THE HON’BLE MR JUSTICE L. NARASIMHA REDDY C.M.A.No.1018 of 1999 JUDGMENT: The appellant filed O.P.No.372 of 1997 before the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal-cum-Additional District Judge, Adilabad, claiming compensation of Rs.75,000/-. He pleaded that he was proceeding towards Mancherial, on a motor cycle, on 26.02.1997, at 12.45 p.m., and when he reached near Medariwada, a lorry, bearing No.AP 9 U 2171, owned by the 1st respondent and insured with the 2nd respondent, dashed against him. Crime No.59 of 1997 is said to have been registered by the P.S. Mancherial. He stated that he suffered serious injuries to the ribs and has undergone treatment by incurring expenditure of Rs.10,000/-. The 1st respondent remained ex parte. The O.P. was opposed by the 2nd respondent. It was alleged that the accident occurred due to negligence on the part of the appellant himself. It is also stated that the injuries mentioned in the FIR, or injury certificate, are abrasions in nature and no fracture was mentioned therein. Through order dated 24.02.1999, the Tribunal awarded a sum of Rs.5,000/-, as compensation, under different heads. The appellant seeks enhancement of the same. Heard learned counsel for the appellant and learned counsel for the 2nd respondent. In case the appellant had suffered serious fracture injuries, the compensation can certainly be enhanced. The oral evidence comprised of the deposition of the appellant alone. The documentary evidence consisted of the Xerox copies of FIR, injury certificate, driving licence, insurance policy and prescriptions etc. No evidence was adduced by the respondents. A finding was recorded to the effect that the accident occurred, on account of the rashness on the part of the driver of the lorry. On the question of quantum, the evidence of the appellant was very weak. The nature of injuries that are sustained by the victim of an accident can be discovered from the injury certificate issued by the concerned Government agency. In Ex.A.2, the injuries suffered by the appellant are said to be just abrasions. However, the appellant procured certain documents of the same day, which reflected the injuries of fracture to the ribs. The Tribunal assigned cogent reasons as to how such evidence cannot be believed. All the same, it awarded Rs.5,000/-, as compensation for the injuries that were actually suffered by the appellant. This Court does not find any basis to enhance the compensation. The appeal is accordingly dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs. _______________________ L.NARASIMHA REDDY, J Dt:15.12.2011 GJ