THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE L.NARASIMHA REDDY M.A.C.M.A.NO.3427 of 2009 22nd September 2009 Between: Pagadala Narsimha Rao, S/o. Laxmi Narayan, 26 years, R/o. Annarugudem (Village), Thala Mandal, Khammam District. …APPELLANT AND 1. M/s. Sagar Cements Limited, rep.by Mr.Purushotham Reddy, Owner of lorry No.AP 9 T 7839, R/o.205, Road No.14, Jubilee Hills, Hyderabad. And one other. …RESPONDENTS THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE L.NARASIMHA REDDY M.A.C.M.A.NO.3427 of 2009 JUDGMENT: The appellant filed O.P.No.641 of 1995 before the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal-cum-District Judge, Khammam, claiming a sum of Rs.1,00,000/-, as compensation. It was pleaded that the appellant boarded an RTC Bus to go to Madhira and when it reached Paladugu Village, a lorry bearing No.AP 9 Z 7389 dashed against the bus resulting in head injury to the appellant. The O.P. was opposed by the respondents. Through its order dated 28.09.2000, the Tribunal awarded a sum of Rs.7,500/-, as compensation. The appellant seeks enhancement of the same. Heard the learned counsel for the appellant. Though the second respondent was served with notice, he has not entered appearance. On behalf of the appellant, P.Ws.1 and 2 were examined and Exs.A1 to A4 were marked. The documentary evidence comprises of F.I.R., statement of P.W.1, O.P. Chit and Case Sheet. The occurrence of the accident and sustaining injuries by the appellant are not disputed at all. As regards computation of compensation, the trial Court analyzed the evidence of P.W.2, the Civil Assistant Surgeon in the Government Hospital, Khammam. According to this witness, an injury measuring 2” x 1” x ½” on the frontal region was noticed and sutures were put. In the cross examination, he stated that no complications have arisen on account of the head injury and the appellant was discharged on finding that he is normal. The record does not disclose that the petitioner suffered any permanent disability or that he was operated at any place of the body. Though it is urged that the injury suffered by the appellant is grievous in nature, the evidence did not support the same. The appellant was not an earning member nor it was pointed out that he suffered any loss of earnings. The treatment was taken at Government Hospital and under these circumstances; this Court is not inclined to enhance the compensation. The Civil Miscellaneous Appeal is, accordingly, dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs. _____________________ (L.NARASIMHA REDDY, J) 22nd September 2009 RRB