MV OP 134 of 2009 Death
IN THE COURT OF THE MOTOR ACCIDENTS CLAIMS TRIBUNAL
[V ADDITIONAL DISTRICT JUDGE] AT WARANGAL
PRESENT: SRI B.S. JAG JEEVAN KUMAR, B.Sc., LL.M.,
II ADDITIONAL DISTRICT JUDGE
FAC V ADDITIONAL DISTRICT JUDGE
Friday, December 15, 2017
MV OP No.134 of 2009
1) Reddyrajula Uma Rani @ Uma W/o Late R.Parusha Ramulu, 18 years, Household, Chakali
2) Reddyrajula Sanjay Kumar @ Chinthu S/o Late R.Parusha Ramulu, 6 months, Chakali
3) Reddyrajula Narsaiah S/o Late Kondaiah, 60 years, Chakali
4) Reddyrajula Narsamma W/o Narsaiah, 50 years, Household, Chakali
All are R/o Kamareddygudem village, Devaruppula mandal, Warangal district … Petitioners
AND
1) Vallala Mallesham S/o Vallala Iylaiah, 20 years, Auto Driver, Golla (Yadava), R/o Ramaram village, Gundala mandal, Nalgonda district
2) Abdul Rafeeq S/o Moinuddin Shareef, Businessman and owner of Bajaj auto No.AP 13U 8160, R/o H.No.10-2-570/27, Asif Nagar, Hyderabad
3) The New India Assurance Company Limited, represented by its Divisional Manager, Divisional Office, D.No.3-6-10, Anasurya, Hyderabad – 500 029
4) The New India Assurance Company Limited, represented by its Divisional Manager, Divisional Office, Punnam Chander Complex, Hanamkonda Chowarastha, Warangal … Respondents
Counsel for Petitioners:Sri K.Sathaiah, Advocate, Jangaon
Counsel for Respondent No.4 :Sri G.Mallikarjun, Advocate, Hanamkonda
Respondent No.1 remained absent.
Respondent Nos.2 and 3 remained ex parte.
This petition coming on 8.12.2017 for final hearing; upon hearing the counsel on record and considering the material on record and having stood over to this day for consideration, this Tribunal made the following:
Dec 15 1 / 8 V ADJ, JN
MV OP 134 of 2009 Death
ORDER
1.The petitioners claim compensation of Rs.7.5 lakh from the driver, the owner, the insurer and the local office of the insurer of Bajaj Auto
No.AP 13U 8160 for the death of Reddyrajula Parusha Ramulu under
Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act.
2.The case of the petitioners is that on 13.2.2005 at about 6.00 pm at the outskirts of Chandupatla village, the auto being driven by the 1st respondent No.1 in rash and negligent manner turned turtle as a result the deceased and Alimineti Shankar and Kothapeta Mastyagiri, the other inmates of the auto, sustained injuries. The deceased was shifted to Area
Hospital, Bhongir and on the same day at about 8.30 pm he succumbed to the injuries while undergoing treatment. On the complaint of the 3rd petitioner, the police of Bhongir Rural registered a case in crime No.17 of 2005 and, after investigation, filed charge sheet against the 1st respondent for the offences punishable under Sections 304A and 337 IPC against the 1st respondent. The deceased was aged 26 years, was working as car driver and watchman at Chennai and was earning Rs.5,000/- and odd per month.
They were all depending on the income of the deceased. Therefore, the respondents are jointly and severally liable to pay the compensation claimed.
3.The 3rd respondent was served with notice by RPAD. The 2nd respondent was served with notice by publication in the Siasat daily. They did not file counters and remained absent. The 3rd respondent was set ex parte on 2.6.2010 and the 2nd respondent, on 3.1.2011.
Dec 15 2 / 8 V ADJ, JN
MV OP 134 of 2009 Death
4.The 1st respondent entered his appearance through his counsel. He did not file any counter.
5.The 4th respondent denied the case of the petitioners, pleaded that the 1st respondent was not having valid and effective driving licence as on the date of accident and the 2nd respondent contravened the provisions of the Motor Vehicles Act and breached the terms and conditions of the policy by handing over the auto to the driver knowing fully well that he had no valid and effective driving licence and denied its liability to pay compensation to the petitioners.
