JUDGMENT 1. The appellant is second respondent in M.V.O.P.No.594 of 2007 on the file of the Motor Vehicles Accidents Claims Tribunal (V Additional District Judge), Ananthapur, and the respondents are the petitioner and R1 in the said case. 2. Both the parties in the appeal will be referred to as they are arrayed in claim application. 3. The petitioner filed a Claim Petition under Sec. 140 and 166 of Motor Vehicles Act against the respondents, praying the Tribunal to award an amount of Rs.3,00,000.00 towards compensation on account of injuries received by him in a Motor Vehicle Accident occurred on 18/6/2007 at 1.00 PM. 4. The case of the petitioner is that on 18/6/2007 at about 1.00 p.m. the petitioner was travelling in auto bearing No.AP 02 W 5914 along with his groundnut bags to go to Suddakuntapalli and when the auto reached at KM 10/4 on Ramagiri - N.S. Gate road, the driver of the auto drove the same in a rash and negligent manner, resulting which, the auto turned turtle, as a result of which, the petitioner sustained grievous injuries and the petitioner claimed an amount of Rs.3,00,000.00 towards compensation. 5. The respondents 1 and 2 filed counters denying the claim application and contended that the claimant is not entitled any compensation and they are not liable to pay any compensation to the petitioner. 6. Based on the above pleadings, the Tribunal framed the following issues: i. Whether the accident occurred due to the rash and negligent act of the driver of the Auto bearing No.AP 02 W 5914 and caused injuries to the petitioner or not? ii. Whether the petitioner is entitled to any compensation? If so, to what amount and from which of the respondent? iii. To what relief? 7. On behalf of the petitioner, the petitioner himself was examined as PW1 and the doctor, who treated the petitioner was examined as PW2 and got marked Ex.A1 to Ex.A9. On behalf of respondents no oral evidence was adduced, however, Ex.B1 was marked. 8. After considering the evidence on record, the Tribunal has given a finding that the accident occurred due to involvement of the offending vehicle in the said accident and the petitioner has received grievous injuries due to the negligent act of the driver of auto and the Tribunal granted an amount of Rs.1,40,000.00 to the claimant towards compensation. 9. 8. After considering the evidence on record, the Tribunal has given a finding that the accident occurred due to involvement of the offending vehicle in the said accident and the petitioner has received grievous injuries due to the negligent act of the driver of auto and the Tribunal granted an amount of Rs.1,40,000.00 to the claimant towards compensation. 9. Aggrieved by the same, the second respondent/ Insurance Company filed the present appeal. 10. Now, the points for consideration are: 1) Whether the accident occurred due to rash and negligent driving of the driver of auto bearing No.AP 02 W 5914 and caused injuries to the petitioner? 2) Whether the Order of Tribunal needs any interference? 11. POINT No.1:- In order the prove the case of the claimant, so also in order to prove the manner of the accident, the claimant himself was examined as PW1 and his evidence goes to show that he was boarded the auto bearing No.AP02 W 5914 at Ramagiri to go to Suddakuntapalli, along with groundnut bags on 18/6/2007, when the auto reached at KM 10/4 on Ramagiri - N.S.Gate road, the driver of the auto drove the same in a rash and negligent manner and on account of that the auto turned turtle on the road and he received injuries. PW1 is the best person to speak about the accident and so also about the manner of the accident, he is the injured person in this case. Ex.A1 attested copy of FIR, Ex.A3 attested copy of charge sheet coupled with the evidence of PW1 clearly goes to show that the accident was occurred due to rash and negligent driving of the driver of auto and caused injuries to the petitioner. On consideration of entire evidence on record, the Tribunal came to conclusion that the accident occurred due to rash and negligent driving of the driver of auto. Therefore, there is no need to interfere with the finding, given by the learned Tribunal. 12. POINT No.2: As far as the evidence of PW1, he received grievous injury in the accident and immediately after the accident, he was shifted to Government General Hospital, Dharmavaram for treatment and after taking first aid, he was shifted to Mythri hospital, Ananthapuram and joined as inpatient and surgery was also conducted and he incurred Rs.1,00,000.00 towards medical expenses. 12. POINT No.2: As far as the evidence of PW1, he received grievous injury in the accident and immediately after the accident, he was shifted to Government General Hospital, Dharmavaram for treatment and after taking first aid, he was shifted to Mythri hospital, Ananthapuram and joined as inpatient and surgery was also conducted and he incurred Rs.1,00,000.00 towards medical expenses. In order to prove his claim, the doctor, who treated him, was examined as PW2. PW2, who was working as Civil Surgeon Specialist in Government General Hospital, Ananthapur, deposed that he treated the petitioner at Mythri hospital and he conducted surgery to the petitioner. He further deposed that on 10/7/2009, as a member of Medical Board, he examined the petitioner and issued a disability certificate of 40% disability. The Tribunal granted compensation of Rs.1,40,000.00 to the claimant towards compensation, but no cross appeal was filed by the claimant against the said compensation. 13. The learned counsel for claimant argued that income of the claimant is taken as low by the Tribunal. This Court has clearly stated above that no appeal is filed by the claimant so far against the compensation arrived by the Tribunal. 14. The learned counsel for the appellant relied on a decision reported in Laxman @ Laxman Mourya Vs. D.M. Oriental Insurance company Limited,2012 (3) ALD 53 (SC). In that decision it was held that: "Although, the percentage of the disability of whole body is 38, the evidence produced by the appellant in the form of his own affidavit and the affidavit of PW2 shows that he will not be able to work as carpenter or do any manual work throughout his life. In other words, even though the disability suffered by the appellant is not 100 percent, his working capacity has been reduced to zero. However, keeping in view of the degree of disability, i.e., 38%, we hold that he shall be entitled to compensation of Rs.3,32,640.00 (38% of Rs.5,000.00 = Rs.1,540.00 x 12 x 18) for loss of future earning". 15. In the present case the learned Tribunal in its order clearly held that as per the evidence of PW2, the claimant can walk without help of any stick, for short distance. It is a settled law that disability to part of body cannot be treated as disability to whole body. 15. In the present case the learned Tribunal in its order clearly held that as per the evidence of PW2, the claimant can walk without help of any stick, for short distance. It is a settled law that disability to part of body cannot be treated as disability to whole body. Here on considering the evidence of PW2/Doctor, who treated the petitioner and who issued disability certificate to the claimant, along with documentary evidence available on record, the Tribunal came to conclusion that the disability of the claimant is assessed as 25% only. The claimant also not challenged the said finding. 16. The Tribunal, on considering the entire evidence on record, fixed the monthly income of the claimant as Rs.2,000.00 and by giving cogent reasons, an amount of Rs.1,40,000.00 was granted by the Tribunal. The claimant has not challenged the order passed by the Tribunal. As per Ex.B1, the crime vehicle was insured with Insurance Company and the policy was also on force at that time. Therefore, in view of the above reasons, the appeal is devoid of merits. 17. In the result, the appeal is dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs. Miscellaneous petitions, if any, pending in this appeal shall stand closed.