HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE P. SWAROOP REDDY CIVIL MISCELLANEOUS APPEAL No.2247 OF 2002 JUDGMENT: Being dissatisfied with the quantum of compensation, claimant filed this Civil Miscellaneous Appeal against the order in O.P. No.223 of 1997 dated 08-02-2002 passed by the learned Chairman, Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal – cum - I Additional District Judge, East Godavari, Rajahmundry. 2. Appellant is claimant, respondent No.1 is owner and rider of the Hero Honda Motor Cycle bearing No.AP16-A-1480 involved in the accident and respondent No.2 is insurer of the Motor Cycle belonging to respondent No.1. 3. The claimant filed the O.P. claiming compensation of Rs.1,50,000/- contending that on 17-11-1996 at 2-00 PM, while he was proceeding from Sakhinetipalli Revu to Sakhinetipalli village, on the way at Kanaka Durgamma Temple, Hero Honda Motor Cycle bearing No.AP-16-A-1480 being driven by respondent No.1 in a rash and negligent manner, dashed against him from the opposite direction and on account of that he fell down and suffered several injuries and fracture of both bones of right leg. He was shifted to Government General Hospital, Razole and from there to Government Hospital, Kakinada for expert treatment. 4. Respondent No.1 remained ex parte and respondent No.2, the Oriental Insurance company Limited, alone filed its counter denying the case of the claimant. 5. Based on the pleadings, the following issues were framed by the Tribunal for trial: “1. Whether the petitioner sustained injuries in the motor accident due to the rash and negligent driving of motor cycle bearing No.A.P.16A 1480 by 1st respondent? 2. Whether the petitioner is entitled for compensation amount, if so, to what amount? 3. To what relief ?’ 6. To prove his case, claimant got examined himself as PW.1 and got marked Exs.A-1 to A-6. On behalf of the insurance company, RW.1 was examined and Ex.B-1 was marked. 7. Based on the material on record, Tribunal awarded a compensation of Rs.75,000/- against respondent No.1, owner of the Motor Cycle, alone and dismissed the petition against the insurance company, respondent No.2, holding that the offending Motor Cycle is not insured with the insurance company during the relevant time, as such, it is not liable to pay any compensation. Aggrieved of the same, claimant filed this appeal. 8. Significantly, in the grounds of appeal, it is not pleaded by the claimant that respondent No.2, insurance company, is also liable to pay compensation and that the Tribunal has erred in not fixing liability on it. Therefore, the only question that arises for consideration is whether the compensation awarded is inadequate ? 9. The medical certificate produced by the claimant reveals that he suffered compound fracture of both bones of right leg and as many as seven other injuries. Injury Nos.1, 2 and 3 are shown as grievous injuries. It is not clear from this certificate as to how they are grievous. On the other hand, evidence of the claimant as PW.1 shows that he suffered fracture of right leg and other minor injuries, which means claimant suffered only one fracture. In the circumstances, compensation of Rs.75,000/- awarded by the Tribunal cannot be said to be inadequate. Thus, I see no merit in the appeal and is liable to be dismissed. 10. Accordingly, the Civil Miscellaneous Appeal is dismissed. No order as to costs. ______________________ P. SWAROOP REDDY, J October 1, 2010. PV