PILLA PADMASRI Vs. PEDIREDDLA VARAHA RAMU AND ORS

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This appeal is preferred by the appellant, who is the claimant before the Court below, assailing the judgment of the IX Additional District and Sessions Judge, Visakhapatnam, in OP. No. 253 of 2004 dated 28.10.2005 on the grounds that the Court below erred in observing that in view of the injuries sustained by the claimant the tailoring work, which she was doing before the accident was not affected; it ought to have seen that the tailoring work includes cutting but in view of the injuries to the hand, the claimant cannot do the cutting work; the Court below erred in observing that there is no permanent and partial disability and awarded very less amount under the head loss of earning during the period of treatment for more than six months and the Court below erred in disbelieving the evidence of P.W.2 and the disability certificate.

(2.) Heard counsel for the appellant. None appears for the respondents.

(3.) The counsel for the appellant, even at the stage of appeal, is not in a position to explain the discrepancies that were pointed out by the Court below.