1MVOP 977 of 2016
BEFORE THE MOTOR ACCIDENT CLAIMS TRIBUNAL: CUM:
XI ADDITIONAL CHIEF JUDGE, CITY CIVIL COURTS AT HYDERABAD
MONDAY, THIS THE 14th DAY OF SEPTEMBER, 2020
PRESENT: SRI A. KARNA KUMAR,
XI Additional Chief Judge, City Civil Court, Hyderabad.
MVOP No.977 of 2016
Between:
1. D. Hanumatha Rao (Died), S/o. Late D.Satyanarayana, aged about 57 years, Tailoring,
2. D. Kamala, W/o. Late D. Hanumantha Rao (as per L.R), aged about 58 years, Housewife.
3. D. Kiran, S/o. Late D. Hanumantha Rao (as per L.R), aged about 37 years, Employee,
All are R/o.H.No.12606/45, Lower Tank Band, B.M.Nagar, Musheerabad, Hyderabad.
...Petitioners
And
1. T. Goverdhana Chary, S/o. T. Narayana, Major, Driver, R/o.H.No.113/2/A/5/A, Gari Street, Near Koti Reddy, Kodad, Nalgonda District. (Driver cum Owner of Crime Vehicle).
2. National Insurance Company Limited. Represented by its Divisional Manager, D.No.58568, Jubilee Building, Nampally Station Road, Abids, Hyderabad. (Policy No.55270031156360049891, valid from 31.07.2015 to 30.07.2016).
...Respondents
This petition coming on 31.08.2020 before me for final hearing and disposal in the presence of Sri Y. Veeranna Babu, Advocate for Petitioners; and that of Sri G. Man Mohan Rao, Advocate for Respondent No.2; and that Respondent No.1 remained exparte; and the matter having stood over for consideration till this day, this Tribunal made the following:
: O R D E R :
1.The petitioner filed petition under Section 166 of Motor Vehicle Act, 1988 for the injuries and subsequent death of the deceased/1st petitioner claiming compensation of a sum of Rs.1,25,00,000/ with costs and interest.
2MVOP 977 of 2016
2.Initially the petition has been filed for an amount of Rs.55,00,000/ and subsequently enhanced to Rs.1,25,00,000/ and the same was amended as per orders in IA No.114 of 2017, dated: 23.02.2017. The petitioners No.2 and 3 were impleaded as per orders in IA No.858 of 2018,
dated: 25.09.2018 as the petitioner No.1 died during pendency of this
petition i.e., on 06.05.2018 while undergoing treatment due to injuries sustained by him in the accident.
3.The brief averments of the petition and amended petition are that on 12.09.2015 at about 11:00 hours the petitioner No.1/deceased was proceeding on the two wheeler bearing No. TS 09 ED 3942 and when he reached the road leading to Gandhinagar side driver of car bearing No. TS 07 UB 0904 in rash and negligent manner and suddenly opened and while closing the door of the car the 1st petitioner was knocked down very violently to the door of the car and sustained grievous injuries.
4.The police Musheerabad registered a case in Crime No.209 of 2015 under section 337 of IPC and later altered under section 338 of IPC.
5.It is further submitted that immediately after the accident the 1st petitioner was shifted to Care Hospital, Musheerabad and he was treated as inpatient from 12.09.2015 to 16.11.2015 and the 1st petitioner incurred heavy expenditure for treatment and he became permanent disabled person. It is further submitted that the 1st petitioner was professional tailor and having good skill in both tailoring and designing and earned assets and he was having Rs.1.5/ Crore of self acquired property. Due to the injuries the 1st petitioner became vegetative state of mind. The 1st petitioner was advised to take regular physiotherapy and he required 24 hours of nursing care. Due to vegetative state of the 1st petitioner, the wife and next 3MVOP 977 of 2016 friend of 1st petitioner incurred huge expenditure for medical expenses. The children of petitioner also making trips from abroad and incurring heavy air travel bills. It is further submitted that the accident was occurred due to rash and negligent opening and closing of the door of the car by the driver of the car. Therefore, the 1st respondent being driver cum owner of the crime vehicle and 2nd respondent being insurance company are jointly and severally liable to pay compensation to the petitioners.
