A.Mary Grace Kumari

1 MV OP 219/2013

IN THE COURT OF THE MOTOR ACCIDENTS’ CLAIMS TRIBUNAL

(BEFORE THE DISTRICT JUDGE, ANANTAPURAMU)

Present: Smt A.Mary Grace Kumari, I Addl. District Judge, (FAC) MACT – Cum - District Judge, Anantapuamu

Monday, the 8th day of July, 2019

ORIGINAL PETITION No.219/2013

Between:

Gopalam Janardhana Rao S/o Venkatappa, 33 yrs, Venkatampalli village, Yellanur Mandal …. Petitioner

And

1.G. Hemalatha W/o G. Naganna, D.No.22-12, Yadava Street, near RTC bus stand, Dharmavaram, Ananthapuramu District (Owner of vehicle bearing No.AP 02 W 2783)

2.Bajaj Allianz General Insurance Company Ltd., GE Plaza, Airport Road, Yerwada, Pune rep. by its authorized signatory. (Insurer of vehicle bearing No.AP 02 W 2783)

3.K. Bala Obulesu S/o K. Chinna Obulesu, 35 yrs, Ralla, Mudigubba Mandal, Ananthapuramu (Driver of vehicle bearing No.AP 02 W 2783) (R3 added as per orders in IA 1201/2015 dt.30.7.2015) … Respondents

This petition coming on 03.07.2019 for final hearing before me in the presence of Sri P. Narasimhudu, Advocate for the petitioner and of Sri T. Ramakrishna, Advocate for the 2nd respondent, Respondent Nos.1 and 3 having been called absent and set exparte and on perusing the material papers on record and the matter having stood over for consideration till this day, this

Tribunal made the following:

O R D E R

This petition is filed U/sec.140 & 166 of Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 and

Rule 455 of APMV Rules, 1989 by the petitioner claiming compensation of

Rs.4,00,000/- for the disability sustained by him in Motor Vehicle accident.

2. The case of petitioner in brief is that on 10.07.2008 at about 5.00

A.M. the petitioner took Eicher van bearing No.AP 02 W 2783 at Bathalapalli for rent to transport oranges from the village and proceeding towards

Tadimarri. At about 5.40 A.M. the driver of the vehicle/3rd respondent lost control over the same as a result the van turtle into the dried well. The petitioner sustained fracture of right shoulder and ribs and right hip and thigh.

Some other persons who were travelling in the vehicle also sustained injuries.

2 MV OP 219/2013

Immediately the petitioner was admitted in Government General Hospital,

Ananthapuramu and treated for 3 days. Thereafter he was shifted to Gowri

Gopal Hospitals, Kurnool where he underwent surgery and treated as inpatient for 6 days. The petitioner spent Rs.1,00,000/- towards medical expenses. The accident occurred only due to the negligent and rash driving of the driver of the van/3rd respondent.

The petitioner was hale and healthy and was aged about 33 years at the time of accident. He was an agriculturist and fruit businessman. Due to the injuries sustained in the accident, even now the petitioner is unable to walk, sit and do his personal day to day works and is suffering with severe pain in doing his Soutine work and lost his earning capacity.

Basing on the accident, a case was registered in Cr.No.30/2008 U/Sec.

337, 338, 304 A IPC by Tadimarri P.S. against the 3rd respondent/driver of the van. The 1st respondent is owner, 2nd respondent is insurer and 3rd respondent is the driver of the offending vehicle. Hence all the respondents are liable to pay compensation to the petitioner. Hence the petition.

3. Respondent Nos.1 and 3 remained exparte.

4. The 2nd respondent filed counter denying the allegations mentioned in the petition and contended that the driver of the vehicle has “no relation in force” as on the date of accident to drive the vehicle. The driver of the van was not holding a valid and effective driving licence and not qualified for holding or obtaining such driving licence at the time of the alleged accident and has not satisfied the requirements of Rule 3 of the Central Motor Vehicles

Rules, 1989. The 1st respondent willfully and knowingly handed over the possession of the vehicle to 3rd respondent who had no valid and effective driving licence. Hence, 1st respondent alone is liable to pay the compensation to the petitioner. The offending vehicle is a Goods Carriage vehicle and seating capacity of the said vehicle is two which means driver and cleaner. But the offending vehicle was carrying passengers at the time of accident which is a breach terms and conditions of the policy. The petitioner was travelling in the offending vehicle as an unauthorized passenger and risk of such 3 MV OP 219/2013 unauthorized passenger is neither covered under the policy nor under the provisions of M.V. Act. Hence, due to the principle of “volenti-non-fit injuriea”, the 2nd respondent is not liable to pay compensation to the petitioner. The amount claimed by the petitioner is highly excessive.

5. Basing on the above pleadings, the then Presiding Officer settled the following issues for trial:

1.Whether the petitioner was travelling as unauthorized passenger in Eicher van bearing No.AP 02 W 2783 at the time of accident?

2.Whether the driver of vehicle in which petitioner was travelling was having valid driving licence to drive the said vehicle?

3.Whether there was violation of terms and conditions of the policy?

4.Whether the accident took place due to rash and negligent driving of Eicher van bearing No.AP 02 W 2783 by its driver?

5.Whether the petitioner is entitled for compensation? If so, to what amount and from whom?

6.To what relief?

6. During the trial, on behalf of the petitioner, the petitioner himself is examined as PW.1 and marked Exs.A1 to A8. The doctors who treated the petitioner and issued disability certificate are examined as PWs.2 and 3. On behalf of the contesting 2nd respondent, RWs.1 and 2 are examined and marked Exs.B1 to B5 and Exs.X1 to X4.

7. Heard both sides.

8. Issue No.1::-

It is the contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner that the petitioner was owner of the goods and he hired the goods vehicle/offending vehicle for transportation of goods, as on the date of accident the petitioner was sitting in the cabin of the vehicle along with driver and he is not an unauthorized passenger to deny the compensation. The learned counsel further contended that the decree and order relied by the 2nd respondent 4 MV OP 219/2013 covered under Ex.B4 and B5 vide MV OP Nos.230/2009 and 233/2009 relating to the same accident is noway connected to the present case to rely.

9. Per contra, the learned counsel for the 2nd respondent contended that Ex.B1 policy covered two drivers and one cleaner, but not any other persons. The petitioner is nothing but unauthorized passenger travelling in the offending vehicle at the time of accident, as such the insurance company is not liable to pay compensation and that Ex.B1 policy not covered the risk of unauthorized passengers.

10. A perusal of the evidence of PW.1, he categorically deposed in his evidence that, he was an agriculturist and doing fruit business. On the date of accident he took the offending vehicle/Eicher van bearing No.AP 02 U 2783 at

Bathalapalli for hire to transport oranges from village. Accordingly, he sat in the cabin of the offending vehicle along with the driver and cleaner. While the vehicle reached at Tadimarri, the driver of the vehicle lost control over the vehicle as a result the van turtle into a dried well, as a result, the petitioner sustained injuries, some of the passengers who boarded the vehicle in the middle way and travelling in the body of the vehicle died and some are injured in the said accident. The persons travelling in the body of the vehicle are nothing to do with the petitioner.

11. A perusal of Ex.B4 and B5 orders passed in OP 230/2009 and 233/2009, the persons who died and sustained injuries in the accident were boarded into the offending vehicle as coolies to pluck guava fruits in the land of one Nagaraju and they were declared as unauthorized passengers and exonerated the liability of the insurance company for payment of compensation and fixed the liability on the owner of the offending vehicle. Here in the present case, a perusal of the evidence of RW.1 he categorically deposed in his evidence that he has no personal knowledge about the accident, Ex.B1 policy was in force as on the date of accident. RW.2 who is Record Assistant in the office of D.T.C., Ananthapuramu produced R.C. extract, fitness certificate and permit particulars of the offending vehicle. Ex.X2 is the fitness certificate of 5 MV OP 219/2013 the offending vehicle, as per Ex.X2 the seating capacity of the offending vehicle is 2+1 and the said vehicle had national permit. Though RW.2 stated in his evidence in chief that in motor vehicle having national permit double drivers are permitted with one cleaner, any other person shall not travel is beyond the pleadings of 2nd respondent. RW.2 admitted during cross- examination that, it is not mentioned in Ex.X2 that two drivers and one cleaner alone have to travel in the offending vehicle, except mentioned in Ex.X2 that the seating capacity of the vehicle is 2+1, there is no specific mention either in

Ex.X2 or in Ex.B2 that the owner of the goods is not allowed to travel in the cabin of the goods vehicle. As rightly mentioned in the counter of 2nd respondent that “the seating capacity of the vehicle is two which means driver and cleaner” but it is not their contention that seating capacity of the vehicle is two + one i.e. driver, cleaner and another person which means it covers the risk of 3rd person may be the owner of the vehicle or owner of the goods.

Therefore, the risk of 3rd person who is allowed to sit in the cabin of the vehicle covers the risk under Ex.B1. As such, the petitioner cannot be treated as unauthorized passenger in the said vehicle.

12. A perusal of contents of Ex.A1, one M. Mallikarjuna injured in the said accident presented a report after the accident that, some other persons boarded the vehicle on the back side in the middle of the way, by that time driver and two other persons were in the cabin of the vehicle. Therefore, the petitioner who was in the cabin at the time of the accident was not travelling as unauthorized passenger in the vehicle. As rightly observed in

O.Ps.230/2009 and 233/2009, the petitioner in O.P.230/2009 was boarded the offending vehicle in the middle way and the deceased in OP 233/2009 also boarded the offending vehicle in the middle way, as such, they were declared as unauthorized passengers. The observations in the afore said cases are not applicable to the present in hand, since the petitioner herein took the vehicle on hire and he sat in the cabin of the vehicle as owner of the goods and the risk of persons travelling in the cabin is covered under Ex.B1 policy, as such the petitioner cannot be treated as unauthorized passenger. The case laws 6 MV OP 219/2013 relied by the learned counsel for respondent on the aspect of unauthorized passengers i.e. 2015 ACJ 1965, 2012(6) ALT 369, 2005 ACJ 721, 2012

ACJ 2419, have no application to deny the liability of respondent No.2.

Accordingly this issue is answered.

