1 MVOP 64 of 2018
BEFORE THE MOTOR ACCIDENT CLAIMS TRIBUNAL-CUM-
V ADDITIONAL DISTRICT JUDGE COURT : RAYACHOTY.
Present:- Smt. C.SATYA VANI, Chairperson, Motor Accident Claims Tribunal – Cum - III Additional District Judge, Rajampet.
FAC Chairperson, Motor Accident Claims Tribunal – Cum - V Additional District Judge, Rayachoty.
Thursday, the 19th day of September, 2019.
M.V.O.P.No.64/2018
1) Nallabathini Janakamma, W/o late Boreddy, aged about 43 years, Hindu, Housewife.
2) Nallabathini Saiprathap Reddy, S/o Boreddy, aged about 22 years, Hindu, Unemployee.
3) Nallabathini Chinnappa Reddy, S/o Anikireddy, aged about 70 years, Hindu.
4) Nallabathini Reddamma, W/o Chinnapa Reddy, Housewife, aged about 60 years, Hindu.
All are residents of D.No.2/14, Nallabathinivandlapalli, H/o Gopanapalli, Galiveedu Mandal, Kadapa District.
.. Petitioners
- Vs -
1) S.Penchala Reddy, S/o Venkata Reddy, aged about 45 years, Hindu, Owner of Oil Tanker bearing No.AP26-X-3311, residing at D.No.5/1/473, Rebalavari Street, Srirangarajapuram, Nellore Town.
2) K.Chiranjeevi, S/o Pitchaiah, aged about 35 years, Hindu, Driver of Oil Tanker bearing No.AP26-X-3311, residing at D.No.22 Kuppurupadu, Hanuma Samudram, A.Speta, Nellore.
3) United India Insurance Company Limited rep. by its Divisional Manager, Divisional Office, Kadapa.
.. Respondents
This petition coming on 12-09-2019 for final hearing before me in the presence of Sri J.Sudarshan Reddy, Advocate for the petitioners,
Sri U.Ramanjaneyulu, Advocate for Respondent No.1 and Respondent No.2 and
Sri A.Nagarjuna, Advocate for Respondent No.3 and upon hearing final arguments and having stood over for consideration till this day, this court delivered the following: - 2 MVOP 64 of 2018
J U D G M E N T
This is the petition filed U/Sec.166 of Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 and Rule 475/476 of APMV Rules,1989 by the petitioners claiming compensation of Rs.35,00,000/- for the death of Nallabathini Boreddy in a
Motor Vehicle Accident occurred on 08.06.2018 at about 12.15 PM near
Puttavandlapalli Cross on Pileru – Tirupati Main Road.
2. Brief facts of the petitio n are as follows : -
The 1st petitioner is the wife, 2nd petitioner is the son and the 3rd & 4th petitioners are the parents of the deceased N.Boreddy.
It is further submitted by the petitioners that on 08.06.2018 the deceased and his wife went to their daughter’s house at Chinnagottigallu Village.
Thereafter, they returned back to their house in motor cycle bearing No.AP03-
PF-1999 belonging to their son-in-law. The deceased was riding the said motor cycle and his wife was a pillion rider. The grand daughter of the petitioner was sitting in between both of them. On the way, at about 12.15 PM when they reached Puttavandlapalle Cross Road on Piler – Tirupati Main Road, Oil Tanker bearing No.AP26-X-3311 belonging to Respondent No.1 was driven by its driver
R2 herein in a rash and negligent manner with high speed, without blowing horn dashed the motor cycle in which the petitioner was travelling. As a result, the petitioner fell down and sustained head injury and blunt injuries on his chest and died instantaneously. The wife of the deceased also sustained fracture injuries to both hands and the grand daughter of the deceased also sustained multiple fracture injuries and she died while undergoing treatment at SVRRGG Hospital,
Tirupati. Thereafter, a case vide Crime No.68/2018 U/Sec. 304 (A), 337 & 279 3 MVOP 64 of 2018
IPC was registered and after investigation, the Charge sheet was filed on
Respondent No.2. R1 is the owner of offending vehicle and Respondent No.3 is the insurer of R1 vehicle.
