Sri. B.Goutham Prasad

IN THE COURT OF THE CHAIRMAN, MOTOR ACCIDENT CLAIMS

TRIBUNAL- CUM-IX ADDITIONAL DISTRICT JUDGE AT KAMAREDDY

Present: Sri B. Gautam Prasad, I Addl. District & Sessions Judge, Nizamabad FAC: Chairman, (MACT—cum-IX ADJ), Kamareddy

Dated this the 1st day of November, 2019

O.P. No. 99 of 2012 Between:

Appala Narsimloo S/o. A. Narsimloo, aged 28 years, Caste: Mudiraj, occ: Private teacher and business, R/o. Rajampet village of Bhiknoor Mandal, Nizamabad District.

.. Petitioner

A N D

1) M/s Beekay Steel Associates, represented by Mr. Sanjay Chowdary, age major, Occ: owner of Lorry bearing No.AP-28-Y- 6839, R/o 6-56/2, Balanagar, Opp: IDPL Factory, Rangareddy Dis- trict.

2) The National Insurance Co. Ltd., Hyderabad, represented by its Branch Manager, Branch Ofce, Jhanveri Mansion, Bank street, Koti, PB No.236, Hyderabad. (InsurerofthecrimevehiclevidePolicy No.550100/31/10/6300000242 valid from 21.6.2010 to 20.06.2011)

.. Respondents

This petition coming on before me for fnal hearing on 25.10.2019 in the presence of Sri K. Shyam Gopal Rao, Advocate for the petitioner, and of Sri Nanda Ramesh, Advocate for respondent No.1, and of Sri B. Rajender Jain, Advocate for respondent No.2 and the matter having stood over for consideration till this day, the Court made the following:

O R D E R

This is a petition fled by the petitioner under section 166(1)(a) of

Motor Vehicles Act read with Rule 455 of APMV Rules 1989 claiming compensation of Rs.3,00,000/- for the injuries sustained by him in a road accident.

2.The averments in the petition are as follows:-

(a) On 22.03.2011 at about 2330 hours, the petitioner and along with others was travelling in a Maruthi Omini Car bearing No.

AP-25-AC-7453 towards Kamareddy town from Hyderabad, and when they reached near Electric Sub Station in Jeedipally limits on NH-44

Chairman,

MACT,IX ADJ,KMR

2OP No. 99 of 2012 road, meanwhile one Lorry bearing No.AP-28-Y-6839 being driven by its driver in a rash and negligent manner at high speed, while proceeding towards Kamareddy in front of the said victim vehicle and without giving any signals or indication took towards left and immediately turned to right to take ‘U’ turn. As a result which, the said

Lorry dashed petitioner’s Maruthi van culminating into the accident resulting injuries to the petitioner and that the police P.S. Toopran registered a case in crime No.66/2011 against the driver of the Lorry bearing No.AP-28-Y-6839.

(b) In the accident, the petitioner said to have sustained fracture of shaft left humerus, left tibia, left thigh and grievous injuries to head, hands, face, ribs and other parts of his body. Immediately, he was shifted to Balaji Hospital, Secunderabad and admitted as inpatient and took treatment from 23-3-2011 to 30-03-2011 and he was operated on 25-03-2011 and he he incurred more than Rs.2,00,000/- towards medical expenses and still he is taking treatment with private doctors.

(c)Prior to the accident, the petitioner was hale and healthy and was aged 28years, and he was doing business and working as private teacher and earning Rs.25,000/- per month. Due to the injuries and fractures sustained in the accident, he unable to attend his job and sustained severe head injury and lost his future earnings and his amenities of life are afected.

(d)The respondent No.1 being the owner of the Lorry bearing

No.AP-28-Y-6839 and respondent No.2 being its insurer are jointly and severally liable to pay compensation of Rs.3,00,000/- with costs and interest @ 24% p.a. from the date of petition till realization for the tortuous acts of their driver which resulted sustaining injuries by the petitioner in the accident.

3OP No. 99 of 2012

3. The respondent No.1 fled written statement denying petition averments putting the petitioner to proof of petition averments and contended that the alleged accident not occurred due to the negligence of the lorry driver and the petitioner colluded with the police and got implicated the said lorry and that the driver of lorry has valid driving license and the Lorry bearing No.AP-28-Y-6839 was insured with respondent No.2 and the alleged accident occurred on 22.3.2011 which is within the period of insurance coverage. As such, insurance Company is liable to indemnify the liability of respondent

No.1 in the event of passing any award and that the amount of compensation claimed is highly excessive and exorbitant and prayed to dismiss the petition with costs.

4.The respondent No.2 fled written statement denying petition averments putting the petitioner to proof of petition averments and contended that the driver of the lorry was not holding valid driving licence and the vehicle was not road worthy to ply at the time of accident and that the claim is excessive and prayed to dismiss the petition with costs.

5.The respondent No.2 fled a petition u/s 170 of MV Act vide IA

No.374 of 2014 and the same was allowed.

6.Taking into consideration both the claim petition and written statements this Tribunal has framed the following issues for trial:

1)Whether the incident happened due to rash and negligent driving of driver of Lorry bearing No.AP-25-Y-6839?

2)Whether the petitioner is entitled for compensation amount? if so, from whom and to what amount?

3) To what relief?

7. In support of his contention, the petitioner himself examined as

PW.1 subsequent to fling her chief afdavit in lieu of chief examination 4OP No. 99 of 2012 and got marked Exs.A1 to A11, and also got examined through advocate-commissioner PW.2 Dr. Sharath Chandra, Orthopedic

Surgeon, and got marked Ex.C1, and Dr. E.S. Radheshyam, Orthopedic surgeon in Shravana Hospital, Metro Cure Hospital and Ganga Hospital,

Hyderabad. On behalf of respondent No.2, RW.1 was examined and

Ex.B1 is marked.

8. Heard both the sides and perused the record. The counsel for respondent No.2 fled written arguments.

9. Issue No.1:

(a) The case of the petitioner in a nutshell is that, on 22.03.2011 at about 2330 hours, he along with others was travelling in a Maruthi Omini Car bearing No. AP-25-AC-7453 towards Kamareddy town from Hyderabad, and when they reached near Electric Sub

Station in Jeedipally limits on NH-44 road, meanwhile one Lorry bearing

No.AP-28-Y-6839 being driven by its driver in a rash and negligent manner at high speed while proceeding towards Kamareddy in front of the said victim vehicle and without giving any signals or indication took towards left and immediately turned to right to take ‘U’ turn. As a result which, the said Lorry dashed their Maruthi van culminating into the accident resulting injuries to the petitioner and that the police P.S.

Toopran registered a case in crime No.66/2011 against the driver of the Lorry bearing No.AP-28-Y-6839.

(b) On the other hand, the case of the respondents is in the nature of general and specifc denial. They contended that the accident was not due to the negligence of driver of Lorry bearing

No.AP-28-Y-6839, but it was due to the negligence of Maruthi Van.

(c) The petitioner himself examined as Pw1 reiterated his pleaded case and marked Ex.A1 certifed copy of FIR, Ex.A2 certifed copy of medical certifcate, Ex.A3 certifed copy of charge sheet, Ex.A4 certifed copy of scene of ofence panchanama. In his cross- 5OP No. 99 of 2012 examination he denied the suggestion that the accident happened due to the negligence of driver of Maruthi Van and that there was no negligence on the part of driver of the lorry and that a false case is fled.

(d) The learned counsel for respondent No.2 contended that the Lorry bearing No.AP-28-Y-6839 is not at all involved in the accident that allegedly occurred on 22.3.2011 or any other date and the same is falsely implicated in collusion with respondent No.1 and police. The respondent No.2 in proof of his contention, examined Dev Rao Pawar,

Assistant ofcer of National Insurance company, as RW1. He deposed that that the Lorry bearing No.AP-28-Y-6839 is not at all involved in the accident that allegedly occurred on 22.3.2011 or any other date and the same is falsely implicated in collusion with respondent No.1 and police and that as per Ex.A4 scene of ofence panchanama, the

Maruthi Omini Car bearing No.AP-25AC-7453 was standing on the road margin on extreme left side and the said lorry on extreme right margin on the road and both the vehicles are facing towards North i.e. in the same direction. He further deposed that as per Medico Legal certifcate (Ex.A2)c alleged H/o RTA on 23-03-2011 at 11-00 pm at

Manoharabad and sustained injuriesc and as per averments of police record and petition the alleged accident occurred near electric Sub- station in Jeedipally limits on NH No.44. He also further deposed that as per the evidence of Doctor he clearly stated in cross examination that “ it is true the petitioner was conscious at the time of admission as per MLC (Ex.C1) and mentioned as met with RTA near Manoharabad van with tipper, the alleged accident occurred at 11-00 pm on 22-3- 2011c and he further deposed that the alleged accident occurred at

Manoharabad not at Jeedipally village, and got marked Ex.B1 copy of policy.

