THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE N.R.L.NAGESWARA RAO M.A.C.M.A.NO.2850 of 2011 JUDGMENT:- The appeal is filed by the appellant/claimant questioning the quantum of compensation. An application was filed for a compensation of Rs.2 lakhs for the injuries received by the petitioner in a motor accident. On 03.11.2000 while the petitioner was travelling in an auto bearing No.AP-25-T-6955 from Nizamabad to Nandipet at about 8.15 A.M when auto reached near Madhapur, a lorry bearing No.AP-15-T-69 being driven by its driver came in opposite direction in a rash and negligent manner and dashed against the auto, as a result, the petitioner sustained injuries. The petitioner is said to have been treated at Government hospital and spent money and suffered disability. The first respondent, who is the owner of the vehicle, remained ex parte in the lower Tribunal and second respondent is the Insurance Company filed a counter denying the allegations and putting the petitioner to strict proof with regard to nature of incident and injury; nature of treatment and also disputed the quantum of compensation. The lower Tribunal after considering the evidence on record has dismissed the application. Aggrieved by the said judgment, the present appeal is filed. Now the point that arises for consideration is:- Whether the petitioner has received injuries in a motor accident and if so he is entitled to the compensation? POINT:- In order to sustain the claim, it is necessary for the petitioner to show that on 03-11-2000 he along with his parents travelled in the auto. The finding of the lower Tribunal clearly goes to show that the charge sheet does not show that the petitioner was travelling along with his parents and received injuries in a motor accident. The lower Tribunal also was not inclined to give credence to the evidence of PW.2 and also the certificates about the treatment. If really the petitioner having travelled in the auto along with his parents and received injuries, when the investigation discloses that the parents of the petitioner received injuries and they were treated in the government hospital, the parents of the petitioner would not have failed to mention the same to the police and the record would have been available about the treatment of the petitioner. Therefore, the above circumstances which were taken note of by the lower Tribunal clearly goes to show that the claim of the petitioner does not appear to be true and the lower Tribunal has appreciated the facts on record. Merely because F.I.R states that the petitioner also travelled in the auto along with the parents, it cannot be taken as a case where he also received injuries. Therefore, there are no grounds to interfere with the order of the lower Tribunal and accordingly the appeal is liable to be dismissed. Accordingly, the Appeal is dismissed. No costs. _______________________ N.R.L. NĀGESWARA RĀO,J 22-11-2011 TSNR