Smt Ch Santha Kumari

1OP 915-15

BEFORE THE MOTOR ACCIDENT CLAIMS TRIBUNAL – CUM –

II ADDITIONAL CHIEF JUDGE : CITY CIVIL COURTS : HYDERABAD

Monday, the 8th day of May, 2017.

PRESENT : Smt Ch. Santha Kumari, II Additional Chief Judge.

OP No. 915 of 2015

Between : B. Babu…Petitioner A N D

1. N Rajamogili

2. Ellanki Venugopal

3. The Reliance General Insurance Co. Ltd...Respondents

This Petition coming on 20-04-2016 for final hearing and disposal

before me in the presence of Sri P Rama Krishna Reddy Advocate for the

Petitioner, and the Respondent No. 1 & 2 remained exparte and of Sri M. Venkateshwarlu, Respondent No.3 and the matter having stood over for consideration till this day, this Court delivered the following:-

O R D E R

1)This claim petition was filed by the petitioner under Section 166 of the 

M.V. Act and Rule 455 of MV Rules R/W Section 140 of the M V Act praying for grant of compensation of Rs.25,00,000/­ for the injuries sustained by him in the motor accident that had occurred on 20.03.2015 at 11.50 A.m. near Gas 

Godown, Pragnapur, Medak District.

2)The petitioner claims that on 20.03.2015 at 11.50 A.M. while he was proceeding on his Motor Cycle bearing registration No. AP 11 H 8954 from 

Gajwel towards Pragnapur side slowly on the extreme left side and when he reached near Gas Godown, on the outskirts of Pragnapur, another motor cycle was coming in the opposite direction and that to avoid a collision, the petitioner suddenly applied brakes, due to which the motor cycle skidded on the road and the petitioner fell down from the motor cycle. At that time the lorry bearing registration No. AP 15 V 3339 which was being driven by its driver at high speed in a rash and negligent manner proceeding in the same direction ran over the left hand of the petitioner. Due to that the petitioner sustained crush 2OP 915-15 injury of left hand, which resulted in amputation of left hand above elbow, fracture of right hand, fracture of right fingers, fracture of left ankle, fracture of left knee and other injuries all over the body. Immediately the petitioner was taken to Government Hospital, Gajwel, where he received first aid and thereafter he was shifted to Gandhi Hospital, Hyderabad. After being discharged from the hospital, he was shifted to Poulomi Hospital, Kushaiguda and from there he was shifted to Srinivas Hospital, Siddipet, from there again he was shifted to 

Siddhartha Hospital, Siddipet where he was treated as inpatient from 22.03.2015 to 30.03.2015 and a surgical operation was conducted on 24.03.2015 for the crush injury of left hand and amputation of left hand above elbow was done, debridement and SD was done and repair of other wounds was done. 

After being discharged from the hospital the petitioner is undergoing periodical checkups. A case in Crime No. 84/15 under Section 337 of IPC was registered against the Lorry Driver at Gajwel P.S.

3)Prior to the accident the petitioner was hale and healthy. He was aged about 35 years by the time of the accident and he was working as Maistry earning an income of Rs.20,000/­ per month. Due to the said accident the petitioner became permanently disabled and he lost his left hand above elbow as amputation was done due to the crush injury of left hand sustained by him in the accident. He remained bed­ridden completely. He was unable to walk and he is limping due to fractures of legs and he is unable to carry out his profession. He lost all his amenities and enjoyment in life . He used to contribute his earnings for the maintenance of his family members. The petitioner is the only earning member in his family but he is not able to attend to his normal work and as such he also suffered loss of income. He had to incur huge expenditure for his treatment, transportation and extra nourishment. Due to the accident the petitioner has come to suffer permanent disability. The said accident had occurred due to the rash and negligent driving of the driver of the 3OP 915-15

Lorry. The respondent Nos. 1 & 2 are the driver and owner of the crime vehicle which was insured with the third respondent vide Policy No. 

1805542349000330 which was valid from 01.07.2014 to 30.06.2015. Hence the petitioner is entitled to a compensation of Rs. 25,00,000/­ under various heads. 

4)The respondent No. 1 & 2 remained exparte to the proeedings of the O.P.

5)The third respondent filed the counter not admitting the occurrence of the accident and the injuries sustained by the petitioner in the said accident and his disability and treatment. There was no negligence on the part of the driver of the lorry bearing registration No. AP 15 V 3339 and the accident had occurred solely due to the fault and negligence of the petitioner. The first respondent is the driver and the second respondent who is the owner of the vehicle had wilfully entrusted the vehicle to the driver who was not holding a valid driving license and hence the third respondent is not liable to pay any compensation. The first respondent has to prove that the vehicle was plying with a valid permit and that the vehicle was road worthy. The owner and insurer of the other lorry are necessary parties to the petition. The age, avocation and earnings of the petitioner are denied. Hence the petition is liable to be dismissed.

6) Based on the above pleadings, the following issues were settled for trial.

1) Whether the accident took place due to the rash and negligent driving of the Lorry bearing registration No. AP 15V 3339 causing injuries to the petitioner?

2) Whether the petitioner is entitled for compensation? If so, to what extent and from whom?

3) To what extent?

7)The petitioner himself was examined as Pw.1 and Pw.2 was also examined 

Exs A.1 to A.14 were marked on behalf of the petitioner. No oral evidence was adduced on behalf of the respondent No.3 and Exs B.1 was marked. 

8) Heard. 

9) ISSUE No.1: The petitioner No.1 who was examined as Pw.1 reiterates the 4OP 915-15 claim made in the petition. He states that the accident had taken place at about 11.50 A.M. on 20.03.2015 near Gas Godown, on the outskirts of Pragnapur 

Village. Immediately after the accident he was shifted to the Government 

Hospital, Gajwel and from there he was shifted to Srinivasa Hospital, Siddipet and again from there he was shifted to Siddhartha Hospital, Siddipet, Medak 

District. He was treated in the said hospital as in­patient from 22.03.2015 to 30.03.2015. There a surgical operation was conducted on 24.03.2015 for crush injury of left hand and amputation of left hand above elbow was done. Wound debridment and suturing of wound was also done. At regular intervals they used to change the dressing and while being discharged the petitioner was advised to take complete bed rest and medication. Pw.1 had incurred an expenditure of 

Rs.1,50,000/­ towards treatment as in­patient in the hospital transportation charges, extra nourishment, private attendance charges etc. He became permanently disabled due to the amputation of left hand above elbow and fracture of left knee and as such he is unable to carry out his profession. He sustained crush injury fracture of left upper hand, fracture of right knee, fracture of left foot and fracture of right hand fingers and now there is stiffness of right knee joint and right little finger which is permanently in bent position with disfiguration. He is unable to walk freely and he is also unable to lift weights and there is disfiguration of hands and legs. He lost all comforts and amenities in life and enjoyment in life. He has to incur further expenditure of 

Rs.1,00,000/­ towards medicines and future operations and he requires another amount of Rs.5,00,000/­ for purchasing artificial hand. There is puss leakage regularly due to which he has to go in for change of dressing every day. He was aged 35 years by the time of the accident and he was working as mason for the construction of buildings, civil works etc., in twin cities of Hyderabad and he used to earn an income of Rs.20,000/­ per month. In the cross examination 

Pw.1 acknowledges that he has not presented any documentary evidence regarding his income by the time of the accident. He also acknowledges that 5OP 915-15 he has not purchased the artificial hand. 

10)One I.S. Surendra, Orthopedic surgeon in Siddhartha hospital, Siddipet who was examined as Pw.2 and he affirms that the petitioner was initially taken to Government Hospital, Gajwal from where he was taken to Srinivasa Hospital, 

Siddipet and that from there he had come to Siddartha hospital. Upon being admitted in the hospital the condition of the petitioer was evaluated after all the tests and it was found that the left upper limb was gangrenous due to the crush injury sustained by him in the accident and immediately they had taken the decision to go in for amputation of left hand above elbow and wound debridement and suturing of wound was done on 24.03.2015. Pw.2 had conducted the surgical operation on 24.03.2015 under general anesthesia. He found the following injuries.

1) Fracture dislocation of humorous with dislocation radius and alnartendons exposed.2) Left elbow dislocation 3) Knee laceration and knee joint exposed 5 x 5 cm, 4) 2 lacerations on lateral side of ankle 5 X 15 cm, 5) Abrasions on left check. The injuries sustained by the petitioner are grievous in nature. The petitioner was discharged on 30.03.2015 and was advised regular check up till the wounds were healed. Pw.2 himself had treated the petitioner in their hospital. Ex A.6 Discharge Summary was issued by Pw.2. Ex A.7 Diagnostic reports were issued by Srinivasa Pathological Laboratory. Ex A.8 is the medical bill for Rs.28,300/­ paid by the petitioner towards hospital charge and medicines, surgery, anesthesia etc, during his treatment as in­patient from 22.03.2015 to 30.03.2015. Ex A.9 is a bunch of medical receipts for Rs.9,304/­ which were issued from the medical store of their hospital for the medicines, Ex 

A.10 is a bunch of prescriptions issued by Pw.2 during follow­up treatment. Ex 

A.11 is the certificate assessing 85% disability which was issued by the Medical 

Board. The petitioner cannot carry out his profession as a mason in the construction field and he cannot do strenuous physical labour work. 