In the cross examination he stated that Ex.B1 policy was in force as on the date of alleged accident. He denied a suggestion that 6OP No. 99 of 2012 there was no negligence on the part of the driver of the crime vehicle.

He denied a suggestion that the driver of crime vehicle is having valid driving license as on the date of alleged accident and that their company is liable to pay compensation.

10.(a) There is no rebuttal evidence as to the method and manner of the accident. RW.1 is not the eyewitness to the accident. A perusal of Ex.A1 CC of FIR along with complaint report indicates that it is fled by one Sri Nagethi Srinvias on 23.3.2011 stating that his brother N. Krishna Murthy was driving the Maruthi Car in which petitioner and others were travelling from Hyderabad and when they reached near Electric Sub Station in Jeedipally limits on NH-44 road, meanwhile one Lorry bearing No.AP-28-Y-6839 being driven by its driver in a rash and negligent manner at high speed while proceeding towards Kamareddy in front of the said victim vehicle and without giving any signals or indication took towards left and immediately turned to right to take ‘U’ turn. As a result which, the said Lorry dashed their Maruthi van culminating into the accident. In Ex.A2 it is mentioned that the petitioner received injuries in the road accident that occurred on 22.3.2011 at 11.00 p.m. In Ex.A3, the petitioner is shown as Lw6 and that Lws 2 and 6 sustained grievous injuries whereas Lws 3 to 5 sustained simple injuries and that the accident has taken place due to the rash and negligent driving of the driver of the

Lorry bearing No.AP-28-Y-6839 as he applied sudden break and took “Uc turn without any signals, due to which it dashed the Maruthi Van

No.AP-25-AC-7453 which was coming from back side. Apart from

Ex.A1 to A4 corroborate the evidence of PW.1. Further, no rebuttal evidence was adduced on behalf of respondents to show that there was no negligence on the part of driver of said Lorry bearing No.AP-28-

Y-6839.

7OP No. 99 of 2012

(b) Moreover, I have gone through the written statement of respondent No.2, which discloses only denial of petition averments, but not as deposed by RW.1. However, I have gone through Ex.C1 case sheet of Balaji hospital, Hyderabad wherein it is mentioned met with

RTA near Manoharabad van “Xc tipper. But rest of the documents i.e.

Ex.A1 CC of FIR, Ex.A2 CC of Medical certifcate, Ex.A3 CC of Charge sheet, Ex.A4 CC of scene of ofence panchanama which are criminal case records clearly show the date of accident on 22-3-2011 at 11.30 pm and the accident occurred due to rash and negligent driving of the driver of Lorry bearing No.AP-28-Y-6839. Hence, the contention of learned counsel for respondent No.2 does not hold water. In the absence of any rebuttal evidence, this issue is decided in favour of the petitioner that the said accident occurred due to rash and negligent driving of the driver of the Lorry bearing No.AP-28-Y-6839 resulting in injuries to the petitioner. Thus, issue No.1 is answered accordingly in favour of the petitioner and against the respondents.

11.ISSUE No.2:

(a) PW.1 further deposed that he sustained fracture of shaft left humerus, left tibia, left thigh and grievous injuries to head, hands, face, ribs and other parts of his body. Immediately, he was shifted to

Balaji Hospital, Secunderabad and admitted as inpatient and took treatment from 23-3-2011 to 30-03-2011 and he was operated on 25- 03-2011 and he he incurred more than Rs.2,00,000/- towards medical expenses and still he is taking treatment with private doctors. He got marked Ex.A5 receipt of Balaji Hospital, Ex.A6 diagnostic bills (2) of

Balaji Hospital, Ex.A7 Shravan Hospital bill, Ex.A8 original inpatient bill,

Ex.A9 fnal bill of Ganga Hospital, Ex.A10 medical bills (9 in number) and Ex.A11 salary certifcate.

In the cross-examination he admitted that he took treatment under Arogya Sree scheme at Balaji Hospital. He denied the suggestion 8OP No. 99 of 2012 that Ex.A5 to A12 are created documents and that he had not sustained any disability and he is doing his duties normally.

(b)To prove the medical record, the petitioner got examined

Dr. A. Sharath Chandra, Orthopedic surgeon, as PW.2 through

Advocate-Commissioner. He deposed that he is practicing as

Orthopedic Surgeon and on 23.3.2011, PW.1 was brought with the following injuries:

1. Fracture left humerus

2. Fracture left tibia

3. Fracture left Fibula

4. Fracture zygomatica bone

5. Fracture lateral wall of orbit and head injury with multiple lacerations. He undergone surgery of left humerus ORIF with plating left humerus, cancallous screw fxation of lateral condyle of left tibia, suturing of wounds and he was discharged on 30.03.2011. All the above injuries are grievous in nature. Ex.A2,

A5, A6 and fve bills contained in Ex.A10 were issued by their hospital.

He further deposed that PW.1 has no disability. The case-sheet is marked as Ex.C1. He further deposed that patient requires another surgery for removal of implants, for which, he may incur Rs.35 to 40 thousand.

In the cross-examination by counsel for respondent No.2, he stated that part of the treatment to the patient was done through

Arogya Sree and part of the treatment by payment. He denied the suggestion that all the injuries were covered under Arogya sree and patient need not pay any amount. He stated that some of the surgeries were not covered under Arogya Sree. He admitted that as per Ex.A2, four grievous and one simple injury. The patient came for follow up treatment to their hospital.

(c)The petitioner also got examined Dr. E.S. Radheshyam,

Orthopedic surgeon, as PW.3 through Advocate-Commissioner. He 9OP No. 99 of 2012 deposed that he works in Shadhan Hospital, Metro Cure Hospital and

Ganga Hospital, Hyderabad, PW.1 was admitted in Ganga Hospital on 3.9.2012 with abscess in the left leg and prominent hardware (screw) in left leg (tibia upper 1/3). PW.1 underwent surgery on 4.9.2012 under spinal anesthesia and was discharged on 6.9.2012, and his fnal bill was Rs.35,000/-; Ex.A9 was issued by him and there is no separate bill.

In the cross-examination he denied the suggestion that PW.1 never admitted in Ganga Hospital as inpatient nor operated surgery and that PW.1 not paid Rs.35,000/- and that he issued only certifcate at the instance of PW.1 to get more compensation.

(d) Ex.A2 medical certifcate shows that PW.1 sufered two fracture injuries. Thus shock, pain and sufering at the time of the accident, pain, discomfort and inconvenience during the period of treatment, bed rest, can be visualized, taking into consideration day- to-day human experience. In the facts and circumstances of the case a sum of Rs.50,000/- (Rupees fitt thousand onlt) is awarded as compensation under the head of injuries, shock, pain and sufering.

(d) As regards the claim in respect of hospital, medical and other expenses the pleaded case of the petitioner and the evidence on record with regard to the injuries sustained, treatment received and expenses incurred is already extracted supra. Pw1 deposed that she incurred and spent Rs.2,00,000/- for his treatment, but he fled bills

Ex.A5 to A9 for Rs.66,775/-. As such, the petitioner is awarded

Rs.66,775/- (Rs. Sixtt six thousand, seven hundred and

seventt fve onlt) under the head medical expenses. PW.1 is also awarded an amount of Rs.35,000/- (Rs. Thirtt fve thousand onlt) for removal of implants.

(e)Having regard to the nature and gravity of the injuries sustained by Pw1 and the evidence on record under the heads, 10OP No. 99 of 2012 hospital & medical expenses, extra nourishment, attendant, transport and other incidental charges for future expenses, and other expenses put together a sum of Rs.20,000/- (Rupees Twentt thousand onlt) is awarded as compensation.

(g)The learned counsel for respondent No.2 has relied upon the decision reported in “ National Insurance company Vs. Mohd.

Siddique and others on 18, July, 2017 in MAC.APP.431/2016 and CM

No.19522/2016 regarding the proof of income and salary certifcate.

The contention of the petitioner is that he is a private teacher and earning Rs. 9,000/- per month and he fled Ex.A11 salary certifcate issued by the Principal, Kakatiya School, Banswada, but he failed to examine the said Principal, the author of Ex.A11, as such, the same is not taken into consideration. However, his monthly income can be fxed at Rs.5000/- per month.