13. Issue Nos.2 and 3::-

In order to establish the defence of the 2nd respondent that the driver of the offending vehicle had no valid driving licence as on the date of accident and there are violations of terms and conditions of Ex.B1 policy, the 2nd respondent relied on the evidence of RWs.1 and 2. A perusal of the evidence of RWs.1 and 2, they categorically deposed in their evidence that by admitting unauthorized passengers in the middle of the way the driver and owner of the vehicle willfully and deliberately violated the terms and conditions of the policy.

As discussed in the afore said issue, the petitioner is not an unauthorized passenger of the offending vehicle, as such there is no question of violation of terms and conditions of Ex.B1 policy. Admittedly, there is no evidence relied by the 2nd respondent to show that the driver of the offending vehicle had no valid driving licence as on the date of accident. Therefore, the question of the driver of the offending vehicle had no valid driving licence to drive the offending vehicle as on the date of accident is only a baseless allegation.

Accordingly, these issues are answered.

14. Issue No.4::-

It is the contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner that due to rash and negligent act of the 3rd respondent in driving the Eicher van bearing

No.AP 02 W 2783 the accident occurredresulting injuries on the person of petitioner causing permanent disability. The evidence of P.W.1 coupled with

Exs.A.1 to A8 documents established the case of the petitioner that he is entitled for compensation as prayed for.

15. Per contra, the learned counsel for the 2nd respondent denied the afore said contention.

7 MV OP 219/2013

16. In order to establish the negligence on the part of the driver of the offending vehicle, the petitioner relied on the evidence of P.W.1 and

Exs.A.1 and A2 documents. A perusal of evidence of P.W.1, he categorically deposed in his evidence that on 10.7.2008 he engaged the Eicher van bearing

No.AP 02 W 2783 at Bathalapalli on rent to transport oranges from the village and proceeding towards Tadimarri, at about 5.40 A.M. the driver of the van lost control over the same as a result the van turtle into the dried well. In the accident, the petitioner sustained fracture of right shoulder and ribs and right hip and thigh. He further deposed that immediately after the accident he was shifted to Government General Hospital, Ananthapuramu and later on shifted to Gowri Gopal Hospital, Kurnool where he undergone surgery to his hip thigh and ribs and treated as inpatient for 7 days and as outpatient for 3 months.

Due to the injuries sustained in the accident, he is unable to walk and sit and do his work and suffering severe pain while walking and doing his work. No rebuttal evidence is adduced on behalf of the 2nd respondent disputing the manner of accident.

17. A perusal of Exs.A1 and A2 documents, it is an established fact that Tadimarri PS registered a case in crime No.30/2008 U/secs.337, 338 and 304 A IPC against driver of the offending vehicle/R3. When the evidence of

PW.1 is coupled with Ex.A1 and A2 documents, it is established by PW.1 that due to the rash and negligent driving of the driver of the offending vehicle the accident was occurred and the petitioner sustained grievous injuries. There is no contra evidence relied by the 2nd respondent to deny the case of the petitioner that the accident was not occurred due to the rash and negligent driving of the driver of the offending vehicle. Therefore the evidence relied by the petitioner clearly goes to show that due to rash and negligent driving of the driver of the offending vehicle/R3, the accident was occurred, as a result the petitioner sustained grievous injuries causing disability.

Accordingly this issue is answered in favour of the petitioner.

8 MV OP 219/2013

18. Issue No.5::-

Regarding the entitlement of compensation, the petitioner relied on the oral testimony of PW.2 and 3 medical officers. It is the evidence of PW.2

Dr.Y.Anthoni Reddy, Executive Director, Gowri Gopal Hospital that the petitioner was admitted in their hospital on 27.7.2008 and discharged on 1.8.2008 and he was under the care of Dr.M. Vijaya Kumar Reddy, Ortho. In discharge card, it is mentioned that the patient had sustained fracture of left clavicle and he was treated conservatively. Ex.A4 is discharge card and Ex.A6 are the medical bills issued by the pharmacy of Gowry Gopal Hospital. PW.2 further deposed that due to heavy flood water of Tungabhadra and Handri rivers on 2.10.2009 entire records relating to the petitioner were washed off from the hospital and hence they could not trace the treatment particular record of the petitioner. Ex.X2 is the admission register of the hospital wherein the name of the petitioner is found at Sl.No.388 in page No.376.

19. PW.3 Dr. Jagannath, one of the members of Medical Board,

Ananthapuramu deposed that, on 7.7.2014 he examined the petitioner along with other members of Medical Board and issued Ex.A8 disability certificate wherein the disability of the petitioner was assessed at 45% permanent in nature which is due to post traumatic sequalae due to RTA on 10.7.2008 with sub trochanteric fracture of right femer, multiple fractures of ribs 3rd to 7th left side. The petitioner had undergone surgery for the fracture sub trochanteric femur at Gowri Gopal Hospital, Kurnool. They took X-rays of the petitioner and found all his wounds are healed and all the fractures are united with decreased range of movements of right hip joint with weakness of right thigh muscles with limping present due to shortening of right lower limb of one inch. The petitioner had post traumatic sequalae of right leg with fracture tibia right lower 1/3rd and undergone surgery at Tirumala Hospital, Kadapa. They have taken X-ray of right leg. On examination fractures tibia united with mild weakness of right leg muscles. It is the further evidence of PW.3 that the petitioner has got difficulty for long distance walking, prolonged periods of 9 MV OP 219/2013 standing, sitting in the position of squatting and cross legging, climbing stairs and vice versa, brisk walking and running.

20. From the evidence of PWs.2 and 3, it is clearly established by the petitioner that the petitioner met with road traffic accident and he was treated in Gowri Gopal Hospital and finally she was given certificate with 45% permanent disability and she spent huge amounts as mentioned in the medical bills for his treatment from the date of admission till the date of discharge from the said hospital.

21. Regarding income of the petitioner, it is his contention that he is an agriculturist and also doing fruit business. In support of his contention with regard to computation for awarding just compensation, he relied on the following case law:

Syed Sadiq etc Vs. Divisional Manager, United India Insurance

Company Limited (Decided on 16.1.2014 by the Hon’ble Supreme Court

of India in Civil Appeal Nos.662-664 of 2014)

But the petitioner has not filed any piece of document to show that he is an agriculturist and also doing fruit business. In the absence of any proof of evidence with regard to income of the petitioner, considering that the nature of the work done by the petitioner, his income is taken at Rs.5,000/- per month i.e. Rs.60,000/- per annum.

22. The evidence of PW.3 coupled with the recitals mentioned in

Ex.A3 wound certificate clearly shows that the petitioner sustained fracture of 3rd to 7th ribs left and fracture of right femur. By considering the injuries sustained by the petitioner he is awarded an amount of Rs.50,000/- towards pain and sufferance. An amount of Rs.25,000/- towards attendant charges,

Rs.25,000/-towards food and nutrition and Rs.25,000/-towards transportation. PW.2 Dr. Y. Anthoni Reddy deposed that the bills in the name of Gowri Gopal Hospitals were issued by their pharmacy. Therefore, the petitioner is entitled for a sum of Rs.4,915/- which is rounded off to

Rs.5,000/- towards medical expenses for which the petitioner produced bills.

10 MV OP 219/2013

23. As per the evidence of P.W.3 coupled with disability certificate/Ex.A8 the petitioner sustained 45% disability. As per the wound certificate the age of the petitioner is 35 years, therefore the same is taken as age of the petitioner to calculate the loss of income due to the disability sustained by him in the motor vehicle accident. The suitable multiplier in this case is 16. The above multiplier is applied, the loss of earnings of the petitioner is assessed at Rs.60,000/- x 16 = 9,60,000/-. 45% of

Rs.9,60,000/- is Rs.4,32,000/-. Therefore, a sum of Rs.4,32,000/- is awarded towards loss of future income due to the permanent disability suffered by him for the injuries sustained by him in the motor vehicle accident. In total the petitioner is entitled a sum of Rs.5,62,000/-.

Though the petitioner claimed only Rs.4,00,000/- the just compensation that can be awarded is Rs.5,62,000/- following the ruling of Hon’ble Supreme

Court in Rajesh and others Vs. Rajbir Singh and others 2013 ACJ 1403

SC and Syed Sadiq Vs. United India Insurance Co., Ltd., 2014 ACJ 627 as it is a fit case for awarding compensation in excess of the claim.

To this sum, interest at 6% p.a., is awarded from the date of filing of the claim till the date of realization.

24. Now the question is who is liable to pay compensation?

It is observed while answering issue No.4 that there was negligence on the part of the driver of the offending vehicle and the offending vehicle belonging to R.1 driven by R.3 was insured with R.2. Hence, the respondents 1 to 3 are jointly and severally liable to pay compensation to the petitioners.

Accordingly this issue is answered in favour of the petitioner.

25. Issue No.5::-

In the result, this petition is allowed with costs by awarding compensation of Rs.5,62,000/- to the petitioner against the respondents 1 to 3 with interest at the rate of 6% per annum from the date of petition till the date of realization. Respondents 1 to 3 are jointly and severally liable to pay 11 MV OP 219/2013 the compensation to the petitioners. Respondent No.2 being the insurer is directed to deposit the said amount into the Court within three months from the date of this award. On such deposit, the petitioner is permitted to withdraw half of the compensation amount at present and the remaining amount of compensation with interest and costs shall be kept in Fixed Deposit in any Nationalised Bank for a period of three years. Office is directed to verify whether any exemption was taken for payment of court fee at the time of filing of petition. This decree is executable on payment of deficit court fee for the enhanced compensation awarded to the petitioner. Advocate fee is fixed at Rs.2,500/-.

Directly typed to my dictation by Stenographer, Gr.I, corrected and

Pronounced by me in open Court this the 8th day of July, 2019.

Sd/- A. Mary Grace Kumari

(FAC) Chairman, MACT - Cum - District Judge, Ananthapuramu.

