BEFORE THE MOTOR ACCIDENTS CLAIMS TRIBUNAL CUM
X ADDL. DISTRICT AND SESSIONS COURT: EAST GODAVARI AT
RAJAMAHENDRAVARAM.
Present: Kum. C.Yamini,X Additional District Judge, East Godavari, Rajamahendravaram.
Friday, the 29th day of May, 2020 M.V.O.P. No. 7 of 2015 Between:
1. Palli Surya Rao, S/o.Acchiyya, Hindu, Aged 40 years, R/o.Ambedkar Nagar, 2-92, Yeditha, Mandapeta Mandal, E.G.District.
2. Palli Neelima, w/o.Subba Raju, Hindu, Aged 21 years, R/o.Ambedkar Nagar, 2-92, Yeditha, Mandapeta Mandal, E.G.District.
3. Palli Anil Kumar, S/o.Surya Rao, Hindu, Aged 20 years, R/o.Ambedkar Nagar, 2-92, Yeditha, Mandapeta Mandal, E.G.District.
4. Palli Sudeer Kumar, S/o.Surya Rao, Hindu, Aged 19 years, R/o.Ambedkar Nagar, 2-92, Yeditha, Mandapeta Mandal, E.G.District.
5. Palli Vinay Kumar, s/o.Surya Rao, Hindu, Aged 18 years, R/o.Ambedkar Nagar, 2-92, Yeditha, Mandapeta Mandal, E.G.District. (5th respondent being minor, represented by guardian – father of Palli
Surya Rao, 1st petitioner).. Petitioners
And
1. E.V.Rao, S/o.Venkanna, Hindu, Aged about 55 years, driver of the APSRTC bearing No. AP 28Z 4423, R/o. Vegayammapeta, Near Draksharamam, working in Ramachandapuram Bus depot, C/o.Depot Manager, Ramachandrapuram Bus depot, Ramachandrapuram, Ramachandrapuram DMC.
2. The APSRTC, rep. by its Managing Director, owner of APSRTC bearing No. AP 28 Z 4423, Musheerabad, Hyderabad, Hyderabad City Civil Court DMC.
3. Pithcuka Apparao @ Venkata Rao, s/o. Koteswara Rao, Hindu, Aged 45 years, driver of tractor bearing No. AP 37 M 2979/Trailor bearing No. AP 05 TC 0329, R/o. Dulla, Kadiyam Mandal, E.G.District, Rajahmundry DMC.
4. Shaik Ankur Saheb, S/o.Vuvva Saheb @ Sohan, Muslim, Aged 45 years, owner of the tractor No. AP 37 M 2979/Trailor bearing No.AP 05 TC 0329, R/o. D.No.4-8, Narsipud, Alamuru Mandal, E.G.District, Alamuru DMC.
5. The United India Insurance Co Limited., represented by its Divisional Mnager, Innispeta, Hotavari Street, Rajahmundry, Rajahmundry DMC.]
.. Respondents
This petition coming 27.05.2020 for final hearing before me in the presence of Sri Y.Ramakrishna Rao, Advocate for petitioners and Sri
G.V.Ramana, Advocate for the 1st respondent and Sri M.Nagendra Prasad,
Advocate for the 2nd respondent, Sri P.Rama Raju, Advocate for the respondent Nos. 3 and 4 and Sri V.B.R.S. Murthy, Advocate for 5th respondent and the matter having stood over for consideration till this day this court delivered the following:
O R D E R
Petitioners herein filed this petition under Section 166 of M.V. Act claiming compensation of Rs. 7,00,000/- with interest @ 12% per annum.
2The brief facts of the petition are that the 1st petitioner is the father,
Petitioner Nos. 2 to5 are sister and brothers of deceased Palli Prbhavathi, who died in Motor Accident.