6.On the other hand the respondent No.1 remained exparte.
7.The respondent No.2 insurance company filed counter and
additional counter. The brief averments of the counter and additional
counter filed by the respondent No.2 are that this respondent does not admit that the car bearing No. TS 07 UB 0904 was driven by its driver in rash and negligent manner as alleged in the claim petition. This respondent also denies the manner of accident and further submitted that at the time of accident the 1st petitioner/deceased drove his vehicle carelessly and negligently and in high speed and dashed the car and sustained injuries. Therefore, the 1st petitioner is not entitled for any compensation. This respondent does not admits the health condition of the 1st petitioner. This respondent specifically denies the involvement of the crime vehicle in this accident. This respondent does not admit the age, avocation and income of the 1st petitioner/deceased. This respondent also does not admit the injuries sustained by the 1st petitioner/deceased. This respondent also did not admit the insurance of the crime vehicle with this respondent. This respondent further denies the liability on the ground that the driver of the crime vehicle was not having valid driving licence and the amount of compensation claimed is excessive and exorbitant. This 4MVOP 977 of 2016 respondent is not aware of the criminal proceeding lodged against the driver of the crime vehicle. This respondent further submitted that the crime vehicle was not having permission to ply on the road. It is further submitted that since the 1st petitioner/deceased himself drove his vehicle in a rash and negligent manner and dashed the car and sustained injuries.
Therefore, there is no negligence on the part of the driver of the car and that the crime vehicle was falsely implicated in the alleged accident.
Hence, respondent No.2 is not liable to pay compensation. It is further submitted that the enhanced amount of Rs.1,25,00,000/ claimed by the petitioner is exorbitant and without any basis. It is further submitted that conditions mentioned in section 158 (6) of the M.V.Act has not been complied. Therefore, prayed to dismiss the petition.
8.Basing on the above pleadings the following issues are framed for trial:
1. Whether the accident took place due to the rash and negligent driving of the driver of the vehicle car bearing No.
TS 07 UB 0904 causing injuries to the petitioner?
2. Whether the petitioner is entitled for compensation. If so, to what amount and from whom?
3. To what relief?
9.Since the 1st petitioner died during pendency of the petition the issues are recasted as follows:
1. Whether the accident took place due to the rash and negligent driving of the driver of the vehicle car bearing No. TS 07 UB 0904 causing injuries and death of the 1 st petitioner?
2. Whether the petitioners No.2 and 3 are entitled for
compensation. If so, to what amount and from whom?
3. To what relief?
5MVOP 977 of 2016
10.In order to prove the case of the petitioners, P.W1 to P.W8 examined and Exs.A1 to A30 and Ex.X1 to X5 were marked. On behalf of the respondent No.2, R.W1 examined, Ex.B1 and Ex.B2 were marked.
11.Heard arguments of both sides.
RECASTED ISSUE NO.1:
12.It is the case of the petitioners that while the 1st petitioner/deceased was proceeding on his motor cycle bearing No.TS 09 ED 3942 from his residence to Bank at Gandhinagar and when he reached road leading to
Gandhinagar side the driver of the crime vehicle i.e., 1st respondent suddenly opened and closing of the door due to which the 1st petitioner/deceased touched the door due to which he fell down and sustained severe injuries and later he died on 06.05.2018 due to injuries sustained by him in the accident that occurred on 12.09.2015 at about 11 hours.
13.The burden lies on the petitioners No.2 and 3 to prove that the rash and negligent opening and closing of the door of the car by the respondent
No.1/driver due to which sustaining of the injuries by the 1st petitioner /deceased and death of the deceased by the injuries sustained by him in the accident.
