D.Nagarjun

IN THE COURT OF THE MOTOR ACCIDENT CLAIMS

TRIBUNAL (VIII ADDL.DIST. JUDGE) AT NIZAMABAD

Present:- P. Laxminarayana, M.A., LL.B.,

Chairman, MACT (VIII ADJ),

Nizamabad.

Monday, the 22 nd day of April, 2013

O.P. No. 668 of 2003

Between:

Nagepoor Linganna S/o Shankar, age 35 years, occ.Leather Business, Shoe Maker R/o Janakampet (v), Yedpally mandal, District Nizamabad,

Petitioner

AND

1.Azamathullah Khan S/o Mohd.Khan, aged Major, Owner of the Tata Sumo bearing No.AP25-U-1289 R/o Ahmed Pura Colony, H.No.8-4-318, Nizamabad

2.United India Insurance Company Limited, Represented by its Divisional Manager, Divisional office, Godown Road, Nizamabad (vide Policy No.050700/31/02/00741 valid from 10.4.2003) …Respondents

O.P. No. 669 of 2003

Between:

Gingiri Ramuloo S/o Buchanna, aged about 36 years, occ.Mason, Construction of Building on contract Basis, R/o Janakampet village, Yedpally mandal, Dist. Nizamabad

..Petitioner

AND

1.Azamathullah Khan S/o Mohd.Khan, aged Major, Owner of the Tata Sumo bearing No.AP25-U-1289 R/o Ahmed Pura Colony, H.No.8-4-318, Nizamabad

2.United India Insurance Company Limited, Represented by its Divisional Manager, Divisional office, Godown Road, Nizamabad (vide Policy No.050700/31/02/00741 valid from 10.4.2003) …Respondents

These petitions coming on before me for hearing in the presence of Sri V.Raghuveer Bhupal, advocate for petitioners and of

Sri K.Ashok, Advocate for the second respondent and the first respondent remained exparte and the matter having stood over for consideration till this day, this Tribunal made the following:

2 OP 668 & 669-03

:: C O M M O N O R D E R ::

OP 668/2003:-

On 22.6.2003, this OP 668/2003 was filed by the petitioner under Section 166(1)(a) of Motor Vehicles Act r/w Rule 455 of

A.P.Motor Vehicles Rules praying the Court to grant compensation of Rs. Seven lakhs in favour of petitioner with interest @ 24% per annum on the entire decretal amount from 22.6.2003 till the date of realization and for costs.

2. It is alleged in the OP by the petitioner that the petitioner is resident of Jankampeta village and he met with an accident and sustained permanent disability on account of injuries received by him in motor vehicle accident which took place on 4.5.2003 in the limits of Abhangapatnam shivar with Tata Sumo No.AP25-U-1289.

Respondent No.1 is owner of the said Tata Sumo and respondent

No.2 is insurer of the said Tata sumo and insurance cover note valid from 10.4.2003 and the petitioner is entitled to claim compensation on account of injuries sustained by him in motor vehicle accident and respondents 1 and 2 are jointly and severally liable to pay said compensation amount.

It is further alleged in the OP 668/2003 that on 4.5.2003 while the petitioner was standing near petrol bunk at

Abhangapatnam shivar at 11.00 am, the driver of the Tata sumo drove the said Tata sumo in a rash and negligent manner and lost control over Tata sumo and dashed against the petitioner and another person, due to which the petitioner and another person fell down and Tata sumo run over the petitioner and another person due to which petitioner sustained multiple fractures and 3 OP 668 & 669-03 crush injuries etc and he was shifted to Venkateshwara hospital,

Nizamabad where he was treated as inpatient and he underwent operation and incurred Rs.2,50,000/- towards medical expenses and still he is taking treatment under private doctors and the said accident occurred due to rash and negligent driving of driver of

Tata sumo.

It is further alleged in the OP 668/2003 that the petitioner was aged 35 years at the time of accident and prior to the accident the petitioner was hale and healthy and he was doing business and earning Rs.15,000/- per month and on account of multiple and grievous injuries he is suffering from giddiness and head ache, his left leg was amputated upto thigh. He sustained permanent disability, due to which he lost total earning power and he is unable to do any work and on account of injuries and permanent disability is caused to the petitioner in the accident.

3. In this matter, respondent No.1 was set ex parte and on 15.3.2004, respondent No.2 filed the written statement denying the OP averments. The plea of respondent No.2 is of total denial.

According to respondent No.2, three days delay is there in lodging report to the police regarding the accident and the matter is not reported to respondent No.2 company by the owner of Tata sumo and there is collusion between petitioner and owner of Tata sumo and they are intending to cause loss to respondent No.2 company and driver of Tata sumo is also necessary party to the OP and due to non joinder of driver, this OP is liable to be dismissed and claim for Rs. Seven lakhs is excessive. Respondent No.2 is praying the

Court to dismiss the OP with costs.

4 OP 668 & 669-03

4. On the above rival contentions, the following issues were framed in OP 668/2003:

1.Whether the accident has taken place due to rash and negligent driving of Tata Sumo No.AP25-U- 1289 by its driver?

2.Whether the petitioner is entitled for compensation and if so to what just amount and against whom?

3.To what relief?

OP 669/2003:-

5. On 22.6.2003, this OP 669/2003 was filed by the petitioner under Section 166(1)(a) of Motor Vehicles Act r/w Rule 455 of

A.P.Motor Vehicles Rules praying the Court to grant compensation of Rs. Seven lakhs in favour of petitioner with interest @ 24% per annum on the entire decretal amount from 22.6.2003 till the dte of realization and for costs.

6. The gist of the petition averments are similar to the gist of petition averments in OP 668/2003, and therefore, this Court is not reiterating the contents of the present OP with a view to avoid delay.

It is further alleged in the OP by the petitioner that the petitioner was aged 36 years at the time of accident and prior to the accident he was hale and healthy and he was doing mason work and doing construction of building on contract basis and earning Rs.15,000/- and on account of injuries, petitioner has been subjected to loss of total earning power and on account of injuries, the petitioner sustained permanent disability.

7. In this OP 669/2003 respondent No.1 was set ex parte.

On 15.3.2004, respondent No.2 filed the written statement denying the OP averments. The plea of respondent No.2 is of total 5 OP 668 & 669-03 denial and the contents of written statement of OP 669/2003 are similar to the contents of written statement in OP 668/2003, and therefore, this Court is not reproducing the contents with a view to avoid repetition.

8. On the above rival contentions, the following issues were framed on 14.7.2004 in OP 669/2003:

1.Whether the accident has taken place due to rash and negligent driving of Tata Sumo No.AP25-U- 1289 by its driver?

2.Whether the petitioner of OP 669/2003 is entitled for compensation and if so to what just amount and against whom?

3.To what relief?

9. ISSUE NO.1 OF OP 668/2003 & ISSUE NO.1 OF OP 669/2003:

On 14.3.2013, this Court heard Sri Raghuveer Bhupal, learned advocate for petitioner in OP 668/2003 and 669/2003. On 19.3.2013, this Court heard Sri Ashok, learned advocate for respondent No.2 in both the OPs. After the oral arguments, Sri

Raghuveer Bhupal, learned advocate for petitioners in both the

OPs filed gist of arguments on 14.3.2013 itself. This Court perused the material papers in OP 668/2003 and OP 669/2003.

On behalf of the petitioner in OP 668/2003, the petitioner was examined as Pw1 and Dr.Akhilesh was examined as Pw2 and

Exs.A1 to A8 were marked on behalf of the petitioner in OP 668/2003.

In OP 669/2003, the petitioner was examined as Pw1 and

Exs.A1 to A19 were marked and Pw2 Dr.Akhilesh was examined in

OP 669/2003. Ex.B1 was marked on behalf of the respondent

6 OP 668 & 669-03

No.2 insurance company in both the OPs 668/2003 and 669/2003.

10. After the oral arguments, gist of arguments was submitted on behalf of the petitioners in OPs and Sri Raghuveer Bhupal, learned advocate for petitioner relied on the following decision reported in –

Sri Kumaresh …Appellant vs. The Divisional manager

National Insurance Co.Ltd and another(Date 29.4.2011 in Civil

Appeal No.3784 of 2011).

In the above said decision, Hon’ble Supreme Court granted a sum of Rs.50,000/- towards pain and sufferance loss of income during treatment, Rs.15,000/- towards medical expenses for whole life, Rs.1,00,000/- loss of future earnings, Rs.4,32,000/- towards loss of amenities and enjoyment of life including loss of marital prospects, Rs.3,00,000/- towards conveyance charges,

Rs.50,000/-- food and nourishment totally Rs.9,97,000/- were granted.

11. From the evidence of Pw1 of OP 668/2003 and from the evidence of Pw1 in OP 669/2003 and also from the contents of the

FIR and from the contents of the charge sheet which is filed under section 338 IPC, it is clear that while the petitioners were standing by the side of the road near petrol bunk at

Abhangapatnam village shivar, driver of Tata Sumo No.AP25-U- 1289 came from Basar side in a rash and negligent manner at high speed and the driver of the Tata Sumo lost control over Tata sumo and gave dash to the petitioners, due to which petitioners in both the OPs sustained multiple fractures. Issue No.1 of OP 7 OP 668 & 669-03 668/2003 and issue No.1 of OP 669/2003 are decided in favour of the petitioners in the said OPs and against respondents 1 and 2 in the said OPs.

