IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) PRESENT THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE G.V.SEETHAPATHY C.M.A.NO.731 OF 2002. Date:23.10.2009. Between:- Kanchani Laxmi ..Appellant/Petitioner And Muktar Ahmed (died) and another .. Respondents/Respondents JUDGMENT:- This appeal is directed against the order dated 31.07.2001 in O.P.No.818 of 1995 on the file of the Chairman, Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal-cum-District Judge, Nizamabad awarding compensation of Rs.500/-. 2. Heard the learned counsel for the appellant-claimant and the learned counsel for respondent No.2-insurer. An adjournment is sought on behalf of the appellant but the same is refused, as it is an old matter of the year 2002. Respondent No.1-owner of the vehicle remained exparte. 3. Perused the records. 4. The appellant filed the claim application seeking compensation of Rs.75,000/- on the ground that she sustained injuries in a motor vehicle accident that took place on 06.03.1995 in the outskirts of Vellur village of Medak District while she was traveling in a bus bearing No.AP-25-T-769. The appellant is a minor girl aged 10 years and she claimed to have sustained injuries on the forehead and other parts of the body. 5. Respondent No.2 filed counter opposing the claim. 6. During enquiry, P.Ws.1 and 2 were examined and Exs.A-1 to A-4 were marked on behalf of the claimant. No oral evidence was adduced by the respondents but got marked Exs.B-1 to B-3. 7. On a consideration of the evidence on record, the Tribunal held that the appellant failed to prove that she sustained injuries as claimed by her and therefore, awarded a sum of Rs.500/- towards compensation for shock. Aggrieved by the same, the claimant filed the present appeal seeking enhancement of the compensation. 8. According to the claimant, she sustained injuries on her forehead, waist and other parts of the body and that initially, she was shifted to Gandhi Hospital, Secunderabad and later, she took treatment in Pragathi Hospital. She has not examined any Doctor, who treated her either at Gandhi Hospital, Secunderabad or Pragathi Hospital, Nizamabad. She did not produce any wound certificate or other medical reports from either of the hospitals. She filed Ex.A-3, a registration card of Pragathi Hospital, which is marked subject to objection. None connected with the issuance of the said certificate was examined. Ex.A-3 does not disclose that the claimant sustained any injuries at all. Thus, there is absolutely, no oral or documentary evidence adduced by the claimant to show that she sustained any injuries in the accident or that she underwent any treatment for any such injuries. In the absence of any such proof of her sustaining the injuries and undergoing treatment, the Tribunal has rightly rejected the claim of the claimant for compensation. The Tribunal, however, liberally awarded a sum of Rs.500/- towards compensation for violent shock even though there is no evidence to show that the claimant was under a state of shock on account of the accident. 9. In these circumstances, it is held that there are absolutely, no valid and justifiable grounds for enhancement of the compensation. 10. In the result, the appeal is dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs. _________________ G.V.SEETHAPATHY, J 23rd October, 2009 AMD