Sri. Bishma Gangeyudu

1

IN THE COURT OF THE ( M.A.C.T.) III ADDL. DISTRICT JUDGE,

(FTC) ASIFABAD

PRESENT: K.B.Gangeyudu, B.A.B.L., IIIrd ADDITIONAL DISTRICT JUDGE, (FTC) - cum- CHAIRMAN, M.A.C.T.ASIFABAD.

Saturday this the 5th day of January 2013

O.P.NO.567/2010

Between: Thokala Mallesh s/o.Lae Banaiah age 19years Occ.Jeep drier R/o.Kistampet village Dist. Adilabad. …Petitioners // And // 1.P.Venkati Dur Rao s/o.Krishna Murthy age.Major Occ. Owner of Lorry bearing No.AP01W-2624 R/o.H.No.4-44, Near Durga temple, Rebenna village of Dist. Adilabad.

2.Royal Sundaram alliance Insurance Co. Ltd. Rep. by is Branch Manager, Branch Office, Karimnagar. …Respondents

This petition came up before me for final hearing in the presence of Sri B.Tirupathi , Advocate for the petitioner and Respondent No1 called absent and set exparte and Sri.K.Ajay Kumar , Advocte for Respondent No.2 After hearing both sides and perusing the material on record till this day, this court delivered the following:-

:: O R D E R ::

1.The claim petitioners filed this petition U/sec. 166(i)(a) of the

Motor Vehicles Act and Rules 455 of M.V. Rules 1989 seeking compensation of Rs.3,50,000/- for the fractures and injuries sustained in a motor vehicle accident occurred on 29.7.2009 at 9.30p.m. on BT Road atOCP II Mine Madaram due to rash and negligent driving of Lorry bearignNo.AP01=W-2624 by its driver.

2. The brief averments of the petition are that:- On 28.7.2009 when petitioner after completion of hisduty was about to return to his home thn the driver of the Lorry bearing No.AP1W-2624 permitted the petitioner to board the vebicle at abut 9.30p.m. at OCP-II Mine 2

Mandamarri while the petitioner was boarding it the driver moved it speedily in rash and negligent manner without taking any precautions as a result the petitioner fell down from it and the tyre of the lorry ran over the right leg of the petitioner causing grievous fractures right leg tibia& fibula and fracture left foot and crush injuries to both legs and other injuries to all over the body. Petitioner shifted to Govt.Hospital,

Bellampally after first aid he was referred to Govt.Hospital, Mancherial

But the petitioner was taken to Prathima Hospital, karimnagar where he was treated as inpatient in the said hospital for a period of one month.

During the period several tests were taken and X-Rays were taken he was operated on his right leg, during this period several tests were conducted and X-Rays were taken and still also petitioner undergoing treatment for the above said injuries.

reached near over bridge Mancherial, a private bus bearing No.AP36 X 6598 came in high speed with rash and negligent manner and dashed to the motor cycle of the petitioner. Due to which the petitioner and rider of motor cycle fell down from the motor cycle and sustained fractures and injuries. Petitionersustained fracture of left wrist and left hand and injury to left leg and other multiple injuries through out body. Immediately the petitioner was shifted to Govt. Area Hospital, Mancherial where he was taken first aid and referred to Aswini Orthopaedic Hospital and treated by Dr.K.Trinath Rao and where he was took treatment for one month.

Petitioner incurred medical expenses of Rs.25,000/-. Police Mancherial had registered a case in Cr.No.246/2010 U/Sec.337 IC against the driver of

Private Bus bearing No.AP36X 6598 and filed charge sheet U/Sec.338 IPC.

Petitioner was hale and healthy at the time of the accident, he was aged 3 about 47 years he was a General Mazdoor inRK7 A Mine of Singareni

Colleries company Ltd. Due to the above said accidental fractures and injuries, still today he was bed ridden andduring this period the petitioner lost his salary, he is getting more pains at injured places. Respondent No.1 is owner of offending vehicle Respondent No.2 is insurer. and they are jointly and severally liable to pay compensation to the petitioners.

2.RespondentNo.1 called absent and set exparte. Respondent

No.2 filed his counter contending that the petition is neither maintainable under law nor on the facts of the case. The contents of the petition are absolutely false, baseless and created. Police Mancherial registered a false case. The driver of the Private Bus is not having valid and subsisting licence. The respondent also denied that the accident occurred due to the rash and negligence driving of the driver. The accidentoccurredonlyduetothe negligence of petitioner. The amount claimed is excessive and exorbitant.

4.Issue No.1: The claim petitioner submitted that On 18.7.2010 at about 09.00hours the petitioner proceeding on Bajaj Discovery Motor cycle bearing No.AP01Y 9158 as a pillion rider along with his friend

Hanumanthu from the house of Hanumanthu to the market, when hey reached near over bridge Mancherial, a private bus bearing No.AP36 X 6598 came in high speed with rash and negligent manner and dashed to the motor cycle of the petitioner. Due to which the petitioner and rider of motor cycle fell down from the motor cycle and sustained fractures and injuries. Petitioner sustained fracture of left wrist and left hand and injury 4 to left leg and other multiple injuries through out body..PW1 filed documents Ex.A1 is the FIR, Police Mancherial had registered a case in

Cr.No.246/2010 U/Sec.337 IC against the driver of Private Bus bearing

No.AP36X 6598 and filed charge sheet U/Sec.338 IPC -Ex.A3. No contrary evidence was adduced by the respondent regarding their liability.

Hence, as per the above oral and material evidence, I hold that the accident was occurred due to the rash and negligent driving of the crime vehicle.

Issue No.2:- The petitioner submitted sustained fractures and injuries. Petitioner sustained fracture of left wrist and left hand and injury to left leg and other multiple injuries through out body. Immediately the petitioner was shifted to Govt. Area Hospital, Mancherial where he was taken first aid and referred to Aswini Orthopaedic Hosptal and treated by

Dr.K.Trinath Rao and where he was took treatment for one month.

Petitioner incurred medical expenses of Rs.25,000/-.Petitioner submitted that he was hale and healthy at the time of the accident, he was aged about 47 years he was a General Mazdoor inRK7 A Mine of Singareni

Colleries company Ltd. Due to the above said accidental fractures and injuries, still today he was bed ridden and during this period the petitioner lost his salary, he is getting more pains at injured place. He filed documents Ex.A2 is the Wound certificate, Ex.A4 is policy copy, Ex.A5 is referral letter, Ex.A6 medical prescription, Ex.A7 Pay slip. Theclaim petitioner also got examined Doctor through Commissioner. PW2

Dr.K.Trinad Rao deposed that on 18.7.2010petitioner came with a complaint of pain with a left wrist and sutured wound present over the left le which was treated outside. Colles fracture was found in the left wrist.

Closed reduction manipulation and below elbow POP carrying left 5 applied under G.A. General Anestesia) and the patient advised to take bed rest for 6weeks and the patient discharged on the same day ad treated as out patient. The nature of injury of wrist is grievous. The leg injury is simple in nature and the patient visited me 3 times within 6 weeks and the total expenditure are approximately Rs.8000/- and I advised the patient physiotherapy for one month. The patient advised to take rest for totally two and half months and the patient I now also unable to do hard work with above injury. .Ex.A6 is the prescription issued by him. Ex.C1 is the X-

Ray film.. As per the wound certificate the claim petitioner sustained injuries (1) Laceration present on the left leg 3x1 cm, thigh (2) Tenderness swelling on the left wrist. First injury is simple (2) Injury is grievous in nature. X-Ray report shows that fracture of left hand . So the petitioner is entitled to Rs.26,000/- for the injuries. They also filed medical prescriptions and X-Rays . SO the petitioner is entitled to Rs.3000/- for the medical expenses. He filed salary certificate ex.A7. So he is also entitled to Rs.15,000/- for the loss of earnings. Rs.10,000/- towards extra

Nourishment traveling and attendant charges,Rs.6000/- towards pain and suffering . In all the petitioner is entitled to Rs.60,000/- in all,

R2 not adduced any rebuttal evidence regarding their liability.