Appendix of evidence Witnesses examined for Petitioner(s): Respondent(s): P.W.1 : G. Janardhana Rao RW.1 : B. Harikrishna P.W.2 : Dr. Y. Anthoni Reddy P.W.3 : Dr. A. Jagannadham

Exhibits marked on behalf of the petitione(s) Ex.A.1: Attested copy of FIR. Ex.A.2: Attested copy of charge sheet Ex.A.3: Attested copy of wound certificate Ex.A.4: Discharge card issued by Gowri Gopal Hospitals Pvt. Limited, Kurnool. Ex.A.5: X-ray films (6) Ex.A.6: Bills given by Gowri Gopal Hospitals Pvt. Limited, Kurnool Ex.A.7: Blood Bank receipt Ex.A.8: Medical certificate in respect of Orthopedically Handicapped candidate by District Medical Board

Exhibits marked on behalf of Respondent(s) Ex.B.1: Attested Copy of Insurance Policy along with terms and conditions Ex.B.2: Attested Copy of letter dt.25.5.2009 along with postal receipt filed in MV OP 230/2019 on the file of III ADJ, Ananthapuramu 12 MV OP 219/2013

Ex.B.3: Attested copy of served acknowledgement of R1 in MV OP 230/2009 Ex.B.4: Certified copy of decree and award in MV OP 230/2009 on the file of III ADJ, Ananthapuramu Ex.B.5: Certified copy of decree and award in MV OP 233/2009 on the file of III ADJ, Ananthapuramu

Ex.X.1: Authorization Ex.X.2: Copy of registration extract Ex.X.3: Copy of Fitness certificate Ex.X.4: Copy of permit particulars

Sd/- A. Mary Grace Kumari

(FAC) Chairman-cum-D.J.

1 MV OP 161/2014

IN THE COURT OF THE MOTOR ACCIDENTS’ CLAIMS TRIBUNAL

(BEFORE THE DISTRICT JUDGE, ANANTAPURAMU)

Present: Smt A.Mary Grace Kumari, I Addl. District Judge, (FAC) MACT – Cum - District Judge, Anantapuamu

Monday, the 8th day of July, 2019

ORIGINAL PETITION No.161/2014

Between:

R. Rama Swamy S/o R. Veeranarappa, 35 yrs, Hindu R/o Boppepalli village, Yelleru Mandal, Ananthapuramu District …. Petitioner

And

1.Gorla Chinna Sekhar S/o G. Lakshmaiah, Major, Hindu, D.No.6-4-100, Maruthi Nagar, Ananthapuramu (Owner of Eicher van bearing No.AP 02 TA 3249)

2.Royal Sundaram Allianz Insurance Company Ltd., rep. by its Authorized Signatory, Kurnool (Insurer of Eicher van bearing No.AP 02 TA 3249)

3.S. Sadiq Vali S/o Peera Sab, 36 yrs, Muslim R/o Narpala village and Mandal, Ananthapuramu District (Driver of Eicher van bearing No.AP 02 TA 3249) (R3 added as per orders in IA 1796/2015 dt.06.11.2015) … Respondents

This petition coming on 01.07.2019 for final hearing before me in the presence of Smt G. Padmaja, Advocate for the petitioner and of Sri G. Seetharama Rao, Advocate for the 2nd respondent, Respondent Nos.1 and 3 having been called absent and set exparte and on perusing the material papers on record and the matter having stood over for consideration till this day, this

Tribunal made the following:

O R D E R

This petition is filed U/sec.140 & 166 of Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 and

Rule 455 of APMV Rules, 1989 by the petitioner claiming compensation of

Rs.4,00,000/- for the disability sustained by him in Motor Vehicle accident.

2. The case of petitioner in brief is that on 6.10.2013 at about 1.00 A.M. the petitioner was proceeding from his village i.e. Boppepalli to

Bangalore by loading orange fruits to unload the same at Bangalore in Eicher van bearing No.AP 02 TA 3249. When the said van reached near Koduru tope on N.H.44 road, Chilamathur mandal, the driver of the van/3rd respondent drove the same in a rash and negligent manner with high speed, lost control over the same and dashed against another lorry on its back. The accident 2 MV OP 161/2014 occurred only due to sole rash and negligent driving of the 3rd respondent.

Due to the fateful accident, the petitioner received grievous and fracture injuries. Immediately the petitioner got admitted in YSR Hospital,

Ananthapuramu and later on shifted to Manipal Hospital, Bangalore for better treatment. The petitioner took treatment in Manipal Hospital as inpatient for a period of more than 3 months. He underwent operations and vascular surgery and steel rods and plates were inserted to his leg. He is still taking treatment as outpatient. He required further treatment and operations for removal of the steel plates. Even today he is spending Rs.10,000/- per month for medical and transportation expenses.

The petitioner was quite hale and healthy prior to the accident and was aged about 35 years at the time of accident. He was an agriculturist and also doing fruit business and was earning Rs.30,000/- per month. Due to the injuries sustained in the accident, the petitioner became permanent disabled person and is not in a position to do any work and completely depending on others for his day to day work. He spent more than Rs.6,00,000/- for his medical, attendant, transportation and extra nourishment and etc. charges.

Basing on the accident, a case was registered in Cr.No.89/2013 U/Sec.

337 IPC by Chilamathur P.S. against the 3rd respondent/driver of the van. The 1st respondent is owner, 2nd respondent is insurer and 3rd respondent is the driver of the offending vehicle. Hence all the respondents are liable to pay compensation to the petitioner. Hence the petition.

3. Respondent Nos.1 and 3 remained exparte.

4. The 2nd respondent filed counter denying the allegations mentioned in the petition and contended that as per RC the crime vehicle was insured as goods carriage vehicle means motor vehicle constructed or adapted solely for the carriage of goods, but at the material time of accident, the said vehicle was carrying passengers including the petitioner and therefore the insured had breached the provisions of MV Act and Rules and terms and conditions of the policy. The petitioner cannot be said to be the owner of the goods as alleged in the petition and he is nothing but a gratuitous passenger in 3 MV OP 161/2014 the crime vehicle. The petitioner has not submitted any iota of evidence such as way bill, trip sheet and other documents connecting his journey to show that he was travelling as owner of the goods. So, the petitioner is an unauthorized passenger travelled for hire or rewards and hence the respondent is not liable to pay any compensation to the petitioner.

5. Basing on the above pleadings, the then Presiding Officer settled the following issues for trial:

1.Whether the accident occurred on 6.10.2013 due to rash and negligent driving of the driver of van bearing No.AP 02 TA 3249 and caused injuries to the petitioner?

2.Whether the petitioner is entitled for compensation and if so, to what amount and from which of the respondents?

3.To what relief?

6. During the trial, on behalf of the petitioner, the petitioner himself is examined as PW.1 and marked Exs.A1 to A6 and Ex.C1. The doctors who treated the petitioner and issued disability certificate are examined as PWs.2 and 3. The billing incharge of Manipal Hospital, Bangalore is examined as

PW.3. No oral evidence is adduced on behalf of the contesting respondent.

Ex.B1 copy of insurance policy is marked with consent.

7. Heard both sides.

8. It is the contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner that due to rash and negligent act of the 3rd respondent in driving the Eicher van bearing No.AP 02 TA 3249 the accident occurredresulting injuries on the person of petitioner causing permanent disability. The insurance policy under

Ex.B1 covered the risk of owner of the goods. The evidence of P.Ws.1 to 4 coupled with Exs.A.1 to A8 documents established the case of the petitioner that he is entitled for compensation as prayed for.

9. Per contra, it is the contention of the learned counsel for the 2nd respondent that the crime vehicle was insured as goods carriage vehicle but the said vehicle was carrying passengers including the petitioner and therefore the petitioner cannot be said to be the owner of the goods as alleged in the 4 MV OP 161/2014 petition and he is nothing but a gratuitous passenger in the crime vehicle and hence the respondent is not liable to pay any compensation to the petitioner.

With regard to computation for awarding just compensation, he submitted the following case law:

Smt Jayanthi R. Acharya Vs. Shankar Poojary and another

2018(2) T.A.C. 203 (Kant.)

10. In view of the contentions of both parties, I have perused the material on record.

11. Issue No.1::-

In order to establish the negligence on the part of the driver of the offending vehicle, the petitioner relied on the evidence of P.W.1 and Exs.A.1 and A6 documents. A perusal of evidence of P.W.1, he categorically deposed in his evidence that on 6.10.2013 at about 1.00 A.M. he was proceeding from

Boppepalli village to Bangalore by loading orange fruits to unload the same at

Bangalore in Eicher van bearing No.AP 02 TA 3249 and when they reached near Koduru Tope on NH 44 road, Chilamathur mandal, the 3rd respondent being driver of the van drove the same in a rash and negligent manner with high speed and lost control over the same and dashed against another lorry on its back. In the accident, he sustained fracture of left tibia and fibula, injury to the left tibial arteries and grievous injuries other parts of the body. He further deposed that immediately after the accident he was shifted to YSR Hospital,

Ananthapuramu and from there he was shifted to Manipal Hospital, Bangalore for better treatment. He took treatment in the said hospital as inpatient for a period of more than 3 months. He underwent operations and vascular surgery and steel rods and plates were inserted to his leg. No rebuttal evidence is adduced on behalf of the 2nd respondent disputing the manner of accident.

12. A perusal of Exs.A1 and A6 documents, it is an established fact that Chilamathur PS registered a case in crime No.89/2013 U/sec.337 IPC against driver of the offending vehicle/R3. When the evidence of PW.1 is coupled with Ex.A1 and A6 documents, it is established by PW.1 that due to 5 MV OP 161/2014 the rash and negligent driving of the driver of the offending vehicle/3rd respondent the accident was occurred and the petitioner sustained grievous injuries. There is no contra evidence relied by the 2nd respondent to deny the case of the petitioner that the accident was not occurred due to the rash and negligent driving driver of the crime vehicle. Therefore the evidence relied by the petitioner clearly goes to show that due to rash and negligent driving of the driver of the car/R3, the accident was occurred, as a result the petitioner sustained grievous injuries causing disability.

Accordingly this issue is answered in favour of the petitioner.

13. Issue No.2:-

Regarding the entitlement of compensation, the petitioner relied on the oral testimony of PW.1 apart from the evidence of PWs.2 to 4.

As per the evidence of PW.3, Vascular Surgeon, on 7.10.2013 the petitioner came with commutted fracture of both fibula and tibia left lower leg with injury to the populate blood venial. He was taken for angiogram which is

Ronald injury to the populated artery. The petitioner was taken of exploration and popilitio PTA by pass was done using LSV graft and following wide faciotony was done. An external fixture was put by the orthopedician Dr.S.V.

