HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE P. SWAROOP REDDY C.M.A.No.1578 OF 2003 JUDGMENT: This Civil Miscellaneous Appeal is filed by United India Insurance Company Limited-4th respondent in O.P.No.435 of 1996 on the file of the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal-cum-III Additional District Judge, Warangal, against the judgment and decree, dated 19.07.1999. 2. Heard Sri Srinivasa Rao Vutla, learned standing counsel for the insurance company and Smt.S.A.V.Ratnam, learned counsel for R.4. 3. The brief facts are as follows: On 28.03.1995 when the petitioners were travelling in RTC bus bearing No.AP 9Z 5669 in the early hours of 29.03.1995 near Dommaigudam village, one lorry bearing No.ATR 2211 came in opposite direction in high speed and in a rash and negligent manner, dashed the RTC bus, as a result, the petitioners sustained serious injuries. She claimed compensation of Rs.50,000/-. 4. Second respondent remained ex parte. First, third and fourth respondents filed separate counters denying the petition allegations. 5. On the basis of the pleadings, the following issues were framed: 1. Whether the accident took place due to rash and negligent driving of the bus bearing No.AP 9Z 5667 by its driver? 2. Whether the petitioner is entitled for compensation, if so to what amount and from whom? 3. To what relief? 6. On behalf of the petitioner, P.Ws.1 and 2 were examined and Exs.A1 to A13 were marked. On behalf of the respondents, no oral or documentary evidence was adduced. Considering the material on record, the Court below granted compensation of Rs.12,000/-. Aggrieved by the same, the present appeal is filed. 7. Now, the point for consideration is whether there are any grounds for enhancing the compensation and for allowing the appeal? 8. In the present case, the petitioner has not sustained any fractures or amputations, but she suffered only four simple injuries, for which she is sufficiently compensated by the Court below and the compensation awarded towards injuries and other heads cannot be said to be inadequate. Hence, I see no merits in this appeal and the same is liable to be dismissed. 9. Accordingly, the appeal is dismissed. No costs. ______________________ P. SWAROOP REDDY, J. 29th November 2010, PNV