In the light of the evidence with regard to the injuries and treatment received by Pw1 and also taking into consideration the time required for the injuries to heal it is reasonable to accept that he was out of work for about six months. Hence he is entitled to a sum of

Rs.30,000/- (Rs. Thirtt thousand onlt) as compensation for loss of earnings (past).

Thus, in all, the petitioner is entitled to Rs.2,01,775/- (Rs. Two lakh, one thousand, seven hundred and seventy fve only). In the facts and circumstances and under the present law the petitioner is not entitled to any other compensation amounts. Rest of the claim is disallowed.

12. As regards the liability, in view of my foregoing discussion and fndings on issue No.1, the respondent No.1 being the owner of the

Lorry bearing No.AP-28-Y-6839and the respondent No.2 being its insurer and since Ex.B1 policy was in force as on the date of accident, they are jointly and severally liable to pay compensation of 11OP No. 99 of 2012

Rs.2,01,775/- (Rs.Two lakh, one thousand, seven hundred and seventy fve only) to the petitioner. Accordingly, the issue No.2 is answered in favour of petitioner and against the respondents.

ISSUE NO.3:

13. In the result, the petition is allowed in part, awarding a compensation of Rs.2,01,775/- (Rs. Two lakh, one thousand, seven hundred and seventy fve only) with proportionate costs and interest at 7.5% per annum from the date of fling of this petition till the date of realization. The respondents No.1 and 2 are jointly and severally liable to pay compensation to the petitioner. The rest of the petitioner’s claim is dismissed.

The Respondents 1 & 2 are directed to deposit the compensation amount within a period of one month from the date of this Award.

The petitioner is permitted to withdraw entire compensation amount awarded with costs and interest accrued thereon.

The advocate fees is fxed at Rs.2000/- (Rs. Two thousand only)

Typed to my dictation, corrected and pronounced by me in the open Court on this the 1st day of November, 2019.

CHAIRMAN,

MACT(IX Addl. District Judge), Kamareddy. Appendix of Evidence Witnesses examined for Petitioner Respondents

PW-1: Appala Narsimloo RW-1: Dev Rao Pawar PW-2: Dr. A.Sharath Chandra PW-3: Dr.E.S.Radheshyam

EXHIBITS MARKED

FOR PETITIONER FOR RESPONDENTS

Ex.A1:Certifed copy of FIR Ex.B1Copy of policy Ex.A2:Certifed copy of Medical Certifcate Ex.A3:Certifed copy of Charge sheet Ex.A4:Certifed copy of scene of ofence observation panchanama Ex.A5:Receipt of Balaji Hospital Ex.A6:Diagnostic bills (2) of Balaji Hospital 12OP No. 99 of 2012

Ex.A7:Shravan Hospital bill Ex.A8:Original inpatient bill Ex.A9:Final bill of Ganga Hospital Ex.A10: Medical bills (9) Ex.A11: Salary certifcate

Ex.C1Case sheet

CHAIRMAN, MACT

IX Addl. District Judge, Kamareddy.

IN THE COURT OF THE CHAIRMAN, MOTOR ACCIDENT CLAIMS

TRIBUNAL- CUM-IX ADDITIONAL DISTRICT JUDGE AT

KAMAREDDY

Present: Sri B. Gautam Prasad,

I Addl. District & Sessions Judge,

Nizamabad

FAC: Chairman, (MACT—cum-IX ADJ),

Kamareddy

Dated this the 30 th day of October, 2019

O.P. No. 35 of 2015

Between:

Ranga Raju @ Naskanti Raj Kumar S/o. Late Linga Goud, aged 20 years, occ: Auto driver, R/o. Amberpet village, at present Markendeya Colony, Domakonda village & Mandal.

.. Petitioner

A N D

1) The Depot Manager, Telangana State Road Transport Corpora- tion, Kamareddy depot, Kamareddy Mandal, District Nizamabad.

2) The Managing Director, Telangana State Road Transport Corpo- ration, Head Ofce, RTC “X” road, Musheerabad, Hyderabad.

.. Respondents

This petition coming before me for fnal hearing on 25.10.2019 in the presence of Sri R.B. Naresh Kumar, Advocate for the petitioner, and of Sri P. Ratnakar Rao, Advocate for the respondents and the matter having stood over for consideration till this day, the Court made the following:

O R D E R

This is a petition fled by the petitioner under section 166(1)(a) and 163-A of Motor Vehicles Act r/w Rule 455 of A.P.M.V. Rules, claiming compensation of Rs.3,00,000/- for the injuries sustained by him in a road accident.

2.The averments in the petition are as follows:-

(a) On 20.05.2014, the petitioner along with others was travelling from Vemulawada village to Domakonda in Auto bearing

No.AP-25W-4538 and when the Auto reached near Mallupally shivar at about 10.15 a.m., one RTC Bus bearing No.AP-25-Z-0047 came in opposite direction being driven by its driver in a rash and negligent manner at high speed and dashed against the petitioner’s auto culminating into the accident resulting injuries to the petitioner and

Chairman,

MACT,IX ADJ,KMR

2OP No. 35 of 2015 that the police of P.S. Gambhiraopet registered a case in crime

No.60/2014 against the driver of the RTC Bus bearing No.AP-25-Z- 0047.

(b) In the accident, the petitioner said to have sustained fracture of right tibia shaft, left leg tibia, head injury, laceration and crush injury to Skull and other parts of his body. Immediately, he was shifted to Govt. Hospital, Karimnagar, and thereafter, he was shifted to

Balaji Hospital, Hyderabad and treated as inpatient and after discharge, he continued follow up treatment and said to have incurred

Rs.1,50,000/- towards nursing and nourishing.

(c)Prior to the accident, the petitioner was hale and healthy and was aged 20years, and was earning Rs.9,000/- per month as an auto driver. Due to the injuries and fractures sustained in the accident, he sustained disability and lost his future earnings and his amenities of life are afected.

(d)The respondents being the owners of the RTC Bus bearing

No.AP-25-Z-0047 are liable to pay compensation of Rs.3,00,000/- with costs and interest @ 24% p.a. from the date of petition till realization for the tortuous acts of their driver which resulted sustaining injuries by the petitioner in the accident.

3. The respondents fled written statement denying petition averments putting the petitioner to proof of petition averments and contended that the accident was not due to the negligence of the driver of their bus, but it was due to rash and negligent driving by the driver Auto bearing No.AP-25W-4538 who was not holding valid driving licence to drive the same and was carrying more than 10 passengers in the said Auto and that the amount of compensation claimed is highly excessive and exorbitant and prayed to dismiss the petition with costs.

Chairman,

MACT,IX ADJ,KMR

3OP No. 35 of 2015

4.Taking into consideration both the claim petition and written statements this Tribunal has framed the following issues for trial:

1) Whether the accident happened due to rash and negligent driv- ing of the driver of RTC Bus bearing No.AP-25-Z-0047 by its driver?

2) Whether the petitioner is entitled to compensation? if so, from whom and to what amount and whether in such accident, the pe- titioner sustained injuries?

3) To what relief?

5. In support of his contention, the petitioner himself examined as

PW.1 subsequent to fling his chief afdavit in lieu of chief examination and got marked Exs.A1 to A12. On behalf of respondents neither oral nor documentary evidence was adduced.

6. I have heard the submissions of learned counsels for both the sides.

7. Issue No.1:

(a) The case of the petitioner in a nutshell is that, on 20.05.2014, he along with others was travelling from Vemulawada village to Domakonda in Auto bearing No.AP-25W-4538 and when the

Auto reached near Mallupally shivar at about 10.15 a.m., one RTC Bus bearing No.AP-25-Z-0047 came in opposite direction being driven by its driver in a rash and negligent manner at high speed and dashed against their auto culminating into the accident resulting injuries to him and that the police of P.S. Gambhiraopet registered a case in crime No.60/2014 against the driver of the RTC Bus bearing No.AP-25-

Z-0047.

(b) On the other hand, the case of the respondents is in the nature of general and specifc denial. They contended that the accident was not due to the negligence of the driver of their Bus and that it was due to the negligent driving by the driver of the said Auto and that he was carrying more than 10 passengers against its seating capacity.

Chairman,

MACT,IX ADJ,KMR

4OP No. 35 of 2015

(c) The petitioner himself examined as Pw1 reiterated his pleaded case and marked Ex.A1 certifed copy of FIR, Ex.A2 certifed copy of charge sheet, Ex.A3 certifed copy of Medical certifcate, Ex.A4 certifed copy of Crime details form and Ex.A11 license of petitioner .

In his cross examination he admitted that on the date of incident, he was driving the Auto No.AP-25W-4538. He denied the suggestion that there was no insurance for the auto and that there were passengers more than capacity of three. There is no dispute that the accident vehicle came in opposite direction and dashed the victim vehicle.

