IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD PRESENT THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE G.BHAVANI PRASAD C.M.A.NO.487 OF 2001 Date:24-01-2011 Between:- Hamid Bin Hussain .. Appellant And Dr.I.V.Krishna Murthy and another .. Respondents JUDGMENT:- This appeal is directed against the Award in O.P.No.97 of 1996 on the file of the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal-cum-I Additional Chief Judge, City Civil Court, Secunderabad dated 03-02- 2000. 2. The appellant/petitioner, then a minor, was claimed to be going as a pillion rider on a cycle of his friend Md.Fazil on 12-05-1996 at about 3.30 p.m. and Maruthi Car bearing No.AIX 9772 driven rashly and negligently was claimed to have dashed against the cycle injuring the appellant and his friend and causing a fracture in the appellant’s right leg. The appellant was claimed to have been treated in Gandhi Hospital till 25-05-1995 and to have undergone further treatment in a private nursing home. Chilakalaguda Police were claimed to have registered Crime No.135 of 1996 under Section 337 of the Indian Penal Code against the first respondent-owner of the vehicle. A compensation of Rs.75,000/- was claimed from the owner and insurer alleging the appellant to have lost his memory and to have become unable to go to his school. 3. The owner of the vehicle, first respondent, contended that the petitioner and his friend themselves suddenly turned to the right without showing any signal hitting the right side of the van and hence, there was no negligence on the part of the first respondent. In any view, the compensation claimed was high. The insurer, second respondent, contended that the valid driving license of the driver of the offending vehicle has to be proved apart from road worthiness of the vehicle. It also denied any responsibility for the compensation. 4. The Tribunal framed issues about the entitlement of the appellant for the compensation and examined P.W.1 and marked Exs.A-1 to A-3 and Ex.B-1 during the course of the enquiry. 5. The Tribunal rendered the impugned Award firstly accepting Ex.A-1-First Information Report as corroborating P.W.1 about the negligence of the driver of the Maruthi Van. The Tribunal referred to the evidence of the injured as P.W.1 about his being an inpatient in Gandhi Hospital for 14/10 days and his spending Rs.2,000/- in Gandhi Hospital and Rs.6,000/- for treatment with a native doctor. Though P.W.1 claimed to be still suffering from pain in the leg, loss of concentration and discontinuance of studies due to the adverse impact on his memory, the Tribunal noted that no supporting material had been filed except Ex.A-2-O.P. chit. The Tribunal did not find corroboration for the alleged fracture of right femur mentioned in Ex.A- 2 chit from Ex.A-3–X-ray. Further noting that the offence was registered under Section 337 of I.P.C., the Tribunal concluded that a compensation of Rs.10,000/- would be reasonable and just. The Tribunal made both the respondents liable for the said compensation jointly and severally with proportionate costs and interest at 12% p.a. 6. The claimant challenged the said Award herein contending that a steel rod was fixed in his leg, which was ignored and the treatment undergone by the claimant was not appreciated. Hence, the appeal for the balance of the claim at Rs.65,000/-. 7. Sri Ch.Janardhan Reddy, learned counsel for the appellant, and Sri K.Narasaiah, learned counsel representing Sri V.Sambasiva Rao, learned counsel for the second respondent, are heard. None entered appearance for the first respondent before this Court. 8. The point for consideration is: “Whether the appellant is entitled to any further compensation than that awarded by the Tribunal?” 9. POINT:- The only witness examined on behalf of the claimant was the claimant himself and his evidence was uncorroborated by the evidence of any doctor, who treated him, or any record of such treatment except Ex.A-2-O.P. chit. The Tribunal noted Ex.A-2-O.P. chit mentioning about the fracture to be uncorroborated by Ex.A-3-X-ray, which was a finding of fact, for deviating from which there is no additional material before this Court. The evidence of P.W.1 about his being treated in Gandhi Hospital for 14/10 days and his expending Rs.2,000/- in Gandhi Hospital and Rs.6,000/- later appears to have been accepted by the Tribunal as the basis for grant of compensation of Rs.10,000/- in total including any claims for any pecuniary and non pecuniary damages of which pain and suffering are a part. The offence was stated to have been registered only under Section 337 I.P.C. under Ex.A-1 for simple hurt and in the absence of any further evidence, the same cannot be construed as evidence of the possibility of any grievous hurt. The alleged treatment by the native doctor, the continuance of pain, the loss of concentration and the deformity in the leg, as claimed by P.W.1, were not appreciated by the Tribunal, which had the benefit of observing the demeanour of the witness when he was examined as P.W.1 and under the circumstances, there appears no scope for any deviation from the conclusions of the Tribunal about the quantum of just and adequate compensation to which the claimant is entitled. The appeal has to fail. 10. Accordingly, the appeal is dismissed without costs. ________________________ G.BHAVANI PRASAD, J 24th January, 2011 AMD