IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD FRIDAY, THE NINTH DAY OF APRIL TWO THOUSAND AND TEN PRESENT: THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE R.KANTHA RAO CIVIL MISCELLANEOUS APPEAL No.404 of 2001 Between: Sirra John Victor …Appellant AND A.P.State Road Transport Corporation and others …Respondents The Court made the following : THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE R.KANTHA RAO CIVIL MISCELLANEOUS APPEAL No.404 of 2001 JUDGMENT: 1. This Civil Miscellaneous Appeal is preferred by the injured claimant in O.P.No.682 of 1992 against the award dated 17.04.1999 passed by the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal – cum – II Additional District Judge, West Godavari, Eluru (‘the Tribunal’, for brevity) in the said O.P. The appellant ﬁled claim petition under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (‘the Act’, for brevity) before the learned Tribunal, claiming compensation of Rs.80,000/- in respect of injuries sustained by him in a motor accident occurred on 19.10.1991 at about 04:30 p.m. near Thethili village, wherein, a lorry bearing registration No.AP 16 T 5463 and a bus belonging to APSRTC bearing registration No.APZ 433 were involved. 2. The learned Tribunal gave a ﬁnding that the accident took place due to collision between both the vehicles and apportioned the liability equally on both of them, which fact is not disputed by the appellant herein. The ﬁrst respondent – APSRTC and the fourth respondent – National Insurance Company Limited did not challenge the said ﬁnding of the Tribunal by way of any appeal, and their version is that they could not ﬁle an appeal in view of the bar contained in Section 173(2) of the Act which lays down that there shall be no appeal against an award which is less than Rs.10,000/-. 3. The appeal is, therefore, ﬁled by the appellant seeking enhancement of compensation on the ground that the amount of compensation granted by the learned Tribunal is inadequate. 4. I have heard the learned counsel appearing for the appellant, learned counsel appearing for the ﬁrst respondent – APSRTC and the learned counsel appearing for the fourth respondent – National Insurance Company Limited. 5. In fact, the said O.P. was dismissed for default by the Tribunal against the owner of the lorry bearing registration No. AP 16 T 5463 and the appellant, who is the claimant before the Tribunal, did not take any steps to set aside the said order of dismissal. In the absence of fastening any liability on the owner of the lorry bearing registration No. AP 16 T 5463, the learned Tribunal ought not to have given a ﬁnding that the fourth respondent – National Insurance Company Limited is liable to pay compensation of Rs.5,000/-. However, the learned Tribunal might be justiﬁed in directing the APSRTC to pay an amount of Rs.5,000/- as compensation. 6. In any event, the appellant examined himself as P.W.1 and marked Exs.A.1 to A.5, which discloses that he sustained fracture. The appellant did not adduce any evidence and did not examine the doctor to prove the nature of injury sustained by him or any disability said to have been sustained by him. Basing on the said evidence before it, the learned Tribunal rightly granted compensation of Rs.10,000/- which cannot be assailed on the ground that it is inadequate. Since there is no material brought on record by the appellant justifying enhancement of compensation, the appeal does not deserve any merit and is liable to be dismissed. 7. As regards liability to pay compensation, since the ﬁnding of the learned Tribunal as to the liability of the ﬁrst respondent – APSRTC and the fourth respondent – National Insurance Company Limited has not been challenged, it is not open for them to contend that they are not liable to pay compensation. Since the ﬁnding of the learned Tribunal that the accident occurred on account of collision between both the vehicles became ﬁnal and as there is no challenge as regards their liability by way of any appeal, it is made clear that they shall pay the compensation amounts to the appellant, as directed by the learned Tribunal. 8. In the result, the Civil Miscellaneous Appeal fails and is accordingly dismissed without any order as to costs. __________________________ JUSTICE R.KANTHA RAO April 09, 2010 Bvv