III ADJ, NDL.MVOP 464/2015Page 1
BEFORE THE MOTOR ACCIDENTS CLAIMS TRIBUNAL
-cum- III-ADDITIONAL DISTRICT COURT, KURNOOL at NANDYAL.
Present:-Sri Shaik Inthiaz Ahamed, Chairman, M.A.C.T -cum- III Addl.District Judge
Monday, the 22nd day of April, 2019
M.V.O.P.No.464/2015
1. Kummari Pullamma, w/o.Pedda Gurrappa, Hindu, aged about 45 years, housewife, 2.Kummari Pedda Gurrappa, s/o.late K.Gurrappa, Hindu, aged about 52 years, Coolie,
Both are r/o.H.No.5-63, Kummari street, Illurikothapeta village, Banaganapalle mandal,
Kurnool District.... PETITIONERS
-Versus-
1) Shaik Vali, s/o.Ussensaheb, Muslim, Major, Owner cum Driver of the Auto bearing No.AP 21 TT 8163, r/o.H.No.2-74, Meerapuram village, Banaganapalle mandal, Kurnool district 2)M/s Bajaj Allianz Insurance Company Limited, Rep.by its Branch Manager, GE Plaza, Airport Road, Yerwada, Pune, Policy No.OG-15-1806-1831-00000580 valid from 08.07.2014 to 07.07.2015
... RESPONDENTS.
This petition coming on 17.4.2019 for final hearing before me in the presence of Sri S.Raja Gopal Reddy, Advocate for the petitioners; on 13.11.2015 R1 called absent, despite service of notice, hence R1 is set exparte and Sri M.V.Ramana, Advocate for R2, and having stood over for consideration till this day, this Tribunal passed the following: -
O R D E R
The petitioners filed the petition U/s.166 (c) of M.V.Act for the death of K.Venkata Ramana for Rs.5,00,000/-.
III ADJ, NDL.MVOP 464/2015Page 2 2) The brief facts of the petitioners case is that 1st petitioner is mother and 2nd petitioner is father of deceased K.Venkata Ramana, who died in an accident which was occurred on 18.12.2014 at about 16.00hours, on Main Road Narasapuram, Rudravaram mandal of Kurnool district. The owner cum Driver of the Auto bearing No.AP 21 TT 8163 during the course of his employment drove the vehicle in a rash and negligent manner and caused the accident. The 1st respondent is the owner cum driver of the auto bearing No.AP 21 TT 8163 and the second respondent is the Insurance Company with which the vehicle was insured under the Policy No.OG-15-1806-1831-00000580, valid from 08.07.2014 to 07.07.2015 and on the date of accident the policy was in force. The first is vicariously and second respondent as Insurance
Company are jointly and severally liable to pay compensation to the petitioners.
On 18.12.2014 while the deceased K.Venkataramana and his family members and others engaged an auto bearing No.AP 21 TT 8163 from Illuru Kothapeta village in order to go Ahobilam in view of Swathi
Nakshatram Darshan, after completion of darshnam at Ahobilam Sri
Lakshmi Narasimha Swamy and while returning to Illuru Kothapeta village, and when the said auto reached near Narsapuram village, the driver of the said auto drove the auto in a rash and negligent manner with high speed in the same speed applied sudden break in order to avoid road crossing buffalo. As a result the auto turned turtle beside the road. The accident occurred at about 16.00hours. As a result,
K.Venkataramana sustained severe and grievous injury over left knee, left ankle and right knee, and right paw grievous injury over left side of back of abdomen and multiple injuries all over the body. Immediately
III ADJ, NDL.MVOP 464/2015Page 3 the injured K.Venkataramana shifted to the Government Hospital,
Nandyal and for better treatment the injured shifted to Osmania
Hospital, Hyderabad and while undergoing treatment K.Venkataramana died on 19.12.2014 at 5.30 p.m.in O.P. casuality due to injuries. The petitioners incurred an amount of Rs.50,000/-towards medical and attendant charges of the deceased K.Venkataramana.