Hegde following which once the faciotany wound gramlated skin grafting was done. The petitioner was discharged on 22.11.2013. Later he was treated as outpatient for dressing. The injury is permanent disability. Ex.A2 is discharge summary.

14. PW.2 Dr.A. Jagannath, one of the member of the Medical Board,

Government General Hospital, Ananthapuramu deposed that on 10.1.2018 he examined the petitioner along with other members of the Medical Board and issued Ex.A4 disability certificate estimating 55% disability which is permanent in nature. It is due to post traumatic sequale due to RTA on 6.10.2013. The petitioner took treatment at Manipal Hospital, Bangalore for injury to tibia arteries and fractures both bones left leg middle 1/3rd and undergone multiple operations in multiple types. They have taken X-rays and on examination all wound almost healed with plucked scars with little puss coming out with small 6 MV OP 161/2014 wound over middle 1/3rd left leg with evidence of skin grafting. The petitioner has got gross weakness of left leg muscles with various deformity of left leg due to mall union of fractures both bones left leg with limping due to shortening of left leg of 1 ½ inch with left side foot drip. The petitioner has got gross decrease in the range of movements of left ankle joint, left knee joint with flexion 90 degree to 100 with difficult. The petitioner has got flickering movement of left foot toes with weakness of muscles of left foot. The petitioner always needs support. He has got difficulty in prolonged period of walking, standing, climbing stairs and vice versa, sitting in squatting and cross legging, brisk walking and running.

15. PW.3, Renuka N.B., Billing Officer, Manipal Hospital, Bangalorre deposed that Ex.A2 bill was issued by their hospital billing department after due process.

16. From the evidence of PWs.2 to 4 it is clearly established by the petitioner that PW.1 met with road traffic accident and he was treated in

Manipal hospital and finally he was given certificate with 55% permanent disability and he spent huge amount as mentioned in the medical bills for his treatment from the date of admission till the date of discharge from the said hospital.

17. Regarding income of the petitioner, it is his contention that he is an agriculturist and also doing fruit business and was earning Rs.30,000/- per month. But the petitioner relies on no documentary evidence to prove his income through agriculture and fruit business. In the absence of any proof of evidence with regard to income of the petitioner, considering that the nature of the work done by the petitioner, his income is taken at Rs.5,000/- per month i.e. Rs.60,000/- per annum.

18. The evidence of PW.2 coupled with the recitals mentioned in

Ex.A5 wound certificate clearly shows that the petitioner sustained injury to tibia arteries and fractures both bones left leg middle one and third and 7 MV OP 161/2014 undergone multiple operations in multiple types. By considering the injuries sustained by the petitioner he is awarded an amount of Rs.50,000/- towards pain and sufferance. An amount of Rs.25,000/- towards attendant charges,

Rs.25,000/-towards food and nutrition and Rs.25,000/-towards transportation. PW.4 N.B. Renuka, Billing Officer, Manipal Hospital, Bangalore deposed that the final bill marked as Ex.C1(=Ex.A2) for Rs.5,05,132/- is issued by the hospital. Therefore, the petitioner is entitled for a sum of

Rs.5,05,132/- towards medical expenses.

19. As per the evidence of P.W.2 coupled with disability certificate/Ex.A4 the petitioner sustained 55% disability which is permanent in nature. As per the wound certificate the age of the petitioner is 35 years, therefore the same is taken as age of the petitioner to calculate the loss of income due to the disability sustained by him in the motor vehicle accident.

The suitable multiplier in this case is 16. The above multiplier is applied, the loss of earnings of the petitioner is assessed at Rs.60,000/- x 16 = 9,60,000/- . 55% of Rs.9,60,000/- is Rs.5,28,000/-. Therefore, a sum of Rs.5,28,000/- is awarded towards loss of future income due to the permanent disability suffered by him for the injuries sustained by him in the motor vehicle accident.

In total the petitioner is entitled a sum of Rs.11,58,132/-.

20. Though the petitioner claimed only Rs.10,00,000/-, the just compensation that can be awarded is Rs.11,58,132/- following the ruling of

Hon’ble Supreme Court in Rajesh and others Vs. Rajbir Singh and others

2013 ACJ 1403 SC and Syed Sadiq Vs. United India Insurance Co., Ltd., 2014 ACJ 627 as it is a fit case for awarding compensation in excess of the claim.

To this sum, interest at 6% p.a., is awarded from the date of filing of the claim till the date of realization.

8 MV OP 161/2014

21. Now the question is who is liable to pay compensation?

As per the contention of the 2nd respondent as per RC the crime vehicle was insured as goods carriage vehicle means motor vehicle constructed or adapted solely for the carriage of goods, but at the material time of accident, the said vehicle was carrying passengers including the petitioner and therefore the insured had breached the provisions of MV Act and Rules and terms and conditions of the policy. Further, the petitioner cannot be said to be the owner of the goods as alleged in the petition and he is nothing but a gratuitous passenger in the crime vehicle. The petitioner has not submitted any iota of evidence such as way bill, trip sheet and other documents connecting his journey to show that he was travelling as owner of the goods. So, the petitioner is an unauthorized passenger travelled for hire or rewards and hence the respondent is not liable to pay any compensation to the petitioner. But no oral or documentary evidence is adduced on behalf of 2nd respondent in support of their contention.

A perusal of contents of Ex.A1, it is an established fact that the petitioner has hired the crime vehicle for transporting his orange fruits from his village to Bangalore and the petitioner has travelled in the crime vehicle as owner of the goods. The evidence of PW.1 coupled with the contents of Ex.A1 document clinchingly established the fact that PW.1 was not a gratuitous passenger and the risk of the owner of the goods is covered under Ex.B1, as such PW.1 is entitled to claim compensation. Therefore, the contention of the 2nd respondent cannot be considered on this aspect.

It is observed while answering issue No.1 that there was negligence on the part of the driver of the offending vehicle and the offending vehicle belonging to R.1 driven by R.3 was insured with R.2. Hence, the respondents 1 to 3 are jointly and severally liable to pay compensation to the petitioner.

Accordingly this issue is answered in favour of the petitioner.

9 MV OP 161/2014

22. Issue No.3::-

In the result, this petition is allowed with costs by awarding compensation of Rs.11,58,132/- to the petitioner against the respondents 1 to 3 with interest at the rate of 6% per annum from the date of petition till the date of realization. Respondents 1 to 3 are jointly and severally liable to pay the compensation to the petitioners. Respondent No.2 being the insurer is directed to deposit the said amount into the Court within three months from the date of this award. On such deposit, the petitioner is permitted to withdraw half of the compensation amount at present and the remaining amount of compensation with interest and costs shall be kept in Fixed Deposit in any Nationalised Bank for a period of three years. Office is directed to verify whether any exemption was taken for payment of court fee at the time of filing of petition. This decree is executable on payment of deficit court fee for the enhanced compensation awarded to the petitioner. Advocate fee is fixed at Rs.2,500/-.

Directly typed to my dictation by Stenographer, Gr.I, corrected and

Pronounced by me in open Court this the 8th day of July, 2019.

Sd/- A. Mary Grace Kumari

(FAC) Chairman, MACT - Cum - District Judge, Ananthapuramu.

Appendix of evidence Witnesses examined for Petitioner(s): Respondent(s): P.W.1 : R. Ramaswamy -None- P.W.2 : Dr. A. Jagannadham P.W.3 : Dr.N.K. Bhagavan P.W.4 : Renuka N.B. Exhibits marked on behalf of the petitione(s) Ex.A.1: Attested copy of FIR. Ex.A.2: Medical bills Ex.A.3: Copy of insurance policy Ex.A.4: Disability certificate Ex.A.5: Attested copy of wound certificate Ex.A.6: Attested copy of charge sheet 10 MV OP 161/2014

Ex.C.1 : Final bill of the petitioner issued by Manipal Hospital, Bangalore

Exhibits marked on behalf of Respondent(s) Ex.B.1: Copy of Insurance Policy

Sd/- A. Mary Grace Kumari

(FAC) MACT-D.J.

1

IN THE COURT OF THE CHAIRMAN, MOTOR ACCIDENTS CLAIMS TRIBUNAL

(BEFORE THE VIII ADDL. DISTRICT JUDGE, ANANTHAPURAMU)

Present:­ Smt A.Mary Grace Kumari, Chairman­cum­VIII Addl. District Judge, Ananthapuramu

Monday, the 15th day of October, 2018.

M.V.O.P. No.408/2016

Between :

1. Jerripothula Ganga Devi.

2. Jerripothula Venkata Siva.

3. Jerripothula Lakshmi Devi.

4. Jerripothula Venkata Lakshmi.

5. Jerripothula Nagamma.… Petitioners.

And

1.Madalam Ragini.

2.The Divisional Manager, United India InsuranceCompanyLimited, Anantapuramu. 

3.Kuruba Ramanjaneyulu. 

4.TheRegionalManager,APSRTC, Anantapuramu.… Respondents.

This petition is coming on 8.10.2018 for final hearing before me in the presence of Sri S.Abdul Rasool, Advocate for the petitioners and of Sri P.Venkatarami Reddy, Advocate for the Respondent No.2 and of Sri B.Sathyanarayana Reddy, Advocate for the Respondent No.4 and the respondents 1 and 3 having been called absent and set expate and this matter having stood over till this day for consideration, this Court delivered the following:­

Orders

1.This petition is filed U/sec.140 & 166 of Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 and

Rule 455 of APMV Rules, 1989 by the Petitioners claiming for compensation of

Rs.10,00,000/­ (Rupees Ten Lakhs Only) for the death of one Jerripothula Venkata

Ramudu (hereinafter referred to as deceased) in Motor Vehicle accident.

2.The case of petitioners in brief is that, on 12.8.2016 the deceased was proceeding from his village Gotluru to Dharmavaram in a moped bearing No.AP02­F­ 1506 in order to brought grass to his cattle, when reached near Municipal Office,

Dharmavaram, APSRTc bus bearing No.AP02­TC­6177 came from behind in a rash 2 and negligent manner and dashed against the deceased, as a result he fell down and died on the spot. A case was registered in Cr.No.268/20164 U/sec.304­A IPC by

Dharmavaram urban PS against the driver of bus/crime vehicle. The accident occurred only due to rash and negligent driving of the driver of the APSRTC bus. The

Ist respondent being owner, 2nd respondent being insurer, 3rd respondent being driver and 4th respondent being hirer of the bus are vicariously and severally liable to pay the compensation to the petitioners. Hence, all the respondents are jointly and severally liable to pay the compensation. 