6OP 915-15

11)In the cross examination Pw.2 acknowledges that he had not prescribed radiological pathological and biological investigations the relevnt reports were already present with the patient at the time of admission in their hospital. He affirms that being an orthopedic surgeon he is able to speak about the nature of disability suffered by the petitioner. 

12)The documentary evidence presented by the petitioner comprises Exs A.1 to A.14. Ex A.1 is the certified copy of the First Information Report registered with Gajwel P.S vide FIR No. 84/2015 dt. 20.03.2015. Ex A.2 is a Certified copy of Charge Sheet, Ex A.3 is a certified copy of Injuries certificate issued by the 

Civil Assistant Surgeon, Community Health Center, Gajwel, Medak District. Ex 

A.4 is a certified copy of the Judgment in CC No. 299 of 2015, Ex A.5 is the prescription dt. 21.03.2015, Ex A.6 is the Discharge Summary dt. 30.03.2015 which shows that the petitioner was treated as in­patient in Siddhartha 

Hospital, Siddipet, Medak Dist from 22.03.2015 to 30.03.2015 and that amputation of left hand above elbow was performed on him. Ex A.7 is a bunch of medical examination reports dt. 21.03.2015 issued by Srinivasa Hospital, Ex A.8 is the in­patient medical bill dt. 30.03.2015 for a sum of Rs.28,300/­ issued by 

Siddhartha Medicals, Siddipeta, Medak District, Ex A.9 is a bunch of medical bills (13 in number) for a sum of Rs. 37,607/­ issued by Siddhartha Medicals, 

Siddipeta, Ex A.10 a bunch of medical prescriptions (5 in number). Ex A.11 is the disability certificate dt. 28.04.2015 issued by District Medical Board, District 

Hospital, Sanga Reddy of Medak determining the disability of the petitioner as 85%. Ex A.12 is the Identity card issued to the petitioner by Government of 

Telangana State, Ex A.13 comprises photographs of the petitioner showing the amputation of left hand above elbow with C.D, Ex A.14 is a bunch of X­rays. 

13)The claim of the petitioner that the said accident which resulted in serious injuries t o him leading to amputation of left hand above elbow was due 7OP 915-15 to the rash and negligent driving of the driver of the crime vehicle I.e the lorry bearing registration No. AP 15 V 3339 is vehemently opposed by the 3rd respondent insurance company on the ground that the accident had occurred due to fault and negligence of the petitioner himself. However, as per Ex A.2 

Charge Sheet filed by the Investigating Officer before the court after due investigation makes it clear that the driver of the crime vehicle had driven the vehicle in a rash and negligent manner and that consequently the accident had occurred resulting in injuries to the petitioner. Ex A.4 which is a certified copy of judgment in CC No.299 of 2015 passed by the Judicial Magistrate of First 

Class Special Mobile Court at Medak shows that the driver of the said lorry had admitted the charges framed against him and that he was convicted under 

Section 338 of IPC. Therefore, there is good reason to believe that the accident resulting in grievous injuries and amputation of hand upto elbow to the petitiner had occurred due to rash and negligent driving on the part of the driver of the crime vehicle. This issue is answered accordingly. 

14) ISSUE No.2 : In view of the finding that the accident resulting in serious injuries to the petitioner had occurred due to the rash and negligent driving of the driver of the crime vehicle, it is clear that the respondent Nos. 2 & 3 being the registered owner and and insurer of the crime vehicle respectively carry the liability of paying compensation to the petitioner. The first respondent who is the driver of the crime vehicle and the second respondent who is the owner of the crime vehicle were set remained exparte to the proceedings of the OP and thereby it could be deemed that they have acquiesced to the claim made by the petitioner. Ex B.1 insurance policy shows that the crime vehicle stood insured with respondent No.3 insurance company during the period from 01.07.2014 to 30.06.2015 implying thereby that by the time of the said accident the crime vehicle was covered by the insurance provided by the third respondent insurance company. It follows that the respondent No.3 insurance company carries the 8OP 915-15 liability of paying compensation to the petitioner on behalf of the second respondent. 

15)As per Ex A.3 MLC, the petitioner had sustained the following injuries. 

1) Fracture dislocation of humorous, dislocation of radius and ulnar tendons exposed, dislocation of Left elbow, laceration on knee and knee joint exposed, 2 lacerations on lateral side of ankle and Abrasions on left check. According to 

Pw.2 who had treated the petitioner at Siddhartha Hospital, Siddipet, Medak 

District the petitioner had sustained 5 injuries in the accident out of which two injuries were grievous in nature and three injures were simple in nature.

16)Pw.2 also affirms that due to the crush injury on the left upper limb of the petitioner which was found to be gangrenous, amputation of left hand above elbow was done on 24.03.2015. Further Pw.2 affirms that he concurs with the assessment of disability of 85% made by the Medical Board as per Ex A.11 

Disability Certificate.

17)According to the petitioner, he was working as a mason involved in construction of buildings, civil works etc in Hyderabad and that prior to the accident he used to earn an income of Rs.20,000/­ per month, but he has not presented any evidence regarding this claim. However as a stone mason is a skilled manual worker the income of the petitioner could be taken as Rs.6,000/­ per month.

18)As per Clause 5 of the II Schedule to the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 in case of disability in a non fatal road accident the compensation payable to the victim would include the loss of income for the actual period of disablement not exceeding 52 weeks in addition to the amount arrived at by multiplying the income with the applicable multiplier in case pf permanent total disablement 9OP 915-15 and in case of partial disablement such a part of the compensation for permanent total disablement in accordance with the degree of partial disablement. As per Clause 4, General damages in case of injuries would include compensation for pain and suffering on account of grievous injuries or simple injuries as the case may be and the actual medical expenses incurred, such a claim being supported by bills/vouchers.

19) In the decision of the Hon'ble High Court reported in 2017 ACJ 904 G 

Muni Ratnam vs Natural Odhvaji Thakkar and another, Ii was held that if the victim of a road accident sustains injuries which bring about a certain decree of permanent disability, as a result of which he is not in a position to pursue his avocation and totally has lost his earning capacity, his functional disability could be considered as 100% and that as such no further deduction need to be made from the compensation awardable to him under the head loss of income. 

20)As the petitioner is a mason who is a skilled manual worker his income could be taken as Rs.6,000/­ per month and his annual income would be 

Rs.72,000/­ (6,000 x 12). The Age of the petitioner is shown as 30 years in Ex 

A.3 MLC and as per Ex A.12 his date of birth is 20.04.1985 and hence he could be said to fall in the age group of 30 to 35 years. Therefore, the multiplier applicable to him as per the Precedential guidance in Sarla Verma Vs Delhi 

Transport Corporation 2009 ACJ 1298 SC, is 16. Accordingly the loss of income 

for the petitioner works out to Rs.72,000/­ x 16 = Rs.11,52,000/­. In addition to 

this the petitioner is entitled to damages for pain and suffering faced by him due to the grievous and simple injuries sustained by him, the expenses incurred by him for purchasing medicines, for nutritious food, loss of income during the period of hospitalization and recovery etc. Therefore, the total compensation payable to the petitioner would be as follows:

10OP 915-15

Sl. Compensation HeadAmount No.Rs.

1.Compensation for pain and suffering on account of grievous 50,000/- injuries Rs. 25,000/- x 2

2.Compensation for pain and suffering on account of simple 30,000/- injuries Rs.10,000/- x 3

3.Expenditures for hospitalization medicines etc 30,600/-

4.Expenditure for better nourishment, travel to and fro between 50,000/- home and hospital, attendance in hospital etc

5.Loss of income for three months Rs.6,000/- x 3 18,000/-

6.Compensation for loss of earning capacity due to physical 11,52,000/- disability

7.Loss of amenities and the ability to lead normal life 50,000/-

8.Compensation for loss of enjoyment of life 50,000/-

9.Future medical expenses 1,00,000/-

Total :15,30,600/-

Therefore the petitioner is entitled to a total compensation of Rs.15,30,600/- from the respondent Nos. 2 & 3 together with interest. The issue is answered accordingly.

21)ISSUE No.3:- In the result, the petition is partly allowed with proportionate costs and a compensation of Rs.15,30,600/- is hereby awarded to the petitioner and the same is payable by the respondents 2 & 3 together with interest @ 7.5% per annum from the date of filing of the petition till the date of realization. The respondents 2 & 3 are directed to deposit the above said compensation amount within one month from the date of this order. On deposit of the said compensation amount the petitioner is permitted to withdraw an amount of Rs.5,30,600/- + together with the interest and total costs deposited by the respondents. The balance compensation amount of Rs.10,00,000/- shall be kept in fixed deposit in any nationalized bank for a period of three years.

Rest of the claim of the petitioner is dismissed without costs. Advocate fee is fixed at Rs.5,000/-.

Dictated to the Stenographer, transcribed and typed by him, corrected and

pronounced by me in the open court, on this the 8th day of May, 2017.

Sd/-

II Additional Chief Judge City Civil Court, Hyderabad 11OP 915-15

Appendix of Evidence Witnesses examined

For the Petitioner : For the respondents :

Pw.1 : B BabuNIL

Pw.2 : I.S.Surendra

Documents Marked

For the Petitioner :

Ex A.1 is the certified copy of F.I.R vide FIR No. 84/2015 dt. 20.03.2015. 