12. ISSUE NO.2 IN BOTH OPs: 668/2003 and 669/2003:

From the evidence of Pw1 of OP 668/2003 and from the evidence of Pw1 in OP 669/2003 by name Dr.Akhilesh, it is evident that Pw1 of OP 668/2003 sustained one grievous injury and three simple injuries and in similar manner petitioner in OP 669/2003 sustained one grievous injury and three simple injuries.

In the present matter certificates Ex.A5 in OP 668/2003 and certificate, Ex.A15 in OP 669/2003 are available. Exs.A5 and A15 were issued by the Medical Board and both the petitioners are not having legs. It is evident from the evidence of Pw2 Dr.Akhilesh in both OPs that the petitioners in both OPs sustained traumatic above knee amputation of the above left lower limb and traumatic above knee amputation of the above left lower limb. As per

Ex.A15 the petitioner in OP 669/2003, suffered 80% of disability and as per Ex.A5 of OP 668/2003 the petitioner suffered 80% disability. The evidence of Pw1 of OP 669/2003 is to the effect that he was earning a sum of Rs.15,000/- per month earlier to the accident and the evidence of Pw1 in OP 668/2003 to the effect that he was earning a sum of Rs.15,000/- per month but there is no acceptable material before this Court in this regard. Therefore, the said income Rs.15,000/- and Rs.15,000/- is not accepted by this Court as it is not acceptable one. However, the persons like petitioners in OP 668/2003 and OP 669/2003 were earning not less than Rs.3000/- per month as on 4.5.2003. Due to amputation there was loss of earnings to the petitioner in OP 8 OP 668 & 669-03 668/2003 and the petitioner in OP 669/2003. The petitioner in OP 669/2003 apart from FIR and charge sheet also filed certificate

dated 21.5.2003 showing the date of admission as 4.5.2003 and

traumatic amputation to G.Ramulu and medical bill for

Rs.20,810/- and cash bill for Rs.500/- and medical bills Rs.6134/- , Rs.5704/-, Rs.5795/-, Rs.5457/-, Rs.7869/- and receipt for

Rs.100/- and complete blood report and medical certificate in respect of Orthopaedically handicapped candidate G.Ramulu and receipt for Rs.50/- in the shape of Ex.A1 to A18 and Ex.A19 is X-

Ray.

In OP 668/2003 the petitioner exhibited apart from FIR and charge sheet, requisition of Station House Officer and medical certificate, Ex.A4 and medical certificate in respect of

Orthopaedically handicapped candidate Linganna and traumatic above knee amputation to Nagepoor Linganna and medical bill for

Rs.21,530/- and copy of insurance paper covering the period of accident. In the opinion of the Court, the petitioners in both the

OPs are entitled for compensation against respondents 1 and 2.

Pw2 Dr.Akhilesh clearly stated that the patients were admitted in his hospital and he also worked in Government Hospital, on 4.5.2003 and he also practiced outside the Government Hospital, on 4.5.2003 and he issued certificates. Merely because doctor

Pw2 did not mention the sentence in Ex.A4 that he obtained consent for amputation, it cannot be said that there was no amputation at all. Pw2 Dr.Akhilesh clearly stated in the cross- examination when the vehicle run over or two vehicles hit in the opposite direction or when he was proceeding between two vehicles, amputation will be conducted and there was possibility 9 OP 668 & 669-03 of amputation. In the opinion of the Court, it cannot be said that the said certificates are suspicious. It cannot be said that

Dr.Akhilesh did not conduct amputation to both the petitioners. In fact, amputations were conducted and they are visible in the photos. Apart from the above Ex.A15 and A5 in both the OPs issued by Medical Board are available. G.Ramulu was aged 36 years and age of Nagepoor Linganna was 45 years. The

Petitioners in both the OPs are entitled for the amounts shown in the receipts and medical bills and cash memos etc exhibited by them in the open Court in the witness because they have spent the said amount towards medical expenses. The petitioner in OP 668/2003 is entitled to the following amounts:

1. Medical bills, receipts and cash Rs. 21,530/- memos etc.

2. Loss of earning for 3 months @ Rs. 9,000/- Rs.3000/- per month

3. Towards expenses of attendant for 3 Rs. 6,000/- months @ Rs.2000/-

4. Towards extra nourishment and Rs. 6,000/- food @ Rs.2000/- for 3 months

5. Loss of future earnings: Towards amputation: the income of the Rs. 4,03,200/- petitioner is fixed at Rs.3000/- and the disability is 80% and the loss of earning out of Rs.3000/- comes to Rs.2400/- per month and for 12 months, it comes to Rs.2400/- x 12 = Rs.28,800/- and the appropriate multiplier in respect of Nagepoor Linganna is 14 and if Rs.28,800/- is multiplied with 14, the amount comes to

Towards transport charges from the place of accident and to hospital Rs. 2,000/-

For purchase of artificial leg Rs. 2,000/-

Total Rs. 4,49,730/- 10OP 668 & 669-03

Thus, totally the petitioner in OP 668/2003 is entitled for a sum of Rs.4,49,730/- (Rupees four lakhs forty nine thousand and seven hundred and thirty only) with interest @ 7.5% per annum on the above said amount from the date of OP i.e. from 22.7.2003 till the date of realization against respondents 1 and 2 jointly and severally. However respondent No.2 is directed to deposit the entire amount with interest before the Court within (2) months from today. Issue No.2 of OP 668/2003 is decided accordingly.

13. The petitioner in OP 669/2003 is entitled to the following amounts:

1. Medical bills, receipts and cash Rs. 52,419/- memos etc.

2. Loss of earning for 3 months @ Rs. 9,000/- Rs.3000/- per month

3. Towards expenses of attendant for 3 Rs. 6,000/- months @ Rs.2000/-

4. Towards extra nourishment and Rs. 6,000/- food @ Rs.2000/- for 3 months

5. Loss of future earnings: Towards amputation: the income of the Rs. 4,32,000/- petitioner is fixed at Rs.3000/- and the disability is 80% and the loss of earning out of Rs.3000/- comes to Rs.2400/- per month and for 12 months, it comes to Rs.2400/- x 12 = Rs.28,800/- and the appropriate multiplier in respect of G.Ramulu is 15 and if Rs.28,800/- is multiplied with 15, the amount comes to

Towards transport charges from the place of accident and to hospital Rs. 2,000/- For purchase of artificial leg Rs. 2,000/-

Total Rs. 5,09,419/- 11OP 668 & 669-03

Thus, totally the petitioner in OP 669/2003 is entitled for a sum of Rs.5,09,419/- (Rupees five lakhs nine thousand four hundred and nineteen only) with interest @ 7.5% per annum on the above said amount from the date of OP i.e. from 22.7.2003 till the date of realization against respondents 1 and 2 jointly and severally. However respondent No.2 is directed to deposit the entire amount with interest before the Court within (2) months from today. Issue No.2 of OP 669/2003 is decided accordingly.

14. ISSUE NO.3: in OP 668/2003: In the result, OP 668/2003 is allowed in part as follows:

1. That the respondents 1 and 2 are directed to pay a sum of Rs.4,49,730/- (Rupees four lakhs forty nine thousand and seven hundred and thirty only) to the petitioner with proportionate costs and with interest thereon at 7.5% per annum from 22.7.2003 till the date of realization against respondents 1 and 2 jointly and severally. However, respondent No.2 is directed to deposit the entire amount before this Court within (2) months from today and on such deposit, the petitioner is entitled to withdraw the entire amount in one lump sum.

The Advocate fee is fixed at Rs.5,000/- in OP 668/2003.

15. ISSUE NO.3: in OP 669/2003: In the result, OP 669/2003 is allowed in part as follows:

1. That the respondents 1 and 2 are directed to pay a sum of Rs.5,09,419/- (Rupees five lakhs nine thousand four hundred and nineteen only) to the petitioner with proportionate costs and with interest thereon at 7.5% per annum from 22.7.2003 till the date of realization against respondents 1 and 2 jointly and severally. However, respondent No.2 is directed to deposit the entire amount

before this Court within (2) months from today and on such

deposit, the petitioner is entitled to withdraw the entire amount in one lump sum.

The Advocate fee is fixed at Rs.5,000/- in OP 669/2003.

Dictated to Personal Asst. transcribed by him, corrected and

pronounced by me in open court this the 22 nd day of April, 2013.

Chairman, Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, 12OP 668 & 669-03

(VIII ADJ), Nizamabad.

