Dr. B. Gnaneshwer Rao

IN THE COURT OF THE MOTOR ACCIDENTS CLAIMS TRIBUNAL

CUM­VII ADDL. DISTRICT JUDGE AT KHAMMAM

Dated this the 21st day of May, 2018

Present: Dr.B.Gnaneshwer Rao, Chairman, M.A.C.T.­Cum­ VII Addl. District Judge.

M.V.O.P.No.559 of 2015

BETWEEN:­ 

Korabandi Shalem Raju, S/o KID Bhagavan Raju @ Isaiah Bhagavan Raj, Age: 25 years, Occu: Driver, R/o H.No.5­3­ 224, CSI Mission Hospital Road, Khammam town and district. …Claim Petitioner

And 

1. Anand South Transport Service, Jalaram Estate, NH­No.8 at Dumad, Baroda district, Vadodara, Gujarath, Owner of the Crime Vehicle i.e., Oil Tanker (lorry) bearing No.GJ 06 AU 8821. 

2. The New India Assurance Company Limited, Divisional Office­III, 2nd Floor, Anant Apartments, Saltwada Station Road crossing, Baroda district, Gujarath State, Insurer of Crime Vehicle i.e., Oil Tanker (Lorry) bearing No.GJ 06 AU 8821. …Respondents ­*­

This O.P. coming before me today for final hearing in the presence of Sri R.Hari Prasad, Advocate for Claim Petitioner; Respondent No.1 remained exparte; Sri.K.Ramachandra Murthy, Advocate for Respondent No.2; upon perusing the material papers available on record; upon hearing arguments on both sides and having stood over for consideration till this day, this Tribunal passed the following:­ 

O R D E R

1. Petitioner claims a compensation of Rs.21,00,000/­.

2(a). Briefly, the averment in the petition is, as follows.

The claim petitioner worked as driver and earned Rs.10,000/­ per month. On 05.05.2015, the claim petitioner Shalem Raju along with his friends Yasa Ashok Kumar, Ravulapati Prasanth, Mamidi Pavan Kumar and Matcha Anurag have proceeded to Visakhapatnam in a Car bearing

No.AP 20 AU 1889. The claim petitioner is the driver of the said Car.

After completion of work at Visakhapatnam, while returning in the said

Car on 07.05.2015, at about 6.15 A.M, when the said Car reached

SC Colony, Gunnepalli Village, Dammapeta Mandal, the driver of the Oil 2

Tanker (Lorry) bearing No.GJ 06 AU 8821 drove his vehicle in a rash and negligent manner at a high speed and dashed against the Car.

As a result, the claim petitioner had sustained severe bleeding injuries all over his body. Yasa Ashok Kumar, Ravulapati Prashanth and Mamidi

Pavan Kumar also received injuries and died on the spot. Matcha Anurag also sustained severe bleeding injuries. The accident occurred was due to the rash and negligent driving of the driver of said lorry. 

2(b). Police, Dammapeta Police Station, registered a case in Crime

No.57 of 2015 against the driver of the crime vehicle (lorry) for the offence under Sections 304­A and 337 IPC.

2(c). He was shifted to Govt. Hospital, Sathupally, later, to NIMS

Hospital, Hyderabad and treated as inpatient. Necessary clinical tests were conducted and found injuries, closed middle third shaft femur fracture right, closed proximal third tibia fracture right, closed left acetabulum fracture, closed proximal third shaft femur fracture left, closed P/3­M/3 shaft humerus fracture left, blunt injury abdomen (splenic laceration) and foot drop and sciatic nerve injury left. In the hospital, the following treatment was given to him, on 15.05.2015 IL nailing left femur, on 20.05.2015 ORIF left acetabulum and IL nailing right femur, on 22.05.2015 plating tibia right and plating humerus laceration were done and conservatively managed splenic laceration.

Finally, he was discharged from the hospital on 26.05.2015. In all, he spent more than Rs.2,00,000/­ towards medical and other expenses.

After discharge from NIMS hospital, he was conservatively treated for a period of one month in St. Mary’s Mission Hospital, Khammam. He is also undergoing physiotherapy. He requires further treatment continuously in future also and has to necessarily spend amount towards treatment. As a result of the injuries, he remained inpatient 3 from the date of accident till to date in various hospitals and underwent several operations on various parts of his body by inserting implants like plates, screws, rods etc., which resulted his lifelong discomfort and became permanently a disabled person. Because of major surgeries and insertion of rods on both legs and hands, he is unable to move from bed, thereby sustained loss of earnings. He suffered lot of mental agony and physical pain. He is unmarried and because of the permanent disability, his marriage chances are badly effected. 

2(d) Respondents No.1 and 2, the owner and insurer of the crime vehicle, are liable to answer the claim. 

3. Respondent No.1 remained exparte.

4. Respondent No.2 filed a counter, as follows. It denied all the allegations in the petition, averred as follows. It denied the age, the avocation, the earnings of the petitioner, the nature of the injuries sustained, the treatment taken and the medical expenses incurred by him. There is no involvement of the crime vehicle at the time of alleged accident. The driver of the crime vehicle lorry bearing No.GJ­06­AU 8821 and as well as the driver of Car bearing No.AP 20 AU 1889 were not having a valid and effective driving licence at the time of the accident, as such, R.2 is not liable to pay any compensation. The petition is bad for non­joinder of the necessary parties the owner and the insurer of Car bearing No.AP 20 AU 1889. The amount of compensation and interest are excessive.

5. Basing on the above pleadings, the following issues have been settled for trial:

1. Whether the accident took place on 07.05.2015 due to the rash and negligent driving of driver of Oil Tanker (Lorry) bearing No.GJ­06­AU­8821 by its driver? 

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

3. To what relief?

4

6. During enquiry, PWs.1 to 3 were examined and Exs.A1 to A10 filed, for the petitioner. On behalf of R.2, RW.1 is examined, it filed

Exs.B1 to B.6.

7. I have heard the arguments on both the sides; as also perused the record.

ISSUE No.1:

8. PW.1 in his evidence deposed to his case and filed the above said documents. 

9. The evidence of PW­1; coupled with Exs.A.1 and A.2 criminal case record, proves that the accident occurred was due to rash and negligent driving of the driver of the subject crime vehicle and that the petitioner sustained injuries in the said accident. I find nothing material elicited in the evidence of Pw.1 to shake or discredit his testimony. On a consideration, I hold that the oral and documentary evidence adduced by him proves that the accident occurred was due to rash and negligent driving by the driver of the said crime vehicle. The issue is, thus, held in favour of the petitioner and against the respondents.

ISSUE No.2 :­

10. PW­1 deposed to the injuries received and the medical treatment undergone by him. He filed the medical record

Exs.A3 to A10.

11. PW.2 doctor deposed, as below. PW.1 was brought to

NIMS Hospital on 07.05.2015 with the history of Road

Transport Accident, where PW.1 was hit by a four wheeler, while he was travelling near Sathupally, Khammam district.

PW.1 was diagnosed to have the following: 1.Closed middle third shaft femur fracture right, 2.Closed proximal third tibia 5 fracture right, 3.Closed left acetabulam fracture, 4.Closed proximal third shaft femur fracture left, 5.Closed shaft humors fracture right, 6.Blunt injury abdomen, splenetic laceration and 7.Left sciatic nerve injury with foot drop. PW.1 was given first aid, resuscitated and admitted on 07.05.2015.

During the stay in the hospital, the following surgeries were done. 1. IL nailing left femur on 15.05.2015, 2.ORIF left acetabulam and IL nailing right femur on 20.05.2015, Plating right tibia and plating humorous right on 22.05.2015 and abdominal injury was managed conservatively. His recovery post operatively was uneven full. PW.1 was discharged on 26.05.2015, with an advise on medicines, physiotherapy and bed rest and asked for follow up at OPD. All the above described injuries are grievous in nature. Owing to the severity of the injuries, multiple surgeries, associated morbid tidy, PW.1 is likely to have a delayed recovery and may not be able to do heavy manual work as before. The patient is also likely to have certain difficulties in his day to day life in discharging regular functions. On examination, PW.1 still has stiffness in the right knee and weakness of the left ankle, thereby making he is unfit for driving as of now. PW.1 may require implant removal in future, the cost of which is approximately Rs.50,000/­. PW.1 requires consultation of plastic surgeon regarding the weakness in his left foot. Owing to the multiplicity of the injuries, Pw.1 has 30% disability both the lower limbs. Exs.A3, A4, A5 and A6 were issued by their hospital. Exs.A8, A9 and A10 are a bundle of medical bills issued by NIMS. 

6

12. Pw.3 doctor deposed, as below. He is a Medical Board member and also Chairman for District Medical Board,

Khammam. On 22.09.2017, PW.1 came to the hospital, then he examined the PW.1 and found post traumatic injuries both lower limbs and that he has 35% disability and issued disability certificate for 35%. Ex.A7 is Physically Handicapped

Certificate issued by District Medical Board, District Head

Quarters Hospital at Khammam. 

13. The counsel for the petitioner submitted that, the evidence of PWs.1 to 3 and other documents filed in support of the claim of the petitioner establish that, he sustained seven major fracture injuries on various parts of his both lower limbs and underwent more than five (5) surgeries as inpatient in NIMS Hospital, Hyderabad. He further submitted that, according to doctor Pw.2 the claim petitioner have certain difficulties in his day to day life in discharging regular functions and still has stiffness in the right knee and weakness of left ankle and he is unfit for driving. According to Pw.2, the claim petitioner requires to undergo another surgery for removal of implants in future and which may cost

Rs.50,000/­ approximately. The doctor also estimated the disability at 30%. The counsel further submitted that, the petitioner had sustained 35% permanent disability as is evident from Ex.A7 physically handicapped certificate issued by District Medical Board, Khammam. The counsel further submitted that, prior to the accident, the claim petitioner was working as driver and earning Rs.10,000/­ per month and because of the permanent disability sustained by him, now he 7 is not able to attend to any work, more particularly the profession of driver and lost his job and earnings. Thus, the claim petitioner is entitled to claim compensation of

Rs.21,00,000/­ towards pecuniary and non­pecuniary damages.

14. On the other hand, the counsel for the respondent No.2 contended that, all the injuries sustained by the claim petitioner are now united and the petitioner is able to attend to any work much less his profession as driver; that admittedly there are no future loss of earnings, since the petitioner did not sustain any permanent disability. 

15. Under the Motor Vehicles Act, the claim petitioner is entitled to compensation towards pecuniary and non­ pecuniary damages.

16.PECUNIARY DAMAGES :­

(i) Expenses relating to treatment, hospitalization, medicines, transportation,nourishingfoodandmiscellaneous expenditure :­

The claim petitioner filed medical bills and they are marked as Exs.A8 to A10. According to Exs.A8 to A.10, the petitioner spent Rs.47,334/­ towards treatment charges.

Apart from it, the petitioner might have spent sum amount towards transportation, nourishing food and miscellaneous charges. So, an amount of Rs.50,000/­ is awarded to the petitioner under this head. 