Ex A.2 is the Certified copy of Charge Sheet, 

Ex A.3 is the certified copy of Injuries certificate

Ex A.4 is the certified copy of the Judgment in CC No. 299 of 2015, 

Ex A.5 is the prescription dt. 21.03.2015, 

Ex A.6 is the Discharge Summary dt. 30.03.2015 

Ex A.7 is the bunch of medical examination reports 

Ex A.8 is inpatient medical bill dt. 30.03.2015 

Ex A.9 is the bunch of medical bills (13 in number) 

Ex A.10 is bunch of medical prescriptions (5 in number). 

Ex A.11 is a Disability Certificate dt. 28.04.2015

Ex A.12 is the Identity card 

Ex A.13 is the photographs of the petitioner 

Ex A.14 is bunch of X­rays. 

For the Respondents :

Ex B.1 : Insurance Policy Copy

Sd/­ II Additional Chief Judge City Civil Court, Hyderabad

1OP 1901-14

BEFORE THE MOTOR ACCIDENT CLAIMS TRIBUNAL – CUM –

II ADDITIONAL CHIEF JUDGE : CITY CIVIL COURTS : HYDERABAD

Thursday the 4th day of May, 2017.

PRESENT : Smt Ch. Santha Kumari, II Additional Chief Judge.

OP No. 1901 of 2014

Between :

1. Mrs. Dantu Sarojini

2. Harisri Vallipriya

3. Dantu Karthikdya Sharma…Petitioners

A N D

1. Sanjeev Pachuri

2. M/s United India Insurance Co. Ltd...Respondents

This Petition coming on 20-04-2016 for final hearing and disposal

before me in the presence of A.Rama Murthy/Ch.Anjaneyulu,

Advocate for the Petitioners, and the Respondent No. 1 abated and of

Sri A.V.K.S.Prasad, Respondent No.2 and the matter having stood

over for consideration till this day, this Court delivered the following:-

O R D E R

1)This is a claim petition filed by the petitioners under Section 166 of the

M.V. Act and Rule 455 of MV Rules R/W Section 140 of M V Act a claiming compensation of Rs.20,00,000/- for the death of the deceased Dantu Sundara

Rama Sastry in the motor accident that had occurred on 02.06.2014 at 10

P.M.

2)The petitioner No.1 is the widow and the petitioner Nos. 2 & 3 are the children of one LateDantu Sundara Rama Shastri claim that around 10 P.M on 02.06.2014 the deceased was proceeding on his Honda Activa bearing registration No. AP 13 L 2075 towards Hydershawkote and that after he crossed the Tippukhan Bridge, the driver of a Ford Ikon car bearing registration No. DL 3C AA 9628 who was driving the car rashly and negligently at high speed hit the Honda Activa scooter from behind, due to which the deceased fell down on the road and sustained head injury and other injuries.

Immediately he was shifted to Premier Hospitals, Nanal Nagar, Mehdipatnam where while undergoing treatment he succumbed to the injuries on 2OP 1901-14 04.06.2014. All the petitioners were depending on the deceased for their substance. The deceased used to work as Purohit and Ved Pandit and he used to earn to an income of Rs.15,000/- per month which he utilized for the welfare of the petitioners. The petitioners became destitutes because of the untimely death of the said Sundara Rama Sastry. The petitioners had to spend an amount of Rs.1 lakh for the treatment of the deceased. A case in Crime No.

230/2014 was registered against the Driver of the crime vehicle at Narsingi

P.S.

3) The said accident had occurred due to the rash and negligent driving of the driver of the Ford Ikon car bearing registration No. DL 3C AA 9628. The respondent Nos. 1 & 2 are the owner and insurer respectively of the crime vehicle vide Policy No.051581/31/13/02/00001413 which was valid from 10.10.2013 to 09.10.2014. Hence the petitioners are entitled to a compensation of Rs. 20,00,000/- under various heads.

4)The respondent No. 1 was set and remained exparte to the proceedings of the O.P.

5)In the counter filed by the second respondent insurance company the occurrence of the accident is not admitted and it is denied that the deceased

Dantu Sundara Rama Sastry had died in the accident. There was no negligence on the part of the driver of the Ford Ikon car bearing registration No. DL 3C AA 9628 and the accident had occurred solely due to the fault and negligence of the deceased himself. The first respondent who is the owner of the crime vehicle had wilfully entrusted the vehicle to the driver who was not holding a valid driving license and hence the second respondent is not liable to pay any compensation. The age, avocation and earnings of the deceased are denied.

3OP 1901-14

Hence the petition is liable to be dismissed.

6) Based on the above pleadings, the following issues were settled for trial.

1) Whether the accident took place due to the rash and negligent driving of the Ford Car bearing registration No. DL 3C AA 9528 causing death of

Dantu Sundara Rama Shastri?

2) Whether the petitioners are entitled for compensation? If so, to what extent and from whom?

3) To what relief?

7)The second petitioner was examined as Pw.1 and Pw.2 was also examined and Exs A.1 to A.10 were marked on behalf of the petitioners. No oral evidence was adduced on behalf of the respondent No.2 and Ex B.1 was marked.

8) Heard.

9) ISSUE No.1 : The 2nd petitioner who is the daughter of the deceased was examined as Pw.1 and she reiterates the claim made in the claim petition. She acknowledges in the cross examination that her marriage was performed on 22.05.2014 after the death of her deceased father and that she has been living with her uncle by name Hari Krishnakanth and that she is a graduate. She acknowledges that she was not an eye witness to the accident and that she herself lodged the complaint with the police. She further acknowledges that as per Ex A.8 Pan Card the date of birth of her deceased father is 01.08.1960 and that the age of her deceased father was 55 years by the time of the accident.

10)One B, Hari Kishore was examined as Pw.2 and he states in his evidence that he was an eye witness to the accident. The accident had occurred due to the rash and negligent driving of the driver of the crime vehicle.

4OP 1901-14

11)Let us look into the documentary evidence presented by the petitioners.

Ex A.1 is a certified photostat copy of the FIR in crime No. 230/2014 of Narsingi

Police Station registered under Section 304 (A) of IPC against the driver of the

Ford Ikon car bearing registration No. DL-3C-AA 9528 dt. 03.06.2014. Ex A.2 is a certified photostat copy of the Charge Sheet dt. 30.06.2014. Ex A.3 is a certified photostat copy of the Inquest Report dt. 03.06.2014, Ex A.4 is a certified phostat copy of the Motor Vehicle Inspector's Report, Ex A.5 is a certified phostat copy of the Post Mortem Examination Report, Ex A.6 is the

Income Tax Return Form No.2D for the assessment year 2006-07, Ex A.7 is the

Income Tax Receipt dt. 06.10.2006, Ex A.8 is the Pan Card of the deceased

Dantu Sundara Rama Sastry, Ex A.9 is the statement of Punjab National Bank pertaining to the account of the deceased, Ex A.10 is the statement of State

Bank of Hyderabad pertaining to the account of the deceased.

12)It is clear from Ex A.2 Chargesheet that the accident resulting in the death of the deceased Dantu Sundara Rama Sastry had occurred due to the fact that the driver of the crime vehicle drove the vehicle in a rash and negligent manner.

Though the respondent contends that the accident had occurred due to the negligence of the deceased himself , the driver of the crime vehicle has not been examined as a witness before the court to speak about the manner in which the accident had occurred. As such an adverse inference could be drawn in this regard. Moreover Pw.2 who had apparently witnessed the accident affirms that the accident had occurred due to the rash and negligent driving of the driver of the crime vehicle and Exs A.2 Charge sheet and Ex A.3 Inquest report affirm this fact. In these circumstances, it could be deduced that the accident resulting in the death of the deceased Dantu Sundara Rama Sastry had occurred due to the rash and negligent driving of the driver of the crime vehicle. This issue is answered accordingly.

5OP 1901-14

13) ISSUE No.2 : In view of the finding made in issue No.1, to the effect that the accident resulting in the death of the deceased Dantu Sundara Rama Sastry had occurred due to the rash and negligent driving of the driver of the crime vehicle, it is clear that the petitioners are entitled to claim compensation from the first respondent he being the owner of the crime vehicle and that the second respondent being the insurer of the crime vehicle carries the onus of discharging that liability.

14) However, to arrive at the quantum of compensation, the crucial determinants are the age and income of the deceased. The petitioners have stated in the claim petition that the deceased Dantu Sundara Rama Sastry was aged 51 years by the time of the accident. Further as per Ex A.3 Inquest Report and Post Mortem Report the deceased Dantu Sundara Rama Sastry was aged 51 years by the time of his accidental death. However, as per Ex A.6 Income Tax

Return and Ex A.8 Pan Card of the deceased his date of birth is 01.08.1960 which implies that as on 02.06.2014 when the accident had occurred his age was about 54 years. Therefore, he could be said to fall in the age group of 51-55 years. Regarding the income of the deceased, the petitioners claim that the deceased was working as a priest/pujari at Ganapathi temple, Mehdipatnam apart from functioning as a purohit for conducting various Hindu religious rituals and that he used to earn an income of not less than Rs.20,000/- per month. In support of their claim, they have presented in evidence the income taxreturns and the bank account details of the deceased Ex A.6 shows that during the assessment year 2006-07 the deceased had earned a total income of

Rs.1,02,240/-. Ex A.9 and A.10 Account statements issued by Punjab National

Bank, IInd Lancer Branch, and State Bank of Hyderabad, Mehdipatnam Branch show that the deceased was making regular deposits in his accounts. Taking 6OP 1901-14 into consideration the said income of Rs.1,02,240/- per annum in the year 2006-07 and the lapse of a period of about 8 years since then upto the date of the accident and in view of the strong probabilities of increase of income during this period, it appears, to be reasonable to assume that the deceased would have earned an income of Rs.15,000/- per month which works out to

Rs.1,80,000/- per annum from his work as temple priest/purohit conducting various rituals.

