THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE P. SWAROOP REDDY C.M.A.No.21 OF 2000 JUDGMENT: This civil miscellaneous appeal is filed against the order and decree, dated 14.10.1999, passed by the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal-cum-Additional District Judge, Khammam, in O.P.No.117/96. The third respondent-insurance company is the appellant herein. 2. Heard the learned counsel for the appellant. 3. The facts are, on 4.5.95, a lorry bearing No.AHH 657 on which the petitioner was a cleaner, while going from Jaggaiahpet to Kothagudem with a load of coal, met with an accident - dashed against a tree, on account of rash and negligent driving of the driver, four occupants of the lorry died on the spot, two others suffered injuries and the petitioner received grievous injuries. The petitioner was treated at Kothagudem S.C.Company Hospital. He suffered fracture. After discharge from hospital, he took treatment in Sri Ram Hospital, Jaggaiahpet from outside. He spent about Rs.10,000/- for treatment. He claimed compensation of Rs.1,25,000/-. Usual counters were filed on behalf of the respondents. Basing on the pleadings, the following issues were framed: 1. Whether the petitioner by name Palavai Sreenivasa Reddy sustained injuries due to rash and negligent driving of lorry bearing No.AHH 657 by its driver-R1? 2. Whether the petitioner is entitled to any compensation? If so, to what amount and from which of the respondents? 3. To what relief? On behalf of the petitioner, P.Ws.1 and 2 were examined and Exs.A1 to A7 were marked. On behalf of the respondents, Ex.B1 was marked. 4. On the basis of the material on record, the learned Judge awarded compensation of Rs.60,000/- and held that respondents 1 to 3 are jointly and severally liable for compensation. Aggrieved by the same, the present C.M.A. is filed by the insurance company. 5. Now, the only question raised by the appellant - insurance company is that the petitioner-claimant was not the cleaner of the lorry and he was an unauthorized passenger, as such, he would not be entitled for compensation from the insurance company. Learned counsel for the respondent-claimant contends that the petitioner was cleaner of the lorry and even otherwise also, he is entitled for compensation. In this case, the petitioner suffered three fractures. i. Fracture lateral end of right clavicle, ii. Fracture neck of right scapula, and iii. Pneumo tho-rax right side. As such, the quantum of compensation of Rs.60,000/- cannot be said to be high. 6. The only question that remains to be considered is the liability of the appellant-insurance company. Learned counsel for the petitioner reports that vide orders in C.M.A.No.3199 of 2000, 3205 of 2000 and 3409 of 2000 dated 20.02.2001 similar appeals filed by insurance company were dismissed and the same were confirmed in LPAs. Learned counsel for the insurance company is not in a position to dispute the same. 7. Considering the fact that the matter is already covered by the decision of this Court in the above matters, this appeal is liable to be dismissed and the same is accordingly dismissed. No order as to costs. ______________________ P. SWAROOP REDDY, J. 21st June 2010, Rns