14.In order to prove the case of the petitioners the petitioner No.2 who is the wife of the 1st petitioner who filed this OP represented the 1st petitioner examined herself as P.W1 and she deposed about the accident, sustaining of injuries by her husband i.e., 1st petitioner/deceased, rash and negligent opening and closing of the door of the car of the 1st respondent, providing treatment to the 1st petitioner in the hospital and age, occupation and earnings of the 1st petitioner/deceased and also the 6MVOP 977 of 2016 death of the deceased due to injuries sustained by the 1st petitioner in the accident. She supported the case of the petitioner. During cross examination she admitted that she is not an eye witness and she deposed basing on the information given by the brother of 1st petitioner/deceased.
She admitted that the brother of the 1st petitioner/deceased given complaint to the police.
15.Apart from her evidence she has relied on the evidence of P.W2 who is said to be an eye witness to the accident. He supported the case of the petitioners and categorically deposed that the accident was occurred due to rash and negligent opening and closing of the door by the car driver i.e., respondent No.1. He also deposed that he followed the deceased till he was shifted to the hospital. During cross examination he admitted that police did not record his statement and his name was also not cited in the list of witnesses in the charge sheet.
16.The learned counsel for the respondent no.2 has contended that since the name of P.W2 was not shown in the charge sheet his evidence cannot be believed as an eye witness to the accident.
17.On the other hand the counsel for the petitioners has contended that because the name of P.W2 not shown in the charge sheet his evidence cannot be discarded and he has relied on the decision reported in 2019
ACJ 801 in between Sunita and others Vs. Rajasthan State Road
Transport Corporation and another wherein it was held that:
In our humble opinion, in cases like accident occurring suddenly, the persons present near the place of incident are eyewitness to the incident. But during investigation this is not necessary that the investigation agency should name all the eyewitnesses as witness in the charge sheet. Therefore, the statement of the witness cannot be considered distrust worthy that his name in the charge sheet is not mentioned as witness.
7MVOP 977 of 2016
18.The above decision is squarely applicable to the present facts and circumstances of this case wherein in the instance case also name of P.w2 not shown in the list of witnesses filed in charge sheet, because his name is not shown in the charge sheet the evidence of P.W2 who is independent eye witness cannot be discarded. Therefore, the evidence of P.W2 supported the case of the petitioners regarding rash and negligent act of the driver of the crime vehicle. His evidence is believable and acceptable.
19.The petitioners also relied on the evidence of P.W8 who is the investigation officer and he deposed that the accused i.e., driver of the crime vehicle admitted his guilt and paid penalty in the Court in the
Criminal Case. The petitioners also relied on Ex.A1 first information report. The Ex.A1 copy of first information report discloses rash and negligent act of the driver of the crime vehicle. Ex.A2 is the certified copy of charge sheet which discloses that the accident was occurred when the driver of the crime vehicle opened the car door and suddenly closing the car door, due to which the 1st petitioner/deceased touched to the door and fell down and sustained injuries. Ex.A3 medical inpatient record discloses that the 1st petitioner/deceased sustained two injuries. The petitioners also relied on the evidence of P.W3 who is the Dr.K.Srinivas who treated the 1st petitioner/deceased, P.W5 and P.W6. P.W3 is the doctor who treated 1st petitioner/deceased and he supported the case of the petitioner and categorically deposed that the deceased sustained three grievous injuries and he has under gone surgery on 12.09.2015 and on 15.09.2015 and also on 18.09.2015. He deposed that the 1st petitioner/deceased was admitted in his hospital and discharged on three occasions. Ex.A4, Ex.A5 and Ex.A6 showing the admission and discharging of the 1st petitioner on three occasions. The evidence of P.W3 establish sustaining of injuries on 8MVOP 977 of 2016 account of accident. P.W5 evidence establish physiotherapy treatment given to the 1st petitioner. P.W6 is the nursing coordinator in KMP Home
Health Care. She supported the case of the petitioners. The evidence of
P.W6 establish that the 1st petitioner/deceased was under nursing care till his death. The petitioner also relied on the evidence of P.W8 who is the investigation officer, Ex.A27 and Ex.A28 which establish conducting inquest over the dead body of the deceased and the deceased died due to head injury. On the other hand the learned counsel for the respondent
No.2 contended that the accident was occurred due to rash and negligent act of the rider of the motor cycle. In support of its case the respondent
No.2 examined R.W1. R.W1 during his cross examination deposed that he is not an eye witness to the accident. He further deposed that he is deposing basing on the record. He further deposed that he do not know whether the driver of the crime vehicle admitted his guilt and he paid fine in the criminal case. Respondent No.2 failed to prove negligence on the part of the 1st petitioner/deceased. It is also contended by the learned counsel for the respondent No.2 that there is a contributory negligence on the part of the 1st petitioner/deceased and relied on the decision reported in 2008 ACJ 1617 in between Sri Krishna Vishweshwar Hegde Vs.