(ii) Towards Loss of Future Earnings :­ 

a) The evidence of PWs.1 and 2 discloses that, Pw.1 sustained i. Closed middle third shaft femur fracture right, ii.Closed proximal third tibia fracture right, iii.Closed left 8 acetabulam fracture, iv.Closed proximal third shaft femur fracture left, v.Closed shaft humors fracture right, vi.Blunt injury abdomen, splenetic laceration and vii.Left sciatic nerve injury with foot drop, for which, he underwent surgeries such as i. IL nailing left femur on 15.05.2015, ii.ORIF left acetabulam and IL nailing right femur on 20.05.2015, iii. Plating right tibia and plating humorous right on 22.05.2015 and abdominal injury was managed conservatively.

Further, according to Pw.2, the claim petitioner is unfit to drive any four wheelers. According to Pw.3, the claim petitioner had sustained 35% permanent disability and he admitted that Ex.A7 Physically Handicapped Certificate was issued by District Medical Board, Khammam. According to claim petitioner, prior to the accident, he was working as Car driver and getting Rs.10,000/­ per month from his profession.

Because of the accident, he became permanently a disabled person and he is not able to attend to his profession as Car driver and lost his total monthly earnings. As regards the monthly income of the claim petitioner, I feel it just and reasonable to fix the monthly income of the petitioner at

Rs.9,000/­, as nowadays, a male or female person who are engaged in any skilled or unskilled work, are getting at least a minimum of Rs.300/­ per day. Since the profession of driver is a skilled in nature, the monthly income of the petitioner fixed at Rs.9,000/­ is just and reasonable.

b) The counsel for the petitioner submitted a decision reported in 2014 (5) ALD 42 (SC) in between Mekala Vs.

M.Malathi and another, wherein their lordships of Hon’ble

Apex Court while fixing the notional monthly income of 9 11th standard student at Rs.10,000/­ and further by adding 50% of the actual income towards future prospects, calculations with regard to loss of earnings and future loss of earnings were made as annual income and percentage of disability out of annual income and multiplier applied and awarded compensation. In a similar case, the counsel for the petitioner further submitted a decision reported in

2011 ACJ 1 (SC) in between Raj Kumar V. Ajay Kumar and

another, wherein their lordships of Hon’ble Apex Court held that, the injured was a driver, aged 30 years, assessed disability at 60% and terminated from his job as he could not no longer drive and observed that, his chances of getting any other employment was bleak and even if he got any job, the salary was likely to be a pittance and therefore assessed his loss of future earning capacity as 75% and awarded future loss of earnings.

c) The counsel for petitioner further submitted that, while computing the compensation under the head of loss of future earnings, on account of the petitioner sustaining permanent disability, his future prospects at 40% to the actual monthly income to be added in view of decision of

Hon’ble Apex Court reported in 2017 ACJ 2700 in between

NATIONAL INSURANCE CO. LTD. V. PRANAY SETHI.

In support of this decision, he also relied on a recent decision of Hon’ble Apex Court reported in 2018 ACJ 740.

d) In view of the above settled law, now the claim petitioner is entitled to compensation under the head of future loss of earnings is determined as follows:­ 10

Annual income of the petitioner is Rs.9,000/­ x 12 =

Rs.1,08,000/­, an addition of 40% of the income of the petitioner is applied towards future prospects, which comes to

Rs.43,200/­. Thus, the annual income of the claim petitioner is taken at Rs.1,51,200/­. The permanent disability estimated at 35% as per Ex.A7, so 35% of annual loss of income comes to Rs.52,920/­. The petitioner is aged 25 years at the time of the accident. The multiplier applicable is ‘18’. Therefore, the petitioner now entitled to Rs.52,920/­ x 18 = Rs.9,52,560/­, which is rounded off to Rs.9,53,000/­ under the head of loss of future earnings. 

(iii) Towards Loss of Future Medical Expenses :­ 

According to Pw.2, the claim petitioner needs to undergo surgeries in future for removal of implants which may approximately costs Rs.50,000/­. So, an amount of

Rs.50,000/­ is awarded to the claim petitioner under this head. 

II. NON PECUNIARY DAMAGES :­ 

(i). Towards Loss of Discomfort, Loss of Marriage Chances and Inconvenience :­ 

In the decision cited by the petitioner i.e., 2014 (5) ALD 42 (SC) in between Mekala Vs. M.Malathi and another, the

Hon’ble Supreme Court also granted compensation under the

head of loss of enjoyment of life and marriage prospects.

There is no doubt that, the petitioner had sustained traumatic both lower limbs and thereby sustained permanent limping to his both legs. So, there is a damage to the marriage prospects 11 of the petitioner. So, in my view Rs.2,00,000/­ (Rupees two lakhs only) is the reasonable compensation under this head. 

(ii). Damages for Pain and Suffering and Mental Agony :­ 

Admittedly the claim petitioner had suffered five (5) major fractures and five (5) surgical operations to his both legs and incapacitated to attend to his profession as driver.

Even as per PW.2 doctor, the claim petitioner still had stiffness in his right knee and weakness of left ankle and he may not be able to do heavy manual work as before the accident. Thus, a sum of Rs.1,00,000/­ is awarded to the claim petitioner under this head.

(iii) Loss of Amenities and Loss of Expectation of Life :­ 

Admittedly, on account of accident, the petitioner was thrown into discomfort, frustration, mental stress, hardship, disappointment, mental shock in life, dejection and unhappiness in future life and also on account of diminution in life, besides loss of amenities and social disability due to physical handicappedness and towards loss of expectation of life, I feel it is just and reasonable to award a sum of

Rs.1,00,000/­ under this head. 

17. Thus, petitioner is entitled for claim of compensation under various heads as follows.

Sl.No.HeadAmountRemarks

1.Expenses Rs.50,000/­ --- relating to treatment, hospitalization, medicines, transportation, nourishing food

and 

miscellaneous expenditure.

12

2.Loss of Future Rs.9,53,000/­ earnings

3.Loss of future Rs.50,000/­ medical expenses

4.Loss of discomfort, lossRs.2,00,000/­ of marriage chances and inconvenience 

5.Damages for pain, suffering Rs.1,00,000/­ and mental agony

6.Loss of amenities and Rs.1,00,000/­ loss of expectation life

Total Rs.14,53,000/­

18.The learned counsel for respondent No.2 contended that, the crime vehicle i.e., lorry bearing GJ­06­AU­8821 is the Multi Axle Goods

Vehicle Oil Tanker and it was registered/obtained certificate as

Hazardous Chemical Transports, such as petroleum products etc., He further contended that, at the time of the accident, the driver of the said vehicle was possessing a licence to drive MCWG, LMV, LMV Cab,

Transport PSV bus only and so since the crime vehicle is heavy transport oil tanker (Flammable) hazardous vehicle which is a separate class of vehicle, the driver must possess licence “Heavy Transport Hazardous

Licence”, but the extract copy of driving licence No.PB4620130018369 issued to the driver of crime lorry had no such endorsement of heavy transport hazardous and therefore R.2 Company is not liable to pay any compensation, since the owner has violated the terms and conditions of insurance policy. In support of its contention, the respondent No.2 got marked Exs.B2 to B6.

19. On the other hand, the learned counsel for the claim petitioners contended that, at the time of the accident, the driver of crime vehicle 13 possessed a valid and effective driving licence, as is evident from Ex.B6.

There is no evidence on record to show that, the crime vehicle is a heavy transport oil tanker (Flammable) hazardous and in order to establish the same, the insurance company failed to examine the RTA, Vadodara,

Gujarath State to prove that the crime vehicle is a hazardous one and a person who was driving the same must possess a separate clause of licence other than the class of vehicles mentioned in Ex.B6. Moreover, the charge sheet (Ex.A5) filed by police did not disclose any charge made against the driver of the crime vehicle for violation of any M.V. Rules.

Therefore, it is contended by the learned counsel for petitioners that, the driver of crime vehicle possessed a valid and effective driving licence at the time of the accident and as such R.1 and R.2 are jointly and severally liable to pay compensation.

20.Ex.B1 policy has a valid coverage, but for the contention of respondent No.2 that the driver of the crime vehicle did not possess a valid and effective driving licence to driveHazardousvehiclei.e.,crimevehicle.

I find, there is force in the contention of the respondent No.2, since the documents under Exs.B2 to B4 proves that, the crime vehicle was registered as Hazardous Chemical

Transports and to drive such a vehicle, the driver must possess “Heavy Transport Hazardous Licence”. No doubt, there is no dispute that, according to Ex.B6, the driver of the crime vehicle possessed licence to drive MCWG, LMV, LMV and

Transport PSV bus only. Thus, the contention of Respondent

No.2, however, now been set at rest by the Hon'ble Supreme

Court of India in the decision reported in 2013 ACJ 1944 (SC)

in between S.Iyyapan V. United India Insurance Company

Ltd., and another, in that it has been held that, the driver is 14 holding licence to drive light motor vehicle, but there was no endorsement in the licence to drive light motor vehicle used as commercial vehicle, the insurance company first to satisfy the award and thereafter recover the amount from the owner of crime vehicle. In another recent decision reported in 2017

ACJ 1362 (SC) in between Lal Singh Marabi V. National

Insurance Company Ltd., and others, in that it has been held that, the driver of offending mini bus had no valid licence at the time of the accident, however, the insurance company was directed to pay the compensation to claimant and recover the amount from the owner and driver of mini bus. The above said decisions well applies to the case on hand. Accordingly, the issue is held in favour of the petitioners.

21.ISSUE No.3:

In the result, 

a)The petition is allowed, in part, with proportionate costs,awardingacompensationof Rs.14,53,000/­ (Rupees fourteen lakhs fifty three thousand only) to the petitioner together with interest thereon @ 7.5% per annum from the date of petition till the date of deposit. 

b) R.2 is directed to first pay the awarded amount to the petitioners, later, recover the same from R.1 the owner of the vehicle by initiating the proceedings before the executing

Court without filing a separate suit for the said purpose. Rest of the claim of petitioner is dismissed. 

c) Respondent No.2 is directed to deposit the compensation amount within two (2) months from the date of this award.

15

d) On such deposit, the petitioner is permitted to withdraw the entire amount of compensation amount with interest accrued thereon and proportionate costs.

e) The fees of the Advocate is fixed at Rs.3,000/­.

Typed to my dictation, corrected and pronounced by me in the open court on this the 21st day of May, 2018.

CHAIRMAN 

MOTOR ACCIDENTS CLAIMS TRIBUNAL,

VII ADDL. DISTRICT JUDGE.

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

For Witnesses examined 

For claim petitioner: For Respondent No.2:

PW­1: K.Shalem Raju RW.1­V.Ravi Teja 

PW­2: Dr.Lalitha Mohan 

PW­3: Dr.T.Madan Singh : EXHIBITS MARKED FOR PETITIONER :

 Ex.A1­Certified Copy of First Information Report 

 Ex.A2­Certified Copy of Charge Sheet

 Ex.A3­Certified Copy of Injury Certificate

Ex.A4 – Attested xerox copy of discharge record issued by NIMS, Hyderabad, dated 26.05.2015

 Ex.A5­Outpatient medical record issued by NIMS, Hyderabad, 

dated 07.05.2015

 Ex.A6­Outpatient medical record issued by NIMS, Hyderabad, 

dated 27.06.2015

 Ex.A7–Physically Handicapped Certificate issued by Medical Board, District Head Quarters Hospital, Khammam 

 Ex.A8 –Attested Xerox Copies of I.P Advanced receipts (2) in number for Rs.28,196/­ issued by NIMS Hospital, Hyderabad

 Ex.A9 –Attested Xerox Copies of Investigation bills (5) in number worth Rs.13,000/­ 

 Ex.A10–Medical bills for Rs.6,138/­ : EXHIBITS MARKED FOR RESPONDENT No.2 :

Ex.B1­Certified copy of Insurance Policy 

Ex.B2­Copies of the R.C of Form­47, Form­38, Form N.P.P.U.C Crime Vehicle Multi Axle Goods Vehicle Oil Tanker bearing No.GJ­06­AU­8821 issued by RTA, Vadodara, Gujarat. 

