Ms.D.Lakshmi

1 MVOP No.45 of 2017 (INJURIES) V A.D.J. Court, Rayachoty

BEFORE THE MOTOR ACCIDENT CLAIMS TRIBUNAL-CUM- V ADDL.

DISTRICT JUDGE, RAYACHOTY.

Present:-Ms. D. Lakshmi, Chairman, Motor Accident Claims Tribunal- Cum-V Additional District Judge, Rayachoty.

Tuesday, this the 12th day of April, 2022.

M.V.O.P.No.45 of 2017

Konduru Veera Nagamma. … Petitioner/Claimant

Vs.

1. The Deputy General of Police, Police transport organization of Andhra Pradesh, Petlabnurj, Puranapool, Hyderabad. (Owner of the police sumo bearing No.AP9 P 9591)

2. Superintendent of Police, Kadapa.

3. Sub Inspector of Police, Galiveedu P.S., Kadapa District.

4. Bathala Penchalaiah.

… Respondents

This claim petition coming on 11.04.2022 for final hearing before me in the presence of Sri J.Sudardhana Reddy, Advocate for petitioner/ claimant and of Sri T.Jagan Mohan Reddy, Advocate for the respondents 1 to 3 and the Respondent No.4 remained exparte, and on perusal of available material on record having stood over for consideration till this day, the court delivered the following:

O R D E R

This claim petition is filed by the petitioner/Claimant under

Section 166 of Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 and Rule. 475/476 of A.P. M.V.

Rules 1989, claiming compensation of Rs.3,00,000/- on account of injuries sustained by her in a motor vehicle accident that was occurred on 01.3.2016 at about 03.00 p.m. near Pyarampalli cross on Galiveedu to Nooliveedu road, 2 MVOP No.45 of 2017 (INJURIES) V A.D.J. Court, Rayachoty involving the offending vehicle Police sumo bearing No.AP9 P 9591, being driven by 4th respondent herein.

2. The brief averments of the claim petition are that the petitioner was hale and healthy prior to the date of accident and she was aged 50 years at the time of accident and that on 01.3.2016 afternoon, the petitioner went to Galiveedu on her personal work and after completion of her work and on the way one Potli Jagannadha Reddy was coming in a motorcycle bearing No.AP04 R 7505 and the petitioner stopped the said motorcycle and boarded in the said motorcycle as a pillion rider and at that time, one Sudhakar Reddy and Bayareddy were coming in another motorcycle and at about 3.00 p.m., when they reached near Pyarampalli cross on

Galiveedud to Nooliveedu main road, then the 1st respondent’s police sumo bearing No.AP9 P 9591 which was under the control of 3rd respondent came in opposite direction being driven by its driver in a rash and negligent manner with high speed and without blowing horn and dashed against the motorcycle bearing No.AP04 R 7505, in which the petitioner was pillion rider and further dashed the motorcycle bearing No.AP04 AW 2571, as a result of which, she sustained serious fracture injuries and immediately, she was shifted to Government Hospital, Rayachoty where the doctors examined her and another person by name Baya Reddy died in the said accident and later, the said P.Jagannadha Reddy lodged a complaint before the police and the same was registered in Cr.No.23/2016 of Galiveedu P.S. and after investigation, the Galiveedu police also filed charge sheet against the driver of police sumo. It is further contention of the petitioner that she sustained fracture of right forearm and injury over right lower limbs and other part of the body and immediately, she was shifted to Government Hospital,

Rayachoty and from there she was shifted to Purnas Remedy Hospital,

Tirupathi and that on 04.3.2016 the doctors conducted surgery to her right 3 MVOP No.45 of 2017 (INJURIES) V A.D.J. Court, Rayachoty forearm and thereafter she has taken treatment under private Orthopedic

Surgeons at Kadapa and that she incurred Rs.50,000/- towards treatment, medicines and extra-nourishment and that the petitioner was earning

Rs.250/- per day by doing coolie work and the same was contributing to her family members and now she is leading miserable life and she has to suffer with this disability throughout her life and that at the time of accident, the 1st respondent allotted the vehicle to 2nd respondent and in turn, 2nd respondent reallotted the vehicle to the 3rd respondent and now the vehicle is under care and custody of the 3rd respondent and 4th respondent is the driver of the said vehicle and hence, all the respondents are jointly and severally liable to pay compensation to the petitioners/claimants.

