THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE B.PRAKASH RAO AND THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE P.DURGA PRASAD L.P.A.No.329 of 2001 JUDGMENT: (per BPR,J) This appeal is filed under clause 15 of the Letters Patent aggrieved by the order of the learned single Judge in C.M.A.No.1419 of 1997 dated 25.06.2001. The said C.M.A. was filed by the appellant/claimant against the order dated 21.04.1997 in O.P.No.348 of 1993 on the file of the Additional District Judge, Medak at Sangareddy. The facts of the case in brief are as follows: On 24.03.1993, the appellant/claimant engaged a lorry bearing No. AIL 1515 belonging to respondent No.1 and insured with respondent No.2 on hire of Rs.1000/- to carry the Bangalore tiles about 4000, started at 11.00 A.M. to go to Banswada and when the said lorry reached Kulcharam at about 1.30 P.M. due to rash and negligent driving of the driver of the lorry, it dashed against a tree by the side of the road and turned turtle due to which the claimant received grievous injuries to his right leg below the knee and the same was fractured. His left leg was also fractured below the knee. Two iron rods were inserted and he is under rest till today. Therefore, the claimant claimed compensation of Rs.2,00,000/- for the injuries sustained by him. The respondents have contested the matter by filing counter- affidavits denying all the material allegations. On consideration of the oral and documentary evidence available on record, the lower court awarded Rs.28,460.75 ps towards compensation. Being dissatisfied with the amount of compensation granted by the lower court, the appellant filed the civil miscellaneous appeal before the learned single Judge. Learned single Judge once again re-appreciated the entire evidence and came to the conclusion that the appellant is entitled to compensation of Rs.50,000/- instead of Rs.28,460.75 ps granted by the court below. Against the same, the present appeal is filed. Learned counsel for the appellant contended that the appellant is entitled for much more compensation than awarded by the learned single Judge in view of the injuries suffered and in view of the fact that the business of the appellant is affected. Having heard the learned counsel on either side and after considering the entire material available on record, admittedly there is no dispute about occurrence of accident and as a result of the accident the appellant has suffered disability at 30%. But, except the claim of Rs.2,00,000/-, no material is forthcoming to show the income of the appellant. No income tax returns or other material is produced in support of the claim of the appellant. For the purpose of assessment of compensation all these things are required to be proved by the appellant which is totally lacking in this appeal. No substantial question of law arises in this appeal. Hence, the appeal is dismissed. No costs. B.PRAKASH RAO,J P.DURGA PRASAD,J Dt. 01.02.2011 lvl THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE B.PRAKASH RAO AND THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE P.DURGA PRASAD L.P.A.No.329 of 2001 (per BPR,J) Dt. 01.02.2011