15)In the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court reported in AIR 2009 S.C

Page 3104 (SARLA VERMA AND OTHERS VS. DELHI TRANSPORT

CORPORATION) it was held that to have uniformity and consistency, the

Tribunal should determine the compensation in case of death by following three well settled steps. In step No.1 the multiplicand i.e, the annual income of the deceased deducted by the amount for personal expenses, which the deceased would have incurred had he or she continued to be alive, should be ascertained.

In step No.2 the appropriate multiplier from the table of multipliers should be chosen with reference to the age of the deceased. Then, in step No.3 the actual calculation of the loss of dependency should be made taking into consideration the multiplicand and the multiplier. Basically only three facts need to be established by the claimants for assessing the compensation in case of death, viz., (a) age of the deceased, (b) income of the deceased and (c) the number of dependents. The isues to be determined by the Tribunal to arrive at the loss of dependency are (I) additions / deductions to be made for arriving at the income,

(ii) the deductions to be made towards personal living expenses of the deceased and (iii) the multiplier to be applied with reference to the age of the deceased. It was further held that in cases falling under section 166 of the M.V.Act, the

Davies method is applicable and that the scheme of multipliers prepared by applying the ratio determined by the Apex Court in GENERAL MANAGER, 7OP 1901-14

KERALA TRANSPORT CORPORATION VS. SUSAMMA THOMAS (1994 (2) SCC

176) U.P. STATE TRANSPORT CORPORATION VS. TRILOK CHANDRA (1996 (4)

SCC 362) and NEW INDIA ASSURANCE COMPANY LIMITED VS. CHARLIE (2005 (10) SCC 720) is appropriate. This scheme of multipliers starts with an operative multiplier of 18 for the age group of 15 to 20 years and 21 to 25 years, which is reduced by 1 unit for every 5 years, i.e., M-17 for 26 to 30 years, M-16 for 31 to 35 years, M-15 for 36 to 40 years, M-14 for 41 to 45 years, M-13 for 46 to 50 years, then reduced by 2 units for every 5 years i.e, M-11 for 51 to 55 years, M-9 for 56 to 60 years, M-7 for 61 to 65 years, M-5 for 66 to 70 years and above. In case the deceased was an unmarried person and the claimants are the parents, a deduction of 50% has to be made from the income towards personal and living expenses. When the deceased was a married person, a deduction of 1/3rd of his income towards personal and living expenses of the deceased had he continued to be alive, has to be made if the number of his dependent family members is 2 to 3, 1/4th if the number of dependent family members is 4 to 6 and 1/5th if the member of dependent family members exceeds six (6). In the said decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court, the scheme of multipliers applicable for determining the compensation payable for the claims made under Section 166 of the M.V.

Act has been approved which is distinct from the scheme of multipliers devised in the second schedule to the M.V.Act which is applicable to claims made under

Section 163-A of the Act. Further, the Apex Court has held that the father or husband, as the case may be, is a not a dependent and that similarly the brothers and sisters or the sons and daughters, as the case may be, will not be considered as dependents because they would have their own independent incomes.

16)In another decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court reported in 2013 (9)

SCC 54 Rajesh and others vs. Rajbeer Singh and others, it was held that in the 8OP 1901-14 case of a fatal motor accident the Tribunal should award atleast an amount of

Rs.25,000/- towards funeral expenses which should not be confined to just the fee paid in the crematorium or the fee paid for the use of space in the cemetery as there would be other attendant rites as well which would involve considerable expenditure. It was also held that an amount of atleast

Rs.1,00,000/- should be awarded towards loss of consortium. The main guiding principle for determining the quantum of compensation is that it must be just and reasonable even if it turns out to be more than what has been claimed in the petition as Section 168 of M V Act 1988 empowers the claims Tribunal to determine the amount of compensation which appears to it to be just, there being no other limitation or restriction on this power. Further it was held that in case the deceased victim was aged below 40 years by the time of the accident there must be an addition of 50% to his actual income while computing future prospects, such addition being 30% in case the deceased was in the age group of 40 to 50 years and 15% in case he was in the age group of 50 to 60 years, there being no such addition for older victims.

17)In the present case the income of the deceased by the time of his death was Rs.15,000/- per month and his age was 54 years and as such 15% of his income has to be added as future prospects which takes the income of the deceased to Rs.17,250/- per month (Rs.15,000/- + Rs.2,500/-). As the deceased was married as per the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court a deduction of 1/3rd has to be made from the income of the deceased Dantu Sundara Rama

Sastry towards his personal and living expenses, the remaining amount being considered as his contribution to the family. Therefore, out of the income of the deceased i.e Rs.17,250/- per month 1/3rd i.e Rs.5,750/- has to be deducted.

As such the monthly income of the deceased works out to Rs.17,250/- -

Rs.5,750/- = Rs.11,500/- per month and the yearly income works out to 9OP 1901-14

Rs.11,500/- X 12 = Rs.1,38,000/-. To this multiplier 11 has to be applied and therefore, the compensation works out to Rs.1,38,000/- x 11 = Rs.15,18,000/-.

As such the loss of dependency would be Rs.15,18,000/-. In addition to that the petitioners are entitled to an amount of Rs.10,000/- towards loss of estate and also an amount of Rs.1,00,000/- towards loss of consortium for petitioner

No.1 and another amount of Rs.1,00,000/- for loss of love and affection for the petitioners 2 & 3 and Rs.25,000/- towards transport and funeral expenses.

Therefore the total compensation awardable to the petitioners would be as follows:

Sl. Compensation HeadAmount No.Rs.

1.Compensation for loss of dependency 15,18,000

2.Loss of consortium for petitioner No.1 1,00,000

3.Loss of Love and affection for petitioners 2 & 3 1,00,000

4.Loss of Estate 10,000

5.Compensation for transport and funeral expenses 25,000 Total : 17,53,000

Therefore, the petitioners are entitled to a total compensation of Rs.17,53,000/- from the respondent Nos. 1 & 2 together with interest. The issue is answered accordingly.

18)ISSUE No.3:- In the result, the petition is partly allowed with proportionate costs and a compensation of Rs.17,53,000/- is hereby awarded to the petitioners and the same is payable by the respondents 1 & 2 together with interest @ 7.5% per annum from the date of filing of the petition till the date of realization.

ii) The respondents 1 & 2 are directed to deposit the above said compensation amount within one month from the date of this order.

iii) The total compensation awarded is apportioned among the petitioners as follows:

10OP 1901-14

a) Out of the above said compensation amount, the first petitioner is awarded

Rs.14,53,000/- together with proportionate interest and the first petitioner is also entitled to the costs of the petition.

b) The petitioners 2 & 3 are awarded to Rs.1,50,000/- each together with interest thereon.

c) On deposit of the said compensation amount the first petitioner is permitted to withdraw an amount of Rs.4,53,000/- + together with the interest thereon and total costs deposited by the respondents.

d) The petitioners 2 & 3 are permitted to withdraw an amount of Rs.50,000/- each together with interest thereon.

e) The balance compensation amount of Rs.10,00,000/- payable to the first petitioner and the balance compensation amount of Rs.1,00,000/- each payable to the petitioner Nos. 2 & 3 shall be kept in fixed deposit in any nationalized bank for a period of three years. After completion of the three years the petitioners are permitted to withdraw their respective amounts together with the interest accrued thereon. Rest of the claim of the petitioners is dismissed without costs. Advocate fee is fixed at Rs.5,000/-.

Dictated to the Stenographer, transcribed and typed by him, corrected and

pronounced by me in the open court, on this the 4th day of May, 2017.

Sd/-

II Additional Chief Judge City Civil Court, Hyderabad

Appendix of Evidence Witnesses examined

For the Petitioners : For the respondents :

Pw.1 : Harisri VallipriyaNIL

Pw.2 : Harisri Vallipriya 11OP 1901-14

Documents Marked

For the Petitioner :

Ex A.1 is the certified photostat copy of FIR .

Ex A.2 is a certified photostat copy of Charge Sheet

Ex A.3 is the certified photostat copy of Inquest Report dt. 03.06.2014,

Ex A.4 is the certified phostat copy of Motor Vehicle Inspector Report,

Ex A.5 is the certified phostat copy of Post Morten Examination Report,

Ex A.6 is the Income Tax Return for the assessment year 2006-07,

Ex A.7 is the Income Tax Receipt dt. 06.10.2006,

Ex A.8 is the Pan Card of the deceased Dantu Sundara Rama Sastry,

Ex A.9 is the statement of Punjab National Bank of the deceased,

Ex A.10 is the statement of State Bank of Hyderabad of the deceased.

For the Respondent :

Ex B.1 : Policy Copy.