Hence all the respondents are jointly and severally liable to pay the compensation.

In the result, petition is allowed granting compensation of

Rs.60,000/- to the petitioners with interest @ 7.5% per annum from the date of petition till the date of realization. Respondents are liable to pay compensation to the claim petitioner within (3) months from the date of 6 this order. On such deposit Petitioner is entitled withdraw the entire amount. The Advocate fee is fixed at Rs.1000/-.

Dictated to the personal assistant, transcribed by her and after

correction pronounced by me in the open court on this 5 th day of January 2013

Chairman (MACT)-Cum-III Addl.Dist.Judge, Fast Track Court, Asifabad.

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

WITNESSES EXAMINED

For Petitioner:-For Respondents:-

PW1: Polka Bapu Pw2:-Dr.K.Trinad Rao MS.

EXHIBITS MARKED

For Petitioner:

Ex.A1: Attested copy of FIR Ex.A2: Attested copy of Injury certificate Ex.A3 :-Attested copy of Charge sheet Ex.A4:- Xerox copy of policy ,Ex.A5 Referral letter of CAS AH Mancherial, Ex.A6 Medical Prescription of Dr.K.Trinath Rao Ex.A7:-Pay Slip.

For Court:- Ex.C1:-X-Ray

Chairman (MACT)-Cum-III Addl.Dist.Judge,

Fast Track Court, Asifabad.

7

D E C R E E

IN THE COURT OF THE ( M.A.C.T.) III ADDL. DISTRICT JUDGE,

(FTC) ASIFABAD

PRESENT: K.B.Gangeyudu, B.A.B.L., IIIrd ADDITIONAL DISTRICT JUDGE, (FTC) - cum- CHAIRMAN, M.A.C.T.ASIFABAD.

Saturday this the 29th day of December 2012

O.P.NO.312/2010

Between: 1.AdeLaxmi w/o.LatePrasad age.30years Occ.House wife 8 2.Ade Rajesh s/o.LtePrasad age.12 years(minor) 3.Ade Supraja D/o.LatePrasad age.9years Minr Petitoner no.2 and 3 are minors being represented by their natural mothr Petitione No.1 4.Ade Nagaiah s/o.Ramchander age.70years Occ.Senor Citizen 5.AdeLingakka w/o.Nagaiah age.65 yas Occ. Senior citizen All r/o. Chirrakunta Vg.Mandal Asifabad Dist. Adilabad. …Petitioners // And // 1.B.Dattu s/o.Romaji age.Major Occ Owner of Auto rckshaw bearng No.AP1U-9649 R/o.Venkatapur Mowad villag Mandal Asifabad Dist. Adilabad.

2.RelianceGeneral Insurance Co.Ltd. Rep. by its Branch Manager, Branch Office, III Floor, Kayesh Tower Court Chowasta,Karimngar. …Respondents

CLAIM FOR: The claim petitioners filed this petition U/sec. 166(i)(c) of the Motor Vehicles Act and Rules 455 of M.V. Rules 1989 seeking compensation of Rs. 8,00,000/- for the death of deceased Ade Prasad in the motor vehicle accident occurred on 25.4.2009 at about 8.30p.m. near Dasnapur village due to rash and negligent driving of Auto Rickshaw bearingNo.AP1U-9649 by its driver only.

VALUATION; Petition is valued at Rs.8,00,000/- and a court fee of Rs.7360/- is paid under section 475(1) (b) of the M.V.Rules,1989.

PETITION PRESENTED ON : 12.8.2010

PETITION FILED ON : 13.8.2010 This petition came up before me for final hearing in the presence of Sri B.Tirupathi , Advocate for the petitioner and Respondent No1 called absent and set exparte and Sri.S.Rajaram, Advocte for Respondent No.2 After hearing both sides and perusing the material on record till this day, this court delivered the following:-

1.That Respondent is liable to pay to the petitioners Compensation ofRs.6,55,000/- (Rupees six lakh fifty five thousand only)

2. That R-1 and R-2 shall also pay to the petitioner interest on Rs.6,55,000/- @ Rs.7.5% P.A. from the date of petition till the date of realization.

9

3. That Respondent shall also pay to the petitioner a sum of Rs.8392/- (Rupees eight thousand three hundred and ninty two only) towards the Costs of the Petition.

4.That Respondent shall deposit the amount of compensation within three months from the date of this order .

5. On such deposit PetitionerNo.1 is entitled to Rs.4,00,000 and she is permitted to withdraw Rs.1,50,000/- and costs and her remaining share amount shall be kept in FDR for a period of 5 years. She is also permitted o withdraw every month interest on the FDR. PetitioneNo.4 and 5 are entitled to Rs.50,000/- each and they are permitted to withdraw entire amount. The remaining amount Rs.1,55,000/- with entire interest shall be entitled by petitioner No.2 and Petitionerno.3. Their share amount shall be kept in FDR till they attains age of majority Given under my hand and the seal of the court, this 29th day of December 2012..

III Addl. Dist. Judge- Cum- Chairman MACT

(FTC) ASIFABAD

COSTS OF MEMO

For the Petitioner amount For the respondents amount

Stamp on petitioner 7 360=00 Stamp on petition -- Stamp on power 2=00 Stamp on power 2=00 Stamp on Exhibits -- Stamp on Exhibits -- Pleader’s fee. 1000=00 Pleader’s fee. NC Subsistence for witness -- Service on process. -- Service on process -- Commissioner’s fee. -- Commissioner’s fee Subsistence for witness -- Misc. Costs Misc. costs -- Welfare Fund 30=00 Welfare Fund 30=00 Total 8392-00 Total 32=00

III Addl. Dist. Judge-Cum- Chairman

MACT (FTC),

No cost memos not filed by either parties ASIFABAD.

IN THE COURT OF THE ( M.A.C.T.) III ADDL. DISTRICT JUDGE,

(FTC) ASIFABAD

PRESENT: K.B.Gangeyudu, B.A.B.L., IIIrd ADDITIONAL DISTRICT JUDGE, (FTC) - cum- CHAIRMAN, M.A.C.T.ASIFABAD.

Monday this the 11th day of March 2013.

O.P.NO.22/2011

Between: 1.Jabare Shantha bai w/o.Late JabareMothiram age.23 yers Occ. Household R/o.Babasagar, Mdl.Kowtala, Dt. Adilabad. 2.J.Sai Kumar S/o.Lae JabareMothiram age.5 years Occ.Nil r/o.Babasagar, Mdl.Kowtala Dt.Adilabad. (Petitioner No.2 being minor represented by his natural mother and friend Smt. Jabare Shantha Bai i.e. Applicant No.1) …Petitioners // And // 1.Smt.Godisela Anasurya w/o.Godisela Rama Goud Age.42 years Occ. Owner of Tractor and trailor No.AP- 01U-7814 and AP-01/U-7815 R/o.H.No.1-4-102, Kaghaznagar Dist. Adilabad. 2.M/S.Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd. Rep. by is Branch Manager, Branch Officer , Palliwar Building, MG Road, Chandrapur.

…Respondents

This petition came up before me for final hearing in the presence of Sri T.Suresh, Advocates for the petitioner and Sri.Y.Vishnu Bhagwan,, Advocate for Respondent No1 Respondent No.2 called absent and set exparte and After hearing both sides and perusing the material on record till this day, this court delivered the following:-

:: O R D E R ::

1.The claim petitioners filed this petition U/sec. 166(i)(c) of the

Motor Vehicles Act and Rules 455 of M.V. Rules 1989 seeking compensation of Rs.5,00,000/- for the death of the deceased Jabare

Mothiram in a motor vehicle accident occurred on 29.4.2011 at about 2.30a.m.near Tokini village siwar of Adilabad District.

