THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE L.NARASIMHA REDDY C.M.A.No.1741 of 2000 JUDGMENT: 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 1st respondent, owned by respondents 2 and 4 at different points of time, and insured with the 3rd 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. Respondents 1,2 and 4 remained ex parte. The O.P. was contested by the 3rd respondent-insurance company. The Tribunal awarded a sum of Rs.99,728/-, through order, dated 29.10.1998. The appellant seeks enhancement thereof. Heard Sri Balaswamy, learned counsel for the appellant and Sri E.Venugopal Reddy, learned Standing Cousenl for the 3rd respondent. 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, 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. 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. Therefore, the C.M.A. is dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs. __________ 27.12.2011 JSU THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE L.NARASIMHA REDDY C.M.A.No.1741 of 2000 Date: 27.12.2011 JSU