Further, it is stated by the petitioners that prior to the accident, the deceased was hale and healthy and was doing agriculture personally in his village at Gopanapalli and was also maintaining tractor and trailer. The petitioner was using the said tractor for his agricultural works and was also giving the said tractor for hire. The petitioner was also doing transporting of tiles and used to earn Rs.20,000/- per month and the same was contributing towards the expenditure of the family. All the petitioners are depending up-on the deceased. Due to the sudden death of the deceased, the petitioners are leading miserable life. The 1st petitioner lost her company with her husband in tender age and she also lost her consortium with her husband. 2nd petitioner is son and he is unemployed and depending upon the deceased. The 3rd and 4th petitioner lost love and affection of the deceased. Therefore, sought for
Rs.35,00,000/- towards compensation with interest at 12% per annum.
3. Respondent No.1 filed written statement disputing the case of petitioners and stated that the petition is not maintainable according to Law and facts and that allegations that the vehicle of R1 was driven by R2 in a rash and negligent manner and caused accident is false. The allegation that the deceased was doing agriculture and tiles transporting and used to earn Rs.20,000/- per month and was contributing the same towards maintenance of the family is false.
Further, it is contended that the accident occurred due to negligence of the deceased and that R2 had valid driving licence to driver the vehicle of R1 and 4 MVOP 64 of 2018 there was no rash and negligence on part of R2 in driving the vehicle of R2. The vehicle of R1 was insured with R3 and the insurance policy was in force by the date of accident. Therefore, R3 is liable to indemnify R1. It is also submitted that all other averments are not expressly traversed herein are to be proved by the petitioners and prayed this Court to dismiss the petition with exemplary costs in the interest of Justice.
4. The learned counsel for R2 filed Adoption memo and adopted the contents of written statement filed by Respondent No.1.
5. Respondent No.3 filed written statement and stated that all the material allegations made by the petitioners are false and the petition is not maintainable either on facts or before the law and that the petitioners must prove all the allegations made in the petitioner which are not expressly admitted by R3. Further, it is contended that the petitioners have prove the manner of accident occurred by filing documentary evidence such as FIR, Charge
Sheet, Postmortem Certificate, Inquest Report and MVI Report and also that the petitioners are residing at Chittoor District, the accident also occurred in
Chittoor District and respondents are residing at different places, therefore this Court has no territorial Jurisdiction. It is also submitted that the accident occurred due to collision of oil tanker belonging to R1 and motor cycle bearing
No.AP03-CF-1999 and that the owner and insurer of motor cycle are necessary parties and the petition is bad for non-joinder of necessary parties and that the rider of the motor cycle had no driving licence and that the accident occurred only due to negligence of the rider of motor cycle and there is no negligence on 5 MVOP 64 of 2018 part of driver of R1. It is further stated that R1 did not informed about the accident nor submitted the claim form for verification of records and that as per terms and conditions of policy, the driver should have valid and effective driving licence and the vehicle should possess valid RC, Permit and valid Fitness
Certificate and that the petitioners have to prove the same. Further, it is contended that the petitioners have to prove the deceased was aged 49 years by the date of accident and they have to filed family member certificate to prove them as legal heirs of the deceased and that the deceased is not earning any amount and sought for protection U/Sec.170 of MV Act to contest the case on all grounds that are available to R1. It is also stated that the compensation claimed under different heads is excessive and exorbitant and prayed this
Tribunal to dismiss the petition in the interest of Justice.
6. On perusal of the contentions of both parties, the following issues were framed for trial:
1.Whether the accident occurred due to rash and negligent driving of the driver of Oil Tanker bearing No.AP26-X- 3311 belongs to Respondent No.1 near Puttavandlapalli
Cross on Piler – Tirupati Main Road, Piler Mandal, Chittoor
District, and that resulted in causing death of N.Boreddy on 08.06.2018 at about 12.15 PM?
2.Whether the claimants are entitled to compensation, if so, to what amount and from which of the respondents?
3.To what relief?
7. On behalf of the petitioners, PW1 was examined and Ex.A1 to
Ex.A11 were marked and on behalf of the respondent RW1 and RW2 were examined, Ex.B1 and Ex.X1 & Ex.X2 were marked.