16

Ex.B3­Certificate issued by Nishit Corporation Fire Fighting Appliances for Crime vehicle. 

Ex.B4­Certificate issued by Dy. Controller of Explosives, Vadodara for Crime vehicle.

Ex.B5­Certified copy of the Crime Details Form

Ex.B6­Copy of the Driving Licence of Gurvinder Singh 

CHAIRMAN 

MOTOR ACCIDENTS CLAIMS TRIBUNAL,

VII ADDL. DISTRICT JUDGE.

IN THE COURT OF THE MOTOR ACCIDENTS CLAIMS TRIBUNAL

CUM­VII ADDL. DISTRICT JUDGE AT KHAMMAM

Dated this the 21st day of May, 2018

Present: Dr.B.Gnaneshwer Rao, Chairman, M.A.C.T.­Cum­ VII Addl. District Judge.

M.V.O.P.No.559 of 2015

Presented on : 29­07­2015

Filed on : 29­07­2015

BETWEEN:­ 

Korabandi Shalem Raju, S/o KID Bhagavan Raju @ Isaiah Bhagavan Raj, Age: 25 years, Occu: Driver, R/o H.No.5­3­ 224, CSI Mission Hospital Road, Khammam town and district. …Claim Petitioner

And 

1. Anand South Transport Service, Jalaram Estate, NH­No.8 at Dumad, Baroda district, Vadodara, Gujarath, Owner of the Crime Vehicle i.e., Oil Tanker (lorry) bearing No.GJ 06 AU 8821. 

2. The New India Assurance Company Limited, Divisional Office­III, 2nd Floor, Anant Apartments, Saltwada Station Road crossing, Baroda district, Gujarath State, Insurer of Crime Vehicle i.e., Oil Tanker (Lorry) bearing No.GJ 06 AU 8821. …Respondents ­*­ CLAIM FOR:­ Petition filed U/Sec.166 of Motor Vehicles Act claiming compensation of Rs.21,00,000/­ (Rupees twenty one lakhs only) on account of injuries sustained by petitioner; against the respondents No.1 and 2 being the owner and insurer of Crime Vehicle­Oil Tanker (Lorry) bearing No.GJ 06 AU 8821. 

CAUSE OF ACTION:­ The cause of action arose on 07.05.2015 at about 6.15 A.M., near SC Colony, Gunnapalli, Dammapeta Mandal, Khammam district. 

COURT FEE PAID:­Court fee of Rs.20,360/­ is paid U/Rule 475 (1) (b) of A.P.M.V. Rules.

DECREE:

This O.P. coming before me today for final hearing in the presence of Sri R.Hari Prasad, Advocate for the Claim Petitioner; Respondent No.1 remained exparte; Sri K.Ramachandra Murthy, Advocate for Respondent No.2; upon perusing the material papers available on record; upon hearing arguments on both sides and having stood over for consideration, till this day, this Court doth order and decree:

1. That the petition be and is hereby partly allowed with proportionate costs, awarding a compensation of Rs.14,53,000/­ (Rupees fourteen lakhs fifty three thousand only) to the petitioner, together with 18 interest thereon @ 7.5% per annum from the date of petition, till the date of deposit. 

2. That the respondent No.2 is directed to first pay the awarded amount to the petitioner, later, recover the same from R.1 the owner of the vehicle by initiating the proceedings before the executing Court without filing a separate suit for the said purpose. Rest of the claim of petitioner is dismissed.

3. Respondent No.2 is directed to deposit the compensation amount with proportionate costs and interest within two (2) months from the date of this award. On such deposit, the petitioner is permitted to withdraw the entire amount of compensation amount with accrued interest thereon and proportionate costs. 

4. Advocate’s fee is fixed at Rs.3,000/­ (Rupees three thousand only).

5. Respondent Nos.1 and 2 do also pay to the petitioner a sum of

Rs…………………. towards costs of the petition.

 Given under my hand and the seal of this court on this the 21st day of May, 2018.

CHAIRMAN

MACT-CUM-VII ADDL.

DISTRICT JUDGE

PARTICULARS OF COSTS

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- FORFOR R.1 FOR R.2

PETITIONER

1.Stamps on Petition­ 2.Stamps on powerE 3.Stamps on processX 4.Stamps on documentsP 5.Stamps on petitions A

6. Advocate’s feeR

7. Commissioner’s feeT 8.Publication charges E

9. Misc. & Type charges­

TOTAL:

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

CHAIRMAN

MACT-CUM-VII ADDL.

DISTRICT JUDGE.

1

IN THE COURT OF THE MOTOR ACCIDENTS CLAIMS TRIBUNAL

­CUM­VII ADDL. DISTRICT JUDGE AT KHAMMAM

Monday, the 21st day of May, 2018

Present: Dr.B.Gnaneshwer Rao, Chairman, Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal­Cum­ VII Addl. District Judge, Khammam. 

M.A.T.O.P.No.563 of 2015

Between:­ 

1. Yasa Venkateswara Rao, S/o late Ramachandraiah, Age: 50 years, Occu: Conductor, TSRTC, Khammam Depot, 

2. Yasa Tulasamma, W/o Yasa Venkateswara Rao, Age: 45 years, Occu: Housewife, Both are R/o Tanikella Village, Konijerla Mandal, Khammam district. ...Claim Petitioners 

And

1. Anand South Transport Service, Jalaram Estate, NH­No.8 at Dumad, Baroda district, Vadodara, Gujarath, Owner of the Crime Vehicle i.e., Oil Tanker (lorry) bearing No.GJ 06 AU 8821. 

2. The New India Assurance Company Limited, Divisional Office­III, 2nd Floor, Anant Apartments, Saltwada Station Road crossing, Baroda district, Gujarath State, Insurer of Crime Vehicle i.e., Oil Tanker (Lorry) bearing No.GJ 06 AU 8821. …Respondents ­*­ This O.P. coming before me today for final hearing in the presence of Sri R.Hari Prasad, Advocate for the Claim Petitioners; Respondent No.1 remained exparte; Sri K.Ramachandra Murthy, Advocate for Respondents No.2; upon perusing the material papers available on record; upon hearing arguments on both sides and having stood over for consideration till this day, this Tribunal passed the following:­ 

O R D E R

 1. Petitioners claim a compensation of Rs.25,00,000/­.

2(a). Briefly, the averment in the petition is, as follows.

Petitioner No.1 and 2, are the parents of the deceased Yasa Ashok

Kumar. He was aged 24 years and qualified in M.Tech. He was hale, healthy and energetic, prior to the accident and the deceased is the only son to his parents. On 05.05.2015, the deceased

Yasa Ashok Kumar along with his friends Mamidi Pavan Kumar, ...2...

Ravulapati Prasanth and Matcha Anurag proceeded to

Visakhapatnam in a Car bearing No.AP 20 AU 1889. The driver of the said Car by name Shalem Raju is also the friend of the deceased and others. After completion of work at Visakhapatnam, while returning in the said Car on 07.05.2015 at about 6.15 A.M, when the said Car reached SC Colony, Gunnepalli Village, Dammapeta Mandal, the driver of the Oil Tanker (Lorry) bearing No.GJ 06 AU 8821 drove his vehicle in a rash and negligent manner at a high speed and dashed against the Car. As a result, the deceased had sustained severe bleeding injuries all over his body and died on the spot. Further,

Mamidi Pavan Kumar and Ravulapati Prashanth also died on the spot. The driver of Car Raju and Matcha Anurag also sustained severe bleeding injuries. The accident occurred was due to the rash and negligent driving of the driver of said crime vehicle. 

2(b). Police, Dammapeta Police Station, registered a case in Crime

No.57 of 2015 against the driver of the crime vehicle (lorry) for the offence under Sections 304­A and 337 IPC.

2(c). Due to the untimely demise of deceased, the petitioners lost their source of income. They lost love and affection.

The respondents are jointly and severally liable to pay compensation to the claim petitioners. 

2(d) Respondents No.1 and 2, the owner and insurer of the crime vehicle, are liable to answer the claim. 

3. Respondent No.1 remained exparte.

4. Respondent No.2 filed a counter, as follows. It denied all the allegations in the petition, averred as follows. It denied the age and avocation of the deceased; averred that the deceased is unmarried ...3… and un­employee and not earning member at the time of accident.

There is no involvement of the crime vehicle at the time of alleged accident. The driver of the crime vehicle lorry bearing No.GJ­06­AU 8821 and as well as the driver of Car bearing No.AP 20 AU 1889 were not having a valid and effective driving licence at the time of the accident, as such, R.2 is not liable to pay any compensation.

The petition is bad for non­joinder of the necessary parties the owner and the insurer of Car bearing No.AP 20 AU 1889.

The amount of compensation and interest are excessive.

5. Basing on the above pleadings, the following issues have been settled for trial:

1. Whether the deceased died on 07.05.2015 at about 6.15 A.M., near SC Colony, Gunnepalli Village, Dammapeta Mandal due to rash and negligent driving of driver of Oil Tanker (Lorry) bearing No.GJ­06­AU­8821? 

2. Whether the petitioners are entitled for compensation, if so, how much and from whom? 

3. To what relief?

6. During enquiry, PWs.1 and 2 were examined, they filed

Exs.A1 to A8. On behalf of R.2, RW.1 is examined, it filed Exs.B1 to

B.6.

7. I have heard the arguments on both the sides; as also perused the record.

ISSUE No.1:

8.PW.1 in his evidence deposed to his case and filed the above said documents. 

9. The evidence of PW­1; and, PW.2, an ocular testimony; coupled with Exs.A.1, A.4 and A.5 criminal case record, proves that the accident occurred was due to rash and negligent driving of the driver ...4...

of the subject crime vehicle and that the deceased died in the said accident. I find nothing material elicited in the evidence of Pws.1 and 2 to shake or discredit their testimony. On a consideration,

I hold that the oral and documentary evidence adduced by them proves that the accident occurred was due to rash and negligent driving by the driver of the said crime vehicle. The issue is, thus, held in favour of the petitioners and against the respondents.

ISSUE No.2: 

10. In view of findings on issue No.1, the claim petitioners are entitled for compensation. Now the question is how much compensation the petitioners are entitled and from which of the respondents? 

