HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE P. SWAROOP REDDY CIVIL MISCELLANEOUS APPEAL No.2288 OF 2002 JUDGMENT: Being dissatisfied with the quantum of compensation awarded in O.P. No.749 of 2000 vide order dated 01-04-2002 by the learned Motor Vehicle Accident Claims Tribunal – cum – Additional Special Judge for SPE & ACB Cases – cum – V Additional Chief Judge, City Civil Court, Hyderabad, claimant preferred this Civil Miscellaneous Appeal. 2. Appellant is claimant, respondent No.1, owner of the Tata Safari bearing No.AP10 – M – 67 involved in the accident, and respondent No.2, insurer of the above vehicle Tata Safari, are respondent Nos.1 and 2 respectively in the O.P. before the Tribunal. 3. For the sake of convenience, the parties are referred to as arrayed in the O.P. before the Tribunal. 4. The case of the claimant before the Tribunal is that on 16-03-2000 while he was proceeding on his Scooter bearing No.AP – 28 – 9667 from Ashoknagar Cross Roads towards Charminar Chowrastha, Hyderabad, near Jawaharnagar Chowrastha, VN English School, Tata Safari bearing No.AP10 – M – 67 belonging to respondent No.1 and being driven by its driver in a rash and negligent manner and at a high speed, hit against his scooter from backside, as a result, he fell down and sustained grievous injuries. Hence, he claimed a compensation of Rs.3,00,000/-. 5. Both the respondents filed their counters separately denying the case of the claimant. 6. Based on the pleadings, the following issues were framed for trial by the Tribunal: “1. Whether the petitioner sustained injuries due to rash and negligent driving of Tata safari bearing No.A.P.10 M 67 ? 2. Whether the petitioner is entitled for compensation, if so, to what amount and from whom ? 3. To what relief ?” 7. To prove his case, claimant got examined PWs.1 and 2 and got marked Exs.A-1 to A-9. On behalf of the respondents, no oral evidence was adduced except marking Ex.B-1, copy of the insurance policy. 8. Based on the material on record, after an elaborate consideration of the matter, Tribunal awarded a compensation of Rs.1,69,000/- to the claimant as against his claim of Rs.3,00,000/-. Being dissatisfied with the quantum of compensation, claimant preferred this appeal. 9. Now, contention of the learned counsel for the claimant (appellant) is that quantum of compensation awarded by the Tribunal is on lower side as the claimant sustained fracture to his right leg (femur) and wrist and injury to right shoulder. 10. Now the point that arises for consideration is whether there are any grounds for allowing this appeal ? 11. Claimant sustained fracture of his right femur and no other injuries; maybe some minor injuries. When the claimant sustained only one fracture and hospitalized for ten (10) days and as the fracture was not on any vital part of the body like pelvis or knee joints etc., awarding compensation of Rs.1,69,000/- cannot be said to be inadequate. 12. In the circumstances, I see no ground to enhance the compensation awarded by the Tribunal, as such, the appeal is liable to be dismissed. 13. Accordingly, the Civil Miscellaneous Appeal is dismissed. No order as to costs. ______________________ P. SWAROOP REDDY, J October 29, 2010. PV