C.v.s.sai Bhupathi
Principal District and Sessions Judge , Mahabubabad
Mahabubabad, PDJ Court Complex · Mahabubabad · Telangana
Based on 7 recent ordersC.V.S.SAI BHUPATHI, Principal District and Sessions Judge , Mahabubabad, is posted at Mahabubabad, PDJ Court Complex, Mahabubabad, Telangana, India. 7 court orders on record since 2022. 5 judgments with full text available. Primarily handles MVOP, CRLRP cases.
Featured Judgments
1
BEFORE THE CHAIRMAN, MOTOR ACCIDENTS CLAIMS TRIBUNAL
(VI ADDITIONAL DISTRICT JUDGE),
MAHABUBABAD
PRESENT: SRI C.V.S. SAI BHUPATHI,
CHAIRMAN, MOTOR ACCIDENTS CLAIMS
TRIBUNAL (VI ADDITIONAL DISTRICT JUDGE), MAHABUBABAD
Thursday, 19 th Day of May, 2022
MVOP NO. 399 of 2019
BETWEEN: 1.Bhukya Kamala, W/o.Late Srinivas, Age:23 yrs, Occ: House wife, Caste: Lambada, 2.Bhukya Sri Vaishnavi, D/o.Late Srinivas, Age:06 yrs, Occ: Nil, Caste: Lambada (Minor rep.by her natural mother Bhukya Kamala) 3.Bhukya Sri Vaishnavi, D/o.Late Srinivas, Age:06 yrs, Occ: Nil,Caste: Lambada (Minor rep.by her natural mother Bhukya Kamala)
4. Bhukya Mangi @ Mangamma, W/o.Somla, Age: 46 years, Occ:House wife, Caste: Lambada,
All are R/o Dubba Thanda H/o. Agapet Village, Narsimhulapet Mandal presently newly formed Thurpu thanda Village, Dhanthalapally Mandal, Mahabubabad district … Petitioners
And
1.Chandavath.Bhadru S/o Bagoniya, Age: 45 years, Occ: Driver of the Lorry, R/o.Bodrai Thanda, H/o Perumandla Sankeesa Village, Dornakal Mandal, Mahabubabad District
2. Atthi VijayaLaxmi, W/o.Bhaskar, R/o.H.No.1-9-35/36/B,Bokkalagadda, Khammam Urban district, Telangana state 3.The New India Assurance Company Limited represented by its Divisional Manager, Divisional Ofce, H.No.9-3-143, Old Club road, Near Vinoda Mahal, Khammam district (vide Policy No.61360031170100024253, valid from:16-03-18 to 01-01-2019) 4.The New India Assurance Co.,Ltd., rep.by its Branch Manager, Branch Ofce,Pochammamaidan, at Warangal(Local ofce of Res No.3)
...Respondents
2
This petition is coming for fnal hearing before me on 13.05.2022 in the presence of Sri R.Raghuram Reddy, Advocate for petitioners and Sri Padmakar Reddy, Advocate for Respondent Nos.3 & 4, and R1 appeared in person, R2 remained exaparte and upon perusing the material papers on record, upon hearing the arguments of counsels for petitioners and respondents and having stood over for consideration till this day, this Tribunal passed the following:
A W A R D
1. This claim petitioners fled the petition U/Sec. 166 (1) © of Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (herein after we referred to as the MV Act) claiming for compensation for a sum of Rs.15,00,000/- together with interest @ 18% per annum from the date of petition till the date of realization of claim and other relief or reliefs as the Tribunal deems ft and proper on account of the death of Bhukya Srinivas.
The brief averments of petition are as follows:
2. The petitioner No.1 is the wife, the petitioner Nos.2 & 3 are the daughters, petitioner No.4 is the mother of the deceased Bhukya Srinivas and all are residents of Dubba thanda village and presently newly formed Thurpu thanda village. The deceased Bhukya Srinivas used to do agriculture, and he possess Ac.5.00 guntas of agricultural lands and used to cultivate commercial crops like Mirchi and cotton and earn Rs.10,000/- per month. On 17.09.2018, in the morning hours, at about 09.00 to 09.30 a.m., the deceased along with his thanda person Banoth Satheesh Kumar started on deceased’s motor cycle bearing No.AP 36 H 1639 to go to Fathepuram village on bank work, and after completion of work, both deceased on driver seat and Banoth Sateesh Kumar as pillion rider started to return to their village towards Khammam side and when they reached outskirts of Fathepuram village on the main road of NH 563 at about 12.30 hours, the driver of the crime vehicle Granite Lorry (Articulated vehicle) bearing No.AP 15 TA 7864, drove the vehicle in a rash and negligent manner with high speed and lost control over the steering coming from Khammam side to go to Warangal side came in opposite direction in wrong route and dashed to the motor cycle of the deceased, on which the deceased was travelling and dragged the motor cycle along with deceased and Banoth Satheesh Kumar to some distance and caused the accident and deceased received grievous crush injuries and died on the spot and Banoth Satheesh Kumar received grievous injuries and he was shifted to Sai Multi Speciality hospital at Thorrur in 108 ambulance and in front of the hospital deceased succumbed to injuries. On the complaint made by Bhukya Kamala, the police Thorrur registered a case in Cr.No.186/2018 U/sec.304-A of IPC and fled charge sheet U/Sec. 304-A IPC. Due to the suudden and untimely death of 3 deceased, the petitioner No.1, lost her husband at the age of 23 years and her life become dark and petitioner Nos.2 and 3 lost thier father’s, love and affection, guidance and petitioner No.4 lost her son at her old age and future become dark as the deceased used to do agriculture and earn Rs.10,000/- per month and maintain his family, but now petitioners No.1 to 4 are helpless and they are left their faith. As per minimum wages a non earning persons income is Rs.6,000/- per month. The deceased used to earn Rs.10,000/- per month by doing agriculture and maintain entire family. As advised to the petitioners the petitioners 1 to 4 are entitled 1/3 of the earning of deceased, therefore the petitioners are claiming (Rs.10,000 X 12 X 1/3 X17 = 13,60,000) towards loss of life, guidance and maintenance, earning capacity etc. The petitioners are entitled towards compensation for loss of consortium, estate Rs.1,00,000/- and they are claiming Rs.44,000/- towards funeral expenses, and thus, the total claim of the petitioners 1 to 4 comes to Rs.15,00,000/-which is moderate and reasonable. The R1 is the driver of the Granite Lorry Articulated vehicle bearing No.A P 15 TA 7864 and R2 is insured and owner and R3 and R4 are the insurers of the crime vehicle vide insurance policy No.61360031170100024153 valid from 16.03.2018 to 01.01.2019and R1 to R3 are jointly and severally liable to pay compensation to the claim petitioners.
3. Notice served on Respondent Nos. 1 to 4. The respondent No.1 appeared in person, but did not fle counter though sufcient time was granted by the Court and as such the right to fle counter of Respondent No.1 is forfeited. R2 called absent since there was no representation, he was set exparte and R3 and R4 fled written statement by denying the petition averments.
4. The brief contentions of the Respondent No.3 and 4 are as follows: The Respondents company does not admit the narration made in the petition relating to the manner, in which, the accident described to have been taken place. The Occurrence of the accident and alleged involvement of the deceased are denied in toto and the petitioners are put to strict proof of the same. The respondents company does not admit Granite Lorry Articulated vehicle bearing No.AP 15 TA 7864 was driven by the driver in a rash and negligent manner. The respondents company does not admit the age and avocation of the deceased at the time of the accident and not admitted that the deceased was aged 24 years and he was doing agriculture and was earing Rs.10,000/- per month as stated by the petitioners. The respondents company is not aware of the criminal proceedings launched in the above matter. As per S.134 © of M.V.Act it is mandatory on the part of the driver or the insured to give information to the Insurer about the accident and particulars of the persons involved in the accident. In the present case, the matter of alleged accident was not reported by the insurer in collusion with the petitioners with a view to cause 4 loss to the respondents company and as such the respondents company is not liable to pay any compensation to the petitioners. In any case, the amount of compensation of Rs.15,00,000/- claimed by the petitioners in the claim petition against different heads is highly exaggerative, arbitrative and out of proportions. The respondents company does not admit that the vehicle alleged to have caused the accident was insured with the respondents company at the time of alleged accident and unless and until the petitioners proved that the crime vehicle is having valid insurance policy at the time of accident, the respondents company is not liable to pay any compensation. The crime vehicle driver by name Chandavath Bhadru is holding driving licence of LMV non-transport only vide driving licence No.AP23620140003232 issued by RTA Mahabubabad. But whereas at the time of accident, the said driver of the crime vehicle driving the HGV Granite lorry articulated vehicle bearing No.AP 15 TA 7864. The R2 entrusted his transport HGV vehicle at the time of accident. Hence, R2 violated the terms and conditions of the policy and also motor vehicle rules Hence this respondents company is not liable to pay any compensation claimed by the petitioners and R2 is only liable to pay compensation if any awarded by the Tribunal. In the claim petition, the unfortunate accident took place due to the gross negligence on the part of the deceased Srinu, he was unable to ride his motor cycle bearing No.AP 36 H 1639 by following the trafc rules and observing the vehicles on the road and as such the respondents company is not liable to pay any compensation and unless and until it is proved that the deceased was having valid and effective driving license to drive motor cycle bearing No.AP 36 H 1639 at the material time of accident. The respondent cannot be made liable to pay any compensation unless and until the petitioners and R2 have produced and proved the documents namely FIR, charge sheet, MVI report, Certifcate of Registration, Driving License, permit and ftness certifcate and Insurance policy etc before the Court and they were in force at the time of accident. The respondent company seeks protection U/Sec.147, 149 and 170 of MV Act U/Sec.64 VB of Insurance Act 1938. Respondents company does not admit that the claim petitioners are the only legal heirs to claim compensation for the death of Bhukya Srinivas and they were fully depneding upon the deceased at the time of alleged accident and there was loss to the petitioners on account of death of deceased. In the event of Tribunal going to pass award of compensation in favour of the petitioners with interest, such interest should be 6% Per Annum and pray the Court to dismiss the petition.
5.In view of the rival contentions of both sides the following issues are framed for trial.
5
5. Issues: 1.Whether the accident occurred due to rash and negligent driving of the driver of Granite Lorry Articulated vehicle No.AP 15 TA 7864 resulting in the death of Bhukya Srinivas? 2.Whether the respondents are liable to pay compensation amount to the petitioners?
3. What is the quantum of compensation, the petitioners are entitled to? 4.To what relief?
7. During the pendency of trial, the frst petitioner was examined as PW1 and also examined PW2 and got marked Exs.A1 to A6. The Junior Assistant of R3 & R4 company was examined as RW1 and got marked Ex.B1 and B2. During the pendency of the petition, the respondent nos 3 & 4 fled a petition in I.A.No. of 22 under S.170 of the MV Act to permit them to avail all the defences available and insured of the vehicle involved in the alleged accident and the same is allowed.
8. Heard both sides arguments.
ISSUE NO.1: 9.From the rival contentions, it is manifest that the burden lies on the claim petitioners to substantiate that the accident was occurred due to rash and negligent driving on the part of the driver of the Granite Lorry (Articulated vehicle) bearing No.AP 15 TA 7864 and on account of which the deceased Bhukya Srinivas died.
10. PW1, who is the wife of the deceased, revealed in her evidenct that the petitioner Nos.2 & 3 are the daughters, petitioner No.4 is the mother of the deceased Bhukya Srinivas and all are residents of Dubba thanda village and presently newly formed Thurpu thanda village. The deceased Bhukya Srinivas used to do agriculture, and he possess Ac.5.00 guntas of agricultural lands and used to cultivate commercial crops like Mirchi and cotton and earn Rs.10,000/- per month and on 17.09.2018, at about 09.00 to 09.30 a.m., the deceased along with his thanda person Banoth Satheesh Kumar started on deceased’s motor cycle bearing No.AP 36 H 1639 to go to Fathepuram village on bank work, and after completion of work, both deceased on driver seat and Banoth Sateesh Kumar as pillion rider started to return to their village towards Khammam side and when they reached outskirts of Fathepuram village on the main road of NH 563 at about 12.30 hours, the driver of the crime vehicle Granite Lorry (Articulated vehicle) bearing No.AP 15 TA 7864, drove the vehicle in a rash and negligent manner with high speed and lost control over the steering coming from Khammam side to go to Warangal side came in opposite direction in wrong route and dashed to the motor cycle of the deceased, on which the deceased was travelling and dragged the motor cycle along with deceased and Banoth 6
Satheesh Kumar to some distance and caused the accident and deceased received grievous crush injuries and died on the spot and Banoth satheesh Kumar received grievous injuries and he was shifted to Sai Multi Speciality hospital at Thorrur in 108 ambulance and in front of the hospital, he succumbed to injuries. On the complaint made by Bhukya Kamala, the police Thorrur registered a case in Cr.No.186/2018 U/sec.304-A of IPC and fled charge sheet against U/Sec. 304-A IPC.
11. PW2, who is said to be the eye witness to the accident, reiterated the evidence of PW1 and further revealed that he has personally witnessed the accident as he along with Guguloth Kishan was coming from behind in the auto and witnessed the accident and the driver of the crime vehicle i.e., Granite Lorry (Articulated vehicle) bearing No.AP 15 TA 7864 is responsible for the accident and death of Bhukya Srinivas.
12. In order to substantiate the case of the petitioners, they have fled Certifed copy of FIR along with report, Certifed Copy of Charge sheet,Certifed copy of inquest, Certifed copy of PME report, Certifed Copy of MVI report and certifed copy of CDF which are marked as Ex.A1 to A6.
13. The Cross examination of PW2 reveals that he knows PW1 and he belongs to their village and the accident was occurred at about 12 P.M and he was not present at the spot and further revealed that he was very close to the spot and was moving in an auto.
14. I have perused Ex.A1 is Certifed Copy of FIR which reveals that on 17.09.2018, at about 12.30 hours, one Lorry (Articulated vehicle) bearing No.AP 15 TA 7864 which was coming from Warangal towards Khammam driven by its driver in a rash and negligent manner dashed the motor cycle and due to which, the deceased died. Ex.A3 is certifed copy of inquest report which reveals that death of the deceased was due to accident. Ex.A4 is certifed copy of PME report which reveals that the PME is conducted over the dead body of the deceased and Ex.A5 is certifed copy of MVI report which reveals that the accident was not due to any mechanical defects of the crime vehicle and the name of the driver is Chendavath Bhadru and the crime vehicle is Articulated vehicle bearing No.AP 15 TA 7864. EX.A2 is Certifed Copy of Charge sheet which reveals that accident was occurred due to rash and negligent driving of the driver of the crime vehicle.