General Manager, Karnataka State Road Transport Corporation
wherein it was held that:
After detailed consideration of the evidence, the Tribunal held that both were liable and fixed the ratio of liability at 50% each. On the other hand, the High Court has modified the ratio by increasing the liability of appellant at 75% without much justification. On the facts and circumstances, we are of the view that the judgment of the Tribunal assessing the ratio of liability at 50:50 is proper and the High Court ought not to have interfered with it.
9MVOP 977 of 2016
20.The above decision is not applicable to the present facts and circumstances of the case as the respondent No.2 failed to prove that there was contributory negligence on the part of 1st petitioner/deceased.
21.The evidence of P.W1, 2, 3, 5, 6 and 8 and Ex.A1 to Ex.A10, Ex.A 15 and Ex.A26 to 28 establish that the accident was occurred due to rash and negligent opening and closing of the door by the driver of the vehicle i.e., respondent No.1 due to which the 1st petitioner/deceased sustained three grievous injuries and he underwent operation in Care Hospital and he had admitted and discharged in hospital on three occasions for his treatment and he was treated by Physiotherapist and he was under daily nursing care and due to injuries and he was in vegetative state till his death on 06.05.2018 and he died due to injuries sustained by him in the accident that occurred on 12.09.2015.
22.The petitioners have proved rash and negligent opening and closing of door of crime vehicle by its driver i.e., respondent No.1 due to which the 1st petitioner/deceased sustained injuries and he died due to injuries sustained by him in the accident. Accordingly, I answer this issue in favour of petitioners and against the respondents.
RECASTED ISSUE NO.2:
23.Now it has to be decided whether the petitioners are entitled for compensation, if so from whom and what is the just compensation payable to the petitioners.
24.As per Sarla Verma Vs. Delhi Transport Corporation reported in (2009) 6 SCC 121, the Hon’ble Supreme Court has held that, “Basically only three facts need to be established by the claimants for assessing 10MVOP 977 of 2016 compensation in the case of death : (a) age of the deceased; (b) income of the deceased; and the (c) the number of dependents. The issues to be determined by the Tribunal to arrive at the loss of dependency are (i) additions/deductions to be made for arriving at the income; (ii) the deduction to be made towards the personal living expenses of the deceased; and (iii) the multiplier to be applied with reference of the age of the deceased.”
25.The petitioners No.2 and 3 have to prove the age of the 1st petitioner/deceased at the time of accident. As per claim petition the age of the 1st petitioner/deceased was shown as 55 years. P.W1 who is the wife of the deceased stated that the age of the 1st petitioner/deceased was 55 years. The petitioners also relied on Ex.A3 wherein it was shown that the age of the deceased was 56 years. Ex.A4 shows 59 years and Ex.A5 and
Ex.A6 also shows that the age of the deceased was 56 years. The learned counsel for the respondent No.2 has contended that the petitioners have filed driving licence of the 1st petitioner/deceased which was marked as
Ex.A19 and as per Ex.A19 the date of birth of the deceased was on 31.03.1956 which shows that the age of the deceased was more than 69 years. As per Ex.A27 the age of the deceased shown as 59 years. The postmortem examination report under Ex.A28 also shows that the age of the deceased was 59 years. Therefore, Ex.A4, 5, 6, 19, 27 and 28 establish that the age of the 1st petitioner/deceased was 59 years at the time of his death.