6 MVOP 64 of 2018
8. Heard.
9. Issue No.1 : -
In order to substantiate that the deceased N.Boreddy met with accident on 08.06.2018 the deceased and his wife went to their daughter’s house at Chinnagottigallu Village. Thereafter, they returned back to their house in motor cycle bearing No.AP03-PF-1999 belonging to their son-in-law. The deceased was riding the said motor cycle and his wife was a pillion rider. The grand daughter of the petitioner was sitting in between both of them. On the way, at about 12.15 PM when they reached Puttavandlapalle Cross Road on Piler –
Tirupati Main Road, Oil Tanker bearing No.AP26-X-3311 belonging to Respondent
No.1 was driven by its driver R2 herein in a rash and negligent manner with high speed, without blowing horn dashed the motor cycle in which the petitioner was travelling. As a result, the petitioner fell down and sustained head injury and blunt injuries on his chest and died instantaneously. The wife of the deceased also sustained fracture injuries to both hands and the grand daughter of the deceased also sustained multiple fracture injuries and she died while undergoing treatment at SVRRGG Hospital, Tirupati. Thereafter, a case vide Crime
No.68/2018 U/Sec. 304 (A), 337 & 279 IPC was registered and after investigation, Charge Sheet was filed against Respondent No.2, the driver of oil tanker belonging to Respondent No.1.
10. Admittedly, PW1 is the pillion rider as well the injured travelled along with the deceased in the motor cycle at the time of accident. She deposed in accordance with their case and sworn-in that the accident occurred only due to rash and negligent driving of R2 herein.
7 MVOP 64 of 2018
11. In cross examination, it is stated by PW1 that the accident spot is a main road and denied that her husband, the rider of motor cycle, does not know the driving skills and drove the motor cycle in a rash and negligent manner and caused the accident. She also stated that the deceased had driving licence.
No material is elicited from the cross examination of PW1 to disbelieve her evidence and to presume that the accident did not occur due to rash and negligent driving of R2.
12. The contention of R3 is that the accident occurred due to collusion in between vehicle of R1 and motor cycle bearing No.AP03-CF-1999 and that the petition is bad for non-joinder of owner and insurer of the said motor cycle.
13. It is sworn-in by PW1 that the accident occurred due to rash and negligent driving of R2 and denied that there was negligence on part of rider of motor cycle. Moreover, after thorough investigation, the Police came to conclusion that rash and negligent driving of R2 is cause for the accident and filed Charge Sheet under Ex.A5 against R2. When such is the case, it cannot be held that there was fault on part of rider of motor cycle. Therefore, the contention of R2 that the petition is bad for non-joinder of owner and insurer of motor cycle can be held as not valid and the same needs no consideration.
14. Further, in Ex.A4 MVI Report, it is opined by the Motor Vehicle
Inspector concerned who inspected the offending vehicle that the accident occurred not due to mechanical defects of the vehicle. The said fact 8 MVOP 64 of 2018 infers that the accident occurred only due to rash and negligent driving of
Respondent No.2.
15. Therefore, in the light of above observations and averments in
FIR and Charge Sheet, it can be safely held that only due to rash and negligent driving of R2, the accident occurred and the deceased died. Accordingly, Issue
No.1 is answered.
16. Issue No.2 & Issue No.3 : -
The learned counsel for R3 argued upon that the offending vehicle i.e., Oil Tanker is a hazardous vehicle and to drive the said vehicle, a separate endorsement is required to drive the vehicle as per Rule 9 (2) (3) of
Central Motor Vehicle Rules. It is also argued upon that there are no specific
Rules under our Andhra Pradesh Rules to that effect and that the Central
Motor Vehicle Rules are to be followed.
17. To substantiate the above contention, R3 got examined RW1, a witness from R3 insurance company. It is stated by him that the Policy under
Ex.B1 was in force by the date of accident. RW1 also stated that to drive a oil tanker, a separate endorsement on the driving licence is required.
18. R3 also got examined RW2, witness from Road Transport
Authorities and filed Ex.X1 Authorization in favour of RW2 and Ex.X2, Driving
Licence of R2. He stated that there is no mention in Ex.X2 that R2 can drive heavy oil tanker. It is also stated by RW2 that heavy oil tanker vehicles are hazardous vehicles.
9 MVOP 64 of 2018
19. In the cross examination, it is stated by RW2 that under Ex.X2,
R2 has transport driving licence. He denied that heavy oil tankers are not hazardous and that driver having licence for transport can also drive the said vehicles. It is also deposed by him that there is a specific provision for issuance of driving licence towards hazardous vehicles.