3On 16.11.2014 in between 10.00 a.m. to 11.00 a.m. while the mother of the deceased Palli Kumari and deceased Palli Prbhavathi were proceeding on motorcycle as pillion riders, the driver of the motor cycle stopped the motorcycle on the left side road margin near Srinivasa Food Products,
Tapeswaram, expecting that the Tractor bearing No. AP 37 M 2979 and
Trailor bearing No. AP 05 TC 0329 driven by R3 with dry gross load while passing and at that time, RTC bus bearing No. AP 28 Z 4423 driven by R1 came from Dwarapudi side at high speed in a rash and negligent manner and lost control over the same and dashed the deceased and right side wheels of the bus bearing No. AP 28 Z 4423 ran over the deceased and heads of the deceased Palli Kumari and Palli Prabhavathi crushed under the wheels and dragged the bodies to 15 feet distance and caused the death of both the deceased. The said accident occurred due to the rash and negligent driving of R1. All the petitioners lost their love and affection and earnings of deceased at Rs.10,000/-. Petitioners spent Rs.40,000/- towards funeral expenses and Rs.10,000/- towards transport charges. Since the accident occurred on account of the rash and negligent driving of R1, R1 being its driver and R2 being its owner and R3 being driver of Tractor and Trailor and
R4 being its owners and R5 being its insurance company are jointly and severally liable to pay.
4R1 filed counter denying the material petition averments and further contended that on 16.11.2014, while he was driving bus bearing No. AP 28 Z 4423 belonging to Ramachandrapuram Depot, between Rajahmundry to
Ramachandrapuram, at about 10.40 a.m., when the bus reached near
Saibaba Temple in Tapeswaram Village, while driving the bus slowly and cautiously on left side of the road, the 1st respondent noticed that tractor and Trailor bearing No. AP 37 M 2979 and AP 05 DC 0329 with heavy hayrick driven by R3, owned by 4th respondent and insured with R5 came in a opposite direction and on seeing the tractor and Trailor combination in opposite direction, R1 slow downed his bus and put it to left side road margin and at that juncture, motorcycle bearing No. AP 35 D 7442 while coming behind the RTC bus apart from the rider, deceased in this OP and deceased in another OP were travelling on the same motorcycle as pillion riders and the motorcycle rider driven in a rash and negligent manner while trying to overtake APSRTC bus going ahead of him and in that process, came into contact with hayrick and lost balance and fell down. The said accident occurred only on account of rash and negligent driving on the part of the motorcyclist and there is no negligence on his part for causing the accident and the crime is registered against the rider of the motorcycle and claimed to dismiss the petition with costs.
5R2 filed written statement denying the material petition averments and further contended that R1 was the driver of bus bearing No. AP 28 Z 4423 as on 16.11.2014 and manner of accident narrated by R2 in written statement is replica of counter averments of R1 and, as such, not reiterated to avoid repetition. The written statement averments of R2 further reveals that the petitioners with a view to get compensation got issued registered notice to the Investigating Officer with false allegations. The compensation claimed by the petitioners is excessive and interest is not tenable and in any view, petitioners are entitled to claim interest only from the date of award but not from the date of petition that too at 6% per annum and petitioners have to strictly prove that they have not filed any petition under Section 140 of M.V.
Act and claimed to dismiss the petition with costs.
6R3 filed written statement denying the material petition averments and further contended that the tractor and Trailor never involved in the accident and there is no direct contact for the accident. Therefore, R3 to R5 are not proper and necessary parties and R1 is having valid D.L. to dive tractor and trailor and it is insured with R5 and police filed case against the R1 and, as such, R3 is no way concerned with the accident and petitioner has to prove the manner of accident and claimed to dismiss the petition with costs.
7R4 filed memo adopting the written statement filed by the 3rd respondent.
8R5 filed counter denying the material petition averments and further contended that according to inquest report, the manner of accident is narrated as follows:
“on 16.11.2014 Palli Prabhavathi, d/o. Surya Rao, who was studying
Inter in Bhimli, Visakhapatnam, get down at Drawarapudi from Simhadri
Express and telephoned to her mother Palli Kumari. Palli Kumari went to the
Railway station along with her son-in-law, Palli Subbaraju, on the motorcycle bearing No. AP 35 D 7442. While Palli Subbaraju was driving, Palli KUmari and Prabhavathi travelling as pillion riders. By the time, the motorcycle reached near Srinivasa Food products, in Tapeswaram Village, the motorcyclist while overtaking the APSRTC bus bearing No. AP 28 Z 4423 going ahead of him and observed one tractor and Trailor with hay grass load.
The motorcycle rider, in a rash and negligent manner, dashed the hay grass on the tractor and the pillion riders i.e., Palli Prabhavthi and Kumari @ Mari fell under rear wheels of the RTC bus and their heads were crushed and died”.
9The police registered the crime against the rider of the motorcycle, bearing No. AP 35 D 7442. R3 was not accused and the petitioner vaguely added R3 to R5. Hence, R5 is not liable to indemnify R4 nor liable to pay damages to the petitioners. R5 is not liable to pay damages to the petitioners, unless it established that R3 holds valid D.L. to drive the vehicle in question at the time of accident and the owner of the vehicle holds valid permit RC at the material time.