Prior to the accident the deceased was hale and healthy aged about 25 years, doing coolie work and getting coolie of Rs.300/-per day.
Due to sudden demise of K.Venkataramana the petitioners lost love and affection of K.Venkataramana. The petitioners are fully depends for lively hood upon the income of the deceased only. So the respondents are liable to pay compensation of Rs.5,00,000/-to the petitioners.
3)On 13.11.2015 R1 called absent, despite service of notice, hence R1 is set exparte. R2 is contesting respondent.
4)R2 filed written statement denying the nature and manner of the accident and negligence of the driver of the 1st respondent. The 2nd respondents denies the age, income, occupation of the deceased. R1 driving the vehicle has “ no relation in force” as on the date of accident to drive the vehicle. R1 i.e. driver of the vehicle auto bearing No.AP 21
TT 8163 was not holding a valid and effective, qualified driving license at the time of accident. R1 to furnish the particulars of the policy, date, time and place of accident, particulars of deceased and the name of the owner and particulars of the driving license but the R1 has not complied with statutory demand. The petitioners claimed interest @ of 12% which is highly excessive. The accident did not occur due to negligent driving of the driver of the auto bearing No.AP 21 TT 8163 and that the accident occurred only due to negligence of deceased as the contents of the
III ADJ, NDL.MVOP 464/2015Page 4 petition, as per the criminal case records the auto was carrying 7 persons whereas the seating capacity is 3 + 1. Hence overload is the sole cause for the accident. The compensation of Rs.5,00,000/- claimed by the petitioners is more excessive. Hence, this respondent is not liable to pay the compensation. Hence, this respondent prayed the Hon’ble court to dismiss the petition.
5)Based on the above pleadings the following issues have been settled for trial:-
1)Whether the accident dt.18.12.2014 occurred due to rash and negligent driving of the driver of the Auto bearing Registration No.AP-21-TT-8163 as stated in the petition?
2)Whether the petitioners are entitled to compensation, as prayed for and from which of the respondents?
3)To what relief?
6)On behalf of the petitioners, Pws.1 and 2 are examined and
Exs.A1 to A7 are got marked. On behalf of the respondents, Rw-1 was examined and Exs.B1 to B3 were marked.
7)Arguments were heard.
8)ISSUE No.1:-
The 2nd petitioner examined himself as PW1. PW.2 is the eye witness to the incident. PW1 reiterated the contents in the petition as in chief affidavit and got marked Exs.A1 to A7. On the cross-examination of PW1 by the second respondent counsel, he states that he is not the eye witness to the accident. At the time of accident his son by name
K.Venkateswarlu was present in the same auto and he preferred the complaint to the police, Afzalgunj P.S., Hyderabad. PW.1 is an illiterate.
His son Venkateswarlu is a literate. He admitted that it is clearly mentioned in Ex.A1 that the accident occurred only due to avoid hit to
III ADJ, NDL.MVOP 464/2015Page 5 buffalo and admitted that it is not mentioned in Ex.A1 with regard to the number of auto and name of the driver and with regard to negligence.
He know the name of the driver of the auto. He do not know how many times his son K.Venkateswarlu gave report to the police. He admitted that 2nd complaint given by his son was not filed and only printed FIR is filed. He denied that there was no negligence on the part of the driver of the auto and denied that the charge sheeted driver do not having any license to drive the crime vehicle. He denied that the crime vehicle is not having permit and fitness at the time of accident. He admitted that
Ex.A7 is the second first information report with regard to the same accident. He admitted that 1sr FIR was given at Hyderabad by his son at
Afzulgunj P.S., Hyderabad. He denied that there was no accident took place and denied the formal suggestions.
9)PW2 is the eye witness to the occurrence. PW-2 also reiterated the contents of claim petition. On the cross-examination of
PW2 by the second respondent counsel, she states that her husband and second petitioner are brothers. At the time of accident they are five in number travelling in the auto. She gave evidence with regard to this accident in JFCM, Allagadda. She denied that she was hostile before
JFCM, Allagadda. The accident took place near a Church after crossing
Narsapuram metta at about 4.30 p.m. She denied that she was not witnessed the accident and denied the formal suggestions.