26.The contention of the respondent No.2 that the age of the deceased was more than 60 years is not acceptable even according to date of birth mentioned in Ex.A19 driving licence of the 1st petitioner/deceased the age of the 1st petitioner/deceased was 59 years.
11MVOP 977 of 2016
27.The learned counsel for the petitioners relied on the decision reported in 1991 ACJ 162 in between Chhagan Kanwar and others Vs.
Pep Singh and others wherein was held that:
28.The age mentioned in the postmortem examination report can be considered and it was held that the said above stated decision that postmortem examination report under Ex.A9 and evidence of P.W1 can be taken into consideration regarding proof of age of the deceased at the time of accident.
29.Herein in the instance case as per discharge summaries i.e., Ex.A4,
Ex.A5, Ex.A6, Ex.A27, Ex.A28 and Ex.A19 the age of the deceased was 59 years at the time of accident. So the age of the 1st petitioner/deceased can be considered as 59 years. Therefore, the petitioners proved that the age of the 1st petitioner/deceased is 59 years at the time of accident. Since the age of the deceased was 59 years multiplier to be applied as per Sarla
Verma Case (Supra) is 9 for ascertaining loss of dependency, as the deceased was in the age group of 56 to 60 years.
30.Now coming to the question of income of the 1st petitioner/deceased as per contention of the petitioners and claim petition the 1st petitioner/deceased was working as tailor at the time of accident and he was earning Rs.20,000/ per month. P.W1 who is the wife of the 1st petitioner/deceased and she deposed the same in her evidence. The petitioners have relied on the evidence of P.W7 and Ex.A20, Ex.X1 to
Ex.X4. P.W7 who is the employer of the 1st petitioner/deceased deposed in support of the case of the petitioner and categorically stated that the 1st petitioner/deceased worked under him and he was skilled worker and he 12MVOP 977 of 2016 used to pay Rs.20,000/ per month. Ex.A20 is the salary certificate cum experience certificate which shows that the 1st petitioner/deceased worked in R.R.Ladies Tailor till 12.09.2015 and P.W7 paid Rs.20,000/ per month. Ex.X1 attendance register shows attendance of 1st petitioner/ deceased. Ex.X2 is the cash vouchers showing payments made to the 1st petitioner/deceased for the months of April to September, 2015. Ex.X2 contains signatures of P.W7 and as well as 1st petitioner/deceased and last receipt for the month of September, 2015 signed by P.W1. P.W7 has filed acknowledgment of income tax returns for the assessment years 201213 and 201314 which was filed on behalf of R.R.Stitchers by P.W7 shows that the payments made to the labour worked under P.W7. Ex.X4 is certificate of registration of R.R.Stitchers.
31.The learned counsel for the respondent No.2 cross examined P.W7 but nothing was elicited to disbelieve his evidence and also Ex.A20, Ex.X 1 to Ex.X4. Therefore, the evidence of P.W7, Ex.A20 and Ex.X1 to Ex.X 4 establish that at the time of accident 1st petitioner/deceased was working as tailor under P.W7 and he was drawing salary of Rs.20,000/ per month. Therefore, the petitioners proved that the 1st petitioner/deceased used to earn Rs.20,000/ per month at the time of accident and the said amount can be calculated to award loss of dependency.
32.Regarding deductions towards personal and living expenses of 1st petitioner/deceased. As per Sarla Verma Case stated supra there are two dependents on the 1st petitioner/deceased at the time of accident.
Therefore, 1/3 rd of the established income should be deducted towards personal and living expenses of the 1st petitioner/deceased.