The petitioners are wife, children and mother of the deceased and they are legal heirs and dependents of deceased. The deceased was aged about 47 years and was hale and healthy at the time of accident. He was Milk Vendor and also doing agriculture by taking lands on lease and he was getting income of Rs.40,000/­ per month from milk business and Rs.1,00,000/­ p.a., from agriculture. Due to sudden demise of the deceased, their life becomes miserable as they lost earning member as well as his love and affection. Therefore, the petitioners are entitled for claiming modulate compensation of Rs.10,00,000/­. Hence, the petition.

3.The 1st and 3rd respondents are remained exparte.

4.2nd and 4th respondents filed their respective counters denying the allegations mentioned in the petition and prayed for dismissal of the petition. 

5.The material averments of the verified counter of R.2 are as follows:

The petition is bad for non joinder of necessary parties of Moped No.AP­02­F­ 1506 i.e., Insured and Insurer. On the date of alleged accident the driver of the crime vehicle has not possessed any kind of licence much less to drive the crime vehicle.

The claim of the petitioners under different heads is excessive. The petitioners 2, 3 and 4 are majors and residing in various places and they are not dependents on the income of the deceased. At the time of accident, the vehicle was in the custody of

APSRTC, as such the RTC is alone liable to pay compensation. On the date of accident, the policy, FC and RC were not in force as such this respondent is not liable to pay the compensation. The liability of the this respondent is strictly subject to the 3 terms, conditions, limitations and exceptions of the alleged policy and subject to the compliance Insurance Act, 1938. Even in case of award, the interest can not exceed 6% p.a.,

6.The material averments of the verified counter of R.4 are as follows:

This respondent and Respondent No.1 entered into an agreement with terms and conditions. As per the agreement the owner to cover all risks and the proposal form shall be signed by both the owner and the hirer, the vehicle Insurance policy certificate of the vehicle shall carry LMT 44 indemnity to hirer­package policy negligence of the owner or hirer endorsement and the owner shall also pay the other taxes and levies. This respondent is not liable to pay damage or loss caused to the vehicle hired during the period of agitation, accidents etc., The respondents 1 to 3 are only liable to pay the compensation. The petitioners have to prove the age, avocation and income of the deceased with documentary proof. There is no rash and negligence on the part of the driver of the APSRTC hire. The accident caused only due to the sheer negligence on the part of the deceased. The petition is bad for non joinder of necessary parties i.e., owner and insurer of Moped on which the deceased was proceeding at the time of accident. The claim of the petitioners under different heads is very high and excessive. At the material time of accident, the crime vehicle hire bus possessed valid DL and the said duly covered risk with comprehensive and it is having valid permit and FC.

7.Basing on the above pleadings, the following issues are settled for trail:

(1)Whether the driver of the Bus bearing No.AP02­TC­ 5177 driven the same in a rash and negligent manner caused the accident, resulting the death of Jerripothula Venkata Ramudu? 

(2)Whether the petitioners are entitled for compensation as prayed for in the petition?

(3)To what relief?

8.During the trial, on behalf of the petitioners, petitioner No.1 herself was examined as P.W.1 and in support of her case, she examined one B.Nagaraju, alleged 4 eye witness to the accident as P.W.2 and Exs.A1 to A.5 marked on their behalf. No oral or documentary evidence adduced on behalf of the respondents 1 to 4. Exs.B.1 and B2 copy of insurance policy and Deed of agreement marked with consent.

9.Heard both sides. Perused the material on record.

10.Issue No.1::­

 It is the contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner that the deceased was husband of the petitioner No.1. The deceased was aged about 47 years as on the date of incident and he was hale and healthy and he was doing milk business and agricultural work by taking lands on lease and getting income of Rs.40,000/­ per month from milk business and Rs.1,00,000/­ from agriculture. The petitioners are dependents on the deceased and due to his sudden demise, the petitioners lost the earning member of their family and his love and affection as well as the petitioner No.1 lost her consortium. The accident occurred only due to the rash and negligent driving of the APSRTC bus owned by R.1, hired by R4, driven by R3, insured by R2, as such all the respondents are jointly and severally liable to pay the compensation. 

11.On the other hand, the contesting respondent Nos.2 and 4 has not adduced any evidence to deny the case of the petitioners and left the matter to the discretion of the court. The learned counsel for the Respondent No.4/APSRTC relied on the case laws reported in 2011 Supreme Court Cases 142 and 2018 (2) ALT 773 with regard to the liability of Insurer of the Vehicle insured by owner plying under agreement with State Road Transport Corporation.

12. On the perusal of record, it is elicited from P.W.1 that she is wife of deceased, who died in the accident due to rash and negligent driving of driver of bus and at the time of accident her husband was carrying grass on his bike. Nothing was elicited from P.W.1 that driver of the crime have no valid DL on the date of accident, hence R,2 is not liable to pay compensation, R4 alone is liable to pay compensation under IMT 44 endorsement.

13.P.W.2 who is cited as alleged eye witness to the incident, he deposed that he witnessed the accident as he was near to the accident spot on the date of accident.

During cross­examination, he admitted that at the time of accident he was at 5

Municipal Office, Dharmavaram and accident took place on the road infront of

Municipal office. Nothing was elicited from P.W.2 that he is deposing false hood for getting more compensation, as he got acquaintance with the petitioners prior to the accident. Therefore, the evidence relied by the petitioners basing on Exs.A.1 to A.5 documents clearly established the case of the petitioners that the accident was occurred on 12.8.2016 at about 10.30 a.m., due to the rash and negligent driving of the driver of APSRTC bus bearing No.AP02­TC­6177 and the deceased was died due to the said accident.

Accordingly this point is answered infavour of the petitioner and against the respondents 1 to 4.

14.Issue No.2::­The Ist respondent is owner of the crime vehicle,

Respondent No.2 is the Insurer of crime vehicle, Respondent No.3 is the Driver and

Respondent No.4 is Hirer of Bus/Crime vehicle. In view of elaborate discussion on

Point No.1, it is established that the petitioners are the wife, children and mother of the deceased and they are dependents on the income of the deceased.

15.Regarding quantum of compensation to the petitioners, it is observed by the Hon’ble Apex Court in a reported decision decided between Sarla Verma & others Vs Delhi Transport Corporation & another reported in 2009 ACJ 1298

Hon'ble Apex Court observed in para “9” of the Judgment mentioned about the

method of calculation of compensation in a claim basing on death in a motor accident. As per the observations of the Hon'ble Apex Court in this authority and the settled practice, under first step the Court shall ascertain the multiplicand by adverting to the occupation and income of the deceased and the Court can also add the possibility of progression in the income and deduct amount upto 1/2, 1/3, 1/4 or 1/5 depending on number of Dependants of the deceased.

Under second step, the Court shall select the appropriate multiplier by referring to the age of the deceased or claimant depending upon the facts and circumstances of the case and by referring to Para 19 Col. 4 of the authority referred above (i.e., Sarla Verma's case). In the third step, the Court shall make calculation of loss of income/loss of estate by applying the multiplier to the 6 multiplicand ascertained and thereafter the Court can add a conventional amount upto Rs.10,000/­ towards funeral expenditure and another sum of

Rs.10,000/­ towards loss of consortium if one of the claimants is the spouse of the deceased. 

16.Though, the petitioners pleaded and deposed that the deceased was Milk

Vendor and also doing agricultural work and getting income of Rs.40,000/­ per month and Rs.1,00,000/­ per annum, but no proof relied by the petitioners to that effect.

Normally, the persons who are doing Milk business and agricultural work getting daily income of Rs.250/­ per day i.e., approximately Rs.7,500/­ per month. As a general rule applicable to the said avocation, this court accept the income of the deceased at

Rs.7,500/­ per month generally comes to Rs.90,000/­ per annum. Petitioners have not produced any documents showing that deceased doing agriculture work by owing any lands by taking it on lease. As determined the income of the deceased as on the date of his death at Rs.7,500/­ per month (annual income of Rs.90,000/­) out of which deduction should be made in respect of the amount derived by way of personal and living expenses of the deceased by deducting 1/4th amount towards his personal expenditure, and it comes to Rs.67,500/­ per annum which is the actual amount contributing to the petitioners. Hence, the income of the deceased he would have been contributed to the petitioners can be taken as Rs.67,500/­ per annum and the same can be considered as Multiplicand. Therefore, Rs.67,500/­ is considered as

Multiplicand. As per the evidence of P.W.1 as well as the age mentioned in postmortem certificate, the deceased was aged about 47 years as on the date of his death. For the age group of 47, multiplier provided under Sarala Verma’s case viz., 2009 ACJ 1298 is ‘13’. Hence the same is adopted for calculating the entitlement of petitioners for compensation.

17.Multiplier 13 x multiplicand Rs.67,500/­ = Rs.8,77,500/­. The petitioner

No.1 is awarded an amount of Rs.25,000/­ towards loss of consortium and

Rs.10,000/­ towards Funeral expenses and Rs.20,000 towards loss of love and affection. In total the petitioner can be awarded an amount of Rs.9,32,500/­ (Rs.8,77,500 + Rs.25,000/­ _ Rs.10,000/­ + Rs.20,000/­).

7

18.Now the question is who is liable to pay compensation? It is observed while answering issue No.1 that there was negligence on the part of the driver of the crime vehicle and the vehicle belonging to R.1 is found insured with R.2 as per the policy under Ex.B.1. Ex.B.1 also found in force from 21.01.2016 to 20.01.2017. The accident in this case had occurred on 12.08.2016. Therefore, by the date of accident, the policy was found in force and the same was hired by R1 to R.4. As per Ex.B.2 Deed of agreement the crime vehicle/bus was under the control of APSRTC bus and it was driven by the driver appointed by R4 APSRTC. Hence as per the terms and conditions of deed of agreement under Ex.B.2, the owner hired the bus to R.4/APSRTC on hire and as per the settled preposition of law reported in 2018 (2) ALT 773 that

“in the absence of any legal prohibitions and any violation of terms and

conditions of the policy the insurer cannot escape its liability.” As such, all the respondents are also jointly and severally liable to pay the compensation as the

R.2 has not established the factum of issuance of the policy for the crime vehicle belonged to R.1. There is no evidence adduced by the respondents to show that the conditions of policy in any way are violated. R.4 being employer of R.3 driver of the APSRTC bus vicariously liable to pay compensation to the petitioners.