6.Based on the pleadings, the following issues were framed for trial:
1)Whether accident occurred on 13.2.2005 at about 06.00 pm at the outskirts of Chandupatla village due to rash and negligent driving of Bajaj Auto No.AP 13U 8160 by its driver?
2)Whether the petitioners are entitled for compensation? If so, to what amount and from whom?
3)To what relief?
7.The petitioners, to prove their case, examined the 1st petitioner as
PW1 and examined Ch.Upender, Gazetted Head Master, ZPPSS,
Kamareddygudem, as PW2, and Atla Vishnuvardhan Reddy, inquest panch, as PW3 and filed CCs of FIR, inquest panchanama, charge-sheet, PME report, MVI report and scene of offence panchanama, Exs.A1 to A6, attested copy of certificate of registration as Ex.A7, and the date of birth certificate of the deceased issued by PW2 as Ex.A8. On the other hand, the contesting respondent examined its Administrative Officer,
G.Krupakar, as RW1 and marked attested copy of insurance policy of the auto, office copy of notices, two postal receipts and one returned post
Dec 15 3 / 8 V ADJ, JN
MV OP 134 of 2009 Death
card, as Exs.B1 to B4.
8.PW1 spoke of the manner of accident as pleaded in the petition. On 3.2.2017 when the OP was posted for cross-examination of PW1, the 1st respondent and his counsel remained absent and cross-examination was recorded 'Nil'. In the cross-examination by the 4th respondent, PW1 stated that her uncle gave complaint to the police. The police examined her and recorded her statement. She did not give evidence before the Criminal
Court. At the time of accident, the deceased was proceeding in an auto in which two other passengers were traveling. She denied the suggestion that more passengers were traveling and the accident occurred because of overload of the auto as such the insurance company is not liable to pay compensation.
9.Atla Vishnuvardhan Reddy, PW3, is the other witness examined by the petitioners. PW3 stated that he was panch for inquest. On 13.2.2005 at about 20.00 hours he went to Chandampatla village shivar and saw one auto No.AP13U8160 turtle on PWD road. He saw blood stains in the auto.
The police called him and recorded his statement. Neighbors told him that 2 or 3 persons were grievously injured. He came to know that the deceased died while undergoing treatment. In the cross-examination by the 4th respondent, he stated that he did not know the deceased and he knew only the auto driver. On information through his villagers, he went to the place of accident.
10.The crime record, Exs.P1 to P6, filed through PW1, clearly shows that the accident occurred due to rash and negligent driving of the auto by the
Dec 15 4 / 8 V ADJ, JN
MV OP 134 of 2009 Death
1st respondent. RW1 also stated in his affidavit evidence that the accident occurred only due to rash and negligent driving of the auto by its driver.
Therefore, issue No.1 is decided in favour of the petitioners and against the respondents.
11. By filing copy of policy, notices, postal receipts and returned postal cover, Exs.B1 to B4, RW1 stated that at the time of accident the 1st respondent was not having driving licence, that the 2nd respondent violated the terms and conditions of the policy by allowing the driver who was not having driving licence to drive the auto and, therefore, the insurance company is not liable to pay any compensation to the petitioners.
12.The police, after investigation, filed charge-sheet, Ex.P3. The 1st respondent was not charge-sheeted for the offence of driving the auto without driving licence. Neither the 1st respondent nor the 2nd respondent nor the IO nor the RTA was summoned and examined to show that the 1st respondent was not having driving licence as on the date of the accident.
Therefore, the plea of breach of terms and conditions of Ex.B1 by the 2nd respondent cannot be accepted.