3. The respondent No.4 remained exparte. The respondent No.1 filed a counter and the respondents 2 and 3 filed adoption memo by adopting the written statement of respondent No.1 and opposed the entire allegations of the claim of the petitioner and contended that the petitioner must prove her age, income and manner in which the accident occurred and her medical expenditure incurred by her and submitted that the rider of the motorcycle bearing No.AP04 R 7507 himself had contributed for the occurrence of the accident and the petition is bad for non-joinder of owner of the motorcycle bearing No.AP04 R 7507 and hence, these respondents are not liable to pay compensation and the petition is liable to be dismissed against these respondents and the compensation claimed by the petitioner under various heads is excessive and hence, the petitioner is not entitled for any compensation amount and prayed the Court to dismiss the petition with costs against these respondents.

4. After hearing both sides and after perusing the record, this tribunal framed the following issues for trial:

4 MVOP No.45 of 2017 (INJURIES) V A.D.J. Court, Rayachoty

1. Whether the accident occurred due to rash and negligent driving of the driver of the police sumo bearing

No.AP9 P 9591, near Pyarampalli cross, Galiveedu –

Nooliveedu road and that resulted in causing injuries to the petitioner on 01.3.2016 at about 3.00 p.m. ?

2. Whether the Claimant is entitled to compensation, if so, to what amount and from which of the respondents ?

3. To what relief ?

5. During the course of enquiry, the petitioner was examined as P.W.1 and besides examining PW.2 and got marked Exs.A1 to A7. No oral or documentary evidence was adduced by the contesting respondents 1 to 3.

Heard both sides and perused the record.

6. ISSUE NO.1:- This claim petition is filed under Sec.166 of

Motor Vehicle Act. It is therefore, U/sec.101 of Indian Evidence Act initially the onus burden is heavily rests upon the petitioner to prove his claim and if no convincing evidence is let in or offered by the petitioner herein his claim would be dismissed under Law. Therefore, initially, the burden is on the petitioner to prove the occurrence of the accident which was only due to rash and negligent act of the driver of the offending vehicle i.e. police sumo bearing No.AP9 P 9591 i.e. 4th respondent.

7. To prove the rash and negligent act of the driver of the offending vehicle, the petitioner being injured as well as direct eye witness for the accident clearly testified as P.W.1 and got examined her doctor as

P.W.2 and testified about the rash and negligent act of the driver of the offending vehicle i.e., police sumo bearing No.AP9 P 9591 i.e. 4th respondent and belongs to respondents 1 to 3 herein. PW.1 filed her chief-affidavit by reiterating the same contents of the claim petition. In support of her oral 5 MVOP No.45 of 2017 (INJURIES) V A.D.J. Court, Rayachoty evidence, she has marked Ex.A1 Certified copy of First Information Report in Cr.No.23/2016 of Galiveedu P.S., Ex.A2 is Certified copy of wound certificate of the claimant, Ex.A3 is the Certified copy of charge sheet,

Ex.A4 is the disability certificate issued by the RIMS Medical Board,

Kadapa with 30% permanent disability, Ex.A.5 is the discharge summary issued by Purnas Remedy Hospital, Tirupathi, Ex.A.6 is the Admission slip issued by Lotus Emergency Hospital, Tirupathi and Ex.A.7 is the lab reports of Lotus Diagnostics, Tirupathi, these documents clearly revealed that the accident was occurred only due to the rash and negligent act of the driver of the offending vehicle i.e. police sumo bearing No.AP9 P 9591 i.e. 4th respondent and its supports the version of P.W.1.

During the cross-examination, PW.1 admitted that by the time of accident, she was present at Petrol bunk where the accident was took place and she voluntarily deposed that she was proceedings on another motor bike as a pillion rider and when they reached at Petrol Bunk, the accident took place. She denied the suggestion that she never proceeded on another bike of Jagannath at that time and that she never met with any accident and she never sustained any injuries. She further denied the suggestion that due to fault of riders of both the motorcycles, the accident was took place, but at the instance of villagers, PW.1 foisted a case against the police and that there is no fault on the part of the driver of the jeep offending vehicle.