15. In National Insurance Company Limited Vs. Pushpa Rana and
Others reported in 2009 ACJ 287. The Hon’ble High Court of Delhi
held “On perusal of the award of the Tribunal, it becomes clear that
the wife of the deceased has produced: (i) certifed copy of the
criminal record of criminal case in FIR.No.955/2004, pertaining to
involvement of the ofending vehicle: 9ii) criminal record showing
completion of investigation of police and issue of charge sheet
under sections 279/304-A, IPC against the driver; (iii) certifed copy
7
of FIR, wherein criminal case against the driver was lodged; and
(iv) recovery memo and mechanical inspection report of ofending
vehicle and vehicle of the deceased. These documents are
sufficient proofs to reach the conclusion that the driver was
negligent. Proceedings under Motor vehicles Act are not akin to
proceedings in a civil suit and hence strict rules of evidence are not
required to be followed in this regard. Hence, this contention of
the counsel for the appellant also falls face down. There is ample
evidence on record to prove negligence on the part of the driver”.
16. The R3 and R4 even could not elicit from the evidence of PW1 and PW2 anything adverse to rebut the evidence of claim petitioners and to support the contention of R3 and R4. Hence relying on the consistent evidence of PW1 and 2 and the contents of Ex.A1 to A6, and also observation of Investigating ofcer as disclosed in Ex.A2, I conclude that the claim petitioners satisfactorily established that the accident occurred due to the rash and negligent driving on the part of the driver of the Lorry (Articulated vehicle) bearing No.AP 15 TA 7864 and due to which the deceased died. Accordingly the issue No.1 is answered.
ISSUE NO:2 and 3
17. For the determination of quantum of compensation, the relevant factors for consideration are the age and income of the deceased and his contribution for the welfare of the claimants.
18. PW1 revealed in her evidence that due to sudden and untimely death of the deceased, the petitioners lost their son at the age of 23 years and her life became dark and petitioner Nos 2 & 3 lost their father’s love and affection, guidance and petitioner No.4 lost her son at her old age and future became dark as the deceased used to do agriculture and earn Rs.10,000/- per month and maintain his family, but now petitioner Nos. 1 to 4 are helpless and they are left to their faith and due to the death of deceased, the petitioners have lost the deceased and as per minimum wages a non earning persons income is Rs.6,000/- per month and the deceased used to earn Rs.10,000/- per month by doing agriculture and maintain entire family and as advised to the petitioners the petitioners 1 to 4 are entitled for 1/3 of the earning of deceased, therefore the petitioners are claiming (Rs.10,000 X 12 X 1/3 X17 = 13,60,000) towards loss of life, guidance and maintenance, earning capacity etc and the petitioners are entitled towards compensation for loss of consortium, estate Rs.1,00,000/- and they are claiming Rs.44,000/- towards funeral expenses, and thus, the total claim of the petitioners 1 to 4 comes to Rs.15,00,000/-which is moderate and reasonable and the R1 being the driver of the Granite Lorry Articulated vehicle bearing No. A P 15 TA 7864 and R2 being the insured owner and R3 and R4 are the insurers of the crime vehicle and they are jointly and severally liable to pay compensation to the claim petitioners 1 to 4.
8
The cross examination of PW1 revealed that the deceased is her husband and deceased was travelling as pillion rider but she does not fle any document to show that she is the legal heir and she did not fle any document to show that her husband used to own and possess agricultural land and she did not fle any document showing the income of the deceased. She does not admit that the accident occurred due to the negligence of the deceased, but not due to the fault of the driver of the crime vehicle did not possess valid driving license and she does not know anything about this case and she was deposing false. She does not admit that there was not contract of insurance between R3/R4 with the owner of the crime vehcile covering the riisk if any caused to a third party due to an accident and as such R3/R4 are not liable to pay any compensation .
19. Junior Assistant of R3 & R4 company who was examined as RW1, revealed in his evidence that he is working as a Junior Assistant in District Transport Ofce, Mahabubabad and the District Transport Ofcer, Mahabubabad authorised him to give evidence in this case and Ex.B1 is the copy of authorisation letter dt.29.03.2022 and Ex.B2 is the copy of Driving License of Bhadru Chandavath/R1 and as per Ex.B2, R1 is not having a license to drive a Heavy Motor vehicle like a lorry and the vehicle having above 12,000 laden weights is only considered as a heavy motor vehicle and as per Ex.B2, R1 is not authorized to drive a lorry and as per Ex.B2, R1 can drive only a LMV vehicle like a motor cycle, tractor and trailor and car. He admitted in his cross examination that as per Ex.B2, the respondent can drive a tractor and trailor which is a goods carriage vehicle and articulated vehicle and as per the copy of RC of the crime vehicle shown to him the said vehicle is articulated vehicle and admitted that in the R.C., the classifcation of the vehicle is shown as tractor head and admitted that as per the copy of the RC, a person holding Ex.B2 license can drive the vehicle, for which, the RC is issued and in the copy of RC, the vehicle is not described as a heavy goods vehicle.
20. I have perused Ex.B2 which is the Driving license of the R1 which reveals that it was issued on 23.05.2014 and valid upto 22.05.2034 and it is for non-transport and the license No. AP 23 620140003232 and it is for motor cycle with gear Light Motor Vehicle non transport tractor and trailer and for non transport. As per Ex.A5, the policy number of the crime vehicle is 6136003117010024253 and it is in the name of R2 and it is valid upto 01.01.2019 and the policy of the crime vehicle is valid at the time of the accident and the Insurance of the crime vehicle is the New India Assurance Company Limited which is the company of R3 and R4.
9
21. In Chhanno Devi Vs. Rama Kewal and others (2009) (1)
An.W.R.130 Delhi), it is held that age of the deceased mentioned in
the postmortem examination can be taken for the determination of
the age of a deceased for the same of assessment of compensation
payable to the legal representatives of the deceased. Therefore,
the age of the deceased in Ex.A4 postmortem examination report
as 23 years can be taken for the purpose of making the assessment
of the compensation.
In Ex.A4, the post mortem examination report, the age of the deceased was mentioned as 24 years. Except by mentioning in the petition, the claim petitioners have not fnd any prrof to show that the deceased used to earn Rs.10,000/- per month by doing agriculture work and even not fled the proof of particulars of lands. In the absence of any constructive evidence placed by the petitioners to prove the income of the deceased, the income of the deceased being self employee has notionally taken at Rs.6,000/- per month for the purpose of ascertaining the loss of dependency suffered by the claim petitioners.
22. Another contention of the R3 & R4 is that the driver of the crime vehicle was not having valid Driving License at the time of alleged accident and as per Driving License, R1 is not having Heavy Goods Driving License and as such Insurance Company is not liable to pay compensation amount to the petitioners.
In National Insurance Company Limited Vs. Swaran Singh and others in Special Leave petition (civil) 9027/2003 dt:5.1.2004 wherein Hon’ble the Supreme Court of India held that “under the motor vehicles Act, holding of a valid driving licence is one of the conditions of contract of insurance. Driving of a vehicle without a valid licence is an offence. However, the question herein is whether a third party involved in an accident is entitled to the amount of compensation granted by the Motor Accidents claims Tribunal although the driver of the vehicle at the relevant time might not have a valid driving licence but would be entitled to recover the same from the owner or driver thereof”. In Mohammed Salar Vs Syed Ibrahim and others reported in 2005 ACJ 1111 wherein Hon’ble the High Court of Karnataka held that ‘mere fact that the driver was not authorised to drive the type of vehicle which he was driving at the time of the accident would not be a defence to avoid liability of the award passed against a third party in respect of a compulsorily insurance undisputably have been made inter alia with a view to protect the right of a third party and such a beneft to a third party was provided under the statue keeping in view of fact that the conditions in the insured’s policy may be of no or little effect in relation to a claim by a person to whom an insured was under a compulsorily insurable liability and any condition in the insurance policy whether the right of the third party is taken away, would be void.
In Shamanna and another Vs. The Divisional Manager Oriental
insurance company Limited and others in Civil Appeal
No:8144/2018 in SLP (C) in 26955/2017 dt: 8.8.2018 wherein
Hon’ble the Supreme Court held that “Where the driver did not
10
possess the valid driving license and there are breach of policy
conditions, “Pay and recovery” can be ordered in case of third
party risk. The tribunal is required to consider as to whether the
owner has taken reasonable care to fnd out as to whether the
driving license produced by the driver, does not fulfll the
requirements of law or not will have to be determined in each case.
The award passed by the tribunal directing the insurance company
to pay the compensation amount awarded to the claimants and
thereafter, recovery the sale from the owner of the vehicle in
question, is in accordance with the Judgment passed by this Court
in Swaran Singh Laxmi Narayain Dhut cases”.
It is evident on record that the claim petitioner Nos 1 to 4 are none other than the wife, daughters and mother of the deceased. At the same time, all the petitioners are the legal representatives of the deceased as contemplated under S.166 of Motor Vehicles Act, 1988.
For the foregoing reasons and in the light of the above Judgments, the Tribunal has no hesitation to conclude that the respondent No.3 & 4 company cannot escape from the liability to pay compensation to the claim petitioners.
23. As per the PME report EX.A4, the age of the deceased was 24 years. As per the guidelines of the Hon’ble Supreme Court given in Sarala Varma and others Vs. Delhi Transport Corporation and another reported in 2009 ACJ 1298, the suitable multiplier applicable to the age of the deceased at 24 years is the multiplier ‘18’ to calculate the compensation. Since the deceased had four dependants, who are claim petitioners herein, 1/3 deduction should be made towards personal and living expenses of the deceased as applied in above said decision in National Insurance Company Limited Vs Pranay Sethi (2017 Law suits (SC) 1093) wherein the Hon’ble Supreme Court held that an addition of 40% towards future prospects can be calculated in case where the deceased was below 40 years age by the time of the accident.
By applying the principles of law since the deceased was aged about 24 years as semm from Ex. A4 post mortem examination report and the notional income taken, the total loss of dependancy of the claim petitioners is calculated.
11
24. Now the total loss of dependency is worked out as follows:
Notional Income of the deceased per monthRs. 6,000-00 Annual income of the deceased Rs.6,000x12=Rs.72,000-00 Since the age of the deceased was 24 yearsRs.12,96,000-00 by the date of accident the relevant multiplier applicable to the instant case is ‘18’: Rs.72,000 x 18 = Future income of 40 % is added since theRs. 18,14,400-00 deceased was below 40-years 12,96,000 X 40/100 = 5,18,400/- (+) 12,96,000 + 5,18,400 = Out of this amount 1/3th amount is deductedRs. 18,14,400-00 towards the personal expenses of the (-) deceased. 18,14,400 x1/3 = 6,04,800 (-) Rs. 6,04,800-00 Loss of dependency of the claim petitionersRs.12,09,600-00
The amount arrived at towards the compensation for the loss of dependency suffered by the claimants is Rs.12,09,600-00. In addition to the claim petitioner No.1 being the widow of the deceased is entitled to compensation towards consortium of Rs.40,000/- and the claim petitioners are entitled for a sum of Rs.15,000/- under the head of loss of estate and Rs.15,000/- towards funeral expenses and Rs.40,000/- towards loss of love and affection. Thus the total compensation will be Rs.13,19,600/-. The respondent No.2 being insured and RespondentNo.3 and 4 being insurers are jointly and severally liable to pay compensation. Accordingly issue No.2 is answered.
25. ISSUE NO:4: In the result, the petition is partly allowed with proportionate costs thereby awarding a total compensation of Rs.13,19,600/- (Rupees Thirteen Lakhs Nineteen thousand six hundred only), along with the interest thereon @ 9% per annum from the date of the petition, till the date of realization to the petitioners No.1 to 4 payable by the respondents jointly and severally. The respondent No.3 and 4 shall pay the compensation to the petitioners and recover the same from the respondent No.2 by initiating the executing proceedings of this award. Out of the total compensation, the frst petitioner is awarded a share of Rs.8,00,000/- (Rupees Eight Lakhs only) and the Petitioners No.2 and 3 are awarded Rs.1,59,800/- (Rupees Fifty Nine thousand eight hundred only) each and Petitioner No.4 is awarded Rs.2,00,000/- (Rupees Two lakhs only)towards their respective shares. The petitioners No.1 and 4 are permitted to receive the total amount of their shares. The total compensation amount of the minor claim petitioners No.2 and 3 shall be kept in a fxed deposit with any nationalized bank till they attain the age of majority and on its maturity that amount along with the accrued interest shall be payable to the minor claim petitioners The rest of the claim amount is dis-allowed and accordingly the petition is partly dismissed without costs.
12
The Respondents shall deposit the compensation within (30) days from the date of the award as mandate U/Sec.168 (3) of the MV Act. The fee of counsel for the petitioners is fxed for Rs.2,000/- (Rupees Two thousand only).
(Typed to my Dictation, corrected and pronounced by me in the Open Court on this the 19/05/2022)
CHAIRMAN, MACT (VI-ADJ)
MAHABUBABADD
APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE
WITNESSES EXAMINED
FOR PETITIONERS FOR RESPONDENTS
PW1. Bhukya KamalaRW1. K.Srikanth PW2. Lunavath Kevula
EXHIBITS MARKED FOR PETITIONERS
Ex.A1. Certifed Copy of F.I.R along with complaint Ex.A2. Certifed Copy of Charge Sheet Ex.A3. Certifed Copy of Inquest report Ex.A4. Certifed Copy of PME report Ex.A5. Certifed Copy of MVI report Ex.A6. Certifed Copy of Crime details form
EXHIBITS MARKED FOR RESPONDENTS
Ex.B1. Authorization letter dt.29.03.2022 Ex.B2. Copy of driving license of Bhadru Chandavath/R1
EXHIBITS MARKED FOR COURT
NIL
CHAIRMAN, MACT (VIADJ)
MAHABUBABAD
13
1
BEFORE THE CHAIRMAN, MOTOR ACCIDENTS CLAIMS TRIBUNAL
(VI ADDITIONAL DISTRICT JUDGE),
MAHABUBABAD
PRESENT: SRI C.V.S. SAI BHUPATHI,
CHAIRMAN, MOTOR ACCIDENTS CLAIMS
TRIBUNAL (VI ADDITIONAL DISTRICT JUDGE), MAHABUBABAD
Thursday, 19 th Day of May, 2022
MVOP NO. 439 of 2018
BETWEEN: 1.Guguloth sharada, W/o.Late Ravi, Age:32 yrs, Occ: House wife, 2.Guguloth Sai, S/o.Late Ravi, Age:13 yrs, Occ: Student, 3.Guguloth Kavitha, D/o.Late Ravi, Age:12 yrs, Occ: Student, 4.Guguloth Dwali, W/o.Dhavuda, Age:65 yrs, Occ: House wife, 5.Guguloth Dhavuda, S/o.Errapenty, Age:70 yrs, Occ: Nil, (Petiitoner Nos.2 and 3 are the minors represented by their natural mother Smt Guguloth Sharada Petitioner No.1)
All are R/o.Laxama thanda, H/o.Yellampeta village, Maripeda Mandal, Mahabubabad District … Petitioners
And
1.Shankar Bihari @ Shankar Rao, S/o.Pudi Chandrabos, Age: Major, Occ: Driver of the crime vehicle, R/o.Manjhigawa, PO: Manjhihaon, Garhwa District, Jarkhand (Amended as per orders in IA.No.605/2021 dt:22.10.2021)
2. KVR Crane Services represented by Sri Rallapalli Sudhakar, S/o.Thata Babu, Age: Major, Occ: Owner of the crime vehicle, R/o.H.No.5-53, Main road, BC Colony, Vepagunta, Vishakahapatnam, Andhra Pradesh 3.Oriental Insurance Company Limited represented by its Divisional Manager, Divisional Ofce at Krishna Kuteer, First Floor, Near forest ofce, Subedari, Hanamkonda, Warangal City & District
...Respondents
2
This petition is coming for fnal hearing before me on 11.05.2022 in the presence of Sri B.Lalu, Advocate for petitioners and Sri B.Venkateshwara Rao, Advocate for Respondents No.1 and 2 and Sri T.Nagesh Kumar, Advocate for Respondent No.3, and upon perusing the material papers on record, up on hearing the arguments of counsels for claim petitioners and respondents and having stood over for consideration till this day, this Tribunal passed the following.
