Partly allowed

Buggoni Pandu v. Mrs. N.Shanthi

Telangana HC2 Aug 2010MACMA/1510/2007

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

An appeal against an award of Rs. 60,000/- by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal in a motor accident case. The court awarded an additional Rs. 40,000/- as compensation for loss of earnings, carrying 6% interest, while rejecting a claim for future medical expenses due to lack of medical evidence.

What did the court decide?

Awarded additional compensation of Rs. 40,000/- towards loss of earnings carrying 6% annual interest from the date of claim petition.

Buggoni Pandu Vs Mrs. N.Shanthi — Medical Negligence | Telangana HC (2010)

¶1

THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE VILAS V.AFZULPURKAR

¶2

M.A.C.M.A.No. 1510 of 2007

¶3

JUDGEMENT

¶4

This appeal is by the claimant who was injured in a motor accident that took place on 6.5.2004. While the appellant was riding his Scooter, the same was hit by an LPG gas Tanker bearing No. KA 01 AC 9459. The said offending vehicle was owned by the 1^st respondent and was insured with the 2^nd respondent Insurance Company. On account of the said accident, the appellant suffered crush injury to the right foot, which was grievous in nature and he suffered two abrasions on the right knee joint and three abrasions on the left hand anterior. The appellant was admitted in Aditya hospital, Hyderabad and he was treated for 12 days as inpatient and was discharged from the hospital and thereafter he took treatment for three and half months as outpatient. The appellant claims that he was working as a skilled Grade-I Machine Operator in Saint-Gobin, Vetrotex and as per the salary certificate, Ex:A.4, he was drawing a monthly salary of Rs. 12,520-80 paisa and that the said Ex:A.4 also mentions that he was absent from duty from 6.5.2004 to 25.8.2004 due to the accident and has resumed duty from 26.8.2004. The said certificate was issued by the Manager (P & A) of the Employer and alleging that the offending vehicle was driven in rash and negligent manner, he claimed a compensation of Rs. 2,00,000/-.

¶5

Before the Tribunal below, the 1^st respondent, the owner of the offending vehicle remained ex parte while the insurance

¶6

company/2^nd respondent raised various defences including that the driver of the offending was not having valid driving license and he was not negligent and that there was negligence on the part of the appellant himself contributing to the accident.

¶7

During the trial, the appellant himself was examined as Pw.1 and marked Exs: A.1 to A.6. On behalf of the insurance company no oral evidence was adduced but the Policy Ex:B.1 was marked.

¶8

On issue No.1, the Tribunal held that the evidence of the appellant remained un-controverted and the negligent driving of the offending vehicle was established even from the FIR Ex:A.1 and the Charge Sheet Ex:A.2 and the said issue was answered in favour of the appellant. On the quantum of compensation on issue No.2, the Tribunal awarded reimbursement of medical expenses as evident from Exs:A.5 and A.6 medical bills totalling to Rs. 37,184/- and in addition to the above amount, the Tribunal awarded aggregate amount of Rs. 22,816/- towards special and general damages and in all awarded a sum of Rs. 60,000/-. Questioning the same, the appellant filed present appeal seeking enhancement. I have heard the learned Counsel for the appellant who submitted that the appellant took treatment for three and half months and he being a skilled Grade-I Machine Operation, he was deprived of his monthly earnings and the Tribunal below did not take into consideration the loss of earnings while computing the compensation. The learned Counsel also submitted that except granting reimbursement of medical expenses, the Tribunal below did not grant any compensation for future treatment of the appellant.

¶9

Considering the above submissions, it is no doubt clear

¶10

and apparent that loss of earnings of the appellant/claimant have not been quantified and taken into consideration. It is not in dispute that for three months 20 days the appellant was absent from duty, which is substantiated by Ex:A.4 the salary certificate. Though nobody was examined to prove Ex:A.4, there is no reason to doubt the same since it was issued by the Manager (P & A) of the Employer. Even if we exclude contributions of the appellant towards provident fund, professional tax and LIC premium from the total earnings, being a skilled Grade-I Machine Operator, it has to be held that he must be earning a sum of Rs. 10,000/- per month. Since, there is no medical evidence supporting the submission of the learned Counsel for the appellant that the Tribunal below did not grant any compensation for future treatment of the appellant, he is not entitled for the same. Since, the appellant remained absent from duty for three months and twenty days, I deem it appropriate to grant compensation of Rs. 40,000/- towards loss of earnings. The said enhanced amount shall carry interest at 6% p.a. from the date of claim petition till the date of realisation.

¶11

In the result the appeal is allowed in part, as indicated above. There shall be no order as to costs.

¶12

______________________________ VILAS V.AFZULPURKAR,J 02.08.2010. KRB.

¶13

THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE VILAS V.AFZULPURKAR

¶14

M.A.C.M.A.No. 1510 of 2007

¶15

JUDGEMENT

¶16

Dt. 02.08.2010

Buggoni Pandu v. Mrs. N.Shanthi

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Buggoni Pandu v. Mrs. N.Shanthi

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

V.v.Venkata Satyanarayana Reddy Vs Adda Manikyambam and 9 Ors.

The New India Assurance Company Limited Vs Abdul Hafeez

Amadala Joseph Vs Bellam Venkatapathi

United India Insurance Company Ltd. Vs Bandipally Vinodha , Vinitha

Aremreddigari Sahadeva Reddy Vs The Apsrtc

United India Insurance Company Limited Vs Madasu Padmavathi