11. The counsel for the petitioners submitted that, the deceased Ashok Kumar was aged 24 years at the time of the accident and he has completed his Final Semester

M.Tech (Information Technology) at Avanthi Institute of

Engineering and Technology, Thamaram, Vizag district. He further contended that, the deceased was hale and healthy and energetic prior to the date of his death. He was a brilliant student and as such he passed B.Tech (Information Technology) in first class. The counsel for the petitioners further contended that, in view of minimum wages scale fixed to the Technical Persons who are holding a Bachelor Degree in Engineering Course are earning at least Rs.25,000/­ per month and therefore since the deceased possessed higher qualification in M.Tech by the date of his death, he would have got good employment with at least minimum income of Rs.30,000/­ per month. The ...5...

counsel further contended that, due to sudden demise of the deceased, the parents of the deceased, who is only son to them, are put to deep shock, lot of depression, grief and subjected to mental agony. Therefore, under the

Motor Vehicles Act, the claim petitioners are entitled to compensation of Rs.25,00,000/­.

12. In support of the above contentions, the learned counsel submitted a decision reported in 2014 (5) ALD 42

(SC) in between V.MEKALA Vs. M.MALATHI AND

ANOTHER. In this decision, the Hon’ble Supreme Court held that, the claimant is aged about 16 years and was a brilliant student and secured first rank in 10th standard and studying 11th standard at the time of the accident. The

Hon’ble Apex Court taken into income of the injured

notionally at Rs.10,000/­ per month and future prospectus 50% was taken into consideration and granted compensation. The learned counsel also cited another decision reported in2014 ACJ 2613 in between

N.SURENDER RAO AND OTHERS Vs. B.SWAMY AND

ANOTHER. In this decision, the Hon’ble High Court of A.P.

held that, the deceased aged 19 years, III year B.Tech

Student. The Hon’ble High Court notionally fixed the income at Rs.12,000/­ per month and awarded compensation of Rs.14,21,000/­. He also relied another decision of Hon’ble High Court of A.P reported in 2010 (1)

TAC 800 in between B.RAMULAMMA Vs. VENKATESH BUS

UNION LINGARAJAPURAM, BANGALORE AND ANOTHER.

...6...

In this decision, the Hon’ble High Court notionally fixed the income of a computer engineer of final year B.Tech

Student who died in an accident at Rs.12,000/­ per month.

The learned counsel further submitted that, while computing the compensation under the head of loss of dependency, future prospectus of the deceased at 40% to the actual monthly income to be added in view of decision of Hon’ble Apex Court reported in 2017 ACJ 2700 in

between NATIONAL INSURANCE CO. LTD. V. PRANAY

SETHI. In support of this decision, he also relied on a recent decision of Hon’ble Apex Court reported in 2018

ACJ 740. 

13.The counsel for respondent No.2 submits that, the principle of addition on account of future prospects is not applicable where income of the deceased is determined by notionally/guesswork. In reply to this contention, the counsel for the petitioners submitted a recent decision of

Hon’ble Apex Court reported in 2018 ACJ 5 in between

Hem Raj V. Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd. and others,

wherein, in a similar case, their lordships held:

“Quantum – Fatal accident – Principles of assessment – Future prospects – Deceased aged 40 – Upholding objection of insurance company that principle of addition on account of future prospects is not applicable where income of the deceased is determined by guesswork, High Court disallowed the addition of 50% made by the Tribunal for future prospects while computing compensation – Whether addition on account of future prospects is admissible where minimum income is determined on guesswork in absence of proof of income – Held: yes; there cannot be distinction where there is evidence of income and where minimum ...7...

income is determined on guesswork; executing court directed to re­compute entitlement of claimants by adding 40 percent of income for future prospects and make corresponding deduction towards personal expenses. [2017 ACJ 2700 (SC) followed].

14. The learned counsel further submitted that, while computing the compensation under the head of loss of dependency, the multiplier shall be taken on the age of the deceased, but not on the age of the dependents.

In support of it’s contention, the learned counsel cited a recent decision of Hon’ble Apex Court reported in 2018 ACJ 737 wherein their lordships after keeping in view of the principles laid down in Sarala Verma 2009 ACJ 1298 (SC) and affirmed in Pranay Sethi 2017 ACJ 2700 (SC), applied multiplier ‘18’ as the deceased a Bachelor, aged 23 years. 

15. On the other hand, the learned counsel for respondent No.2 vehemently contended that, the deceased was unmarried, unemployee and not earning member at the time of the accident and therefore the petitioners are not entitled for any compensation.

16. Computation of compensation under the head of loss of dependency :­ 

As regards the educational qualifications of the deceased Ashok Kumar is concerned, there is no dispute that, he passed B.Tech (Information Technology) in First

Class and also completed four (4) semesters of M.Tech (Information Technology), as is evident from Ex.A7­B.Tech

Provisional Certificate issued by JNTU, Hyderabad and ...8...

Ex.A8­Certificate issued by Principal, Avanthi Institute of

Engineering & Technology, Tamaram, Visakhapatnam district. As regards the age of the deceased is concerned, there is also no dispute that he was aged 24 years by the date of his death, as is evident from Ex.A6­Secondary

School Certificate. As regards the income of the deceased is concerned, keeping in view of the submissions and decisions relied upon by the learned counsel for the claim petitioners, as referred supra, this Court feels it is just and reasonable to fix the income of the deceased at notionally at Rs.15,000/­ per month keeping in view of his educational qualification, bright academic track record and the assured prospect of his securing a regular employment in his line of study. 

17. For calculation of loss of dependency, relying on

National Insurance Co. Ltd., v. Pranay Sethi and others 1 and Hem Raj V. Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd. and others (2018 ACJ 5), an addition of 40% of the income of the deceased is applied towards future prospects; and, following Sarla Varma and others Vs. Delhi Transport

Corporation2,, the relevant multiplier applicable to the age group of the deceased 21 to 25 is ‘18’ and if the same is multiplied with the annual income of the deceased after deducting 50% of his personal and living expenses, the compensation under the head of loss of dependency comes 12017 ACJ 2700 (SC) 22009 ACJ 1298 (SC) ...9...

to Rs.15,000/­ plus 40% = 21,000/­ less 50% = 10,500 x 12 x 18 = Rs.22,68,000/­. 

18. Apart from above, the claim petitioners 1 and 2 who are the parents of the deceased, are also entitled to compensation of Rs.15,000/­ towards loss of estate.

The petitioners are also entitled Rs.15,000/­ towards funeral expenses. Thus, the petitioners are entitled to total compensation, as follows:­ 

Sl.HeadAmountRemarks No.

01Loss of dependency Rs.22,68,000­00­­­ 02Loss of estate Rs.15,000­00 --- 03Funeral expenses Rs.15,000­00 ­­­

Total Rs.22,98,000­00

19.The learned counsel for respondent No.2 contended that, the crime vehicle i.e., lorry bearing GJ­06­AU­8821 is the Multi Axle

Goods Vehicle Oil Tanker and it was registered/obtained certificate as Hazardous Chemical Transports, such as petroleum products etc.,

He further contended that, at the time of the accident, the driver of the said vehicle was possessing a licence to drive MCWG, LMV, LMV

Cab, Transport PSV bus only and so since the crime vehicle is heavy transport oil tanker (Flammable) hazardous vehicle which is a separate class of vehicle, the driver must possess licence “Heavy

Transport Hazardous Licence”, but the extract copy of driving licence

No.PB4620130018369 issued to the driver of crime lorry had no such endorsement of heavy transport hazardous and therefore R.2

Company is not liable to pay any compensation, since the owner has ...10...

violated the terms and conditions of insurance policy. In support of its contention, the respondent No.2 got marked Exs.B2 to B6.

20. On the other hand, the learned counsel for the claim petitioners contended that, at the time of the accident, the driver of crime vehicle possessed a valid and effective driving licence, as is evident from Ex.B6. There is no evidence on record to show that, the crime vehicle is a heavy transport oil tanker (Flammable) hazardous and in order to establish the same, the insurance company failed to examine the RTA, Vadodara, Gujarath State to prove that the crime vehicle is a hazardous one and a person who was driving the same must possess a separate clause of licence other than the class of vehicles mentioned in Ex.B6. Moreover, the charge sheet (Ex.A5) filed by police did not disclose any charge made against the driver of the crime vehicle for violation of any M.V. Rules. Therefore, it is contended by the learned counsel for petitioners that, the driver of crime vehicle possessed a valid and effective driving licence at the time of the accident and as such R.1 and R.2 are jointly and severally liable to pay compensation.

21.Ex.B1 policy has a valid coverage, but for the contention of respondent No.2 that the driver of the crime vehicle did not possess a valid and effective driving licence to drive Hazardous vehicle i.e., crime vehicle. I find, there is force in the contention of the respondent No.2, since the documents under Exs.B2 to B4 proves that, the crime vehicle was registered as Hazardous Chemical Transports and to drive such a vehicle, the driver must possess “Heavy Transport Hazardous Licence”. No doubt, there is no dispute that, according to Ex.B6, the driver of ...11...

the crime vehicle possessed licence to drive MCWG, LMV,

LMV and Transport PSV bus only. Thus, the contention of

Respondent No.2, however, now been set at rest by the

Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in the decision reported

in 2013 ACJ 1944 (SC) in between S.Iyyapan V. United

India Insurance Company Ltd., and another, in that it has been held that, the driver is holding licence to drive light motor vehicle, but there was no endorsement in the licence to drive light motor vehicle used as commercial vehicle, the insurance company first to satisfy the award and thereafter recover the amount from the owner of crime vehicle. In another recent decision reported in 2017

ACJ 1362 (SC) in between Lal Singh Marabi V. National

Insurance Company Ltd., and others, in that it has been held that, the driver of offending mini bus had no valid licence at the time of the accident, however, the insurance company was directed to pay the compensation to claimant and recover the amount from the owner and driver of mini bus. The above said decisions well applies to the case on hand. Accordingly, the issue is held in favour of the petitioners.

ISSUE No.3:

22. In the result, 

a) the petition is allowed, in part, with proportionate costs, awarding a compensation of Rs.22,98,000/­ (Rupees twenty two lakhs and ninety eight thousand only) to the petitioners, together with interest thereon @ 7.5% per annum from the date of petition to till the date of deposit. 

...12...

b) The petitioners 1 and 2 are entitled to receive the compensation as follows: 

1. Petitioner No.1 Rs.11,49,000/­ 

2. Petitioner No.2 Rs.11,49,000/­

c) R.2 is directed to first pay the awarded amount to the petitioners, later, recover the same from R1 the owner of the vehicle by initiating the proceedings before the executing Court without filing a separate suit for the said purpose. Rest of the claim of petitioners is dismissed. 

d) Respondent No.2 is directed to deposit the compensation amount within two (2) months from the date of this award.

e) On such deposit, the petitioners No.1 and 2 are permitted to withdraw their respective share amounts with proportionate costs and interest accrued thereon.

 f) The fees of the Advocate is fixed at Rs.3,000/­.

Typed to my dictation, corrected and pronounced by me in the open Court on this, the 21st day of May, 2018. 

CHAIRMAN 

MOTOR ACCIDENTS CLAIMS

TRIBUNAL­CUM­VII ADDL. DISTRICT

JUDGE, KHAMMAM.

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

 Witnesses examined for

Claim Petitioners: Respondent No.2:

P.W.1 : Yasa Venkateswara Rao RW.1­V.Ravi Teja 

P.W.2 : Korabandi Shalem Raju ...13…..

