HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE P. SWAROOP REDDY CIVIL MISCELLANEOUS APPEAL No.3126 OF 2002 JUDGMENT: Being dissatisfied with the quantum of compensation awarded in O.P. No.985 of 1998 vide order dated 03-01-2002 by the learned Chairman, Motor Accident Claims Tribunal – cum – Additional District Judge, Nizamabad, claimant preferred this Civil Miscellaneous Appeal. 2. The owner of the jeep bearing No.AP-1C-380 that involved in the accident and its insurer are respondent Nos.1 and 2 respectively in the O.P. before the Tribunal. 3. For the sake of convenience, the parties are referred to as arrayed in the O.P. before the Tribunal. 4. The case of the claimant before the Tribunal is that on 08-05-1998, while she was travelling in the jeep bearing No.AP-1C- 380 belonging to respondent No.1 and being driven by its driver, from Dilawarpur to Nirmal, at Lolam village sivar, on Bhainsa to Nirmal road, at about 2-00 PM, due to rash and negligent driving of the driver of the jeep, he lost control over the vehicle, as a result, jeep turned turtle and on account of that, she sustained injuries to her back bone, head, both legs, left eye and all over her body. Immediately, she was shifted to Government Hospital, Nirmal and from there, on reference, shifted to Government Head Quarters Hospital, Nizamabad and still she has been taking treatment from private doctors. She spent Rs.30,000/- towards medicines etc. Hence, she claimed a compensation of Rs.1,00,000/-. 5. Respondent No.1 remained ex parte and respondent No.2, insurance company, alone filed its counter denying the case of the claimant. 6. Based on the pleadings, the following issues were framed for trial by the Tribunal: “1) Whether the accident was due to rash and negligent driving of the jeep bearing No.AP-1C-380 by its driver? 2) Whether the petitioner is entitled for compensation. If so to what amount and against which of the respondents? 3) To what relief?” 7. To prove her case, claimant got examined herself as PW.1 and a medical practitioner as PW.2 and got marked Exs.A-1 to A-26. On behalf of the insurance company, no evidence was adduced. 8. Based on the evidence on record and after an elaborate consideration of the same, Tribunal awarded a compensation of Rs.41,000/- to the claimant as against her claim of Rs.1,00,000/-. Being dissatisfied with the quantum of compensation, claimant preferred this appeal. 9. Now the point for consideration is whether there are any grounds for allowing this appeal ? 10. Ex.A-4, the initial medical certificate, shows that claimant sustained only three simple injuries. As seen from Ex.A-4, there is not even a simple injury on the right thigh area, as such, the question of there being any fracture of right pelvic, as invented by the private medical practitioner subsequently, does not arise. When it is not there in the initial medical certificate, as per which claimant sustained only three simple injuries, it cannot be believed that she sustained fracture of her right leg. However, the compensation of Rs.41,000/- awarded by the Tribunal for the three simple injuries sustained by the claimant and the medical expenses etc., is also on higher side. Therefore, absolutely there are no grounds to enhance the compensation, as such, the appeal is liable to be dismissed. 11. Accordingly, the Civil Miscellaneous Appeal is dismissed. No order as to costs. ______________________ P. SWAROOP REDDY, J November 16, 2010. PV