2

2. The brief averments of the petition are that:- Deceased Jabare

Mothiram was a coolie on the Tractor and TrailorNo.AP-01/U-7814 and

AP-01/U-7815, The opposite Party No.1 is the owner of the said Tractor &

Trailer No.AP-01/U-7814and AP-01/U-7815 and employer of the deceased, That on 23.1.2004 the said Tractor and Trailer No.AP-01/U- 7814 and AP-01/U-7815 loaded with rice bags an the deceased was sitting in the above said tractor –trailer. While the above said tractor-trailer reached Tonkin village sivar semi miscreants tried to attack the Drier of the said Tractor-Trailer. Due to attack of the miscreants the said Tractor driver who has lost control over the tractor-trailer as such the tractor- trailer went off the road and it over turned. Due to over turning of the said tractor-trailer the deceased who was sitting in the trailer as a coolie fell on the ground and the trailer fell on him along with rice bags load, due to which the coolie Jabare Mothiram died at the accident spot only. The deceased Jabare Mothiram was aged about 25 years and he was working as a coolie on the above said tractor-trailer he was earning

Rs.3300/- per month. The Petitioners are the dependants on the earnings of the deceased. Police Sirpur-T registered a case in Cr.No54/2004 for the offence punishable U/Sec.324 & 304-A of IPC.The petitioners are not having any source of earnings except the earnings of the deceased. Due to the accidental death of the decased the petitioners are deprived of the future earnings of the deceased Respondent No.1 being owner and

Respondent No.2 being insurer. Hence both the respondents are jointly and severally liable to pay compensation.

2. Respondent No.1 filed his counter denying that the accident occurred due to the rash and negligence driving of the Tractor & Trailer 3

No.Ap-01/U-7814 and contended that the Tractor was insured by

Respondent No.2 Hence this respondent is not liable to pay any compensation. The driver was holding valid and subsisting licence.

Respondent denied the age income and occupation of the deceased.

2.Respondent No.2 filed his counter contending that the petition is neither maintainable under law nor on the facts of the case. The contents of the petition are absolutely false, baseless and created. Police Sirpur registered a false case.

The driver of the Tractor is not having valid and subsisting licence. The respondent also denied that the accident occurred due to the rash and negligence driving of the driver. The accidentoccurredonlyduetothe negligence of petitioner. The amount claimed is excessive and exorbitant.

3.Issue No.1: The claim petitioner submitted that her husband Deceased

Jabare Mothiram was a coolie on the Tractor and TrailorNo.AP-01/U- 7814 and AP-01/U-7815, The opposite Party No.1 is the owner of the said

Tractor & Trailer No.AP-01/U-7814and AP-01/U-7815 and employer of the deceased, That on 23.1.2004 the said Tractor and Trailer No.AP- 01/U-7814 and AP-01/U-7815 loaded with rice bags an the deceased was sitting in the above said tractor –trailer. While the above said tractor- trailer reached Tonkin village sivar semi miscreants tried to attack the

Drier of the said Tractor-Trailer. Due to attack of the miscreants the said

Tractor driver who has lost control over the tractor-trailer as such the tractor-trailer went off the road and it over turned. Due to over turning of the said tractor-trailer the deceased who was sitting in the trailer as a coolie fell on the ground and the trailer fell on him along with rice bags 4 load, due to which the coolie Jabare Mothiram died at the accident spot only. Pw1 filed Ewx.A1 FIR. As per Ex.A1 FIR. Police Sirpur-T registered a case in Cr.No54/2004 for the offence punishable U/Sec.324 & 304-A of

IPC. No contrary evidence was adduced by the respondent regarding their liability. Hence respondent No.1 and 2 are jointly and severally liable to pay the compensation.

Issue No.2:-PW1 submitted that her husband deceased succumbed to the injuries on the spot and PW1 also categorically stated that her husband deceased Jabare Mothiram was aged about 25 years and he was working as a coolie on the above said tractor-trailer he was earning

Rs.3300/- per month. The Petitioners are the dependants on the earnings of the deceased. The petitioners are not having any source of earnings except the earnings of the deceased. Due to the accidental death of the decased the petitioners are deprived of the future earnings of the deceased As per the PME report the deceased age is mentioned as 25 years. As per the multiplier for the age group of 21 to 25 years (18) multiplier is applicable. The income o the deceased is taken as 36,000/-p.a.

As per the Hon’ble Supreme Court Judgment in Sarala Varma case, 50% salary income of the deceased is taken as future prospects.

Rs.36,000+18,000=54,000. After deducting 1/3rd it comes 54,000- 18000=36,000/-. Multplier (17) is applicable 36,000x17=6,12,000/-. First petitioner is entitled to Rs.10,000/- for loss of consortium, Rs.10,000/- towards loss of estate, Rs.5000/- towards funeral expenses. In all the petitioner is entitled to Rs.6,37,000/-.

5

Respondents not adduced any rebuttal evidence regarding their liability and there is no representation by the respondent counsel. Hence both the respondents are jointly and severally liable to pay compensation.

In the result, petition is allowed granting compensation of

Rs.6,37,000/- to the petitioners with interest @ 7.5% per annum from the date of petition till the date of realization. Respondent No.1nd 2 are jointly and severally liable to pay compensation to the claim petitioner within (3) months from the date of this order. On such deposit Petitioner No.1 is entitled to Rs.3,00,000/- and costs and she is permitted to withdraw

Rs.1,00,000/- and costs. Her remaining share amount shall be kept in FDR for a period of 5 years. She is permitted to withdraw every month interest on the FDR. The remaining amount shall be entitled by the petitioner no.2 and 3 equally with entire interest. The second petitioner is permitted to withdraw her entire share amount. The share amount of petitioner No.3 shall be kept in FDR for 5 years and he is permitted to withdraw every month interest on the FDR.. The Advocate fee is fixed at Rs.1000/-.

Dictated to the personal assistant, transcribed by her and after

correction pronounced by me in the open court on this 7 th day of March 2013.

Chairman (MACT)-Cum-III Addl.Dist.Judge, Asifabad .

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

WITNESSES EXAMINED

For Petitioner:-For Respondents:-

PW1: Gadarla Madhavi PW2:-Dr.Chandra Shekar

EXHIBITS MARKED

For Petitioner:

Ex.A1: Certified copy of FIR 6

Ex.A2: Certified copy of Inquest report Ex.A3 Certified copy of PME report Ex.A4 Certified copy of MVI report Ex.A5 Certified copy of charge sheet. Ex.A6 Xerox copy of Insurance Policy of Lorry.

For Respondents:

-nil-

Chairman (MACT)-Cum-III Addl.Dist.Judge,

Fast Track Court, Asifabad.

7

D E C R E E

IN THE COURT OF THE ( M.A.C.T.) III ADDL. DISTRICT JUDGE,

(FTC) ASIFABAD

PRESENT: K.B.Gangeyudu, B.A.B.L., IIIrd ADDITIONAL DISTRICT JUDGE, (FTC) - cum- CHAIRMAN, M.A.C.T.ASIFABAD.

Wednesday this the 30th day of January 2013

O.P.NO.270/2010

Between: 1.Smt.Suddapally Venkatamma @Venkateshwar I w/o.RajaMallaiah 50years Occ Housewife, Caste:Perka 2.Suddapally Sunil Kumar s/o.Raja Mallaiah aged.25 years Occ.Student 3.Kumari Suddapally Srinivas D/o.RajaMallaiah age.19years Occ.Student 4.Suddapally SagarKuma s/o.Raja Mallaiah aged 18yearsOcc. Student. All residing at H.No.18-2, near branch Library, Chennur, Mandal Chennur Dist. Adilabad.