Sd/-

II Additional Chief Judge City Civil Court, Hyderabad

1OP 322-13

BEFORE THE MOTOR ACCIDENT CLAIMS TRIBUNAL – CUM –

II ADDITIONAL CHIEF JUDGE : CITY CIVIL COURTS : HYDERABAD

Tuesday the 16th day of May, 2017.

PRESENT : Smt Ch. Santha Kumari, II Additional Chief Judge.

OP No. 322 of 2013

Between :

1. Nandyala Naga Shesha Jaladurga

2. N Manikyala Rao…Petitioners

A N D

1. G Gopal Reddy

2. M/s Reliance General Insurance Co. Ltd...Respondents

This Petition coming on 22-02-2017 for final hearing and disposal

before me in the presence of Sri U.Praveen Kumar,Advocate for the

Petitioners, and the Respondent No. 1 remained exparte and of Sri S

V Gupta, Respondent No.2 and the matter having stood over for

consideration till this day, this Court delivered the following:-

O R D E R

1)This is a claim petition filed under Section 166 of the M.V. Act claiming a compensation of Rs.15,00,000/- for the death of the deceased N

Chandrasekhar in the accident that had occurred on 21.12.2010 at about 23.00 hours.

2)The petitioners claim that on 21.12.2010 while the deceased was proceeding on his motor cycle bearing registration No. AP 28 BS 3877 from

Pragathi Nagar towards JNTU and when he reached near Aditya Apartments

Tulasi Nagar the driver of the Tipper Lorry bearing Registration No. AP 9W 4537 which was driven by its driver at high speed in a rash and negligent manner hit the motor cycle, as a result of which the deceased fell down and sustained bleeding injuries and died on the spot. The deceased who was aged about 27 years by the time of the accident was hale and healthy and he was working as Sales Manager and he also used to do real estate business earning an income of Rs.20,000/- per month. Due to the said accident, the petitioners lost their only son and they were made to suffer deep mental 2OP 322-13 agony. Therefore, a compensation of Rs.15,00,000/- may be awarded with costs and interest @ 18% per annum.

3)The first respondent was set and remained exparte to the proceedings of the petition.

4)In the counter filed by the second respondent the allegations made in the petition are denied including the manner of occurance of the accident and the claim for the compensation made by the petitioners. The second respondent contends that the crime vehicle is not owned by the first respondent and that it was not insured with the second respondent. The second respondent had not issued any insurance policy in respect of the

Tipper lorry bearing registration No. AP 9W 4537 and even if any such policy as alleged is traced out or exists, the liability of the second respondent, if any would be restricted as per the terms and conditions of the insurance policy provided the owner and driver of the said vehicle did not violate any of the provisions of the M V Act and M V Rules. The driver of the crime vehicle had no driving licence to drive the tipper as on the date of the alleged accident and the said vehicle was plying without permit and fitness certificate on the roads. As such there is a violation provisions of the M V Act and M V Rules.

Therefore, the second respondent is not liable to pay any compensation. The first respondent had not informed about the alleged accident to the second respondent and he had also not furnished the documents of the crime vehicle, so far. The second respondent is entitled to take all the general defences that are available Under Section 170 A & B of M V Act. The second respondent denies that the deceased had a valid and effective driving licence to drive the motor cycle as on the date of the alleged accident. The crime vehicle was not involved in the alleged accident, and as such the question of negligence on the part of the driver of the alleged crime vehicle does not arise.

The petitioners are not entitled for the compensation claimed, so also the rate of interest mentioned in the petition. The second respondent denies that the 3OP 322-13 deceased was hale and healthy, being aged 27 years and that he was working as Sales Manager in Abhya Traders and was also doing real estate business earning an income of Rs.20,000/- per month. The second respondent denies that the petitioners are the only legal heirs and dependents of the deceased. The petition against the second respondent is liable to be dismissed with exemplary costs.

5) Based on the above pleadings, the following issues have been settled for trial.

1. Whether the deceased K Chandrasekhar died in the motor accident caused by the Tripper Lorry bearing Registration No. AP 9W 4537?

2. Whether the petitioners are entitled for compensation ? If so, to what extent and from whom?

3. To what relief?

6)The first petitioner was examined as Pw.1,one B Srinivas was exmined as Pw.2 and one S Srinivas was examined as Pw.3 and Exs A.1 to A.7 and

Exs X.1 to X.3 were marked on behalf of the petitioners and while no oral evidence was adduced on behalf of the second respondent and Ex B.1 insurance policy was marked.

7) Heard.

8) ISSUE No.1 :- The first petitioner who was examined as pw.1 reiterates the claim made in the petition. She affirms that the accident had taken place at about 23.00 hours on 21.12.2010 and that the deceased had died on the spot. In the cross examination, Pw.1 states that she has filed a legal heir certificate showing that she and her husband are the parents of the deceased and that she has also filed the driving licence of her deceased son. She denies the suggestion that the deceased was not earning an earning of

Rs.20,000/- per month and that Ex A.6 is a created document. She further denies the suggestion that the deceased was aged more than 35 years by the time of the accident and that Pw.1 is aged more than 60 years.

9)Pw.2 states in his evidence that he was an eye witness to the accident 4OP 322-13 and that the accident had occurred due to the rash and negligent driving of the driver of the Tipper bearing Registration No. AP 9W 4537. In the cross examination Pw.2 states that he had got a report lodged with the police regarding the accident through the maternal uncle of the deceased.

10)Pw.3 states in his evidence that he works as Manager in Abhay Traders and that he has been authorised to give evidence in the present case. P.w.3 affirms that the deceased had worked as Sales Manager during the period from October 2008 till his accidental death on 21.12.2010 and that he was drawing a salary of Rs.6,000/- per month besides conveyance allowance of

Rs.1,500/- and incentives of Rs.2,500/- by the time of his death. If the deceased had continued to be alive he would have got double that salary. Ex

A.6 is the Salary Certificate issued by the proprietor of Abhay Traders.

11)The documentary evidence presented by the petitioners comprises Ex

A.1 to A.7. Ex A.1 is a copy of the FIR, Ex A.2 is a Copy of the Inquest

Report, Ex A.3 is a Copy of the Charge Sheet, Ex A.4 is a copy of the PME

Report, Ex A.5 is a copy of the MVI Report, Ex A.6 is the salary certificate of the deceased and Ex A.7 is the death certificate of the deceased.

12)The claim of the petitioners that the said accident which resulted in the death of the deceased had occurred due to the rash and negligent driving of the driver of the crime vehicle i.e Tipper Lorry Bearing registration No. AP 9W 4537 is vehemently opposed by the second respondent. The evidence of Pw

Nos.1 & 2 and Ex A.3 charge sheet filed by the Inspecting Officer before the court after due investigation give clear indications that the accident that had occurred on 21.12.2010 at 23.00 hours was due to the rash and negligent driving on the part of the driver of the crime vehicle i.e Tipper lorry bearing Registration No. AP 9W 4537. This issue is answered accordingly.

13) ISSUE No.2 : In view of the finding made in issue No.1, to the

effect that the accident resulting in the death of the deceased N

5OP 322-13

Chandrasekhar had occurred due to the rash and negligent driving of

the driver of the crime vehicle, it is clear that the petitioners are entitled

to claim compensation from the first respondent being owner of the

crime vehicle and the second respondent being the insurer of the crime

vehicle.

14)However, to arrive at the quantum of compensation, the crucial determinants are the age and income of the deceased. As per Ex A.2

Inquest Report and Ex A.4 Post Mortem Report the age of the deceased N

Chandrasekhar by the time of the accident was 28 years. According to Ex

A.6 salary certificate dt.28.09.2012, the deceased N Chandrasekhar was working as a Sale Manager with M/s Abhay Traders, Yousufguda,

Hyderabad from October, 2008 till his accidental death and that he was earning a salary of Rs.6,000/- per month apart from conveyance allowance of Rs.1,500 and incentives of Rs.2,500 per month.

15)In the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court reported in AIR 2009 S.C

Page 3104 (SARLA VERMA AND OTHERS VS. DELHI TRANSPORT

CORPORATION) it was held that to have uniformity and consistency, the

Tribunal should determine the compensation in case of death by following three well settled steps. In step No.1 the multiplicand i.e, the annual income of the deceased deducted by the amount for personal expenses, which the deceased would have incurred had he or she continued to be alive, should be ascertained.

In step No.2 the appropriate multiplier from the table of multipliers should be chosen with reference to the age of the deceased. Then, in step No.3 the actual calculation of the loss of dependency should be made taking into consideration the multiplicand and the multiplier. Basically only three facts need to be established by the claimants for assessing the compensation in case of death, viz., (a) age of the deceased, (b) income of the deceased and (c) the number of 6OP 322-13 dependents. The isues to be determined by the Tribunal to arrive at the loss of dependency are (I) additions / deductions to be made for arriving at the income,

(ii) the deductions to be made towards personal living expenses of the deceased and (iii) the multiplier to be applied with reference to the age of the deceased. It was further held that in cases falling under section 166 of the M.V.Act, the

Davies method is applicable and that the scheme of multipliers prepared by applying the ratio determined by the Apex Court in GENERAL MANAGER,

KERALA TRANSPORT CORPORATION VS. SUSAMMA THOMAS (1994 (2) SCC

176) U.P. STATE TRANSPORT CORPORATION VS. TRILOK CHANDRA (1996 (4)

SCC 362) and NEW INDIA ASSURANCE COMPANY LIMITED VS. CHARLIE (2005 (10) SCC 720) is appropriate. This scheme of multipliers starts with an operative multiplier of 18 for the age group of 15 to 20 years and 21 to 25 years, which is reduced by 1 unit for every 5 years, i.e., M-17 for 26 to 30 years, M-16 for 31 to 35 years, M-15 for 36 to 40 years, M-14 for 41 to 45 years, M-13 for 46 to 50 years, then reduced by 2 units for every 5 years i.e, M-11 for 51 to 55 years, M-9 for 56 to 60 years, M-7 for 61 to 65 years, M-5 for 66 to 70 years and above. In case the deceased was an unmarried person and the claimants are the parents, a deduction of 50% has to be made from the income towards personal and living expenses. When the deceased was a married person, a deduction of 1/3rd of his income towards personal and living expenses of the deceased had he continued to be alive, has to be made if the number of his dependent family members is 2 to 3, 1/4th if the number of dependent family members is 4 to 6 and 1/5th if the member of dependent family members exceeds six (6). In the said decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court, the scheme of multipliers applicable for determining the compensation payable for the claims made under Section 166 of the M.V.

