THE HON’BLE MR JUSTICE L. NARASIMHA REDDY M.A.C.M.A.No.3293 of 2009 JUDGMENT: The appellant filed O.P.No.333 of 2006 before the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal-cum-XXII Additional Chief Judge, City Criminal Court, Hyderabad, claiming a sum of Rs.4 lakhs, as compensation. He pleaded that on 20-07-2005, he engaged an auto- rickshaw bearing No.AP-24-V-5705, owned by the 1st respondent and insured with the 2nd respondent, to go to Marriguda from Madgulapalli, and on the way, a vehicle bearing No.AP-02-G- 117, owned by the 3rd respondent, dashed against it, and the same resulted in crush injury to his right femur. It was stated that, on account of the grievous injury, his right leg was amputated above knee level. The appellant pleaded that he was doing business of milk vending, and was earning Rs.3,300/- per month. The O.P., was opposed by the 2nd respondent alone. Through its order dated 08-06-2009, the Tribunal awarded a sum of Rs.3,83,000/-, as compensation, with interest at 7% per annum. The appellant seeks enhancement of the compensation. Heard Sri B. Parameswara Rao, learned counsel for the appellant, and learned counsel for the 2nd respondent. On behalf of the appellant, PWs 1 to 3 were examined and Exs.A-1 to A-10 were filed. On behalf of the respondents, RW-1 was examined, and Exs.B-1 and B-2 were marked. The Tribunal accepted the contention of the appellant, that he sustained the injury, on account of the rash and negligent driving of the vehicle, owned by the 1st respondent, and insured with the 2nd respondent. The F.I.R., marked as Ex.A-1, and charge-sheet, Ex.A-3, proved this aspect. So far as the injuries are concerned, the Tribunal had an opportunity to see the condition of the appellant, as PW-1, and nobody denied the fact, that his leg was amputated. In addition to that, the physically handicapped certificate was also filed as Ex.A-5. The Tribunal awarded a sum of Rs.30,000/- towards pain and suffering. The entire amount covered by medical bills was awarded. The appellant pleaded that his monthly income was Rs.3,300/-. The same was accepted without any demur. The disability suffered by the appellant was certified to be 50%. The fact that the appellant was provided with artificial leg was taken into account. The correct multiplier ‘17’ was applied, taking into account the age of the appellant. Towards loss of future amenities, a sum of Rs.10,000/- was awarded. Learned counsel for the appellant is not able to point out as to on which aspect the Tribunal erred, or the compensation awarded by it is inadequate. This Court does not find any basis to interfere with the award passed by the Tribunal. The C.M.A. is accordingly dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs. _______________________ L. NARASIMHA REDDY, J. Dt.23-09-2009. KO There shall be no order as to costs. _______________________ L. NARASIMHA REDDY, J. Dt. -07-2009. Note: L.R copy to be marked. (B/O) KO*