…Petitioner // And // 1.K.Bhupathi Goud s/o.K.Kankaiah Goud Occ. Owner of Tata Ace Mini Van bearing registration mark No.AP-01V-6018R/o.Sawargoan village, near APHB Colony, Adilabad.

2.BajajAllianzGeneralInsuranceCompany Ltd.Represented by its Managing Director, Begumpet, Hyderabad …Respondents

CLAIM FOR: The claim petitioners filed this petition U/sec. 166(i)(c) of the Motor Vehicles Act and Rules 455 of M.V. Rules 1989 seeking compensation of Rs.10,50,000/- for the death of deceased Raja Mallaiah in a motor vehicle accident occurred on 5.9.2007 at about 19.30 hours at KB complex main road Utnoor due to rash and negligent driving of Tata Ace BSH Mini Van bearing No.AP-01V6018 VALUATION; Petition is valued at Rs.8,00,000/- and a court fee of 8

Rs.7360/- is paid under section 475(1) (b) of the M.V.Rules,1989.

PETITION PRESENTED ON : 12.8.2010

PETITION FILED ON : 13.8.2010 This petition came up before me for final hearing in the presence of Sri P.Brahmaiah , Advocate for the petitioner and K.Sriram, Advocate for Respondent No1 and Sri.M.Suresh , Advocate for Respondent No.2 After hearing both sides and perusing the material on record till this day, this court delivered the following:-

1.That Respondent is liable to pay to the petitioners Compensation ofRs.6,55,000/- (Rupees six lakh fifty five thousand only)

2. That R-1 and R-2 shall also pay to the petitioner interest on Rs.6,55,000/- @ Rs.7.5% P.A. from the date of petition till the date of realization.

3. That Respondent shall also pay to the petitioner a sum of Rs.8392/- (Rupees eight thousand three hundred and ninty two only) towards the Costs of the Petition.

4.That Respondent shall deposit the amount of compensation within three months from the date of this order .

5. On such deposit PetitionerNo.1 is entitled to Rs.4,00,000 and she is permitted to withdraw Rs.1,50,000/- and costs and her remaining share amount shall be kept in FDR for a period of 5 years. She is also permitted o withdraw every month interest on the FDR. PetitioneNo.4 and 5 are entitled to Rs.50,000/- each and they are permitted to withdraw entire amount. The remaining amount Rs.1,55,000/- with entire interest shall be entitled by petitioner No.2 and Petitionerno.3. Their share amount shall be kept in FDR till they attains age of majority Given under my hand and the seal of the court, this 29th day of December 2012..

III Addl. Dist. Judge- Cum- Chairman MACT

(FTC) ASIFABAD

COSTS OF MEMO

For the Petitioner amount For the respondents amount

Stamp on petitioner 7 360=00 Stamp on petition -- Stamp on power 2=00 Stamp on power 2=00 Stamp on Exhibits -- Stamp on Exhibits -- 9

Pleader’s fee. 1000=00 Pleader’s fee. NC Subsistence for witness -- Service on process. -- Service on process -- Commissioner’s fee. -- Commissioner’s fee Subsistence for witness -- Misc. Costs Misc. costs -- Welfare Fund 30=00 Welfare Fund 30=00 Total 8392-00 Total 32=00

III Addl. Dist. Judge-Cum- Chairman

MACT (FTC),

No cost memos not filed by either parties ASIFABAD.

1

IN THE COURT OF THE ( M.A.C.T.) III ADDL. DISTRICT JUDGE,

(FTC) ASIFABAD

PRESENT: K.B.Gangeyudu, B.A.B.L., IIIrd ADDITIONAL DISTRICT JUDGE, (FTC) - cum- CHAIRMAN, M.A.C.T.ASIFABAD.

Friday this the 28th day of December 2012.

O.P.NO.168/2010

Between: 1.Komram Padma w/o.Rajaram age.37years Occ.Housewife 2.Komram Rajaram s/o.Kishtaiah age.43 years Occ.Teacher Both R/o.Koutala villae &Mandal Dist. Adilabad.. …Petitioners // And // 1)KoguruRajaiahs/o.Bakkaiahage.40years Oc.Policeconstable PCNo.1417 of PS Koutala as a driver of crime vhicle R/o.Koutal village and Mandal Dist. Adilabad..

2) Koguru VijayaLaxmi w/o.K.Rajaiah PC>No.1417, Aged about 35yers Occ. Owner of crime vehicle, Bolero Jeep bearing No.AP01U-5912, R/o.Kowtala main road R/MKowtla Dist. Adilabad. 3)National Insurance Co.Ltd.Rep. by its Divisional Manager, Divisional Office, Karimnagar. …Respondents

This petition came up before me for final hearing in the presence of Sri T.Roshi Reddy , Advocate for the petitioner and J.Pramod kumar Advocate for Respondent.No.1, Respondent No.2 called absent and set exparte,K.Ajay Kumar, Advocate for the respondent No.3. After hearing both sides and perusing the material on record till this day, this court delivered the following:-

:: O R D E R ::

1.The claim petitioners filed this petition U/sec. 166(i)(c) of the

Motor Vehicles Act and Rules 455 of M.V. Rules 1989 seeking compensation of Rs.5,20,000/- for the death of deceased Komram

Priyanka in a motor vehicle accident occurred on 28.9.2004 at about 12.35 hours infront of MRC Building Kowtala due to rash and negligent driving of Bolero Jeep bearing NOAP01-11-5912 by its driver.

2

2.The brief averments of the petition are that:-On 28.9.2004 at about 12.30 hours when the deceased by name Komram

Priyanka along with her brothers returning to house after attending the school Sree Vidhya Bharathi Shishu Mandi

School, when they reached in front of MRC Building all of sudden a Bolero Jeep bearing No.AP01U-5912 came in rash and negligent manner with high speed driven by s driver i.e.

the Respondent No.1 and dashed to the deceased and ran over Jeep over body of deceased, as result of which the deceased received grievous head injury and died on the spot.

Police Kowtala registered a case in Cr.No.67/2004 U/Sec.304-

A IPC. Deceased was hale and healthy, aged about 7 years at the time of accident and she was brilliant student of Ist class and had bright future, But due to untimely death of the deceased the Petitioners sustained great mental shock and suffered physically, mentally monetarily, love and affection as the deceased was only daughter to the petitioners, hence it cannot be compensated in any terms of money Respondent

No.1 is owner, Respondent No.2 is owner and Respondent

No.3 is insurer .All the respondents are jointly and severally liable to pay the compensation.

3.Respondent No.2 filed his counter denying all the allegations in the petition. He denied the rash and negligence on the part of driver of Bolero Jeep. The said Jeep was insured with Respondent No.3 and t was in force.

3

4.Respondent No.3. filed their counter contending that the petition is neither maintainable under law nor on the facts of the case. The contents of the petition are absolutely false, baseless and created. Police P.S. Kowtala registered a false case. Denied the age avocation of the deceased. The respondent also denied that the rash and negligence driving of the driver. The accident occurred only due to the negligence of petitioner. The amount claimed is excessive and exorbitant.

4.Issue No.1: The claim petitioner submitted that On 28.9.2004 at about 12.30 hours when the deceased by name Komram Priyanka along with her brothers returning to house after attending the school

Sree Vidhya Bharathi Shishu Mandir School, when they reached in front of MRC Building all of sudden a Bolero Jeep bearing No.AP01U-5912 came in rash and negligent manner with high speed driven by its driver i.e. the Respondent No.1 and dashed to the deceased and ran over Jeep over body of deceased, as result of which the deceased received grievous head injury and died on the spot. He filed documents Ex.A1 is the FIR,

Police P.S. Kowtala has registered a case in Cr.No.67/2004 U/Sec.304-A

IPC IPC against driver of crime vehicle.Pw2 was examined and he supported the version of PW1 regarding the rash and negligence driving of the driver of Bolero jeep. No contrary evidence was adduced by the respondent regarding their liability. Hence, as per the above oral and material evidence, I hold that the accident was occurred due to the rash and negligent driving of the crime vehicle.