O.P.No. 668/2003 -:: APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE ::-

FOR PETITIONER FOR RESPONDENTS

PW1: Nagepoor Linganna None PW2: Dr.V.Akhilesh -:: Exhibits marked ::-

FOR PETITIONER

Ex.A1 CC of FIR Ex.A2 CC of charge sheet Ex.A3 CC of requisition Ex.A4 CC of Medical certificate Ex.A5 Medical certificate issued by Medical Board Ex.A6 Prescription from Sri Venkateshwara Hospital, Ex.A7 Medical bill from Sri Venkateshwara Hospital, Ex.A8 XC of Insurance policy

FOR RESPONDENTS

Ex.B1 Copy of policy O.P. No.669/2003 -:: APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE ::-

FOR PETITIONER FOR RESPONDENTS

PW1: G.Ramulu None PW2: Dr.V.Akhilesh -:: Exhibits marked ::-

FOR PETITIONER S

Ex.A1 CC of FIR Ex.A2 CC of charge sheet Ex.A3 CC of Requisition Ex.A4 CC of wound certificate Ex.A5 Prescription from Sri Venkateshwara Hospital Ex.A6 Medical bill Ex.A7 Cash bill Ex.A8 Cash bill Ex.A9 Cash bill Ex.A10 Cash bill Ex.A11 cash bill Ex.A12 Cash bill Ex.A13 Receipt from X Ray center Ex.A14 Complete blood picture Ex.A15 Medical certificate issued by the Medical Board Ex.A16 Photograph Ex.A17 Negative Ex.A18 Receipt issued by United India Insurance Co.

13OP 668 & 669-03

Ex.A19 X-Ray

FOR RESPONDENTS

Ex.B1 Copy of policy

Chairman, Motor Accident Claims Tribunal,

(VIII ADJ), Nizamabad.

IN THE COURT OF THE MOTOR ACCIDENT CLAIMS

TRIBUNAL (VIII ADDL.DIST. JUDGE) AT NIZAMABAD

Present:- P. Laxminarayana, M.A., LL.B.,

Chairman, MACT (VIII ADJ),

Nizamabad.

Monday, the 22 nd day of April, 2013

O.P. No. 668 of 2003

Between:

Nagepoor Linganna S/o Shankar, age 35 years, occ.Leather Business, Shoe Maker R/o Janakampet (v), Yedpally mandal, District Nizamabad,

Petitioner

AND

1.Azamathullah Khan S/o Mohd.Khan, aged Major, Owner of the Tata Sumo bearing No.AP25-U-1289 R/o Ahmed Pura Colony, H.No.8-4-318, Nizamabad

2.United India Insurance Company Limited, Represented by its Divisional Manager, Divisional office, Godown Road, Nizamabad (vide Policy No.050700/31/02/00741 valid from 10.4.2003) …Respondents

O.P. No. 669 of 2003

Between:

Gingiri Ramuloo S/o Buchanna, aged about 36 years, occ.Mason, Construction of Building on contract Basis, R/o Janakampet village, Yedpally mandal, Dist. Nizamabad

..Petitioner

AND

1.Azamathullah Khan S/o Mohd.Khan, aged Major, Owner of the Tata Sumo bearing No.AP25-U-1289 R/o Ahmed Pura Colony, H.No.8-4-318, Nizamabad

2.United India Insurance Company Limited, Represented by its Divisional Manager, Divisional office, Godown Road, Nizamabad (vide Policy No.050700/31/02/00741 valid from 10.4.2003) …Respondents

These petitions coming on before me for hearing in the presence of Sri V.Raghuveer Bhupal, advocate for petitioners and of

Sri K.Ashok, Advocate for the second respondent and the first respondent remained exparte and the matter having stood over for consideration till this day, this Tribunal made the following:

2 OP 668 & 669-03

:: C O M M O N O R D E R ::

OP 668/2003:-

On 22.6.2003, this OP 668/2003 was filed by the petitioner under Section 166(1)(a) of Motor Vehicles Act r/w Rule 455 of

A.P.Motor Vehicles Rules praying the Court to grant compensation of Rs. Seven lakhs in favour of petitioner with interest @ 24% per annum on the entire decretal amount from 22.6.2003 till the date of realization and for costs.

2. It is alleged in the OP by the petitioner that the petitioner is resident of Jankampeta village and he met with an accident and sustained permanent disability on account of injuries received by him in motor vehicle accident which took place on 4.5.2003 in the limits of Abhangapatnam shivar with Tata Sumo No.AP25-U-1289.

Respondent No.1 is owner of the said Tata Sumo and respondent

No.2 is insurer of the said Tata sumo and insurance cover note valid from 10.4.2003 and the petitioner is entitled to claim compensation on account of injuries sustained by him in motor vehicle accident and respondents 1 and 2 are jointly and severally liable to pay said compensation amount.

It is further alleged in the OP 668/2003 that on 4.5.2003 while the petitioner was standing near petrol bunk at

Abhangapatnam shivar at 11.00 am, the driver of the Tata sumo drove the said Tata sumo in a rash and negligent manner and lost control over Tata sumo and dashed against the petitioner and another person, due to which the petitioner and another person fell down and Tata sumo run over the petitioner and another person due to which petitioner sustained multiple fractures and 3 OP 668 & 669-03 crush injuries etc and he was shifted to Venkateshwara hospital,

Nizamabad where he was treated as inpatient and he underwent operation and incurred Rs.2,50,000/- towards medical expenses and still he is taking treatment under private doctors and the said accident occurred due to rash and negligent driving of driver of

Tata sumo.

It is further alleged in the OP 668/2003 that the petitioner was aged 35 years at the time of accident and prior to the accident the petitioner was hale and healthy and he was doing business and earning Rs.15,000/- per month and on account of multiple and grievous injuries he is suffering from giddiness and head ache, his left leg was amputated upto thigh. He sustained permanent disability, due to which he lost total earning power and he is unable to do any work and on account of injuries and permanent disability is caused to the petitioner in the accident.

3. In this matter, respondent No.1 was set ex parte and on 15.3.2004, respondent No.2 filed the written statement denying the OP averments. The plea of respondent No.2 is of total denial.

According to respondent No.2, three days delay is there in lodging report to the police regarding the accident and the matter is not reported to respondent No.2 company by the owner of Tata sumo and there is collusion between petitioner and owner of Tata sumo and they are intending to cause loss to respondent No.2 company and driver of Tata sumo is also necessary party to the OP and due to non joinder of driver, this OP is liable to be dismissed and claim for Rs. Seven lakhs is excessive. Respondent No.2 is praying the

Court to dismiss the OP with costs.

4 OP 668 & 669-03

4. On the above rival contentions, the following issues were framed in OP 668/2003:

1.Whether the accident has taken place due to rash and negligent driving of Tata Sumo No.AP25-U- 1289 by its driver?

2.Whether the petitioner is entitled for compensation and if so to what just amount and against whom?

3.To what relief?

OP 669/2003:-

5. On 22.6.2003, this OP 669/2003 was filed by the petitioner under Section 166(1)(a) of Motor Vehicles Act r/w Rule 455 of

A.P.Motor Vehicles Rules praying the Court to grant compensation of Rs. Seven lakhs in favour of petitioner with interest @ 24% per annum on the entire decretal amount from 22.6.2003 till the dte of realization and for costs.

6. The gist of the petition averments are similar to the gist of petition averments in OP 668/2003, and therefore, this Court is not reiterating the contents of the present OP with a view to avoid delay.

It is further alleged in the OP by the petitioner that the petitioner was aged 36 years at the time of accident and prior to the accident he was hale and healthy and he was doing mason work and doing construction of building on contract basis and earning Rs.15,000/- and on account of injuries, petitioner has been subjected to loss of total earning power and on account of injuries, the petitioner sustained permanent disability.

7. In this OP 669/2003 respondent No.1 was set ex parte.

On 15.3.2004, respondent No.2 filed the written statement denying the OP averments. The plea of respondent No.2 is of total 5 OP 668 & 669-03 denial and the contents of written statement of OP 669/2003 are similar to the contents of written statement in OP 668/2003, and therefore, this Court is not reproducing the contents with a view to avoid repetition.

8. On the above rival contentions, the following issues were framed on 14.7.2004 in OP 669/2003:

1.Whether the accident has taken place due to rash and negligent driving of Tata Sumo No.AP25-U- 1289 by its driver?

2.Whether the petitioner of OP 669/2003 is entitled for compensation and if so to what just amount and against whom?

3.To what relief?

9. ISSUE NO.1 OF OP 668/2003 & ISSUE NO.1 OF OP 669/2003:

On 14.3.2013, this Court heard Sri Raghuveer Bhupal, learned advocate for petitioner in OP 668/2003 and 669/2003. On 19.3.2013, this Court heard Sri Ashok, learned advocate for respondent No.2 in both the OPs. After the oral arguments, Sri

Raghuveer Bhupal, learned advocate for petitioners in both the

OPs filed gist of arguments on 14.3.2013 itself. This Court perused the material papers in OP 668/2003 and OP 669/2003.

On behalf of the petitioner in OP 668/2003, the petitioner was examined as Pw1 and Dr.Akhilesh was examined as Pw2 and

Exs.A1 to A8 were marked on behalf of the petitioner in OP 668/2003.

In OP 669/2003, the petitioner was examined as Pw1 and

Exs.A1 to A19 were marked and Pw2 Dr.Akhilesh was examined in

OP 669/2003. Ex.B1 was marked on behalf of the respondent

6 OP 668 & 669-03

No.2 insurance company in both the OPs 668/2003 and 669/2003.

