THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE D.S.R.VARMA CIVIL MISCELLANEOUS APPEAL No.800 of 2003 and CROSS OBJECTIONS (SR) No.30234 of 2003 ORAL COMMON JUDGMENT: Heard the learned counsel for appellant-owner of the vehicle as well as the learned counsel for the 1st respondent-claimant. 2. Since both the Civil Miscellaneous Appeal and the Cross objections arise out of the judgment and decree passed in the same O.P., they are heard together and being disposed of by this common judgment. 3. Aggrieved by the order and decree, dated 28.2.2001, in O.P.No.14 of 1999, passed by the Chairman, Motor Accident Claims Tribunal (Additional District Court) Hindupur, Anantapur District (for brevity “the Tribunal”), awarding a sum of Rs.11,500/- towards compensation, as against the claim of Rs.35,000/- , for the injuries sustained by the 1st respondent-claimant in a motor accident that occurred on 6.9.1995, at about 12-00 Noon, near Gurunath Talkies, Hindupur, due to the rash and negligent driving of the Hero Honda, bearing registration No.ADA 7465, driven by the appellant, civil miscellaneous appeal has been preferred by the owner of the offending vehicle and cross objections have been preferred by the claimant. 4. The appellant is the owner of the offending vehicle and the 1st respondent is the claimant. 5. The whole claim of the claimant is that he received injuries in the accident, which is not in dispute. Further, a criminal case in C.C.No.285 of 1995 on the file of the Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Hindupur, was also filed in which the appellant was accused. Eventually, because of the intervention of the Lok Adalat, the said case was closed. 6. It is the contention of the learned counsel for the appellant- owner of the vehicle that the factum of compromise held in C.C.No.285 of 1995 before the Lok Adalat was not brought to the notice of the Tribunal and, therefore, the Tribunal awarded an additional amount of Rs.11,500/- towards compensation. 7. In fact, the Tribunal had elaborately discussed on this aspect. It was found that in the Lok Adalat, the matter was settled on condition that the appellant-owner of the vehicle would pay a sum of Rs.6,500/- towards medical expenses. But, there is nothing on record to show as to whether the said amount was actually paid or not. In other words, the said case was rather compounded. Even if the said calender case was closed with a condition that there will not be any further claim for compensation, the right created under the statute to the claimant cannot be erased. 8. Therefore, the Tribunal had rightly considered this aspect and found that there was no mention as to whether the actual amount that was agreed to be paid by the appellant-owner of the vehicle to the claimant was paid or not. Further more, the amount granted by the Tribunal towards compensation was only a sum of Rs.11,500/-, which is very trivial. In such matters, particularly after about 11 years from the date of accident, I do not feel it appropriate to consider the other facts on record in order to arrive at a different conclusion than the one arrived at by the Tribunal. 9. For the foregoing, I do not find any merit either in the civil miscellaneous appeal or in the cross-objections and the same are liable to be dismissed. 10. In the result, the civil miscellaneous appeal and the cross objections are dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs. _______________________ JUSTICE D.S.R.VARMA 24.06.2010. Msr THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE D.S.R.VARMA CIVIL MISCELLANEOUS APPEAL No.800 of 2003 and CROSS OBJECTIONS (SR) No.30234 of 2003 24.06.2010 (Msr)