20. The learned counsel for the petitioners argued upon that separate endorsement is not required to drive oil tanker and the same is not violation of the terms of insurance policy and relied upon a decision reported in 2018 ACJ 301 rendered by Hon’ble High Court of Judicature at Allahabad in between Oriental Insurance Company Limited – vs – Rajesh Devi and Others, and also relied upon a decision reported in 2018 ACJ 1202 rendered by Hon’ble
High Court of Punjab and Haryana at Chandigarhin between Oriental Insurance
Company Limited – vs – Rajinder Kumar Sharma and others.
21. On perusal of the above decisions, when there was valid driving licence in favour of driver to driver taker, in those circumstance and wherein no hazardous substances were found nor could be substantiated in the above said
Judgment rendered by Hon’ble Punjab and Haryana High Court, such a finding was made. But the said observations cannot be drawn into the instant case as the driver had no driving licence to drive tanker.
22. Further, no evidence or material is placed before this Court that the owner had knowledge and entrusted his vehicle to R2. The record does not show that vehicle of R1 was carrying hazardous substance. Therefore, it cannot be held that the driver was carrying tanker with hazardous substance.
10 MVOP 64 of 2018
The said arguments of the learned counsel for the petitioner cannot be accepted. At the same time, it is to be held that there is no valid driving licence in favour of R2.
23. In the light of a decision rendered by Hon’ble Madurai Bench of
Madras High Court reported in 2018 (1) An.W.R. 527 (Mad.) in between
Manager, National Insurance Company Limited, Tirunelveli – vs – Easikumar and another, wherein there is a clear observation that the liability created under the contract of insurance between owner of the vehicle and the insurer and any breach of terms and conditions of policy, a third party cannot be made to suffer and also that pay and recover shall be the correct devise to the instant type of cases and also that the insurer cannot be allowed to avoid its statutory liability under Section 149 of the Act to pay the compensation to the victim.
24. Admittedly, the deceased being 3rd party met with accident and died. Therefore, the petitioners, who are dependents upon the said deceased shall at the first instance be compensated by the insurance company and subsequently, it can recover the same from owner or the driver.
25. Further, in order to assess the compensation, the age of the deceased and the income of the deceased are to be found. As per Ex.A2
Inquest Report and Ex.A3 Postmortem Certificate, the age of the deceased was 49 years by the date of accident.
26. It is the case of the petitioners that the deceased was an agriculturist and was doing cultivation and earning Rs.20,000/- per month and also he was maintaining one tractor for agriculture purpose. To substantiate the 11 MVOP 64 of 2018 same, the petitioners got filed Ex.A6 and Ex.A9 Pattadar Passbooks, Ex.A10 1B
Namuna stands in the name of 3rd petitioner, father of the deceased. The petitioners also filed Ex.A7 Attested Copy of 1B Namuna and Ex.A8 Attested
Copy of Adangals stands in the name of the deceased. It is also the case of the petitioners that apart from agriculture, the deceased was maintaining one tractor for agriculture purpose and also that he was using the said tractor for transportation of tiles. The petitioners filed Ex.A11 Attested Copy of
Registration Certificate of Tractor and Trailer in the name deceased.
27. On perusal of Ex.A2 Inquest Report, the occupation of the deceased was mentioned as Cultivation.. No doubt, in the light of Ex.A6 to
Ex.A10, it is evident that the deceased and his father has agriculture lands. It is the case of the petitioners that the deceased was personally doing cultivation in the lands under Ex.A6 to Ex.A10. PW1 sworn-in that the deceased was managing the agriculture lands. No material is placed to show that the deceased is the only son of 3rd and 4th petitioners. Moreover, in case of assessment of the income over the agriculture lands, it is to be remembered that the land possessed by the deceased still remains with the claimants as his legal heirs, the loss of income would only be in engaging the persons for such cultivation and looking after the said cultivation. The managerial skills of the agriculture land might have lost on the death of the deceased. Therefore, loss of agriculture income on the death of the deceased might be to 5 to 10%. Therefore, assessment of such loss would be just, reasonable and would meet the ends of Justice as the amount that the estate could fetch even in the absence of the deceased can never be added as the loss arising out of the death of the manager of such agriculture.
12 MVOP 64 of 2018
28. The petitioners failed to place any material that the deceased was also transporting tiles and was earning income from the same . Therefore, the said contention of the petitioner cannot be taken into consideration. No document is filed by the petitioners showing the exact income of the deceased.
Therefore, his income can be assessed notionally.
