THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE K.S.APPA RAO M.A.C.M.A No.66 of 2008 Being aggrieved by the Order dated 07.11.2007 passed in O.P.No.1236 of 2006 on the file of the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal-cum-XIV Additional Chief Judge, (Fast Track Court) City Civil Court, Hyderabad, the present Motor Accident Civil Miscellaneous Appeal is filed. 2. The appellant herein is the petitioner in the O.P.No.1236 of 2006. In order to prove the accident and the injuries sustained by him, the appellant himself got examined as PW.1 and also examined the doctor as PW.2-Dr.D.S.Ramanath and filed Exs.A-1 to A-10. On behalf of the insurance company, R.W-1 is examined. The factum of the accident is not disputed. After evaluating the evidence on record, the lower Court granted a compensation of Rs.49,280/- against the claim of Rs.2,00,000/-. 3. The learned counsel appearing for the appellant vehemently urged that the compensation granted by the lower Court is very meagre and requested for enhancement of compensation. 4. Now, the point for consideration is: Whether the Order of the lower Court is sustainable and the appellant is entitled for any enhancement of compensation? P O I N T: 5. As per the injured P.W-1, he sustained a compound fracture of both bones of right leg as stated by P.W.2-doctor and in proof of the injuries, he filed Ex.A-2, discharge ticket besides Exs.A-3 to A-8-out patient tickets. The evidence of P.W.2-doctor who treated P.W.1 is of paramount importance while deciding the gravity of injuries sustained by P.W.1. Ex.A-10 is the report, which shows that internal fixation of tibia and fibula and fracture of middle third of tibia and fibula is noted. Apart from that, P.W.2 examined P.W.1 on 06.05.2006 and noted that he sustained grade-1 compound fracture of both bones of right leg middle lower III junction of right leg and he was operated on 07.05.2006 and that P.W.1 is limping with restriction of flexion by 5 to 10 degree, approximately, difficulty in squatting, cross leg sitting is good. 6. The Tribunal below disagreed with the contention of the petitioner that he had disability of 30% on the ground of no positive proof. However, while taking into consideration the evidence of P.W.2 and gravity of injuries sustained by P.W.1, the lower Court granted Rs.49,280/- under all heads, which in my view, is just and reasonable. 7. Therefore, I see no grounds to interfere with the findings of the Tribunal. Accordingly, the order of the Tribunal is sustainable. 8. In the result, the motor accident civil miscellaneous appeal is dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs. ____________________ K.S.APPA RAO, J March 30th, 2011 SP THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE K.S.APPA RAO M.A.C.M.A No.66 of 2008 March 30th, 2011 SP