10. After the oral arguments, gist of arguments was submitted on behalf of the petitioners in OPs and Sri Raghuveer Bhupal, learned advocate for petitioner relied on the following decision reported in –

Sri Kumaresh …Appellant vs. The Divisional manager

National Insurance Co.Ltd and another(Date 29.4.2011 in Civil

Appeal No.3784 of 2011).

In the above said decision, Hon’ble Supreme Court granted a sum of Rs.50,000/- towards pain and sufferance loss of income during treatment, Rs.15,000/- towards medical expenses for whole life, Rs.1,00,000/- loss of future earnings, Rs.4,32,000/- towards loss of amenities and enjoyment of life including loss of marital prospects, Rs.3,00,000/- towards conveyance charges,

Rs.50,000/-- food and nourishment totally Rs.9,97,000/- were granted.

11. From the evidence of Pw1 of OP 668/2003 and from the evidence of Pw1 in OP 669/2003 and also from the contents of the

FIR and from the contents of the charge sheet which is filed under section 338 IPC, it is clear that while the petitioners were standing by the side of the road near petrol bunk at

Abhangapatnam village shivar, driver of Tata Sumo No.AP25-U- 1289 came from Basar side in a rash and negligent manner at high speed and the driver of the Tata Sumo lost control over Tata sumo and gave dash to the petitioners, due to which petitioners in both the OPs sustained multiple fractures. Issue No.1 of OP 7 OP 668 & 669-03 668/2003 and issue No.1 of OP 669/2003 are decided in favour of the petitioners in the said OPs and against respondents 1 and 2 in the said OPs.

12. ISSUE NO.2 IN BOTH OPs: 668/2003 and 669/2003:

From the evidence of Pw1 of OP 668/2003 and from the evidence of Pw1 in OP 669/2003 by name Dr.Akhilesh, it is evident that Pw1 of OP 668/2003 sustained one grievous injury and three simple injuries and in similar manner petitioner in OP 669/2003 sustained one grievous injury and three simple injuries.

In the present matter certificates Ex.A5 in OP 668/2003 and certificate, Ex.A15 in OP 669/2003 are available. Exs.A5 and A15 were issued by the Medical Board and both the petitioners are not having legs. It is evident from the evidence of Pw2 Dr.Akhilesh in both OPs that the petitioners in both OPs sustained traumatic above knee amputation of the above left lower limb and traumatic above knee amputation of the above left lower limb. As per

Ex.A15 the petitioner in OP 669/2003, suffered 80% of disability and as per Ex.A5 of OP 668/2003 the petitioner suffered 80% disability. The evidence of Pw1 of OP 669/2003 is to the effect that he was earning a sum of Rs.15,000/- per month earlier to the accident and the evidence of Pw1 in OP 668/2003 to the effect that he was earning a sum of Rs.15,000/- per month but there is no acceptable material before this Court in this regard. Therefore, the said income Rs.15,000/- and Rs.15,000/- is not accepted by this Court as it is not acceptable one. However, the persons like petitioners in OP 668/2003 and OP 669/2003 were earning not less than Rs.3000/- per month as on 4.5.2003. Due to amputation there was loss of earnings to the petitioner in OP 8 OP 668 & 669-03 668/2003 and the petitioner in OP 669/2003. The petitioner in OP 669/2003 apart from FIR and charge sheet also filed certificate

dated 21.5.2003 showing the date of admission as 4.5.2003 and

traumatic amputation to G.Ramulu and medical bill for

Rs.20,810/- and cash bill for Rs.500/- and medical bills Rs.6134/- , Rs.5704/-, Rs.5795/-, Rs.5457/-, Rs.7869/- and receipt for

Rs.100/- and complete blood report and medical certificate in respect of Orthopaedically handicapped candidate G.Ramulu and receipt for Rs.50/- in the shape of Ex.A1 to A18 and Ex.A19 is X-

Ray.

In OP 668/2003 the petitioner exhibited apart from FIR and charge sheet, requisition of Station House Officer and medical certificate, Ex.A4 and medical certificate in respect of

Orthopaedically handicapped candidate Linganna and traumatic above knee amputation to Nagepoor Linganna and medical bill for

Rs.21,530/- and copy of insurance paper covering the period of accident. In the opinion of the Court, the petitioners in both the

OPs are entitled for compensation against respondents 1 and 2.

Pw2 Dr.Akhilesh clearly stated that the patients were admitted in his hospital and he also worked in Government Hospital, on 4.5.2003 and he also practiced outside the Government Hospital, on 4.5.2003 and he issued certificates. Merely because doctor

Pw2 did not mention the sentence in Ex.A4 that he obtained consent for amputation, it cannot be said that there was no amputation at all. Pw2 Dr.Akhilesh clearly stated in the cross- examination when the vehicle run over or two vehicles hit in the opposite direction or when he was proceeding between two vehicles, amputation will be conducted and there was possibility 9 OP 668 & 669-03 of amputation. In the opinion of the Court, it cannot be said that the said certificates are suspicious. It cannot be said that

Dr.Akhilesh did not conduct amputation to both the petitioners. In fact, amputations were conducted and they are visible in the photos. Apart from the above Ex.A15 and A5 in both the OPs issued by Medical Board are available. G.Ramulu was aged 36 years and age of Nagepoor Linganna was 45 years. The

Petitioners in both the OPs are entitled for the amounts shown in the receipts and medical bills and cash memos etc exhibited by them in the open Court in the witness because they have spent the said amount towards medical expenses. The petitioner in OP 668/2003 is entitled to the following amounts:

1. Medical bills, receipts and cash Rs. 21,530/- memos etc.

2. Loss of earning for 3 months @ Rs. 9,000/- Rs.3000/- per month

3. Towards expenses of attendant for 3 Rs. 6,000/- months @ Rs.2000/-

4. Towards extra nourishment and Rs. 6,000/- food @ Rs.2000/- for 3 months

5. Loss of future earnings: Towards amputation: the income of the Rs. 4,03,200/- petitioner is fixed at Rs.3000/- and the disability is 80% and the loss of earning out of Rs.3000/- comes to Rs.2400/- per month and for 12 months, it comes to Rs.2400/- x 12 = Rs.28,800/- and the appropriate multiplier in respect of Nagepoor Linganna is 14 and if Rs.28,800/- is multiplied with 14, the amount comes to

Towards transport charges from the place of accident and to hospital Rs. 2,000/-

For purchase of artificial leg Rs. 2,000/-

Total Rs. 4,49,730/- 10OP 668 & 669-03

Thus, totally the petitioner in OP 668/2003 is entitled for a sum of Rs.4,49,730/- (Rupees four lakhs forty nine thousand and seven hundred and thirty only) with interest @ 7.5% per annum on the above said amount from the date of OP i.e. from 22.7.2003 till the date of realization against respondents 1 and 2 jointly and severally. However respondent No.2 is directed to deposit the entire amount with interest before the Court within (2) months from today. Issue No.2 of OP 668/2003 is decided accordingly.

13. The petitioner in OP 669/2003 is entitled to the following amounts:

1. Medical bills, receipts and cash Rs. 52,419/- memos etc.

2. Loss of earning for 3 months @ Rs. 9,000/- Rs.3000/- per month

3. Towards expenses of attendant for 3 Rs. 6,000/- months @ Rs.2000/-

4. Towards extra nourishment and Rs. 6,000/- food @ Rs.2000/- for 3 months

5. Loss of future earnings: Towards amputation: the income of the Rs. 4,32,000/- petitioner is fixed at Rs.3000/- and the disability is 80% and the loss of earning out of Rs.3000/- comes to Rs.2400/- per month and for 12 months, it comes to Rs.2400/- x 12 = Rs.28,800/- and the appropriate multiplier in respect of G.Ramulu is 15 and if Rs.28,800/- is multiplied with 15, the amount comes to

Towards transport charges from the place of accident and to hospital Rs. 2,000/- For purchase of artificial leg Rs. 2,000/-

Total Rs. 5,09,419/- 11OP 668 & 669-03

Thus, totally the petitioner in OP 669/2003 is entitled for a sum of Rs.5,09,419/- (Rupees five lakhs nine thousand four hundred and nineteen only) with interest @ 7.5% per annum on the above said amount from the date of OP i.e. from 22.7.2003 till the date of realization against respondents 1 and 2 jointly and severally. However respondent No.2 is directed to deposit the entire amount with interest before the Court within (2) months from today. Issue No.2 of OP 669/2003 is decided accordingly.

14. ISSUE NO.3: in OP 668/2003: In the result, OP 668/2003 is allowed in part as follows:

1. That the respondents 1 and 2 are directed to pay a sum of Rs.4,49,730/- (Rupees four lakhs forty nine thousand and seven hundred and thirty only) to the petitioner with proportionate costs and with interest thereon at 7.5% per annum from 22.7.2003 till the date of realization against respondents 1 and 2 jointly and severally. However, respondent No.2 is directed to deposit the entire amount before this Court within (2) months from today and on such deposit, the petitioner is entitled to withdraw the entire amount in one lump sum.

The Advocate fee is fixed at Rs.5,000/- in OP 668/2003.