A W A R D
The claim petitioners fled the petition U/Sec. 166 (1) © of Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (herein after we referred to as the MV Act) claiming compensation for a sum of Rs.20,00,000/- (Rupees Twenty Lakhs only) together with interest @ 18% per annum from the date of petition till the date of realization of claim and other relief or reliefs as the Tribunal deems ft and proper on account of the death of Bhukya Ravi in a motor vehicle accident.
The brief averments of the petition are as follows:
2. The petitioner No.1 is the wife, the petitioner No.2 is the son, the petitioner No.3 is the daughter, the petitioner Nos. 4 and 5 are the parents of the deceased Guguloth Ravi. The deceased was an auto driver and used to earn Rs.15,000/- per month and contributing the same for the maintenance of his family members i.e., petitioners herein. On 30.08.2017, the deceased left his house along with his auto and parked at Maripeda Bunglow. At about 15.30 hours, the deceased was proceeding on the road at Cargil centre, Maripeda village and in the meantime, one Hydraulic crane bearing No.AP 31 BN 5252 drove by its driver came in a rash and negligent manner with high speed and dashed the deceased and as a result, the deceased fell down on the road and sustained fatal injuries. Immediately while shifting the deceased to the Primary Health Care centre, Maripeda, the deceased died on the way. On the complaint made by the petitioner No.1, the police Maripeda registered a case in Cr.No.233/2018 U/sec.304-A of IPC and after investigation, police fled charge sheet against the driver of the Hydralic crane bearing No.AP 31 BN 5252. At the time of accident, the deceased was aged about 30 years and he was hail and healthy. Due to sudden death of deceased, the petitioners lost their source of dependency, guidance and love and afection. More particularly, the Petitioner No.1 lost her husband, life partner and her company and as such she became a widow. The petitioners 2 & 3 lost guidance of their father and the petitioner Nos. 4 & 5 lost their son. Due to the death of deceased, the petitioners lost future earnings of the deceased and also future dependency and welfare and they became orphans. Due to the death of deceased, the petitioners are sufering from very much hardship in leading their lives as there was no person to look after their welfare and the petitioners. Thus in all heads the 3 petitioners are only claiming compensation of Rs.20,00,000/- against the respondents which is reasonable and moderate. R1 is the driver and R2 is owner and R3 is insurer of the crime vehicle vide insurance policy No.461300/31/2017/5140 valid from 28.03.2017 to 27.03.2018and R1 to R3 are jointly and severally liable to pay compensation to the claim petitioners.
3.Court fee Rs.19,360/- exempted by Chairman, MLSC, Mahabubabad on 20.06.2018 on petition fled by the petitioners in IA.No.890/2018 with a direction that petitioners shall have to pay the prescribed court fee prior to obtaining the copy of Judgment.
4. Notice served on Respondent Nos. 1 & 2. The respondent No.1 and 2 appeared through their counsel, but did not fle counter though sufcient time was granted by the Court and as such, the right to fle Written Statement of Respondent Nos 1 & 2 is forfeited. The Respondent No.3 has fled counter by denying the petition averments. The brief contentions of the Respondent No.3 are as follows:
The Respondent No.3 company does not admit the narration made in the petition relating to the manner, in which, the accident described to have been taken place. The respondent company does not admit the Hydraulic crane bearing No.AP 31 BN 5252 was driven by the driver in a rash and negligent manner. R3 company does not admit the age and avocation and health condition of the deceased at the time of the accident. The petitioners failed to produce any documentary evidence that the deceased is an auto driver and earning Rs.15,000/- per month at the time of accident. The matter of accident was not reported by the insurer in collusion with the petitioners with a view to cause loss to the respondent company. The amount of compensation of Rs.20,00,000/- claimed by the petitioner in the claim petition is against the diferent heads is highly exaggerative, arbitrative and out of proportions. Without the prejudice to the contention, R3 is not liable to pay any compensation unless and until it is proved that the person who was driving the Hydraulic crane bearing No.AP 31 BN 5252 was having a valid and efective Driving License to drive such vehicle, the vehicle was road worthy to play at the material point of the accident. As per the Driving License, R1 is not having Heavy Goods Driving license and as such, the Insurance Company is not liable to pay any compensation amount to the petitioners. The respondent company does not admit that the vehicle alleged to have caused the accident was insured with the respondent company at the time of alleged accident. The respondent company does not admit that the deceased sustained injuries due to the alleged accident and he immediately died. The petitioners have not fled Post Mortem report or any other relevant documents immediately the deceased joined in the hospital, except Inquest report no other documents were fled. The version of the petitioners itself is self contradictory and is changed from time to 4 time, even in the petition itself. There is co-relation or relevancy in the allegations. The respondent cannot be made liable to pay any compensation unless and until the petitioner and R1 have produced and proved the documents namely MVI report, R.C book, Driving License, permit and ftness certifcate into the Court and they were in force at the time of accident. The respondent company seeks protection U/Sec.147, 149 and 170 of MV Act U/ Sec.64 VB of Insurance Act 1938. The petitioners are also not entitled to any interest as claimed by them and interest claimed by the petitioners is very excessive . The petitioners have not fled any documentary evidence as they are legal heirs of deceased and failed to fle legal heir certifcate. The petitioner Nos 4 & 5 are majors and they are earning the amounts and they are not depending upon the income of the deceased and prays the Court to dismiss the petition.
5. During the pending of the case, petitioners fled a petition under Order 6 Rule 17 r/w 151 CPC in IA 623/21 to amend the name of Respondent No.1 and the same was allowed on 22.10.2021. The amendment was carried out and neat copy of petition was fled.
6. The respondent No.3 fled additional counter by denying the petition averments stating that the petition is not maintainable either under law or on facts and the petitioners failed to fle any documents before the Court that Shankar Rao and Shankar Bihari are one and the same and they failed to establish and the petitioners are not entitled the claim amount of Rs.20,00,000/- which is very excess and prays the Court to dismiss the petition. 7.No additional issues framed.
8.In view of the rival contentions of both sides the following issues are framed for trial. Issues: 1.Whether the accident occurred due to rash and negligent driving of the driver/Respondent No.1 of Hydraulic crane bearing No.AP 31 BN 5252 resulting in the death of the deceased/Guguloth Ravi? 2.Whether the respondents are liable to pay compensation amount to the petitioners, to what amount? 3.To what relief?
9. During the pendency of trial, the frst petitioner was examined as PW1 and also examined PW2 and got marked Exs.A1 to A7. The Senior Divisional Manager/Respondent No.3 company was examined as RW1 and got marked Ex.B1.
10. Heard both sides arguments.
5
ISSUE NO.1:
11. From the rival contentions it is manifest that the burden lies on the claim petitioners to substantiate that the accident was happened on account of the rash and negligent driving on the part of the driver of the Hydraulic vehicle bearing No.AP 31 BN 5252 and on account of which, the deceased Guguloth Ravi died.
12.PW1, who is the wife of the deceased, revealed in her evidence that the petitioner No.2 is the son, petitioner No.3 is the daughter, and petitioner No. 4 & 5 are parents of the deceased. The deceased was an auto driver and on On 30.08.2017, the deceased left his house along with his auto and parked at Maripeda Bunglow and at about 15.30 hours, the deceased was proceeding on the road at Cargil centre, Maripeda village and in the meantime, one Hydraulic crane bearing No.AP 31 BN 5252 drove by its driver came in a rash and negligent manner with high speed and dashed the deceased and as a result, the deceased fell down on the road and sustained fatal injuries. Immediately while shifting the deceased to the Primary Health Care centre, Maripeda, the deceased died on the way. On the complaint made by the petitioner No.1, the police Maripeda registered a case in Cr.No.233/2018 U/sec.304-A of IPC and after investigation, police fled charge sheet U/Sec. 304-A IPC against the driver of the Hydraulic crane bearing No.AP 31 BN 5252 and that at the time of her evidence, the driver’s name which was stated in FIR is as per the enquiry made at the time of accident is stated as Shankar Rao and originally the name of the driver is Shankar Bihari as per the Driving License who belongs to Jarkhand state, but at the time of accident the other employees, who are working with the driver in Mission Bhagiratha stated the name as Shankar Rao and they also stated that the Shankar Rao and Shankar Bihari is one and same and he operates the crime vehicle and the Telugu people call him as Shankar Rao, but as per Driving License, the name is Shankar Bihari and hence in the O.P., it was stated as Shankar Bihari as per Driving License.
13.PW2, who is said to be the eye witness to the accident, reiterated the evidence of PW1 and further reveal that while he was going towards Kargil Center, his village hamlet thanda i.e., Laxma thanda resident Banoth Shnakar’s brother-in-law by name Ravi i.e., the deceased was walking on the other side of the road, one Hydraulic crane bearing No.AP 31 BN 5252 came in a rash and negligent manner and the hook of the crane hit him from the back side towards right side and immediately he fell down and the auto drivers rushed to the spot and shifted him to Government hospital and meanwhile the said Ravi died and his right side neck and cheek were crushed and immediately he informed the same to his brother-in-law by name Banoth Shankar and after that the deceased was shifted to Mahabubabad for post mortem.
6 14.PW1 admitted in her cross examination that she does not know how the accident occurred and she has not fled any document to show that Shanker Bihari and Shanker Rao are the same person and admitted that in the charge sheet the name of the driver is mentioned as Shanker Rao PW2 deposed in his cross examination that at the time of accident, he was going on road so as to go to shop and he was also moving towards Warangal Road and the crime vehicle is a crane and it was also moving from Khammam to Warangal road and the vehicle was also moving towards Warangal road and crime vehicle was coming on the back side of the vehicle of the deceased and crime vehicle hit the vehicle of the deceased from the back side.
In order to substantiate the claim, the petitioners have fled Certifed copy of FIR along with report, Certifed Copy of Charge sheet which are marked as Ex.A1 & A2.
15. The Senior Divisional Manager of the respondent No.3 company has revealed in his evidence that as per charge sheet, the name of Accused/driver was mentioned as Shankar rao and whereas as per petition copy, the driver/R1’s name was Shankar Bihari and the name of R1 is diferent and the petitioners have not fled any document before the Court to prove that Shankar Rao and Shankar Bihari are one and the same and the respondent company very much tried about the driver of the crime vehicle and also for his driving license and since he is not resident of Telangana state, but the same was in vain and on enquiry made by the company, in the charge sheet fled by the police his name was mentioned as Shankar Bihari and the driver’s name is also mentioned as Shankar Rao in FIR and as per charge sheet fled by police, the police charged against the respondent No.2, who is owner of the crime vehicle under section 180 of MV Act since the driver is not having valid license and no charge sheet was fled against the respondent No.1 and the criminal case was not proved against the respondent No.1. RW1 admitted in his cross examination that as per Ex.A6, MVI report, the name of the driver is mentioned as Shankar Bihari.
16. I have perused Ex.A1/C.C of FIR along with report in which it is mentioned that the name of driver of crime vehicle is Shankar Rao., and EX.A6/C.C of Motor vehicles Inspector Report reveals that the name of driver of the crime vehicle as Shankar Bihari. EX.A2/C.C of Charge sheet reveals that Accused No.1 is Shankar Rao and police fled charge sheet basing upon the Ex.A1 and A6 against the driver of the crime vehicle who is respondent No.1. The petitioners also fled a petition to amend the name of respondent No.1 and the same was allowed and the name of respondent No.1 was amended. There is no controversy with regard to the name of respondent No.1.
7
17.Ex.A1 reveals that on 30.08.2017, the driver of the Hydraulic crane bearing No.AP 31 BN 5252 by name Shankar Rao drove the vehicle in a rash and negligent manner and due to which, the iron hook of the crime vehicle hit the head of the deceased by name Guguloth Ravi who was proceeding on the road and he sustained injuries and while shifting to the hospital, he died.
18. Ex.A5 is the C.C of Crime Detail form, Ex.A6 is the C.C of Motor vehicle Inspector report and which reveals that the accident occurred was not due to any mechanical defects of the vehicle. Ex.A3 is the C.C of inquest report which reveals that the reason for the death of the deceased was due to accident. Ex.A4 is C.C of Post mortem examination report of the deceased Guguloth Ravi, Ex.A2 is C.C of charge sheet reveals that the accident was caused due to rash and negligent driving of the crime vehicle driven by respondent No.1 who is Accused No.1.
19. In national Insurance Company Limited Vs. Pushpa Rana and
Others reported in 2009 ACJ 287. The Hon’ble High Court of Delhi
held “On perusal of the award of the Tribunal, it becomes clear that
the wife of the deceased has produced: (i) certifed copy of the
criminal record of criminal case in FIR.No.955/2004, pertaining to
involvement of the ofending vehicle: 9ii) criminal record showing
completion of investigation of police and issue of charge sheet
under sections 279/304-A, IPC against the driver; (iii) certifed copy
of FIR, wherein criminal case against the driver was lodged; and
(iv) recovery memo and mechanical inspection report of ofending
vehicle and vehicle of the deceased. These documents are
sufficient proofs to reach the conclusion that the driver was
negligent. Proceedings under Motor vehicles Act are not akin to
proceedings in a civil suit and hence strict rules of evidence are not
required to be followed in this regard. Hence, this contention of
the counsel for the appellant also falls face down. There is ample
evidence on record to prove negligence on the part of the driver”.
The R3 even could not elicit from the evidence of PW1 and PW2 anything adverse to rebut the evidence of claim petitioners and to support the contention of R3. Hence relying on the consistent evidence of PW1 and 2 and the contents of Ex.A1 to A6 and also the observation of the investigating ofcer as disclosed in Ex.A2, I conclude that the claim petitioners satisfactorily established that the accident occurred due to the rash and negligent driving on the part of the Hydraulic Crane bearing No.AP 31 BN 5252 and due to which the deceased died. Accordingly the issue No.1 is answered.
8
ISSUE NO:2
20. For the determination of quantum of compensation the relevant factors for consideration are the age and income of the deceased and his contribution for the welfare of the claimants.
21 PW1 revealed in her evidence at the time of accident the deceased was aged about 30 years and he was hail and healthy and he was an auto driver and used to earn Rs.15,000/- per month and he was only earning member of their family and due to the sudden death of the deceased, they lost source of dependency, guidance, love and afection and particularly she lost her husband, life partner and his company and as such she became widow and the petitioners 2 and 3 lost their father and his guidance and petitioners 4 & 5 are lost their son and deceased, during his life time, used to contribute his entire earnings towards maintenance of their family and due to the sudden death, they lost future earnings of the deceased and also future dependency and welfare and they became orphans and due to the death of the deceased, they are sufering from very much hardship in leading their lives as there was no person to look after their welfare and maintenance and in all heads they are only claiming compensation of Rs.20,00,000/- against the respondents which is reasonable and moderate. R1 is a driver and R2 is the owner and insured and R3 is the insurer of the crime vehicle and they are jointly and severally liable to pay compensation.
