HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE P. SWAROOP REDDY M.A.C.M.A. No.66 OF 2006 JUDGMENT: This Civil Miscellaneous Appeal is filed by the claimant challenging the judgment in O.P. No.704 of 2001 dated 12-07-2005 passed by the learned Chairman, Motor Accident Claims Tribunal – cum – III Additional District Judge (Fast Track Court), Nizamabad, whereby the learned Chairman dismissed the claim of the claimant for compensation for the alleged injuries sustained by him in the accident occurred on 24-06-1998. 2. Appellant is claimant and respondents are APSRT Corporation. 3. The case of the claimant is that on 24-06-1998 while he was travelling in the tempo bearing No.ATJ – 3828 from Navipet to Nandipet, at about 1-30 PM, near Chimrajpally Village, bus bearing No.AEZ – 2407, belonging to the respondents, being driven by its driver in a rash and negligent manner and at a high speed, hit the tempo from its behind, as a result, claimant’s right hip bone was fractured and he sustained other simple and grievous injuries all over the body. He was admitted in the Government Headquarters Hospital, Nizamabad and he spent huge amount for treatement. He was earning Rs.8,000/- per month by doing business and because of the accident, he lost his earning capacity. Hence, he claimed a compensation of Rs.1,00,000/-. 4. Respondents filed a common counter denying the case of the claimant. 5. Based on the pleadings, the following issues were framed for trial by the Tribunal: “1. Whether the accident was due to rash and negligent driving of the RTC bus bearing No.AEZ 2407 by its driver? 2. Whether the petitioner is entitled for compensation. If so to what amount and against which of the respondents? 3. To what relief?” 6. To substantiate his case, claimant got examined himself as PW.1 and Dr.Jayanth, who treated the claimant, as PW.2 and got marked Exs.A-1 to A-4. On behalf of the respondents, RW.1 was examined, but no documents were marked. 7. Based on the material on record, Tribunal dismissed the O.P. holding that claimant has not sustained any injuries in the accident, as such, he is not entitled to any compensation. Aggrieved of the same, claimant filed this appeal. 8. Now the point for consideration is whether the claimant sustained any injuries in the accident and, if so, is he entitled to any compensation ? 9. As per the claim petition, claimant sustained fracture of right hip bone, injuries on back bone, both hands and several grievous and simple injuries on various parts of the body. According to the evidence of the claimant as PW.1, as per his affidavit of chief-examination, he sustained fracture of right hip bone and other multiple and grievous injuries on various parts of the body and he was immediately shifted to the Government Hospital, Nizamabad, where he was treated by Dr. Jayanth, Civil Assistant Surgeon, and he spent amount for treatement etc. 10. Evidence of Dr. Jayanth - PW.2, who treated the claimant, is that on 24-06-1998, he examined the claimant in the Government Hospital, Nizamabad and found no external injuries. The X-ray also did not reveal any bony injury. Claimant was inpatient in that hospital for six days. In the cross-examination, this witness has stated that claimant did not develop any complications during his stay in the hospital. Further, while answering/clarifying to a question by the trial Court, this witness stated that there was no basis for him to mention in Ex.A-3 that there was simple injury, as in fact there were no injuries at all. Thus, absolutely there is no material to show that claimant sustained injuries. 11. Learned counsel for the claimant – appellant vehemently contends that claimant was inpatient in the Government Hospital, Nizamabad for six days and in case he did not sustain any injury, the question of being treated him as inpatient in the Government Hospital for six days does not arise. It is not known for what reasons, claimant was admitted in the hospital. Maybe, initially it was thought that claimant sustained injuries and after the admission, on thorough examination and X-ray, the fact of not suffering any injuries was revealed. Further, PW.2, who treated the claimant and witness of the claimant himself, did not speak of even simple injury being suffered by the claimant. Therefore, the claimant is not entitled to any compensation. Thus, I see no ground to entertain this appeal and is liable to be dismissed. 12. Accordingly, the Civil Miscellaneous Appeal is dismissed. No order as to costs. ______________________ P. SWAROOP REDDY, J October 22, 2010. PV