10Petitioners failed to describe, who is the owner of the tractor and
Trailor and failed to made them as parties. The policy particulars furnished bythe petitioners are not yet confirmed to R3 and the vehicle in question was not validly insured with R5 and the compensation and interest claimed by the petitioners is excessive and claimed to dismiss the petition with costs.
11Basing on the above averments, the following issues are re-casted for trial as follows:
1. Whether the deceased Palli Prabavathi died, due to the rash and negligent driving of driver of APSRTC Bus bearing No. AP 28 Z 4423 by it’s driver/1st respondent?
2. Whether the petitioners are entitled for any compensation? If so, to what amount and against whom?
3. To what relief?
12On behalf of the petitioners, P.Ws. 1 and 2 are examined and got marked Exs.A1 to A7. On behalf of R2, RW1 is examined and no documents are marked. R1, R3 to R5 did not choose to examine any witnesses and so also, none of the respondents marked any documents.
13Issue No.1: Learned counsel for the petitioners contended that immediately after the accident, the police got photographed the scene of offence and took both the vehicles i.e., tractor and Trailor and RTC bus to the police station and without inquiry, the reasons for the manner of accident, they left both the vehicles and drivers and falsely implicated the driver of the motorcycle and investigating officer did grave injustice to the deceased family. Aggrieved by the same, petitioners’ advocate issued notices to all the police officials from SI to DIG on 15.12.2014, to conduct proper investigation and police kept quiet without ordering for reinvestigation. P.W.2 was examined, who was cited as list of witnesses in the charge sheet and as per his evidence, R1 drove the bus at high speed and dashed the motorcycle and consequently, both the deceased fell under the wheels of the bus and crushed under the tyres and bus dragged them to 15 feet distance and there is no negligence on the part of the rider of the motorcycle and due to the rash and negligent driving of the R1 alone, the accident took place and the complaint given by V.R.O. is 3rd party to the accident, who is not direct witness. The accident took place in the broad day light and which was witnessed by several persons including passengers in the RTC bus and RTC failed to examine any independent witnesses and photos clearly reveals that the heads of the deceased were crushed under the right side back wheels of the bus and the bus is in the left side road margin, which clearly goes to show that R1 was trying to overtake the motorcyclist in a wrong side and R1 is expected to travel from right side of the road, but, crossed from left side against the road rules and in that process R1 dashed the motorcycle from behind and consequently, the pillion riders fell in the right side wheels and skid marks of the tyre marks of the bus on the road clearly goes to show that RTC bus driver was coming at high speed and if the R1 applied the brakes by observing the persons who fell under the back wheels due to dash from the right side mirror, the accident would not have occurred and it shows the gross negligence on the part of the R1 and in the absence of any evidence rash and negligent driving of R1 is established as per the Latin maxim res ipsa loquitor. To substantiate his contest, he relied on the decisions, report in 2019 ACJ 2899, 2018 ACJ 1398.
14Learned counsel for the R2 contended that even as per the documents filed by the petitioners, the said accident has taken place due to the rash and negligent driving of the rider of the motorcycle and the charge sheet is filed against the rider of the motorcycle and no change sheet is filed against the RTC bus driver i.e., R1 and inquest report filed by the petitioners itself shows that the rider of the motorcycle while trying to overtake, the RTC bus, with two more pillion riders, came into contact with hay which was carried out by the tractor and Trailor and due to the negligence of the rider of the motorcycle, two pillion riders fell down and succumbed to death and under the above circumstances, there is no rash and negligent driving on the part of the R1.
15Though, evidence of P.W.1 reveals the manner of accident, admittedly, he is not an eyewitness to the accident. Evidence of P.W.2, reveals that he is direct witness to the accident and on16.11.2014 in between 10.30 to 11.00 a.m. when he reached Main Road, Tapeswaram, one person by name
P.Subbaraju was coming in opposite direction along with two women on his motorcycle on the left side road margin and at that time, tractor and Trailor bearing No. AP 37 M 2979/AP 05 TC 0329 with dry gross load proceeding in 15 yards to him on the left side road margin and opposite to it, one APSRTC bus bearing No. AP 28 Z 4423 driven by R1 came in opposite direction at high speed in a rash and negligent manner and lost control over the same and 1st respondent instead of crossing the deceased motorcycle went to the wrong side of the road to the extreme left side and ran over the deceased and caused the death of Palli Prabhavathi and Kumari who were proceeding on motorcycle and dragged 30 feet distance and the said accident occurred only due to the rash and negligent driving of R1 only and there is no negligence on the part of the tractor and Trailor and motorcyclist and police took his signature on white paper and he do not know what they have written on it and he cited as a witness.
