IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) THURSDAY, THE TWENTY FOURTH DAY OF JUNE TWO THOUSAND AND TEN PRESENT THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE V.ESWARAIAH C.M.A.No.2296 of 2002 Between: Uppu Srinu ..... APPELLANT AND Mr.A.M.Meena Kodi and another .....RESPONDENTS The Court made the following: THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE V.ESWARAIAH C.M.A.No.2296 of 2002 JUDGMENT: Appellant is the claimant who filed O.P.229/1998 on the file of the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal-cum-1st Additional District Judge, Guntur claiming compensation of Rs.1,00,000/- for the injuries received by him in a motor accident. 2. The 1st respondent is the owner of the Auto bearing No.AP7T- 3411 which was insured with the 2nd respondent. The Tribunal below found that the accident was occurred due to rash and negligent driving of the driver of the Auto bearing No.AP7T-3411 and the same has become final as no appeal is filed. The present appeal is filed seeking enhancement of compensation contending that the appellant claimed compensation of Rs.1,00,000/-, but the Tribunal below granted compensation of Rs.36,320/- only. When the medical evidence as per PW 2 which goes to show that the percentage of disability is 10 to 15% but the Tribunal has taken only 10% disability. Though it was contended that his monthly income is Rs.1,500/- per month by the date of accident, but the Tribunal has taken into account of his monthly income as Rs.800/- . Admittedly, the claimant under Ex.A4 reported before the Doctor that his monthly income was only Rs.800/-. 3. The petitioner contended that as per the medical evidence of PW 2 the loss of physical function of the limb is 10 to 15% and therefore, the loss of income should have been taken at 15%. I am unable to accept the said contention as the percentage of 10 to 15% disability is not the permanent disability. As the Doctor said that the physical function of limb is only 10 to 15% and therefore, the Court below has rightly taken into account the loss of physical function of limb of the petitioner as 10%. The loss of physical function is different from the permanent disability of 10 to 15%. In the absence of medical record or evidence to show that the petitioner has sustained permanent disability even the 10%, I am unable to accept the contention of the learned counsel for the appellant that on the loss of physical function also he is entitled to compensation for the loss of income at the rate of 12% or 15%. 4. I do not see any merits in this appeal and the appeal is accordingly dismissed. No order as to costs. ___________________ V.ESWARAIAH,J Dated: 24.06.2010 Dsr