Dismissed

Ganti Phani Kumar Hyd v. T.Sharnapa and 3

Telangana HC27 Dec 2011CMA/1741/2000

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In a motor accident claim, the appellant sought enhancement of Tribunal-awarded compensation alleging paralysis of the right hand. The Court rejected the claim due to lack of medical evidence proving permanent disability, holding the awarded sum adequate for pain, loss of earnings during treatment, and medical expenses.

What did the court decide?

The Contempt of Money Adami (C.M.A.) Nos. 1741 of 2000 is dismissed; no order as to costs.

Ganti Phani Kumar Hyd Vs T.Sharnapa and 3 — Motor Accident Claims | Telangana HC (2011)

¶1

THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE L.NARASIMHA REDDY

¶2

C.M.A.No.1741 of 2000

¶3

JUDGMENT:

¶4

The appellant filed O.P.No.102 of 1995 before the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal-cum-Chief Judge, City Civil Court, Hyderabad claiming a sum of Rs.4,00,000/as compensation on account of the injuries received by him. It is stated that on 02.08.1994, he was proceeding on a scooter from Toli Chowki to Shaikpet and on the way at 9:45 pm., a lorry bearing No.AP-04-T-1695 driven by the 1^st respondent, owned by respondents 2 and 4 at different points of time, and insured with the 3^rd respondent, dashed against him. He is said to have suffered injuries to the right hand, resulting in paralyzing thereof. The nature of treatment said to have been received was furnished in detail.

¶5

Respondents 1,2 and 4 remained ex parte. The O.P. was contested by the 3^rd respondent-insurance company. The Tribunal awarded a sum of Rs.99,728/-, through order, dated 29.10.1998. The appellant seeks enhancement thereof.

¶6

Heard Sri Balaswamy, learned counsel for the appellant and Sri E.Venugopal Reddy, learned Standing Cousenl for the 3^rd respondent.

¶7

The fact that the appellant received injuries in an accident on account of being dashed by the lorry is proved by filing the F.I.R. in Crime No.102 of 1994,

¶8

marked as Ex.A.1, the charge sheet-Ex.A.3 and M.V.I. Report-Ex.A.4. The finding of the Tribunal in this regard is not challenged. As regards the quantum, the appellant no doubt claimed Rs.4,00,000/as compensation under different heads. Much would depend upon the proof as to the nature of injury and the resultant disability. Except that he deposed as P.W.1, the appellant did not examine any other witness, much less the Doctor, who treated him or the one, who issued the injury certificate. In the absence of any proof, the plea of the appellant that he suffered paralysis to his right hand cannot be accepted. The learned Presiding Officer made an observation to the effect that he has seen the appellant in the Court and noticed some defect in the hand. Beyond that, the plea of paralysis was not accepted.

¶9

Ex.A.6, the injury certificate issued by the Doctor is to the effect that the appellant suffered serious injury to his right hand. Even that is silent as to the plea of paralysis. Under these circumstances, the compensation may be awarded for pain and suffering, loss of earnings for the period from which the treatment subsisted and the expenditure for treatment. Since no permanent disability was noticed, the compensation under loss of future earnings was not permissible. Taking all these aspects into account, the Tribunal awarded a sum of Rs.99,728/-. This Court is of the view that the said compensation is adequate and no enhancement is warranted.

¶10

Therefore, the C.M.A. is dismissed. There shall

¶11

be no order as to costs.

¶12

__________ 27.12.2011

¶13

JSU

¶14

THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE L.NARASIMHA REDDY

¶15

C.M.A.No.1741 of 2000

¶16

Date: 27.12.2011

¶17

JSU

Ganti Phani Kumar Hyd v. T.Sharnapa and 3

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Ganti Phani Kumar Hyd v. T.Sharnapa and 3

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Vytla Prema Kumar Vs Vytla Annapurna

Jala Anjaiah, Vs Ramisetty Anjaiah

Shaik Zainabi, Vs The Markapur Jamia Masjid, Markapur

Apsrtc Vs Veeradasu Elia

Mr.T.Kotewara Rao Vs Mr.v.Sankara Rao

Katta Subba rao, Vs Kukumani Koteswara Rao