22. PW1 reveal in her cross examination that petitioner Nos 4 & 5 are having four children of which two are male and two are female and as on the date of accident, the age of her husband was 33-years, but not 30-years and admitted that Ex.A7 Driving License is pertaining to two wheeler and LMV.
23. RW1 admitted in his cross examination that as on the date of accident, the Insurance policy was in force.
24. In Chhanno Devi Vs. Rama Kewal and others (2009) (1)
An.W.R.130 Delhi), it is held that age of the deceased mentioned in
the post-mortem examination can be taken for the determination of
the age of a deceased for the same of assessment of compensation
payable to the legal representatives of the deceased. Therefore,
the age of the deceased in Ex.A4 post-mortem examination report
as 33 years can be taken for the purpose of making the assessment
of the compensation.
In Ex.A4, the post mortem examination report, the age of the deceased was mentioned as 33-years. Except by mentioning in the petition, the claim petitioners have not fled any proof to show that the deceased used to earn Rs.15,000/- per month as an auto driver. In the absence of any constructive evidence placed by the petitioners to prove the income of the deceased, the income of the deceased as an auto driver being self employee has 9 notionally taken at Rs.6,000/- per month for the purpose of ascertaining the loss of dependency sufered by the claim petitioners. Ex.B1 Attested copy of insurance policy reveals that the policy No. 461300/31/2017/5140 and it is in the name of Mrs.K.V.R Crane services and the policy is for the vehicle bearing No.AP 31 BN 5252 is Hydraulic crane and valid from 28.03.2017 to 27.03.2018. As per Ex.B1 Insurance policy, the insurance for the crime vehicle is valid during the time of the accident and the insurance of the crime vehicle is Oriental Insurance Company which is the company of R3.
25. Another contention of the R3 is that the driver of the crime vehicle was not having valid Driving License at the time of alleged accident and as per Driving License, R1 is not having Heavy Goods Driving License and as such Insurance Company is not liable to pay compensation amount to the petitioners.
It is evident on record that the claim petitioner No.1 to 5 are none other than the wife, son, daughter and parents of the deceased. At the same time all the petitioners are the legal representatives of the deceased as contemplated U/Sec.166 of Motor vehicles Act, 1988.
In National Insurance Company Limited Vs. Swaran Singh and others in Special Leave petition (civil) 9027/2003 dt:5.1.2004 wherein Hon’ble the Supreme Court of India held that “under the motor vehicles Act, holding of a valid driving licence is one of the conditions of contract of insurance. Driving of a vehicle without a valid licence is an ofence. However, the question herein is whether a third party involved in an accident is entitled to the amount of compensation granted by the Motor Accidents claims Tribunal although the driver of the vehicle at the relevant time might not have a valid driving licence but would be entitled to recover the same from the owner or driver thereof”. In Mohammed Salar Vs Syed Ibrahim and others reported in 2005 ACJ 1111 wherein Hon’ble the High Court of Karnataka held that ‘mere fact that the driver was not authorised to drive the type of vehicle which he was driving at the time of the accident would not be a defence to avoid liability of the award passed against a third party in respect of a compulsorily insurance undisputably have been made inter alia with a view to protect the right of a third party and such a beneft to a third party was provided under the statue keeping in view of fact that the conditions in the insured’s policy may be of no or little efect in relation to a claim by a person to whom an insured was under a compulsorily insurable liability and any condition in the insurance policy whether the right of the third party is taken away, would be void.
In Shamanna and another Vs. The Divisional Manager Oriental
insurance company Limited and others in Civil Appeal
No:8144/2018 in SLP (C) in 26955/2017 dt: 8.8.2018 wherein
Hon’ble the Supreme Court held that “Where the driver did not
possess the valid driving license and there are breach of policy
conditions, “Pay and recovery” can be ordered in case of third
party risk. The tribunal is required to consider as to whether the
owner has taken reasonable care to fnd out as to whether the
driving license produced by the driver, does not fulfll the
10
requirements of law or not will have to be determined in each case.
The award passed by the tribunal directing the insurance company
to pay the compensation amount awarded to the claimants and
thereafter, recovery the same from the owner of the vehicle in
question, is in accordance with the Judgment passed by this Court
in Swaran Singh Laxmi Narayain Dhut cases”.
For the foregoing reasons and in the light of the above Judgments the Tribunal has no hesitation to conclude that the respondent No.3 company cannot escape from the liability to pay compensation to the claim petitioners.
26. The deceased in this case was aged about 33 years as on the date of accident. As per the guidelines of the Hon’ble Supreme Court given in Sarala Varma and others Vs. Delhi Transport Corporation and another reported in 2009 ACJ 1298, the suitable multiplier applicable to the age of the deceased at 33 years is the multiplier ‘16’ to calculate the compensation. Since the deceased had fve dependants, who are claim petitioners herein, ¼ th deduction should be made towards personal and living expenses of the deceased as applied in the above said decision In National Insurance Company Limited Vs Pranay Sethi (2017 Law suits (SC) 1093) wherein the Hon’ble Supreme Court held that an addition of 40% towards future prospects can be calculated in case where the deceased was below 40 years age by the time of the accident.
By applying the principle of law since the deceased was aged about 33 years as seen from Ex.A4 Post Mortem Report and the Notional Income taken, the total loss of dependency of the claim petitioner is calculated.
27. Now the total loss of dependency is worked out as follows: Notional Income of the deceased per monthRs. 6,000-00 Annual income of the deceased Rs.6,000 x 12Rs.72,000-00 = Since the age of the deceased was 33 yearsRs.11,52,000-00 by the date of accident the relevant multiplier applicable to the instant case is ‘16’: Rs.72,000 x 16 = Future income of 40 % is added since theRs. 16,12,800-00 deceased was below 40-years 11,52,000 X 40/100 = 4,60,800/- 11,52,000 + 4,60,800 = Out of this amount 1/4th amount is deductedRs. 16,12,800-00 towards the personal expenses of the deceased. 16,12,800 x1/4 = 4,03,200 (-) Rs. 4,03,200-00
Loss of dependency of the claim petitionersRs.12,09,600-00 11
Thus the amount arrived at towards the compensation for the loss of dependency sufered by the claimants is Rs.12,09,600-00. In addition to the claim petitioner No.1 being the widow of the deceased is entitled to compensation towards consortium of Rs.40,000/- and the claim petitioners are entitled for a sum of Rs.15,000/- under the head of loss of estate and Rs.15,000/- towards funeral expenses and Rs.50,000/- towards loss of love and afection. Thus the total compensation will be Rs.13,29,600/-. The respondent No.2 being insured and RespondentNo.3 being insurer are jointly and severally liable to pay compensation. Accordingly issue No.2 is answered.
ISSUE NO:3:
28. In the result, the petition is partly allowed with proportionate costs thereby awarding a total compensation of Rs.13,29,600/- (Rupees Thirteen Lakhs Twenty Nine thousand six hundred only), along with the interest thereon @ 9% per annum from the date of the petition, till the date of realization to the petitioners No.1 to 5 payable by the respondents jointly and severally. The respondent No.3 shall pay the compensation to the petitioners and recover the same from the respondent No.2 by initiating the executing proceedings of this award. Out of the total compensation, the frst petitioner is awarded a share of Rs.9,00,000/- (Rupees Nine Lakhs only) and the Petitioners No.2 to 5 are awarded Rs.1,07,400/- (Rupees One lakh Seven thousand four hundred only) each towards their respective shares. The petitioners No.1, 4 and 5 are permitted to receive the total amount of their shares. The total compensation amount of the minor claim petitioners No.2 and 3 shall be kept in a fxed deposit with any nationalized bank till they attain the age of majority and on its maturity that amount along with the accrued interest shall be payable to the minor claim petitioners. The rest of the claim amount is dis-allowed and accordingly the petition is partly dismissed without costs. The Respondents shall deposit the compensation within (30) days from the date of the award as mandate U/Sec.168 (3) of the MV Act. The fee of counsel for the petitioners is fxed for Rs.2,000/- (Rupees Two thousand only). The petitioners shall have to pay the prescribed Court fee i.e., Rs.19,360/- prior to obtaining the copy of judgment.
(Typed to my Dictation, corrected and pronounced by me in the Open Court on this the 19/05/2022)
CHAIRMAN, MACT(VI-ADJ)
MAHABUBABAD
12
APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE
WITNESSES EXAMINED
FOR PETITIONERS FOR RESPONDENTS
PW1. Guguloth SaradaRW1. Bhukya Surya PW2. Gandi Ambarisha
EXHIBITS MARKED FOR PETITIONERS
Ex.A1. Certifed Copy of F.I.R along with report Ex.A2. Certifed Copy of Charge Sheet Ex.A3. Certifed Copy of Inquest report Ex.A4. Certifed Copy of PME report Ex.A5. Certifed Copy of Crime details form Ex.A6. Certifed Copy of Accident report from Motor Vehicles Inspector Ex.A7. Original Driving License
EXHIBITS MARKED FOR RESPONDENTS
Ex.B1. Attested copy of Insurance policy
EXHIBITS MARKED FOR COURT
NIL
CHAIRMAN, MACT(VIADJ)
MAHABUBABAD
1
BEFORE THE CHAIRMAN, MOTOR ACCIDENTS CLAIMS TRIBUNAL
(VI ADDITIONAL DISTRICT JUDGE),
MAHABUBABAD
PRESENT: SRI C.V.S. SAI BHUPATHI,
CHAIRMAN, MOTOR ACCIDENTS CLAIMS
TRIBUNAL (VI ADDITIONAL DISTRICT JUDGE), MAHABUBABAD
Thursday, 19 th Day of May, 2022
MVOP NO. 401 of 2019
BETWEEN: 1.Banoth Deepla, S/o.Mangtha, Age:50 yrs, Occ: Agriculture, Caste: Lambada, 2.Banoth Lachi, W/o.Deepla, Age:45 yrs, Occ: House-wife, Caste: Lambada,
Both R/o Dubba Thanda H/o Agapet Village, Narsimhulapet Mandal presently newly formed Thurpu thanda Village, Dhanthalapally Mandal, Mahabubabad district … Petitioners
And
1.Chandavath.Bhandru S/o Bagoniya, Age: 45 years, Occ: Driver of the Lorry, R/o.Bodrai Thanda, H/o Perumandla Sankeesha Village, Dornakal Mandal, Mahabubabad District
2. Atthi VijayaLaxmi, W/o.Bhaskar, R/o.H.No.1-9-35/36/B,Bokkalagadda, Khammam Urban district, Telangana state 3.The New India Assurance Company Limited represented by its Divisional Manager, Divisional Ofce, H.No.9-3-143, Old Club road, Near Vinoda Mahal, Khammam district (vide Policy No.61360031170100024253, valid from:16-03-18 to 01-01-2019) 4.The New India Assurance Co.,Ltd., rep.by its Branch Manager, Branch Ofce,Pochammamaidan,
at Warangal(Local ofce of Res No.3) ...Respondents
This petition is coming for fnal hearing before me on 13.05.2022 in the presence of Sri R.Raghuram Reddy, Advocate for petitioners and Sri Padmakar Reddy, Advocate for Respondent Nos.3 & 4, and R1 appeared in person, R2 remained exaparte and upon perusing the material papers on record, upon hearing the arguments and counsels for petitioners and respondents and having stood over for consideration till this day, this Tribunal passed the following:
2
A W A R D
1. This claim petitioners fled the petition U/Sec. 166 (1) © of Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (herein after we referred to as the MV Act) claiming for compensation for a sum of Rs.8,00,000/- together with interest @ 18% per annum from the date of petition till the date of realization of claim and other relief or reliefs as theTribunal deems ft and proper on account of the death of Banoth Satheesh Kumar in a Motor Vehicle accident.
The brief averments of petition are as follows:
2. The petitioner No.1 is the father, the petitioner No.2 is the mother of the deceased Banoth Sateesh Kumar and they both are residents of Dubba thanda village and presently newly formed Thurpu thanda village. The deceased Banoth Satheesh Kumar was a student and also helping his parents in agricultural works. The deceased was Bachelor and un-married. On 17.09.2018, in the morning hours, at about 09.00 to 09.30 a.m., the deceased along with his thanda person Bhukya Srinivas started on motor cycle bearing No.AP 36 H 1639 of Bhukya Srinivas to go to Fathepuram village on the main road of NH 563 at about 12.30 hours, the driver of the crime vehicle Granite Lorry (Articulated vehicle) bearing No.AP 15 TA 7864, drove the vehicle in a rash and negligent manner with high speed and lost control over the steering coming from Khammam side to go to Warangal side came in opposite direction in wrong route and dashed to the motor cycle, on which the deceased was travelling and dragged the motor cycle along with deceased and Bhukya Srinivas to some distance and caused the accident and Bhukya Srinivas died on the spot and received grievous injuries and the deceased was shifted to Sai Multi Speciality hospital at Thorrur in 108 ambulance and in front of the hospital deceased succumbed to injuries. On the complaint made by Bhukya Kamala, the police Thorrur registered a case in Cr.No.186/2018 U/sec.304-A of IPC and fled charge sheet U/Sec. 304-A IPC and due to sudden and untimely death of the deceased, the petitioners lost their son at the age of 45 and future became dark as the deceased used to study and also help the parents in doing agriculture due to their old age and now they were left alone and helpless at their old age. Due to the death of deceased, the petitioners have lost their son who is a student and the petitioners have much hopes on the deceased and deceased came in their hands and grown up son. As per minimum wages a non earning persons income is Rs.6,000/- per month. As advised to the petitioners the petitioners Nos 1 & 2 are entitled for half of the earnings of deceased, therefore the petitioners are claiming (Rs.6,000 X 12 X1/2 X16 =5,44,000) towards loss of life, earning capacity etc. The petitioners are entitled to Rs.2,10,000/- towards loss of the guidance and maintenance, they are claiming Rs.44,000/- towards funeral expenses, Rs.2,000/- towards damages to cloths and total claim of the petitioner Nos. 1 & 2 comes to 3
Rs.8,000.00/- which is moderate and reasonable. The R1 is the driver of the Granite Lorry Articulated vehicle bearing No.A P 15 TA 7864 and R2 is insured and owner and R3 and R4 are the insurers of the crime vehicle vide insurance policy No.61360031170100024253 valid from 16.03.2018 to 01.01.2019 and R1 to R3 are jointly and severally liable to pay compensation to the claim petitioners.
3. Notice served on Respondent Nos. 1 to 4. The respondent No.1 appeared in person, but did not fle counter through sufcient time was granted by the Court and as such the right to fle counter of Respondent No.1 is forfeited. R2 called absent since there was no representation he was set exparte and R3 and R4 written statement by denying the petition averments.