16Evidence of R.W.1 is that he is the 1st respondent and worked as driver in APSRTC depot and on 16.11.2014, as a driver to the APSRTC bus bearing
No. AP 28 Z 4423 while he was proceeding very slowly and carefully on extreme left side of the road to go to Ramachandrapuram and while the bus reached near the Sai baba Temple of Tapeswaram Village and at that time, he observed the tractor and Trailor bearing No. AP 37 M 2979 and AP 05 DC 0329 drive by R3 coming in opposite direction with a load heavy stock and he further slow down the bus and took it to the left side road margin and at that time, the motorcycle bearing No. AP 35 B 7442 driven in a rash and negligent manner in high speed with pillion riders tried to overtake the bus in a rash and negligent manner and contact with hay load and lot balance and fell down. Thus, the accident occurred only due to the rash and negligent driving on the part of the rider of the motorcycle and absolutely there was no rashness or negligence on his part.
17In the decision relied on by the learned counsel for the petitioners reported in 2019 ACJ 2899, Rajendra Kumar Vs. Dal Chand and others, wherein, the Rajasthan High Court, at Paras 27 held as follows:
“ Consequently, the appeals are allowed. The award impugned passed by the Tribunal is modified to the extent that along with the owner and driver of the vehicle, the respondent New India Assurance Com Limited the insurer of the jeep, would also be liable for payment of compensation to the claimants. The finding of the Tribunal regarding contributory negligence is set aside and therefore, 30 per cent deduction made by the Tribunal from compensation awarded also stands set aside”. 18In the other decision relied on by the learned counsel for the petitioners reported in 2018 ACJ 1398, Oriental Insurance Co., limited
Vs. Indra and others, wherein, the Hon’ble Allahabad High Court held at
Para No. 7 to 10 as follows:
[7] The accident is alleged to have been witnessed by Bacchu Singh and Yash Pal, who were on another scooter and were about half a kilometre behind the scooter of the deceased. They have seen the accident and in connection with it, one of them Bacchu Singh was examined as a witness. He categorically stated that the accident had taken place due to rash and negligent driving of the offending truck that had hit the scooter from behind. Thus, this witness has categorically stated that the accident had taken place with the aforesaid truck. [8] The non-examination of the other eye-witness Yash Pal is of no consequence and his examination would have only resumed in the duplication of the evidence. [9] From the side of the appellant-Insurance Company, driver of the aforesaid truck was not produced as a witness who would have been the best person to deny the accident. The appellant-Insurance Company has produced D.W. 2 Saleem, who is also one of the eye- witnesses to the accident. He has stated that the accident took place with U.P. Roadways bus but his evidence was not accepted by the Tribunal as he was unable to give any material details regarding the accident or the details of the bus. [10] This apart, in view of the evidence of the two eye-witnesses, one from the side of the claimant-respondents and the other from the side of the appellant-Insurance Company, it becomes the case of oral evidence versus oral evidence. In such situation, it is always safe and appropriate to place more reliance upon the evidence of claimant- respondents rather than that of defence unless evidence of the defence on the face of it appears to be more categorical and authentic. 19Ex.A1 report reveals that while 3 persons were travelling on Bajaj
Motorcycle and while crossing the APSRTC Bus, came into contact with hayrick on tractor and Trailor and on that, two pillion riders fell in front of the front tyre of the RTC bus and on that, back tyre of the bus, ran over them and died instantaneously. Ex.A2 inquest report also reveals the manner of accident as in Ex.A1 report. Evidence of P.W.1 coupled with
Ex.A3 office copy of the legal notice and Ex.A4 acknowledgements and Ex.A7 copy of letter sent to Advocate by S.P. clearly reveals that petitioners herein questioned about the registration of crime against rider of the pillion riders and S.P. Rajahmundry sent the letter addressed by the petitioner to the S.P.
