HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE R. KANTHA RAO C.M.A.NO.999 OF 2001 Dated: 04.03.2010 BETWEEN: Adi Raju .. Appellant And Y.Prasada Reddy and others .. Respondents HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE R. KANTHA RAO C.M.A.NO.999 OF 2001 JUDGMENT: This appeal is filed by the injured claimant against the order, dated 25.10.2000 passed by the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal- cum-II Additional District Judge, Kadapa in M.V.O.P.No.760 of 1996. 2. Admittedly, the appellant, received injuries in a road traffic accident occurred on 03.01.1996, wherein a bus bearing No. AP TDB 9993 belonging to the first respondent dashed the tractor trailer bearing No. AP 04 T 1432, which was insured with the second respondent-insurance company. Against the claim of Rs.90,000/-, the learned Tribunal awarded an amount of Rs.52,000/-, which was challenged by the appellant in this appeal on the ground that it is not just and reasonable and requires enhancement. 3. The point for determination in this appeal, therefore is, whether the amount granted by the learned Tribunal below as compensation is just and reasonable or whether it requires any enhancement? 4. I have heard the learned counsel appearing for the appellant and the learned counsel appearing for the second respondent – insurance company. 5. The appellant is a driver of the tractor trailer and his income is said to be Rs.2,500/- per month. There is no dispute about the fact that the appellant was a driver by profession. The crucial question is whether he can be granted compensation on the ground that he sustained permanent disability due to the accident. As could be seen from the evidence of the appellant, who was examined as PW.1, the doctor, who was examined as PW.2 and Ex.A.2 certified copy of wound certificate the appellant sustained grievous injuries. PW.2 doctor, who issued the disability certificate stated in his evidence that he examined the appellant and issued disability certificate. From the evidence of the appellant, it is evident that after receiving injuries, he was treated in the Government Hospital, Kadapa for 25 days and he was inpatient and thereafter he was discharged from the Hospital, then he approached a bone setter at Puttur of Chittoor District for the treatment of the fracture sustained by him to the left leg. It appears that subsequent to the said treatment by the bone setter, he approached PW2 for the issuance of disability certificate and PW.2 issued disability certificate. Since, evidently the appellant approached the medical practitioner, who is not a qualified doctor, where the injuries are of such a nature which ultimately resulted disability or not is very much in doubt. Further the learned Tribunal stated that there is also no evidence regarding the loss of earnings. However, the learned Tribunal granted Rs.25,000/- for one grievous injury and an amount of Rs.3,000/- for three simple injuries and a further sum of Rs.15,000/- towards permanent disability and the limping. The compensation granted by the Tribunal having regard to the nature of injuries sustained by the appellant is just and reasonable and cannot be said to be inadequate. Therefore, I absolutely see no grounds, which require interference of this court to enhance the compensation. 6. The appeal, therefore, fails and accordingly, the same is dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs. ___________________ R.KANTHA RAO,J Dated: 04.03.2010 Kvrm