( 1 ) FIRST respondent filed a claim petition seeking compensation of Rs. 3,00,000/- from respondent 2 to 4 and the appellant alleging that he sustained injuries due to the rash and negligent driving of the Tractor bearing no. AP 25/t 4164 belonging to respondents 2 to 4, insured with the appellant, and examined himself as P. W. 1 and the doctor who issued a disability certificate to him as p. W. 2 and marked Exs. A-1 to A-14 on his behalf. Respondents 2 to 4 who contested the claim by filing counter, did not adduce any evidence on their behalf. Appellant who also contested the claim, examined one witness as R. W. 1 and marked Exs. B-1 and B-2 on its behalf. The Tribunal having held that the accident involving the first respondent occurred due to the rash and negligent driving of the offending tractor of respondents 2 to 4 awarded Rs. 2,00,000/- as compensation to the first respondent against respondents 2 to 4 and the appellant. Aggrieved by the compensation awarded to the first respondent, the insurer of the offending vehicle preferred this appeal and dissatisfied with the compensation awarded to him the claimant preferred cross-objections. ( 2 ) SINCE the appellant did not obtain permission under Section 170 of the Motor vehicles Act, 1988 in view of the ratio in national Insurance Company v. Nicolleta rohtegi, this appeal is liable to be dismissed as not maintainable and accordingly, the same is dismissed. ( 3 ) THE point for consideration in cross objections is to what compensation is the first respondent entitled to? ( 4 ) IN my considered opinion, the failure of the Tribunal in going through the documentary evidence adduced by the first respondent carefully, and its dealing with the case casually, and its lavish and liberal award of Rs. 2,00,000/- as compensation to the first appellant, made true the popular telugu adage (Telugu Matter ). Surprisingly first respondent, instead of feeling happy for the largess conferred on him by the Tribunal, in spite of the documentary evidence adduced by him, avariciously, is seeking higher compensation through cross objections. Had the owner of the offending vehicle preferred an appeal, this definitely would have been a fit case for interference and considerable reduction in the compensation awarded to the first respondent. Had the owner of the offending vehicle preferred an appeal, this definitely would have been a fit case for interference and considerable reduction in the compensation awarded to the first respondent. ( 5 ) IT is well known that whenever a victim in medico legal case is admitted in hospital a brief note as to how he received the injuries would be noted in the case sheet. Ex. A-2, injury certificate relating to first respondent shows that he was admitted in gandhi Hospital, Secunderabad on 24-12-1995 at 1. 15 p. m. stating that he sustained the injuries due to a fall from his bullock cart on 23-12-1995 at 11 p. m at nagireddypet, Nizamabad District. Ex. A-l, fir registered under Section 337 IPC, shows that the report against the driver of the offending tractor was given at 10. 30 a. m. on 26-12-1995, i. e. About 2 days after the first respondent admitted himself in the Gandhi hospital, Secunderabad. Ex. B-2, certified copy of the judgment in CC No. 285 of 1996 shows that the driver of the Tractor bearing no. AP 25/t4164 belonging to respondents 2 to 4, was acquitted of the offence under section 337 IPC. From Exs. A-1 and Ex. B-2 it is clear that first respondent received only simple injuries, due to the accident allegedly caused by the offending tractor. If first respondent suffered the injuries stated by p. W. 2, the driver of the tractor should have been charge sheeted for an offence under section 338 IPC, but not Section 337 IPC. Obviously P. W. 2 based his evidence on ex. A-8, medical certificate issued by the civil Assistant Surgeon, Community hospital, Banswada District, Nizamabad, where first respondent was admitted on 3-2-1994 i. e. , more than five months after the accident. As stated earlier, if the first respondent was admitted in Community hospital, Banswada, due to the injuries received on 23-12-1995, the police would have charge sheeted the driver of the tractor for an offence under Sectiort 338 IPC, but not for an offence under Section 337 IPC. Had the first respondent taken steps for production of the case sheet from Gandhi hospital, Secunderabad, it would have revealed the period for which he had undergone the treatment and his condition at the time of discharge. Had the first respondent taken steps for production of the case sheet from Gandhi hospital, Secunderabad, it would have revealed the period for which he had undergone the treatment and his condition at the time of discharge. Obviously, because the entries in the case sheet would not support the contention of the first respondent he did not summon his case sheet from Gandhi hospital, Secunderabad, but examined p. W. 2, a doctor from Nizamabad. ( 6 ) IN the above circumstances, I find no ground to enhance the compensation already liberally granted to him by the Tribunal. The point is answered accordingly. ( 7 ) HENCE, Cross-objections are liable to be dismissed. ( 8 ) IN the result, the appeal is dismissed without costs and cross-objections are dismissed with costs.