15. ISSUE NO.3: in OP 669/2003: In the result, OP 669/2003 is allowed in part as follows:

1. That the respondents 1 and 2 are directed to pay a sum of Rs.5,09,419/- (Rupees five lakhs nine thousand four hundred and nineteen only) to the petitioner with proportionate costs and with interest thereon at 7.5% per annum from 22.7.2003 till the date of realization against respondents 1 and 2 jointly and severally. However, respondent No.2 is directed to deposit the entire amount

before this Court within (2) months from today and on such

deposit, the petitioner is entitled to withdraw the entire amount in one lump sum.

The Advocate fee is fixed at Rs.5,000/- in OP 669/2003.

Dictated to Personal Asst. transcribed by him, corrected and

pronounced by me in open court this the 22 nd day of April, 2013.

Chairman, Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, 12OP 668 & 669-03

(VIII ADJ), Nizamabad.

O.P.No. 668/2003 -:: APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE ::-

FOR PETITIONER FOR RESPONDENTS

PW1: Nagepoor Linganna None PW2: Dr.V.Akhilesh -:: Exhibits marked ::-

FOR PETITIONER

Ex.A1 CC of FIR Ex.A2 CC of charge sheet Ex.A3 CC of requisition Ex.A4 CC of Medical certificate Ex.A5 Medical certificate issued by Medical Board Ex.A6 Prescription from Sri Venkateshwara Hospital, Ex.A7 Medical bill from Sri Venkateshwara Hospital, Ex.A8 XC of Insurance policy

FOR RESPONDENTS

Ex.B1 Copy of policy O.P. No.669/2003 -:: APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE ::-

FOR PETITIONER FOR RESPONDENTS

PW1: G.Ramulu None PW2: Dr.V.Akhilesh -:: Exhibits marked ::-

FOR PETITIONER S

Ex.A1 CC of FIR Ex.A2 CC of charge sheet Ex.A3 CC of Requisition Ex.A4 CC of wound certificate Ex.A5 Prescription from Sri Venkateshwara Hospital Ex.A6 Medical bill Ex.A7 Cash bill Ex.A8 Cash bill Ex.A9 Cash bill Ex.A10 Cash bill Ex.A11 cash bill Ex.A12 Cash bill Ex.A13 Receipt from X Ray center Ex.A14 Complete blood picture Ex.A15 Medical certificate issued by the Medical Board Ex.A16 Photograph Ex.A17 Negative Ex.A18 Receipt issued by United India Insurance Co.

13OP 668 & 669-03

Ex.A19 X-Ray

FOR RESPONDENTS

Ex.B1 Copy of policy

Chairman, Motor Accident Claims Tribunal,

(VIII ADJ), Nizamabad.

IN THE COURT OF THE MOTOR ACCIDENT CLAIMS

TRIBUNAL (VIII ADDL.DIST. JUDGE) AT NIZAMABAD

Present:- P. Laxminarayana, M.A., LL.B.,

Chairman, MACT (VIII ADJ),

Nizamabad.

Thursday, the 22 nd day of April, 2013

O.P. No. 1432 of 2003 Between:

Kumari Ajju Begum D/o Shaik Gudu, age 19 years, occ. Vegetable and Fruits vendor R/o Shanthi Nagar, Nizamabad,

Petitioner

AND

1.M.A.Kaleem S/o Mushtaq Ahmed, aged Major, occ.owner of the auto rickshaw No.AP25T8782 R/o H.No.1-2-87, Phulong, Nizamabad

2.New India Assurance Company Limited, Represented by its Divisional Manager, Divisional office. Opp.ZP Office, Subashnagar, Nizamabad (Vide receipt No.43624 dt.8.10.2002) …Respondents O.P. No. 1433 of 2003 Between:

Smt. Sabeera Begum W/o Shaik.Gudu, aged 50 years, Vegetable and Fruits vender, R/o Shanti nagar, Nizamabad. (Mentioned as for order in IA.538/2013. Dated.07-06- 2013).

..Petitioner

AND

1.M.A.Kaleem S/o Mushtaq Ahmed, aged Major, occ.owner of the auto rickshaw No.AP25T8782 R/o H.No.1-2-87, Phulong, Nizamabad

2.New India Assurance Company Limited, Represented by its Divisional Manager, Divisional office. Opp.ZP Office, Subashnagar, Nizamabad (Vide receipt No.43624 dt.8.10.2002) …Respondents

These petitions coming on before me for hearing in the presence of Sri Ega Ganga Reddy, advocate for petitioners and of Sri P.Anand Reddy, Advocate for the second respondent and the first respondent remained exparte and the matter having stood over for consideration till this day, this Tribunal made the following:

:: C O M M O N O R D E R ::

OP 1432/2003:-

On 29.10.2003, this OP was filed by the petitioner under

Section 166(1)(a) of Motor Vehicles Act r/w Rule 455 of A.P.Motor 2 OP 1432 & 1433-03

Vehicles Rules praying the Court to pass a decree for Rs. Four lakhs in favour of petitioner Ajju Begum towards compensation against respondents 1 and 2 jointly and severally and to grant interest @ 24% per annum on the entire decretal amount from 29.10.2003 till the date of realization and for costs.

2. The case of the petitioner, in brief, is as follows:-

That on 14.8.2003, the petitioner Ajju Begum along with her mother was travelling in the auto rickshaw No.AP25T8782 from Shanthinagar towards Kotagalli and at about 2.30 p.m. on 14.8.2003 when the said auto reached Quilla chowrastha

Nizamabad driver of the said auto drove the said auto in a rash and negligent manner with high speed, due to which the said auto

No.AP25T8782 turned turtle, due to which the petitioner Ajju

Begum and her sister sustained injuries and the petitioner sustained fractures and she was shifted to Government Hospital,

Nizamabad and she incurred more than Rs.one lakh towards her medical expenses and still she is undergoing treatment from private doctors and due to fractures she is unable to attend her regular work and unable to lift weights and unable to walk and now and then she is getting pain and giddiness and became dependant on others and prior to the accident she was hale and healthy and she was doing vegetable and fruits business and earning Rs.10,000/- per month she was contributing her entire earnings to her dependants but due to the accident all her earnings were affected.

3. In this matter, respondent No.1 was set ex parte.

On 11.10.2004, respondent No.2 filed written statement denying the OP averments and the plea of respondent No.2 in the written statement is of total denial. According to respondent No.2, 3 OP 1432 & 1433-03 accident is not reported by the owner of vehicle and auto rickshaw driver is necessary party and due to non joinder of auto rickshaw driver the OP is liable to be dismissed and respondent No.2 prayed the Court to dismiss the OP.

4. On the above rival contentions, the following issues were framed on 7.12.2004 in OP 1432/2003:

1.Whether the motor vehicle accident occurred due to rash and negligent driving of auto rickshaw bearing No.AP25T8782 by its driver resulting in injuries to the petitioner?

2.Whether the petitioner Ajju Begum is entitled for compensation and if so to what amount and from which of the respondents?

3.To what relief?

OP 1433/2003:-

5. On 29.10.2003, this OP was filed by the petitioner Sabeera

Begum against respondents 1 and 2 under Section 166(1)(a) of

Motor Vehicles Act r/w Rule 455 of A.P.Motor Vehicles Rules praying the Court to pass a decree for Rs.Four lakhs in favour of the petitioner against respondents 1 and 2 jointly and severally and to grant interest @ 24% per annum on the entire decretal amount from 29.10.2003 till the date of realization and for costs.

6. The averments of OP 1433/2003 are similar to the OP averments of OP 1432/2003, and therefore, this Court is not reiterating the said contents with a view to avoid repetition.

7. In this matter of OP 1433/2003 also respondent No.1 was set ex parte.

The contents of written statement of respondent No.2 of OP 1433/2003 are similar to the contents of written statement of respondent No.2 in OP 1432/2002, and therefore, this Court is not reproducing the said contents with a view to avoid repetition 4 OP 1432 & 1433-03 because the plea of respondent No.2 in this OP is also of total denial.

8. On 7.12.2004, the following issues were framed in OP 1433/2003:

1.Whether the motor vehicle accident occurred due to rash and negligent driving of auto rickshaw bearing No.AP25T8782 by its driver resulting in injuries to the petitioner?

2.Whether the petitioner Sabeera Begum is entitled for compensation and if so to what amount and from which of the respondents?

3.To what relief?

9. ISSUE NO.1 OF OP 1432/2003 & ISSUE NO.1 OF OP 1433/2003:

From the evidence of Pw1-Ajju Begum of OP 1432/2003 and from the evidence of Pw1-Sabeera Begum of OP 1433/2003 and from the contents of the charge sheet Ex.A2, this Court is satisfied that the accident took place on 14.8.2003 at about 2.30 p.m. at Quilla chowrasta, Nizamabad because driver of auto

No.AP25-T-8782 drove the said auto at high speed in a rash and negligent manner and lost control over the auto due to which the said auto turned turtle as a result of which the petitioners of OP 1432/2003 and OP 1433/2003 who were travelling in the said auto sustained injuries. Issue No.1 of OP 1432/2003 and issue

No.1 of OP 1433/2003 is decided in favour of petitioners in both the OPs.

