THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY CIVIL MISCELLANEOUS APPEAL No.2440 of 2003 Date:30.09.2010 Between: Md. Abdul Muheed @ Ajmal ..... Appellant AND Shaik Tajuddin and another .....Respondents Counsel for the Appellants: Mr. M.T. Ghori Counsel for Respondents: None appeared The Court made the following: ORDER: This Civil Miscellaneous Appeal arises out of the award dated 08.04.2003 passed in M.V.O.P.No.185 of 2000 on the file of the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal-cum-Principal District Judge’s Court, Warangal (for short ‘the Tribunal’). The appellant, being a minor, represented by his elder brother, filed the present appeal dissatisfied with the quantum of compensation awarded for the injuries sustained by him. A series of claim petitions were filed claiming compensation for death of several persons arising out of a common accident. The M.V.O.P.No.185 of 2000 out of which the present C.M.A. arises was concerned with the claim for compensation for the injuries sustained by the appellant in the same accident. By a common award, different sums of compensation were awarded in respect of each of the claim petitions. For the purpose of disposal of this C.M.A., it is not necessary to refer to the contents of the award pertaining to the other claims. In support of the claim of the appellant herein for compensation, Exs.A-10 to A-12 were marked. Ex.A-10 - injury certificate shows that the appellant sustained simple injuries. No Doctor has been examined to speak to the documentary evidence adduced by the appellant. Taking into consideration the nature of injuries indicated in Ex.A-11 – discharge card, the Tribunal held that as the same were simple in nature and the appellant was treated as inpatient on 10.11.1999 and 11.11.1999, and has awarded Rs.10,000/- as compensation on all counts. After hearing Sri M.T. Ghori, the learned counsel for the appellant, I am of the opinion that as the appellant failed to substantiate the documentary evidence by examining the Doctor, the Tribunal cannot be said to have committed any error in restricting the compensation to Rs.10,000/- only. For the aforementioned reasons, the C.M.A. fails and the same is accordingly dismissed. ________________________ C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY, J 30th September, 2010 GHN