THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE P. SWAROOP REDDY C.M.A.No.2350 of 2003 JUDGMENT: This civil miscellaneous appeal is filed against the judgment of the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Kurnool, in O.P.No.339/2000. Petitioner-Claimant is the appellant. 2. Heard. 3. The case of the petitioner is that on 11.03.1998 the petitioner parked the lorry, of which he was driver, at Chennai Transport Office, Chennai. At about 2.00 p.m. while he was proceeding on the road near Redhills Police Station, Chennai, motor cycle bearing No.TN-22-Z-2550 came in a rash and negligent manner and dashed him, he fell down and suffered injuries. He was earning Rs.2,500/- per month as a driver. After the accident, he was treated at Stanley Hospital and also M.S.Hospital at Chennai. He spent Rs.15,000/- for treatment. He became permanently disabled, as the movement of his fingers got restricted on account of the injuries he suffered in the accident. As he was not able to drive after the accident, he was removed from his job as a driver. He claimed compensation of Rs.1.00 lakh. First respondent remained exparte and the second respondent filed counter denying the petition allegations. On the basis of above pleadings, the following issues were framed: 1. Whether the accident occurred due to the rash and negligent driving of the rider of Motorcycle bearing No.TN-22-Z-2550? 2. Whether the petitioner is entitled for compensation and if so, to what amount and from which of the respondents? 3. To what relief? On behalf of the petitioner, P.Ws.1 and 2 were examined and Exs.A1 to A4 were marked. On behalf of the respondents, R.W.1 was examined and Exs.B1 and B2 were marked. On the basis of the material on record, the court below awarded compensation of Rs.37,000/-. Aggrieved by the same, the present appeal is filed. 4. Learned counsel for the petitioner contends that the petitioner suffered disability on account of the accident to his right hand. Due to the accident, the movement of the fingers of his right hand got restricted, consequent to which he was not in a position to drive and was removed from his job as a driver. 5. Now, the point for consideration is, whether the petitioner is entitled for higher compensation and there are any grounds for allowing the appeal? 6. Learned counsel for the petitioner contends that the evidence of P.W.1, the petitioner and the evidence of P.W.2, the medical officer, reveals that the petitioner suffered grievous injuries and the compensation awarded is inadequate being Rs.37,000/-, as the petitioner suffered disability as already referred and was removed from service. 7. The initial medical certificate reveals that the petitioner did not suffer any fracture. Ex.A2 the X.ray report shows that the injury was simple. It was a lacerated injury of 8 x 3 x 1 cm over the palmer aspect of left thumb at base and middle and he was admitted in hospital. Apparently, though the injury is simple, but somewhat severe as it was of the size of 8 x 3 x 1cm and he was admitted in hospital. But there is no material to show that it was a grievous injury or that it caused any kind of permanent disability, i.e., restriction of the movement of the hand as per initial medical documents. No doubt, P.W.2 the medical officer, who examined the petitioner after 4 ½ years, stated that he found a healed scare on left pamar aspect of wrist joint, there was diminishing sensation over the left thumb, ring and little fingers, there was tenderness over the scar site. He was not able to grasp objects and there was no bony injury. Thus, after four and half years the medical officer speaks about seriousness of the injury, it is not known as to whether the injury that was found by P.W.2 was the same that the petitioner received in the accident. Thus, it has to be treated as a case of one simple injury. As such, the compensation of Rs.37,000/- awarded cannot be said to be inadequate. 6. In the circumstances, I see no merits in this appeal and there are no grounds to enhance the compensation and the appeal is liable to be dismissed. 7. Accordingly, C.M.A. is dismissed. No costs. ______________________ P. SWAROOP REDDY, J. 15th November 2010, Rns