(d) There is no rebuttal evidence as to the method and manner of the accident. A perusal of Ex.A1 CC of FIR along with complaint report indicates that it is fled by one Vadla Venkati in PS Gambiraopet against the driver of RTC Bus bearing No.AP-25-Z-0047 stating that accused drove his bus in a rash and negligent manner and hit the Auto bearing No.AP-25W-4538, there 9 occupants of the auto were received injuries and out of them, four were died. In Ex.A2, the petitioner is shown as Lw8 injured and auto driver. It reads that Nashikanti Raj

Kumar Goud (petitioner-Pw1) was driving the auto, and that the accident has taken place due to the rash and negligent driving of the driver of the RTC Bus bearing No.AP-25-Z-0047 and hit the auto head on collision, which resulted death of 4 passenger and injuries to Lws 8 to 12. Both Ex.A1 to A4 and Ex.A11 corroborate the evidence of PW.1.

Further, no rebuttal evidence was adduced on behalf of respondents to show that there was no negligence on the part of driver of said RTC

Bus and that it was PW.1 who drove the auto in a rash and negligent manner and caused the accident. In the absence of any rebuttal evidence, this issue is decided in favour of the petitioner that the said accident occurred due to rash and negligent driving of the driver of the

RTC Bus bearing No.AP-10-Z-4448 resulting in injuries to the petitioner.

Issue No.1 is answered accordingly in favour of the petitioner and against the respondents.

Chairman,

MACT,IX ADJ,KMR

5OP No. 35 of 2015

8.ISSUE No.2:

(a) PW.1 further deposed that he sustained fracture of right tibia shaft, left leg tibia, head injury, laceration and crush injury to

Skull and other parts of his body. Immediately, he was shifted to Govt.

Hospital, Karimnagar, and thereafter, he was shifted to Balaji Hospital,

Hyderabad and treated as inpatient and after discharge, he continued follow up treatment and said to have incurred Rs.1,50,000/- towards nursing and nourishing. In support of his contention he got marked

Ex.A5 to A12. Ex.A5 is attested copy of discharge card issued by Balaji

Hospital, Hyderabad, Ex.A6 is discharge summary of Balaji Hospital,

Ex.A7 is 2nd discharge summary of Balaji Hospital, Ex.A8 is 2nd discharge summary of Balaji Hospital, Ex.A9 is prescriptions, Ex.A10 is

Bills (10 in number), and Ex.A12 is X-Ray flm.

In the cross-examination he admitted that he was holding white ration card which was used for his treatment under Arogya Sree

Scheme and that he did not fle any proof of his income and that he did not fle any disability certifcate. He denied the suggestion that he fabricated all the bills; and that there was no insurance for auto and that there were passengers more than capacity of three and that RTC is not liable to pay any compensation.

(b) A perusal of Ex.A3 injury certifcate shows that PW.1 sufered laceration of 7x2x1 cm at right anterior aspect of leg, laceration of 3x2x1 cm at right knee, laceration of 3x2x2 cm at left

Maxilla and fracture of left tibia, which is grievous in nature. It further reads that patient was referred to High Centre. Ex.A5 attested copy of discharge card issued by Balaji Hospital, Hyderabad, shows that PW.1 sufered open fracture type-IIIA right tibia – debraidment closed tissue management and orif with tin nail right tibia. Ex.A6 discharge summary of Balaji Hospital shows that PW.1 was admitted on 21.5.2014 and operated on 24.5.2014 and discharged on 27.5.2014.

Ex.A7 is 2nd discharge summary of Balaji Hospital dt.17.9.2014 shows

Chairman,

MACT,IX ADJ,KMR

6OP No. 35 of 2015 that there was non-union fracture left tibia with infecation-ilizaraov fxation of left tibia. Ex.A8 is 2nd discharge summary of Balaji Hospital shows PW.1 was admitted on 17.9.2014 and operated on 18.09.2014 and discharged on 22.9.2014. Ex.A9 is prescriptions.

(c) Thus shock, pain and sufering at the time of the accident, pain, discomfort and inconvenience during the period of treatment, bed rest, can be visualized, taking into consideration day-to-day human experience. In the facts and circumstances of the case a sum of

Rs.25,000/- (Rupees twenty fie thousand only) is awarded as compensation under the head of injuries, shock, pain and sufering.

(d) As regards the claim in respect of hospital, medical and other expenses the pleaded case of the petitioner and the evidence on record with regard to the injuries sustained, treatment received and expenses incurred is already extracted supra. Pw1 admitted that his white ration card was used for his treatment under Arogya Sree

Scheme. As such, no amount is awarded under hospital charges.

Though PW.1 deposed that he incurred and spent Rs.1,50,000/- for his treatment and in proof of his contention, he fled Ex.A10 medical Bills (10 in number) amounting to Rs.4,944/-. As such, the petitioner is awarded Rs.4,950/- (Rs. Four thousand, nine hundred and ffty only) under the head medical expenses.

(e) Having regard to the nature and gravity of the injuries sustained by Pw1 and the evidence on record under the heads, hospital & medical expenses, extra nourishment, attendant, transport and other incidental charges for future expenses, and other expenses put together a sum of Rs.10,000/- (Rupees Ten thousand only)is awarded as compensation.

(f)The case of the petitioner is that prior to the accident he used to earn Rs.9,000/- per month as an auto driver, but no proof is

Chairman,

MACT,IX ADJ,KMR

7OP No. 35 of 2015 fled. On a reasonable hypothesis his monthly income is taken at

Rs.5000/- per month.

In the light of the evidence with regard to the injuries and treatment received by Pw1 and also taking into consideration the time required for the injuries to heal it is reasonable to accept that he was out of work for about six months. Hence he is awarded a sum of

Rs.30,000/- (Rs. Thirty thousand only) as compensation for loss of earnings (past).

(g) In the entire, the petitioner is entitled to the following compensation amounts:

1Compensation under the head of injury, shock,Rs.25,000-00 pain and sufering

2.Compensation under the heads of hospital and Rs. 4,950-00 medical expenses,

3.Compensation under the heads transport, extra Rs.10,000-00 nourishment, attendant expenses etc

4.Compensation for loss of past earnings (past) Rs.30,000-00

TotalRs.69,950-00

In the facts and circumstances and under the present law, the petitioner is not entitled to any other compensation amounts. Rest of the claim is disallowed.

9. As regards the liability, in view of my fndings on issue No.1, the respondents being the owners of the RTC Bus bearing No.AP-25Z-0047, are jointly and severally liable to pay compensation of Rs.69,950/- (Rs.

Sixty nine thousand, nine hundred and ffty only) to the petitioner.

Accordingly, the issue No.2 is answered in favour of petitioner and against the respondents.

ISSUE NO.3:

10. In the result, the petition is allowed in part, awarding a compensation of Rs.69,950/- (Rs. Sixty nine thousand, nine hundred and ffty only) with proportionate costs and interest at 7.5% per annum from the date of fling of this petition till the date of realization. The respondents No.1 and 2 are jointly and severally liable to pay

Chairman,

MACT,IX ADJ,KMR

8OP No. 35 of 2015 compensation to the petitioner. The rest of the petitioner’s claim is dismissed.

The Respondents are directed to deposit the compensation amount within a period of one month from the date of this Award.

The petitioner is permitted to withdraw entire compensation amount awarded with costs and interest accrued thereon.

The advocate fees is fxed at Rs.3,000/- (Rs. Three thousand only)

Typed to my dictation, corrected and pronounced by me in the open Court on this the 30th day of October, 2019.

CHAIRMAN,

MACT(IX Addl. District Judge), Kamareddy. Appendix of Evidence Witnesses examined for Petitioner Respondents

PW-1: Sri Ranga Raju @ N. Raj Kumar None

EXHIBITS MARKED

FOR PETITIONER FOR RESPONDENTS

Ex.A1:CC of FIR Nil Ex.A2:CC of charge sheet Ex.A3:CC of medical certifcate Ex.A4:CC of crime details form Ex.A5:Attested copy of discharge card issued by Balaji Hospital, Hyderabad Ex.A6:Discharge summary of Balaji Hospital Ex.A7:2nd discharge summary of Balaji Hospital Ex.A8:2nd discharge summary of Balaji Hospital Ex.A9:Prescriptions Ex.A10: Medical bills (10 in number) Ex.A11: License of the petitioner. Ex.A12: X-Ray flm

CHAIRMAN,

MACT(IX Addl. District Judge), Kamareddy.

