HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE B. PRAKASH RAO AND HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE P. DURGA PRASAD L.P.A.No. 217 of 2001 Date: 31-01-2011 Between: Jonnalagadda Sivarama Prasad ……… Appellant and Thummapudi John Paul and others ……….. Respondents HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE B. PRAKASH RAO AND HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE P. DURGA PRASAD L.P.A.No. 217 of 2001 ORDER: (Per PDP, J) This Appeal under Section 15 of the Letter Patent arises out of the judgment, dated 16-03-2001 in C.M.A.No.642 of 1991 passed by a learned single Judge of this Court. The brief facts are that the claimant-appellant herein has filed a petition under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act before the District Judge-cum-Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Krishna at Machilipatnam, claiming compensation of Rs.1,70,000/- for the injuries sustained by him in a motor accident that took place on 10-01-1987 at 9-00 AM at Gudlavaele village, due to the rash and negligent driving of the lorry bearing No.AAK 2641 driven by its driver. Before the Tribunal, the driver of the lorry and the insurance company filed counters and contested the matter. The owner of the lorry remained ex parte. Considering the evidence, the Tribunal awarded compensation of Rs.70,000/- to the claimant-appellant with proportionate costs and interest @ 12% per annum from the date of filing of the O.P. till the date of realization against respondents 1 to 3. Aggrieved by the said order, the claimant-appellant herein has filed C.M.A.No.642 of 1991 before this Court and a learned single Judge of this Court, by taking into consideration of the nature of the injuries sustained by the claimant, who is a police officer, and also shortening of his leg by 1 ½ inch, enhanced the compensation by Rs.30,000/-. Aggrieved by the said order, the present appeal is filed. Now the point arises for consideration is whether the compensation awarded to the claimant-appellant herein is just and sufficient? Before the Tribunal, the claimant-appellant herein examined himself as PW-3 and examined the doctors as PWs.1 and 2. PW-2 stated that the claimant sustained disability of 60% and also his leg was shortened by 1 ½ inch. Taking into consideration the said evidence and the earnings of the claimant, the Tribunal awarded compensation of Rs.70,000/-, which contains Rs.50,000/- towards loss sustained by him due to injuries, Rs.11,000/- towards disability, Rs.5,000/- towards pain and suffering and Rs.3,000/- towards transport charges. In the Appeal, the learned single Judge has considered the nature of the injuries sustained by the claimant and taking into consideration of his salary, enhanced the compensation by Rs.30,000/-. Now the claimant has filed the Appeal contending that he is entitled for Rs.1,70,000/- as he has sustained 60% disability. However, the Tribunal has already considered the disability of 60% and by taking into consideration of the salary at Rs.2,000/- per month, awarded the compensation of Rs.11,000/- towards disability. Thus there are no merits in the Appeal to enhance the compensation as claimed by the claimant-appellant and no substantial question of law is involved in this Appeal. Hence, the Letter Patent Appeal is dismissed. No order as to costs. _________________ B. PRAKASH RAO, J __________________ P. DURGA PRASAD, J Date: 31-01-2011 YCR