19.Therefore, the evidence relied by the petitioners established their contention that the accident was occurred due to the rash and negligence of the crime vehicle and as the date of accident, there was insurance coverage to the crime vehicle, thereby the respondents 1 to 4 owner, insurer and hirer are jointly and severally liable to pay compensation to the petitioners.

 Accordingly the Issue No.2 is answered in favour of the petitioners.

8

20.Point No.3::­ 

In the result, the petition allowed in part awarding total compensation of

Rs.9,32,500/­ (Rs.8,77,500 + Rs.25,000/­ _ Rs.10,000/­ + Rs.20,000/­)to the petitioners against the respondents 1 to 4 with proportionate costs with interest at the rate of 7.5% per annum from the date of petition till the date of realization. Respondents 1 to 4 are jointly and severally liable to pay the compensation to the petitioner. R.2 being the insurer is directed to deposit the said amount into the Court within two months from the date of this award and shall recover of the same from the Respondents 1 and 4 viz., owner and hirer.

Petitioner No.1 being wife of the deceased is awarded an amount of

Rs.5,32,500/­ including consortium. Though the petitioners 2 to 4 are majors and they being children of deceased are awarded an amount of Rs.1,00,000/­ each towards loss of love and affection. The petitioner No.4 being mother of the deceased is awarded an amount of Rs.1,00,000/­. On deposit of said compensation amount, the petitioner No.1 is entitled to withdraw 50% of the compensation amount and accrued interest there on and entire costs of petition payable to her at present and the remaining balance compensation amount shall be deposited in any nationalized bank for a period of 3 years.

The petitioners 2 to 5 are at liberty to withdraw entire compensation amount awarded to them at once. Advocate fee is fixed at Rs.9,000/­. Office is directed to verify whether any exemption was taken for payment of court fee at the time of filing of petition. The rest of the claim of the petitioners is dismissed without costs. Petitioners are entitled for copy of decree, subject to clearance of court fee dues if any.

Dictated to the Stenographer, typed by her, corrected and pronounced by me in

open Court this the 15th day of October, 2018.

CHAIRMAN,

MOTOR ACCIDENTS CLAIMS TRIBUNAL,

(VIII ADDL. DISTRICT JUDGE), ANANTHAPURAMU.

9

Appendix of evidence

Witnesses examined for

PETITIONERS RESPONDENTS

PW.1: J.Ganga Devi.­None­

P.W.2: D.Nagaraju.

EXHIBITS MARKED FOR PETITIONERS

Ex.A.1 : Certified copy of FIR.

Ex.A.2 : Certified copy of Inquest Report. 

Ex.A.3: Certified copy of Postmortem certificate.

Ex.A.4: Certified copy of MVI Report.

Ex.A.5: Certified copy of Charge sheet.

EXHIBITS MARKED FOR RESPONDENTS

Ex.B.1: Copy of Insurance policy. (marked with consent]

Ex.B.2: Deed of Agreement.

CHAIRMAN/VIII ADJ

MOTOR ACCIDENTS CLAIMS TRIBUNAL.

AS 40/2016 1

IN THE COURT OF THE DISTRICT JUDGE:: ANANTHAPURAMU

PRESENT: Smt.A. Mary Grace Kumari, I Addl. District Judge (FAC) District Judge, Ananthapuramu Friday, the 5th day of July, 2019

APPEAL SUIT No.40/2016 BETWEEN:

1.Veepulapatri Kariyappagari Kuruba Bheemappa S/o Kariyappa, 64 yrs, Hindu, agriculturist

2.Vepulaparthi Kuruba Mahendra S/o V. Kariyappagari Kuruba Bheemappa, Hindu, 34 yrs, agriculturist (Both are residents of Gummaghatta village and mandal, Ananthapuramu District) …. Appellants/Defendants

And

C.Siddappa S/o Bhyrappa, 74 yrs, Hindu, agriculturist, R/o Gummagatta mandal, Ananthapuramu District. …. Respondent/Plaintiff

On appeal against the decree and judgment of the learned Junior

Civil Judge, Rayadurg passed in O.S.60/2012 dated 22.03.2016 made

between: C.Siddappa … Plaintiff

And

1.Veepulapatri Kariyappagari Kuruba Bheemappa

2.Vepulaparthi Kuruba Mahendra … Defendants

This appeal coming on 04.07.2019 for final hearing before me in the presence of Sri P. Krishnaswamy Kumar, Advocate for the appellants and of Sri N.R.K. Mohan, Advocate for respondent, and on hearing both sides and upon perusing the material on record, this court passed the following:-

J U D G M E N T

This appeal is filed by the appellants assailing the decree and judgment dated 22.03.2016 made in O.S.60/2012 on the file of Junior

Civil Judge, Rayadurg filed by the respondent for grant of permanent

injunction restraining the appellants from interfering with the peaceful possession and enjoyment of the respondent over suit schedule mentioned land.

AS 40/2016 2

2. The appellants are defendants and respondent is the plaintiff

before the Court below, herein after they will be referred as per their

positions in the suit for the sake of convenience.

3. The facts and circumstances that lead to filing of this appeal are that originally the suit schedule property was Government land and the same was assigned to the plaintiff on 19.09.1978 and since then the plaintiff is in possession and enjoyment of the same within the knowledge of all including the defendants. Subsequently, the then Tahasildar of

Rayadurg issued rythu pass book in favour of the plaintiff. After the existence of Pattadar Pass Book Act, the Mandal Revenue Officer,

Gummagatta mutated the name of plaintiff in the revenue records and issued pattadar pass book and title deed in favour of the plaintiff. The plaintiff obtained crop loan by depositing the title deed in Andhra Pragathi

Grameena Bank, Gummagatta Mandal. Hence, the plaintiff has not filed the title deed. To prove his possession and enjoyment of the suit schedule property, the plaintiff has filed certified copy of adangal for the fasli 1421 issued by the Tahasildar, Gummagatta.

The defendants 1 and 2 being father and son are no way concerned with the suit schedule property. There are ill feelings between the plaintiff and defendants in MLA elections and the defendants are unnecessarily giving trouble to the plaintiff and trying to interfere with the peaceful possession and enjoyment of the suit schedule property. They proclaimed in the village that at any time they will interfere and dispossess the plaintiff from the suit schedule property. In this regard, the plaintiff approached the elderly people of village and Gummagatta police, but they did not take any action against the defendants as they are influenced and rowdy elements. Hence, the suit.

4. The 1st defendant filed written statement whereas 2nd defendant adopted the written statement of 1st defendant and they denied

AS 40/2016 3

the allegations mentioned in the plaint and prays the Court to dismiss the suit. The material averments of the written statement are as follows:-

The Kalugodu channel is passing in the land of the defendants. The piece of the defendants land is on the southern side of the suit schedule property in Sy.No.126-2B of Gummagatta village field. On the western side of the suit schedule property there is a distribute channel and then

Vapulapartrhy main road. On the eastern side of the suit schedule property there are lands of Vepulaparthy Kariyappagari

Chandrasekharappa and Patil Venkata Reddy. Hence, the boundaries shown in the suit schedule are wrong. The plaintiff filed the suit with malafide intention to grab the defendants piece of land in Sy.No.126-2B of Gummagatta village field.

5. The Court below basing on the above pleadings and the material available on record framed the following issues for trial:

(i) Whether the plaintiff is entitled for permanent injunction against defendants as prayed for?

(ii) What relief?

6. The plaintiff in support of his case examined himself as PW.1 and filed Exs.A1 to A4. The defendants in support of their case examined the 1st defendant as DW.1 and filed Exs.B1 to B6.

7. The Court below on hearing the plaintiff and the defendants and upon considering the oral and documentary evidence adduced, decreed the suit by granting permanent injunction restraining the defendants, their men, agents, relatives and servants from interfering with the peaceful possession and enjoyment of the plaintiff over the suit schedule property.

8. The defendants feeling aggrieved by the decree and judgment of the Court below, have come up with this appeal assailing the same on the following and among other ground setout here under:-

AS 40/2016 4

(i) The decree and judgment of Court below are against law, weight of evidence and circumstances of the case.

(ii) The lower Court ought to have held both the issues in favour of the appellants and ought to have dismissed the suit.

(iii) The lower Court ought to have seen that the respondent failed to prove his case beyond reasonable doubt and so the lower Court should have dismissed the suit.

(iv)The lower Court ought to have seen that the burden is on the respondent to prove that he is in possession of the property within the boundaries as mentioned in the suit schedule.

(v) The lower Court ought to have held that Kalugodu Kaluva is passing through the 1 st appellant’s land that the 1 st appellant’s land is situated on the southern side of the respondents land.

(vi) The lower Court ought to have held that the respondent mentioned wrong boundaries in the suit schedule.

(vii) The lower Court ought to have held that the oral and documentary evidence of the respondent do not prove his possession over the suit property within the boundaries as mentioned in the suit schedule.

(viii) Having held that both the parties did not file any petition for seeking appointment of advocate commissioner for measuring the lands as per boundaries, the lower Court ought to have held that the respondent failed to prove boundaries of his land as described in the suit schedule and ought to have dismissed the suit.

(ix) The lower Court ought to have observed that the respondent admitted in his cross-examination that there is no political enmity between his family and defendants’ family and his averment in the plaint that there is enmity between both the families is incorrect.

(x) The lower Court ought to have held that on the guise of the present original suit the respondent wants to grab the land of the appellants.

(xi) The judgment and decree of the lower Court is erroneous, unsound and unsustainable.

For these and among other grounds that may be urged during hearing prayed to allow the appeal and to set aside decree and judgment of the Court below and to dismiss the suit of plaintiff.

9. Heard both sides.

10. On hearing the plaintiff and the defendants and upon considering the material available on record including the oral and

AS 40/2016 5

documentary evidence, findings in the impugned judgment of Court below, the points that arise for consideration are:

(i) Whether the plaintiff is in possession and enjoyment of the suit schedule property and that the plaintiff is entitled for permanent injunction?

