HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE P. SWAROOP REDDY CIVIL MISCELLANEOUS APPEAL No.2576 OF 2004 JUDGMENT: Being dissatisfied with the quantum of compensation awarded in M.V.O.P. No.26 of 2000 dated 12-08-2003 by the learned Chairman, Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal – cum – District Judge, Kadapa, claimant filed this Civil Miscellaneous Appeal seeking enhanced compensation. 2. Appellant is claimant, respondent No.1, who is owner of the Tata Sumo bearing No.TN - 02 - B – 4443 involved in the accident, is respondent No.1 and respondent No.2, who is insurer of the above tata sumo, is respondent No.2 in the M.V.O.P. before the Tribunal. 3. For the sake of convenience, the parties are referred to as arrayed in the M.V.O.P. before the Tribunal. 4. The case of the claimant is that on 18-01-1999 at 3-00 PM, while he was going along with his son on D.B. Cart on Kadapa – Mydukur road, near Sai Leela Milk Chilling Center, the Tata Sumo bearing No.TN – 02 – B – 4443 belonging to respondent No.1 being driven by its driver at a high speed and in a rash and negligent manner, hit the cart from the opposite direction causing grievous injuries to the claimant and his son and also damages to the cart and injuries to the bulls. Immediately, he was shifted to Government Hospital, Kadapa, where he underwent treatment as inpatient for about two months. He sustained fracture of right femur and several other injuries. He spent Rs.25,000/- for the treatement. Even after treatment, he is unable to discharge his functions as before and attend to his pottery work. Hence, he claimed a compensation of Rs.2,25,000/-. 5. Respondent Nos.1 and 2 filed their counters separately denying the case of the claimant. 6. Based on the pleadings, the following issues were framed for trial by the Tribunal: “1. Whether the petitioner received injuries in a motor vehicle accident on 18.1.99 due to rash and negligent driving of R.1’s TATA SUMO bearing No.TN.02.B.4443 by its driver? 2. Whether the petitioner is entitled for compensation and if so to what amount and from whom? 3. To what relief?” 7. To substantiate his claim, claimant got examined himself as PW.1 and the medical practitioner as PW.2 and got marked Exs.A-1 to A-7. On behalf of the respondents, no evidence was adduced. 8. Based on the material on record, Tribunal holding that claimant sustained a serious injury of fracture of right femur, awarded a total compensation of Rs.50,000/- as against his claim of Rs.2,25,000/- . Being dissatisfied with the quantum of compensation, claimant preferred this appeal. 9. Now, learned counsel for the claimant (appellant) contends that claimant sustained serious injuries and on account of the same, he was unable to discharge his functions for substantial period and even now he is unable to squat and do his pottery work, as such, the compensation of Rs.50,000/- awarded by the Tribunal is inadequate. 10. Claimant claims that he sustained injury to his hip. The medical certificate reveals that there was complaint of pain in the hip. However, in the O.P. ticket and the medical certificates, there is no reference about any fracture being caused to the hip of the claimant. That being so, his contention that he is unable to squat and do his pottery work is difficult to believe, as what he sustained is only a fracture of femur, which also healed. If the fracture is to a pelvis, it would have been a different case. 11. In the circumstances, the compensation of Rs.50,000/- awarded by the Tribunal to the claimant for the accident that occurred in 1999, cannot be said to be on lower side. Hence, I see no merit to interfere with the impugned order, as such, the appeal is liable to be dismissed. 12. Accordingly, the Civil Miscellaneous Appeal is dismissed. No order as to costs. ______________________ P. SWAROOP REDDY, J October 28, 2010. PV