THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE P. SWAROOP REDDY C.M.A.No.3924 of 2003 JUDGMENT: Not satisfied with the quantum of compensation awarded in W.C.No.30 of 1998 by the Commissioner of Workmen’s compensation, Nizamabad, the present appeal is filed by the claimant. 2. Heard. 3. The claim petition was filed by the applicant under Section 22 of the Workmen Compensation Act, 1923, claiming compensation of Rs.3.00 lakhs contending that he was under the employment of Opposite Party No.1 as driver on the lorry tanker bearing No. AP 25 T 813 on a salary of Rs.2500/- per month, apart from batta. On 22.10.1997 when the applicant was driving the lorry from Pune to Bombay after it reached Khopolli Boreghat, on account of the inability of the petitioner to control the lorry, it fell in a ditch. Petitioner sustained injury to right femur and knee, fracture of left hip and fracture of skull also, apart from some other injuries. He was taken to the hospital of Dr.N.S.Laud and Dr.A.G.Ambardekar, where both his legs were operated and rods were inserted. He spent Rs.1.50 lakhs for treatment. On account of the injuries, he incurred permanent disability. He is unable to do any work. 4. Opposite party No.1 did not file any counter. Opposite Party No.2 filed counter denying the claim petition. 5. On the basis of the pleadings, the following issues were framed: 1. Whether the applicant is a workman within the meaning of the Act and whether the accident occurred during the course of employment under Opposite Party No.1? 2. If so, to what relief the applicant is entitled and against which of the opposite parties? 6. On behalf of the applicant, A.Ws.1 and 2 were examined and Exs.A1 to A10 were marked. On behalf of the respondents, no oral or documentary evidence was adduced. On the basis of the material on record, the court below granted compensation of Rs.2,25,797/- holding that the petitioner suffered 85% disability. Aggrieved by the above quantum, the present appeal is filed. 7. Now, the point for consideration is whether there are any grounds to enhance the compensation? 8. It is a case, where the petitioner suffered only fractures and not anything like amputation. As such, the compensation awarded by the court below cannot be said to be inadequate and the same is appropriate. In the circumstances, I see no grounds to further enhance the compensation and the appeal is liable to be dismissed. 9. Accordingly, C.M.A. is dismissed. No costs. ______________________ P. SWAROOP REDDY, J. 24th December 2010, Rns