13MVOP 977 of 2016
33.The petitioners claimed medical expenses incurred by the petitioners for treatment and as well as physiotherapy treatment and nursing care treatment. The petitioners have relied on the evidence of P.W3, 4, 5 and
P.W6 to prove the medical expenses incurred on the 1st petitioner/ deceased for his treatment. P.W3 doctor who treated 1st petitioner/ deceased categorically deposed that the 1st petitioner/deceased sustained three grievous injuries in the accident and he admitted and discharged in his hospital on three occasions and P.W3 has categorically stated that
Ex.A3 to Ex.A10 and Ex.A26 are issued by his hospital and he also deposed that when the condition of the deceased was so serious he went to the house of the petitioner and at the request of the 1st petitioner’s wife, he found and declared 1st petitioner died at about 7:30 hours by examining the 1st petitioner/deceased and he has categorically deposed that he death of the 1st petitioner/deceased was due to consequences of injuries of longtime and he also issued medical report under Ex.X5. P.W4 who is the billing manager of Care Hospital he deposed that the 1st petitioner /deceased was admitted and discharged in his hospital on three occasions and on first occasion they paid Rs.13,31,242/ and on second occasion they paid Rs.65,161/ and on 3rd occasion they paid Rs.17,730/ and he admitted that Ex.A11 are inpatient bills issued by their hospital. He was cross examined by the learned counsel for the respondent No.2 but nothing was elicited to disbelieve the evidence of P.W4. It was contended by the learned counsel for the respondent No.2 that the amount was paid under Rajiv Aarogya Scheme but there is no proof to prove the same. The petitioners also paid an amount of Rs.4,77,753/ towards medical bills
Ex.A13.
14MVOP 977 of 2016
34.The petitioners also relied on the evidence of P.W5 who is the physiotherapist who gave monthly service to the 1st petitioner/deceased and he categorically deposed that he treated the 1st petitioner/deceased from 12.11.2015 onwards and he was paid Rs.20,000/ per month and he deposed that for physiotherapy treatment he issued bills under Ex.A14 and Ex.A29. The evidence of P.W5, Ex.A14 and Ex.A29 supported the case of the petitioners.
35.The petitioners also relied on the evidence P.W6 who the nursing coordinator in KMP Home Health Care and Man Power Consultancy and she deposed in support of the case of the petitioners and she categorically deposed that she provided nursing care at his home by engaging two female trained nurses and they used to pay Rs.51,000/ per month for two attendants. They received total amount of Rs.10,10,500/ and Ex.A16, 17 and Ex.A18 are the receipts issued by KMP Health Care for corresponding bills vide Ex.A17. The 1st petitioner/deceased paid an amount of
Rs.4,70,330/ for his nursing treatment from 2017 to 2018 and Ex.A30 is the bills issued by them. On verification the petitioners paid an amount of
Rs.9,69,000/ under Ex.A17, Rs.4,70,330/ under Ex.A30.
36.The learned counsel for the respondent No.2 cross examined P.W5 and P.W6 and contended that Ex.A14, 17, 29 and Ex.A30 are created documents. The said contention is not acceptable in view of evidence of
P.W5 and P.W6. The 1st petitioner/deceased was provided with physiotherapy and nursing treatment till the death of 1st petitioner/ deceased on 06.05.2018 and the petitioners proved the same by examining
P.W5, P.W6 and Ex.A14, 17, 29 and Ex.A30.
15MVOP 977 of 2016
37.Therefore, as per Ex.A11, Ex.A13, Ex.A14, Ex.A29, Ex.A17 and
Ex.A30 the petitioners No.2 and 3 are entitled for a sum of
Rs.45,21,974/ towards medical expenses, physiotherapy treatment and nursing care of the 1st petitioner/deceased till his death on 06.05.2018.
38.The learned counsel for the petitioners contended that the petitioners No.2 and 3 are entitled for future prospects as the deceased was drawing Rs.20,000/ per month and the learned counsel for the petitioner relied on the decision reported in 2018 SAR (Civil) 81 in
between National Insurance Company Limited Vs. Pranay Sethi and
others wherein it was held that:
When the deceased was selfemployed or getting fixed salary, an addition of 40% of the established income should be the warrant where the deceased was below the age of 40 years. An addition of 25% where the deceased was between the age of 40 to 50 years and 10% where the deceased was between the age of 50 to 60 years should be regarded as the necessary method of computation. The established income means the income minus the tax component.
39.Admittedly, the 1st petitioner/deceased was 59 years at the time of his death and as can be seen from the contentions of the petitioners the deceased was drawing fixed salary per month. Therefore, 10% of his established income to be added in view of the above decision.
