Sunkari Rajender vs Kama Venkati And 2 Others
2021 Latest Caselaw 4436 Tel

              THE HON'BLE JUSTICE G. SRI DEVI

                 M.A.C.M.A. No. 1714 of 2007

JUDGMENT:

This appeal is preferred by the appellant who is the

claimant, against the order and decree in O.P.No. 785 of 2005,

dated 18.04.2006 passed by the Motor Vehicle Accidents Claims

Tribunal ( I Additional District Judge) at Karimnagar ('Tribunal').

By the said order, the learned Tribunal has awarded an amount of

Rs.1,90,463/- for the injuries sustained by the appellant in the

accident that occurred on 15.12.2003 while he was proceeding in

his jeep to Godavarikhani from NTPC, on account of rash and

negligent driving on the part of the driver of the lorry bearing No.

AP 1U 2455.

2. The only ground that is raised by the learned counsel for the

appellant, in this appeal, is that the learned Tribunal while

awarding compensation has not awarded any amount towards

removal of the implants. According to the learned counsel, P.W. 3,

who is a private medical practitioner running Sri Venkateshwara

Nursing Home at Karimnagar, has categorically deposed that the

implants need to be removed in future, and therefore, the Tribunal

ought to have believed the evidence of P.W.3, and ought to have

granted at least Rs.40,000/- towards future removal of implants

that were placed in his right leg during the course of surgery for

the injuries sustained by him.

3. On the other hand, the learned Standing Counsel appearing

on behalf of United India Insurance Company Limited, the

respondent No. 3 herein, has vehemently opposed the said claim

and has contended that the learned Tribunal while answering

issue No. 2, has categorically held that "The removal of implants

was not certainly stated by P.W.3. He only stated that they have to

be removed if only there is any complication in future. Hence, no

amount is awarded towards the said expenditure".

4. As rightly argued by the learned Standing Counsel for the

Insurance Company, the learned Tribunal has duly considered the

aspect of expenditure towards future removal of implants and

rejected the same as it was deposed by P.W.3 that the removal of

implants is necessary only in case of any complication in future.

Even during the course of arguments, in the present appeal, the

learned counsel for the appellant has not filed any single document

to show that subsequent to the passing of the award by the

Tribunal, the appellant had spent any amount for removal of the

implants. Thus, taking into consideration the submissions made

by the learned counsel for the appellant and the learned Standing

Counsel for the Insurance Company, this Court is of the

considered opinion that the learned Tribunal while passing the

award, has rightly believed the version of P.W. 3 and has not

awarded any amount towards future expenditure for removal of the

implants. I do not see any manifest error in the said findings

arrived at by the learned Tribunal.

5. The appeal is devoid of merits and the same is accordingly

dismissed.

Pending miscellaneous applications, if any, shall stand

closed. There shall be no order as to costs.

______________________ JUSTICE G. SRI DEVI December 17, 2021 tsr