8. The petitioner got examined Dr.J.Nagesh as PW.2 through

Advocate commissioner. PW.2 Dr. J.Nagesh, Orthopedic Dept., HOD, Govt.

General Hospital, Kadapa, deposed that he issued disability certificate

Ex.A.4 in the District Medical Board, Kadapa to the injured K.Veera

Nagamma, W/o. K.Nagaiah i.e. petitioner herein and that the injured has been suffering from old fracture right side olecraneon and intra articular, 6 MVOP No.45 of 2017 (INJURIES) V A.D.J. Court, Rayachoty operated inflantation done and removed with painful restricted movements of right elbow joint and that difficulty in lifting weights with right hand and that the petitioner is suffering from 30% disability and that he verified x- rays, wound certificate, discharge summary and clinical examination issued

Ex.A.6 disability certificate with 30% to the right upper limb. During the cross-examination, PW.2 admitted that he did not give any treatment to the injured and that the petitioner sustained only one grievous injury as per the wound certificate and that all the wounds sustained by the petitioner were healed. He denied the suggestion that he issued Ex.A.4 disability with excessive percentage of disability to help the injured and to get more compensation and that he did not follow the guidelines of Medical counsel of

India manuel.

9. The above said oral or documentary evidence led by the petitioner and reliable documents Ex.A.1 to A.7 establish the fact that the accident occurred due to the fault of the driver of the police sumo bearing

No.AP9 P 9591. There is no basis to believe and accept that it was the fault on the claimant itself in causing the accident. On the face of it, it was the police sumo bearing No.AP9 P 9591 that dashed against the motorcycle of one P.Jagannadha who was rider and the claimant is a pillion rider. Viewed from any angle, there is no second opinion on the fact that the accident occurred only due to the rash and negligent driving of the driver of the police sumo bearing No.AP9 P 9591 that resulted in causing serious injuries to the claimant that ultimately caused her permanent disability. Though the contesting respondents 1 to 3 are denied the rash and negligent act of the driver of the offending vehicle, they have not able to prove the same by way of oral or documentary evidence. Therefore, this Tribunal can safely came to conclusion that the respondents failed to rebut the evidence of P.W.1 and 7 MVOP No.45 of 2017 (INJURIES) V A.D.J. Court, Rayachoty in the light of evidence of P.W.1, the petitioner has proved the rash and negligent act of the driver of offending vehicle at the time of accident.

Accordingly, this issue is answered in favour of the petitioner and against the respondents.

10. ISSUE NO.2:-In view of my findings on issue No.1, the accident occurred only due to the rash and negligent act of the driver of the offending vehicle i.e. police sumo bearing No.AP9 P 9591 i.e. 4th respondent herein and the petitioner is entitled for compensation for the injuries sustained by her in the road traffic accident.

11. Now it is to be decided what amount is just compensation to be payable to the petitioner, compensation should be awarded reasonably and proportionately to the injuries sustained by the petitioner and it should be neither excessive nor any meager amount?

To prove the injuries on the petitioner, the petitioner was examined as P.W.1 who clearly testified that in the accident, she was sustained injuries and to support the same, she got marked Ex.A2 certified copy of wound certificate. This document clearly supports the version of

P.W.1. PW.2 who is medical officer given treatment to the petitioner and issued Ex.A.4 disability certificate to an extent of 30%. Therefore, the evidence of Ex.A.4 disability certificate clearly supports the version of

P.W.1 with regard to the injuries by her. The respondents are not denied the injuries sustained by the petitioner. Therefore, by virtue of evidence of

P.W.1, the petitioner could able to prove the injuries sustained by her in the road accident.

12. Now it has to be decided to what amount the petitioner is entitled towards compensation for the injuries sustained by her. In this 8 MVOP No.45 of 2017 (INJURIES) V A.D.J. Court, Rayachoty petition, the petitioner is claiming total compensation of Rs.3,00,000/- under special and general damages.

13. The petitioner is claiming damages under the head of transportation to the Hospital. It is the evidence of P.W.1 that soon after the accident she was shifted to the Govt. Hospital, Rayachoty and then she was shifted to Purnas Remedy Hospital, Tirupathi and from there she has taken treatment at private hospital, Kadapa and incurred some expenditure.