4. The brief contentions of the Respondent No.3 and 4 are as follows:
The Respondents company does not admit the narration made in the petition relating to the manner, in which, the accident described to have been taken place. The Occurrence of the accident and alleged involvement of the deceased are denied in toto and the petitioners are put to strict proof of the same. The respondents company does not admit Granite Lorry Articulated vehicle bearing No.AP 15 TA 7864 was driven by the driver in a rash and negligent manner. R3 company does not admit the age and avocation and health condition of the deceased at the time of the accident and not admitted that the deceased aged 23 years and he was a student and doing agriculture as stated by the petitioners. The respondents company is not aware of the criminal proceedings launched in the above matter. As per S.134 © of M.V.Act it is mandatory on the part of the driver or the insured to give information to the Insurer about the accident and particulars of the persons involved in the accident. In the present case, the matter of alleged accident was not reported by the insurer in collusion with the petitioners with a view to cause loss to the respondents company and as such the respondents company is not liable to pay any compensation to the petitioners. In any case, the amount of compensation of Rs.8,00,000/- claimed by the petitioners in the claim petition against diferent heads is highly exaggerative, arbitrative and out of proportions.
The respondents company does not admit that the vehicle alleged to have caused the accident was insured with the respondents company at the time of alleged accident and the petitioners unless and until the petitioners are proved that the crime vehicle is having valid insurance policy at the time of accident the respondents company is not liable to pay any compensation. The crime vehicle driver by name Chandavath Bhadru is holding driving licenceofLMVnon-transportonlyvidedrivinglicence 4
No.AP23620140003232 issued by RTA Mahabubabad. But whereas at the time of accident the said driver of the crime vehicle driving the HGV Granite lorry Articulated vehicle bearing No.AP 15 TA 7864. The R2 entrusted his transport HGV vehicle at the time of accident. Hence, R2 violated the terms and conditions of the policy and also motor vehicle rules, hence the respondents company is not liable to pay any compensation claimed by the petitioners and R2 is only liable to pay compensation if any awarded by the Tribunal. In the claim petition, the unfortunate accident took place due to the gross negligence on the part of both vehicles drivers. The owner and Insurance company of motor cycle bearing No.AP 36 H 1639 are necessary parties to the proceedings and as such it is necessary to direct the petitioners to implead the Insurance company and the owner of the motor cycle bearing No. AP 36 H 1639 as required by law for proper adjudication of the claim. The respondents cannot be made liable to pay any compensation unless and until the petitioners and R2 have produced and proved the documents namely FIR, charge sheet, MVI report, Registration Certifcate, Driving License, permit and ftness certifcate and Inusurance policy etc
before the Court and they were in force at the time of accident. The
respondent company seeks protection U/Sec.147, 149 and 170 of MV Act U/ Sec.64 VB of Insurance Act 1938. In the event of Tribunal going to pass award of compensation in favour of the petitioners with interest such interest should be 6% Per Annum and pray the Court to dismiss the petition.
5. In view of the rival contentions of both sides the following issues are framed for trial.
6.ssues: 1.Whether the accident occurred due to rash and negligent driving of the driver of Granite Lorry Articulated vehicle No.AP 15 TA 7864 resulting in the death of Banoth Sateesh Kumar? 2.Whether the respondents are liable to pay compensation amount to the petitioners?
3. What is the quantum of compensation, the petitioners are entitled to? 4.To what relief?
7. During the pendency of trial, the frst petitioner was examined as PW1 and also examined PW2 and got marked Exs.A1 to A6. The Junior Assistant of R3 & R4 company was examined as RW1 and got marked Ex.B1 & B2. During the pendency of the petition, the respondent nos 3 & 4 fled a petition in I.A.No. Of 22 U/sec 170 of the MV Act to permit them to avail all the defences available to insured of the vehicle involved in the alleged accident and the same is allowed.
8. Heard both sides arguments.
5
ISSUE NO.1:
9. From the rival contentions, it is manifest that the burden lies on the claim petitioners to substantiate that the accident was occurred due to rash and negligent driving on the part of the driver of the Granite Lorry (Articulated vehicle) bearing No.AP 15 TA 7864 and on account of which the deceased Banoth Sathessh Kumar died.
10. PW1, who is the mother of the deceased, revealed in her evidence that the On 17.09.2018, in the morning hours, at about 09.00 to 09.30 a.m., the deceased along with his thanda person Bhukya Srinivas started on motor cycle bearing No.AP 36 H 1639 of Bhukya Srinivas to go to Fathepuram village on the main road of NH 563 at about 12.30 hours, the driver of the crime vehicle Granite Lorry (Articulated vehicle) bearing No.AP 15 TA 7864, drove the vehicle in a rash and negligent manner with high speed and lost control over the steering coming from Khammam side to go to Warangal side came in opposite direction in wrong route and dashed to the motor cycle, on which the deceased was travelling and dragged the motor cycle along with deceased and Bhukya Srinivas to some distance and caused the accident and Bhukya Srinivas died on the spot and received grievous injuries and he was shifted to Sai Multi Speciality hospital at Thorrur in 108 ambulance and in front of the hospital deceased succumbed to injuries. On the complaint made by Bhukya Kamala, the police Thorrur registered a case in Cr.No.186/2018 U/sec.304-A of IPC and fled charge sheet against U/Sec. 304-A IPC.
11. PW2, who is said to be the eye witness to the accident, reiterated the evidence of PW1 and further revealed that he has personally witnessed the accident as he along with Guguloth Kishan was coming from behind in the auto and witnessed the accident and the driver of the crime vehicle i.e., Granite Lorry (Articulated vehicle) bearing No.AP 15 TA 7864 is responsible for the accident and death of Banoth Satheesh Kumar.
12. In order to substantiate the case of the petitioners, they have fled Certifed copy of FIR along with report, Certifed Copy of Charge sheet, Certifed copy of inquest, Certifed copy of PME report, Certifed Copy of MVI report and certifed copy of CDF which are marked as Ex.A1 to A6.
13. The Cross examination of PW2 reveals that he knows PW1 and he belongs to their village and the accident was occurred at about 12 P.M and he was not present at the spot and further revealed that he was very close to the spot and was moving in an auto.
6
14. I have perused Ex.A1 is C.C of FIR along with report reveals that on 17.09.2018, at about 12.30 hours, one Lorry (Articulated vehicle) bearing No.AP 15 TA 7864 which was coming from Warangal towards Khammam driven by its driver in a rash and negligent manner and dashed the motor cycle and due to which, the deceased died. Ex.A3 is certifed copy of inquest report which reveals that death of the deceased was due to accident. Ex.A4 is certifed copy of PME report which reveals that the PME is conducted over the dead body of the deceased and Ex.A5 is certifed copy of MVI report which reveals that the accident was not due to any mechanical defects of the crime vehicle and the name of the driver is Chandavath Bhadru and the crime vehicle is Articulated vehicle bearing No.AP 15 TA 7864. EX.A2 is Certifed Copy of Charge sheet which reveals that accident was occurred due to rash and negligent driving of the driver of the crime vehicle.
15. In National Insurance Company Limited Vs. Pushpa Rana and
Others reported in 2009 ACJ 287. The Hon’ble High Court of Delhi
held “On perusal of the award of the Tribunal, it becomes clear that
the wife of the deceased has produced: (i) certifed copy of the
criminal record of criminal case in FIR.No.955/2004, pertaining to
involvement of the ofending vehicle: 9ii) criminal record showing
completion of investigation of police and issue of charge sheet
under sections 279/304-A, IPC against the driver; (iii) certifed copy
of FIR, wherein criminal case against the driver was lodged; and
(iv) recovery memo and mechanical inspection report of ofending
vehicle and vehicle of the deceased. These documents are
sufficient proofs to reach the conclusion that the driver was
negligent. Proceedings under Motor vehicles Act are not akin to
proceedings in a civil suit and hence strict rules of evidence are not
required to be followed in this regard. Hence, this contention of
the counsel for the appellant also falls face down. There is ample
evidence on record to prove negligence on the part of the driver”.
16. The R3 and R4 even could not elicit from the evidence of PW1 and PW2 anything adverse to rebut the evidence of claim petitioners and to support the contention of R3 and R4. Hence relying on the consistent evidence of PW1 and 2 and the contents of Ex.A1 to A6, and also observation of Investigating ofcer as disclosed in Ex.A2, I conclude that the claim petitioners satisfactorily established that the accident occurred due to the rash and negligent driving on the part of the driver of the Lorry (Articulated vehicle) bearing No.AP 15 TA 7864 and due to which the deceased died. Accordingly the issue No.1 is answered.
ISSUE NO:2 and 3
17. For the determination of quantum of compensation, the relevant factors for consideration are the age and income of the deceased and his contribution for the welfare of the claimants.
7
18. PW1 revealed in her evidence that due to sudden and untimely death of the deceased, the petitioners lost their son at the age of 45 and future became dark as the deceased used to study and also help the parents in doing agriculture due to their old age and now they were left alone and helpless at their old age and due to the death of deceased, the petitioners have lost their son who is a student and the petitioners have much hopes on the deceased and deceased came in their hands and grown up son and as per minimum wages a non earning persons income is Rs.6,000/- per month and as advised to the petitioners the petitioners Nos 1 & 2 are entitled for half of the earnings of deceased, therefore the petitioners are claiming (Rs.6,000 X 12 X 1/2 X16 =5,44,000) towards loss of life, earning capacity etc., and the petitioners are entitled to Rs.2,10,000/- towards loss of the guidance and maintenance, they are claiming Rs.44,000/- towards funeral expenses, Rs.2,000/- towards damages to cloths and total claim of the petitioner Nos. 1 & 2 comes to Rs.8,000-00/- which is moderate and reasonable and the R1 being the driver of the Granite Lorry Articulated vehicle bearing No. A P 15 TA 7864 and R2 being the insured owner and R3 and R4 are the insurers of the crime vehicle and R3 and R4 are jointly and severally liable to pay compensation to the claim petitioners 1 & 2.
19. The cross examination of PW1 revealed that deceased was travelling as a pillion rider and at the time of accident to her son was pursuing education and admitted that she was not witness the accident and she does not know the contents of the charge sheet and as such she cannot say whether owner of the crime vehicle was made as Accused No.2 in the charge sheet and the driver of the crime vehicle was charged for an ofence punishable under S.181 of M.V.Act.
20. Junior Assistant of R3 & R4 company who was examined as RW1, revealed in his evidence that he is working as a Junior Assistant in District Transport Ofce, Mahabubabad and the District Transport Ofcer, Mahabubabad authorised him to give evidence in this case and Ex.B1 is the copy of authorisation letter dt.29.03.2022 and Ex.B2 is the copy of Drivnig License of Bhadru Chandavath/R1 and as per Ex.B2, R1 is not having a license to drive a Heavy Motor vehicle like a lorry and the vehicle having above 12,000 laden weights is only considered as a heavy motor vehicle and as per Ex.B2, R1 is not authorized to drive a lorry and as per Ex.B2, R1 can drive only a LMV vehicle like a motor cycle, tractor and trailor and car. He admitted in his cross examination that as per Ex.B2, the respondent can drive a tractor and trailor which is a goods carriage vehicle and articulated vehicle and as per the copy of RC of the crime vehicle shown to him the said vehicle is articulated vehicle and admitted that in the R.C., the classifcation of the vehicle is shown as tractor head and admitted that as per the copy of the RC, a person holding Ex.B2 license can drive the vehicle, for which, the 8
RC is issued and in the copy of RC, the vehicle is not described as a heavy goods vehicle.
21. I have perused Ex.B2 which is the Driving lincese of the the R1 which revelas that it was issued on 23.05.2014 and valid upto 22.05.2034 and it is for non-transport and the license No. AP 23 620140003232 and it is for motor cycle with gear Light Motor Vehicle non transport tractor and trailer and for non transport. As per Ex.A5, the policy number of the crime vehicle is 6136003117010024253 and it is in the name of R2 and it is valid upto 01.01.2019 and the policy of the crime vehicle is valid at the time of the accident and Insurance of the crime vehicle is the New India Assurance Company Limited which is the company of R3 and R4.
22. In Chhanno Devi Vs. Rama Kewal andothers (2009) (1)
An.W.R.130 Delhi), it is held that age of the deceased mentioned in
the postmortem examination can be taken for the determination of
the age of a deceased for the same of assessment of compensation
payable to the legal representatives of the deceased. Therefore,
the age of the deceased in Ex.A4 postmortem examination report
as 23 years can be taken for the purpose of making the assessment
of the compensation.
Except by mentioning in the petition, the claim petitioners have not fnd any proof to show about the income of the and even not fled the proof of particulars of lands. In the absence of any constructive evidence placed by the petitioners to prove the income of the deceased, the income of the deceased has notionaly taken at Rs.6,000/- per month for the purpose of ascertaining the loss of dependency sufered by the claim petitioners.
23. Another contention of the R3 & R4 is that the driver of the crime vehicle was not having valid Driving License at the time of alleged accident and as per Driving License, R1 is not having Heavy Goods Driving License and as such Insurance Company is not liable to pay compensation amount to the pettioners.
In National Insurance Company Limited Vs. Swaran Singh and others in Special Leave petition (civil) 9027/2003 dt:5.1.2004 wherein Hon’ble the Supreme Court of India held that “under the motor vehicles Act, holding of a valid driving licence is one of the conditions of contract of insurance. Driving of a vehicle without a valid licence is an ofence. However, the question herein is whether a third party involved in an accident is entitled to the amount of compensation granted by the Motor Accidents claims Tribunal although the driver of the vehicle at the relevant time might not have a valid driving licence but would be entitled to recover the same from the owner or driver thereof”. In Mohammed Salar Vs Syed Ibrahim and others reported in 2005 ACJ 1111 wherein Hon’ble the High Court of Karnataka held that ‘mere fact that the driver was not authorised to drive the type of vehicle which he was driving at the time of the accident would not be a defence to avoid liability of the award passed against a third party in respect of a compulsorily insurance undisputably have been made inter alia with a view to protect the right of a third 9 party and such a beneft to a third party was provided under the statue keeping in view of fact that the conditions in the insured’s policy may be of no or little efect in relation to a claim by a person to whom an insured was under a compulsorily insurable liability and any condition in the insurance policy whether the right of the third party is taken away, would be void.
In Shamanna and another Vs. The Divisional Manager Oriental
insurance company Limited and others in Civil Appeal
No:8144/2018 in SLP (C) in 26955/2017 dt: 8.8.2018 wherein
Hon’ble the Supreme Court held that “Where the driver did not
possess the valid driving license and there are breach of policy
conditions, “Pay and recovery” can be ordered in case of third
party risk. The tribunal is required to consider as to whether the
owner has taken reasonable care to fnd out as to whether the
driving license produced by the driver, does not fulfll the
requirements of law or not will have to be determined in each case.
The award passed by the tribunal directing the insurance company
to pay the compensation amount awarded to the claimants and
thereafter, recovery the sale from the owner of the vehicle in
question, is in accordance with the Judgment passed by this Court
in Swaran Singh Laxmi Narayain Dhut cases”.
It is evident on record that the claim petitioner Nos 1 to 4 are none other than the wife, daughters and mother of the deceased. At the same time, all the petitioners are the legal representatives of the deceased as contemplated under S.166 of Motor Vehicles Act, 1988.