4

Issue No.2:- The claim petitioner submitted that their deceased daughter was hale and healthy, aged about 7 years at the time of accident and she was brilliant student of Ist class and had bright future,

But due to untimely death of the deceased the Petitioners sustained great mental shock and suffered physically, mentally monetarily, love and affection as the deceased was only daughter to the petitioners, hence it cannot be compensated in any terms of money. They also submitted that they belongs to ST community hails from well educated family and deceased was only daughter to them The father of the deceased is a

Government teacher and accepted to provide higher education. If the deceased would not died in this accident she would have best future and carrier. He filed documents. Ex.A2 is the inquest report, Ex.A3 I the PME report, Ex. A6 is the Insurance policy of crime vehicle, Ex.A7 is school certificate of the deceased. Ex.A8 is Driving License of R1. As per the

PME report, the deceased age is mentioned as 7 years. As per the Ex.A7 study certificate the deceased was studying first class.

As per the citation of our Honble High Court 2012 (5) ALD

242 the Hon’ble High Court clearly held that “Deceased boy aged 8years

was studying III class in a school situate in a rural village –Ist claimant

,mother of the deceased and his father are labourers-Considering the

social status of parents of the deceased , his age and the circumstances in

which he was placed on the date of accident , an amount of Rs.30,000/-

can be added towards non-pecuniary damages relating to future

prospects of the deceased-In all the claimants viz., mother, elder sister and

father of the deceased held entitled to compensation of Rs.1,80,000as

against 50,000/- awarded by tribunal-The said amount shall carry

5

interest at 7.5%p.a.from date of petition till date of realisaton as held by

tribunal-Compensation granted by tribunal thus reduced –Appeal by

insurer partly allowed-Amount of compensation apportioned among the

claimants as directed by tribunal-Mother of the deceased (1 st claimant )

permitted to withdraw the amount of her share together with

proportionate costs and interest without furnishing security”

So as per the Hon’ble High Court Judgment Rs.1,80,000/- is granted in all.

R3 not adduced any rebuttal evidence regarding their liability .Hence all the respondents are jointly and severally liable to pay the compensation to the claim petitioners.

In the result, petition is allowed granting compensation of

Rs.1,80,000/- to the petitioners with interest @ 7.5% per annum from the date of petition till the date of realization. Respondent is liable to pay compensation to the claim petitioner within (3) months from the date of this order. On such deposit, Petitioner No.1 and 2 are entitled equally.

The first petitioner is permitted to withdraw her entire share amount with entire costs . The share amount of the second petitioner shall be kept in

FDR for a period of three years. Petitioner No1 and 2 are directed to open account in any Nationalized Bank of their native village. The

Advocate fee is fixed at Rs.1000/-.

Dictated to the personal assistant, transcribed by her and after

correction pronounced by me in the open court on this 28 th day of December 2012.

Chairman (MACT)-Cum-III Addl.Dist.Judge, Fast Track Court, Asifabad.

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

WITNESSES EXAMINED

For Petitioner:-For Respondents:-

PW1: Komrm Padma 6

PW2:-Komram Atmaram

EXHIBITS MARKED

For Petitioner: For Respondents:

Ex.A1: Attested copy of FIR Ex.A2: Attested copy of Inquest report Ex.A3: Attested copy of PME report . Ex.A4:-Attested copy of MVI report Ex.A5: Attested copy of Charge sheet Ex.A6:-Xerox copy of Insunce policy of crime vehicle Ex.A7:-Original Schoolbonafide certificate of deceased Ex.A8:-Xerox copy f DL of accused i.e. Respondent No1

Chairman (MACT)-Cum-III Addl.Dist.Judge,

Fast Track Court, Asifabad.

7

D E C R E E

IN THE COURT OF THE ( M.A.C.T.) III ADDL. DISTRICT JUDGE,

(FTC) ASIFABAD

PRESENT: K.B.Gangeyudu, B.A.B.L., IIIrd ADDITIONAL DISTRICT JUDGE, (FTC) - cum- CHAIRMAN, M.A.C.T.ASIFABAD.

Friday this the 28th day of December 2012.

O.P.NO.168/2010

Between: 1.Komram Padma w/o.Rajaram age.37years Occ.Housewife 2.Komram Rajaram s/o.Kishtaiah age.43 years Occ.Teacher Both R/o.Koutala villae &Mandal Dist. Adilabad.. …Petitioners // And // 1)KoguruRajaiahs/o.Bakkaiahage.40years Oc.Policeconstable PCNo.1417 of PS Koutala as a driver of crime vhicle R/o.Koutal village and Mandal Dist. Adilabad..

2) Koguru VijayaLaxmi w/o.K.Rajaiah PC>No.1417, Aged about 35yers Occ. Owner of crime vehicle, Bolero Jeep bearing No.AP01U-5912, R/o.Kowtala main road R/MKowtla Dist. Adilabad. 3)National Insurance Co.Ltd.Rep. by its Divisional Manager, Divisional Office, Karimnagar. …Respondents CLAIM FOR: The claim petitioners filed this petition U/sec. 166(i)(c) of the Motor Vehicles Act and Rules 455 of M.V. Rules 1989 seeking compensation of Rs.5,20,000/- for the death of deceased Komram Priyanka in a motor vehicle accident occurred on 28.9.2004 at about 12.35 hours infront of MRC Building Kowtala due to rash and negligent driving of Bolero Jeep bearing NOAP01-11-5912 by its driver.

VALUATION; Petition is valued at Rs.5,20,000/- and a court fee of Rs.4560/- is paid under section 475(1) (b) of the M.V.Rules,1989.

8

PETITION PRESENTED ON : 28.4.2010

PETITION FILED ON : 28.4.2010 This petition came up before me for final hearing in the presence of Sri T.Roshi Reddy , Advocate for the petitioner and J.Pramod kumar Advocate for Respondent.No.1, Respondent No.2 called absent and set exparte,K.Ajay Kumar, Advocate for the respondent No.3. After hearing both sides and perusing the material on record till this day, this court delivered the following:-

1.That Respondent is liable to pay to the petitioners Compensation ofRs.1,80,000/- (Rupees one lakh eighty thousand only)

2. That R-1 and R-2 shall also pay to the petitioner interest on Rs.1,80,000/- @ Rs.7.5% P.A. from the date of petition till the date of realization.

3. That Respondent shall also pay to the petitioner a sum of Rs.5592/- (Rupees five thousand five hundred and ninty two only) towards the Costs of the Petition.

4.That Respondent shall deposit the amount of compensation within three months from the date of this order .

5.On such deposit, Petitioner No.1 and 2 are entitled equally. The first petitioner is permitted to withdraw her entire share amount with entire costs . The share amount of the second petitioner shall be kept in FDR for a period of three years. Petitioner No1 and 2 are directed to open account in any Nationalized Bank of their native village.

Given under my hand and the seal of the court, this 27th day of November 2012.

III Addl. Dist. Judge- Cum- Chairman MACT

(FTC) ASIFABAD

COSTS OF MEMO

For the Petitioner amount For the respondents amount

Stamp on petitioner 4560=00 Stamp on petition -- Stamp on power 2=00 Stamp on power 2=00 Stamp on Exhibits -- Stamp on Exhibits -- Pleader’s fee. 1000=00 Pleader’s fee. NC Subsistence for witness -- Service on process. -- Service on process -- Commissioner’s fee. -- Commissioner’s fee Subsistence for witness -- Misc. Costs Misc. costs -- 9

Welfare Fund 30=00 Welfare Fund 30=00 Total 5592-00 Total 32=00

III Addl. Dist. Judge-Cum- Chairman

MACT (FTC),

No cost memos not filed by either parties ASIFABAD.