14. It is the fact that she sustained severe injuries for which she visited several times to hospital and subsequent to discharge she might have incurred expenditure and PW.1 also filed medical bills to that effect and the same is considered by this tribunal. The petitioner already proved the injuries sustained by her and marking Ex.A2 certified copy of wound certificate.

15. To prove her contentions besides her oral evidence, the petitioner got examined the doctor who issued disability certificate under

Ex.A.4 which contains 30% disability, but the the doctor specifically mentioned in his evidence that he issued Ex.A.4 in a District Medical Board

RIMS Hospital, Kadapa. When coming to the general damages, the petitioner claimed damages under the both the heads tune of Rs.3,00,000/- in all. It is the evidence of P.W.1 that she sustained severe grievous injuries on her body in the accident and as such, she was suffering pain and agony.

In the wound certificate Ex.A.2, it was mentioned that PW.1 sustained grievous injuries and it was also supported by the evidence of medical officer (PW.2).

16. The petitioner also claimed damages under both the heads for Rs.3,00,000/-, it is the evidence of P.W.1 that prior to the accident, she was aged about 50 years, hale and healthy and was doing coolie work and was 9 MVOP No.45 of 2017 (INJURIES) V A.D.J. Court, Rayachoty getting an amount of Rs.250/- per day, but, the petitioner failed to prove her source of income by way of documentary evidence. Due to the accident, the petitioner sustained grievous injuries and got marked Ex.A2 certified copy of wound certificate and also got examined P.W.2 medical officer, who issued Ex.A.4 disability certificate showing 30% disability. After sustaining injuries and after getting treatment, the petitioner got some disability and got examined P.W.2 who is doctor got issued Ex.A.4 disability certificate showing 30% disability and he also deposed that he issued Ex.A.4 under

District Medical Board, RIMS Hopsital, Kadapa to the petitioner. Hence, this tribunal find permanent disability against the petitioner and considered her disability as 30%. Whenever P.W.1 failed to produce any documentary evidence in regard to her income, as per Sarala Verma’s case a notional income of Rs.7,000/- per month and the same can be taken into consideration and since, petitioner is aged about 50 years, a multiplier of ‘13’.

It is therefore, the petitioner is entitled for loss of future earnings :

Rs.7,000 x 12 = Rs.84,000/- x 13 (multiplier) x 30 / 100 = Rs.3,27,600/- which she is entitled under this head.

17. Thus in total the petitioner is entitled the compensation as,

Damages towards future income Rs.3,27,600-00 ---------------------- Total compensation Rs.3,27,600-00 ----------------------

Though, the petitioner is entitled for Rs.3,27,600/-, but, the petitioner is restricted her claim to Rs.3,00,000/- only. Therefore, this

Tribunal is awarded compensation of Rs.3,00,000/- (Rupees three lakhs only) to the petitioner/claimant.

18. Now, it is to be decided that what percentage of interest the petitioner is entitled for the said compensation amount. The petitioner is 10 MVOP No.45 of 2017 (INJURIES) V A.D.J. Court, Rayachoty entitled for interest at the rate of 7.5% per annum as per the Honourable

Supreme Court of India ruling reported in Tamilnadu Transport Corporation

Limited Vs. Raja Priya in 2005 (4) ALT, 14 (SC), Accordingly, the petitioner is entitled interest at 7.5% on the awarded compensation amount of Rs.3,00,000/- from the date of petition till the date of realization.

19. It is therefore, the respondents 1 to 3 have failed to rebut the positive evidence of PWs.1 and 2. On the other hand, the petitioners by examining PWs.1 and 2 and got marked Exs.A1 to A7 would clinchingly establish that the accident was occurred due to rash and negligent act of the driver of the offending vehicle i.e. police sumo bearing No.AP9 P 9591.

