THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE G.V.SEETHAPATHY M.A.C.M.A.No.3465 OF 2005 DATED: 10-11-2009 Between: Bitla Sai Mahender Rao. ..... APPELLANT And A.P.S.R.T.C., Rep. by its V.C. & M.D., Hyderabad & another. .....RESPONDENTS JUDGMENT: This appeal is directed against the order, dated 31-01-2003, in O.P.No.1694 of 2001 on the file of the II Additional Chief Judge, City Civil Court, Hyderabad, wherein the claim of the appellant was allowed awarding compensation of Rs.2,00,000/- as claimed for the injuries sustained in a motor vehicle accident that occurred on 06- 03-2001. 2. Heard learned counsel appearing for the appellant and the learned standing counsel appearing for the respondents-APSRTC. Perused the record. 3. According to the appellant, on 06-03-2001, while he was proceeding on a motor cycle bearing No.AP-9F- 4719 as a pillion rider to go to Lakshmi Narasimhaswamy temple at Nacharam, RTC bus bearing No.AP-9Z-8974 coming from Gajwel side dashed against the motor cycle resulting in fracture of shaft femur with fracture of both bones proximal 3rd right leg besides other injuries and he was taken to Srinivasa hospital, Tupran and from there to CDR, Hyderabad, where he underwent treatment. The claimant further pleaded that he was aged 25 years and was a private employee earning Rs.4500/- p.m. 4. Respondents-A.P.S.R.T.C. filed a counter opposing the claim and denying the liability to pay compensation. 5. During the course of evidence, P.Ws.1 and 2 were examined and Exs.A1 to A18 were marked. No oral or documentary evidence was adduced by the respondents. 6. On a consideration of the evidence available on record, the Tribunal allowed the claim in full and awarded compensation of Rs.2,00,000/- with interest @ 9% p.a., from the date of the petition. Not satisfied with the award the claimant filed the present appeal. 7. Admittedly, the entire amount, as claimed by the claimant, was awarded by the Tribunal i.e., a sum of Rs.2,00,000/- with interest @ 9% p.a., from the date of the petition. The claimant has not filed any application for amendment of the claim either before the Tribunal or before this Court. 8. In a decision reported in B.H.NAGARATHANA & OTHERS v. KARNATAKA STATE ROAD TRANSPORT CORPORATION, REP., BY ITS DIVISIONAL CONTROLLER, BANGALORE[1], a Division Bench of this Court, in similar circumstances, held as follows: “when the appellants claimed a particular sum and when the whole claim has been granted, it would be far-fetched to say that the appellants are still aggrieved because the Court had jurisdiction to grant a larger amount. May be that the appellants felt disappointed when they came to know that they could have claimed larger amount. It is settled legal position that feeling of disappointment is not equivalent to “to be aggrieved”. Unless the judicial decision challenged, is adverse to the person challenging the same, it cannot be said that the person can claim himself to be aggrieved. Even though the Tribunal had power to give a relief larger than what was claimed, that in no way meant that the Award, passed wholly in favour of the petitioner, gives a ground of grievance to the petitioner. In a given case even though the petitioner is entitled to a larger relief it is the right of the petitioner to restrict it to a limited relief. He can give up larger relief. It is for the petitioner to claim by appropriate amendment the relief if he wants a larger relief. He cannot make a grievance that the Court had jurisdiction to give a larger amount though he asked for a lesser relief and on that account he feels aggrieved. Having regard to the scope of Section 173 of the Act and having regard to the natural meaning of the word “person aggrieved”, the appellants did not fall under the category of “person aggrieved” for purposes of filing appeal. The impugned Award is wholly in favour of the appellants and as appellants cannot be said to be persons aggrieved, the appeal is not tenable in law”. 9. In the light of the principles laid down in the above decision it can not be said that the appellant is an ‘aggrieved person’ inasmuch as his entire claim was allowed by the Tribunal. 10. The present case is squarely covered by the above decision. Even otherwise, the amount awarded by the Tribunal, on appreciation of the evidence available on record, is considered to be just and adequate. There are absolutely no valid or justifiable grounds for enhancement of the compensation. 11. In the result, the appeal is dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs. _______________________ G.V.SEETHAPATHY, J 10th November, 2009 Tsy [1] 1998 (4) ALT 669