Chairman,

MACT,IX ADJ,KMR

IN THE COURT OF THE CHAIRMAN, MOTOR ACCIDENT CLAIMS

TRIBUNAL- CUM-IX ADDITIONAL DISTRICT JUDGE AT

KAMAREDDY

Present: Sri B. Gautam Prasad,

I Addl. District & Sessions Judge,

Nizamabad

FAC: Chairman, (MACT—cum-IX ADJ),

Kamareddy

Dated this the 1 st day of November, 2019

O.P. No. 48 of 2016

Between:

01Amgoth Sunitha W/o. Late Amgoth Ramesh, aged 25 years, Occ: Household, 02Amgoth Madhu S/o. Late Amgoth Ramesh, aged 7 years, Occ: Student, 03Amgoth Rakesh S/o. Late Amgoth Ramesh, aged 5 years, Occ: Student 04Amgoth Gabbar Singh S/o. Late Amgoth Ramesh, aged 3 years, Occ: Student Petitioner Nos.2 to 4 are minors and under the guardiansjhip of their mother and next friend petitioner No.1 05Amgoth Dhansingh S/o. Late Amgoth Lokiya, aged 60 years, 06Amgoth Demi W/o. Amgoth Dhansingh, aged 58 years, All R/o H.No.6-83, Begum Cheruvu Thanda, Nagireddypet Mandal Bollaram, District Nizamabad.

.. Petitioners

A N D

1) M/s Sandeep Motors Pvt. Ltd., represented by Rajesh Chandvani S/o Not knoiwn to petitioners, R/o H.No.6, Krishna Upaj Mandi Bhilwara R.J.

2) The Branch Manager, the Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd., branch of- fce near Borgaon bridge, Hyderabad road, Nizamabad. (vide policy No.242400/31/2016/10085 valid from 24.12.2015 to 23.12.2016)

3) Sodan Singh S/o Roopsingh, age major, Occ: Driver of the lorry bearing No.RJ-06-GA-5330, R/o Uppreda village of Banera Tq., Bist Bhilwara R.J.

.. Respondents

This petition coming on before me for fnal hearing on 25.10.2019 in the presence of Sri R.B. Naresh Kumar, Advocate for the petitioners, and of Sri P. Srinivas Reddy, Advocate for respondent No.2, and the respondent Nos.1 and 3 remained ex parte and the matter having stood over for consideration till this day, the Court made the following:

O R D E R

The wife, sons and parents of Amgoth Ramesh (since deceased) have fled this petition under section 166(1)n of Motor Vehicles Act,

Chairman,

MACT,IX ADJ,KMR

2OP No. 48 of 2016 claiming compensation of Rs.12,00,000/- for the loss sustained by them due to the untimely death of the deceased in a motor vehicle accident that occurred on 25.06.2016 at about 5.30 p.m. near

Khanapoor B “X” road, Kather Mandal, District Medak.

2.The brief averments in the petition are as follows:-

(a) On 25.06.2016 at about 5.30 p.m., the deceased along with one Chandram was travelling on a Motorcycle bearing No.TS-16-ED- 0766 from their native village to Nizampet, and when they reached near Khanapoor B “X” road on NH 161, meanwhile a lorry bearing

No.RJ-06-GA-5330 came in opposite direction being driven by its driver in a rash and negligent manner at high speed and hit the motorcycle, due to which, the deceased Amgoth Ramesh jumped from the motorcycle and came under wheels of lorry and the deceased sustained severe head injuries and died on the spot. The police of

Sirgapur Police Station, registered a case in crime No.78/2016 under sec. 304-A IPC.

(b) Prior to the accident, the deceased was aged 29 years, hale and healthy and was earning Rs.25,000/- per month as a private contractor, cattle business, poultry form and agriculture and contributing his earnings to the petitioners for the maintenance of the family. Due to abrupt termination of life of the deceased in the accident, the petitioners lost their source of dependency.

(c) The respondent No.1 being the owner of the lorry bearing

No.RJ-06-GA-5330 and respondent Nos.2 being its insurer are jointly and severally liable to pay compensation of Rs.12,00,000/- for the death of the deceased.

3. The respondent No.1 and 3 were set ex parte. The respondent No.2 fled written statement denying the material averments of petition as to the manner of accident, death of the 3OP No. 48 of 2016 deceased in the accident, age and income of the deceased, and the petitioners are put to strict proof of the same. He contended that the driver of the lorry was not holding a valid and efective driving licence to drive the same and the lorry was not road worthy condition to ply; that the compensation claimed is highly excessive and exorbitant and prayed to dismiss the petition with costs.

4.The respondent No.2 fled a petition u/s 170 of MV Act vide

IA No.368 of 2019 and the same was allowed on 23.08.2019.

5.Taking into consideration the pleadings of both the claim petition and written statement, the following issues are framed:

1) Whether late Amgoth Ramesh S/o Amgoth Dhansingh died in a road accident on 25.6.2016 at about 5.30 p.m. near Khanapoor B “X” road, Kather Mandal, District Medak, due to rash and negligent driving of lorry bearing No.RJ-06-GA- 5330 by its driver?

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

3) To what relief?

6.In support of their claim, the petitioner No.1 herself is examined as Pw1 and another as PW.2 and got marked Exs.A1 to A7.

On behalf of the respondent No.2, no oral evidence is adduced, but

Ex.B1 is marked with consent.

7. Heard the submissions of learned counsels for both the sides. Perused the record.

8. Issue No.1:

(a) This petition is fled u/s 166(1)n of M.V. Act by the petitioners claiming compensation on account of death of the deceased Amgoth Ramesh in a motor vehicle accident that occurred on 25.06.2016 at about 5.30 p.m. near Khanapoor B “X” road, Kather

Mandal, District Medak. As the petition is fled u/s 166(1)n, the petitioners have to prove that the deceased died in a motor vehicle accident due to the negligent driving of driver of accident vehicle. To 4OP No. 48 of 2016 prove the same, the petitioner No.1 is examined as PW.1, and she stated that on 25.06.2016 at about 5.30 p.m., her husband Amgoth

Ramesh along with one Chandram was travelling on a Motorcycle bearing No.TS-16-ED-0766 from their native village to Nizampet, and when they reached near Khanapoor B “X” road, on NH 161, meanwhile a lorry bearing No.RJ-06-GA-5330 came in opposite direction being driven by its driver in a rash and negligent manner at high speed and hit the motorcycle, due to which, her husband Amgoth Ramesh jumped from the motorcycle and came under wheels of lorry and the deceased sustained severe head injuries and died on the spot. In support of their contention; she fled Ex.A1 certifed copy of FIR, Ex.A2 certifed copy of charge sheet; Ex.A3 certifed copy of scene with sketch, Ex.A4 certifed copy of Inquest, Ex.A5 certifed copy of MVI report, Ex.A6 certifed copy of postmortem examination report and Ex.A7 attested copy of insurance policy.

In the cross-examination by the learned counsel for respondent

No.2, she stated that she has not seen the accident and that her husband Ramesh was owning the motorcycle and he was going on it as a pillion rider as it was driven by one Chandram at the time of accident.

(b). The petitioners also got examined one Angoth Chandi Ram, who was driving the motorcycle bearing No.TS-16-ED-0766, as PW.2 and he deposed that on 25.06.2016 at about 5.30 p.m. himself and one

Angoth Ramesh were travelling on the said motorcycle and returning to Nizampet from their native village and when they reached near

Khanapoor B “X” road, on NH 161, meanwhile a lorry bearing No.RJ-06-

GA-5330 came in opposite direction being driven by its driver in a rash and negligent manner at high speed and hit their motorcycle, due to which, Amgoth Ramesh jumped from the motorcycle and came under wheels of lorry and Ramesh sustained severe head injuries and died on 5OP No. 48 of 2016 the spot, and he received simple injuries. He further deposed that the accident occurred due to rash and negligent driving of lorry bearing

No.RJ-06-GA-5330 by its driver.

In the cross-examination by the learned counsel for respondent

No.2 he stated that the deceased Angoth Ramesh is his cousin brother and his brother was owning motorcycle bearing No.TS-16EE-0766 which was driven by him (PW.2) and that he did not fle his driving license in the Court though he was holding it, but he showed the same

before this Court. He further stated that he lodged the complaint after

the accident. He denied the suggestion that he never lodged the complaint and deposing false out of relationship with the deceased.

(c) There is no rebuttal evidence as to the method and manner of the accident. The respondent No.2 who pleaded that the accident occurred due to the negligence of the rider of the motorcycle, did not adduce any evidence except putting some suggestions to PW.2.

Coming to the documentary evidence, Ex.A1 certifed copy of FIR dt.25-06-2016 shows that accident was occurred at 5.30 p.m. on 25.05.2016. It further shows that the accident was occurred due to the negligent driving of the Lorry bearing No.RJ-06-GA-5330 by its driver.