40.The annual income of the deceased is Rs.2,40,000/ (20,000 X12).
In addition to that established income of 10% should be added. After addition future prospects of 10% of established income the annual income of the deceased comes to Rs.2,64,000/. After deducting 1/3rd of established income towards personal and living expenses as per Sarla
Verma case supra, the actual income of the deceased comes to
Rs.88,000/. After applying the 9 multiplier, the loss of dependency comes to Rs.15,84,000/ (1,76,000 X 18).
16MVOP 977 of 2016
41.The petitioners also claimed damages under th head of loss of estate, funeral expense and loss of consortium. As per the decision of Pranay
Sethi case stated supra the petitioners No.2 and 3 are entitled for a sum of
Rs.15,000/ towards loss of estate, Rs.15,000/ towards funeral expenses and petitioner No.2 is entitled for a sum of Rs.40,000/ towards loss of consortium.
42.Therefore, the petitioners No.2 and 3 are entitled for compensation under the following heads:
1Loss of dependency Rs.15,84,00000 2Loss to estateRs.15,00000 3Funeral ExpensesRs.15,00000 4Loss of consortiumRs.40,00000 5Medical expenses, physiotherapy Rs.45,21,97500 and nursing care treatment Total Rs. 54,52,97400
43.As per the Judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India
reported in Tamilnadu Transport Corporation Limited Vs. Raja Priya
– 2005 (4) ALT 14 SC the simple interest is fixed at the rate of 7.5% per annum. Therefore, the petitioner is entitled to simple interest at the rate of 7.5% per annum for the said awarded amount.
44.Now it has to be decided who has to pay compensation amount awarded to the petitioners No.2 and 3. The petitioners claimed compensation against the respondents No.1 and 2. Respondent No.1 is the ownercumdriver of the crime vehicle. He did not contest the matter and he remained exparte. P.W8 who the investigation officer deposed that the 1st respondent had admitted his case and he was sentenced to pay fine.
Respondent No.1 did not deny the said allegation by entering into the 17MVOP 977 of 2016 witness box. P.W8 further deposed that after death of 1st petitioner/ deceased as per instructions he had conducted inquest over the dead body of the deceased and also referred the dead body of the deceased to postmortem examination. As per Ex.A27 and Ex.A28 inquest and postmortem examination report the 1st petitioner/deceased died due to head injury sustained in the accident.
45.In view of findings on Issue No.1 it is established that the deceased died due rash and negligent opening and closing of door by respondent
No.1 who is the driver of the crime vehicle i.e., car bearing TS 07 UB 0904.
R.W1 admitted that the crime vehicle was insured with his company under Ex.B2 copy of policy and as per Ex.B2 and evidence of R.W1 the insurance to the crime vehicle was in force valid from 31.07.2015 to 30.07.2016. As per Ex.B2 the 1st respondent is owner of the crime vehicle so the respondent No.1 being owner and respondent No.2 being insurer of the crime vehicle are jointly and severally liable to pay compensation to the petitioner No.2 and 3. The petitioners No.2 and 3 are the legal heirs of petitioner No.1 who died during pendency of the petition due to injuries sustained by him in the accident that occurred on 12.09.2015 at about 11:00 hours. The respondent No.2 failed to prove negligence on the part of the 1st petitioner/deceased and also failed to prove contributory negligence.
Therefore, respondents No.1 and 2 are jointly and severally liable to pay compensation awarded in this case to the petitioners No.2 and 3.
46.Accordingly, I answered this point in favour of petitioners No.2 and 3 and against the respondents.
18MVOP 977 of 2016
ISSUE NO.3:
IN THE RESULT the petition is allowed in part. The petitioners No.2 and 3 are entitled for a sum of Rs.54,52,974/ (Rupees Fifty Four Lakhs
Fifty Two Thousand Nine Hundred and Seventy Four only) with interest at the rate of 7.5% per annum from the date of filing of the petition till realization with proportionate costs.
