Both these appeals have been filed under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 challenging the judgment and decree dt.31-12-2011 in M.V.O.P.No.418 of 2006 of the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal-cum-I Additional District Judge, Ranga Reddy District, Hyderabad.

2. The said O.P. was filed by the claimant G.Nagaraju, (who is appellant in M.A.C.M.A.No.2833 of 2013 and 1st respondent in M.A.C.M.A.No.1834 of 2012) (for short ‘the claimant’), on 02-05-2006 seeking compensation for the injuries suffered by him in a motor vehicle accident which took place on 23-12-2005. He initially claimed a sum of Rs.5.00 lakhs but latter enhanced his claim to Rs.9.00 lakhs.

3. He contended in the O.P. that on 23.12.2005 at about 7.30 p.m. he was proceeding on a motorcycle from his place of work i.e. Microsoft Office, Gachibowli towards Hitech City, and when he reached near Games village, a tractor bearing Regn. No.AP 15W 3722 owned by one Ch.Lakshman Rao and insured by the Oriental Insurance Company Limited (for short ‘the insurer’) (which is the appellant in M.A.C.M.A.No.1834 of 2012), came in the opposite direction at a high speed; that it was being driven in a rash and negligent manner and hit the motorcycle which he was driving; that he fell down and suffered injuries including fracture injuries to right leg, compound fracture injuries to right knee, injury to chin (stitches 3/4th) apart from suffering several multiple injuries all over the body; he underwent treatment in a private hospital in Vikram Hospital, Madhapur as in-patient for four hours and later he was shifted to NIMS hospital, Panjagutta for further treatment from 24-12-2005 as in-patient for sometime; he was operated upon in the NIMS and the right leg was amputated from foot to the above knee level; and therefore he is entitled to be compensated by both the owner and insurer.

4. The owner of the tractor remained ex parte.

5. The Insurer denied the occurrence of the accident and the involvement of the claimant. It was alleged in the counter by insurer that there was contributory negligence on the part of the claimant and the claimant only was responsible for the occurrence of the accident. It did not admit the accident or the manner in which the claimant alleged that it took place. Alternatively, it also pleaded that the owner of the tractor alone is responsible since he has been impleaded.

6. Subsequently an additional counter was filed by the Insurer taking a further plea that in the investigation conducted by it, it was revealed that the claimant was covered as an “injured person” under Employee’s State Insurance Act, 1948 (for short ‘ESI Act’); his disability was assessed at 60% by the Medical Board of the ESI Corporation; and the said Corporation was paying disablement benefit of Rs.57.12 ps per day (amounting to Rs.1,714/- per month) through out his life with effect from 06-01-2007 in addition to paying temporary disablement benefits Rs.75,303/- from 24-12-2005 to 05-01-2007 @ Rs.95-20 p.s. per day treating the injury of the claimant as an ‘employment injury’. It was also pleaded that ESI Corporation has reimbursed Rs.15,975/- to the NIMS, Hyderabad towards medical expenses for the treatment given to the claimant from 24-12-2005 to 13-01-2006 and this was confirmed by letters dt.14-07-2006 and 10-12-2009 addressed by the Branch Manager, ESI Corporation, Patancheruvu to the Insurer. The Insurer therefore pleaded that under Section 53 of the ESI Act, the claimant is barred from claiming, receiving or recovering any compensation or damages from anybody including his employer for the employment injuries sustained by him under any other law and therefore the claim of the claimant is barred since he received the benefits from ESI Corporation for his temporary/permanent disablement/loss of earning and for treatment with NIMS, Hyderabad. It is also stated that the petitioner continued his employment with M/s.Avon Maintenance Services Private Limited, where he was previ