Act has been approved which is distinct from the scheme of multipliers devised in the second schedule to the M.V.Act which is applicable to claims made under

Section 163-A of the Act. Further, the Apex Court has held that the father or husband, as the case may be, is a not a dependent and that similarly the brothers and sisters or the sons and daughters, as the case may be, will not be 7OP 322-13 considered as dependents because they would have their own independent incomes.

16)In another decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court reported in 2013 (9)

SCC 54 Rajesh and others vs. Rajbeer Singh and others, it was held that in the case of a fatal motor accident the Tribunal should award atleast an amount of

Rs.25,000/- towards funeral expenses which should not be confined to just the fee paid in the crematorium or the fee paid for the use of space in the cemetery as there would be other attendant rites as well which would involve considerable expenditure. It was also held that an amount of atleast

Rs.1,00,000/- should be awarded towards loss of consortium. The main guiding principle for determining the quantum of compensation is that it must be just and reasonable even if it turns out to be more than what has been claimed in the petition as Section 168 of M V Act 1988 empowers the claims Tribunal to determine the amount of compensation which appears to it to be just, there being no other limitation or restriction on this power. Further it was held that in case the deceased victim was aged below 40 years by the time of the accident there must be an addition of 50% to his actual income while computing future prospects, such addition being 30% in case the deceased was in the age group of 40 to 50 years and 15% in case he was in the age group of 50 to 60 years, there being no such addition for older victims.

17)In the present case the income of the deceased by the time of his accidental death was Rs.6,000/- per month and his age was 27 years and as such he could be said to fall in the age group of 26-30 years and hence the mutiplier applicable to him is 17 and addition to income due to future prospects applicable to him is 50% which renders his income as Rs. 6,000 +

Rs.3000/- = Rs.9,000/- per month. As the deceased was unmarried, as per the said decision of the Hon'ble Suprme Court a deduction of 50% has to be made from his income towards his personal and living expenses, the 8OP 322-13 remaining amount being considered as his contribution to the family. As observed supra to the income of the deceased i.e Rs.6,000/- per month 50% has to be added towards future prospects and as a result the monthly income works out to Rs.9,000/- per month, out of which half has to be deducted towards his personal expenditure which makes it Rs.4,500/- and the yearly income works out to Rs.4,500/- x 12 = Rs.54,000/-. To this income Multiplier 17 has to be applied and the calculation is as follows: Rs.54,000/- x 17 =

Rs.9,18.000/- . As such the compensation for loss of dependency would

be Rs.9,18,000/-. In addition to this amount the petitioners are

entitled to an amount of Rs.25,000/- towards funeral expenses and

Rs.10,000/- towards loss of estate Therefore the compensation

awardable to the petitioners would be as follows:

Sl. Compensation HeadAmount No.Rs.

1.Compensation for loss of dependency 9,18,000/-

2.Funeral expenses 25,000/-

3.Loss of Estate 10,000/-

Total : 9,53,000/-

Therefore, the petitioners are entitled to recover a total compensation of

Rs.9,53,000/- from respondent Nos. 1 & 2. The issue is answered accordingly.

17) ISSUE No.3 :- In the result, the petition is partly allowed with proportionate costs a compensation of Rs.9,53,000/- is hereby awarded to the petitioners and the same is payable by the respondents 1 & 2 with interest @ 7.5% per annum from the date of filing of the petition till the date of realization.

1)The respondents 1 & 2 are directed to deposit the above said compensation amount within one month from the date of this order.

2)The total compensation awarded is apportioned among the petitioners 9OP 322-13 as follows:

3)Out of the above said compensation amount, the first petitioner is entitled to Rs.5,53,000/- together with interest thereon and costs of the petition. The second petitioner is entitled to Rs.4,00,000/- together with interest thereon.

4)On deposit of the said compensation amount the 1st petitioner is permitted to withdraw an amount of Rs.1,53,000/- + together with the interest thereon and total costs deposited by the respondents. The balance compensation amount of Rs.4,00,000/- payable to the 1st petitioner shall be kept in fixed deposit in any nationalized bank for a period of three years and the second petitioner is permitted to withdraw an amount of

Rs.1,00,000/- together with interest thereon and the balance amount of

Rs.3,00,000/- to the 2nd petitioner shall be kept in fixed deposit in any nationalized bank for a period of three years. At the end of the period of three years the petitioners are at liberty to withdraw the deposited amounts together with the interest accrued thereon. Rest of the claim of the petitioners is dismissed without costs. Advocate fee is fixed at Rs.5,000/-.

Dictated to the Stenographer, transcribed and typed by him, corrected and

pronounced by me in the open court, on this the 16th day of May, 2017.

Sd/-

II Additional Chief Judge City Civil Court, Hyderabad

Appendix of Evidence Witnesses examined

For the Petitioners : For the respondents :

Pw.1 : Nandyala Naga Shesha Jala DurgaNIL

Pw.2 : B Srinivas

Pw.3 : S Srinivas 10OP 322-13

Documents Marked

For the Petitioner :

Ex A.1 is the copy of FIR .

Ex A.2 is the copy of the Inquest Report.

Ex A.3 is the copy of Charge Sheet

Ex A.4 is the copy of the PME Report

Ex A.5 is the copy of the Motor Vehicle Inspector Report,

Ex A.6 is the Salary Certificate

Ex A.7 is the death certificate

Ex X.1 : Authorization letter

Ex X.2 : I.T.Return of Abhaya Traders for the year 2010-11

Ex X.3 : Trade Licese of Abhaya Traders

For the Respondent :

Ex B.1 : Policy Copy.

Sd/-

II Additional Chief Judge City Civil Court, Hyderabad

1OP 1598-14

BEFORE THE MOTOR ACCIDENT CLAIMS TRIBUNAL – CUM –

II ADDITIONAL CHIEF JUDGE : CITY CIVIL COURTS : HYDERABAD

Tuesday the 11th day of July, 2017.

PRESENT : Smt Ch. Santha Kumari, II Additional Chief Judge.

OP No. 1598 of 2014

Between :

1. Smt B. Bala Bojamma

2. B.Ashirvadam …Petitioners

A N D

1. Smt J Mahaboob Chand

2. The Cholamandalam MS General Insurance Co. Ltd

...Respondents

This Petition coming on this day for final hearing and disposal

before me in the presence of Sri Kasireddy Jagathpal Reddy,Advocate

for the Petitioners, and the Respondent No. 1 set exparte and of Sri

M. Anil Kumar, Respondent No.2 and the matter having stood over

for consideration till this day, this Court delivered the following:-

O R D E R

1)This is a claim petition filed by the parents of the deceased B. Pullaiah under Section 166 of the M.V. Act 1988 claiming a compensation of

Rs.10,00,000/- together with costs and interest.

2)The averments made in the claim petition are briefly as follows : On 09.04.2014 at about 10.30 P.M. while the deceased Pullaiah was returning home on his motor cycle bearing registration No. AP 27AQ-4863 after taking dinner at Komarole, one Ramesh Babu and another person were also following the deceased on another motor cycle and when they reached Edamakallu villge cross road on Komarole to Thaticherla Motu Village road, one car bearing registration No. AP 03AL-4500 which is the crime vehicle came in the opposite direction on the wrong side of the road driven by its driver at high speed in a rash and negligent manner without following traffic rules and hit the motor cycle of the deceased while overtaking another vehicle. Due to the sudden 2OP 1598-14 impact the deceased Pullaiah fell down from his motor cycle and sustained severe bleeding fatal injuries all over the body and while being shifted to the hospital, the deceased succumbed to the injuries. The motor cycle of the deceased was completely damaged. Based on a complaint made in this regard, the police at Komarole P.S, Prakasham District had registered a case in Crime

No. 34 of 2014 under Section 304 of IPC.

3)By the time of the accident the deceased Pullaiah was aged 20 years and he was hale and healthy and he was working as a motor cycle mechanic earning an income of about Rs.15,000/- per month which he was contributing for the maintenance of his family, he was unmarried. Due to the sudden death of the deceased Pullaiah, the petitioners suffered mental agony besides financial loss. The deceased was the only earning member in the family. The deceased was maintaining the petitioners and due to the death of the deceased the petitioners who were totally dependent on the income of the deceased had become destitutes as their only bread winner and life supporter died in the accident. The first respondent being the owner of the crime vehicle and the second respondent being the insurer of the said car are jointly and severally liable to pay a complensation of Rs.10,00,000/- to the petitioners as the deceased died due to rash and negligent driving of the driver of the said car bearing No. AP 03 AL 4500.