Ex.A2 charge-sheet shows that the accident was occurred due to the negligent driving of Lorry bearing No.RJ-06-GA-5330 by its driver, as such, the driver of said Lorry was charge-sheeted for the ofence under section 304-A IPC and that in that accident the deceased died. Ex.A4 inquest report also shows that the deceased died in the accident due to the negligent driving of Lorry bearing No.RJ-06-GA-5330 by its driver. Ex.A6 certifed copy of Postmortem examination report shows that the deceased died due to intro-crawal hemorrhage due to head injury. Ex.A5 MVI report shows that the accident occurred is not due to any mechanical defects of Lorry bearing No.RJ-06-GA-5330. So,in view of the above discussion, this Tribunal is of the view that the 6OP No. 48 of 2016 petitioners with the evidence of Pws 1 and 2 and documentary evidence under Ex.A1 to A6 are able to prove that the accident has taken place due to rash and negligent driving of the driver of the accident Lorry. The Issue No.1 is answered accordingly in favour of the petitioners and against the respondent Nos.1 to 3.

9.ISSUE No.2:

(a) The contention of the petitioners is that, on the date of accident, the deceased was aged 29 years and he was was earning

Rs.25,000/- per month as a private contractor, cattle business, poultry form and agriculture. Whereas the contention of the respondents is that the deceased was more than 29 years on the date of accident.

But, there is no record either fled by the petitioners or by the respondents to prove the age of the deceased. Therefore, the criminal case records under Ex.A4 certifed copy of inquest panchanama and A6 certifed copy of PME report, can be taken into consideration to determine the age of the deceased. As per Ex.A4 and A6, the age of the deceased is mentioning as 32 years, therefore the age of the deceased is taken as 32 years on the date of accident and the proper multiplier is 16 as per the judgment in Sarala Verma Vs. Delhi

Transport Corporation1. Further, the petitioners contended that the deceased used to earn Rs.25,000/- per month, but no proof is fled.

Hence, the monthly income of the deceased can be fxed at Rs.5,000/- and per annum it comes to Rs.60,000 and when ¼th of it is deducted towards the personal expenses of the deceased, the contribution to the family comes to (Rs.60,000/- minus Rs.15,000) Rs.45,000/- per annum.

The above loss of annual dependency arrived at Rs.45,000/- if multiplied by the appropriate multiplier 16 fxed supra, the compensation under the head “Loss of dependency” comes to

Rs.7,20,600/- and the said amount is awarded to the petitioner as compensation under the head, loss of dependency. Apart from that, 1 . 2009(6) SCC 121 7OP No. 48 of 2016 the petitioners are also awarded 40% of Rs.7,20,600/- which comes to

Rs.2,88,000/- towards future prospects.

(b)Further, the petitioner No.1 is awarded an amount of

Rs.40,000/- towards consortium and Rs.15,000/- under the head of funeral expenses and Rs.15,000/- towards loss of estate.

(c) In all, the petitioners are awarded Rs.10,78,600/- (Rs. Ten lakh, seventy eight thousand and six hundred only) and the rest of the claim made by the petitioner is dismissed.

10. As regards the liability, in view of my fndings on issue No.1 there is negligence on the part of the driver of accident vehicle, and there is no dispute that the policy under Ex.A8 was not in force as on the date of accident, as such, the respondent Nos.1 to 3 are liable to pay compensation jointly and severally. Accordingly the issue No.2 is answered in favour of the petitioners and against the respondent Nos.

1 and 2.

11.ISSUE NO.3:

IN THE RESULT, the petition is partly allowed awarding a compensation of Rs.10,78,600/- (Rs. Ten lakh, seventy eight thousand and six hundred only) to the petitioners with proportionate costs and interest at 7.5% per annum from the date of petition till date of deposit. The respondent No.1 to 3 are jointly and severally liable to pay compensation to the petitioner. The respondent Nos. 1 to 3 are directed to deposit the compensation amount within one month from the date of award.

The awarded compensation is apportioned as under:

Petitioner No.1 Wife Rs.4,28,600/- PetitionerSons Rs.4,50,000/- Nos.2 to 4 each 1,50,000/- PetitionerParents Rs. 2,00,000/- Nos.5 & 6 each Rs.1,00,000/- Total: Rs.10,78,600/- 8OP No. 48 of 2016

Soon after the amount is deposited, the petitioner No.1 is permitted to withdraw entire amount of her share with costs and interest accrued thereon.

The amount awarded to the petitioner Nos. 2 to 4 shall be kept in fxed deposit in any nationalized bank till they attain the majority.

The petitioner Nos.5 and 6 are permitted to withdraw entire amount apportioned to their share with interest accrued thereon.

The advocate’s fee is fxed at Rs.3,000/- (Rupees Three thousand only) Typed to my dictation, corrected and pronounced by me on this the 1st day of November 2019.

Chairman, MACT, (IX Addl. District Judge) Kamareddy.

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

FOR PETITIONER WITNESSES EXAMINED FOR RESPONDENTS

PW.1Smt. Amgoth SunithaNone

PW.2Sri Angot Chandi Ram

EXHIBITS MARKED

Ex.A1Certifed copy of F.I.RNIL Ex.A2Certifed copy of Charge sheet Ex.A3Certifed copy of scene with sketch Ex.A4Certifed copy of Inquest Ex.A5Certifed copy of MVI report Ex.A6Certifed copy of PME report Ex.A7Attested copy of policy

Chairman, MACT, (IX Addl. District Judge) Kamareddy.

IN THE COURT OF THE CHAIRMAN, MOTOR ACCIDENT CLAIMS

TRIBUNAL- CUM-IX ADDITIONAL DISTRICT JUDGE AT

KAMAREDDY

Present: Sri B. Gautam Prasad,

I Addl. District & Sessions Judge,

Nizamabad

FAC: Chairman, (MACT—cum-IX ADJ),

Kamareddy

Dated this the 29 th day of October, 2019

O.P. No. 151 of 2014

Between:

01Manchala Peddolla Ashaiah S/o. Mallaiah, aged 32 years, Caste: Golla, R/o. Mallupet village of Sadashivnagar Mandal, Nizamabad District. 02Manchala Peddolla Bagyamma W/o. Manchala Peddolla Ashaiah, aged 30 years, Caste: Golla, R/o. Mallupet village of Sadashivnagar Mandal, Nizamabad District.

.. Petitioners

A N D

1) Dhan Singh Yadav S/o Heeralal Yadav, age major, R/o Lal Bazar, Secunderabad, owner of Innova Car bearing No.AP-10-AJ-8788.

2) The Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd., represented by its Branch Man- ager, fat No.302, 3rd foor AL rarim Trade Centre, Opp: Rani Gunj Bus Depot, Secunderabad. (Insurer of Innova Car bearing No.AP-10-AJ-8788 vide insurance certificate No.431300/31/20484 valid from 6.12.2011 to 5.12.2012)

.. Respondents

This petition coming on before me for final hearing on 25.10.2019 in the presence of M/s A. Sreedhar & T. Bala rrishna, Advocates for the petitioners, and of Sri V. Amruth Rao, Advocate for respondent No.2, and the respondent No.1 remained ex parte and the matter having stood over for consideration till this day, the Court made the following:

O R D E R

This claim petition is filed by the parents of the deceased

Manchala Peddolla Anusha under section 166(1)© of Motor Vehicles

Act, claiming compensation of Rs.4,00,000/- for the loss sustained by them due to the untimely death of the deceased in the motor vehicle accident that occurred on 9.7.2012 at about 1600 hours in the shivar of Sadashivnagar village and Mandal, District Nizamabad.

2.The facts set out in the petition in brief are as follows:-

Chairman,

MACT,IX ADJ,KMR

2OP No. 151 of 2014

(a) On 09.07.2012 the deceased Manchala Peddolla Anusha was returning from her school and when she was crossing the NH 44 road in the limits of Sadashivnagar village, i.e. scene of ofence, at about 4.00 p.m., meanwhile the accident vehicle i.e. Innova Car bearing

No.AP-10-AJ-8788 which was being driven by its driver in a rash and negligent manner and at high speed and dashed the deceased. As a result, the deceased sustained multiple and grievous injuries and died on the spot. Basing on the complaint given, the police registered a case in Cr.No.125/2012 u/s 304-A IPC against driver of said car.

(b) By the time of the accident, the deceased was aged 12 years, hale and healthy. She was a student and earning Rs.3,000/- per month as a Beedi roller. She contributed her earnings for the maintenance of petitioners. Due to sudden demise, the petitioners lost their source of dependency.

