HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE P. SWAROOP REDDY M.A.C.M.A.No.532 of 2005 JUDGMENT: This civil miscellaneous appeal is filed by the petitioner-claimant against the order and decree in O.P. No.446 of 2002 vide orders dated 17.01.2005 passed by the learned Chairman, Motor Accident Claims Tribunal – cum – III Additional District Judge (F.T.C.), Asifabad. 2. Heard. 3. In this appeal, appellant is the petitioner-claimant, respondent No.1 is the owner of the auto bearing No. AP-13/U-5087 that involved in the accident and the second respondent is the insurance company, with whom the offending vehicle is being insured. 4. The facts that are necessary for disposal of this appeal are as follows: On 27.01.2001 while the claimant and others were going in an auto bearing No.AP-13/U-5087 towards Goleti side, when the auto reached near Golite cross road, a van bearing No.MH-34/A-6838 proceeding from Rebbenna to Bellampalli came in high speed in a rash and negligent manner and dashed the auto, as a result, the petitioner received injuries all over his body. Immediately, he was shifted to Community Hospital, Bellampalli, where he took treatment as inpatient for some time. He also took treatment in private hospital by spending Rs.10,000/-. He claimed compensation of Rs.50,000/- contending that he was earning Rs.3,000/- per month as a driver and due to the accident he is unable to attend to his duties. 5. Respondents 1 and 2 filed separate counters denying the case of the claimant. 6. On the basis of the above pleadings, the following issues were framed: 1. Whether the accident, dated 27.01.2001 occurred out of the use of the motor vehicle of R-1, i.e., bearing No.MH-34/A- 6838? 2. Whether the petitioner is entitled to any compensation, if so to what amount and against which of the respondents? 3. To what relief? 7. On behalf of the claimant, the claimant got examined himself as PW.1 and marked Exs.A-1 to A-5. On behalf of the insurance company, no oral or documentary evidence was adduced. 8. On the basis of the material available on record, the Tribunal awarded a compensation of Rs.6,000/-. Out of that Rs.2,500/- towards loss of earnings, Rs.1,500/-towards medical expenses, Rs.500/- towards extra nourishment, Rs.500/- towards transport charges and Rs.1,000/- towards pain and suffering, holding that the second respondent alone is liable for payment of compensation. Aggrieved of the same, as stated above, the claimant preferred this appeal. 9. Now, the point for consideration is whether there are any grounds for enhancing the compensation? 10. It is a case of petitioner suffering simple injuries. No medical officer is examined. There is no other material to show that the injuries suffered by the petitioner were of any serious in nature. The compensation awarded by the Court below cannot be said to be inadequate. It is not clear as to which injury he suffered exactly in the accident and there is no material to show that he suffered disability on account of the same. 11. In the circumstances, the compensation awarded itself is more appropriate and I see no merits in this appeal and the same is liable to be dismissed. 12. Accordingly, C.M.A. is dismissed. No costs. ______________________ P. SWAROOP REDDY, J December 3, 2010. Rns