IN THE COURT OF THE ( M.A.C.T.) III ADDL. DISTRICT JUDGE,

(FTC) ASIFABAD

PRESENT: K.B.Gangeyudu, B.A.B.L., IIIrd ADDITIONAL DISTRICT JUDGE, (FTC) - cum- CHAIRMAN, M.A.C.T.ASIFABAD.

Wednesday this the 13th day of March 2013.

O.P.NO.202/2010

Between: 1.Athram Kalavathi W/o.Late Dasru age.23 years occ. Household 2.Athram Hanmanthu s/o.Late Dasru Age.2 years Occ. Minor. (Pettionerno.2 is minor under the natural guardian of his natural mother i.e. Petitionerno.1/Athram Kalawathi) Both residence of H.No.7-55/1Loanvelli village Revenue Mandal Sirpur Town Dist. Adilabad.

….Petitioner.

//And// 1.B.Premsagar Goud S/o.Laxman Goud age.Major Occ. Owner of tractor bearing No.AP01-YY/TR/5341 R/o.Loanvelli village, Mandal Sirpur town Dist. Adilabad.

2.Reliance General Insurance Company Ltd. Represented by its Branch Manager, Branch Office, IInd floor, Kyas Tower, Ambedkar road, Karimnagar. ….Respondents.

This petition came up before me for final hearing in the presence of Sri T.Roshi Reddy, Advocates for the petitioner and Sri.S.Rajaram, Advocate for Respondent No.2 Respondent No.1 called absent and set exparte and After hearing both sides and perusing the material on record till this day, this court delivered the following:-

:: O R D E R ::

1.The claim petitioners filed this petition U/sec. 163-A of the

Motor Vehicles Act and Rules 455 of M.V. Rules 1989 seeking compensation of Rs.5,50,000/- for the death of the deceased Athram Dasru in a motor vehicle accident occurred on 6.7.2008 at about 9.30 hours near Jogapalli siwar(Karjepalli) due to rash and negligent driving of 2 tractor bearing No.AP01-TYY/TR/5341 by the deceased of Adilabad District.

2. The brief averments of the petition are that:- On 6.7.2008 the deceased Athram Dasru and another by name P.Mallesh were proceeding n the Tractor bearing no.AP01-YY/TR/5341 as driver from Karjepalli village at about 9.30 hours when the above said tractor reached bear

Jogapalli shvar (Karjepalli) the deceased while trying to escape one major accident due to which the above said tractor turned turtle. As a result of which the deceased Athram Dasru died on the spot and other person also died on the spot and others sustained injuries. Police Sirpur town registered a case in Cr.No. 41/2008 U/Sec.304-A IPC and 337 IPC.

Deceased was hale and healthy aged about 25 years at the time of accident and used to earn Rs.5000/-p.m. + Batta as a driver and used to contribute his entire earning on the welfare and benefits of the petitioners.

But due to untimely death of the deceased the Petitioners sustained the loss physically, mentally, monetarily love ad affection dependency over the earnings of deceased as the deceased was only earning member in the family and he has to look after the welfare of the petitioners. Petitioner

No.1 lost conjugal happiness in her early age. Hence it cannot be compensated in terms of money. Respondent No.1 is owner and

Respondent No.2 is insurer of the tractor. Hence both the Respondents are jointly and severally liable to pay compensation to the petitioners..

2. Respondent No.1 called absent and set exparte. Respondent

No.2 filed his counter contending that the petition is neither maintainable under law nor on the facts of the case. The contents of the petition are absolutely false, baseless and created. Police Sirpur town 3 registered a false case. The driver of the tractor is not having valid and subsisting licence. The respondent also denied that the accident occurred due to the rash and negligence driving of the driver. The accident occurred only due to escaping one accident by driving the tractor. The amount claimed is excessive and exorbitant.

3.Issue No.1: Pw1 submitted that On 6.7.2008 her husband deceased

Athram Dasru and another by name P.Mallesh were proceeding in the

Tractor bearing no.AP01-YY/TR/5341 as driver from Karjepalli village at about 9.30 hours when the above said tractor reached near Jogapalli shvar (Karjepalli) the deceased while trying to escape one major accident due to which the above said tractor turned turtle. As a result of which the deceased Athram Dasru died on the spot and other person also died on the spot and others sustained injuries. Pw1 filed E x.A1 FIR. As per Ex.A1

FIR. Police Sirpur town registered a case in Cr.No. 41/2008 U/Sec.304-A

IPC and 337 IPC. No contrary evidence was adduced by the respondent regarding their liability. As per the above oral and material evidence I hold that the accident was occurred due to the rash and negligent driving of the driver of the crime vehicle only.

Issue No.2:-PW1 submitted that due to the accident the tractor turned turtle her husband deceased died on the spot. She further submitted that her deceased husband was hale and healthy aged about 25 years at the time of accident and used to earn Rs.5000/-p.m. + Batta as a driver and used to contribute his entire earning on the welfare and benefits of the petitioners. But due to untimely death of the deceased the Petitioners sustained the loss physically, mentally, monetarily love and affection dependency over the earnings of deceased as the deceased was only 4 earning member in the family and he has to look after the welfare of the petitioners. Petitioner No.1 lost conjugal happiness in her early age. Hence it cannot be compensated in terms of money. She filed documents Ex.A2 is the Inquest report, Ex.A3 is Insurance Policy, Ex.A4 is the PME report,

Ex.A5 Attested copy of charge sheet.

. As per the PME report the deceased age is mentioned as 25 years.

For the age group of 21 to 25 years the multiplier 18 is applicable. The deceased income is taken as Rs.45,000/-p.a.As per the Sarala Varma case 50% income has to be enhanced. The deceased income is taken as 45,000/-p.a. including enhancing future prospects and after deducting 1/3rd it comes to 45,000x1/3=15,000 (45,000-15,000=30,000) 30,000x18=5,40,000/-. The first petitioner is entitled to Rs.10,000/- towards loss of consortium and the petitioners are entitled to Rs.10,000/- for loss of estate and Rs.5000/- for funeral expenses. In all the petitioner is entitled to Rs.5,65,000/-.

Respondents not adduced any rebuttal evidence regarding their liability and there is no representation by the respondent counsel. Hence both the respondents are jointly and severally liable to pay compensation.

In the result, petition is allowed granting compensation of

Rs.5,65,000/- to the petitioners with interest @ 7.5% per annum from the date of petition till the date of realization. Respondent No.1nd 2 are jointly and severally liable to pay compensation to the claim petitioner within (3) months from the date of this order. On such deposit PetitionerNo.1 is entitled to Rs.4,00,000/- and costs and she is permitted to withdraw

Rs.3,00,000/- and costs and the remaining amount shall be kept in FDR for 3 years. The remaining amount of Rs.1,65,000/- with entire interest shall be entitled by petitioner No.2 and the amount shall be kept in FDR 5 till he attains age of majority. The Advocate fee is fixed at Rs.1000/-.The petitioner is directed to pay th remaining court fees before preparing the decree.

Dictated to the personal assistant, transcribed by her and after

correction pronounced by me in the open court on this 8 th day of March 2013.

Chairman (MACT)-Cum-III Addl.Dist.Judge, Asifabad .

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

WITNESSES EXAMINED

For Petitioner:-For Respondents:-

PW1: Athram Kalawathi PW2:-N.Mallesh

EXHIBITS MARKED

For Petitioner:

Ex.A1: Certified copy of FIR Ex.A2: Certified copy of Inquest Ex.A3 :-Xerox copy of Insurance policy Ex.A4 Attested copy of PME report Ex.A5 Attested copy of charge sheet.

