A. Vara Prasada Rao

1

BEFORE THE MOTOR VEHICLES ACCIDENTS CLAIMS TRIBUNAL (ADDL

DISTRICT JUDGE-Cum-JUDGE, FAMILY COURT): GUNTUR

Present: Smt Kuchi Syamala Devi, B.Sc., B.L.,

ADDL. DISTRICT JUDGE-Cum-JUDGE, FAMILY COURT, GUNTUR.

Friday, the 20th day of January, 2012.

M.V.O.P. 341/2011

Between:

1. Kavikondala Sitaravamma, W/o Mohan Rao, aged 52 years, Housewife

2. Patchava Nagavalli Purnima, W/o Venkata Ratnakumar, aged 36 years, Housewife

3. Karuchola Naga Venkata Ratna Kumari, W/o Srinivasa Rao, aged 34 years, Housewife

4. Munnaluri Naga Laxmi Koteswari, W/o Nageswara Rao, aged 32 years, Housewife

All are residents of A.T. Agraharam, 4th line, Guntur, Guntur DMC.

...Petitioners

- And -

1. Devabattuni Venkateswara Rao, S/o Rattaiah, Lorry owner, Kolluru Village and Mandal, Tenali DMC, Guntur District.

2. United India Insurance Co., Ltd., Rep. by its Divl. Manager, 15th line, Arundelpet, Guntur, Guntur DMC. Policy No.150804/31/09/02/0002668 Valid upto 29-9-2010 of Tenali Branch

...Respondents

* * *

This petition coming on before me for final hearing on 22-12-2011 in the presence of Sri I. Rambabu, Advocate for the Petitioners, Sri Paladugu Venkateswarlu, Advocate for the 2nd respondent, 1st respondent having remained exparte, and having stood over for consideration till this day, this court delivered the following:

JUDGMENT

This application is filed U/s.163-A of the M.V. Act and Rules 455 and 476 of A.P.M.V. Rules claiming compensation of Rs.2,00,000/-.

2.The 1st petitioner is the wife and petitioners 2 to 4 are the married daughters of the deceased Kavikondala Mohana Rao who died in the motor accident.

3.While so, on 29-6-2010 at about 11-45 A.M., the deceased proceeding on his bicycle towards Tenali – Kolluru Main Road in Kolluru Village. At that time, a lorry bearing No.AP 16T 2119 came with high 2 speed, dashed behind the bicycle. As a result of which the deceased fell down on the road and lorry dragged him some distance. Due to that impact, the deceased died instantaneously.

4.The deceased was aged about 60 years, earning Rs.3,000/- per month as a document writer and was hale and healthy at the time of his death. The petitioners who were entirely depending upon the earnings of the deceased lost their dependency and support due to his sudden death in the accident. The accident occurred due to rash and negligent driving of the driver of the said lorry. Except the petitioners, there are no other legal representatives. Hence the petition.

5.First Respondent did not contest the proceedings and he remained exparte.

6.Second respondent filed written statement denying the allegations in the petition and contended that the driver of the Lorry was not holding valid and effective driving license at the time of accident. The crime lorry was not insured with this respondent company as on the date of accident and there is no valid insurance policy in force. The petitioners 2 to 4 are the married daughters of deceased and they are not the dependants of the deceased. It is further contended that the claim is highly excessive and unsustainable. Hence, the petition is liable to be dismissed.

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

1. Whether the accident occurred due to rash and negligent 

driving of the driver of Lorry bearing No.AP 16T 2119?

2. Whether the petitioners are entitled to the compensation, if 

so, from whom?

3. To what relief?

8.On behalf of the petitioner P.W.1 was examined and marked Exs.A1 to A5. The 2nd respondent Insurance Company reported no oral evidence and marked no documents.

Issue No.1:

9.The documents filed by the petitioners the copy of the FIR marked as Ex.A1, Charge sheet Ex.A5 clearly goes to show that the crime vehicle was involved in the accident.

10.The inquest report and Post mortem report which are marked as Exs.A2 and A3 show the fact that the deceased died in a motor accident and his death is not a natural death. Ex.A3 Post mortem certificate would also show that the deceased died out of the multiple injuries sustained by him in the accident. Ex.A4 MVI report would disclose that the accident occurred not due to any mechanical defect. This is another factor that establishes the fact that the accident is due to the negligence of the driver.