10. ISSUE NO.2 IN BOTH OPs: 1432/03 and 1433/03:

Already on issue No.1, this Court opined that there was rash and negligent driving of driver of auto, and therefore, the accident occurred and the petitioners in both the OPs sustained injuries.

Now the question is whether they received grievous injuries or simple injuries. In this matter immediately after the accident 5 OP 1432 & 1433-03 petitioner in OP 1432/2003 and petitioner in OP 1433/2003 were examined by Dr.Sudheer, medical officer and found grievous injuries and issued Ex.A3-A and Ex.A3-A respectively in both the

OPs. Accident occurred about ten years ago and now Dr.Sudheer is not working in the said Government Hospital, and his whereabouts were not known, and therefore, Dr.Prakash who is colleague of Dr.Sudheer who can identify the handwriting and signature of Dr.Sudheer is examined as Pw2 and he identified the handwriting and signatures of Dr.Sudheer who found fractures and abrasions on the person of Ajju Begum and Sabeera Begum on 15.8.2003. No doubt, in Ex.A3-A and Ex.A3-A there is no mention regarding X-Rays. However, Dr.S.Prakash admitted that petitioner should be admitted as inpatient for the injuries.

Therefore, it is clear that those injuries are of severe nature which require the admission of patient in the hospital as inpatient. As it happened ten years ago now there is no record with Dr.S.Prakash to show that the petitioners of both the OPs were treated as inpatient, except Ex.A3-A. In the opinion of the Court it is not just and reasonable to disbelieve the certificates Ex.A3-A and Ex.A3-A issued by Dr.Sudheer. This Court is believing the said certificates

Ex.A3-A and Ex.A3-A as genuine one and from the above said two certificates it is clear that petitioners in both the OPs received three fractures and one simple injury and in similar manner petitioner in OP 1433/2003 also received three fractures and two simple injuries. The contention of the said petitioners in both the

OPs is to the effect that they were doing vegetable and milk business and earning Rs.10,000/- per month each but there is no acceptable material in this regard to say that Ajju Begum and sabeera Begum were doing vegetable and milk business and 6 OP 1432 & 1433-03 earning Rs.10,000/- per month each and that the persons like

Ajju Begum and Sabeera Begum were earning not less than

Rs.3,000/- per month in the year 2003, and therefore, alleged income of Rs.10,000/- is not accepted and only Rs.3,000/- per month is taken into consideration. In the opinion of the Court the petitioner Ajju Begum is entitled to the following amounts:

1. Transportation charges from the Rs. 1,000/- place of accident to hospital

3. For nutritious food for a period of Rs. 6,000/- three months @ Rs.2000/- x 3

4. For three grievous injuries, the Rs. 60,000/- petitioner is entitled @ Rs.20,000/- x 3 for each grievous injury

5. For simple injury, the petitioner is Rs. 3,000/- entitled @ Rs.3000/-

6. Towards loss of earnings atleast for Rs. 9,000/- a period of three months @ Rs.3,000/- per month

Total Rs. 79,000/-

No disability certificate is produced, and therefore, no other amount is granted to the petitioner-Ajju Begum.

11. In similar manner, the petitioner Sabeera Begum is entitled to the following amounts:

1. Transportation charges from the Rs. 1,000/- place of accident to hospital

3. For nutritious food for a period of Rs. 6,000/- three months @ Rs.2000/- x 3

4. For three grievous injuries, the Rs. 60,000/- petitioner is entitled @ Rs.20,000/- x 3 for each grievous injury

5. For (2) simple injuries, the Rs. 6,000/- petitioner is entitled @ Rs.3000/- 7 OP 1432 & 1433-03

6. Towards loss of earnings atleast for Rs. 9,000/- a period of three months @ Rs.3,000/- per month

Total Rs. 82,000/-

Issue No.2 of OP 1432/2003 and issue No.2 of OP 1433/2003 are decided against the petitioners and against respondents 1 and 2.

12. ISSUE NO.3: in OP 1432/2003: In the result, OP 1432/2003 is allowed in part as follows:

1. That the respondents 1 and 2 are jointly and severally directed to pay directed to pay a sum of Rs.79,000/- (Rupees seventy nine thousand only) to the petitioner with proportionate costs and with interest thereon at 7.5% per annum from 29.10.2003 till the date of realization. However, respondent No.2 is directed to deposit the entire compensation amount with interest before this Court within one month and on such deposit the petitioner in OP 1432/2003 Ajju Begum is entitled to withdraw the entire amount in one lump sum.

2. The Advocate fee is fixed at Rs.1,000/- in OP 1432/2003.

ISSUE NO.3: in OP 1433/2003: In the result, OP 1433/2003 is allowed in part as follows:

1. That the respondents 1 and 2 are jointly and severally directed to pay a sum of Rs.82,000/- (Rupees eighty two thousand only) to the petitioner with proportionate costs and with interest thereon at 7.5% per annum from 29.10.2003 till the date of realization. However, respondent No.2 is directed to deposit the entire compensation amount with interest before this Court within one month and on such deposit the petitioner in OP 1433/2003 Sabeera Begum is entitled to withdraw the entire amount in one lump sum.

2. The Advocate fee is fixed at Rs.1,000/- in OP 1433/2003.

Dictated to Personal Asst. transcribed by him, corrected and

pronounced by me in open court this the 22 nd day of April, 2013.

Chairman, Motor Accident Claims Tribunal,

(VIII ADJ), Nizamabad.

O.P.No. 1432/2003 -:: APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE ::-

FOR PETITIONER FOR RESPONDENTS

PW1: Ajju Begum None PW2: Dr.S.Prakash 8 OP 1432 & 1433-03 -:: Exhibits marked ::-

FOR PETITIONER

Ex.A1 CC of FIR Ex.A2 CC of charge sheet Ex.A3 CC of requisition Ex.A3-A CC of wound certificate Ex.A4 XC of insurance policy

FOR RESPONDENTS

Nil O.P. No.1433/2003 -:: APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE ::-

FOR PETITIONER FOR RESPONDENTS

PW1: Sabeera Begum None PW2: Dr.S.Prakash -:: Exhibits marked ::-

FOR PETITIONER

Ex.A1 CC of FIR Ex.A2 CC of charge sheet Ex.A3 CC of requisition Ex.A3-A CC of wound certificate Ex.A4 XC of insurance policy

FOR RESPONDENTS

Nil

Chairman, Motor Accident Claims Tribunal,

(VIII ADJ), Nizamabad.

9 OP 1432 & 1433-03

IN THE COURT OF THE MOTOR ACCIDENT CLAIMS

TRIBUNAL (VIII ADDL.DIST. JUDGE) AT NIZAMABAD

Present:- P. Laxminarayana, M.A., LL.B.,

Chairman, MACT (VIII ADJ),

Nizamabad.

Thursday, the 22 nd day of April, 2013

O.P. No. 1432 of 2003 Between:

Kumari Ajju Begum D/o Shaik Gudu, age 19 years, occ. Vegetable and Fruits vendor R/o Shanthi Nagar, Nizamabad,

Petitioner

AND

1.M.A.Kaleem S/o Mushtaq Ahmed, aged Major, occ.owner of the auto rickshaw No.AP25T8782 R/o H.No.1-2-87, Phulong, Nizamabad

2.New India Assurance Company Limited, Represented by its Divisional Manager, Divisional office. Opp.ZP Office, Subashnagar, Nizamabad (Vide receipt No.43624 dt.8.10.2002) …Respondents O.P. No. 1433 of 2003 Between:

Smt. Sabeera Begum W/o Shaik.Gudu, aged 50 years, Vegetable and Fruits vender, R/o Shanti nagar, Nizamabad. (Mentioned as for order in IA.538/2013. Dated.07-06- 2013).

..Petitioner

AND

1.M.A.Kaleem S/o Mushtaq Ahmed, aged Major, occ.owner of the auto rickshaw No.AP25T8782 R/o H.No.1-2-87, Phulong, Nizamabad

2.New India Assurance Company Limited, Represented by its Divisional Manager, Divisional office. Opp.ZP Office, Subashnagar, Nizamabad (Vide receipt No.43624 dt.8.10.2002) …Respondents

These petitions coming on before me for hearing in the presence of Sri Ega Ganga Reddy, advocate for petitioners and of Sri P.Anand Reddy, Advocate for the second respondent and the first respondent remained exparte and the matter having stood over for consideration till this day, this Tribunal made the following:

:: C O M M O N O R D E R ::

OP 1432/2003:-

On 29.10.2003, this OP was filed by the petitioner under

Section 166(1)(a) of Motor Vehicles Act r/w Rule 455 of A.P.Motor 2 OP 1432 & 1433-03

Vehicles Rules praying the Court to pass a decree for Rs. Four lakhs in favour of petitioner Ajju Begum towards compensation against respondents 1 and 2 jointly and severally and to grant interest @ 24% per annum on the entire decretal amount from 29.10.2003 till the date of realization and for costs.

