Dismissed

Macharla Sunil Kumar v. Tegala Sankara Rao

Telangana HC3 Oct 2017MACMA/996/2008

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In this appeal against an order of the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, the appellant contested the adequacy of compensation awarded for disability and losses. The Privy Councillike court rejected the appellant's argument regarding higher notional income by observing the lack of evidence showing the claimant was a student or his academic standing, upholding the Tribunal's approach.

What did the court decide?

No interference with the judgment of the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal; appeal dismissed.

Macharla Sunil Kumar Vs Tegala Sankara Rao — Medical Negligence | Telangana HC (2017)

¶1

The Hon’ble Smt. Justice T.Rajani M.A.C.M.A. No.996 of 2008

¶2

Date: 03.10.2017

¶3

: Judgment

¶4

This Appeal is preferred by the appellant, who is the claimant in OP.No.517 of 2005 on the file of the Court of the Motor Vehicle Accidents Claims Tribunal –cum- I Additional District Judge, Vizianagaram (for short ‘the Tribunal’), assailing the Judgment, dated 20-06-2006, on the ground that the Tribunal did not award adequate compensation in spite of the appellant being hospitalized for more than 15 days and undergoing surgeries and that it awarded

¶5

a meager compensation under the head of disability.

¶6

Heard the learned Counsel for the appellant and the learned Standing Counsel for the Andhra Pradesh State Road Transport Corporation appearing for respondent Nos.2 and 3.

¶7

At the hearing, the learned Counsel for the appellant, instead

¶8

of arguing on the grounds laid in the Grounds of Appeal, takes up a new ground with regard to the notional income taken by the Tribunal. He contends that the Tribunal ought to have taken the notional income of the claimant as Rs.10,000/- per month as was

¶9

TR, J MACMA.No.996 of 2008 Dt: 03.10.2017

¶10

¶11

taken by the Apex Court in a ruling reported in V.Mekala vs. M.Malathi and another¹ .

¶12

In the case dealt with by the Apex Court, there was evidence to show that the claimant therein was a brilliant student; that she had secured first rank in 10^th standard; and that she was studying 11^th standard at the time of the accident.

¶13

In this case, there is no evidence as regards the academic performance of the appellant. In fact, there is no evidence to show that he was a student at all. However, since the said fact is not disputed by the respondents, it can be accepted that the appellant was a student as on the date of the accident. In the absence of any evidence with regard to the academic performance of the appellant, except taking the notional income, there cannot be any other approach. Hence, the approach of the Tribunal, in adopting the notional income of the appellant for calculating the loss of his future income, cannot be found fault with.

¶14

In the light of the above, I do not find any reason to interfere

¶15

with the judgment of the Tribunal.

¶16

The Appeal is, accordingly, dismissed.

¶17

Dt: 3^rd October, 2017 lur

¶18

___________ (T.Rajani, J)

¶19

1 2014 ACJ 1441

¶20

TR, J MACMA.No.996 of 2008 Dt: 03.10.2017

¶21

Macharla Sunil Kumar v. Tegala Sankara Rao

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Macharla Sunil Kumar v. Tegala Sankara Rao

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Jaklapalli Kistappa Vs Gopal Kothi

Sai Naga Ramesh, Vs The State of Andhra Pradesh

Lachola Kistaiah Vs The State of Telangana

Katta Ravi Kishan Reddy Vs The State of Telangana

The Oriental Insurance Company Limited Vs Bodduluri Ramesh

National Insurnace Company Limited, Vs Mukka Narasimha Murthy