4)The respondent No. 1 was set and remained exparte to the proceedings of the O.P.

5)The averments made in the counter filed by the second respondent insurance company are briefly as follows: The allegations made in the petition are false. The petitioners are put to strict proof the allegations made in the petition. The petitioners have filed the petition in collusion with the first 3OP 1598-14 respondent. The first respondent has not given any information about the alleged accident to the second respondent which is mandatory on the part of first respondent and the concerned police have also failed to furnish the relevant documents as required under Section 158 (6) of M.V. Act, and as such the second respondent is not liable to pay any compensation to the petitioners.

The second respondent is entitled to take all general defences that are available under Section 170 of M.V. Act and under Section 147 and 149 of M.V.Act. This court has no jurisdiction to entertain the present petition. The petitioner is bad for non-joinder and mis-joinder of necessary parties and , as such the petition is liable to be dismissed.

6) Based on the above pleadings, the following issues were settled for trial.

1) Whether the accident took place due to the rash and negligent driving of the Car bearing registration No. AP 03 AL 4500 causing death of the deceased B.Pullaiah?

2) Whether the petitioners are entitled for compensation? If so, to what extent and from whom?

3) To what relief?

7)The first petitioner was examined as Pw.1 and one G.Jakkaraiah. was examined as Pw.2 and Exs A.1 to A.4 were marked on behalf of the petitioners.

No oral evidence was adduced on behalf of the respondent No.2 and Ex B.1 was marked.

8) Heard.

9) ISSUE No.1 :- The first petitioner who is the mother of the deceased Pulliah was examined as Pw.1 and she reiterates the claim made in the claim petition.

She states in the cross examination that her deceased son had a valid driving licence. She denies the suggestion that the deceased was not earning any income and that he was dependent on others for his survival. She denies the suggestion that the driver of the crime vehicle was not having a valid driving 4OP 1598-14 licence at the time of the accident and that the vehicle has no fitness and permit and that the vehicle was falsely implicated in the case and also that the third respondent is not liable to pay any compensation.

10)Pw.2 states in his evidence that he was an eye witness to the accident and that the accident had occurred due to the rash and negligent driving of the driver of the crime vehicle. He denies the suggestion that the deceased and the pillion rider were in intoxicated condition at the time of the accident and that there was no negligence on the part of the driver of the car.

11)Let us look into the documentary evidence presented by the petitioners.

Ex A.1 is a certified photostat copy of the FIR in Crime No. 34 of 2014 of

Komarole P.S, registered U/s. 304-A of IPC against the driver of the crime vehicle. Ex A.2 is a certified photostat copy of the Charge sheet filed by the police of Komarole P.S against the driver of the crime vehicle in the court of

Additional First Class Magistrate at Giddalure. Ex A.3 is a certified photostat

copy of the Inquest report. Ex A.4 is a certified photostat copy of the Motor

Vehicle Inspector's Report. Ex A.1 which is a certified photostat copy of the FIR and Ex A.2 which is a certified photostat copy of the charge sheet which was filed by the police of Komarole P.S after investigation indicate that the accident had occurred due to the rash and negligent driving of the driver of the crime vehicle. Ex A.4 which is a certified photostat copy of the Motor Vehicle

Inspector's Report shows that the accident was not due to any mechanical defects of the crime vehicle. Ex A.3 which is a certified photostat copy of the

Inquest Report shows that the death of the deceased was caused by the injuries sustained in the accident. In these circumstances the driver of the crime vehicle has not been examained as a witness before the court to speak about the manner in which the accident had occurred and as such an adverse inference could be drawn in this regard. In these circumstances it could be 5OP 1598-14 deduced that the accident resulting in the death of the deceased Pullaiah had occurred due to the rash and negligent driving of the driver of the crime vehicle. This issue is answered accordingly.

12) ISSUE No.2 :- In view of the finding made in issue No.1 to the effect that the accident resulting in the death of the deceased Pullaiah had occurred due to the rash and negligent driving of the driver of the crime vehicle, it is clear that the petitioners are entitled to claim compensation from the respondents, who are the registered owner and insurer of the crime vehicle.

13)However, to arrive at the quantum of compensation the crucial determinants are the age and income of the deceased. The petitioners state in the claim petition that the deceased Pullaiah was aged about 20 years by the time of the accident. But in the Charge sheet and Inquest Report his age was mentioned as 18 years by the time of his death. The petitioners claim that the deceased Pullaiah was working as Motor Cycle Mechanic and that he was earning an income of Rs.15,000/- per month but they have not presented any evidence in that regard. Therefore, a notional income equivalent to the minimum daily wage of Rs.150/- as determined by the Government for unskilled labour could be atrributd to the deceased which translates to

Rs.4,500/- per month and to Rs.54,000/- per annum.

14)In the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court reported in AIR 2009 S.C

Page 3104 (SARLA VERMA AND OTHERS VS. DELHI TRANSPORT

CORPORATION) it was held that to have uniformity and consistency, the

Tribunal should determine the compensation in case of death by following three well settled steps. In step No.1 the multiplicand i.e, the annual income of the deceased deducted by the amount for personal expenses, which the deceased would have incurred had he or she continued to be alive, should be 6OP 1598-14 ascertained. In step No.2 the appropriate multiplier from the table of multipliers should be chosen with reference to the age of the deceased. Then, in step No.3 the actual calculation of the loss of dependency should be made taking into consideration the multiplicand and the multiplier. Basically only three facts need to be established by the claimants for assessing the compensation in case of death, viz., (a) age of the deceased, (b) income of the deceased and (c) the number of dependents. The isued to be determined by the Tribunal to arrive at the loss of dependency are (I) additions / deductions to be made for arriving at the income, (ii) the deductions to be made towards personal living expenses of the deceased and (iii) the multiplier to be applied with reference to the age of the deceased. It was further held that in cases falling under section 166 of the

M.V.Act, the Davies method is applicable and that the scheme of multipliers prepared by applying the ratio determined by the Apex Court in GENERAL

MANAGER, KERALA TRANSPORT CORPORATION VS. SUSAMMA THOMAS

(1994 (2) SCC 176) U.P. STATE TRANSPORT CORPORATION VS. TRILOK

CHANDRA (1996 (4) SCC 362) and NEW INDIA ASSURANCE COMPANY

LIMITED VS. CHARLIE (2005 (10) SCC 720) is appropriate. This scheme of multipliers starts with an operative multiplier of 18 for the age group of 15 to 20 years and 21 to 25 years, which is reduced by 1 unit for every 5 years, i.e.,

M-17 for 26 to 30 years, M-16 for 31 to 35 years, M-15 for 36 to 40 years, M-14 for 41 to 45 years, M-13 for 46 to 50 years, then reduced by 2 units for every 5 years i.e, M-11 for 51 to 55 years, M-9 for 56 to 60 years, M-7 for 61 to 65 years, M-5 for 66 to 70 years and above. In case the deceased was an unmarried person and the claimants are the parents, a deduction of 50% has to be made from the income towards personal and living expenses. When the deceased was a married person, a deduction of 1/3rd of his income towards personal and living expenses of the deceased had he continued to be alive, has to be made if the number of his dependent family members is 2 to 3, 1/4th if the number of dependent family members is 4 to 6 and 1/5th if the number of 7OP 1598-14 dependent family members exceeds six (6). In the said decision of the Hon'ble

Supreme Court, the scheme of multipliers applicable for determining the compensation payable for the claims made under Section 166 of the M.V. Act has been approved which is distinct from the scheme of multipliers devised in the second schedule to the M.V.Act which is applicable to claims made under

Section 163-A of the Act.

15)In another decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court reported in 2013 (9)

SCC 54 Rajesh and others vs. Rajbeer Singh and others, it was held that in the case of a fatal motor accident the Tribunal should award atleast an amount of

Rs.25,000/- towards funeral expenses which should not be confined to just the fee paid in the crematorium or the fee paid for the use of space in the cemetery as there would be other attendant rites as well which would involve considerable expenditure. It was also held that an amount of atleast

Rs.1,00,000/- should be awarded towards loss of consortium. The main guiding principle for determining the quantum of compensation is that it must be just and reasonable even if it turns out to be in excess of what has been claimed in the petition as Section 168 of M V Act 1988 empowers the claims

Tribunal to determine the amount of compensation which appears to it to be just, there being no other limitation or restriction on this power. Further it was held that in case the deceased victim was aged below 40 years by the time of the accident there must be an addition of 50% to his actual income while computing future prospects, such addition being 30% in case the deceased was in the age group of 40 to 50 years and 15% in case he was in the age group of 50 to 60 years, there being no such addition for older victims.

