THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE P. SWAROOP REDDY C.M.A.No.2155 of 2003 JUDGMENT: This civil miscellaneous appeal is filed by the petitioner- claimant against the order and decree dated 27.07.2002 in O.P.No.494 of 2001 on the file of the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal-cum- District Judge, Nalgonda District. 2. Heard. 3. According to the petitioner-claimant, on 20.02.2001 he suffered an accident on account of a tractor bearing No.AP-24G- 1845 and 1847 hitting him. According to him, he suffered fracture of pelvis apart from other injuries. He underwent treatment at Saikrishna Nursing Home, Kodad. He claimed compensation of Rs.1,50,000/-. First respondent remained exparte and second respondent filed counter denying the petition allegations. On the basis of the pleadings, the following issues were framed: 1. Whether the accident was due to the rash and negligent driving by the driver of the tractor & trailor bearing No.AP-24G-1846 & 1847? 2. Whether the petitioner is entitled to any compensation, if so, to what amount? 3. To what relief? 5. On behalf of the petitioner, P.W.1 was examined and Exs.A1 to A6 were marked. On behalf of the respondents, no oral or documentary evidence was adduced. 6. After considering the counter and framing appropriate issues and basing on the evidence of P.W.1 and Exs.A1 to A6, the court below granted compensation of Rs.25,000/-. As already referred, the claimant dissatisfied with the quantum of compensation, filed the present appeal. 7. Now, the point for consideration is whether there are any grounds for allowing the appeal? 8. According to the petitioner, he suffered fracture of leg, elsewhere it is stated that he suffered fracture of pelvis. It is not clear as to which injury he suffered exactly in the accident. Further more, as per the petition, the accident has taken place on 20.02.2001, but the complaint is given on 28.03.2001, i.e., more than one month later and as per the charge sheet, the petitioner was examined by a Government Medical Officer, but no certificate from the government hospital is produced. It appears to be a suspicious case. 9. 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. 10. Accordingly, C.M.A. is dismissed. No costs. ______________________ P. SWAROOP REDDY, J. 15th November 2010, Rns