HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE NOUSHAD ALI C.M.A.No. 695 of 2003 ORDER: This is an appeal filed by the appellant seeking enhancement of compensation passed in OP No. 144 of 1999 dated 29-08-2001 on the file of the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal-Cum- II Addl. District Court, Kurnool. The 1st respondent is the owner of the offending vehicle and the 2nd respondent is the Insurance company. 2. It is a case of injuries. According to the appellant, he along with another while returning to Kurnool in a car bearing No. AP 21 3627 on the National High Way, lorry bearing No. KL 10D 2160 came in the opposite direction in a rash and negligent manner and dashed the car which resulted in injuries to the claimant to his head, right eye, face and other parts of the body. According to him, he was shifted to Peapully and after the first aid he went to Gooty for treatment and later he was treated in Appollo Hospital, Hyderabad. He claimed a sum of Rs.3,00,000/- for the injuries sustained by him. 3. The 1st respondent (owner of the vehicle) remained ex-parte and the insurance company contested the claim on the ground that the vehicle was not covered by a valid insurance policy and as such it is not liable for payment of compensation amount to the claimant. On consideration of the material produced and having regard to the nature of injuries, the Tribunal awarded a compensation of Rs.8,500/- towards treatment costs, transport charges, attendant charges and other incidental expenses. The insurance policy Ex-B1 disclosed that the offending vehicle was covered by Insurance from 17-12-1988 to 16-12-1999. The accident occurred on 26-07-1988. Since the policy was not in force as on the date of accident, the Tribunal by the impugned Award exonerated the Insurance Company from the liability and fastened the liability only on the owner of the vehicle. 4. On an earlier occasion, the matter was heard and during the process of dictating of the order, the learned counsel for the claimant/appellant brought to the notice of this Court that the Tribunal reviewed the orders so far as the exoneration of the liability of the 2nd respondent in IA No. 1296 of 2001. On such representation, the record was called for. The Tribunal on the said interlocutory application, reviewed the said award and by orders dated 01-05-2002 allowed the said IA fastening the liability on both the respondents including the 2nd respondent-Insurance Company. 5. Even though the Insurance Company is impleaded as a respondent herein, this appeal is directed only against the original orders dated 29-08- 2001. The subsequent award and decree have not been challenged either independently or by way of an amendment of the present appeal . In the circumstances, this appeal is being disposed of in respect of the original unamended award and decree. 6. Heard the learned counsel for both the parties. 7. Learned counsel for the appellant would contend that the amount of Rs.8,500/- awarded by the Tribunal is not just and adequate and claimant is entitled for a reasonable enhancement of compensation for the injuries. 8. On the other hand, the learned counsel for the 2nd respondent would contend that the amount as awarded is just and reasonable as the injuries were only simple in nature. 9. The only point for consideration in this appeal, therefore is, whether the appellant/claimant is entitled for enhancement of compensation. 10. Ex-A3 is the certified copy of the wound certificate. As per the said certificate, there were only three injuries which were described as Semi- circular surfaced wound in the intraparital region, surfaced wound over left eye brow and surfaced injuries over the chin and all the injuries are simple in nature. Except this, the claimant did not adduce any evidence and did not even examine any doctor to establish the gravity of the injuries. In the absence of any such evidence, it cannot be said that the claimant suffered with any major/ grievous injury. Therefore, in the opinion of this court the compensation amount awarded by the Tribunal is just and reasonable and hence the appeal is liable to be dismissed. 11. As observed above, since on a review, the Tribunal fastened liability on the 2nd respondent-Insurance company also by an order in I.A. No.1296 of 2001 dated 01-05-2002. The dismissal of this appeal cannot be continued as affecting the said orders. The appellant/claimant is at liberty to pursue his remedies against the said order, notwithstanding the dismissal of this appeal. 12. The Civil Miscellaneous Appeal is accordingly dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs. _____________ Mjl/* 26-08-2010 HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE NOUSHAD ALI C.M.A.No. 695 of 2003 DATED 26-08-2010