THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE P. SWAROOP REDDY C.M.A.No.2156 OF 2003 JUDGMENT: This civil miscellaneous appeal is filed against the judgment of the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Nalgonda, in O.P.No.1404/2000. Petitioner-Claimant is the appellant. 2. Heard. 3. The case of the petitioner-claimant is as follows: On 18.11.2000 when the first petitioner along with his wife went to Garidepally and were coming in an auto bearing No.AP 24T 9240, on account of the negligent driving of the driver, the first petitioner fell down and received injuries. He was treated at Government Hospital. During the pendency of the O.P., he died and his wife is impleaded as second petitioner. The respondent denied the petitioner’s case by filing a counter. On the basis of above pleadings, the following issues were framed: 1. Whether the accident was due to rash and negligent driving of the driver of the Auto bearing No.AP 24T 9240? 2. Whether the petitioner is entitled to any compensation, if so, to what amount? 3. To what relief? On behalf of the petitioner, P.W.1 was examined and Exs.A1 to A7 were marked. No oral or documentary evidence was adduced on behalf of the respondents. Considering the material on record, the court below awarded compensation of Rs.1500/-. Aggrieved by the same, the present appeal is filed. 4. The case of the appellant, the second petitioner in O.P. is that on account of the accident, the first petitioner was bedridden for long time and on account of the impact of the injuries, he died. As such, the petitioner claimed compensation of Rs.60,000/-. 5. There is absolutely no material on record to show that the first petitioner injured, died on account of the impact of the injuries he received in the accident. Ex.A3, the medical certificate reveals that what he suffered is only a laceration on the forearm. It is not the case of the petitioner that on account of this injury, the petitioner suffered any infection and died. The injury he received is on 18.11.2000. It is not clear as to when exactly he died and according to P.W.1, he died six months prior to her giving evidence. She gave evidence on 24.10.2002. Thus, the first petitioner in the O.P. died after substantial time gap of accident and even P.W.1 did not speak that he died on account of the impact of the injuries. 6. Considering all these circumstances, there are absolutely no grounds for enhancing the compensation and the C.M.A. is liable to be dismissed. 7. Accordingly, the C.M.A. is dismissed. No costs. ______________________ P. SWAROOP REDDY, J. 15th November 2010, Rns