IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD THURSDAY, THE TWENTY THIRD DAY OF DECEMBER TWO THOUSAND AND TEN PRESENT THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE P. SWAROOP REDDY CIVIL MISCELLANEOUS APPEAL NO.3435 OF 2003 Between : Mettu Krishna Reddy .... APPELLANT A N D K.Yellamanda Rao and another …RESPONDENTS THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE P. SWAROOP REDDY CIVIL MISCELLANEOUS APPEAL No.3435 OF 2003 JUDGMENT: This Civil Miscellaneous Appeal is filed by the claimant against the Order and decree in O.P.No.30 of 2001, dated 28.04.2001, passed by the learned Chairman, Motor Accident Claims Tribunal – cum – I Additional District Judge, Ranga Reddy District, L.B.Nagar, whereby a compensation of Rs.5,000/- was awarded to the claimant as against his claim of Rs.1,00,000/-. 2. Appellant, is the claimant, respondent No.1 is owner of the lorry, respondent No.2, is insurer of the lorry involved in the accident, before the Tribunal. 3. For the sake of convenience, the parties herein are referred to as arrayed in the O.P. before the Tribunal. The case of the claimant in the O.P. before the Tribunal, in brief, is that on 24-07-2000 at about 9.30 A.M., while petitioner was proceeding on his auto bearing No.AP-11-U-2169 from Uppal to Koti along with passengers, a lorry bearing No.AP-7-U-2233, came in opposite direction in high speed and in a rash and negligent manner and dashed the auto. On account of which, the auto fell down on the road and petitioner received injuries along with the passengers. Thereafter, the petitioner was shifted to Gandhi Hospital. A case under Section 337 I.P.C. was registered against the driver of the lorry. 4. Respondent No.1 remained ex parte. Respondent No.2, United India Insurance Company Limited, alone filed its counter denying the case of the claimant. 5. On the basis of the pleadings, the following issues were framed by the Tribunal for trial: “ 1. Whether the accident occurred due to the rash and negligent driving of the lorry bearing No. AP-7-U-2233? 2. Whether the vehicle involved in the accident is insured with the 2nd respondent? 3. Whether the petitioner is entitled for compensation, if so to what amount against whom? 4. To what relief”? 6. To substantiate his case, claimant got examined himself as PW.1 and got marked Exs.A-1 to A-6. On behalf of respondent No.2, no oral evidence was adduced except marking Ex.B.1 insurance policy. 7. After considering the evidence available on record, the Tribunal awarded Rs.5000/- to the claimant. Respondent No.2-Insurarnce Company has not filed any appeal and there is no dispute about the petitioner being entitled for compensation. The dispute is with regard to quantum of compensation. 8. Now the point that arises for consideration is whether the petitioner is entitled for enhancement of compensation? 9. As per the material available on record, the petitioner sustained simple injuries. Though the petitioner has taken X-ray, there is no material to show that the petitioner received fracture. Initially, the petitioner was treated in Gandhi Hospital. The certificate issued by Gandhi Hospital, does not show any fracture. The petitioner further claims that he has taken treatment in a private hospital and he incurred huge amount for treatment. The version of the petitioner is incorrect because he did not receive any serious injury, there is no material to show that he underwent treatment in a private hospital. However, as the petitioner sustained simple injuries, the Tribunal awarded a sum of Rs.5000/-. 10. Considering all these aspects, apart from the amount already granted by the Tribunal below, the claimant can be awarded a further sum of Rs.5,000/- 11. Accordingly, the Civil Miscellaneous Appeal is partly allowed enhancing the compensation from Rs.5000/- to Rs.10,000/-. The additional amount shall carry interest at 6% per annum from the date of filing of O.P. before the Tribunal till realization. There shall be no order as to costs. _________________________ P. SWAROOP REDDY, J. DECEMBER 23, 2010. YVL