he is practising an Advocate and sustained injuries on chin and suffered loss of teeth and he was immediately shifted to Government hospital, Khanapur and thereafter he took treatment at Nizamabad by spending a sum of Rs.1,50,000/- and suffered permanent disability and loss of earnings. Ex.A-3 is the injury certificate, which shows that the petitioner was having one grievous injury by way of fracture of mandible and loss of molar, pre-molar and canign teeth on left side. Taking into consideration the above fact and also the fact that the petitioner was admitted in the hospital on 20-09-1999 and discharged on 21-09-1999 and also the factum of treatment at St. Theressa’s hospital, Hyderabad, the lower Tribunal has granted Rs.75,000/- towards injuries. The lower Tribunal has also taking into consideration the medical bills under Ex.A-6 to a tune of Rs.33,948-75 paise, granted a compensation of Rs.1,08,948-75 paise. It was contended by the counsel for the petitioner that the petitioner suffered disability and the petitioner being an Advocate and injuries to mouth caused more disability and the lower Tribunal has also failed to take into consideration the entire medical expenses. There is no proof of any disability opined by the competent authority. The lower Tribunal has granted a compensation of Rs.33,948-75 paise taking into consideration the medical bills. But, the fact remains that the petitioner has taken the treatment at Nizamabad and thereafter at Hyderabad, which definitely involves other expenses like transport and extra- nourishment and other medical expenses also. Further more, the petitioner was disabled for some time and might not be able to attend the profession. Therefore, taking into consideration the above facts, I feel ends of justice would meet if a compensation of Rs.1,50,000/- is granted to the petitioner in O.P.No.813 of 2000. So far as the petitioner in O.P.No.823 of 2000 is concerned, she claimed that the grievous injury to lower limb and injuries to other parts of the body and she was shifted to Khanapur hospital and spent money for treatment and lost earnings. The lower Tribunal took into consideration Ex.A-11 the certified copy of the injury certificate, which shows that the petitioner has got one simple injury and there was no fracture. The lower Tribunal has granted a compensation of Rs.2,000/-, but, the fact remains the petitioner after the incident has to go to different places for treatment and must be under shock for some time. Therefore, some expenses must have been incurred by her. Taking into consideration the nature of the injuries, I feel it will be reasonable to enhance the compensation to Rs.5,000/- in stead of Rs.2,000/- as granted by the lower Tribunal. The learned counsel for the Insurance Company contends that the policy covers the risk of 10 persons and the liability is Rs.1 lakh for each of the claimants and therefore, it cannot be held liable for more than Rs.1 lakh. Taking into consideration the above said plea, the liability of the Insurance Company in O.P.No.813 of 2000 is confined to Rs.1 lakh. Accordingly, M.A.C.M.A 1956 of 2011 is to be allowed. In the result, M.A.C.M.A 2519 of 2005 is allowed and the compensation is enhanced to Rs.1,50,000/- and M.A.C.M.A No.2606 of 2005 is also allowed and compensation is enhanced to Rs.5,000/- and M.A.C.M.A No.1956 of 2011 is allowed and the liability of the Insurance Company is fixed to an extent of Rs.1 lakh for the claim in O.P.No.813 of 2000 and the balance to be recovered from the owner of the vehicle. Each party do bear their own costs in these appeals. _______________________ N.R.L. NĀGESWARA RĀO,J 26-09-2011 TSNR