THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY C.M.A.No.2592 of 2003 Date:21.10.2010 Between: Rahila Tanveer and others ..... Appellants AND Y.N. babu and others .....RESPONDENTS Counsel for the Appellants: None appeared Counsel for Respondent No.3: Smt. P.Vijayalakshmi The Court made the following Order: ORDER: On 30.09.2010, the appeal was unpresented. Therefore, the same was adjourned for being posted under the caption “For Dismissal”. Even today, when the case is called, there is no representation for the appellants. It is, therefore, reasonable to presume that the appellants are not interested in pursuing their cause in the appeal. The Civil Miscellaneous Appeal is accordingly dismissed in default. _________________________ (C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY, J) 21st October, 2010 GHN In his evidence as P.W.1, the appellant has inter alia stated that he is a toddy topper earning Rs.2,000/- per month prior to the accident, that he received two fractures of left thigh and left leg below the knee apart from the injuries to nose. He was shifted to Gandhi Hospital, Secunderabad, where he was admitted as inpatient for three months and that operation was conducted and rods were inserted in his left leg at two places. He further deposted that he was taking treatment even after discharge from the Gandhip Hospital, at Balanagar and has spent Rs.60,000/- to Rs.70,000/- for medical treatment. In his cross examination, he has admitted that he has not filed any proof to show that he has taken treatment for three months in Gandhi Hospital and that hehas incurred expenditure of Rs.60,000/- to Rs.70,000/- for treatment. He has further admitted that he has not filed toddy toppers licence and also any document to show that he was earning Rs.2,000/- per month. P.W.2, Dr. S.T.R.Chary, Orthopaedic Surgeon, who earlier worked at ESI Hospital Sanathnagar, deposed that he has examined the appellant clinically and that earlier he was referred from Gandhi Hospital to ESI Hospital and that he was treated as inpatient as well as outpatient. He further deposed that the appellant was operated for “fracture shaft femur left thigh and fracture both bones of left leg. He has given the surgery details as “Open reduction and extra middularry nail fixation done” He requires removal of nails by surgery. He further deposed that there is shortening of left lower limb by ½ inch and restriction of terminal degrees of rotation at the hip, restriction of terminal degrees of flaction at knee, resulting in limp. Partial permanent disability is approximately 40%. The disability certificate issued by him is marked as Ex.C-1. Nothing material couldbe elicited on behalf of respondent No.1 to discredit his testimony. Fracture of shaft femur of left thigh New India Assurance Co. Ltd. Vs. Satender and others[1] Lata Wadhwa vs. State of Bihar[2] Nagappa v. Gurudayal Singh[3] UP State Road Transport Corporation vs. Trilok Chandra[4] Sarla Verma vs. Delhi Transport Corporation[5] Lord Atkinson House of Lords Taff Vale Rly. Co. vs. Jenkins 1913 AC 1,7 “..all that is necessary is that a reasonable expectation of pecuniary benefit should be entertained by the person who sues. It is quite true that the existence of this expectation is an inference of fact-there must be a basis of fact from which the inference can reasonably be drawn; but I wish to express my emphatic dissent from the proposition that it is necessary that two of the facts without which the inference cannot be drawn are, first, that the deceased earned money in the past, and, second, that he or she contributed to the support of the plaintiff. These are, no doubt, pregnant pieces of evidence, but they are only pieces of evidence; and the necessary inference can 1 think be drawn from circumstances other than and different from them.” Report of Justice Y.V. Chandrachud [1] AIR 2007 SC 324 [2] 2003(2) ALLWC 1486 [3] AIR 2003 SC 674 [4] 1996(4)SCC 362 = 1996(4) ALD (SCSN) [5] 2009(3) ALD 83 (SC)