Exhibits Marked For Claim Petitioners:

Ex.A1 : Certified copy of First Information Report

Ex.A2 : Certified copy of Inquest Report 

Ex.A3 : Certified copy of Postmortem Examination Report 

Ex.A4 : Certified copy of Motor Vehicle Inspector’s Report 

Ex.A5 : Certified copy of Charge Sheet 

Ex.A6 : Original Secondary School Certificate 

Ex.A7 : B.Tech Provisional Certificate 

Ex.A8 : Certificate issued by Avanthi Institute of Engineering and Technology, Vizag

For Respondent No.2:

Ex.B1­Certified copy of Insurance Policy 

Ex.B2­Copies of the R.C of Form­47, Form­38, Form N.P.P.U.C Crime Vehicle Multi Axle Goods Vehicle Oil Tanker bearing No.GJ­06­AU­8821 issued by RTA, Vadodara, Gujarat. 

Ex.B3­Certificate issued by Nishit Corporation Fire Fighting Appliances for Crime vehicle. 

Ex.B4­Certificate issued by Dy. Controller of Explosives, Vadodara for Crime vehicle.

Ex.B5­Certified copy of the Crime Details Form

Ex.B6­Copy of the Driving Licence of Gurvinder Singh 

CHAIRMAN 

 MOTOR ACCIDENTS CLAIMS 

TRIBUNAL­CUM­VII ADDL. DISTRICT 

JUDGE, KHAMMAM

Ready by : 

Compared by : 

IN THE COURT OF THE MOTOR ACCIDENTS CLAIMS TRIBUNAL

­CUM­VII ADDL. DISTRICT JUDGE AT KHAMMAM

Monday, the 21st day of May, 2018

Present: Dr.B.Gnaneshwer Rao, Chairman, Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal­Cum­ VII Addl. District Judge, Khammam. 

M.A.T.O.P.No.563 of 2015

Presented on : 27.07.2015

Filed on : 27.07.2015

Between:­ 

1. Yasa Venkateswara Rao, S/o Late Ramachandraiah, Age: 50 years, Occu: Conductor, TSRTC, Khammam Depot, 

2. Yasa Tulasamma, W/o Yasa Venkateswara Rao, Age: 45 years, Occu: Housewife, 

Both are R/o Tanikella Village, Konijerla Mandal, Khammam district. ...Claim Petitioners 

And

1. Anand South Transport Service, Jalaram Estate, NH­No.8 at Dumad, Baroda district, Vadodara, Gujarath, Owner of the Crime Vehicle i.e., Oil Tanker (lorry) bearing No.GJ 06 AU 8821. 

2. The New India Assurance Company Limited, Divisional Office­III, 2nd Floor, Anant Apartments, Saltwada Station Road crossing, Baroda district, Gujarath State, Insurer of Crime Vehicle i.e., Oil Tanker (Lorry) bearing No.GJ 06 AU 8821. …Respondents ­*­ CLAIM FOR:­ Petition filed U/Sec.166 of Motor Vehicles Act claiming compensation of Rs.25,00,000/­ (Rupees twenty five lakhs only) on account of death of the deceased­Yasa Ashok Kumar in a motor vehicle accident; against the respondents No.1 and 2 being the owner and insurer of the Crime Vehicle­Oil Tanker (Lorry) bearing No.GJ 06 AU 8821. CAUSE OF ACTION:­ The cause of action arose on 07.05.2015 at about 6.15 A.M., near SC Colony, Gunnapalli, Dammapeta Mandal, Khammam district. 

COURT FEE PAID:­Court fee of Rs.24,360/­ is paid U/Rule 475 (1) (b) of A.P.M.V. Rules.

DECREE:

This O.P. coming before me today for final hearing in the presence of Sri R.Hari Prasad, Advocate for the Claim Petitioners; Respondent No.1 remained exparte; Sri K.Ramachandra Murthy, Advocate for Respondent No.2; upon perusing the material papers available on record; upon hearing arguments on both sides and having stood over for consideration, till this day, this Court doth order and decree:

1. That the petition be and is hereby allowed in part, with proportionate costs, awarding a compensation of Rs.22,98,000/­ (Rupees twenty two lakhs ninety eight thousand only) to the petitioners, together with interest thereon @ 7.5% per annum from the date of petition to till the date of deposit.

2. That the respondent No.2 is directed to first pay the awarded amount to the petitioners, later, recover the same from R.1 the owner of the vehicle by initiating the proceedings before the executing Court without filing a separate suit for the said purpose. Rest of the claim of petitioners is dismissed. 

3. The petitioners No.1 and 2 are entitled to receive the compensation as follows: 

1.Petitioner No.1 Rs.11,49,000/­ 

2.Petitioner No.2 Rs.11,49,000/­

4. Respondent No.2 is directed to deposit the compensation amount within two (2) months from the date of this award.

On such deposit, the petitioners No.1 and 2 are permitted to withdraw their respective share amounts with proportionate costs and interest accrued thereon. 

5. The fees of the Advocate is fixed at Rs.3,000/­ (Rupees three thousand only).

6. Respondents No.1 and 2 do also pay to the petitioners a sum of Rs………………….. towards costs of the petition. 

Given under my hand and the seal of this court on this the 21st day of May, 2018. 

CHAIRMAN

MACT-CUM-VII ADDL.

DISTRICT JUDGE

PARTICULARS OF COSTS

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

FORFOR R.1FOR R.2

PETITIONERS

1. Stamps on Petition­

2. Stamps on powerE

3. Stamps on processX 4.Stamps on documentsP

5. Stamps on petitions A

6. Advocate’s feeR

7. Commissioner’s feeT

8. Publication charges E

9. Misc. & Type charges­

TOTAL:­ ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

CHAIRMAN

MACT-CUM-VII ADDL.

DISTRICT JUDGE

1

IN THE COURT OF THE MOTOR ACCIDENTS CLAIMS TRIBUNAL

­CUM­VII ADDL. DISTRICT JUDGE AT KHAMMAM

Monday, the 21st day of May, 2018

Present: Dr.B.Gnaneshwer Rao, Chairman, Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal­Cum­ VII Addl. District Judge, Khammam. 

M.A.T.O.P.No.562 of 2015

Between:­ 

1. Mamidi Venkata Ramanaiah Nehru, S/o late Veera Venkata Ragava Laxmana Chalapathi Rao, Age: 50 years, Occu: Railway Employee,

2. Mamidi Meena Devi, W/o Mamidi Venkata Ramanaiah, Age: 45 years, Occu: Housewife, Both are R/o H.No.5­2­126/1, Santhi Nagar, Khammam Town and district. ...Claim Petitioners 

And

1. Anand South Transport Service, Jalaram Estate, NH­No.8 at Dumad, Baroda district, Vadodara, Gujarath, Owner of the Crime Vehicle i.e., Oil Tanker (lorry) bearing No.GJ 06 AU 8821. 

2. The New India Assurance Company Limited, Divisional Office­III, 2nd Floor, Anant Apartments, Saltwada Station Road crossing, Baroda district, Gujarath State, Insurer of Crime Vehicle i.e., Oil Tanker (Lorry) bearing No.GJ 06 AU 8821. …Respondents ­*­ This O.P. coming before me today for final hearing in the presence of Sri R.Hari Prasad, Advocate for the Claim Petitioners; Respondent No.1 remained exparte; Sri K.Ramachandra Murthy, Advocate for Respondents No.2; upon perusing the material papers available on record; upon hearing arguments on both sides and having stood over for consideration till this day, this Tribunal passed the following:­ 

O R D E R

 1. Petitioners claim a compensation of Rs.21,00,000/­.

2(a). Briefly, the averment in the petition is, as follows.

Petitioner No.1 and 2, are the parents of the deceased Mamidi Pavan

Kumar. He was aged 25 years, graduate in B.Sc., worked as Supervisor in Orange Avenues Private Limited at Hyderabad and earned Rs.17,000/­ per month. On 05.05.2015, the deceased

Mamidi Pavan Kumar along with his friends Yasa Ashok Kumar, ...2...

Ravulapati Prasanth and Matcha Anurag proceeded to

Visakhapatnam in a Car bearing No.AP 20 AU 1889. The driver of the said Car by name Shalem Raju is also the friend of the deceased and others. After completion of work at Visakhapatnam, while returning in the said Car on 07.05.2015, at about 6.15 A.M, when the said Car reached SC Colony, Gunnepalli Village, Dammapeta Mandal, the driver of the Oil Tanker (Lorry) bearing No.GJ 06 AU 8821 drove his vehicle in a rash and negligent manner at a high speed and dashed against the Car. As a result, the deceased had sustained severe bleeding injuries all over his body and died on the spot.

Further, Yasa Ashok Kumar and Ravulapati Prashanth also died on the spot. The driver of Car Raju and Matcha Anurag also sustained severe bleeding injuries. The accident occurred was due to the rash and negligent driving of the driver of said lorry. 

2(b). Police, Dammapeta Police Station, registered a case in Crime

No.57 of 2015 against the driver of the crime vehicle for the offence under Sections 304­A and 337 IPC.

2(c). Due to the untimely demise of deceased, the petitioners lost their source of income. They lost love and affection.

The respondents are jointly and severally liable to pay compensation to the claim petitioners. 

2(d) Respondents No.1 and 2, the owner and insurer of the crime vehicle, are liable to answer the claim. 

3. Respondent No.1 remained exparte.

4. Respondent No.2 filed a counter, as follows. It denied all the allegations in the petition, averred as follows. It denied the age, the avocation and earnings of the deceased; averred that the deceased is ...3… unmarried and not earning member at the time of accident. There is no involvement of the crime vehicle at the time of alleged accident.

The driver of the crime vehicle lorry bearing No.GJ­06­AU 8821 and as well as the driver of Car bearing No.AP 20 AU 1889 did not have a valid and effective driving licence at the time of the accident, as such,

R.2 is not liable to pay any compensation. The petition is bad for non joinder of the necessary parties, the owner and the insurer of Car bearing No.AP 20 AU 1889. The amount of compensation and interest are excessive.

5. Basing on the above pleadings, the following issues have been settled for trial:

1. Whether the deceased died on 07.05.2015 at about 6.15 A.M., near SC Colony, Gunnepalli Village, Dammapeta Mandal due to rash and negligent driving of driver of Oil Tanker (Lorry) bearing No.GJ­06­AU­8821? 

2. Whether the petitioners are entitled for compensation, if so, how much and from whom? 

3. To what relief?

6. During enquiry, PWs.1 to 3 were examined, they filed Exs.A1 to A6. On behalf of R.2, RW.1 is examined, it filed Exs.B1 to B.6.

7. I have heard the arguments on both the sides; as also perused the record.

ISSUE No.1:

8. PW.1 in his evidence deposed to his case and filed the above said documents. 

9. The evidence of PW­1; and, PW.2, an ocular testimony; coupled with Exs.A.1, A.4 and A.5 criminal case record, proves that the accident occurred was due to rash and negligent driving of the driver of the subject crime vehicle and that the deceased died in the said ...4...

accident. I find nothing material elicited in the evidence of PWs.1 and 2 to shake or discredit their testimony. On a consideration,

I hold that the oral and documentary evidence adduced by them proves that the accident occurred was due to rash and negligent driving by the driver of the said crime vehicle. The issue is, thus, held in favour of the petitioners and against the respondents.