3

11.P.W.1 is the wife of the deceased. She deposed that petitioners 2 to 4 are her married daughter and she is not eyewitness to the accident. According to her, her husband is aged 60 years and she denied the suggestion that the deceased is more than 70 years. Thus in view of the above evidence and documents discussed supra, I hold that the deceased died out of the accident.

12.The 2nd respondent who is the Insurer of the first respondent vehicle though filed written statement did not substantiate its plea in the evidence by adducing evidence. The 2nd respondent who contended that the driver of the lorry had no valid licence failed to substantiate its plea by any cogent evidence. Therefore, I hold that both R1 and R2 failed to discharge their duty in this case to adduce evidence. Hence both the respondents 1 and 2 are jointly and severally liable to pay compensation. This issue is answered accordingly.

Issue No.2:

13.There are no violations of the policy terms and the policy is in force. The age of the deceased on the date of the accident is about 60 years. The corresponding multiplier to the age of the deceased by the date of the accident is '5'. The petitioner stated that the deceased is a document writer and getting income of Rs.3,000/-. If that is taken into consideration, the annual income would come to Rs.36,000/- p.a.

14.The 1st petitioner is the widow of the deceased is the only dependant. If 1/3rd is deducted towards the personal living expenses of the deceased, the amount would come to Rs.24,000/- p.a. which he would have contributed to the family.

15.The age of the deceased is stated to be 60 years by the date of his death. As per schedule II of the Act, the relevant multiplier corresponding to the age of the deceased is ‘5’ (the claim is under Section 163-A). Then the loss of dependency would come to Rs.1,20,000/-. Apart from this, the 1st petitioner being the widow is entitled to Rs.10,000/- towards loss of consortium and Rs.5,000/- towards funeral expenses and Rs.5,000/- towards loss of estate. Then the total compensation would come to Rs.1,40,000/-.

16.Petitioners 2 to 4 admittedly are married daughters of the deceased. P.W.1 stated that petitioners 2 to 4 are living in their houses respectively with their husbands. There is no evidence to show and it is not the case of the petitioner that they are depending on the deceased for their livelihood and living under one roof along with the deceased. in Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd., Guntur Vs. P. Sathyavathamma and others  reported in 2010 (3) ALD 222 (DB) wherein it was held that ------

“in the absence of evidence that they were entirely

dependents for their livelihood on the deceased, a married

sister or her daughters would not be entitled for any

compensation. Mere fact that the claimants used to live under 

the same roof with the deceased by itself would not be

sufficient.”

4

17.Their Lordships placed reliance on the Judgment of the Division bench in APS RTC Vs. Shafiya Khatoon reported in 1985 ACJ 212 that a married sister or her daughters cannot be considered as dependents even though they may file petition as a legal representative.

In another decision in Dilip Kumar Moses Vs. V.J. Cyrice and  18. others reported in 2002 (6) ALD Page 127, it was held by their Lordships that ---

“a son who is employed and married daughter cannot

claim compensation under the head loss of dependency.”

The Hon’ble Supreme Court in Manjuri Bera Vs. Oriental  19. Insurance Company reported in 2007 ACJ 1279 observed that while dealing with the claim of a married daughter held that -----

“the liability under Section 140 of the Act does not

cease because of the absence of dependency. Even if there is 

no loss of dependency, the claimant if he or she is a legal 

representative will be entitled to compensation.”

20.Therefore, petitioners 2 to 4 cannot be said to have loss of dependency. But they are legal representatives entitled for compensation Thus the 1st petitioner being the widow is entitled to the compensation under the head loss of dependency, consortium, loss of estate and funeral expenses. Petitioners 2 to 4 are entitled under the head loss of love and affection. The issue is answered accordingly.

Issue No.3:

21.In the result, the petition is allowed in part with proportionate costs.

a)The petitioner is entitled for compensation to a tune of Rs.1,40,000/- (Rupees one lakh and forty thousand only) apportioned as follows: 1st petitioner being the widow of deceased entitled to -Rs.1,10,000-00 2nd petitioner being the married daughter entitled to-Rs. 10,000-00 3rd petitioner being the married daughter entitled to-Rs. 10,000-00 4th petitioner being the married daughter entitled to-Rs. 10,000-00 ---------------------- Total-Rs.1,40,000-00 ----------------------

b)R1 and R2 are jointly and severally liable to pay the compensation.

c)R2 as Insurer is directed to deposit the said sum with interest at 6% p.a from the date of petition (3-3-2011) till realization within 30 days from the date of award.