For Respondents:

-nil-

Chairman (MACT)-Cum-III Addl.Dist.Judge,

Fast Track Court, Asifabad.

D E C R E E

IN THE COURT OF THE ( M.A.C.T.) III ADDL. DISTRICT JUDGE,

(FTC) ASIFABAD

6

PRESENT: K.B.Gangeyudu, B.A.B.L., IIIrd ADDITIONAL DISTRICT JUDGE, (FTC) - cum- CHAIRMAN, M.A.C.T.ASIFABAD.

Wednesday this the 30th day of January 2013

O.P.NO.270/2010

Between: 1.Smt.Suddapally Venkatamma @Venkateshwar I w/o.RajaMallaiah 50years Occ Housewife, Caste:Perka 2.Suddapally Sunil Kumar s/o.Raja Mallaiah aged.25 years Occ.Student 3.Kumari Suddapally Srinivas D/o.RajaMallaiah age.19years Occ.Student 4.Suddapally SagarKuma s/o.Raja Mallaiah aged 18yearsOcc. Student. All residing at H.No.18-2, near branch Library, Chennur, Mandal Chennur Dist. Adilabad.

…Petitioner // And // 1.K.Bhupathi Goud s/o.K.Kankaiah Goud Occ. Owner of Tata Ace Mini Van bearing registration mark No.AP-01V-6018R/o.Sawargoan village, near APHB Colony, Adilabad.

2.BajajAllianzGeneralInsuranceCompany Ltd.Represented by its Managing Director, Begumpet, Hyderabad …Respondents

CLAIM FOR: The claim petitioners filed this petition U/sec. 166(i)(c) of the Motor Vehicles Act and Rules 455 of M.V. Rules 1989 seeking compensation of Rs.10,50,000/- for the death of deceased Raja Mallaiah in a motor vehicle accident occurred on 5.9.2007 at about 19.30 hours at KB complex main road Utnoor due to rash and negligent driving of Tata Ace BSH Mini Van bearing No.AP-01V6018 VALUATION; Petition is valued at Rs.8,00,000/- and a court fee of Rs.7360/- is paid under section 475(1) (b) of the M.V.Rules,1989.

PETITION PRESENTED ON : 12.8.2010

PETITION FILED ON : 13.8.2010 This petition came up before me for final hearing in the presence of Sri P.Brahmaiah , Advocate for the petitioner and K.Sriram, Advocate for Respondent No1 and Sri.M.Suresh , Advocate for Respondent No.2 After hearing both sides and perusing the material on record till this day, this court delivered the following:- 7

1.That Respondent is liable to pay to the petitioners Compensation ofRs.6,55,000/- (Rupees six lakh fifty five thousand only)

2. That R-1 and R-2 shall also pay to the petitioner interest on Rs.6,55,000/- @ Rs.7.5% P.A. from the date of petition till the date of realization.

3. That Respondent shall also pay to the petitioner a sum of Rs.8392/- (Rupees eight thousand three hundred and ninty two only) towards the Costs of the Petition.

4.That Respondent shall deposit the amount of compensation within three months from the date of this order .

5. On such deposit PetitionerNo.1 is entitled to Rs.4,00,000 and she is permitted to withdraw Rs.1,50,000/- and costs and her remaining share amount shall be kept in FDR for a period of 5 years. She is also permitted o withdraw every month interest on the FDR. PetitioneNo.4 and 5 are entitled to Rs.50,000/- each and they are permitted to withdraw entire amount. The remaining amount Rs.1,55,000/- with entire interest shall be entitled by petitioner No.2 and Petitionerno.3. Their share amount shall be kept in FDR till they attains age of majority Given under my hand and the seal of the court, this 29th day of December 2012..

III Addl. Dist. Judge- Cum- Chairman MACT

(FTC) ASIFABAD

COSTS OF MEMO

For the Petitioner amount For the respondents amount

Stamp on petitioner 7 360=00 Stamp on petition -- Stamp on power 2=00 Stamp on power 2=00 Stamp on Exhibits -- Stamp on Exhibits -- Pleader’s fee. 1000=00 Pleader’s fee. NC Subsistence for witness -- Service on process. -- Service on process -- Commissioner’s fee. -- Commissioner’s fee Subsistence for witness -- Misc. Costs Misc. costs -- Welfare Fund 30=00 Welfare Fund 30=00 Total 8392-00 Total 32=00

III Addl. Dist. Judge-Cum- Chairman

MACT (FTC),

No cost memos not filed by either parties ASIFABAD.

8

IN THE COURT OF THE ( M.A.C.T.) III ADDL. DISTRICT JUDGE,

(FTC) ASIFABAD

PRESENT: K.B.Gangeyudu, B.A.B.L., IIIrd ADDITIONAL DISTRICT JUDGE, (FTC) - cum- CHAIRMAN, M.A.C.T.ASIFABAD.

Tuesday this the 11th day of March 2013.

O.P.NO.202/2011

Between: Kasam Buchaiah s/o.Late Rayalingam age.50years Occ. Business R/o.Kalamadgu village Mandal:Jannaram Dist. Adilabad.

….Petitioner.

//And// 1.V.Mallikarjun Rao s/o.V.Durga Prasad Age.MajorOcc.Owner of Ambassado Car No. AAU-5014 R/o.TRT Quarter No.95, Industral Housing Colony, Secunderabad.

2.M/S.United India Insurance Co.Ltd. Rep. by itsBranch manager, H.No.3- 5-817, Basheerbagh Road, Hyderabad .

….Respondents.

This petition came up before me for final hearing in the presence of Sri J.Shyam Kumar, Advocates for the petitioner and Sri.Jaganmohan Rao ,, Advocate

for Respondent No.2 Respondent No.1 called absent and set exparte and

After hearing both sides and perusing the material on record till this day, this court delivered the following:-

:: O R D E R ::

1.The claim petitioners filed this petition U/sec. 163-A of the

Motor Vehicles Act and Rules 455 of M.V. Rules 1989 seeking compensation of Rs.1,50,000/- for the death of the deceased Jabare

Mothiram in a motor vehicle accident occurred on 29.4.2011 at about 2.30a.m.near Tokini village siwar of Adilabad District.

2. The brief averments of the petition are that:- On 4.1.1996 at about 9.30a.m. the Deceased Kasam Rayalingu walking to the left side of the road at Kalamadgu village whenthe deceased reached nearMasid one 2

Ambassador car bearing No.AAU-5014 came from his back in a high speed and in a rash and negligent manner and dashed to the deceased.

Due to dash given by the car No.AAU-5014 the deceased had sustained grievous and bleeding injuries to his legs, hands, fracture of ribs, one head and other parts of the body. Immediately after the accident the injured was shifted to Govt. Civil Hospital, Luxettipet. But unfortunately the injured succumbed to injuries on the same day while undergoing treatment. This accident took place due to rash and negligent driving of the car driver only. Deceased was aged 53 years and he was hale and healthy at the time of the accident. The deceased was doing business and he used to earn atleast Rs.3000/- per month. The deceased used to contribute his earnings for the maintenance of his family members consisting of wife and son. The wife of the deceased Kasam Easwaramma died on 9.2.2005. The petitioner had taken care of the widow of the deceased until her death. Police

Jannaram of Adilabad District had registered a case against Ambassador car driver in Cr.No.4/1996 for the offence U/Sec.337 IPC and subsequent to death of the deceased the section of law altered to Section 304-AIPC.

Respondent No.1 is owner of the ambassador car and Respondent No.2 is the insurer. Hence both the respondents are jointly and severally liable to pay compensation.

2. Respondent No.1 called absent and set exparte. Respondent

No.2 filed his counter contending that the petition is neither maintainable under law nor on the facts of the case. The contents of the petition are absolutely false, baseless and created. Police Jannaram registered a false case. The driver of the Car is not having valid and subsisting licence. The respondent also denied that the accident occurred 3 due to the rash and negligence driving of the driver. The accident occurredonlyduetothe negligence of petitioner. The amount claimed is excessive and exorbitant.