2. The case of the petitioner, in brief, is as follows:-

That on 14.8.2003, the petitioner Ajju Begum along with her mother was travelling in the auto rickshaw No.AP25T8782 from Shanthinagar towards Kotagalli and at about 2.30 p.m. on 14.8.2003 when the said auto reached Quilla chowrastha

Nizamabad driver of the said auto drove the said auto in a rash and negligent manner with high speed, due to which the said auto

No.AP25T8782 turned turtle, due to which the petitioner Ajju

Begum and her sister sustained injuries and the petitioner sustained fractures and she was shifted to Government Hospital,

Nizamabad and she incurred more than Rs.one lakh towards her medical expenses and still she is undergoing treatment from private doctors and due to fractures she is unable to attend her regular work and unable to lift weights and unable to walk and now and then she is getting pain and giddiness and became dependant on others and prior to the accident she was hale and healthy and she was doing vegetable and fruits business and earning Rs.10,000/- per month she was contributing her entire earnings to her dependants but due to the accident all her earnings were affected.

3. In this matter, respondent No.1 was set ex parte.

On 11.10.2004, respondent No.2 filed written statement denying the OP averments and the plea of respondent No.2 in the written statement is of total denial. According to respondent No.2, 3 OP 1432 & 1433-03 accident is not reported by the owner of vehicle and auto rickshaw driver is necessary party and due to non joinder of auto rickshaw driver the OP is liable to be dismissed and respondent No.2 prayed the Court to dismiss the OP.

4. On the above rival contentions, the following issues were framed on 7.12.2004 in OP 1432/2003:

1.Whether the motor vehicle accident occurred due to rash and negligent driving of auto rickshaw bearing No.AP25T8782 by its driver resulting in injuries to the petitioner?

2.Whether the petitioner Ajju Begum is entitled for compensation and if so to what amount and from which of the respondents?

3.To what relief?

OP 1433/2003:-

5. On 29.10.2003, this OP was filed by the petitioner Sabeera

Begum against respondents 1 and 2 under Section 166(1)(a) of

Motor Vehicles Act r/w Rule 455 of A.P.Motor Vehicles Rules praying the Court to pass a decree for Rs.Four lakhs in favour of the petitioner against respondents 1 and 2 jointly and severally and to grant interest @ 24% per annum on the entire decretal amount from 29.10.2003 till the date of realization and for costs.

6. The averments of OP 1433/2003 are similar to the OP averments of OP 1432/2003, and therefore, this Court is not reiterating the said contents with a view to avoid repetition.

7. In this matter of OP 1433/2003 also respondent No.1 was set ex parte.

The contents of written statement of respondent No.2 of OP 1433/2003 are similar to the contents of written statement of respondent No.2 in OP 1432/2002, and therefore, this Court is not reproducing the said contents with a view to avoid repetition 4 OP 1432 & 1433-03 because the plea of respondent No.2 in this OP is also of total denial.

8. On 7.12.2004, the following issues were framed in OP 1433/2003:

1.Whether the motor vehicle accident occurred due to rash and negligent driving of auto rickshaw bearing No.AP25T8782 by its driver resulting in injuries to the petitioner?

2.Whether the petitioner Sabeera Begum is entitled for compensation and if so to what amount and from which of the respondents?

3.To what relief?

9. ISSUE NO.1 OF OP 1432/2003 & ISSUE NO.1 OF OP 1433/2003:

From the evidence of Pw1-Ajju Begum of OP 1432/2003 and from the evidence of Pw1-Sabeera Begum of OP 1433/2003 and from the contents of the charge sheet Ex.A2, this Court is satisfied that the accident took place on 14.8.2003 at about 2.30 p.m. at Quilla chowrasta, Nizamabad because driver of auto

No.AP25-T-8782 drove the said auto at high speed in a rash and negligent manner and lost control over the auto due to which the said auto turned turtle as a result of which the petitioners of OP 1432/2003 and OP 1433/2003 who were travelling in the said auto sustained injuries. Issue No.1 of OP 1432/2003 and issue

No.1 of OP 1433/2003 is decided in favour of petitioners in both the OPs.

10. ISSUE NO.2 IN BOTH OPs: 1432/03 and 1433/03:

Already on issue No.1, this Court opined that there was rash and negligent driving of driver of auto, and therefore, the accident occurred and the petitioners in both the OPs sustained injuries.

Now the question is whether they received grievous injuries or simple injuries. In this matter immediately after the accident 5 OP 1432 & 1433-03 petitioner in OP 1432/2003 and petitioner in OP 1433/2003 were examined by Dr.Sudheer, medical officer and found grievous injuries and issued Ex.A3-A and Ex.A3-A respectively in both the

OPs. Accident occurred about ten years ago and now Dr.Sudheer is not working in the said Government Hospital, and his whereabouts were not known, and therefore, Dr.Prakash who is colleague of Dr.Sudheer who can identify the handwriting and signature of Dr.Sudheer is examined as Pw2 and he identified the handwriting and signatures of Dr.Sudheer who found fractures and abrasions on the person of Ajju Begum and Sabeera Begum on 15.8.2003. No doubt, in Ex.A3-A and Ex.A3-A there is no mention regarding X-Rays. However, Dr.S.Prakash admitted that petitioner should be admitted as inpatient for the injuries.

Therefore, it is clear that those injuries are of severe nature which require the admission of patient in the hospital as inpatient. As it happened ten years ago now there is no record with Dr.S.Prakash to show that the petitioners of both the OPs were treated as inpatient, except Ex.A3-A. In the opinion of the Court it is not just and reasonable to disbelieve the certificates Ex.A3-A and Ex.A3-A issued by Dr.Sudheer. This Court is believing the said certificates

Ex.A3-A and Ex.A3-A as genuine one and from the above said two certificates it is clear that petitioners in both the OPs received three fractures and one simple injury and in similar manner petitioner in OP 1433/2003 also received three fractures and two simple injuries. The contention of the said petitioners in both the

OPs is to the effect that they were doing vegetable and milk business and earning Rs.10,000/- per month each but there is no acceptable material in this regard to say that Ajju Begum and sabeera Begum were doing vegetable and milk business and 6 OP 1432 & 1433-03 earning Rs.10,000/- per month each and that the persons like

Ajju Begum and Sabeera Begum were earning not less than

Rs.3,000/- per month in the year 2003, and therefore, alleged income of Rs.10,000/- is not accepted and only Rs.3,000/- per month is taken into consideration. In the opinion of the Court the petitioner Ajju Begum is entitled to the following amounts:

1. Transportation charges from the Rs. 1,000/- place of accident to hospital

3. For nutritious food for a period of Rs. 6,000/- three months @ Rs.2000/- x 3

4. For three grievous injuries, the Rs. 60,000/- petitioner is entitled @ Rs.20,000/- x 3 for each grievous injury

5. For simple injury, the petitioner is Rs. 3,000/- entitled @ Rs.3000/-

6. Towards loss of earnings atleast for Rs. 9,000/- a period of three months @ Rs.3,000/- per month

Total Rs. 79,000/-

No disability certificate is produced, and therefore, no other amount is granted to the petitioner-Ajju Begum.

11. In similar manner, the petitioner Sabeera Begum is entitled to the following amounts:

1. Transportation charges from the Rs. 1,000/- place of accident to hospital

3. For nutritious food for a period of Rs. 6,000/- three months @ Rs.2000/- x 3

4. For three grievous injuries, the Rs. 60,000/- petitioner is entitled @ Rs.20,000/- x 3 for each grievous injury

5. For (2) simple injuries, the Rs. 6,000/- petitioner is entitled @ Rs.3000/- 7 OP 1432 & 1433-03

6. Towards loss of earnings atleast for Rs. 9,000/- a period of three months @ Rs.3,000/- per month

Total Rs. 82,000/-

Issue No.2 of OP 1432/2003 and issue No.2 of OP 1433/2003 are decided against the petitioners and against respondents 1 and 2.

12. ISSUE NO.3: in OP 1432/2003: In the result, OP 1432/2003 is allowed in part as follows:

1. That the respondents 1 and 2 are jointly and severally directed to pay directed to pay a sum of Rs.79,000/- (Rupees seventy nine thousand only) to the petitioner with proportionate costs and with interest thereon at 7.5% per annum from 29.10.2003 till the date of realization. However, respondent No.2 is directed to deposit the entire compensation amount with interest before this Court within one month and on such deposit the petitioner in OP 1432/2003 Ajju Begum is entitled to withdraw the entire amount in one lump sum.

2. The Advocate fee is fixed at Rs.1,000/- in OP 1432/2003.

ISSUE NO.3: in OP 1433/2003: In the result, OP 1433/2003 is allowed in part as follows:

1. That the respondents 1 and 2 are jointly and severally directed to pay a sum of Rs.82,000/- (Rupees eighty two thousand only) to the petitioner with proportionate costs and with interest thereon at 7.5% per annum from 29.10.2003 till the date of realization. However, respondent No.2 is directed to deposit the entire compensation amount with interest before this Court within one month and on such deposit the petitioner in OP 1433/2003 Sabeera Begum is entitled to withdraw the entire amount in one lump sum.

2. The Advocate fee is fixed at Rs.1,000/- in OP 1433/2003.

Dictated to Personal Asst. transcribed by him, corrected and

pronounced by me in open court this the 22 nd day of April, 2013.