29. In the light of a decision reported in Lakshmi Devi vs
Mohammad Tabbar and another reported in 2008 ACJ 1488 wherein the income of the deceased was notionally calculated in absence of any documentary evidence. The income of the deceased in the said decision was notionally fixed as Rs.100/- per day amounting to Rs.3,000/- per month, when the date of accident is 12.04.2004 wherein he was a coolie.
30. In the instant case, the date of accident is 08.06.2018.
Therefore, the income of a person can be estimated on higher than Rs.100/- per day. Therefore, to the year 2018, if daily income is taken as Rs.300/- towards agriculturist, it would be just and reasonable. Thereby, monthly income of the deceased can safely be accepted as Rs.9,000/- per month and it would be
Rs.1,08,000/- per annum.
31. Further, in the light of above discussion, deceased being the manager of the family and was also managing the agriculture activities over the land and due to the death of the deceased. Therefore, 10% if added to the annual income of the deceased for the loss of agricultural managerial skills would meet ends of Justice. Thus, the annual income of the deceased would be
Rs.1,18,800/- (1,08,000 + 10,800 (10% of 1,08,000)) per annum.
13 MVOP 64 of 2018
32. Further, in the light of a decision in between National
Insurance Company Ltd. - Vs - Pranay Sethi and Others rendered by Hon'ble
Apex Court dt.31.10.2017 wherein it is held that “in case the deceased is self employed or on fixed salary, an addition of 40% of the established income should be the warrant where the deceased was below the age of 40 years. An addition of 25% where the deceased was between the age of 40 to 50 years and 10% where the deceased was between the age of 50 to 60 years should be regarded as the necessary method of computation. The established income means the income minus the tax component”.
33. In the instant case, it is pleaded by the petitioners that the deceased was doing agriculture. It cannot be held that the deceased was self employed or a fixed salary earning person. Moreover, the income of the deceased is calculated notionally. Therefore, as there is no stable job to the deceased, the above said decision with regard to future prospects has no application to the instant case and no amount will be granted to the petitioners towards loss of future prospects of the deceased.
34. Further, in the above said decision, the Hon'ble Apex Court observed that for determination of the multiplicand, the deduction of personal and living expenses, the Tribunals and the Courts shall be guided by Paragraph 30 to 32 of Sarla Verma's Case.
35. Therefore, in the light of a decision rendered by Hon'ble
Supreme court in Sarla Verma and others Vs Delhi transport corporation and 14 MVOP 64 of 2018 another reported in 2009 (6) Supreme Court Cases 121 at Para 30 held that:
" Though in some cases deduction to be made towards personal and living expenses is calculated on the basis of
Units indicted in Trilok Chandra case reported in (1996) 4
SCC 362 general practice is to apply standardized deductions. Having considered several subsequent discussions of this court, we are of the view that where the deceased was married the deductions towards personal and living expenses of the deceased should be one-third (1/3rd) where the number of dependent family members is 2 to 3, one-fourth (1/4th) where the numbers of dependents family members is 4 to 6 and one-fifth (1/5th) where the number of dependents family members exceeds six".
36. To the instant case, the persons depending upon the deceased are 4 in number. Therefore, 1/4th income of the deceased shall be deducted towards his living and personal expenses, which amounts to Rs.89,100/- (1,18,800 – 29,700 (1/4th of 1,18,800)).
37. The age of the deceased is observed as 49 years. Therefore, the corresponding multiplier as per Column No.4 of Sarla Verma's Case will be “13”. Then the loss of dependency comes to Rs.11,58,300/- (89,100 x 13).
38. Further, in the light of above referred recent decision in between National Insurance Company Ltd. Vs Pranay Sethi and others, it is held that “reasonable figures on conventional heads namely loss of estate, loss of consortium and funeral expenses should be Rs.15,000/-, Rs.40,000/- and
Rs.15,000/- respectively. The aforesaid amounts should be enhanced at the 15 MVOP 64 of 2018 rate of 10% in every three years”. The date of the said Judgment is 13.10.2017.
Therefore, the very same figures can be adopted to the instant case.
39. Therefore, apart from loss of dependency of Rs.11,58,300/-, the petitioners are also entitled for Rs.15,000/- towards loss of estate and
Rs.15,000/- towards funeral expenses. Further, 1st petitioner, the wife of the deceased is entitled for Rs.40,000/- towards consortium, thereby, the total compensation amount comes to Rs.12,28,300/-.