3.Issue No.1: Pw1 submitted that On 4.1.1996 at about 9.30a.m. his father

Deceased Kasam Rayalingu walking to the left side of the road at

Kalamadgu village when his father reached near Masjid one Ambassador car bearing No.AAU-5014 came from his back in a high speed and in a rash and negligent manner and dashed to the deceased. Due to dash given by the Car No.AAU-5014 the deceased had sustained grievous and bleeding injuries to his legs, hands, fracture of ribs, one head and other parts of the body. Immediately after the accident the injured was shifted to Govt. Civil Hospital, Luxettipet. But unfortunately the injured succumbed to injuries on the same day while undergoing treatment. Pw1 filed E x.A1 FIR. As per Ex.A1 FIR. Police Jannaram of Adilabad District had registered a case against Ambassador car driver in Cr.No.4/1996 for the offence U/Sec.337 IPC and subsequent to death of the deceased the section of law altered to Section 304-AIPC.. No contrary evidence was adduced by the respondent regarding their liability. As per the oral and material evidence I hold that the accident was occurred due to rash and negligent driving of the driver of the crime vehicle.

Issue No.2:-PW1 submitted that his father sustained grievous and bleeding injuries to his legs, hands, fracture of ribs, on head and other parts of the body. Immediately after the accident the injured was shifted to Govt. Civil Hospital, Luxettipet. But unfortunately the injured succumbed to injuries on the same day while undergoing treatment. He further submitted that his father was aged 53 years and he was hale and 4 healthy at the time of the accident. The deceased was doing business and he used to earn at least Rs.3000/- per month. The deceased used to contribute his earnings for the maintenance of his family members consisting of wife and son. The wife of the deceased Kasam Easwaramma died on 9.2.2005. The petitioner had taken care of the widow of the deceased until her death. According to the petitioner the father of the deceased was died on 4.10.1996. He filed documents Ex.A3 is the Inquest report, Ex.A4 is the PME report, Ex.A5 is the MVI report, Ex.A7 death certificate of the widow of the deceased. Ex.A8 is RC Book, Ex.A9 is driving licence of the car driver. As per the PME report the deceased age is mentioned as 53 years. The age of the petitioner and the deceased are not tallying. The age of the deceased is taken as above 55 years. For the age group of 56 to 60 years the multiplier 9 is applicable. The deceased income is taken as Rs.18,000/-p.a. After deduction it comes to 18000 x1/3=6000, 18,000-6000=12,000/-. Rs.12,000 x9=1,08,000/-. The petitioner is also entitled to Rs.5000/- for the funeral expenses. In all the petitioner is entitled to Rs.1,13,000/-.

Respondents not adduced any rebuttal evidence regarding their liability and there is no representation by the respondent counsel. Hence both the respondents are jointly and severally liable to pay compensation.

In the result, petition is allowed granting compensation of

Rs.1,13,000/- to the petitioners with interest @ 7.5% per annum from the date of petition till the date of realization. Respondent No.1nd 2 are jointly and severally liable to pay compensation to the claim petitioner within (3) 5 months from the date of this order. On such deposit Petitioner is entitled to Rs.60,000/- and costs and the remaining amount shall be kept in FDR for 3 years. The Advocate fee is fixed at Rs.1000/-.

Dictated to the personal assistant, transcribed by her and after

correction pronounced by me in the open court on this 8 th day of March 2013.

Chairman (MACT)-Cum-III Addl.Dist.Judge, Asifabad .

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

WITNESSES EXAMINED

For Petitioner:-For Respondents:-

PW1: Kasam Buchaiah

EXHIBITS MARKED

For Petitioner:

Ex.A1: Attested copy of FIR Ex.A2: Certified copy of Section of Law Alteration Memo Ex.A3 Certified copy of Inquest report Ex.A4 Certified copy of MVI report Ex.A5 Certified copy of charge sheet. Ex.A6 Death certificate of the widow of the deceased. Ex.A7:-Attested copy of Registration certificate Ex.A8:- Attested copy of Driving licence of the car driver.

For Respondents:

-nil-

Chairman (MACT)-Cum-III Addl.Dist.Judge,

Fast Track Court, Asifabad.

D E C R E E

6

IN THE COURT OF THE ( M.A.C.T.) III ADDL. DISTRICT JUDGE,

(FTC) ASIFABAD

PRESENT: K.B.Gangeyudu, B.A.B.L., IIIrd ADDITIONAL DISTRICT JUDGE, (FTC) - cum- CHAIRMAN, M.A.C.T.ASIFABAD.

Tuesday this the 11th day of March 2013.

O.P.NO.202/2011

Between: Kasam Buchaiah s/o.Late Rayalingam age.50years Occ. Business R/o.Kalamadgu village Mandal:Jannaram Dist. Adilabad.

….Petitioner.

//And// 1.V.Mallikarjun Rao s/o.V.Durga Prasad Age.MajorOcc.Owner of Ambassado Car No. AAU-5014 R/o.TRT Quarter No.95, Industral Housing Colony, Secunderabad.

2.M/S.United India Insurance Co.Ltd. Rep. by itsBranch manager, H.No.3- 5-817, Basheerbagh Road, Hyderabad .

….Respondents.

CLAIM FOR: The claim petitioners filed this petition U/sec. 163-A of the Motor Vehicles Act and Rules 455 of M.V. Rules 1989 seeking compensation of Rs.1,50,000/- for the death of the deceased Jabare Mothiram in a motor vehicle accident occurred on 29.4.2011 at about 2.30a.m.near Tokini village siwar of Adilabad District VALUATION; Petition is valued at Rs.1,50,000/- and a court fee of Rs.860/- is paid under section 475(1) (b) of the M.V.Rules,1989.

PETITION PRESENTED ON : 12.5.2010

PETITION FILED ON : 12.5.2010 This petition came up before me for final hearing in the presence of Sri J.Shyam Kumar, Advocates for the petitioner and Sri.Jaganmohan Rao ,, Advocate for Respondent No.2 Respondent No.1 called absent and set exparte and After hearing both sides and perusing the material on record till this day, this court delivered the following:- 7

1.That Respondent is liable to pay to the petitioners Compensation ofRs.1,13,000/- (Rupees one lakh thirteen thousand only)

2. That R-1 and R-2 shall also pay to the petitioner interest on Rs.1,13,000/- @ Rs.7.5% P.A. from the date of petition till the date of realization.

3. That Respondents shall also pay to the petitioner a sum of Rs.1892/- (Rupees one thousand eight hundred and ninty two only) towards the Costs of the Petition.

4.That Respondents shall deposit the amount of compensation within three months from the date of this order .

5. On such deposit Petitioner is entitled to Rs.60,000/- and costs and the remaining amount shall be kept in FDR for 3 years. Given under my hand and the seal of the court, this 11th day of March 2013

III Addl. Dist. Judge- Cum- Chairman MACT

(FTC) ASIFABAD

COSTS OF MEMO

For the Petitioner amount For the respondents amount

Stamp on petitioner 860=00 Stamp on petition -- Stamp on power 2=00 Stamp on power 2=00 Stamp on Exhibits -- Stamp on Exhibits -- Pleader’s fee. 1000=00 Pleader’s fee. NC Subsistence for witness -- Service on process. -- Service on process -- Commissioner’s fee. -- Commissioner’s fee Subsistence for witness -- Misc. Costs Misc. costs -- Welfare Fund 30=00 Welfare Fund 30=00 Total 1892-00 Total 32=00

III Addl. Dist. Judge-Cum- Chairman

MACT (FTC),

No cost memos not filed by either parties ASIFABAD.