13.Date of birth certificate of the deceased issued by Gazetted Head
Master, ZPPSS, Kamareddygudem was filed through PW1 as Ex.P8. As per
Ex.P8, the date of birth of the deceased is 2.5.1980. Ch.Upender, Gazetted
Head Master of the said school was summoned and examined as PW2. He produced admission register from 1970 to 1988 and stated that Ex.A8 was issued by In-charge Head Master, that the deceased was admitted in their
Dec 15 5 / 8 V ADJ, JN
MV OP 134 of 2009 Death
school on 28.7.1986 into Class I, that the date of birth of the deceased as per the admission register is 20.5.1980 and that by mistake the date of birth is mentioned in Ex.P8 as 2.5.1980. Xerox copy of the relevant pages in the admission register was marked as Ex.X1. Cross-examination was recorded 'Nil' as the 4th respondent and its counsel remained absent.
14.In view of the unchallenged testimony of PW2 and Exs.X1 and A8, it must be held that the deceased was aged 24 years at the time of accident.
15.As regards the occupation and income of the deceased, there is only self-serving statement of PW1. In the inquest, Ex.P2, the occupation of the deceased is mentioned as 'chakali'. No satisfactory evidence was produced to show that the deceased was working as driver and watchman at Chennai and was earning Rs.5,000/- and odd per month. But it must be noted that the deceased had 4 dependents. The deceased must have worked hard and must have earned not less than Rs.3,000/- per month for maintaining himself and maintaining the petitioners. In the circumstances, the income of the deceased is estimated at Rs.3,000/- per month.
16.Following the decisions in Sarla Verma v. Delhi Transport
Corporation1 and National Insurance Company Limited v. Pranay Sethi2, the compensation payable to the petitioners has to be assessed as under:
Sl.No. Heads Calculation Rs.
(1)Income3000 per month (2)40% of (1) above to be 3000×40%+3000=4200 added as future prospects 12009 ACJ 1298 (SC). 2http://supremecourtofindia.nic.in/supremecourt/2013/38980/
Dec 15 6 / 8 V ADJ, JN
MV OP 134 of 2009 Death
(3)1/3rd of (2) to be 4200÷4×3=3150 deducted as personal expenses of the deceased (4)Compensation after 3150x12x18680400 multiplier of 18 is applied (5)Loss of estate15000 (6)Loss of consortium40000 (7)Funeral expenses15000 (8)Transportation10000
Total:760400
But the claim of the petitioners is only for Rs.7,50,000/-. Therefore, it must be held that the petitioners are entitled to claim Rs.7,50,000/- from the respondents. Issue Nos.2 and 3 are accordingly decided.
17.In the result, the petition is allowed. Within a month from this day, the respondents shall, jointly and severally, deposit into the Court the compensation amount of Rs.7,50,000/- with costs and pending and future interest at 7.5% per annum. The compensation shall be apportioned among the petitioners in the ratio of 40 : 20 : 20 : 20. On deposit, the major petitioners are entitled to withdraw their shares. The share of the minor petitioner shall be kept in fixed deposit till he attains majority. Advocate's fee is fixed at Rs.2,000/-.
Prepared and pronounced by me in the open Court on this the 15th day of December 2017.
V ADDITIONAL DISTRICT JUDGE
Dec 15 7 / 8 V ADJ, JN
MV OP 134 of 2009 Death
APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE
WITNESSES EXAMINED
FOR PETITIONERSFOR RESPONDENTS
P.W.1Smt. Reddyrajula Uma Rani @RW1 Sri G.Krupakar Uma
P.W.2Sri Ch.Upender P.W.3Sri Atla Vishnuvardhan Reddy
EXHIBITS MARKED FOR PETITIONERS
Ex.A1CC of FIR
Ex.A2 CC of inquest panchanama
Ex.A3 CC of charge-sheet
Ex.A4 CC of PME report
Ex.A5CC of MVI report
Ex.A6CC of scene of offence panchanama
Ex.A7Copy of certificate of registration
Ex.A8Date of birth certificate of deceased dated 5.10.2017 issued by GHM, ZPPSS, Kamareddygudem
EXHIBITS MARKED FOR RESPONDENTS
Ex.B1Copy of insurance policy of Maruti Van
EXHIBITS MARKED FOR THIRD PARTY
Ex.X1XC of relevant pages in Admission Register ZPPSS, Kamareddygudem
JUDGE
Dec 15 8 / 8 V ADJ, JN