(ii) Whether the trial Court erred in decreeing the suit in favour of the plaintiff and against the defendants and needs any interference with the findings of the trial Court?

(iii) To what relief?

11. POINT No.1:-

It is the contention of the learned counsel for appellants that the evidence of DW.1 coupled with Exs.B1 to B6 documents and the answers elicited from the evidence of PW.1 clearly established the defence of the defendants that the plaintiff shown wrong boundary towards southern side of his property with an intention to grab the property belongs to the defendants.

The learned counsel further contended that the plaintiff with an intention to cause wrongful loss to the defendants without any cause of action suppressed the true facts and filed this suit. The trial Court not appreciated the evidence on proper lines and decreed the suit thereby it is just and necessary to interfere with the findings of the trial Court.

12. Per contra, the learned counsel for plaintiff contended that the plaintiff is the absolute owner of the suit schedule property, he is in possession and enjoyment of the suit schedule property within the knowledge of one and all including the defendants, the defendants not disputing the possession and enjoyment of the suit schedule property by the plaintiff, only disputing with the southern boundary for which the defendants are not entitled to raise objection. The evidence relied by both the parties clinchingly established the fact that as on the date of filing of the suit the plaintiff is in possession and enjoyment of the suit schedule property. The trial Court properly appreciated the evidence

AS 40/2016 6

relied by both parties and decreed the suit and there is no need to interfere with the findings of the trial Court.

13. In view of the contentions of both parties I have perused the material on record and also gone through the judgment and decree passed by the trial Court. It is settled proposition of law that in a suit for bare injunction the initial burden lies on the plaintiff to establish his case that the plaintiff is in possession and enjoyment of the suit schedule property as on the date of filing of the suit. Here, in the present case in hand, the plaintiff filed the suit for permanent injunction simplicitor against the defendants restraining them not to interfere with the possession of the plaintiff over the suit schedule property claiming that he is in possession and enjoyment of the suit schedule property.

14. A perusal of the evidence of PW.1 coupled with Exs.A1 to A4 documents it is established by the plaintiff that the Government issued D-

Form patta in favour of the plaintiff under Ex.A1 dated 19.9.1978 and delivered possession of the said property to him. Since the date of said document the plaintiff has been in possession and enjoyment of the property covered under Ex.A1 i.e. the suit schedule property. A perusal of the recitals of Ex.A1 it is categorically mentioned that the property covered under the said document is an extent of 93 cents in Sy.No.126- 2A in Gummagatta village limits. Another property an extent of 94 cents in Sy.No.126-2B in the name of one Harijana Hanumanthappa S/o Kunti

Mareppa. No boundaries of property mentioned in Ex.A1 regarding the two items of properties mentioned in the said document. The remaining documents of Exs.A2 to A4 contain recitals that the plaintiff is in possession and enjoyment of the property covered under Ex.A1. A perusal of Ex.B1 D Form patta relied by the defendant, the Government issued the said patta in favour of one Vepulaparthi Bheemappa S/o

Vepuplaparthi Kariappa to an extent of 94 cents in Sy.No.126-2/B of

Gummagatta village. The said document also does not contain the boundaries of the said property. The other documents that are relied by

AS 40/2016 7

the defendants i.e. Exs.B2 to B6 are also relating to the property concerned under Ex.B1 without specific boundaries.

15. A perusal of the evidence of DW.1, he categorically deposed that Kalugodu channel is passing in his land. The piece of land belongs to the defendant is situated on southern side of the suit schedule property in

Sy.No.126-2B of Gummagatta village and the boundaries shown in suit schedule are wrong and the plaintiff filed this suit with malafide intention to get the piece of land belongs to the defendants in Sy.No.126-2B. But the defendants not rely on any proof of document to show that the plaintiff encroached any extent of land belongs to the defendants towards southern side of the suit schedule property. During cross-examination

DW.1 categorically admitted in his evidence that the suit survey number land is in possession and enjoyment of the plaintiff. There is no dispute regarding the plaintiff’s possession and enjoyment of the suit schedule property since beginning under Ex.A1 till filing of the suit.

16. The evidence relied by the plaintiff clinchingly established his case that the plaintiff is in possession and enjoyment of the suit schedule property since beginning till date and he never encroached any piece of land belongs to the defendants on its southern side. Admittedly there is no political enmity between both the parties and the wife of 1st defendant is Sarpanch of the village and the defendants having influence in the village are making allegation that the southern boundary shown by the plaintiff to the suit schedule property is wrong and the plaintiff may tried to grab the piece of land belongs to the defendant towards southern side of the suit schedule. It is not denied by the defendants that the plaintiff is never in possession and enjoyment of the suit schedule property. If the defendants are denying the boundary of the plaintiff and that any piece of land belongs to the defendants is encroached by the plaintiff, it is open to the defendants to approach competent civil court for declaration.

Since the documents covered under Ex.A1 and B1 does not contain any boundaries and since long time both the parties are in possession and

AS 40/2016 8

enjoyment of their respective lands, the boundaries relied by both parties are prevailed over to its extent. It is not the stage to raise any objection by the defendants that the southern boundary is wrongly mentioned in a suit for permanent injunction simplicitor thereby the plaintiff established his possession over the suit schedule property as on the date of filing of the suit and further the defendant is interfering with the possession of the plaintiff stating that the southern boundary is wrong. Therefore, the plaintiff is entitled for the relief of permanent injunction. Accordingly, this point is answered in favour of the plaintiff.

17. POINT NO.2:-

In view of the elaborate discussion in point No.1, the plaintiff established his case that he is in possession and enjoyment of the suit schedule property as on the date of filing of the suit, defendants also not denied the possession of the plaintiff over the suit schedule property. The trial Court after perusal of the entire evidence relied by both parties appreciated the evidence in a rightful way and came to right conclusion and decreed the suit. Therefore, in the judgment and decree passed by the trial Court not found any irregularities to interfere. Accordingly, this point is answered.

18. POINT NO.3:-

In the result, the appeal is dismissed. The decree and judgment

dated 22.3.2016 passed in O.S.60/2012 by the learned Junior Civil Judge,

Rayadurg is hereby confirmed. In the circumstances, each party shall bear their own costs.

Dictated to Stenographer, transcribed by her, corrected and

pronounced by me in open court, this the 5 th day of July, 2019.

Sd/- A. Mary Grace Kumari

(FAC) District Judge, Ananthapuramu //t.c.b.o//

Chief Administrative Officer, Prl.District Court, Ananthapuramu

Copy to Junior Civil Judge, Rayadurg

1

IN THE COURT OF THE CHAIRMAN, MOTOR ACCIDENTS CLAIMS TRIBUNAL

(BEFORE THE VIII ADDL. DISTRICT JUDGE, ANANTHAPURAMU)

Present:­ Smt A.Mary Grace Kumari, Chairman­cum­VIII Addl. District Judge, Ananthapuramu

Friday, the 12th day of October, 2018.

M.V.O.P. No.157/2017

Between :

1. Ekila Kalavathi.

2. Ekila Nagendra. … Petitioners.

3. Ekila Mallikarjuna.

And

1.Jonnalagadda Sreenivasulu. 

2.Mallemputi Savitri.

3.Branch Manager, New India Insurance Co.,… Respondents. Ltd., Anantapuramu.

This petition is coming on 8.10.2018 for final hearing before me in the presence of Sri M.Venugopal, Advocate for the petitioners and of Sri J.Sanjeevaiah, Advocate for

Respondent No.3 and the Respondents 1 and 2 remained exparte and this matter having stood over till this day for consideration, this Court made the following:­

Orders

1.This petition is filed U/sec.140 & 166 of Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 and

Rule 455 of APMV Rules, 1989 by Ekila Kalavathi, Ekila Nagendra and Ekila

Mallikarjuna (herein after referred to as petitioners 1 to 3 whenever they required) claiming for compensation of Rs.6,00,000/­ for the death of one Ekila Manikanta (hereinafter referred to as deceased) in Motor Vehicle accident.

2.The case of petitioners in brief is that, on 09.11.2016 at about 6.30 p.m., the deceased Ekila Nagendra along with his friends proceeded towards Kuderu from his village in Hero Splender Motor cycle bearing No.AP02­J­5542 on his personal work and on their return, they reached near the boundaries of Cholasamudram village on

Kuderu to Cholasamudram road, at that time the Crime Vehicle Tractor bearing

No.AP02­TE­0019 driven by its driver in a rash and negligent manner with high speed 2 endangering the lives of the public on the road, and hit the motor cycle. Due to the accident, the deceased and his friends fell down on the road and received severe blood injuries. The deceased sustained blood injuries on his head, right shoulder, hands and legs and died on the spot. A case was registered in Cr.No.126/2016 U/secs.337 and 304­A IPC by Kuderu PS against the driver of crime vehicle. The Ist respondent being driver, 2nd respondent being the owner and 3rd respondent being the insurer of the crime vehicle are liable to pay compensation. Hence, all the respondents are jointly and severally liable to pay the compensation. 

The petitioners are father, mother and brother respectively and they are legal heirs and Dependants of deceased. The deceased was aged about 20 years and was hale and healthy at the time of accident. He was completed Graduation and learning computer courses and also assisting his father in agriculture and earning Rs.6,000/­ per month. He is contributing entire income to the petitioners. If he would alive, he got good job and have earned more money and helping the petitioners in their old age.

Due to sudden demise of the deceased, their life becomes miserable as they lost earning member as well as his love and affection. Therefore, the petitioners are entitled for claiming modulate compensation of Rs.6,00,000/­. Hence, the petition.

3.Respondent Nos.1 and 2 remained exparte.

4.Respondent No.3 filed counter denying the allegations mentioned in the petition and prayed for dismissal of the petition.

5.The material averments of the verified counter of R.3, in brief, are as follows:

The petitioners have to prove with strict proof that all the petitioners are the legal heirs of deceased, age, avocation and income of the deceased. The driver of the crime vehicle was not having driving licence to drive the crime vehicle and valid permit to ply the same and fitness certificate at the time of accident as such this respondent is not liable to pay compensation. The liability of the respondent is strictly subject to the terms, conditions, limitations and exceptions of the alleged policy and subject to the compliance of Sec.64­VB of Insurance Act, 1938. The interest on the award 3 amount may be restricted to 5% to 6% only from the date of award. The petition is bad for non joinder of necessary parties i.e., owner and insurer of the motor cycle. The compensation claimed by the petitioners is excessive. 