5

d)On such deposit, the petitioners are permitted to withdraw the entire amount by filing an application.

e)Advocate fees is fixed at Rs.1,500/-.

Typed to my dictation, corrected and pronounced by me in open Court on this the 20th day of January, 2012.

ADDITIONAL DISTRICT JUDGE-Cum-

JUDGE, FAMILY COURT, GUNTUR.

Appendix of Evidence:

Witnesses examined:

For Petitioners: For Respondents:

P.W.1 Kavikondala Sitaravamma -None-

Documents marked for Petitioner:

Ex.A1/--:Certified copy of FIR Ex.A2/--:Certified copy of Inquest Report Ex.A3/--: Certified copy of Postmortem Certificate Ex.A4/--:Certified copy of MVI Report Ex.A5/--:Certified copy of Charge sheet

Documents marked for Respondents:

-Nil-

ADDITIONAL DISTRICT JUDGE-Cum-

JUDGE, FAMILY COURT, GUNTUR.

APGU1F0002242011

Presented on : 10-08-2011 Registered on : 10-08-2011 Decided on : 18-02-2013 Duration : 1 years, 6 months, 8 days

IN THE COURT OF

XI Addl. District Sessions Judge AT TENALI Presided Over by Sri A VARA PRASADA RAO Dated this the 18 th Day of February, 2013

OS/218/2011

Madineni Sarada Devi Age: 0 Occupation : Address: Plot No.105, Satyadeva Residency, Donka Raod, Chenchupet, Tenali, Guntur District.

2: Madineni Naga Raju Age: 0 Occupation : Employee Plot No.105 Satyadeva Residency Donka Road Chenchupet Tenali Mandal Guntur District.

3: Madineni Durga Rani Age: 0 Occupation : Plot No.105 Satyadeva Residency Donka Road Chenchupet Tenali Mandal Guntur District

VERSUS

Madineni Vanajakshmi Age: 0 Occupation : Address: Angalakuduru village, Tenali Mandal, Guntur District.

2:Alaparthi Rohini Age: 0 Occupation : Angalakuduru Village Tenali Mandal Guntur District ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Advocate for : Sri P.Rama Jogi Advocate for : Sri S.Rama Rao appearing for Madineni Vanajakshmi: Advocate Sri K.Vasantha Kumar appearing for 2 respectively.

ORDER

Memo is filed by the plaintiff no.1 not pressing the suit. Heard both sides. \ It is submitted that both sides hence settled the matter out side the court and the suit be dismissed without costs. \ If the costs are awarded the relations between the parties would strain. Hence memo is recorded and suit is dismissed without costs.

Date : 18-02-2013 (A VARA PRASADA RAO)

XI Addl. District Sessions Judge TENALI

IN THE COURT OF

XI Addl. District Sessions Judge AT TENALI Presided Over by Sri A VARA PRASADA RAO Dated this the 21 st Day of March 2013

AS/105/2012

Veesam Venkata Sambasiva Rao Age: 0 Occupation : Address: Door No.7-11-123, Bhopal Reddy Street, Ganganammapet, Teanli, Guntur District.

VERSUS

Akkala Venkata Ratnam Age: 0 Occupation : Address: Door No.7-11-123,Bhopal Reddy Street, Ganganammapet, Teanli, Guntur District.

2:Danaboina Samrajyam Age: 0 Occupation : Door NO.7-11-123 Bhopal Reddy Street Ganganammapet Teanli Guntur District ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Advocate for : Sri B.S.R.Krishna Prasad. Advocate for : appearing for Akkala Venkata Ratnam: Advocate appearing for 2 respectively.

ORDER

Appellant is not getting ready for arguments. Appellant is called absent. Office endorsed non payment of costs. Appeal is dismissed for default with costs.

Date : 21-03-2013 (A VARA PRASADA RAO)

XI Addl. District Sessions Judge TENALI