10)On behalf of the second respondent/company, the Assistant
Legal Manager for T.P.Claims is examined as RW1. He reiterated the content of the counter and Exs.B1 to B3. On the cross-examination of
RW1 by the petitioners counsel, he states that he has no personal knowledge regarding this case, basing on the records he is deposing. As
III ADJ, NDL.MVOP 464/2015Page 6 on the date of accident i.e., 18.12.2014 the insurance policy Ex.B2 was in force. He admitted that after thorough investigation the SHO,
Rudravaram filed charge sheet against driver of auto (Crime vehicle) AP 21 TT 8163. He denied that it is false to state that the owner of the auto, the petitioner, police were colluded and filed a false case upon the driver of the auto. He denied that entire negligence was upon the driver of the crime vehicle and there is no negligence on the part of the deceased. He denied that to avoid the compensation he deposing false.
He denied that there was no over load at the time of accident in the crime auto. He denied that the driver of auto was having valid and effective driving license at the time of accident. He admitted that R1 was not received any legal notice from the company. He denied the formal suggestions.
11)To prove the rash and negligence we have to look into Ex.A1
FIR, Ex.A2 CC of altered FIR, Ex.A5 CC of MVI report and Ex.A6 charge sheet and evidence of PW1 and PW.2. On keen perusal of Ex.A1 the nature and manner of accident mentioned and the name of complainant is K.Venkateswarulu, s/o.K.Pedda Gurappa and Ex.A2 CC of altered FIR shows that the name of the accused is Shaik Vali and nature and manner of accident mentioned. On keen perusal of Form 54 accused name is
Shaik Vali and the crime auto bearing Number is AP 21 TT 8163. As per
Ex.A5 MVI report column NO.19 specifies that the accident was not occurred due to any mechanical defect of the vehicle. As per Ex.A6 charge sheet accused is the driver of the AP.21-TT-8163. Hence, Exs.A1,
A2, A5 and A6 are clinches the issue. Nothing is disproved by the R2 company by way of oral or documentary evidence that the accident is not occurred due to the rash and negligence of the driver of the
III ADJ, NDL.MVOP 464/2015Page 7 offending vehicle. Therefore, Exs.A1, A2, A5, A6 are just opposed with the evidence of RW1, this court safely came to the conclusion that the rash and negligence is on the part of the driver of the offending vehicle.
Hence, Issue No.1 is answered in favour of the petitioners and against the R2 company.
ISSUE No.2:
12) On keen perusal of the Ex.A1 the age of the deceased is about 25 years. On keen perusal of Ex.A3 CC of inquest report, the age of the deceased is 25 years. As per Ex.A4 postmortem certificate, the age of the deceased is 25 years. So, this court considered the age of the deceased as 25 years. Nothing is disproved by the R2 company that the age of the deceased is about 25 years.
13) PW1 claims in his petition and chief affidavit that the deceased worked as a Coolie and he is getting income of Rs.300/- per day. Nothing was elicited from the cross-examination of PW1 by R2 company to disprove that the deceased worked as coolie in a lengthy cross-examination. Hence, this court considered that the deceased is a coolie. This court considers the income of the deceasedas 150/- per day instead of Rs.300/- per day, on the ground that petitioner was not proved the income of the deceased by way of adducing any documentary evidence.
14)R2 filed written arguments and argued before this court that
(i) the auto was carrying seven persons even though the seating capacity is 3 + 1. Hence the crime vehicle is overloaded. (ii) Involving of the said auto is suspicious. The pleas taken by R2 is contradicting one another. On thorough verification the Investigating Officer filed charge
III ADJ, NDL.MVOP 464/2015Page 8 sheet. On keen perusal of the charge sheet the crime vehicle was not carried 7 (seven) persons at the time of accident. Hence the contention of the R2 that the crime vehicle is overloaded and crime vehicle is not involved in the said accident has no legs to stand.
