IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD THURSDAY, THE EIGHTEENTH DAY OF NOVEMBER TWO THOUSAND AND TEN PRESENT THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE P. SWAROOP REDDY CIVIL MISCELLANEOUS APPEAL NO.4190 OF 2004 Between : G.Narsimha .... APPELLANT A N D Y.Narsaiah and another …RESPONDENTS THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE P. SWAROOP REDDY CIVIL MISCELLANEOUS APPEAL No.4190 OF 2004 JUDGMENT: This Civil Miscellaneous Appeal is filed by the claimant against the order and decree, dated 14.11.2003 in O.P.No.196 of 1997, passed by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal–cum-I Additional District Judge, Ranga Reddy, L.B.Nagar, whereby a compensation of Rs.50,000/- was awarded to the claimant as against the claim of Rs.1,00,000/-, for the injuries sustained by him in the accident. 2. For the sake of convenience, the parties herein are referred to as arrayed in the O.P. before the Tribunal. 3. The case of the claimant in the O.P. before the Tribunal, in brief, is that on 27-01-1997 at about 8.00 A.M., while the claimant along with others was chit chatting near Tea stall, Market Road, Waddera Vada, Mothukur Village, one tractor trolley bearing No.AP-24-A-4542 and AP-24-A-4543 came from Kurella, in high speed and in a rash and negligent manner and dashed the claimant and another person, due to which the claimant received fracture to right leg, hole on the back side and multiple injuries all over the body. Thereafter, the claimant was shifted to hospital for treatment. A case was registered under Section 337 of I.P.C. against the driver of the tractor trolley. By the date of accident, the claimant was working as a labourer and earning Rs.1,500/- per month. Due to the accident the claimant lost his earning capacity and incurred heavy expenditure for the treatment. Hence, the claimant filed O.P. seeking compensation of Rs.1,00,000/-. 4. Respondent No.1 owner of the tractor trolley remained ex parete. Respondent No.2 insurance company filed its counter denying the claim averments of the O.P. 5. On the basis of the pleadings, the following issues were framed by the Tribunal for trial: 1. Whether the accident had occurred due to the rash and negligent driving of the Tractor trolley bearing No.AP-24-A-4542 and AP-24- A-4543 by its driver? 2. Whether the petitioner is entitled for any compensation to what amount? 3. To what relief? 6. To substantiate his case, the claimant himself was examined as P.W.1 and also examined P.W.2 Dr.G.Subash Rao, who treated him, and got marked Exs.A-1 to A-10. On behalf of respondent No.2 no witnesses were examined except marking Ex.B.1 copy of insurance policy. 7. Originally this case was disposed of by the Tribunal on 20.12.1999, granting compensation of Rs.30,000/-. On appeal in A.A.O.No.966 of 2000, this Court, remanded the matter to the Tribunal for fresh disposal after examining Doctor, who treated the claimant, and issued Ex.A.5 disability certificate to that effect. 8. After remanding the matter to the Tribunal, Dr.G.Subash Rao, was examined as P.W.2. Considering the material available on record, the Tribunal awarded a sum of Rs.50,000/- as against the amount of Rs.30,000/- awarded earlier. 9. Now, the contention of the learned counsel for the claimant is that even though the Tribunal awarded a sum of Rs.50,000/- after remand, the said amount is inadequate, as the claimant suffered fracture of pelvis. On account of the fracture of pelvis, he became permanently disabled, and it has become difficult for him while walking and squatting etc. 10. P.W.2 the Medical Officer deposed that he issued Ex.P.5 disability certificate only. 11. P.W.1 in his evidence deposed that he suffered fracture of Pelvis. There is no reference in the petition about fracture of Pelvis. Further, the claimant did not depose in his evidence about any kind of disability suffered on account of the alleged fracture of Pelvis. Thus, it is doubtful whether the claimant really suffered fracture of Pelvis or not. As such, the case of the claimant remains to be one of the fracture of left femur only. Therefore, the compensation of Rs.50,000/– awarded by the Tribunal cannot be said to be inadequate and the same is just and reasonable. Hence, there are no grounds to interfere with the impugned order passed by the Tribunal. 12. Accordingly, the Civil Miscellaneous Appeal is dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs. _________________________ P. SWAROOP REDDY, J. NOVEMBER 18, 2010. YVL