IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE OF ANDHRA PRADESH : HYDERABAD MONDAY, THE NINTEENTH (19TH) DAY OF DECEMBER, TWO THOUSAND AND ELEVEN Present: HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE G.V.SEETHAPATHY MA CMA No.3220 of 2008 Between: Kum. Shilvanth Kavitha … Appellant And: A. Srinivas & another … Respondents HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE G.V.SEETHAPATHY MA CMA No.3220 of 2008 JUDGMENT: This appeal is directed against the order dated 15.09.2005 in OP No.1668 of 2003 on the file of the MACT cum X Additional Chief Judge, City Civil Court, Hyderabad, wherein the said claim application filed by the appellant herein for compensation was allowed in part, awarding compensation of Rs.4,000/- with interest at 9% per annum from the date of petition. 2. Heard both sides. Perused the record. 3. The appellant herein filed claim application under section 163-A of the Motor Vehicles Act seeking compensation of Rs.1,00,000/- for the injuries sustained by her in the motor vehicle accident that occurred on 13.10.2002. According to the claimant, on that day, she along with other family members, was proceeding in Tata Sumo bearing No.AP 28 V 1124 from Malakpet, Hyderabad to Shiridi and on the way, at the outskirts of Pandaripur, on account of rash and negligent driving of the vehicle by its driver, dashed against a tree on the road side, resulting injuries to the appellant and others. According to the claimant, she sustained fracture injuries and spent huge amounts for treatment and on account of the said injuries she discontinued her studies in the middle of the year and that she was aged 22 years at the time of the accident. 4. The owner of the Tata Sumo remained ex-parte. The insurer filed counter, opposing the claim and denying their liability to pay the compensation. 5. During the trial, PW.1 was examined and Exs.A.1 to A.3 were marked on behalf of the claimant and RW.1 was examined and Exs.B.1 to B.4 were marked on behalf of the 2nd respondent- insurer. 6. On a consideration of the evidence available on record, the Tribunal held that the accident occurred on account of the rash and negligent driving of the Tata Sumo by its driver. The said finding is not challenged by the 2nd respondent-insurer by filing any appeal. The Tribunal further held that the claimant is entitled for compensation of Rs.4,000/- with interest at 9% per annum from the date of petition. Not satisfied with the said award, the claimant preferred the present appeal. 7. The evidence on record shows that the claimant sustained grievous injuries on spinal card and head injury, cut injury of right ear apart from other serious injuries. Ex.A.3 certificate issued by the hospital shows that she was suffering from acute psycholic apisoda (post traumatic) and that she under went treatment from 17.12.2002 to 25.12.2002. The Tribunal observed that the claimant has not adduced any medical evidence to show that she sustained any fracture injuries as claimed. No Medical Officer is also examined in support of the claim that she suffered fracture injury and underwent treatment for the same. In the absence of any evidence, the Tribunal has awarded only a sum of Rs.2,000/- towards simple injury, Rs.1000/- towards pain and suffering and Rs.500/- towards extra nourishment and Rs.500/- towards transportation charges. There are no valid or sufficient grounds to enhance the compensation, as the claimant has not adduced any medical evidence in support of her claim. 8. In the result, the appeal is dismissed. No order as to costs. __________________ G.V.SEETHAPATHY, J Date: 19.12.2011 bss