THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE R.KANTHA RAO. Dated this the 26th day of November, 2009. C.M.A.No. 3606 of 2000 Between: Madugundu Santappa. …….Appellant vs. Ayyaswamy and another. …….Respondents. THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE R.KANTHA RAO. C.M.A.No. 3606 of 2000 JUDGEMENT: Heard the learned Counsel for the appellant. None appears for the respondent No.2 though notice is served on him. Service of notice on R.1 is not necessary since he was set ex parte before the Tribunal itself. This appeal is directed aggrieved by the Award dt. 27.6.2000 in MVOP.No. 918 of 1998 passed by the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal-cum-II Additional District Judge, Kurnool granting compensation of Rs. 7,500/- as against the claim of compensation of Rs. 75,000/- to the appellant, who is the injured/claimant. The contention of the learned Counsel for the appellant is that though the appellant adduced convincing evidence, the compensation as awarded by the Tribunal is not proportionate to the injuries sustained by him and it deserves to be enhanced. A perusal of the Award passed by the Tribunal below and the material on record would show that the appellant himself was examined as Pw.1 but he did not examine the doctor who treated him and issued the wound certificate Ex:A.2. He stated that he received an injury on his chest which resulted fracture of two ribs. Ex:A.2 the wound certificate shows that the petitioner received lacerated wound on the frontal region and pain on all over the chest. But in Ex:A.2, the injury No.2 is not mentioned as grievous in nature. In the absence of any such mention, it is not possible to say that injury No.2 is grievous in nature. Therefore, both the injuries can be said to be simple injuries. No medical bills have been produced by the appellant. Therefore, it is not possible to award any compensation towards medical expenses. Considering the nature of injuries sustained by the appellant, an amount of Rs. 8,000/- can granted for the two simple injuries and a further sum of Rs. 2,000/- can be granted towards pain and suffering. In all the appellant is entitled for a total compensation of Rs. 10,000/-. Another aspect, which requires to be mentioned before disposing of this appeal is that the Tribunal below considering the appellant to be a gratuitous passenger held that the 2nd respondent insurance company is liable to pay compensation, relying on the decision of the Supreme Court in New India Assurance Company vs. Satpal Singh (AIR 2000 S.C. 235). But subsequent to the decision referred to above, the Supreme Court over-ruled the above decision and held that the insurance company is not liable to pay compensation to gratuitous passengers. Therefore, the 2nd respondent-insurance company is exonerated from paying the compensation and the 1st respondent/owner of the vehicle alone is liable to pay compensation to the appellant. In the result, the appeal is partly allowed enhancing the compensation of Rs. 7,500/- to Rs. 10,000/-. No order as to costs. ______________________ R.KANTHA RAO,J. 26.11.2009. Krb. THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE R.KANTHA RAO. C.M.A.No. 3606 of 2000 Dated this the 26th day of November, 2009.