East Godavari on point of jurisdiction. Exs.A5 photographs reveals that both the heads of deceased were under the back side of the tyre of the APSRTC bus. If hayrick load was within the tractor area, motorcyclist touching the hayrick does not arise and thereby, rash and negligent driving on the part of the R3 also cannot be ruled out. So also, motorcyclist drove the motorcycle with pillion riders i.e., triple riding and the said accident took place after crossing the APSRTC Bus, since Ex.A1 report which is first in point of time and Ex.A2 inquest report also reveals that both the pillion riders fell in front of the APSRTC bus and back tyre of the APSRTC Bus ran over the two pillion riders over their heads. Under the above circumstances, rash and negligence on the part of rider of the motorcycle and driver of the bus i.e., R1 also cannot be ruled out and thereby, it can be safely said that, the said accident has taken place due to the composite negligence of rider of the motorcycle, driver of the tractor and Trailor bearing No. AP 37 W 2979 / AP 05 TC 0329 and due to the rash and negligence driving of R1 while driving APSRTC bus bearing No. AP 28 Z 4422. There is no dispute about the death of the deceased due to the above the accident. Considering the above totality of circumstances, rash and negligence on the part of rider of motorcycle bearing No. AP 35 D 7442 is fixed at 30% and rash and negligence on the part of the R1 while driving APSRTC bus bearing No. AP 28 Z 4423 is fixed at 50% and rash and negligence on the part of R3 i.e., driver of tractor and trailier bearing No. AP 37 M 2979 / AP 05 TC 0329 is fixed at 20%.
Accordingly issue No.1 is settled.
20Issue No.2: The learned counsel for the petitioners contended that, the deceased Palli Prbhavathi is aged about 18 years and used to earn
Rs.10,000/- per month by giving tuitions to the students while studying 1st year intermediate and if she would have alive, she would have became I.A.S officer and earned more money and as per the compensation table,
Rs.10,000/- + 50% future prospectus can be taken into consideration and basing on the age of the deceased, the multiplier that can be applied is 18 and petitioners are entitled to Rs. 16,50,000/- towards total compensation.
21The learned counsel for the respondents contended that there is no income proof and the husband is not dependent on the earnings of the deceased and the learned counsel for the 2nd petitioner contended that since there is no rash and negligent driving on the part of the R1, respondents are not liable to pay any compensation. The learned counsel for the R2 further contended that during the lock down period, if orders are pronounced it may get difficulty in securing copy applications etc..
22Evidence of P.W.1 is that, he is father of the deceased Prabhavathi and petitioners 2 to 5 are sister and brothers of deceased Prabhavathi and deceased was aged about 18 years and used to earn Rs.10,000/- per month by giving tuitions in the morning and evening to LKG to VII class students, while studying inter first year and contributing her earnings for the maintenance of the petitioners and all the petitioners are dependents on the earnings of the deceased.
23Evidence of P.W.2 is also that Palli Prabhavathi was prosecuting her studies and 18 years old and used to give tuititons to LKG to X class students and thereby earnings Rs.10,000/- per month and contributing the same for the maintenance of her family and petitioners are the dependents on her earnings alone.
24According to evidence of P.W.1, deceased was giving tuitions to LKG to
VII Class and according to P.W.2, LKG to X class. Moreover, admittedly, deceased Prabhvathi was student and studying intermediate and petitioners failed to establish with cogent evidence that petitioner is even earning member. Under the above circumstances, future income of the deceased
Prabhavathi was fixed at Rs.3,000/- per month. Petitioners 2 to 5 being sister and brothers of the deceased, they are not legal heirs of the deceased
Prabhavathi while 1st petitioner i.e., the father of the deceased is alive and thereby, petitioners 2 to 5 are not entitled to any compensation. Deceased being unmarried daughter of 1st petitioner, 50% out of the future income has to be deducted and considering the age of the deceased as 18 years being intermediate student the multiplier that can be applied is 18.