40. In the light of decision of Hon'ble Supreme Court reported in 2015 SAR (Civil) 709 in between Chanderi Devi and another Vs Jaspal Singh and others, where in it is clearly held that 10% deduction towards income tax and rate of interest as 9% per annum would be just and reasonable.
41. Therefore, the total compensation entitled by the petitioners is
Rs.11,05,470/- (12,28,300 – 1,22,830 (10%)).
42. In the light of total compensation assessed above, the apportionment towards each petitioner is made hereunder :
1st Petitioner including5,05,470 consortium 2nd Petitioner3,00,000 3rd Petitioner1,50,000 4th Petitioner1,50,000
Total : 11,05,470
43. In the light of above findings, the petition is to be allowed in part with proportionate costs for an amount of Rs.11,05,470/- with costs and interest at 9% per annum from the date of petition till the date of deposit by 16 MVOP 64 of 2018
R3 and in turn R3 can recover the same from R1 and R2. Accordingly, Issue No.2 and Issue No. 3 are answered.
In the result, the petition is allowed in part with proportionate costs against the R1 and R2 jointly and severally awarding compensation of
Rs.11,05,470/- with interest at 9% per annum from the date of presentation of the petition (27.07.2018) till date of deposit or realization.
Respondent No.3 is directed to deposit compensation amount with interest and costs within one month from the date of this award and to recover the same from R1 and R2 subsequently.
The 1st petitioner is entitled for an amount of Rs.5,05,470/- with accrued interest and she is permitted to withdraw an amount of Rs.3,05,470/- with accrued interest and the remaining amount Rs.2,0160,000/- with accrued interest shall be kept in Fixed Deposit in any Nationalized Bank for a period of two years, thereafter she is at liberty to withdraw the same.
The 2nd petitioner is entitled for an amount of Rs.3,00,000/- with accrued interest and he is permitted to withdraw an amount of Rs.1,50,000/- with accrued interest and the remaining amount Rs.1,50,000/- with accrued interest shall be kept in Fixed Deposit in any Nationalized Bank for a period of two years, thereafter he is at liberty to withdraw the same.
The 3rd and 4th petitioner are entitled for Rs.1,50,000/- with accrued interest and they are permitted to withdraw the same.
17 MVOP 64 of 2018
The rest of the claim of petitioners under other heads is dismissed without costs.
The petitioners are directed to pay Court fee on the compensation amount awarded within 15 days from the date of this award.
The office is directed to prepare the Decree only after payment of
Court fee and endorse the same on the petition.
The advocate fee is fixed at Rs.10,000/- (Rupees ten thousands only)
Typed to my dictation by Copyist, corrected and pronounced by me in open Court on this the 19th day of September, 2019.
Sd/- C.SATYA VANI,
FAC Chairperson, Motor Accident Claims Tribunal -Cum- V Additional District Judge, Rayachoty.
A P P E N D I X O F E V I D E N C E
WITNESSES EXAMINED FOR
PETITIONERS RESPONDENTS
P.W.1: N.Janakkamma.R.W.1: S.Abdul Rehaman.
R.W.2: M.Mallikarjuna.
EXHIBITS MARKED FOR PETITIONERS
Ex.A1: Attested Copy of FIR.
Ex.A2: Attested Copy of Inquest Report.
Ex.A3: Attested Copy of Postmortem Certificate.
18 MVOP 64 of 2018
Ex.A4: Attested Copy of MVI Report.
Ex.A5: Attested Copy of Charge Sheet.
Ex.A6: Attested Copy of Pattadar Passbook.
Ex.A7: Attested Copy of 1B Namuma in the name of deceased.
Ex.A8: Attested Copy of No.3 Adangals in the name of deceased.
Ex.A9: Attested Copy of Pattadar Passbook in the name of N.Chinnapareddy.
Ex.A10: Attested Copy of 1B Namuna in the name of N.Chinnapareddy.
Ex.A11: Attested Copy of Registration Certificate Tractor and Trailer in the name of deceased.
EXHIBITS MARKED FOR RESPONDENTS
Ex.B1 : Copy of Insurance Policy.
Ex.X1: Authorization in favour of RW2.
Ex.X2: Driving licence in favour of R2.
Sd/- CSV,
FAC Chairperson, MACT-cum-V ADJ, Rayachoty.