16)In the present case the income of the deceased by the time of his accidental death was Rs.4,500/- per month and the age of the deceased was between 18 to 20 years and hence the multiplier applicable to him is 18 and 8OP 1598-14 addition to income due to future prospects applicable to him is 50% which renders his income as Rs.4,500/- + Rs.2,250/- = Rs.6,750/- per month, as the. As the deceased was unmarried, as per the decision of the Hon'ble

Supreme Court a deduction of 50% has to be deducted from the income of the deceased Pullaiah towards his personal and living expenses, the remaining amount being considered as his contribution to the family. As observed supra to the income of the deceased I.e Rs.4,500/- per month 50% has to be added towards future prospects and as a result the monthly income works out to

Rs.6,750/- per month, out of which half has to be deducted towards his personal expenditure which makes it Rs.3,375/- per month and the yearly income works out to Rs. 3,375/- X 12 = Rs.40,500/-. To this income multiplier 18 has to be applied and the calculation is as follows : Rs.40,500/- x 18 =

Rs.7,29,000/-, and as such the loss of dependency would be Rs.7,29,000/-. In addition to this amount the petitioners are entitled to an amount of

Rs.25,000/- towards funeral expenses and Rs.10,000/- towards loss of estate.

Therefore the compensation awardable to the petitioners would be as follows:

Sl. Compensation HeadAmount No.Rs.

1.Compensation for loss of dependency 7,29,000

2.Loss of estate 10,000

3.Compensation for funeral expenses 25,000

Total : 7,64,000

Therefore, the petitioners are entitled to recover a total compensation of

Rs.7,64,000/- from the respondent Nos. 1 & 2 together with interest. The issue is answered accordingly.

17) ISSUE No.3 :- In the result, the petition is partly allowed with proportionate costs and a compensation of Rs.7,64,000/- is hereby awarded to the petitioners and the same is payable by the respondents 1 & 2 together with 9OP 1598-14 interest @ 7.5% per annum from the date of filing of the petition till the date of realization.

ii) The respondents 1 & 2 are directed to deposit the above said compensation amount within one month from the date of this order.

iii) The total compensation awarded is apportioned between the petitioners as follows:

a) Out of the above said compensation amount, the first petitioner is awarded Rs.4,00,000/- together with proportionate interest and the first petitioner also entitled to the costs of the petition.

b) The petitioner 2 is awarded to Rs.3,64,000/- together with interest thereon.

c) On deposit of the said compensation amount the first petitioner is permitted to withdraw an amount of Rs.2,00,000/- + together with the interest thereon and total costs deposited by the respondents.

d) The petitioner No. 2 is permitted to withdraw an amount of Rs.1,64,000/- together with interest thereon.

e) The balance compensation amount of Rs.2,00,000/- each payable to the petitioners 1 & 2 shall be kept in fixed deposit in any nationalized bank for a period of three years. After completion of the three years the petitioners are permitted to withdraw their respective amounts together with the interest accrued thereon. Rest of the claim of the petitioners is dismissed without costs. Advocate fee is fixed at Rs.5,000/-.

Dictated to the Stenographer, transcribed and typed by him, corrected

and pronounced by me in the open court, on this the 11th day of July, 2017.

Sd/-

II Additional Chief Judge City Civil Court, Hyderabad

Appendix of Evidence Witnesses examined

For the Petitioners : For the respondents :

Pw.1 : Smt B. Bala BojammaNIL

Pw.2 : G. Jakkaraiah

Documents Marked

For the Petitioners :

Ex A.1 is a certified photostat copy of FIR 10OP 1598-14

Ex A.2 is a certified photostat copy of Charge Sheet

Ex A.3 is a certified photostat copy of Inquest Report

Ex A.4 is a certified photostat copy of M.V.I.Report.

For the Respondents :

Ex B.1 : Copy of the Insurance Policy

Sd/-

II Additional Chief Judge City Civil Court, Hyderabad

1OS 119 of 2017

IN THE COURT OF II ADDL. CHIEF JUDGE, CITY CIVIL COURT ::

HYDERABAD.

Thursday the 20th day of July, 2017.

PRESENT : Smt Ch. Santha Kumari, II Additional Chief Judge.

OS No. 119 of 2017

Between : Sanga Reddy Bengiri, S/o late Shankar Reddy, aged about : 36 yrs, Occ : Agriculture, R/o H No.14, Gokul Village, Bassavakalyan Taluk, Bidar Dist.

...Plaintiff

A N D

P. Gorakh Reddy S/o Late P Veera Reddy, aged about 57 yrs, Occ : Business, Partner Shivam Dal Mill, R/o 16-11-741/D/5,

Moosarambagh, Dilsukhnagar, Hyderabad ...Defendant

This suit is coming on this day before me for final hearing in the presence of Sri K.Kondala Rao, Advocate for the plaintiff and the defendant remained exparte and the matter having stood over for consideration and this court passed the following :

JUDGMENT

1)This is a suit filed for specific performance of agreement of sale praying that the defendant may be directed to regiser a sale deed in favour of the plaintiff in respect of the plaint schedule property after receiving the balance consideration of Rs.5,00,000/- and also to deliver vacant possession of the property to the plaintiff and that the defendant be restrained through perpetual injunction from alienating the plaint schedule property.

2)The plaintiff avers that the defendant is the absolute owner and possessor of the plaint schedule property I.e residential building bearing Door

No.16-11-741/3/5 situated at Moosarambagh, Dilsukhnagar, Hyderabad.

Originally the defendant had purchased a plot of land admeasuring 355 square yards conprising a small structrure thereon under a registered sale deed dt.

23.09.2004 vide document No. 3414. Subsequently the defendant had developed the same and constructed the existing structures. The defendant had offered to sell the said property to the plaintiff for a total consideration of 2OS 119 of 2017

Rs.72,00,000/- and had executed an agreement dt. 02.02.2010. The plaintiff had paid Rs.22,00,000/- by cash on various dates while entering into the agreement of sale and he had paid Rs.10,00,000/- on 02.02.2010,

Rs.7,00,000/- on 15.02.2010 and Rs.5,00,000/- on 20.02.2010 and this fact was reflected in the agreement of sale was Rs.50,00,000/-. The balance sale consideration payable as on the date of entering into agreement of sale. Out of the balance sale consideration of Rs.50,00,000/-, Rs.45,00,000/- was to be paid within a period of 15 days from the date of execution of the agreement of sale and the remaining sale consideration was to be paid at the time of execution and registration of the sale deed. It was also stipulated in the agreement that any delay in payment of the balance sale consideration would attract interest @ 18% per annum. After entering into the agrement of sale, the plaintiff had paid a further sum of Rs.45,00,000/- i.e Rs.8,00,000/- by cash on 10.04.2010, Rs.5,00,000/- by cash on 23.08.2007, Rs.27,60,000/- by RTGS transfer on 28.03.2011 and Rs.4,40,000/- by cash on 10.05.2011. Thus the plaintiff had paid the above mentioned Rs.45,00,000/-and the same was endorsed on the agreement of sale. Since March, 2012, the plaintiff has been informing the defendant that he is ready with the balance sale consideration of

Rs.5,00,000/- and he has been requesting the defendant to fix up the date for execution and registration of the sale deed. But the defendant kept on postponing the same on one pretext or the other. Finally the plaintiff had got a legal notice dt. 01.08.2016 issued expressing his readiness to pay the balance sale consideration and demanding the defendant to execute the registered sale deed in favour of the plaintiff, as there was no positive response from the defendant, Therefore, the defendant may be directed to execute the registered sale deed in fvour of the plaintiff after receiving the balance sale consideration and to deliver vacant possession of the plaint schedule property to the plaintiff.

Hence the suit.

3) The defendant was set and remained exparte to the proceedings of the suit.

3OS 119 of 2017

4)Now the point for consideration is whether the plaintiff is entitled to the relief as prayed for?

5)The plaintiff himself was examined as Pw.1 and Exs A.1 to A.5 were marked on his behalf.

6)Heard the counsel for the plaintiff.

7) POINT :- The plaintiff who was examined as Pw.1 reiterates the claim made in the plaint. He has presented in evidence Exs A.1 to A.5 to substantiate his claim. Ex A.1 is the agreement of sale dt. 20.02.2010 said to have been executed by the defendant in favour of the plaintiff. Ex A.2 is the office copy of the legal notice dt. 01.08.2016, Ex A.3 is a postal receipt, Ex A.4 is a postal acknowledgment, Ex A.5 is the Market Value Certificate issued by the Joint

Sub Registrar, Azampura, Hyderabad.

8)The plaintiff who was examined as Pw.1 reiterates the claim made in the plaint and he has presented in evidence Exs A.1 to A.5 to substantiate his claim. By being set and remaining exparte to the proceedings of the suit, the defendant has not challenged the claim made by the plaintiff. In the absence of any evidence to the contrary the claim made by the plaintiff could be accepted.

9)In the result, the suit is decreed with costs, and the defendant is hereby directed to execute a registered sale deed in favour of the plaintiff within one month of the judgment after receiving balance sale consideration.

Dictated to the Stenographer, transcribed and typed by him, corrected

and pronounced by me in the open court on this the 20th day of July 2017.

Sd/-

II Additional Chief Judge, City Civil Court, Hyderabad 4OS 119 of 2017

Appendix of Evidence Witnesses examined For the Plaintiff :

Pw.1 : Sanga Reddy Bengiri

Documents Marked

For the Plaintiff :

Ex A.1 : Agreement of Sale dt. 20.02.2010

Ex A.2 : Legal Notice dt. 01.08.2016

Ex A.3 : Postal receipt

Ex A.4 : Postal acknowledgement

Ex A.5 : Market Value Certificate

Sd/-

II Additional Chief Judge, City Civil Court, Hyderabad