25Therefore, taking into consideration of the age of the deceased as 18years, the multiplier that can be applied is 18 and future income at
Rs.3,000/- per month i.e., Rs.36,000/- per annum and half of that amount is deducted towards her future personal expenditure and her contribution to her family is worked at Rs.18,000/- per annum and dependency of the 1st petitioner on the deceased is worked at Rs. 3,24,000/-. 1st petitioner being the father of the deceased is entitled to Rs. 15,000/- towards loss of estate and Rs.15,000/- towards funeral expenses. Thus in all, the petitioners herein are entitled to Rs. 3,54,000/-. Since, rash and negligent driving on the part of the rider of the motorcycle is fixed at 30% and since, petitioners failed to add, the rider, owner and insurance company of the motorcycle, petitioners are not entitled to any amount to that extent of negligence of motorcycle and 1st respondent being the driver of APSRTC Bus bearing No. AP 28 Z 4423 and 2nd respondent being the owner are jointly and severally liable to deposit 50% out of awarded compensation i.e., Rs.1,77,000/- and 3rd respondent being driver of tractor and Trailor bearing No. No. AP 37 M 2979 / AP 05 TC 0329, 4th respondent being its owner and 5th respondent being its insurer are jointly and severally liable to deposit 20% out of the above awarded compensation i.e., Rs.70,800/- accordingly, issue No.2 is settled.
26Issue No.3 : In the result, the petition is allowed in part granting compensation of Rs. 2,47,800/- with interest at 7.5% per annum from the date of the petition till the date of deposit with proportionate costs and interest. Respondents Nos. 1 and 2 are jointly and severally liable to deposit an amount of Rs. 1,77,000/- with proportionate costs and interest within two months from the date seizure of lock down period and R3 to R5 are jointly and severally liable to pay Rs. 70,800/- with proportionate costs and interest within two months from the date of seizure of lock down period. On such deposit, 1st petitioner is permitted to withdraw Rs.50,000/- and balance compensation of Rs. 1,97,800/- with proportionate costs and interest shall be deposited in any nationalized bank in a fixed deposit for a period of 36 months and on maturity, 1st petitioner is permitted to withdraw his entire balance compensation in lumpsum. Claim of petitioners 2 to 5 is dismissed without costs. Advocate fee is fixed at Rs. 5000/-.
Typed to my dictation, corrected and pronounced by me on this the 29th day of May, 2020.
CHAIRMAN,
Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal Cum-X Addl. District Judge, Rajamahendravaram.
APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE
WITNESSES EXAMINED
For petitioners:
P.W.1 : Palli Surya Rao P.W.2 : Yadla Veerraju
For Respondents:
R.W.1 : V.V.Rao, Driver
DOCUMENTS MARKED
For petitioners:
Ex.A1: Certified copy of the First Information report Ex.A2: Certified copy of the Inquest report Ex.A3: Office copy of the legal notice Ex.A4: Acknowledgements 5 in number Ex.A5: Photographs Ex.A6: CD Ex.A7: Letter sent by the advocate to SP. Rajahmundry.Urban
For Respondents : Nil.
CHAIRMAN,
Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal Cum-X Addl. District Judge, Rajamahendravaram.
BEFORE THE MOTOR ACCIDENTS CLAIMS TRIBUNAL CUM
X ADDL. DISTRICT AND SESSIONS COURT: EAST GODAVARI AT
RAJAMAHENDRAVARAM.
Present: Kum. C.Yamini,X Additional District Judge, East Godavari, Rajamahendravaram. Friday, the 29th day of May, 2020 M.V.O.P. No. 7 of 2015 Between:
1. Palli Surya Rao, S/o.Acchiyya, Hindu, Aged 40 years, R/o.Ambedkar Nagar, 2-92, Yeditha, Mandapeta Mandal, E.G.District.
2. Palli Neelima, w/o.Subba Raju, Hindu, Aged 21 years, R/o.Ambedkar Nagar, 2-92, Yeditha, Mandapeta Mandal, E.G.District.
3. Palli Anil Kumar, S/o.Surya Rao, Hindu, Aged 20 years, R/o.Ambedkar Nagar, 2-92, Yeditha, Mandapeta Mandal, E.G.District.
4. Palli Sudeer Kumar, S/o.Surya Rao, Hindu, Aged 19 years, R/o.Ambedkar Nagar, 2-92, Yeditha, Mandapeta Mandal, E.G.District.
5. Palli Vinay Kumar, s/o.Surya Rao, Hindu, Aged 18 years, R/o.Ambedkar Nagar, 2-92, Yeditha, Mandapeta Mandal, E.G.District. (5th respondent being minor, represented by guardian – father of Palli
Surya Rao, 1st petitioner).. Petitioners
And
1. E.V.Rao, S/o.Venkanna, Hindu, Aged about 55 years, driver of the APSRTC bearing No. AP 28Z 4423, R/o. Vegayammapeta, Near Draksharamam, working in Ramachandapuram Bus depot, C/o.Depot Manager, Ramachandrapuram Bus depot, Ramachandrapuram, Ramachandrapuram DMC.