The respondents 1 to 4 are jointly and severally liable to pay the above said compensation to the petitioners. The respondents 1 to 3 being the higher officials are liable to indemnify the liability of respondent No.4 as the crime vehicle is the Government vehicle i.e. police sumo bearing No.AP9 P 9591 by the time of the death of the deceased. In other-words, respondents 1 to 3 are liable to deposit the awarded compensation amount of Rs.3,00,000/- to the petitioner together with costs and interest. Accordingly, this issue No.2 is settled in favour of the petitioner and against the respondents.

20. ISSUE No.3:- In the result, this petition is allowed against the respondents 1 to 4 are jointly and severally with costs by granting compensation to the petitioner with the following reliefs:

1. Petitioner is entitled for Rs.3,00,000/- (Rupees three lakhs only) with costs with interest at 7.5% per annum on the awarded amount from the date of petition till the date of realization; 11 MVOP No.45 of 2017 (INJURIES) V A.D.J. Court, Rayachoty

2. Respondents 1 to 3 are directed to deposit the amount awarded Rs.3,00,000/- (Rupees three lakhs only) to the petitioner with accrued interest and costs within 30 days from the date of passing of this award, failing which the petitioner is entitled for interest at 9% per annum on the awarded amount till the realization.

3. And on making such deposit the petitioner is entitled to withdraw the entire compensation amount with accrued interest thereon as per the decision reported in

A.V.Padma Vs. R.Venugopal and others reported in

2012 (1), 457, SC.

4. Advocate fee is fixed at Rs.3,000/-.

Typed to my dictation by the Stenographer Gr-II, corrected and

pronounced by me in the open court, this the 12th day of April, 2022.

Sd/- D.Lakshmi.

Chairman, Motor Accident Claims Tribunal-Cum V Additional District Judge, Rayachoty.

Appendix of Evidence Witnesses examined for

Petitioner: Respondents: - Nil -

P.W.1 : Konduru Veera Nagamma.

P.W.2 : Dr. J.Nagesh, Orthopedic.

Exhibits marked for Claimant:

Ex.A1 : Certified copy of F.I.R. in Cr.No.23/2016 of Galiveedu P.S.

Ex.A2 : Certified copy of wound certificate of the claimant.

Ex.A3 : Certified copy of charge sheet.

Ex.A4 : Disability certificate issued by RIMS Medical Board, Kadapa with 12 MVOP No.45 of 2017 (INJURIES) V A.D.J. Court, Rayachoty 30% permanent disability.

Ex.A5 : Discharge summary issued by Purnas Remedy Hospital, Tirupathi.

Ex.A6 : Admission slip issued by Lotus Emergency Hospital, Tirupathi.

Ex.A.7 : Lab reports of Lotus Diagnostics, Tirupathi.

Exhibits marked for Respondents: - Nil -

Id/- D.L. Chairman, MACT-Cum-V ADJ, Rayachoty.

In the Court of :V Additional District Judge, Rayachoty

Case No. :EP/0000027/2020 Shriram City Union Fin. Ltd rep by its A. Venkataiah Vs Dugganapalli Manohar Reddy

Date  : 12-04-2022

Business: D.Hr absent. No representation. The D.Hr is failed to furnish correct address particulars of J.Dr.No.2. Inspite of sufficient time is granted. Hence, the E.P. is dismissed as correct address particulars not furnished. Nature of Disposal: DISMISSED FOR DEFAULT Disposal Date: 12-04-2022 V Additional District Judge, Rayachoty

In the Court of :V Additional District Judge, Rayachoty

Case No. :EP/0000095/2019 Shriram Tansport Fin co. Ltd redp by its authorised signatory Mr. C.Siva sankar Vs S.Mahammed Ali

Date  : 11-04-2022

Business: The counsel for D.Hr. filed Full Satisfaction memo and same is recorded. Hence, the E.P. is terminated. Nature of Disposal: TERMINATED Disposal Date: 11-04-2022 V Additional District Judge, Rayachoty

In the Court of :V Additional District Judge, Rayachoty

Case No. :EP/0000147/2021 M/s. Shriram Transport Finance Company Ltd., Kadapa Vs K.Venkata Rami Reddy

Date  : 12-04-2022

Business: Batta not paid. No representation. Hence, the E.P. is dismissed as batta not paid. Nature of Disposal: DISMISSED FOR DEFAULT Disposal Date: 12-04-2022 V Additional District Judge, Rayachoty