(c) Accident vehicle was insured with 2nd respondent. The respondent No.1 being the owner of the accident vehicle i.e. Innova

Car bearing No.AP-10-AJ-8788 and respondent No.2 being its insurer are jointly and severally liable to pay compensation of Rs.4,00,000/- to the petitioners.

3. The Respondent No.2 filed written statement; whereas 1st respondent did not choose to file any counter and remained ex parte.

(a).The The respondent No.2 filed written statement denying petition averments putting the petitioner to proof of petition averments and contended that the owner of the accident vehicle was driving at the time of accident and he was not holding driving licence and that the respondent No.1 has violated the terms of the policy by not furnishing the particulars of policy, date, time and place of accident.

Moreover, the compensation claimed is very excessive and exorbitant.

3OP No. 151 of 2014

So, respondent No.2 is not liable to pay any compensation. Hence, prayed to dismiss the petition against respondent No.2.

(b). The respondent No.2 filed a petition u/s 170 of the MV Act vide IA No.345/2019 and it was allowed.

4.Basing on the said pleadings of both sides, this Court framed the following issues for adjudication.

1) Whether Manchala Peddolla Anusha died in a road accident on 09.07.2012 at 1600 hours due to rash and negligent driving of driver of Innova Car bearing No.AP-10-AJ-8788 by its driver?

2) Whether the petitioners are entitled for compensa- tion as prayed for?

3) To what relief?

5.On petitioners’ side PWs 1 and 2 are examined and Exs.A1 to A6 documents are marked. On behalf of the respondent No.2, neither oral nor documentary evidence was adduced.

6. Heard both sides. Perused the record.

7. Issue Nos.1 :

(a) This petition is filed u/s 166(1)© of M.V. Act by the petitioners claiming compensation on account of death of the deceased Manchala Peddolla Anusha in a motor vehicle accident that occurred on 9.7.2012 at about 1600 hours in the shivar of

Sadashivnagar village and Mandal, District Nizamabad. As the petition is filed u/s 166(1)©, the petitioners have to prove that the deceased died in a motor vehicle accident due to the negligent driving of driver of crime vehicle. To prove the same, the petitioner No.1 himself is examined as PW.1 and stated that on 09.07.2012 the deceased

Manchala Peddolla Anusha was returning from her school and when she was crossing the NH 44 road in the limits of Sadashivnagar village, i.e. scene of ofence, at about 4.00 p.m., meanwhile the accident 4OP No. 151 of 2014 vehicle i.e. Innova Car bearing No.AP-10-AJ-8788 which was being driven by its driver in a rash and negligent manner and at high speed and dashed the deceased. As a result, the deceased sustained multiple and grievous injuries and died on the spot. This accident occurred due to rash and negligent driving of the Innova Car bearing

No.AP-10-AJ-8788 by its driver. In support of his contention; he filed

Ex.A1 certified copy of FIR, Ex.A2 certified copy of charge sheet, Ex.A3 certified copy of inquest panchanama, Ex.A4 certified copy of PME report, Ex.A5 Copy of RC and Ex.A6 copy of insurance policy.

In the cross-examination he stated that he himself lodged complaint at police station on the next day of the accident without mentioning the crime vehicle number. He denied the suggestion that his daughter met with accident while crossing the road, but she met with accident when she was standing by the side of road after crossing the road. He further denied the suggestion that the accident occurred only due to negligence on the part of his daughter on the road and that crime vehicle Innova Car bearing No.AP-10-AJ-8788 has not caused the accident and it was implicated out of collision with police.

(b).Pw.2 Akaram Mahesh, who is cited as Lw7 in the charge sheet as eyewitness, deposed that on the day of accident, while he along with one Potharaju Raju were proceeding towards Sadashivnagar from ramareddy on a motorcycle and and their villager informed him over phone that the driver of Innova Car bearing No.AP-10-AJ-8788 drove it in a rash and negligent manner at high speed and was proceeding towards Hyderabad and dashed to their villager rum.

Manchala Pedolla Anusha, on NH-44 road in the limits of

Sadashivnagar, on that, they went and saw the said Innova car which was damaged in front portion and that accident was due to the rash and negligent driving of driver of said innova car.

5OP No. 151 of 2014

In his cross examination he stated that after an hour, after the accident he reached the spot; police recorded his statement after two days after the accident. He denied the suggestion that he did not see the crime vehicle Innova car and on the date of accident, said vehicle did not pass through the said road and its front portion was not damaged.

(c).Coming to the documentary evidence, Ex.A1 certified copy of FIR dt. 10.07.2012 shows that accident was occurred on 9.7.2012 at 4.00 p.m. and report was given on 10.7.2012 at 11.00 a.m. stating that the accident was occurred due to rash and negligent driving of the driver of unknown vehicle. But, police after thorough investigation, filed Ex.A2 charge sheet shows that the accident was occurred due to rash and negligent driving of the Innova Car bearing No.AP-10-AJ-8788 by its driver and that its driver was charge sheeted for the ofence under section 304-A IPC and that the deceased on the spot. Ex.A3 certified copy of inquest report also shows that the deceased died in the accident that occurred on 9.7.2012. Ex.A4 certified copy of

Postmortem examination report dt.10.7.2012 also shows that the deceased died due to cardio respiratory arrest due to Head injury and hypothetical shock due to fracture of right leg both bones leading to death.

(d) Though the learned counsel for the respondent No.2 contended that the accident occurred was due to the negligence of the deceased, but he failed to adduce any evidence to that efect.

Whereas, PW.1 with his oral evidence and evidence of PW.2 coupled with Ex.A1 to A4 proved that the accident was due to the rash and negligent driving of the Innova Car bearing No.AP-10-AJ-8788 by its driver. Therefore, this Tribunal holds that the pleaded accident had occurred due to rash and negligent driving of the Innova Car bearing

No.AP-10-AJ-8788 by its driver, resulting in the death of the deceased.

6OP No. 151 of 2014

The Issue No.1 is answered accordingly in favour of the petitioners and against the respondents.

10.ISSUE No.2:

(a)It is an admitted fact that the petitioner Nos.1 and 2 are the parents of the deceased. There is no dispute about the relationship of the petitioners with the deceased. Therefore, the petitioners are entitled to claim compensation.

(b) Coming to the quantum of compensation, the Hon’ble Apex

Court in a decision in “Kishan Gopal and another Vs. Lala and others “ reported in “ 2013 ACJ 2594”, awarded Rs.5,00,000/- observing the drastic fall of rupee value, assessed the notional income of the deceased boy of 10 years at Rs.30,000/- per annum and adopted multiplier of ‘15’ and allowed Rs.4,50,000/- plus Rs.50,000/- under conventional heads towards loss of love and afection, funeral expenses and last rites.

(c)In the case on hand, the age of the deceased is 12 years as per the petition and also as per Ex.A3 and A4. In view of the above said circumstances, this Tribunal opines that the petitioners are entitled to Rs.5,00,000/- (Rs. Five lakh only) towards compensation. As regards liability, Ex.A6 discloses that the insurance policy No.431300/31/20484 valid from 6.12.2011 to 5.12.2012, was in force as on the date of accident i.e. on 9.7.2012 and the crime vehicle Innova Car bearing No.AP-10-AJ-8788 was insured by the respondent No.1 with respondent No.2, as such, both the respondents are jointly and severally liable to pay the compensation to the petitioners. Accordingly, this issue No.2 is answered in favour of the petitioners and against the respondents.

7OP No. 151 of 2014 11. Issue No.3:

In the result, the petition is allowed granting compensation of

Rs.5,00,000/- (Rs. Five lakh only) to the petitioners together with costs of the petition and subsequent interest at the rate of Rs.7.5% per annum from the date of petition till the date of realization. The respondents No.1 and 2 are jointly and severally liable to pay compensation to the petitioners.

The Respondents are directed to deposit the compensation amount within a period of one month from the date of this Award.

The petitioners are directed to pay a court fee on the

additional compensation amount of Rs.1,00,000/- within 15 days

from the date of this award.

The awarded compensation is apportioned equally between the petitioners.

Soon after the amount is deposited, the petitioner No.1 is permitted to withdraw his entire share with costs and interest accrued thereon. The petitioner No.2 is permitted to withdraw her share with interest accrued thereon.

Advocate fee is fixed at Rs.3,000/-.

Typed to my dictation, corrected and pronounced by me on this the 29th day of October 2019.

Chairman, MACT, (IX Addl. District Judge) ramareddy.