2. The APSRTC, rep. by its Managing Director, owner of APSRTC bearing No. AP 28 Z 4423, Musheerabad, Hyderabad, Hyderabad City Civil Court DMC.
3. Pithcuka Apparao @ Venkata Rao, s/o. Koteswara Rao, Hindu, Aged 45 years, driver of tractor bearing No. AP 37 M 2979/Trailor bearing No. AP 05 TC 0329, R/o. Dulla, Kadiyam Mandal, E.G.District, Rajahmundry DMC.
4. Shaik Ankur Saheb, S/o.Vuvva Saheb @ Shohan, Muslim, Aged 45 years, owner of the tractor No. AP 37 M 2979/Trailor bearing No.AP 05 TC 0329, R/o. D.No.4-8, Narsipud, Alamuru Mandal, E.G.District, Alamuru DMC.
5. The United India Insurance Co Limited., represented by its Divisional Mnager, Innispeta, Hotavari Street, Rajahmundry, Rajahmundry DMC.]
.. Respondents
Petition Presented on : 27.12.2014, Petition Filed on : 03.01.2015
Petitioners herein filed this petition under Section 166 of M.V. Act claiming compensation of Rs. 7,00,000/- with interest @ 12% per annum. Value of the petition is Rs. 7,00,000/-. A court fee of Rs. 6,360/- is paid as per Rule 475 of APMV Rules. The cause of action for the petition arose on 16.11.2014 in between 10.30 a.m. to 11.00 a.m. near Srinivasa Food Products, Main Road, Tapeswaram of Mandapeta Mandal when the 1st respondent being driver of bus bearing No. AP 20 Z 4423 drove it in a rash and negligent manner and at high speed and lost control over the same and dashed the deceased Palli Prabhavathi from behind and the right side wheels of the bus ran over the deceased and the 3rd respondent being driver of tractor No AP 37 M 2979 and Trailor bearing No. AP 05 TC 3229 at the time of accident and responsible for the accident and where the accident took place which is within the jurisdiction of this court. This petition coming 27.05.2020 for final hearing before me in the presence of Sri Y.Ramakrishna Rao, Advocate for petitioners and Sri G.V.Ramana, Advocate for the 1st respondent and Sri M.Nagendra Prasad, Advocate for the 2nd respondent, Sri P.Rama Raju, Advocate for the respondent Nos. 3 and 4 and Sri V.B.R.S. Murthy, Advocate for 5th respondent and the matter having stood over for consideration till this day this court DOTH ORDER AND PASS AWARD AS FOLLOWS:
1. That the petition be and the same is allowed in part granting compensation of Rs. 2,47,800/- with interest at 7.5% per annum from the date of the petition till the date of deposit with proportionate costs and interest.
2. That the respondents Nos. 1 and 2 be and are jointly and severally liable to deposit an amount of Rs. 1,77,000/- with proportionate costs and interest within two months from the date seizure of lock down period
3. That the R3 to R5 be and are jointly and severally liable to pay Rs. 70,800/- with proportionate costs and interest within two months from the date of seizure of lock down period.
4. That on such deposit, 1st petitioner is permitted to withdraw Rs.50,000/- and balance compensation of Rs. 1,97,800/- with proportionate costs and interest be deposited in any nationalized bank in a fixed deposit for a period of 36 months and on maturity, 1st petitioner is permitted to withdraw his entire balance compensation in lumpsum.
5. That the Claim of petitioners 2 to 5 be and the same hereby dismissed without costs.
6. That the respondents do pay to the petitioners a sum of Rs. 7,528.00 towards proportionate costs of the petition bearing their own costs.
Given under my hand and the seal of the court, this the 29th day of May, 2020.
CHAIRMAN,
Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal Cum-X Addl. District Judge, Rajamahendravaram. Particulars of costs
For Petitioners For Respondents
Stamps on petition :Rs. 2,251.00 Stamps on Vakalat :Rs. 2.00Costs memo filed by R5: Stamps on process:Rs. 250.00Advocate fees :Rs.5,000.00 Advocate fees :Rs. 5,000.00Stamps on vakalatRs. 2.00 Typing charges :Rs. 25.00Typing charges :Rs. 25.00
--------------------------------
:Rs.7,528.00:Rs.5,027.00 ==================
CHAIRMAN,
Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal Cum-X Addl. District Judge, Rajamahendravaram.