The respondents No.1 and 2 are jointly and severally liable to pay compensation. The respondents No.1 and 2 are directed to deposit the awarded amount within 30 days from the date of this order.
After such deposit, the petitioner No.2 is entitled for a sum of
Rs.38,52,974/ out of which she is permitted to withdraw a sum of
Rs.26,52,974/ with proportionate interest and costs and rest of her awarded share shall be kept in FDR for a period of two years.
The petitioner No.3 is entitled for a sum of Rs.16,00,000/ out of which he is permitted to withdraw a sum of Rs.10,00,000/ with proportionate interest and costs and rest of his awarded share shall be kept in FDR for a period of two years.
The rest of the claim of the petitioners is dismissed.
Petitioners filed IA No.850/2016 and paid Rs.27,180/ i.e., 50% of the Court Fee on value of Rs.55,00,000/ vide its order dated: 15.02.2016.
Hence, the petitioners are directed to pay remaining balance of court fee of
Rs.27,180/ within 30 days from the date of this order.
The office is directed to prepare decree on payment of balance court fee.
19MVOP 977 of 2016
The Advocate fee is fixed at Rs.20,000/.
Dictated to Stenographer, transcribed by her, corrected and pronounced by
me in the open Court, on this the 14th day of September, 2020.
CHAIRMAN,
MACT cum XI Additional Chief Judge, City Civil Court, Hyderabad
APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE
WITNESSES EXAMINED FOR PETITIONERS
P.W1: D. Kamala. P.W2: S.Nishanth Kumar. P.W3: Dr. K.Srinivas. P.W4: P. Shiva Rama Krishna. P.W5: Dr. Rajesh. P.W6: K.M.Prashanthi. P.W7: K. Ravinder Kumar. P.W8: Venkat Swamy.
WITNESSES EXAMINED FOR RESPONDENTS
R.W1: N. Rama Chandraiah.
DOCUMENTS MARKED FOR PETITIONER
Ex.A1Certified copy of FIR with complaint. Ex.A2Certified copy of charge sheet. Ex.A3Certified copy of M.L.C. Ex.A4Discharge summary, dated: 16.11.2015. Ex.A5Discharge summary, dated: 21.01.2016. Ex.A6Discharge summary, dated: 27.06.2016. Ex.A7Medical advice certificate, dated: 16.11.2015. Ex.A8Medical advice certificate, dated: 14.12.2016. Ex.A9Bunch of medical investigation reports. Ex.A10 Outpatient records of Care Hospital. Ex.A11 Inpatient bills for Rs.13,90,891/ Ex.A12 Advance receipts for Rs.13,81,161/ Ex.A13 Medical bills for Rs.5,40,663.51/ Ex.A14 Physiotherapy bills for Rs.3,40,000/ Ex.A15 Physiotherapist reports. Ex.A16 Letter of offer from nursing care.
20MVOP 977 of 2016
Ex.A17 Nursing care bills for Rs.9,69,000/ Ex.A18 Nursing care receipts for Rs.10,10,500/ Ex.A19 Driving licence. Ex.A20 Salary certificate cum experience certificate. Ex.A21 ICICI Bank statement from 01.12.2015 to 28.07.2017. Ex.A22 Canara Bank statement from 01.01.2015 to 30.04.2017. Ex.A23 Photographs with CD. Ex.A24 Video Cd. Ex.A25 XRay Films. Ex.A26 MRI & CT Scans. Ex.A27 Attested copy of inquest and postmortem of deceased. Ex.A28 Attested copy of postmortem examination report. Ex.A29 Original physiotherapy bills for Rs.1,60,000/ Ex.A30 Original man power bills for Rs.4,70,330/
Ex.X1Attendance register. Ex.X2Salary receipts. Ex.X3Income tax returns. Ex.X4Labour licence. Ex.X5Death summary.
DOCUMENTS MARKED FOR RESPONDENTS
Ex.B1Authorization certificate. Ex.B2Copy of policy.
CHAIRMAN,
MACT cum XI Additional Chief Judge, City Civil Court, Hyderabad