ISSUE No.2: 

10. In view of findings on issue No.1, the claim petitioners are entitled for compensation. Now the question is how much compensation the petitioners are entitled and from which of the respondents? 

11. Counsel for the petitioners submitted that, the deceased Mamidi Pavan Kumar was aged 25 years at the time of the accident and was working as Supervisor in

Orange Avenues Private Limited at Hyderabad and drawing salary of Rs.17,000/­ per month. He also contended that the employer of the deceased was examined as PW.3 who clearly stated in his evidence that, the deceased Pavan

Kumar worked as Supervisor in his organization from June, 2013 till his death and he was paid Rs.17,000/­ per month and he also admitted Ex.A6­Salary Certificate was issued by him. Thus, he contended that, the petitioners have proved the monthly income of the deceased at Rs.17,000/­ on the date of his death. He further contended that, while computing the compensation under the head of loss of dependency, future prospectus at 40% to the actual monthly income shall be added. The counsel further contended that, due to sudden demise of the deceased, the ...5...

parents of the deceased, who is only son to them, are put to deep shock, lot of depression, grief and subjected to mental agony. Therefore, under the Motor Vehicles Act, the claim petitioners are entitled to compensation of

Rs.21,00,000/­.

12. In support of the above contentions, the learned counsel further submitted that, while computing the compensation under the head of loss of dependency, future prospectus of the deceased at 40% to the actual monthly income shall be added in view of decision of Hon’ble Apex

Court reported in 2017 ACJ 2700 in between NATIONAL

INSURANCE CO. LTD. V. PRANAY SETHI. In support of this decision, he also relied on a recent decision of Hon’ble

Apex Court reported in 2018 ACJ 740. The learned counsel further submitted that, while computing the compensation under the head of loss of dependency, the multiplier shall be taken on the age of the deceased, but not on the age of the dependents. In support of it’s contention, the learned counsel cited a recent decision of

Hon’ble Apex Court reported in 2018 ACJ 737 wherein

their lordships after keeping in view of the principles laid down in Sarala Verma 2009 ACJ 1298 (SC) and affirmed in Pranay Sethi 2017 ACJ 2700 (SC), applied multiplier ‘18’ as the deceased a Bachelor, aged 23 years. 

13. On the other hand, the learned counsel for respondent No.2 vehemently contended that, the deceased was unmarried and Ex.A6 Salary Certificate is a created ...6..

one only for the purpose of this case and it has no legal sanctity and therefore the petitioners are not entitled for any compensation.

14. Computation of compensation under the head of loss of dependency :­ 

As regards the monthly income of the deceased, the petitioners got marked Ex.A6­Salary Certificate issued by

Orange Avenues Private Limited, Hyderabad and according to which, the deceased was working as supervisor on the date of his death and drawing salary of Rs.17,000/­ per month. On behalf of petitioners, employer of the deceased is examined as PW.3. PW.3 in his evidence has clearly deposed that, the deceased was working as Supervisor in his organization and drawing monthly salary of

Rs.17,000/­ by the date of his death. In the absence of any rebuttal evidence on behalf of respondent No.2, I am inclined to believe the evidence of PWs.1 and 3 and

Ex.A6­Salary Certificate. Thus, the income of the deceased is taken into consideration as Rs.17,000/­ per month stood proved by the said evidence. As regards the age of the deceased is concerned, there is also no dispute that he was aged 25 years by the date of his death, as is evident from

Ex.A3­Certified copy of Postmortem Examination Report. 

15. For calculation of loss of dependency, relying on

National Insurance Co. Ltd., v. Pranay Sethi and others 1 , an addition of 40% of the income of the deceased is applied towards future prospects; and, following Sarla Varma and 12017 ACJ 2700 (SC) ...7...

others Vs. Delhi Transport Corporation2,,the relevant multiplier applicable to the age group of the deceased 21 to 25 is ‘18’ and if the same is multiplied with the annual income of the deceased after deducting 50% of his personal and living expenses, the compensation under the head of loss of dependency comes to Rs.17,000/­ plus 40% = 23,800/­ less 50% = 11,900 x 12 x 18 = Rs.25,70,400/­. 

16. Apart from above, the claim petitioners 1 and 2 who are the parents of the deceased, are also entitled to compensation of Rs.15,000/­ towards loss of estate.

The petitioners are also entitled Rs.15,000/­ towards funeral expenses. Thus, the petitioners are entitled to total compensation, as follows:­

Sl.HeadAmountRemarks No.

01Loss of dependency Rs.25,70,400­00­­­ 02Loss of Estate Rs.15,000­00 --- 03Funeral expenses Rs.15,000­00 ­­­

Total Rs.26,00,400­00

17. Though, the claim petitioners are entitled to compensation of Rs.26,00,400/­, but the claim petitioners have claimed compensation of Rs.21,00,000/­, the award is restricted to

Rs.21,00,000/­ only.

2 2009 ACJ 1298 (SC) ...8….

18.The learned counsel for respondent No.2 contended that, the crime vehicle i.e., lorry bearing GJ­06­AU­8821 is the Multi Axle

Goods Vehicle Oil Tanker and it was registered/obtained certificate as Hazardous Chemical Transports, such as petroleum products etc.,

He further contended that, at the time of the accident, the driver of the said vehicle was possessing a licence to drive MCWG, LMV, LMV

Cab, Transport PSV bus only and so since the crime vehicle is heavy transport oil tanker (Flammable) hazardous vehicle which is a separate class of vehicle, the driver must possess licence “Heavy

Transport Hazardous Licence”, but the extract copy of driving licence

No.PB4620130018369 issued to the driver of crime lorry had no such endorsement of heavy transport hazardous and therefore R.2

Company is not liable to pay any compensation, since the owner has violated the terms and conditions of insurance policy. In support of its contention, the respondent No.2 got marked Exs.B2 to B6.

19. On the other hand, the learned counsel for the claim petitioners contended that, at the time of the accident, the driver of crime vehicle possessed a valid and effective driving licence, as is evident from Ex.B6. There is no evidence on record to show that, the crime vehicle is a heavy transport oil tanker (Flammable) hazardous and in order to establish the same, the insurance company failed to examine the RTA, Vadodara, Gujarath State to prove that the crime vehicle is a hazardous one and a person who was driving the same must possess a separate clause of licence other than the class of vehicles mentioned in Ex.B6. Moreover, the charge sheet (Ex.A5) filed by police did not disclose any charge made against the driver of the crime vehicle for violation of any M.V. Rules. Therefore, it is contended by the learned counsel for petitioners that, the driver of ...9...

crime vehicle possessed a valid and effective driving licence at the time of the accident and as such R.1 and R.2 are jointly and severally liable to pay compensation.

20.Ex.B1 policy has a valid coverage, but for the contention of respondent No.2 that the driver of the crime vehicle did not possess a valid and effective driving licence to drive Hazardous vehicle i.e., crime vehicle. I find, there is force in the contention of the respondent No.2, since the documents under Exs.B2 to B4 proves that, the crime vehicle was registered as Hazardous Chemical Transports and to drive such a vehicle, the driver must possess “Heavy

Transport Hazardous Licence”. No doubt, there is no dispute that, according to Ex.B6, the driver of the crime vehicle possessed licence to drive MCWG, LMV, LMV and

Transport PSV bus only. Thus, the contention of

Respondent No.2, however, now been set at rest by the

Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in the decision reported in

2013 ACJ 1944 (SC) in between S.Iyyapan V. United

India Insurance Company Ltd., and another, in that it has been held that, the driver is holding licence to drive light motor vehicle, but there was no endorsement in the licence to drive light motor vehicle used as commercial vehicle, the insurance company first to satisfy the award and thereafter recover the amount from the owner of crime vehicle. In another recent decision reported in 2017

ACJ 1362 (SC) in between Lal Singh Marabi V. National

Insurance Company Ltd., and others, in that it has been ...10...

held that, the driver of offending mini bus had no valid licence at the time of the accident, however, the insurance company was directed to pay the compensation to claimant and recover the amount from the owner and driver of mini bus. The above said decisions well applies to the case on hand. Accordingly, the issue is held in favour of the petitioners.

ISSUE No.3:

21. In the result, 

a) the petition is allowed, with proportionate costs, awarding a compensation of Rs.21,00,000/­ (Rupees twenty one lakhs only) to the petitioners, together with interest thereon @ 7.5% per annum from the date of petition to till the date of deposit. 

b) The petitioners No.1 and 2 are entitled to receive the compensation as follows: 

1. Petitioner No.1 Rs.10,50,000/­ 

2. Petitioner No.2 Rs.10,50,000/­

c) R.2 is directed to first pay the awarded amount to the petitioners, later, recover the same from R.1 the owner of the vehicle by initiating the proceedings before the executing Court without filing a separate suit for the said purpose. 

d) Respondent No.2 is directed to deposit the compensation amount within two (2) months from the date of this award.

...11...

e) On such deposit, the petitioners No.1 and 2 are permitted to withdraw their respective share amounts with proportionate costs and interest accrued thereon.

 f) The fees of the Advocate is fixed at Rs.3,000/­.

Typed to my dictation, corrected and pronounced by me in the open Court on this, the 21st day of May, 2018. 

CHAIRMAN 

 MOTOR ACCIDENTS CLAIMS

TRIBUNAL­CUM­VII ADDL. DISTRICT

JUDGE, KHAMMAM.

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

 Witnesses examined for

Claim Petitioners: Respondent No.2:

P.W.1 : Mamidi Venkata Ramanaiah RW.1­V.Ravi Teja Nehru P.W.2 : Korabandi Shalem Raju 

P.W.3 : Karnati Srinivas Exhibits Marked For Claim Petitioners:

Ex.A1 : Certified copy of First Information Report

Ex.A2 : Certified copy of Inquest Report 

Ex.A3 : Certified copy of Postmortem Examination Report 

Ex.A4 : Certified copy of Motor Vehicle Inspector’s Report 

Ex.A5 : Certified copy of Charge Sheet 

Ex.A6 : Salary Certificate issued by Managing Director, Orange Avenues Pvt. Ltd., Hyderabad. 

For Respondent No.2:

Ex.B1­Certified copy of Insurance Policy 

Ex.B2­Copies of the R.C of Form­47, Form­38, Form N.P.P.U.C Crime Vehicle Multi Axle Goods Vehicle Oil Tanker bearing No.GJ­06­AU­8821 issued by RTA, Vadodara, Gujarat. 

Ex.B3­Certificate issued by Nishit Corporation Fire Fighting Appliances for Crime vehicle. 

Ex.B4­Certificate issued by Dy. Controller of Explosives, Vadodara for Crime vehicle.

...12...

. Ex.B5­Certified copy of the Crime Details Form

Ex.B6­Copy of the Driving Licence of Gurvinder Singh 

CHAIRMAN 

 MOTOR ACCIDENTS CLAIMS 

TRIBUNAL­CUM­VII ADDL. DISTRICT 

JUDGE, KHAMMAM

Ready by : 

Compared by : 

13

IN THE COURT OF THE MOTOR ACCIDENTS CLAIMS TRIBUNAL

­CUM­VII ADDL. DISTRICT JUDGE AT KHAMMAM

Monday, the 21st day of May, 2018

Present: Dr.B.Gnaneshwer Rao, Chairman, Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal­Cum­ VII Addl. District Judge, Khammam. 