For the foregoing reasons and in the light of the above Judgment, the Tribunal has no hesitation to conclude that the respondent No.3 & 4 company cannot escape from the liability to pay compensation to the claim petitioners.
24. As per the PME report EX.A4, the age of the deceased was 23 years. As per the guidelines of the Hon’ble Supreme Court given in Sarala Varma and others Vs. Delhi Transport Corporation and another reported in 2009 ACJ 1298, the suitable multiplier applicable to the age of the deceased at 23 years is the multiplier ‘18’ and he used to help the petitioners and earn Rs.6,000/- per month to calculate the compensation. In National Insurance Company Limited Vs Pranay Sethi (2017 Law suits (SC) 1093) wherein the
Hon’ble Supreme Court held that an addition of 40% towards future
prospects can be calculated in case where the deceased was below 40 years age by the time of the accident. Since the deceased was bachelor, half of the amount can be deducted twoards personal expenses.
10
By applying the principles of law since the deceased was aged about 24 years as semm from Ex. A4 post mortem examination report and the notional income taken, the total loss of dependancy of the claim petitioners is calculated.
25. Now the total loss of dependency is worked out as follows: Notional Income of the deceased per monthRs. 6,000-00 Annual income of the deceased Rs.6,000 x 12=Rs.72,000-00 Since the age of the deceased was 23 years byRs.12,96,000-00 the date of accident the relevant multiplier applicable to the instant case is ‘18’: Rs.72,000 x 16 = Future income of 40 % is added since theRs. 5,18,400-00 deceased was below 40-years 12,96,000 X 40/100 = 5,18,400/- (+) 12,96,000 + 5,18,400= 18,14,400 Since the deceased was bachelor 1/2 of theRs. 18,14,400-00 amount was deducted towards personal (-) expenses 18,14,400 x1/2 = 9,07,200 Rs. 9,07,200-00 Loss of dependency of the claim petitionersRs.9,07,200-00
The amount arrived at towards the compensation for the loss of dependency sufered by the claimants is Rs.9,07,200-00. Petitioners are entitled for a sum of Rs.15,000/- under the head of loss of estate and Rs.15,000/- towards funeral expenses and Rs.20,000/- towards loss of love and afection. Thus the total compensation will be Rs.9,57,200/-. The respondent No.1 being owner, R2 and R3 being insurers are jointly and severally liable to pay compensation. Accordingly issue Nos.2 & 3 are answered.
16. ISSUE NO:4: In the result, the petition is partly allowed with proportionate costs thereby awarding a total compensation of Rs.9,57,200/- (Rupees Nine Lakhs Fifty Seven thousand two hundred only), along with the interest thereon @ 9% per annum from the date of the petition, till the date of realization to the petitioners No.1 and 2 payable by the respondents No.3 and 4. The respondent No.3 and 4 shall pay the compensation to the petitioners and recover the same from the respondent No.2 by initiating the executing proceedings of this award. Out of the total compensation, the petitioners No.1 and 2 are awarded a share of Rs.4,78,600/-(Rupees Four Lakhs Seventy Eight thousand six hundred only) each towards their respective shares. The petitioners No.1 and 2 are permitted to receive the total amount of their shares. The rest of the claim amount is dis-allowed and accordingly the petition is partly dismissed without costs.
11
The Respondents shall deposit the compensation within (30) days from the date of the award as mandate U/Sec.168 (3) of the MV Act. The fee of counsel for the petitioners is fxed for Rs.2,000/- (Rupees Two thousand only). (Typed to my Dictation, corrected and pronounced by me in the Open Court on this the 19/05/2022)
CHAIRMAN, MACT(VI-ADJ)
MAHABUBABAD
APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE
WITNESSES EXAMINED
FOR PETITIONERS FOR RESPONDENTS
PW1. Banoth DeeplaRW1. K.Srikanth PW2. Lunavath Kevula
EXHIBITS MARKED FOR PETITIONERS
Ex.A1. Certifed Copy of F.I.R Ex.A2. Certifed Copy of Charge Sheet Ex.A3. Certifed Copy of Inquest report Ex.A4. Certifed Copy of PME report Ex.A4. Certifed Copy of MVI report Ex.A5. Certifed Copy of Crime details form
EXHIBITS MARKED FOR RESPONDENTS
Ex.B1. Authorization letter dt.29.03.2022 Ex.B2. Copy of driving license of Bhadru Chandavath/R1
EXHIBITS MARKED FOR COURT
NIL
CHAIRMAN, MACT(VI ADJ)
MAHABUBABAD
12 13
1
BEFORE THE MOTOR ACCIDENTS CLAIMS TRIBUNAL
[VI ADDITIONAL DISTRICT JUDGE], MAHABUBABAD
PRESENT: SRI C.V.S. Sai Bhupathi,
CHAIRMAN, MOTOR ACCIDENTS CLAIMS
TRIBUNAL (VI ADDITIONAL DISTRICT
JUDGE), MAHABUBABAD
Thursday, 19 th Day of May, 2022
MVOP NO. 1095 of 2017
BETWEEN: 1.Koyya Sharada, W/o. Late Guruva Reddy Age:54 years Occ: House-wife, 2.Koyya Lalitha Reddy D/o. Late Guruva Reddy Age:32 years Occ: House-wife, 3.Koyya Haritha Reddy D/o.Late Guruva Reddy Age:29 years Occ: House-wife 4.Koyya Manasa Reddy D/o. Late Guruva Reddy Age:25 years Occ: Student, 5.Koyya Bharath Reddy S/o. Late Guruva Reddy Age:20 years Occ: Student
All are R/o. H.No.1-39/1, Old NGB Road, Bhadrachalam, Bhadradri Kothagudem District, Presently residing near: Sai Baba Temple, Mahabubabad Town and District. … Petitioners
And
1.Banoth Nageshwar Rao S/o.Bikya Age: Major Occ: Driver of the crime vehicle, R/o.Venkatayapalem village, Khammam Urban Dist. 2.Nandigam Sudhakar Rao, S/o.Parabrhammam Age: Major Occ: Owner of the crime vehicle R/o.H.No.12-793, Reddy colony, Mancherial, Adilabad District. 3.The Oriental Insurance Company Limited, rep, by Its Divisional Manager, Divisional Ofce near:Forest Ofce, Subedari, Hanamkonda, Warangal City and District.
...Respondents
This petition is coming for fnal hearing before me on 10.05.2022 in the presence of Sri B.Anand Kumar, Advocate for the petitioners and Sri N.V.Chalapathi Rao, Advocate for RespondentNo.3 and Respondent No.1 and 2 remained exparte, after hearing the counsels for the parties and considering the material on record and having stood over to this day for consideration, this Tribunal passed the following:
2
A W A R D
This claim petitioners fled the petition U/Sec. 166 (1) © of motor vehicles Act, 1988 (herein after be referred to as the MV Act)claiming for compensation for a sum of Rs.40,00,000/- on account the death of Koyya Guruva Reddy in a motor vehicle accident and award future interest @ 18% p.a., from the date of petition till the date of realization of claim and other relief or reliefs as a tribunal deems ft and proper.
The brief averments of petition are follows:
1. The petitioner No.1 is the wife, petitioner No.2 to 4 are the daughters and petitioner nO.5 is the son of the deceased. The deceased was doing fnance business under the name and style of M/s. Sri Laxmi fnancers at Bhadrachalam and also having moveable and immovable properties and used to earn Rs.5,00,000/- per annum and contributing the same for the maintenance of his family members and he was income tax payer. On 10.6.2014 at 10.30 hours the deceased along with Bethamalla Vijay Kumar left Bhadrachalam on motor cycle and proceeded to Manuguru on their personal work and after completion of their work, they started from Manuguru on the same motor cycle to go to Bhadrachalam. At about 14.00 to 30.00 hours on the way when they were crossing Manuguru X- Roads and proceeding towards Bhadrachalam near forest Area one Tipper bearing No. MH-29-T-0388 drove by its driver came in a rash and negligent manner with high speed and dashed the motor cycle of the deceased from behind and as a result, the deceased and Bethamalla Vijay Kumar fell down on the road and sustained fatal injuries. Immediately after the accident they were shifted to Safe hospital, Bhadrachalam for treatment and after providing frst aid treatment, they were shifted to Hyderabad for better treatment and after shifting them to Hyderabad and while undergoing treatment the deceased died in NIMS hospital, Hyderabad, on 21.7.2014 at about 10.15 hours. On the complaint made by one P.Rambabu on 11.6.2014, the police Burgampahad registered a case in Cr.No.138/2014 U/sec.337 of IPC and after the death of the deceased One T.Anand fled a complaint before the police Panjagutta and police registered a case in Cr.No.817/2014 and transferred to police station Burgampahad and the police Burgampahad after investigation fled charge sheet U/Sec. 304-A IPC against the driver of the tipper bearing No.MH-29-T-0388. At the time of accident the deceased was aged about 60 years and he was hale and healthy and doing business and used to earn Rs.5,00,000/- per annum. The deceased was only earning member of petitioners and due to sudden death of deceased, the petitioner lost their source of dependency, guidance and 3 love and afection. Petitioner No.1 lost her husband, life partner and hercompany and as such she became a widow. The petitioners 2 to 5 lost their father, the deceased during his life time used to contribute entire earnings towards maintenance of the petitioners, but due to the death of deceased, the petitioners lost future earnings of the deceased and also future dependency and welfare and they became orphans. Due to the death of deceased the petitioners are sufering from very much hardship in leading their lives as there was no person to look after their welfare. The R1 is the driver and R2 is owner and R3 is insurer of the vehicle vide insurance policy No.126173 valid from 23.5.2014 to 22.5.2015 and R1 to R3 are jointly and severally liable to pay compensation.
3. Notice served on Respondent Nos. 1 to 3. The respondent No.1 and 2 were called absent on 3.6.2019 and since there was no representation, respondents 1 and 2 were set exparte. The R3 has fled counter by denying the petition averments. The brief contentions of the Respondent No.3 are as follows: The Respondent No.3 does not admit the involvement of tipper bearing No.MH-29-TO-338 in the accident. The petitioners have to prove that the driver of the crime vehicle has a valid driving license. The petitioners have to prove that the tipper is insured with the company and the policy is in existence as on the time and day of accident. The Court has no jurisdiction as none of the petitioners are the residents within the jurisdiction of the Court. The petitioners have not given the particulars of motor cycle on which the deceased was travelled. The petitioners are bound to furnish the RC book of the motor vehicle insurance policy and driving license of person who was driving the motor cycle. There is no negligence on the part of driver of the tipper, but the accident occurred due to the negligence of the person driving the motor cycle. The respondents 1 and 2 violated the stipulation of the policy and R3 seeks protection U/Sec.147, 149 and 170 of MV Act U/Sec.64 (V) (b) of Insurance Act. The R3 is not aware whether any criminal proceedings are initiated by the claim petitioners and denies the occupation and income of deceased as stated in the petition. The R2 has not informed R3 about the accident by which the R3 will be able to investigate the matter and get frst hand information and this shows the collusion between petitioners and R1 and R2 and the claim of the petitioners is very exaggerated, dis-proportionate and arbitrary and prays the Court to dismiss the petition.
4. In view of the rival contentions of both sides the following issues are framed for trial.
4
Issues:
1. Whether the accident occurred due to rash and negligent driving of driver/Respondent No.1 of tipper bearing No.MH.29-T-0388 resulting in the death of Koyya Guruva Reddy?
2. Whether the respondents are liable to pay compensation amount to the petitioners, to what amount?
3. To what relief?
5. During the trial the frst petitioner was examined as PW1 and also examined PW2 and PW3 and got marked Exs.A1 to A9. No witnesses were examined from the side of respondent No.3 and the respondent No.3 got marked Ex.B1 certifed copy of insurance policy on behalf of respondentno.3.
6. Heard both sides arguments.
ISSUE NO.1:
7. From the rival contentions it is manifest that the burden lies on the claim petitioners to substantiate that the accident was occurred due to rash and negligent driving on the part of the driver of the tipper bearing No.MH.29- T.0388 and on account of which, the deceased Koyya Guruva Reddy died. PW1, who is the wife of the deceased, revealed in her evidence that the petitioners No.2 to 5 are children and on 10.6.2014 at about 10.30 hours her husband along with Bethamalla Vijaya Kumar left Bhadrachalam on motor cycle and proceeded to Manuguru on their personal work and after completion of their work they were returning from Manuguru Bhadrachalam on the same motor cycle and at about 14.30 hours on the way when they crossed Manuguru X-Road and were proceeding towards Bhadrachalam, near the forest area, one tipper bearing no.MH-29-T-0388 driven by its driver came in a rash and negligent manner with high speed and dashed the motor cycle of her husband from behind and as a result, her husband and Bethamalla Vijay Kumar fell on the road and sustained severe injuries and immediately after the accident they were shifted to Safe hospital, Bhadrachalam for treatment and after providing frst aid treatment, they were shifted to Yasodha hospital, Hyderabad on 11.6.2014 for better treatment and they took treatment till 19.7.2014 and thereafter her husband was shifted to NIMS hospital for better treatment and while undergoing treatment, her husband died in NIMS hospital, Hyderabad on 21.7.2014 at about 10.15 hours and on the complaint made by Parthagiri Rambabu, the police Burgampahad registered a case in cr.No.138/2014 and after investigation police fled charge sheet U/Sec.304-A and 338 of IPC against the driver of the tipper.
5
8. PW2, who is eye witness to the incident, reiterated the version of PW1 and further deposed that the deceased as a rider and another person is pillion rider. PW1 revealed in her cross examination that at the time of accident her husband was driving the vehicle. PW2 revealed his cross examination that he is running rice mill at Bhadrachalam and he himself run the rice mill and he has attended the meeting association at Kothagudem, while returning from the meeting, he witnessed the accident and the accident occurred on the road leading from Manuguru X-Road to Sarapaka X-Roads and the accident occurred after about one kilometer from Manguru X-Roads and admitted that the accident was not occurred at Manuguru X-Roads and on seeing the accident he stopped his vehicle and went to the scene of ofence and motor cycle was proceeding in front of his car and tipper, which was coming behind his car overtook his car and dashed the splendor motor cycle from the back side and he canot recollect the registration number of motor cycle and tipper has Maharastra registration, but he cannot recollect the registration number and he cannot say the registration number of the tipper which dashed motor cycle with registration number. The contention of R3 is that the company does not admit involvement of tipper in the accident and there is no negligence on the part of the driver of the tipper and the petitioners should prove that the vehicle was driven by driver of crime vehicle in a rash and negligent manner and the accident occurred due to the negligence on the person who was driving the motor cycle.
9. In order to substantiate their case the petitioners have fled Certifed copies of FIR along with report, given to PS: Burgampahad and CC of FIR along with report given to PS: Panjagutta and CC of Charge Sheet, CC of inquest report and CC of PME report which are marked as Ex.A1 to A5.
