HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE L. NARASIMHA REDDY CIVIL MISCELLNEOUS APPEAL No.2832 of 2004 JUDGMENT: The appellant is the wife of T. Satyanarayana. Both of them, together with a minor child, proceeded on a scooter from Hyderabad on 30-09-2000 to their native village Vedagna on the Rajiv Gandhi Highway. On the way, a Tempo Truck bearing No.AP 1 5205, owned by the 1st respondent and insured with the 2nd respondent, dashed against the scooter resulting in death of Satyanarayana and the child, and injuries to the appellant. The appellant ﬁled three separate O.Ps. were ﬁled before the Motor Vehicles Accidents Claims Tribunal - cum - V Additional Chief Judge, City Civil Court, Hyderabad, claiming compensation for the death of her husband, child, and for the injuries received by her. It was pleaded that the accident occurred on account of rashness on the part of the driver of the vehicle and the respondents 1 and 2 are under obligation to pay the compensation. 2. A common order was passed on 26-02-2004 awarding compensation in the respective O.Ps. O.P. No.2060 of 2000 was ﬁled claiming compensation of Rs.11,52,800/- on account of the death of the husband of the appellant. The Tribunal awarded a sum of Rs.9,91,800/- as compensation in that O.P. An observation was made by the Tribunal to the eﬀect that if the correct parameters are applied under the head ‘loss of life and future earning power’, the appellant would be entitled to Rs.12,29,712/-, but it was restricted to Rs,9,72,800/- as claimed by the appellant under that head. The appellant feels aggrieved by the denial of differential amount. 3. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned counsel for the respondent. 4. The appellant ﬁled as many as three O.Ps., some on her exclusive behalf and some on behalf of herself and the parents of her husband. The Tribunal took into account the oral and documentary evidence and held that the accident was occurred due to rash and negligent driving of the driver of the Tempo Truck. The appellant cannot have any genuine grievance, once the entire amount claimed by her was awarded. Reliance is placed upon the judgment of the Supreme Court in Nagappa v. Gurdayal Singh and others[1]. The said judgment would, at the most, enable the appellant to seek amendment of the O.P., even at the stage of appeal. No steps were taken in that direction. 5. The Civil Miscellaneous Appeal is, accordingly, dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs. ____________________ L. NARASIMHA REDDY, J November 23, 2011. KT L [1] 2003 (2) SCC 274