THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE K.S. APPA RAO C.M.A.No.3039 of 2003 ORDER Aggrieved against the decree and order dated 5.5.2003 in O.P.No. 251 of 1998 on the file of the learned Motor Accident Claims Tribunal-cum- Addl. District Judge, Madanapalle. The present C.M.A. is filed on the following grounds: The Order of the tribunal in awarding the compensation amount of Rs. 2,00,000/-- against the claim of Rs. 10,00,000/- is erroneous and contrary to law. The facts of the case in brief are as follows: That on 22.6.1998 at about 8.30 p.m. the injured met with an accident when he reached near the well of Rama Murthy situated on Madanapalle-Chembakur road, an auto bearing No. AP 03 U 554 came in opposite direction in a rash and negligent manner without putting on the head lights and thereby the wooden planks which were placed out of it were hit him and thereby he sustained injury to his right leg resulting in fracture. It is urged by the learned counsel for the appellant that the lower Court passed an order of decree without appreciating the evidence on record which is unjust, arbitrary, contrary to law and probabilities of the case. Before going into the merits of the case on hand, we will proceed to note the case of the petitioner. On 22.6.1998, when the petitioner proceeding towards Madanapalle, he met with an accident due to the rash and negligent driving of the Auto bearing No. AP 03 U 554 resulting external injuries. In order to prove the accident, he himself was examined as P.W-1 and got marked Ex.A-1 and sent the First Information Report in Crime No. 57 of 1998. The respondents did not disputed the accident. The evidence of P.W-1 coupled with Ex.A-1 it is proved that the accident was due to the rash and negligent driving of the auto driver. Ex.B-1 copy of the Insurance Policy and it has validity on the date of the alleged accident. In order to prove the injuries on the body of P.W-1, he examined P.W-2 M. Sanjeeva Rayudu and got marked Exs.A-1 to A-6. According to P.W-2 he examined the injured P.W-1 on 22.6.1998 and noted that he sustained grossly comminuted open fracture of right tibia proximal half with crushing of musle and that he referred the injured to higher institute for further treatment and again examined the patient on 30.10.1998 and his examination shows that loss of movements of right toes (loss of extension of toes and ankle) unstable skin grab scras are found present, movements of knee joint are restricted, there is a loss of sensation over leg and foot, active extension of ankle joint is only grade III and the extent of permanent disability with which he has been suffering is 50% and accordingly, issued Ex.P-5 medical disability certificate. He also gave evidence that as per Exs.A-1 to A-4 the patient undergone surgery for three times for above said injuries and the patient cannot do manual labour and he cannot walk as before and he likely to fall down while walking, due to loss of leg joint and he cannot lift heavy weights. The evidence of P.W-2 clinches the whole issue about the gravity of injury sustained by the injured P.W-1. P.W-1 is aged about 36 years as on the date of the accident. Due to the above injuries noted by the Doctor, the injured cannot led normal life. Therefore, viewed from any angle, the compensation granted by the lower Court in my honest view is quite reasonable and appropriate. I see no grounds to grant further more compensation and accordingly, the C.M.A. is dismissed. ___________________ 11.2.2011 CHV