10. Except mere contention that the company of R3 does not admit the manner of accident and also disputing that the crime vehicle has not valid insurance policy and the driver of the crime vehicle was not having valid driving license, the R3 did not come to witness box and could not elicit anything from the version of PWs 1 and 2 to rebut the evidence of petitioners and to support to their contentions. The respondentNo.3 company also did not fle any documents except fling of insurance policy.
11. I have perused Ex.A1 which revealed that on 10.6.2014 at 2.30 hours after crossing Manuguru X-Roads, the deceased and Bethamalla Vijay Kumar were proceeding on a motor cycle driven by the deceased, a tipper bearing No.MH29T.0388 driven by its driver by name Banoth Nageshwar Rao in a rash and negligent manner and overtook them and dashed the motor cycle and as a result the deceased sustained injuries on his head. I 6 have perused Ex.A2 which revealed that on 10.6.2014 while the deceased was coming from Manuguru towards Bhadrachalam on two wheeler motor cycle, a tipper lorry hit his motor cycle and due to which he received multiple head injuries and fractures. Ex.A3 alleging that the accused, who is the driver of tipper bearing No.MH29-T-0388, drove the tipper in a rash and negligent manner and caused the death of the deceased. Ex.A4 revealed that the police conducted inquest over the dead body of deceased. Ex.A5 revealed that doctor conducted PME over the dead body of deceased Koyya Guruva Reddy on 21.7.2014.
12. In national Insurance Company Limited Vs. Pushpa Rana and
Others reported in 2009 ACJ 287. The Hon’ble High Court of Delhi
held “On perusal of the award of the Tribunal, it becomes clear that
the wife of the deceased has produced: (i) certifed copy of the
criminal record of criminal case in FIR.No.955/2004, pertaining to
involvement of the ofending vehicle: 9ii) criminal record showing
completion of investigation of police and issue of charge sheet
under sections 279/304-A, IPC against the driver; (iii) certifed copy
of FIR, wherein criminal case against the driver was lodged; and
(iv) recovery memo and mechanical inspection report of ofending
vehicle and vehicle of the deceased. These documents are
sufficient proofs to reach the conclusion that the driver was
negligent. Proceedings under Motor vehicles Act are not akin to
proceedings in a civil suit and hence strict rules of evidence are not
required to be followed in this regard. Hence, this contention of
the counsel for the appellant also falls face down. There is ample
evidence on record to prove negligence on the part of the driver”.
The R3 even could not elicit from the evidence of PW1 and 2 anything adverse to rebut the evidence of claim petitioners and to support the contention of R3. Hence relying on the consistent evidence of PW1 and 2 on the contents of Ex.A1 to A5 and also the observation of the investigating ofcer as disclosed in Ex.A3, I conclude that the claim petitioners satisfactorily established that the accident occurred due to the rash and negligent driving on the part of the driver of tipper bearingNo.MH29-T.0388 due to which the deceased died. Accordingly the issue No.1 is answered.
ISSUE NO:2
13. For the determination of quantum of compensation a relevant factors for consideration are the age and income of the deceased and his contribution for the welfare of the claimants. PW1 revealed in her evidence at the time of accident the deceased was aged about 60 years and he was hale and healthy and he was doing business at Bhadrachalam and used to earn Rs.5,00,000/- per annum and he was only earning member of their family and due to the sudden death of her husband they lost source of dependency, guidance, love and afection and particularly she lost her husband and petitioners 2 to 5 lost their father 7 and during the life time of her husband he used to contribute his entire earnings towards maintenance of their family and due to the sudden death, they lost his future earnings and also future dependency, welfare and they became orphans and due to the death of her husband, they are still in severe grief and sufering from very much hardship in leading their lives as there was no person to look after their welfare and maintenance and in all heads they are only claiming compensation of Rs.40,00,000/- against the respondents which is reasonable and moderate. R1 is the driver and R2 is the owner and R3 is the insurer of the crime vehicle and they are jointly and severally liable to pay compensation.
14. PW3 who is the doctor, revealed in his evidence that he was a consultant neuro surgeon since 1992 to 2018 in Yasodha hospital, Somajiguda, Hyderabad and patient by name K.Guruva Reddy Age:60 years was admitted in Yashodha hospital on 11.6.2014 with a history of RTA while going on two wheeler at 2.00 PM on 10.6.2021 near Bhadrachalam there was history of loss of consciousness and history of diabetes and hypertension on examination abrasion over the fore head right side and beside the right eye abrasion over the right leg and right hand and he was intubated outside pupils 2 MM reacting CT-Scan brain multiple small intracranial hemorrhage, fracture by occitipital bone, MRI brain multiple small bilateral contusion moderately large left temporal contusion with ventricular compression on chest X-Ray aspiration pneumonia right lower lobe, fracture of mid-sharp or clavicle multiple ribs fractures (3 to 7) on right side, second rib fracture on left side and he was given blood transfusion in view of low hemoglobin treated initially conservatively on repeat CT Scan left temporal confusion with signifcant edema and ventricular compression and he was posted for surgery for temporal craniotomy evacuation of hematoma excision of contusion post operation period was good and ventilator support with tracheotomy tube, right hemi paresis improving and his repeated CT Scan brain lorge chronic SDH left front partial region middle shift posted for surgery and re-exploration of left falconers craniotomy evacuation of SDH on 4.7.2014 chest X-Ray showed collapse consolidation of right lung, pulmonologist placed right inter coastal drainage hemorrhagic fuid was drained patient had profused bleeding from tracheotomy site shifted to OT again re-exploration of the site and bleeding vein was ligated and bleeders were coagulated and his condition detorioted given blood transfusion and chest X-Ray showed by lateral difuse lung shadow and he was on ventilator continuously and his critical condition and poor prognosis informed to patient attendants and patient left the hospital against the medical advice and all fractures of skull and ribs and cavity brain hematomy were all gravious injuries and Ex.A6 and A7 are his previous hospital reports i.e. Yashoda hospital, Somajiguda, Hyderabad. His 8 cross examination revealed that the condition of patient is very sick and critical attendants were advised for the continue treatment in intensive care and the patient was not discharged on the advice of the doctors and admitted that he has no control on the billing pattern and details and he is no more working as Yashoda hospital from the last four years.
15. In Chhanno Devi Vs. Rama Kewal andothers (2009) (1) An.W.R.130
Delhi), it is held that age of the deceased mentioned in the postmortem
examination can be taken for the determination of the age of a deceased
for the same of assessment of compensation payable to the legal
representatives of the deceased. Therefore, the age of the deceased in
Ex.A3 postmortem examination report as 27 years can be taken for the
purpose of making the assessment of the compensation.
PW1 admitted in her cross examination that she did not fle Aadhar card or votor Identity card of the deceased so as to show the actual date of birth of deceased and Ex.A8 is income tax returns, the signature of assesse i.e., deceased is not there and as per her knowledge the deceased used to pay income tax since 2004 and admitted that the annual income shown in Ex.A8 was Rs.3,00,000/- and above and the petitioner Nos. 2 to 4 got married and they are living at their respective in laws house. As per the post mortem examination report Ex.A5 the age of the deceased was 60 years. As per the Income tax returns of the deceased fled by the petitioners under Ex.A8 the total annual income of deceased is Rs.4,30,850/-. Ex.B1 is the insurance policy of the crime vehicle bearing No.MH.29.T.0388 and the name of insurer is M.Sudhakar Rao and policy is 462100 /31/2015/1167 and the period of insurance is from 23.5.2014 to midnight of 22.5.2015 and the insurer of the crime vehicle is Oriental Insurance Company which is the company of R3. It seems from Ex.B1 insurance policy that the same is valid at the time of the accident.
16. The another contention of the respondent No.3 is that the driver of the crime vehicle was not having valid driving license at the time of alleged accident.
In Shamanna and another Vs. The Divisional Manager Oriental
insurance company Limited and others in Civil Appeal
No:8144/2018 in SLP (C) in 26955/2017 dt: 8.8.2018 wherein
Hon’ble the Supreme Court held that “Where the driver did not
possess the valid driving license and there are breach of policy
conditions, “Pay and recovery” can be ordered in case of third
party risk. The tribunal is required to consider as to whether the
owner has taken reasonable care to fnd out as to whether the
driving license produced by the driver, does not fulfll the
requirements of law or not will have to be determined in each case.
The award passed by the tribunal directing the insurance company
to pay the compensation amount awarded to the claimants and
thereafter, recovery the same from the owner of the vehicle in
9
question, is in accordance with the Judgment passed by this Court
in Swaran Singh Laxmi Narayain Dhut cases”.
For the foregoing reasons and in the light of the above Judgment of
Hon’ble Supreme Court in civil Appeal No.8144/2018, dt:8.8.2018 the
Tribunal has no hesitation to conclude that the respondent No.3 company cannot escape from the liability to pay compensation to the claim petitioners.
17. The petitioner No.1 is the wife and the petitioners No.2 to 4 are the daughters and petitioner n.5 is the son of the deceased. At the same time all the petitioners are the legal representatives of the deceased as contemplated U/Sec.166 of Motor vehicles Act, 1988. It is an admitted fact that even if a son is major and earning, he does not stop looking to his father for fnancial help. The sons and daughters, even if they are majors, do not lose the status of legal representatives, about which there is a reference in section 166 (1) (c) of the motor vehicles Act, 1988. The Act provides that a claim petition for compensation can be fled by the legal heirs of the deceased. It would be pertinent to mention that Sec.166 of MV Act, entitles the legal heirs to claim compensation.
18. The deceased in this case was aged about 60 years as on the date of accident. As per the guidelines of the Hon’ble Supreme Court given in Sarala Varma and others Vs. Delhi Transport Corporation and another reported in 2009 ACJ 1298, the suitable multiplier applicable to the age of the deceased at 60 years is the multiplier ‘9’ to calculate the compensation. Since the deceased had fve dependants, who are claim petitioners herein, ¼th deduction should be made towards personal and living expenses of the deceased as applied in the above said decision. By applying the principle of law since the deceased was aged about 60 years as seen from Ex.A5 PME report and the income of deceased as a business man as per the Ex.A8 income tax returns the total loss of dependency of the claim petitioners is calculated.
19. Now the total loss of dependency is worked out as follows: Notional Income of the deceased per monthRs.35,904-00 Annual income of the deceased Rs.35,904 xRs.43,0848-00 12 = Since the age of the deceased was 60 yearsRs.38,77,632-00 by the date of accident the relevant multiplier (--) applicable to the instant case is ‘9’: Rs.43,0848 x 9 = Out of this amount 1/4th amount is deductedRs. 9,69,408-00 towards the personal expenses of the deceased. 38,77,632 x1/4 = Loss of dependency of the claim petitionersRs.29,08,224-00 10
The amount arrived at towards the compensation for the loss of dependency sufered by the claimants is Rs.29, 08,224-00. In addition to the claim petitioner No.1 being the widow of the deceased is entitled to compensation towards consortium of Rs.40,000/- and the claim petitioners are entitled for a sum of Rs.15,000/- under the head of loss of estate and Rs.15,000/- towards funeral expenses and Rs.50,000/- towards loss of love and afection. Thus the total compensation will be Rs.30,28,224/-. The respondent No.2 being insured and RespondentNo.3 being insurer are jointly and severally liable to pay compensation. Accordingly issue No.2 is answered.
ISSUE NO:3:
20. In the result, the petition is partly allowed with proportionate costs thereby awarding a total compensation of Rs.30,28,224/- (Rupees Thirty Lakhs Twnety Eight thousand two hundred and twenty four only), along with the interest thereon @ 9% per annum from the date of the petition, till the date of realization to the petitioners No.1 to 5 payable by the respondents jointly and severally. The respondent No.3 shall pay the compensation to the petitioners and recover the same from the respondent No.2 by initiating the executing proceedings of this award. Out of the total compensation, the frst petitioner is awarded a share of Rs.20,00,000/- (Rupees Twenty Lakhs only) and the Petitioners No.2 to 5 are awarded Rs.2,57,056/- (Rupees Two lakhs Fifty Seven thousand and ffty six only) each towards their respective shares. The petitioner Nos.1 to 5 are permitted to receive the total amount of their shares. The rest of the claim amount is dis-allowed and accordingly the petition is partly dismissed without costs. The Respondents shall deposit the compensation within (30) days from the date of the award as mandate U/Sec.168 (3) of the MV Act. The fee of counsel for the petitioners is fxed for Rs.2,000/- (Rupees Two thousand only).
--Typed to my dictation, correct and pronounced by me in the open court on this the 19th day of May, 2022.
CHAIRMAN-MACT-CUM-VI.ADJ
MAHABUBABAD
APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE
(Witness examined)
For Petitioners: For Respondents:
PW1: Koyya SharadaNIL PW2: Vanama Santhosh Kumar
EXHABITS MARKED FOR PETITIONER:
Ex.A1 is CC of FIR along with report of PS Burgampahad Ex.A2 is CC of FIR along with report PS Panjagutta Ex.A3 is CC of charge sheet Ex.A4 is CC of Inquest Report.
11
Ex.A5 is CC of PME Report. Ex.A6 is Discharge Summary of Yashoda hospital, Hyderabad. Ex.A7 is Discharge bill of Yashoda hospital, Hyderabad for Rs.15,39,603/-. Ex.A8 is Income Tax returns for the year 2013-2014 (on line copy) Ex.A9 is Tax payer counter foil dt:15.3.2014 for an amount of Rs.8,990/-.
EXHIBITS MARKED FOR RESPONDENTS:
Ex.B1 is certifed copy of insurance policy
EXHIBITS MARKED FOR COURT
Nil.
CHAIRMAN-MACT-CUM-VI.ADJ
MAHABUBABAD
12
IN THE COURT OF VI ADDITIONAL DISTRICT AND
SESSIONS JUDGE, AT MAHABUBABAD
Present: Sri C.V.S. Sai Bhupathi VI Additional District and Sessions Judge, Mahabubabad.
CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION NO. 15 OF 2022
Between:
Ambati Srinivas ...Revision Petitioner/Accused.
AND
The State of Telangana, through
SHO, PS., Dornakal.
...Respondent/Complainant.
Aggrieved by the order dated 27-04-2022 in Crl.MP. No. 690 of 2022 in Cr.No. 68 of 2022 passed by the learned Addl.Judicial First Class Magistrate, Mahabubabad.
Between:
Ambati Srinivas S/o.Laxminarayana Age:46 years R/o. Dornakal town and Mandal, Mahabubabad District.
..Petitioner / Accused/Owner of the property
AND
The State of Telangana through P.S. Dornakal
...Respondent / Complainant
2 Crl.R.P. 04 of 2022
This Criminal Revision Petition fled under Section 397 of Cr.P.C. aggrieved by the Order passed by the Judl.
Magistrate of First Class, Mahabubabad
ORDER
1. This criminal revision petition is directed against the order dated 27.04.2022 passed in Crl. MP. No. 690 of 2022 in Cr.No:68/2022 on the fle of I.Addl. Jr.Civil Judge- cum-Addl.DistrictMagistrateofFirstClass,
Mahabubabad (hereafter referred as impugned order).
2.That the learned Magistrate by way of impugned order dismissed the petition fled under Section 451
Cr.PC, seeking for granting interim custody of seized net cash of Rs.19,56,000/- till the disposal of the case.