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

FOR PETITIONER WITNESSES EXAMINED FOR RESPONDENTS

PW.1Sri M. Peddolla Ashaiah None

PW.2Sri Akaram Mahesh

EXHIBITS MARrED

Ex.A1C.C. of F.I.RNIL Ex.A2CC of charge sheet Ex.A3CCofinquest panchanama Ex.A4CC of postmortem examination report Ex.A5Copy of RC Ex.A6Xc of insurance policy

Chairman, MACT, (IX Addl. District Judge) ramareddy.

1

AS 5-2015

IN THE COURT OF THE IX ADDITIONAL DISTRICT JUDGE

AT KAMAREDDY

PRESENT:Sri B. Gautam Prasad, I Additional District Judge, Nizamabad. FAC: IX Addl. District Judge, Kamareddy.

Dated this the 1 st day of November, 2019

AS No.5 OF 2015

BETWEEN:

Enugu Ganga Reddy S/o Raja Reddy, age 48 years, Occ: Agriculture, R/o Tadwai (V&M), Nizamabad district.

... Appellant/Defendant

A N D

Vaitla Ravi S/o Narayana, age 42 years, Occ: RMP, R/o Tadwai (V&M), Nizamabad district.

...Respondent/Plaintif

On appeal from the judgment and decree dated 17.06.2015 of the Prl. Junior Civil Judge, Kamareddy, in OS No.109 of 2013.

BETWEEN:

Vaitla Ravi S/o Narayana, age 42 years, Occ: RMP, R/o Tadwai (V&M), Nizamabad district. ... Plaintif.

A N D

Enugu Ganga Reddy S/o Raja Reddy, age 48 years, Occ: Agriculture, R/o Tadwai (V&M), Nizamabad district.

..Defendant

Counsel for Appellant :M/s M. Venkatram Reddy & B. Indrani, Advocates, Kamareddy

Counsel for respondent :Sri K. Siddaramulu, Advocate, Kamareddy

This appeal coming on 25.10.2019 in the presence of the counsels on record and after hearing the counsel and having stood over to this day for consideration, this Court delivered the following:

JUDGMENT

The unsuccessful defendant has fled this appeal, assailing the judgment and decree dated 17-06-2015 passed by the learned Prl.

Junior Civil Judge, Kamareddy, in OS No.109 of 2013 fled by the plaintiff for recovery of Rs.71,600/- with interest @ 12% p.a. from the date of suit till realization.

2

AS 5-2015

2. The Court of frst appeal is last Court of facts; hence it is necessary to refer to the pleadings. The parties in this appeal suit are referred to as they are arrayed before the lower court for convenience and clarity.

3.The averments in the plaint are that, plaintiff and defendant are having acquaintance with each other and that out of such acquaintance, the defendant approached the plaintiff and requested him to lend an amount of Rs.50,000/- for his personal necessities, as such, the plaintiff lent the said amount of Rs.50,000/- in cash to the defendant on 4.8.2010 and in consideration of the said amount, the defendant executed a promissory note in favour of plaintiff on the same day in presence of the witnesses thereby promising to repay the said amount as and when demanded by the plaintiff. The defendant despite repeated requests and demands by the plaintiff, failed to repay the same; fnally, the plaintiff got issued a lawyer’s notice on 3.6.3013 to the defendant calling upon him to repay the amount borrowed with interest, but the defendant failed to repay the said amount even after receipt of legal notice. Hence, the suit.

4.The defendant fled written statement denying the material averments of the plaint, and submitted that there was no occasion for him to obtain alleged loan from the plaintiff and that he did not execute any pronote in favour of plaintiff and the signature on the pronote does not belong to him. Hence, prayed to dismiss the suit.

5.On the above pleadings, the trial Court framed the following issues for trial:

1.Whether the plaintiff is entitled for recovery of suit amount as prayed for ?

2.To what relief?

3

AS 5-2015

6.During the trial before the trial Court, on behalf of the plaintiff,

Pws 1 to 3 were examined and got marked Ex.A1 to A4. On behalf of defendant, he himself was examined as DW.1 and no documents were marked.

7.On a consideration of the oral and documentary evidence on record, the trial Court decreed the suit with costs for Rs.71,600/- with costs and interest @ 6% per annum from the date of suit till realization against the defendant.

8.Aggrieved by the said decree and judgment of the trial Court, the unsuccessful defendant has preferred this appeal suit and urged apart from usual grounds, the following specifc grounds:

(i)That the trial court did not properly appreciate the pleadings and the evidence on record and came to a wrong conclusion, which resulted in miscarriage of justice.

(ii)That the judgment and decree are against the principles of justice and opposed to law. The court below failed to consider the source of income and expenditure of the respondent, apart from variation of amounts stated in Ex.A1 and A2.

(iii)That the lower court ought to have compared the signatures on Ex.A1 with other available signatures of the defendant.

PW.3 also admitted that the signature on Ex.A1 and signature on vakalath are different, this aspect was also not considered.

(vi)That the judgment and decree under appeal is liable to set aside.

9.I have heard the submissions of the learned counsel for the appellant/defendant and also the learned counsel for the 4

AS 5-2015

respondent/plaintiff. I have carefully perused the pleadings extracted supra and also the oral and documentary evidence on that count.

10.The points that arise for determination in this appeal suit are:-

(i)Whether the promissory note under Ex.A1 is true, valid and binding on the defendant?

(ii)Whether the plaintiff is entitled to suit amount?

(iii)To what relief?

Point Nos.(i & ii):

11.(a)The case of the plaintiff is that on 4.8.2010, the defendant borrowed an amount of Rs.50,000/- from him and agreed to repay the same as and when demanded by the plaintiff and to that effect, the defendant executed Ex.A1 promissory note in the presence of two mediators i.e. Pws 2 and 3. And according to the plaintiff, he demanded the defendant to discharge the said loan, but the defendant failed to discharge the same and then plaintiff got issued Ex.A2 legal notice dt. 3.6.2013.

The case of the defendant on the other side is that, he never borrowed amount from the plaintiff nor executed any pronote in favour of plaintiff. According to him, he never obtained any loan from the plaintiff.

(b) As already stated above, to establish his case, the plaintiff got testifed as PW.1 besides examining both attestor and scribe of

Ex.A1 as Pws 2 and 3. Both Pws 2 and 3 deposed that on 4.8.2010, the defendant borrowed Rs.50,000/- from the plaintiff and agreed to repay the same and to that effect Ex.A1 promissory note was executed.

Admittedly, plaintiff, defendant and these two witnesses i.e. Pws 2 and 3 hail from one and the same village i.e. Tadwai and known to each 5

AS 5-2015

other and both Pws 2 and 3 are not related to the plaintiff. So, there is no need for them to speak falsehood against the defendant that too for the said meager amount of Rs.50,000/-. The defendant simply took the plea that Ex.A1 does not bear his signature; except that he did not take any steps to establish that signature on Ex.A1 promissory note is not that of himself. It is not even his case that he does not know

English. No suggestion is given to the plaintiff or attestor and scribe to the effect that defendant is an uneducated and not able to put signature in English. Admittedly, the defendant went to abroad. So, without any hesitation, it can be held that the plaintiff succeeded in establishing that Ex.A1 was executed by the defendant. So, now, the burden shifts on to the defendant to rebut the presumption available to the plaintiff u/s 118(f) of Evidence Act.

(c)On defendant side except examining himself as DW.1, no witness is examined nor fled any documentary evidence.

(d)There is no stipulation with regard to payment of interest in Ex.A1 promissory note and in Ex.A2 legal notice also. The plaintiff did not claim interest in Ex.A2 legal notice and he only demanded the defendant to discharge only Rs.50,000/- advanced to him, but plaintiff fled suit for recovery of Rs.71,600/- which includes interest. As such, the plaintiff is entitled to only the principal amount of Rs.50,000/- and he is not entitled to any interest prior to fling of the suit. The lower court erred in decreeing the suit amount of the plaintiff for Rs.71,600/- with interest without assigning any reasons thereof. Accordingly, the points No.i and ii are decided.

POINT No. iii:

14.In the result, the appeal suit is partly allowed, and the judgment and decree decree dt. 17.06.2015 passed by the Prl. Jr. Civil Judge, 6

AS 5-2015

Kamareddy in OS No.109/2013 is modifed, and the suit of the plaintiff is decreed with costs for Rs.50,000/- (Rs. Fifty thousand only) with interest @ 6% p.a. from the date of suit till date of realization.

Typed to my dictation, corrected and pronounced by me on this the 1st day of November, 2019.

IX ADDITIONAL DISTRICT JUDGE

Kamareddy :: APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE ::

NIL

IX ADDITIONAL DISTRICT JUDGE

Kamareddy