6.Basing on the above pleadings, the following issues are settled for trial:

(1)Whether the driver of the Crime Vehicle i.e., Tractor bearing No.AP­02­TE­0019 driven the same in rash and negligent manner caused the accident resulting the death of Ekila Manikanta? 

(2)Whether the petitioners are entitled for compensation as prayed in the petition?

(3)To what relief?

7.During the trial, on behalf of the petitioners, Ist petitioner was examined herself as P.W.1 and in support of her case, she examined one B.K,.Sreeramulu, who is eye witness to the incident and Exs.A1 to A.4 marked on their behalf. On behalf of the respondent No.3, no evidence adduced. Insurance policy is marked with consent.

 8.Heard both sides. Perused the material on record.

 9.It is the contention of the learned counsel for the petitioners that due to rash and negligent driving of the driver of the crime vehicle, the accident occurred, resulting the deceased died. The evidence of P.Ws.1 and 2 coupled with Exs.A.1 to A.4 documents established the case of the petitioners that they are entitled for compensation as prayed for.

10.On the other hand, the learned counsel for the 3rd respondent contended that, the petitioners are not entitled for any compensation basing on Exs.A.1 to A4 documents and further the driver of the crime vehicle was not having driving licence to drive the crime vehicle and valid permit to ply the same and fitness certificate at the time of accident, the accident caused only due to the negligence of the deceased who was proceeding on a motor cycle along with his friends and there is no negligence on the part of the driver of the crime vehicle and hence this respondent is not liable to pay compensation, thereby the petitioners are not entitled for compensation as prayed for and further, the claim of the petitioners is excessive.

4

11.Issue No.1::­

 It is elicited from the evidence of P.W.1 that the deceased was her son and he died in the motor vehicle accident on 9.11.2016 due to the rash and negligent driving of driver of Tractor bearing No.AP02­TE­0019, he was aged about 20 years as on the date of incident and he was hale and healthy, he was graduate and learning computer course. Apart from that the deceased was also attending agriculture works and earning Rs.6,000/­ per month, he was contributing entire income to the petitioners. If he would alive, he got good job and have earned more money and helping the petitioners in their old age, due to sudden demise of the deceased, their life becomes miserable as they lost earning member as well as his love and affection.

It is elicited during the cross­examination of P.W.1 that deceased was bachelor.

But no document filed to show the income proof of deceased. Further P.W.1 withdrawn the O.P.69/2017 filed by them for compensation for the death caused to her son in Bellary court. Nothing is elicited from the cross­examination that herself and other petitioners are not dependants of deceased and the claim is excessive.

12.A perusal of the evidence of P.W.2, who is eye witness to the incident, he deposed that deceased is his Senior in the college, on the date of accident he along with deceased were returning from Kuderu to their village, when they reached the outskirts of Cholasamudram, the driver of the offending vehicle driven by its driver in a rash and negligent manner with high speed and dashed against the motor cycle, due to which they fell down, sustained injuries and deceased died on the spot.

During the cross­examination, he deposed that at the time of accident deceased was rider of the motor cycle, he does not know whether Manikanta had

Driving License on the date of the accident. Nothing is elicited from the evidence of

P.W.2 that due to the negligence of the deceased, the accident occurred.

5

13.On the other hand, the contesting respondent No.3 is. not adduced any evidence on its behalf, and relied on Insurance policy relating to the crime vehicle filed.

14. Therefore, the evidence of P.Ws.1 and 2 and Exs.A.1 to A.4 documents clearly established the case of the petitioners that the deceased had died in the Motor vehicle accident on 09.11.2016 due to the rash and negligent driving of the driver of

Tractor bearing No.AP02­TE­0019. Accordingly this point is answered infavour of the petitioners and against the respondents.

Accordingly this Issue is answered.

15.Issue No.2::­The Ist respondent is Driver and 2nd Respondent is owner and 3rd respondent is insurer. It is settled preposition of law in case decided between

National Insurance Co., Ltd., Vs Batul and others (2016 ACJ 406), wherein it is held that:

“Liability of insurance Company, driver of the offending vehicle was not

holding a valid licence at the time of accident and there was breach of policy

conditions but directed the Insurance Company to pay and recover the same

from the owner.”

In view of elaborate discussion on Issue No.1, it is established that the petitioner Nos.1 to 3 are the parents and brother of the deceased and they are depending on the income of the deceased.

16.Regarding quantum of compensation to the petitioners, it is observed by the Hon’ble Apex Court in a reported decision decided between Sarla Verma & others Vs Delhi Transport Corporation & another reported in 2009 ACJ 1298

Hon'ble Apex Court observed in para “9” of the Judgment mentioned about the

method of calculation of compensation in a claim basing on death in a motor accident. As per the observations of the Hon'ble Apex Court in this authority and the settled practice, under first step the Court shall ascertain the multiplicand by adverting to the occupation and income of the deceased and the Court can also add the possibility of progression in the income and deduct amount upto 1/2, 1/3, 1/4 or 1/5 depending on number of Dependants of the deceased.

6

Under second step, the Court shall select the appropriate multiplier by referring to the age of the deceased or claimant depending upon the facts and circumstances of the case and by referring to Para 19 Col. 4 of the authority referred above (i.e., Sarla Verma's case). In the third step, the Court shall make calculation of loss of income/loss of estate by applying the multiplier to the multiplicand ascertained and thereafter the Court can add a conventional amount upto Rs.10,000/­ towards funeral expenditure and another sum of

Rs.10,000/­ towards loss of consortium if one of the claimants is the spouse of the deceased.

17.Though, the petitioners pleaded and deposed that the deceased was working as agriculturist and earning Rs.6,000/­ per month. In support their contention, the petitioners not filed any proof with regard to the educational qualifications or income proof and the lands stands in the name of deceased. But taking into consideration of age and educational qualification of deceased, he got bright future and more job opportunities and hike in the income. Hence, the income of the deceased determined as on the date of his death at Rs.5,000/­ per month (annual income of Rs.60,000/­) out of which deduction should be made in respect of the amount derived by way of personal and living expenses of the deceased by deducting 1/3rd amount, it comes to Rs.20,000/­ per annum which is the actual amount contributing for his personal expenses. Hence, the income of the deceased would have been contributed to the petitioners can be taken as Rs.40,000/­ per annum and the same can be considered as Multiplicand. Therefore, Rs.40,000/­ is considered as Multiplicand. As per the evidence of P.W.1, the deceased was aged about 20 years and unmarried as on the date of his death. Since the petitioners did not rely on any proof about the age of the deceased, thereby the documents under

Exs.A.2 and A3 viz., Inquest and Postmortem report, the age particulars of the deceased mentioned as 20 years, thereby this court considered the age of the deceased

as 30 years. The deceased was unmarried, hence the age of youngest parent can be

taken for consideration. The Petitioner No.1 is mother of deceased. She is aged about 42 years. Hence, the age group of 42, multiplier provided under Sarala Verma’s case 7 viz., 2009 ACJ 1298 is ‘14’. Hence the same is adopted for calculating the entitlement of petitioners for compensation.

18.Multiplier 14 x multiplicand Rs.40,000/­ = Rs.5,60,000/­. The petitioners are awarded an amount of Rs.10,000/­ towards Funeral expenses,

Rs.10,000/­ towards transport charges and Rs.20,000/­ towards loss of love and affection. In total the petitioners can be awarded an amount of Rs.6,00,000/­.

19.To this sum, interest of 9% p.a., is awarded to this amount from the date of filing of the claim till the date of realization following the ruling of the Hon’ble

Supreme Court in Municipal Corporation of Delhi Vs Association of Victims of Uphaar

Tragedy and others 2012 ACJ 48 SC. 

20.Now the question here is who is liable to pay the compensation. Now the question is who is liable to pay compensation? It is observed while answering issue

No.1 that there was negligence on the part of the driver of the crime vehicle is found insured with R.3. The accident in this case had occurred on 09.11.2016. The policy was in force from 19.10.2016 to 18.10.2017. Therefore, by the date of accident, the policy was found in force. Hence, the respondent Nos.1 to 3 are are jointly and severally liable to pay the compensation. Accordingly, this point is answered.

21.Issue No.3::­ 

In the result, this petition is allowed by awarding total compensation of

Rs.6,00,000/­ to the petitioners against the respondents 1 to 3 with costs with interest at the rate of 9% per annum from the date of petition till the date of realization. Respondents 1 to 3 are jointly and severally liable to pay the compensation to the petitioners. R.3 being the insurer is at first instance directed to deposit the said amount into the Court within one month from the date of this award.

The petitioner Nos.1 and 2 being father and mother of deceased are awarded an amount of Rs.4,00,000/­ and Rs.2,00,000/­ respectively. The claim of the petitioner

No.3 is dismissed as he is major and not dependent on the deceased. On such deposit, the petitioners are permitted to withdraw half of the compensation amount 8 with accrued interest and costs and remaining amount of compensation shall be kept in Fixed Deposit in any Nationalised Bank for a period of two years. Advocate’s fee is fixed at Rs.6,000/­. Office is directed to verify whether any exemption was taken for payment of court fee at the time of filing of petition. Petitioners are entitled for copy of decree, subject to clearance of court fee dues if any.

Directly typed to my dictation by Stenographer, corrected and pronounced by me in open Court this the 12th day of October, 2018.

CHAIRMAN,

MOTOR ACCIDENTS CLAIMS TRIBUNAL,

(VIII ADDL. DISTRICT JUDGE), ANANTHAPURAMU.

Appendix of evidence

Witnesses examined for

PETITIONERS RESPONDENTS

PW.1 : E.Kalavathi. ­None­

P.W.2: B.K.Sreeramulu.

EXHIBITS MARKED FOR PETITIONERS

Ex.A.1 : Attested Xerox copy of F.I.R in Cr.No.126/2016 of Kuderu PS.

Ex.A.2 : Attested copy of Inquest report. 

Ex.A.3: Attested copy of PM Certificate. 

Ex.A.4: Attested copy of Charge sheet

EXHIBITS MARKED FOR RESPONDENT No.3 ­Nil­

CHAIRMAN/VIII ADJ

MOTOR ACCIDENTS CLAIMS TRIBUNAL.