3. The Revision is fled U/Sec.451 of Cr.P.C by the
Revision Petitioner, who is the accused in Cr.No. 68/2022 on the fle of Addl. Judl.frst class Magistrate,
Mahabubabad, whereby and where under challenging the validity and legality of the order dt: 27.4.2022 in
Cr.No.68/2022 passed by the learned I-Addl.Jr.Civil Judge- cum-Judl.First Class of Magistrate, Mahabubabad, by dismissing the petition.
4. For the sake of convenience and for the better understanding of the facts, the parties to this revision petition will hear after be referred to as arrayed in the petition before this Court.
3 Crl.R.P. 04 of 2022
5. The case of the petitioner as averred in the petition is succinctly stated as follows:
6.On 08.04.2022 the respondent/police raided on the house of the petitioner on the allegation that he is doing money lending business without having any license from the authorities and seized an amount of
Rs.19,56,000/- from the house of the petitioner and the respondent/police registered a case and deposited the said seized amount before the Court under form-60 and the above amount is not an illegal amount, but in fact the petitioner with an intention to construct the own residential house obtained permission from Municipality
Dornakal vide letter No. 129378/DORN/0004-2022,
dt:09.02.2022 and for the purpose of construction of the
said house, the petitioner borrowed an amount of
Rs.10,00,000/- from his own sister by name Ambati
Mallamma who recently retired from government service and received retirement benefts and that the remaining amount of Rs.9,56,000/- is own savings of the petitioner and for the purpose of construction of house only the petitioner kept the said money in his money, but he did not commit any illegal acts as alleged by the respondent/ police and the petitioner is ready to face trial before the court to prove his innocence and he is not having any criminal history and there are no criminal cases pending on him in any court and petitioner is permanent resident 4 Crl.R.P. 04 of 2022 of Dornakal Town and having moveable and immovable properties and it may take much time in concluding the trial in the case and meanwhile it will cause much hardship to the petitioner if the said seized amount is blocked in the Court and the petitioner is ready to furnish sufcient sureties to the satisfaction of the Court if the interim custody of the said seized net cash of
Rs.19,56,000/- is given to him and he is under taking to produce the same whenever it is required in the case proceedings and this is the frst application and there is no other petition pending in any court including High court of Telangana.
7. The learned Assistant. Public Prosecutor fled counter before the trial Court stating that the petitioner/ accused has not produced proper account regarding the cash seized from his possession whether it is belonging to him or belonging to innocent members/victims and if the seized property and other will be released and handed over to the petitioner he may mis-use the amount for his own cause and the actual right hold persons sufer irreparable injury and if the case property is released and handed over to him, there will not be any fear of law to him as well as to the other un social elements who are being in thought of committing similar ofences and there is every chance of committing similar ofences and the accused may continue his illegal activities and may involve other type of ofences and 5 Crl.R.P. 04 of 2022 some more witnesses are to be examined with regard to the seized documents and documents ought to be sent for FSL for concluding of genuinely of other documents as well as scientifc investigation is pending with regard to seized documents i.e., promissory notes and the net cash of rs.19,56,000/- has to be fxed deposit for the sake and protection of interest of victims and whether the cash belongs to accused or victims is to be determined by the Court and the same has to be marked as MOs and exhibits at the time of trial and if the property is released in favour of accused it will cause irreparable damage to the prosecution and prays the trial court to dismiss the petition.
8.On hearing the arguments of learned counsel for the petitioner and Asst. Public Prosecutor the trial Court passed impugned order dt:27.4.2022 and thereby dismissed the petition. Aggrieved by the order of the learned trial Court the Revision Petitioner, who is the unsuccessful petitioner, fled a revision with the following ground:-
9. The order under the revision is not maintainable either under law or on facts and the same is liable to be modifed and the Addl.Judl.First Class Magistrate failed to consider the contention raised by the petitioner in a proper way and the lower Court has not considered the rectifcation memo 6 Crl.R.P. 04 of 2022 fled by the Inspector of Police, Dornakal stating that due to oversight he has mentioned the section of law 3 and 10 of
Money Laundering Act instead of money lending Act in the
FIR and that the lower court accepted the deposit of seized amount under form-60, in case if the contention of the lower court that since the case has been registered U/Sec.3 and 10 of Money Laundering Act, as such the Court has no jurisdiction to entertain the petition U/Sec.451 Cr.P.C is correct, then the court has no jurisdiction to accept the deposit of seized net cash also and the lower Court over looked that even the local police have no jurisdiction to register a case under Money Laundering Act except the
Enforce Department and the revision petitioner is in urgent need of money to meet the construction expenses of his house and he is ready to furnish sufcient sureties to the satisfaction of court and in which no prejudice will be caused to the prosecution or it will not afect the trial of
Court.
10. Notice given to learned Addl. Public Prosecutor.
7 Crl.R.P. 04 of 2022
11. After hearing the arguments submitted by the both parties, the revision petition is coming for the passing of order.
12. Heard both sides' arguments.
13. Now the point for consideration is:
i) Whether the impugned order passed by the trial court dt: 27.4.2022 in Crl.MP.No.690/2022 in Cr.No.68/2022 in dismissing the petition, needs any interference by this Court.
ii) To what relief?
POINT NO:1
14. According to the revision petitioner on 8.4.2022 the respondent police raided his house on the allegation that he is doing money lending business without having any license from the authorities and seized an amount of
Rs.19,56,000/- from his house and registered a case and deposited the seized amount before the Court to construct his own residential house, the petitioner obtained permission from the Municipality Dornakal vide letter
No:129378/DORN/004/2022 dt:9.2.2022 and that The petitioner borrowed an amount of Rs.10,00,000/- from his 8 Crl.R.P. 04 of 2022 sister by name Ambati Mallamma, who retired from government service recently and received retirement benefts and the remaining amount of Rs.9,56,000/- is his own savings and the petitioner did not commit any illegal acts and ready to face the trial and he is not having criminal history and there are no criminal cases pending against him in any courts and he is permanent resident of
Dornakal and having moveable and immoveable properties and it may take time to conclude the trial and if the seized amount is blocked in the Court, much hard ship will be caused to the petitioner.
15.The learned Addl.P.P., who appeared on behalf of respondent, argued that the case is under investigation and the seized property is necessary for the purpose of marking at the time of trial by the prosecution and at the stage it is not proper to release the property for the interim custody of the petitioner and the petitioner may change or altered the case property and will cause hurdle to the prosecution.
9 Crl.R.P. 04 of 2022
16. Perused the material on record. The trial Court has opined in its order that on perusal of the report and
FIR, the police have registered a case U/Sec. 3 and 10 of
TSTAMIA, on perusal of them, it seems that the police have registered a case under anti Money Laundering Act of
Telangana State and however, probably there is no Anti
Money Laundering Act specifcally for Telangana State, whereas, the prevention of money Laundering Act 2022 is enacted to deprive the Money Laundering and the Money
Laundering Act is exclusively tribal by special Court and unless and until the investigation is completed, and charge sheet is fled, it cannot be said under which Act the accused has committed the ofence and since the case has been registered under Sec.3 and 10 of Money lendaring Act the court has no jurisdiction to entertain the petition under
Prevention of Money Laundering Act.
17. The police Dornakal registered a case in
Cr.No.68/2022 against the petitioner U/Secs. 420 of IPC and 3 and 10 of Money laundering Act basing on the report given by Sub Inspector of Police Nellikudur. The police 10 Crl.R.P. 04 of 2022 conducted confession and recovery panchanama of petitioner and seized money of Rs.19,56,000/- and documents from him and the police mentioned the denomination of seized money in the panchanama. The allegation of prosecution is that the petitioner is doing money lending business and claiming excess of interest from innocent public and getting profts. The record shows that the SHO PS Dornakal fled a requisition before the
Court to give permission for obtaining FDR from the bank for Rs.19,56,000/- which was seized in this case and the trial Court returned the said requisition on the ground that the court has no jurisdiction. The note put up by the ofce on the docket of Crl.MP.690/2022 reveals that the petition is fled U/Sec.457 Cr.P.C for interim custody by the petitioner to direct SHO Dornakal to release the case property and the property deposited by Form-60. Whereas, the petition fled by the petitioner is U/sec. 451 Cr.P.C., for granting interim custody of seized cash. It is also observed in the record that the property deposited by the police under form-60 was returned by the trial court as the court has no jurisdiction. It seems that the trial court has not 11 Crl.R.P. 04 of 2022 received the property deposited by the police the trial court. The trial Court has passed order in the petition fled
U/Sec.451 of Cr.P.C. The record also shows that on the next day of passing the order by the trial court, the police fled a ratifcation memo before the trial court stating that due to over sight the Inspector of police Dornakal mentioned section of U/Sec. 3 and 10 of Money Laundering act instead of Money Lending Act in the FIR and requested the trial court to rectify the mistake and read the Sec.3 and 10 of
Money Lending Act instead of Money Laundering act. It is clear from the record that the case registered by the police against the petitioner is not under Money Laundering Act, but under Telangana Money Lenders Act as clarifed by the
Inspector of Police, Dornakal. It is also not available on the record that whether again the police deposited the seized amount before the trial court. It is also not found on the record whether the seized money was deposited in the trial court or it is pending with the police. The petitioner has contended that he obtained permission from the
Municipality Dornakal for construction of his house and borrowed amounts from his sister and others. The 12 Crl.R.P. 04 of 2022 petitioner has fled Photostat copy of promissory notes and the letter of approval by the the Municipality Dornakal
dt:09.02.2022 which is prior to the registering of the case
against the petitioner.
18. In the present case on hand the police have not mentioned the numbers of the currency notes on the panchanama and only denominations of seized money is mentioned. It will take time for the completion of the case and in the meanwhile the keeping of money either in the custody of court or in the custody of police is of no use.
In sidharthan Vs. State of Kerala in
Crl.MC.No:2149/2014 dt:10.7.2014 wherein Hon'ble
the High Court of Kerala held "It may be mentioned
here that, even assuming that he is doing money
lending business, the source of amount is not a
criteria, but the question is whether the amount was
seized from his possession and he is entitled to get
that amount as interim custody. Other things are not
relevant for the purpose of considering this facts.
Further care must be taken when such an amount is
released as an interim custody, that this amount
should not be used for such illegal purposes as well.
Further, in the decision reported in Seshi Vs. State of
Kerala (2013 (2) KHC 886), this Court has held that
even if the amount is seized alleging ofences under
the Money Lenders Act, no purpose will be served by
keeping the amount in Court and that can be released
as interim custody to the person from whose
13 Crl.R.P. 04 of 2022
possession it was seized on deposit of sufcient
security before the trial Court.
19. For the going reasons and in the light of above decision I am inclined to allow the revision petition by imposing certain terms and conditions. The impugned order passed by the learned Judl. First Class Magistrate,
dt:27.4.2022 warranted interference by this Court.
Accordingly the point is answered.
20. In the result, the revision petition is allowed and the impugneddt:27.4.2022passedbythelearned
Addl.Judl.First Class Magistrate, in Crl.MP.No.690/2022 in
Cr.No.68/2022 on the fle of that Court is set-aside. The seized cash of Rs.19,56,000/- is ordered to be released to interim custody of petitioner herein till the disposal of the case subject to following conditions.
i) The Magistrate is directed to release the amount of
Rs.19,56,000/- which is seized from the possession of
the petitioner on executing a bond for Rs.19, 60,000/-
with two solvent sureties for the like sum each to the
satisfaction of that Court by executing a bond
showing the property in the schedule as a security
for this amount and the Court making the property as
a charge for this amount and the lower Court is
directed to inform the creation of such charge in the
property to the concerned Registrar's ofce so as to
14 Crl.R.P. 04 of 2022
enter the same in the encumbrance register
maintained in the ofce.
ii) That the petitioner shall fle an undertaking in
the form of an afdavit that he will produce the
equivalent if ultimately he is liable to produce the
amount before the Court as and when directed by the
Court and also he will not dispute the fact of seizure
of the amount at the time of trial from his
possession, so that, this can be evidence as an
evidence at the time of trial to prove the seizure of
the amount,
iii) Before the releasing the amount, the Magistrate
is directed to get the details of the currency that has
been produced taken down in the form of an
inventory and keep it in the fle for using this as part
of evidence to prove the identity of the amount that
has been seized in the search.
iv) The petitioner shall not use this amount for any
illegal
Ofce is directed to communicate this order to the trial
Court immediately and send back the record forthwith.
(Typed to my dictation, corrected and pronounced by me in Open Court on this the 18th day of May, 2022).
VI Additional SESSIONS JUDGE,
MAHABUBABAD.
Order Record 7 total
| Case No. | Parties | Date | Type | Outcome |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| MVOP/399/2019 | Bhukya Kamala and others vs Chandavath Badru and others | 19 May 2022 | Copy of judgment | — |
| MVOP/401/2019 | Banoth Deepla vs Chandavath Bhadru and others | 19 May 2022 | Copy of judgment | — |
| MVOP/439/2018 | Guguloth Sarada vs Shankar Bihari | 19 May 2022 | Copy of judgment | — |
| MVOP/1095/2017 | Koyya Sharada vs Banoth Nageshwar Rao | 19 May 2022 | Copy of judgment | — |
| CRLRP/15/2022 | AmbatiSrinivas vs The State of Telegana Through | 18 May 2022 | Copy of judgment | — |
| MVOP/527/2019 | Malothu Pimpulli vs K.Jithender Naik | 13 May 2022 | Copy of order | — |
| CRLRP/17/2019 | Pantham Surender vs Pantham Sandhya | 05 May 2022 | Copy of order | — |
Frequently Asked Questions
How many cases has C.V.S.SAI BHUPATHI handled?
C.V.S.SAI BHUPATHI has handled 7 court orders since 2022 at Mahabubabad, PDJ Court Complex. The average disposal rate is 7 orders per month.
What types of cases does C.V.S.SAI BHUPATHI hear?
Based on available records, C.V.S.SAI BHUPATHI primarily handles Motor Accident matters (Motor Accident Claims) at Mahabubabad, PDJ Court Complex.
Where is C.V.S.SAI BHUPATHI currently posted?
C.V.S.SAI BHUPATHI is posted as Principal District and Sessions Judge , Mahabubabad at Mahabubabad, PDJ Court Complex, Mahabubabad, Telangana.
Are judgments by C.V.S.SAI BHUPATHI available online?
Yes. 5 judgments by C.V.S.SAI BHUPATHI are available on Legistro with full text, outcome, and sections cited.
How fast does C.V.S.SAI BHUPATHI dispose cases?
C.V.S.SAI BHUPATHI disposes approximately 7 cases per month, based on 7 orders handled over their tenure at Mahabubabad, PDJ Court Complex.
Since when is C.V.S.SAI BHUPATHI serving?
C.V.S.SAI BHUPATHI has been serving at Mahabubabad, PDJ Court Complex since 2022.
Case Types
Posting History
-
May 2022 — Jun 2022Principal District and Sessions Judge , Mahabubabad · 7 orders
-
May 2022 — Jun 2022Fast Track Sessions Court for Expeditious Disposal of Cases of Rape and Protection of Children from Sexual Offences POCSO Act 2012 at Mahabubabad
Other Judges at this Court