15)The R2 company has examined the Assistant Legal Manager for T.P.Claims as RW1 and Ex.B1/True copy of the letter, Ex.B2/True copy of Insurance police with terms and conditions, Ex.B3/Office copy of notice issued to R1 along with postal receipt are marked through him.
He admits that as on the date of the accident the policy was in force.
On the cross-examination of RW1 he denied that the driver of auto was having valid and effective driving license at the time of accident. The violation pleaded by the R2 company has no legs to stand in view of the
Supreme Court and High Court Judgments. Hence, R2 company is liable to pay the compensation to the petitioners.
16)As per decision reported in, 2009 ACJ 1298 in a case
between SARLA VERMA AND OTHERS VS. DELHI TRANSPORT
CORPORATION AND ANOTHER, the multiplier for the age group of 21 to 25 is 18. As the deceased is a bachelor, half of the income has to be deducted as his personal expenses. The income of the deceased per month 150 x 30= 4500/-. Half of the expenses has to be deducted, then his income will be Rs.2250/- per month, Per annum it has come to Rs.
27,000/- ( i.e. Rs.2250 x 12). The said amount is multiplied by 18, it comes to Rs.4,86,000/-. The petitioners also entitled for compensation of
Rs.4,86,000/- towards loss of dependency and future expectation of life.
The petitioners shall also be entitled for Rs.5,000/- towards funeral expenses, Rs.5,000/- towards transportation charges. This court awards compensation of Rs.30,000/- towards love and affection. In total
III ADJ, NDL.MVOP 464/2015Page 9 the petitioners are entitled for Rs.5,26,000/-. Hence this court restricted the claim of Rs.5,00,000/-as the petition is filed for
Rs.5,00,000/-. Hence, the respondents 1 and 2 are jointly and severally liable to answer the claim of the petitioners. Issue No.2 is answered in favour of the petitioners.
17) ISSUE NO.3:
IN THE RESULT, the petition is allowed with costs, awarding compensation of Rs.5,00,000/- (Rupees five lakhs only) to the petitioners together with interest at 9% per annum from the date of petition till the date of deposit. R1 and R2 are jointly and severally liable to pay the compensation to the petitioners. They shall deposit the awarded amount within one month from the date of Order. On such deposit, the petitioners are entitled the compensation amount equally.
They are entitled interest over their respective shares of awarded amount including costs of the claim. After deposit, both the petitioners are permitted to withdraw of their shares i.e. Rs.2,50,000/-each in the compensation amount including interest and costs of the claim.
Advocate fee is fixed at Rs.3,500/-.
Typed to my dictation by the stenographer, corrected and
pronounced by me in open court on this the 22 nd day of April, 2019.
Chairman, (III Addl.Dist.Judge), M A C T, Kurnool at Nandyal.
Appendix of evidence
Witnesses examined
For petitioners:- For Respondents:-
PW1: Kummari Pedda GurrappaRW1:B.A.L.N.Hari Krishna
PW2:Kummari Venkata Lakshmamma
III ADJ, NDL.MVOP 464/2015Page 10
Exhibits MARKED
For petitioners:-
Ex.A1: Certified copy of F.I.R.No.741/2014 of Afzalgunj Police station,
Hyderbad, u/sec.174 of Cr.P.C.
Ex.A2: Certified copy ofAltered FIR in Cr.No.20/2015 of Rudravaram
P.S.u/sec.174 of Cr.P.C.to 304-A IPC, dt.30.1.2015
Ex.A3: Certified Copy of inquest report of K.Venkata Ramana
Ex.A4: Certified copy of Postmortem report of K.Venkataramana.
Ex.A5: Certified copy of MVI report.
Ex.A6: Certified copy of charge-sheet.
Ex.A7: Certified copy of First Information Report
For Respondents :
Ex.B1/True copy of the letter,
Ex.B2/True copy of Insurance police with terms and conditions, j
Ex.B3/Office copy of notice issued to R1 along with postal receipt
Chairman, MACT -cum- IIII ADJ