M.A.T.O.P.No.562 of 2015

Presented on : 27.07.2015

Filed on : 27.07.2015

Between:­ 

1. Mamidi Venkata Ramanaiah Nehru, S/o late Veera Venkata Ragava Laxmana Chalapathi Rao, Age: 50 years, Occu: Railway Employee,

2. Mamidi Meena Devi, W/o Mamidi Venkata Ramanaiah, Age: 45 years, Occu: Housewife, Both are R/o H.No.5­2­126/1, Santhi Nagar, Khammam Town and district. ...Claim Petitioners 

And

1. Anand South Transport Service, Jalaram Estate, NH­No.8 at Dumad, Baroda district, Vadodara, Gujarath, Owner of the Crime Vehicle i.e., Oil Tanker (lorry) bearing No.GJ 06 AU 8821. 

2. The New India Assurance Company Limited, Divisional Office­III, 2nd Floor, Anant Apartments, Saltwada Station Road crossing, Baroda district, Gujarath State, Insurer of Crime Vehicle i.e., Oil Tanker (Lorry) bearing No.GJ 06 AU 8821. …Respondents ­*­ CLAIM FOR:­ Petition filed U/Sec.166 of Motor Vehicles Act claiming compensation of Rs.21,00,000/­ (Rupees twenty one lakhs only) on account of death of the deceased­Mamidi Pavan Kumar in a motor vehicle accident; against the respondents No.1 and 2 being the owner and insurer of the Crime Vehicle­Oil Tanker (Lorry) bearing No.GJ 06 AU 8821. CAUSE OF ACTION:­ The cause of action arose on 07.05.2015 at about 6.15 A.M., near SC Colony, Gunnapalli, Dammapeta Mandal, Khammam district. 

COURT FEE PAID:­Court fee of Rs.20,360/­ is paid U/Rule 475 (1) (b) of A.P.M.V. Rules.

DECREE:

This O.P. coming before me today for final hearing in the presence of Sri R.Hari Prasad, Advocate for the Claim Petitioners; Respondent No.1 remained exparte; Sri K.Ramachandra Murthy, Advocate for Respondent No.2; upon perusing the material papers available on record; upon hearing arguments on both sides and having stood over for consideration, till this day, this Court doth order and decree:

1. That the petition be and is hereby allowed, with costs, award­ ing a compensation of Rs.21,00,000/­ (Rupees twenty one lakhs only) to the petitioners, together with interest thereon @ 7.5% per annum from the date of petition to till the date of deposit.

2. That the respondent No.2 is directed to first pay the awarded amount to the petitioners, later, recover the same from R.1 the owner of the vehicle by initiating the proceedings before the executing Court without filing a separate suit for the said purpose. 

3. The petitioners No.1 and 2 are entitled to receive the compensation as follows: 

1.Petitioner No.1 Rs.10,50,000/­ 

2.Petitioner No.2 Rs.10,50,000/­

4. Respondent No.2 is directed to deposit the compensation amount within two (2) months from the date of this award.

On such deposit, the petitioners No.1 and 2 are permitted to withdraw their respective share amounts with proportionate costs and interest accrued thereon. 

5. The fees of the Advocate is fixed at Rs.3,000/­ (Rupees three thousand only).

6. Respondents No.1 and 2 do also pay to the petitioners a sum of Rs………………….. towards costs of the petition. 

Given under my hand and the seal of this court on this the 21st day of May, 2018. 

CHAIRMAN

MACT-CUM-VII ADDL.

DISTRICT JUDGE

PARTICULARS OF COSTS

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

FORFOR R.1FOR R.2

PETITIONERS

1. Stamps on Petition­

2. Stamps on powerE

3. Stamps on processX 4.Stamps on documentsP

5. Stamps on petitions A

6. Advocate’s feeR

7. Commissioner’s feeT

8. Publication charges E

9. Misc. & Type charges­

TOTAL:­ ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

CHAIRMAN

MACT-CUM-VII ADDL.

DISTRICT JUDGE

IN THE COURT OF THE MOTOR ACCIDENTS CLAIMS TRIBUNAL

CUM­VII ADDL. DISTRICT JUDGE AT KHAMMAM

Dated this the 21st day of May, 2018

Present: Dr.B.Gnaneshwer Rao, Chairman, M.A.C.T.­Cum­ VII Addl. District Judge.

M.V.O.P.No.567 of 2015

BETWEEN:­ 

Matcha Anurag, S/o Kranthi, Age: 24 years, Occu: Private Employee, R/o H.No.1­5­63/2B, Saradhi Nagar, Khammam Town and district. …Claim Petitioner

And 

1. Anand South Transport Service, Jalaram Estate, NH­No.8 at Dumad, Baroda district, Vadodara, Gujarath, Owner of the Crime Vehicle i.e., Oil Tanker (lorry) bearing No.GJ 06 AU 8821. 

2. The New India Assurance Company Limited, Divisional Office­III, 2nd Floor, Anant Apartments, Saltwada Station Road crossing, Baroda district, Gujarath State, Insurer of Crime Vehicle i.e., Oil Tanker (Lorry) bearing No.GJ 06 AU 8821. …Respondents ­*­

This O.P. coming before me today for final hearing in the presence of Sri R.Hari Prasad, Advocate for Claim Petitioner; Respondent No.1 remained exparte; Sri.K.Ramachandra Murthy, Advocate for Respondent No.2; upon perusing the material papers available on record; upon hearing arguments on both sides and having stood over for consideration till this day, this Tribunal passed the following:­ 

O R D E R

1. Petitioner claims a compensation of Rs.3,00,000/­.

2(a). Briefly, the averment in the petition is, as follows.

The claim petitioner worked as Boiler Operator in Power Plant,

Gopalapuram, Khammam and earned Rs.10,000/­ per month.

On 05.05.2015, the claim petitioner Matcha Anurag along with his friends Yasha Ashok Kumar, Mamidi Pavan Kumar, Ravulapati

Prashanth and Shalem Raju have proceeded to Visakhapatnam in a Car bearing No.AP 20 AU 1889. Shalem Raju is the driver of the said Car.

After completion of work at Visakhapatnam, on 07.05.2015 at about 6.15 A.M when the said Car reached SC Colony, Gunnepalli Village, 2

Dammapeta Mandal, the driver of the Oil Tanker (Lorry) bearing No.GJ 06 AU 8821 drove his vehicle in a rash and negligent manner at a high speed and dashed against the Car. As a result, the claim petitioner had sustained severe bleeding injuries all over his body. Yasa Ashok Kumar,

Ravulapati Prashanth and Mamidi Pavan Kumar also received injuries and died on the spot. The driver of the said Car also sustained severe bleeding injuries. The accident occurred was due to the rash and negligent driving of the driver of said crime vehicle. 

2(b). Police, Dammapeta Police Station, registered a case in Crime

No.57 of 2015 against the driver of the crime vehicle for the offence under Sections 304­A and 337 IPC.

2(c). He was shifted to Govt. Hospital, Sathupally, later, to Srujan

Ortho and Accident Care Hospital, Khammam and treated as inpatient.

Necessary clinical tests and operation were conducted by inserting nails and plates. In all, he spent more than Rs.50,000/­ towards medical and other expenses. As a result of nature of fractures sustained by the claim petitioner, particularly insertion of plate on right femur, he is unable to walk, sit and squat and thereby confined to bed. He suffered lot of mental agony, physical pain and sustained permanent disability.

The doctor advised him to take complete bed rest for a period of six months. He is unable to do any work, thereby sustained loss of earnings.

He is unmarried and because of the permanent disability, his marriage chances are badly effected. 

2(d) Respondents No.1 and 2, the owner and insurer of the crime vehicle, are liable to answer the claim. 

3. Respondent No.1 remained exparte.

4. Respondent No.2 filed a counter, as follows. It denied all the allegations in the petition, averred as follows. It denied the age, the 3 avocation, the earnings of the petitioner, the nature of the injuries sustained, the treatment taken and the medical expenses incurred by him. There is no involvement of the crime vehicle at the time of alleged accident. The driver of the crime vehicle lorry bearing No.GJ­06­AU 8821 and as well as the driver of Car bearing No.AP 20 AU 1889 were not having a valid and effective driving licence at the time of the accident, as such, R.2 is not liable to pay any compensation. The petition is bad for non­joinder of the necessary parties the owner and the insurer of Car bearing No.AP 20 AU 1889. The amount of compensation and interest are excessive.

5. Basing on the above pleadings, the following issues have been settled for trial:

1. Whether the accident took place on 07.05.2015 due to the rash and negligent driving of driver of Oil Tanker (Lorry) bearing No.GJ­06­AU­8821 by its driver? 

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

3. To what relief?

6. During enquiry, PWs.1 and 2 were examined and Exs.A1 to A11 filed, for the petitioner. On behalf of R.2, RW.1 is examined, it filed

Exs.B1 to B.6.

7. I have heard the arguments on both the sides; as also perused the record.

ISSUE No.1:

8. PW.1 in his evidence deposed to his case and filed the above said documents. 

9. The evidence of PW­1; coupled with Exs.A.1 and A.2 criminal case record, proves that the accident occurred was due to rash and negligent driving of the driver of the subject crime vehicle and that the petitioner 4 sustained injuries in the said accident. I find nothing material elicited in the evidence of Pw.1 to shake or discredit his testimony. On a consideration, I hold that the oral and documentary evidence adduced by him proves that the accident occurred was due to rash and negligent driving by the driver of the said crime vehicle. The issue is, thus, held in favour of the petitioner and against the respondents.

ISSUE No.2 :­

10. PW­1 deposed to the injuries received and the medical treatment undergone by him. He filed the medical record

Exs.A3 to A11.

11. PW.2 doctor deposed, as below. PW.1 came to their

Srujan Orthopedic and Accident Care Hospital, Khammam on 09.05.2015 with comminuted fracture at right femur and PW.1 was treated outside initially. PW.1 was operated on 11.05.2015 and interlocking nailing was done. He was discharged on 16.05.2015. PW.1 was admitted on 18.01.2017 for removal of implants and discharged on 21.01.2017 after removal of the implant. PW.1 can have limp while he is walking because of the comminuted fracture. Exs.A5 and A8 were issued from their hospital. 

12. On a consideration, I find nothing material elicited in the cross­examination of PWs.1 and 2 to dispute their testimony as regards the injuries to PW.1 and the medical treatment.

13. There is no dispute that, the claim petitioner had sustained comminuted fracture of right femur, comminuted fracture of lower end of radius involving articular surface.

He also sustained injuries to right eye brow, nose and face.

5

Ex.A3­Certified copy of injury certificates proves the same.

There is also no dispute that, the claim petitioner took treatment as inpatient in Srujan Ortho & Accident Care

Hospital, Khammam, where PW.2 conducted surgery on 11.05.2015 by interlocking nailing to the fracture wounds.

According to PW.2 the claim petitioner again admitted in the said hospital on 18.01.2017 for removal of implants and accordingly surgery was done and removed the implants.

According to PW.2, the claim petitioner still has limping while walking. 

