IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD THURSDAY, THE TWENTY THIRD DAY OF DECEMBER TWO THOUSAND AND TEN PRESENT THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE P. SWAROOP REDDY CIVIL MISCELLANEOUS APPEAL NO.3407 OF 2003 Between : G.Venkataiah .... APPELLANT A N D Smt P.Naga Ratnam and another. …RESPONDENTS THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE P. SWAROOP REDDY CIVIL MISCELLANEOUS APPEAL No.3407 OF 2003 JUDGMENT: This Civil Miscellaneous Appeal is filed by the claimant against the Award and decree in O.P.No.616 of 1999, dated 06.06.2003, passed by the learned Chairman, Motor Accident Claims Tribunal – cum – Principal District Judge, Ranga Reddy, L.B.Nagar, whereby a compensation of Rs.78,188/- was awarded to the claimant as against his claim of Rs.1,20,000/-. 2. Appellant, is the claimant, respondent No.1 is owner of the car, respondent No.2, is insurer of the car involved in the accident, before the Tribunal. 3. For the sake of convenience, the parties herein are referred to as arrayed in the O.P. before the Tribunal. The case of the claimant in the O.P. before the Tribunal, in brief, is that on 25-04-1999, the claimant along with his friends were proceeding on a scooter bearing No.AP-28-H-7959, towards Hyderabad, and when they reached near Chintal Kunta Check Post, Ambassador Car bearing No.AP-37-K-1789 came from Hayathnagar side in a rash and negligent manner in high speed and dashed the scooter. Due to which they fell down and the claimant sustained fracture. Thereafter, the claimant was shifted to C.D.R. Hospital, Hyderabad. The Police Vanasthalipuram Police Station registered a case in Crime No.153 of 1999. Prior to the accident, the claimant was earning Rs.2000/- per month by doing private job. 4. Respondent No.1 remained ex parte. Respondent No.2, United India Insurance Company Limited, alone filed its counter denying the case of the claimant. 5. On the basis of the pleadings, the following issues were framed by the Tribunal for trial: “1. Whether the petitioner injured in accident occurred on 25.04.1999 at 22:30 Hours at N.H.9 in front of T.V.Studio gate, Ramanthapur, Hyderabad due to rash and negligent driving of driver of Ambassafor Car bearing No.AP-37-K-1789? 2. Whether the petitioner suffered any permanent disability in the accident? 3. Whether the crime vehicle was insured with the 2nd respondent covering the risk? 4. Whether the petitioner is entitled to any compensation? If, so, to what amount and against whom? 5. To what relief? 6. To substantiate his case, claimant got examined himself as PW.1 and got marked Exs.A-1 to A-5. On behalf of respondent No.2, no witnesses were examined but Ex.B.1 insurance policy was marked. 7. The contention of the claimant is that he is entitled for higher compensation. 8. As seen from Para No.6 of the Award, the claimant sustained compound fracture on the left leg. He was inpatient in C.D.R. Hospital from 25.04.1999 to 30.05.1999 and he spent a sum of Rs.59,687.72 ps. towards treatment. 9. It is a case of one fracture. The claimant spent Rs.60,000/- for treatment. No authentic material is produced to show that the claimant spent Rs.60,000/- for the treatment from the concerned hospital. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, the compensation awarded by the Tribunal cannot be said to be improper and there are no grounds to enhance the compensation. 10. Accordingly, the Civil Miscellaneous Appeal is dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs. _________________________ P. SWAROOP REDDY, J. DECEMBER 23, 2010. YVL