14. The claim petitioner claims compensation of

Rs.3,00,000/­towardspecuniaryandnon­pecuniary damages. He also filed Exs.A3 to A11 in proof of injuries, treatment and medical expenses spent by him. According to

Exs.A7 to A10, he spent Rs.56,341/­ towards treatment and medicines. Therefore, under the head of expenses regarding to treatment, hospitalization and medicines, I feel it is just and reasonable to award a sum of Rs.60,000/­ under this head.

Further, an amount of Rs.30,000/­is awarded under the head oftransportation,nursingfoodandmiscellaneous expenditure.

15. In view of nature of fractures and other injuries sustained by the claim petitioner, resulting underwent two (2) major operations and still has limping while walking, I feel it is just and reasonable to award a sum of Rs.1,75,000/­ towards damages for pain, suffering, trauma and mental agony.

6

16. Thus, petitioner is entitled for claim of compensation under various heads as follows.

Sl.No.HeadAmountRemarks

1.Expenses Rs.60,000­00As per the bills filed, relating to held to have been treatment, proved cogently. hospitalization and medicines.

2.Expenses Rs.30,000­00­­­ relating to transportation, nourishing food and miscellaneous expenditure.

3.Damages for Rs.1,75,000­00­­­ Pain, suffering, traumaand mental agony.

Total : Rs.2,65,000­00

17.The learned counsel for respondent No.2 contended that, the crime vehicle i.e., lorry bearing GJ­06­AU­8821 is the Multi Axle Goods

Vehicle Oil Tanker and it was registered/obtained certificate as

Hazardous Chemical Transports, such as petroleum products etc., He further contended that, at the time of the accident, the driver of the said vehicle was possessing a licence to drive MCWG, LMV, LMV Cab,

Transport PSV bus only and so since the crime vehicle is heavy transport oil tanker (Flammable) hazardous vehicle which is a separate class of vehicle, the driver must possess licence “Heavy Transport Hazardous

Licence”, but the extract copy of driving licence No.PB4620130018369 issued to the driver of crime lorry had no such endorsement of heavy transport hazardous and therefore R.2 Company is not liable to pay any compensation, since the owner has violated the terms and conditions of insurance policy. In support of its contention, the respondent No.2 got marked Exs.B2 to B6.

7

18. On the other hand, the learned counsel for the claim petitioners contended that, at the time of the accident, the driver of crime vehicle possessed a valid and effective driving licence, as is evident from Ex.B6.

There is no evidence on record to show that, the crime vehicle is a heavy transport oil tanker (Flammable) hazardous and in order to establish the same, the insurance company failed to examine the RTA, Vadodara,

Gujarath State to prove that the crime vehicle is a hazardous one and a person who was driving the same must possess a separate clause of licence other than the class of vehicles mentioned in Ex.B6. Moreover, the charge sheet (Ex.A5) filed by police did not disclose any charge made against the driver of the crime vehicle for violation of any M.V. Rules.

Therefore, it is contended by the learned counsel for petitioners that, the driver of crime vehicle possessed a valid and effective driving licence at the time of the accident and as such R.1 and R.2 are jointly and severally liable to pay compensation.

19. Ex.B1 policy has a valid coverage, but for the contention of respondent No.2 that the driver of the crime vehicle did not possess a valid and effective driving licence to driveHazardousvehiclei.e.,crimevehicle.

I find, there is force in the contention of the respondent No.2, since the documents under Exs.B2 to B4 proves that, the crime vehicle was registered as Hazardous Chemical

Transports and to drive such a vehicle, the driver must possess “Heavy Transport Hazardous Licence”. No doubt, there is no dispute that, according to Ex.B6, the driver of the crime vehicle possessed licence to drive MCWG, LMV, LMV and

Transport PSV bus only. Thus, the contention of Respondent

No.2, however, now been set at rest by the Hon'ble Supreme 8

Court of India in the decision reported in 2013 ACJ 1944 (SC)

in between S.Iyyapan V. United India Insurance Company

Ltd., and another, in that it has been held that, the driver is holding licence to drive light motor vehicle, but there was no endorsement in the licence to drive light motor vehicle used as commercial vehicle, the insurance company first to satisfy the award and thereafter recover the amount from the owner of crime vehicle. In another recent decision reported in 2017

ACJ 1362 (SC) in between Lal Singh Marabi V. National

Insurance Company Ltd., and others, in that it has been held that, the driver of offending mini bus had no valid licence at the time of the accident, however, the insurance company was directed to pay the compensation to claimant and recover the amount from the owner and driver of mini bus. The above said decisions well applies to the case on hand. Accordingly, the issue is held in favour of the petitioners.

20.ISSUE No.3:

In the result, 

 a)The petition is allowed, in part, with proportionate costs,awardingacompensationof Rs.2,65,000/­ (Rupees two lakhs sixty five thousand only)to the petitioner together with interest thereon @ 7.5% per annum from the date of petition till the date of deposit. 

b) R.2 is directed to first pay the awarded amount to the petitioners, later, recover the same from R1 the owner of the vehicle by initiating the proceedings before the executing

Court without filing a separate suit for the said purpose. Rest of the claim of petitioner is dismissed. 

9

d) Respondent No.2 is directed to deposit the compensation amount within two (2) months from the date of this award.

e) On such deposit, the petitioner is permitted to withdraw the entire amount of compensation amount with interest accrued thereon and proportionate costs.

f) The fees of the Advocate is fixed at Rs.3,000/­.

Typed to my dictation, corrected and pronounced by me in the open court on this the 21st day of May, 2018.

CHAIRMAN 

MOTOR ACCIDENTS CLAIMS TRIBUNAL,

VII ADDL. DISTRICT JUDGE.

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

For Witnesses examined 

For claim petitioner: For Respondent No.2:

PW­1: Matcha Anurag RW.1­V.Ravi Teja 

PW­2: Dr.P.N.V.S.V.Prasad : EXHIBITS MARKED FOR PETITIONER :

 Ex.A1­Certified Copy of First Information Report 

 Ex.A2­Certified Copy of Charge Sheet

 Ex.A3­Certified Copy of Injury Certificate

Ex.A4­Discharge Summary issued by Telangana Hospitals, Khammam Ex.A5­Discharge Summary issued by Srujan Ortho & Accident Care Hospital, Khammam. 

 Ex.A6­X­ray reports 

 Ex.A7­Inpatient final bill for Rs.23,267/­ issued by Telangana Hospitals, Khammam. Ex.A8 – Cash bill for Rs.20,000/­ issued by Dr.P.N.V.S.V.Prasad 

 Ex.A9 – Diagnostic bills for Rs.6,470/­ 

 Ex.A10 – Medical bills for Rs.6,604/­ 

 Ex.A11 – Medical prescriptions : EXHIBIT MARKED FOR RESPONDENT No.2:

Ex.B1­Certified copy of Insurance Policy 10

Ex.B2­Copies of the R.C of Form­47, Form­38, Form N.P.P.U.C Crime Vehicle Multi Axle Goods Vehicle Oil Tanker bearing No.GJ­06­AU­8821 issued by RTA, Vadodara, Gujarat. 

Ex.B3­Certificate issued by Nishit Corporation Fire Fighting Appliances for Crime vehicle. 

Ex.B4­Certificate issued by Dy. Controller of Explosives, Vadodara for Crime vehicle.

Ex.B5­Certified copy of the Crime Details Form

Ex.B6­Copy of the Driving Licence of Gurvinder Singh 

CHAIRMAN 

MOTOR ACCIDENTS CLAIMS TRIBUNAL,

VII ADDL. DISTRICT JUDGE. 

IN THE COURT OF THE MOTOR ACCIDENTS CLAIMS TRIBUNAL

CUM­VII ADDL. DISTRICT JUDGE AT KHAMMAM

Dated this the 21st day of May, 2018

Present: Dr.B.Gnaneshwer Rao, Chairman, M.A.C.T.­Cum­ VII Addl. District Judge.

M.V.O.P.No.567 of 2015

Presented on : 29­07­2015

Filed on : 29­07­2015

BETWEEN:­ 

Matcha Anurag, S/o Kranthi, Age: 24 years, Occu: Private Employee, R/o H.No.1­5­63/2B, Saradhi Nagar, Khammam Town and district. …Claim Petitioner

And 

1. Anand South Transport Service, Jalaram Estate, NH­No.8 at Dumad, Baroda district, Vadodara, Gujarath, Owner of the Crime Vehicle i.e., Oil Tanker (lorry) bearing No.GJ 06 AU 8821. 

2. The New India Assurance Company Limited, Divisional Office­III, 2nd Floor, Anant Apartments, Saltwada Station Road crossing, Baroda district, Gujarath State, Insurer of Crime Vehicle i.e., Oil Tanker (Lorry) bearing No.GJ 06 AU 8821. …Respondents ­*­ CLAIM FOR:­ Petition filed U/Sec.166 of Motor Vehicles Act claiming compensation of Rs.3,00,000/­ (Rupees three lakhs only) on account of injuries sustained by petitioner; against the respondents No.1 and 2 being the owner and insurer of Crime Vehicle­Oil Tanker (Lorry) bearing No.GJ 06 AU 8821. 

CAUSE OF ACTION:­ The cause of action arose on 07.05.2015 at about 6.15 A.M., near SC Colony, Gunnapalli, Dammapeta Mandal, Khammam district. 

COURT FEE PAID:­Court fee of Rs.2,360/­ is paid U/Rule 475 (1) (b) of A.P.M.V. Rules.

DECREE:

This O.P. coming before me today for final hearing in the presence of Sri R.Hari Prasad, Advocate for the Claim Petitioner; Respondent No.1 remained exparte; Sri K.Ramachandra Murthy, Advocate for Respondent No.2; upon perusing the material papers available on record; upon hearing arguments on both sides and having stood over for consideration, till this day, this Court doth order and decree:

1. That the petition be and is hereby partly allowed with proportionate costs, awarding a compensation of Rs.2,65,000/­ (Rupees two lakhs sixty five thousand only) to the petitioner, together with 12 interest thereon @ 7.5% per annum from the date of petition, till the date of deposit. 

2. That the respondent No.2 is directed to first pay the awarded amount to the petitioner, later, recover the same from R.1 the owner of the vehicle by initiating the proceedings before the executing Court without filing a separate suit for the said purpose. Rest of the claim of petitioner is dismissed.

3. Respondent No.2 is directed to deposit the compensation amount with proportionate costs and interest within two (2) months from the date of this award. On such deposit, the petitioner is permitted to withdraw the entire amount of compensation amount with accrued interest thereon and proportionate costs. 

4. Advocate’s fee is fixed at Rs.3,000/­ (Rupees three thousand only).

5. Respondent Nos.1 and 2 do also pay to the petitioner a sum of

Rs…………………. towards costs of the petition.

 Given under my hand and the seal of this court on this the 21st day of May, 2018.

CHAIRMAN

MACT-CUM-VII ADDL.

DISTRICT JUDGE

PARTICULARS OF COSTS

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- FORFOR R.1 FOR R.2

PETITIONER

1.Stamps on Petition­ 2.Stamps on powerE 3.Stamps on processX 4.Stamps on documentsP 5.Stamps on petitions A

6. Advocate’s feeR

7. Commissioner’s feeT 8.Publication charges E

9. Misc. & Type charges­

TOTAL:

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

CHAIRMAN

MACT-CUM-VII ADDL.

DISTRICT JUDGE.