Chairman, Motor Accident Claims Tribunal,

(VIII ADJ), Nizamabad.

O.P.No. 1432/2003 -:: APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE ::-

FOR PETITIONER FOR RESPONDENTS

PW1: Ajju Begum None PW2: Dr.S.Prakash 8 OP 1432 & 1433-03 -:: Exhibits marked ::-

FOR PETITIONER

Ex.A1 CC of FIR Ex.A2 CC of charge sheet Ex.A3 CC of requisition Ex.A3-A CC of wound certificate Ex.A4 XC of insurance policy

FOR RESPONDENTS

Nil O.P. No.1433/2003 -:: APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE ::-

FOR PETITIONER FOR RESPONDENTS

PW1: Sabeera Begum None PW2: Dr.S.Prakash -:: Exhibits marked ::-

FOR PETITIONER

Ex.A1 CC of FIR Ex.A2 CC of charge sheet Ex.A3 CC of requisition Ex.A3-A CC of wound certificate Ex.A4 XC of insurance policy

FOR RESPONDENTS

Nil

Chairman, Motor Accident Claims Tribunal,

(VIII ADJ), Nizamabad.

9 OP 1432 & 1433-03

IN THE COURT OF THE MOTOR ACCIDENT CLAIMS

TRIBUNAL (VIII ADDL.DIST. JUDGE) AT NIZAMABAD

Present:- P. Laxminarayana, M.A., LL.B.,

Chairman, MACT (VIII ADJ), Nizamabad.

Thursday, the 22nd day of April, 2013

OP No.1745 of 2003

Between: Puppala Krishna S/o Rajanna, aged 21 years, Occu: Agriculture and Milk Vendor, R/o. Munipally village, Jakranpally mandal, Dist. Nizamabad.

.. Petitioner

AND

1.T.Rajeshwar S/o Rajaiah, aged Major Owner of Auto rickshaw No.AP25U3304, R/o. Munipally village, Jakranpally mandal, District Nizamabad

2.National Insurance Company Limited, Represented by its Branch Manager, Branch Office, Lakshmi Rajam Complex, Jawahar Road, Nizamabad. (Vide Policy No.6306212/2002, Receipt No.05423, Valid upto 23.9.2004). …Respondents

This petition coming on before me on this day for hearing in the presence of Sri Ega Ganga Reddy, Advocate for petitioner and respondent No.1 remained absent and was set ex parte and of Sri K.Maruthi, Advocate for respondent No.2, and having stood over for consideration till this day, this Tribunal made the following:

O R D E R

On 29.11.2003, this OP.1745/2003 was presented by the petitioner against the respondents No.1 and 2, under Section 166 (1)(a) of Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 read with Rule 455 of A.P. Motor

Vehicles Rules, 1989, praying the Court to pass a decree for

Rs.3,00,000/- in favour of the petitioner towards compensation against the respondents No.1 and 2 jointly and severally and to grant 2 MVOP 1745-03 interest @ 24% per annum on the entire decreetal amount from 29.11.2003 till the date of realization with costs.

2. The case of the petitioner, in brief, is as follows:

That on 12.10.2003, the petitioner along with T.Chinna Ganga

Reddy were travelling in the auto rickshaw No.AP25U3304 and at about 8.50 p.m., when the said auto reached near Dhobhi Ghat, on

N.H.No.16, Armoor, the driver of the said auto No.AP25U3304 drove the auto in a rash and negligent manner with high speed and lost control over the said auto, due to which the auto turned turtle, as a result of which, the petitioner and other inmates of the auto were sustained injuries and the petitioner sustained fractures and he was shifted to Sri Venkateshwara Hospital, Khaleelwadi, Nizamabad and he incurred more than Rs.1,00,000/- towards his medical expenditure and still he is undergoing treatment from private doctors and due to the fractures, the petitioner is unable to walk and unable to attend his regular work and now and then he is getting pain, giddiness and he became dependant on others and he sustained permanent disability.

3. It is further alleged in the OP that prior to the accident, the petitioner was hale and healthy and he was doing agriculture and milk business and was earning more than Rs.10,000/- per month and due to the accident all the earnings of the petitioner were affected.

4. In this OP, respondent No.1 was set ex parte on 2.4.2004. On 24.8.2004, the respondent No.2 insurance company filed its written statement denying the OP averments. This Court perused the 3 MVOP 1745-03 contents of the written statement of R2, which was typed of three pages. The plea of respondent No.2 in the written statement is of total denial. According to the respondent No.2, the petitioner has not filed any medical record and R2 is not liable to pay any compensation for the alleged injuries and the driver drove the auto allowing more than it’s seating capacity of passengers and insured of R2 colluded with the petitioner and has not reported the matter of alleged accident of R2 soon after the accident. If any compensation is granted against respondent No.2, respondent No.2 may be permitted to recover the same from respondent No.1. The respondent No.2 further stated that claim for Rs.3,00,000/- is highly excessive. Respondent

No.2 prayed the Court to dismiss the OP with costs.

5. On the above rival contentions, the following issues were framed on 11.10.2004:

1)Whether the accident occurred due to rash and negligent driving of driver of Auto No.AP25U3304?

2)Whether the petitioner is entitled for any compensation and if so, from which respondents and what just amount?

3)To what relief?

6. ISSUE No.1:

On behalf of the petitioner, the petitioner filed his chief affidavit as Pw1 and PW1 P.Krishna exhibited Exs.A1 to A6 and he was cross examined by the learned counsel for respondent No.2 on 13.3.2013. From the evidence of PW1, this Court is satisfied that he was proceeding on the auto at the time of accident and he himself and other persons were proceeding in the said auto. This Court is also 4 MVOP 1745-03 satisfied from the evidence of PW1 that while he was travelling on the said auto No.AP25U3304, the driver of the said auto drove the auto at 8.50 p.m. at Dhobhi Ghat, on N.H.No.16, Armoor on 12.10.2003 in a rash and negligent manner with high speed and lost control over the said auto, due to which the auto is turned turtle, as a result of which, the petitioner (PW1) P.Krishna and other inmates of the auto sustained injuries and the petitioner sustained fractures. Issue No.1 is decided in favour of the petitioner and against respondents 1 and 2 because Ex.A3 also shows the name of the petitioner and injuries sustained by him and in Ex.A1 FIR it was mentioned that the driver of the auto No.AP25U3304 was driven by its driver with high speed in a careless manner and therefore, the said auto turned turtle, due to which the petitioner and others sustained injuries.

7. ISSUE No.2:

Ex.A6 is the driving licence of Naresh and Ex.A5 is the slip from insurance company, Ex.A4 is the certificate of registration of auto No.AP25U3304. In Ex.A5 auto No.AP25U3304 was shown and it was valid up to 23.9.2004 and the accident occurred on 12.10.2003.

Therefore, Ex.A5 is covering the date of accident. From the evidence of PW2 Dr.V.Akhilesh, this Court is satisfied that he found four fractures and two simple injuries on the person of PW1 P.Krishna on 12.10.2003 and he issued Ex.A3 certificate. In the cross examination also PW2 stated that on 12.10.2003, he examined the patient. No doubt, the date of requisition of the police is subsequent to 12.10.2003.

Merely because the requisition was submitted by the police, 5 MVOP 1745-03 subsequent to accident it cannot be said that PW2 is not entitled to examine immediately after the accident patient on the date of accident. PW2 is responsible Medical Officer and in the opinion of the Court he is deposing truth. In the cross examination, PW2 stated that as the X-ray, which is now available in the open Court correspondens to the injury shown in the medical certificate, he is able to say that this X-ray belongs to the petitioner only. Therefore, it is clear that the petitioner sustained four fractures and two simple injuries and already this Court on issue No.1 opined there is rash and negligent driving on the part of the driver of the auto. The petitioner stated that he was earning a sum of Rs.10,000/-. But, there is no acceptable evidence in this regard, except the self serving statement of

Pw1. Further, in the opinion of the Court in the year 2003, the person like the petitioner/PW1 were earning not less than Rs.3,000/- per month. Therefore, the alleged income of Rs.10,000/- per month is not taken into consideration. The income which is estimated by the Court at Rs.3,000/- per month is taken into consideration.

8. In the opinion of the Court, the petitioner is entitled to the following amounts against the respondent No.1 and 2 jointly and severally:

1. Transportation charges from the place Rs.1,000/- of accident to the hospital

2. Towards loss of earnings @ Rs.3,000/- Rs.9,000/- per month for three months.

3. For extra nourishment @ Rs.2,000/- Rs.6,000/- per month for three months.

4. Towards four grievous injuries @ Rs.80,000/- 6 MVOP 1745-03

Rs.20,000/- x 4 injuries.

5. For two simple injuries @ Rs.3,000/- Rs.6,000/- x 2 injuries.

Total Rs. 1,02,000/-

There is no permanent disability. No medical bills are exhibited. Thus, totally the petitioner is entitled for compensation of

Rs.1,02,000/- (Rupees One lakh and two thousand only) with interest @ 7.5% per annum against the respondents No.1 and 2 jointly and severally from 29.11.2003 till the date of realization. However, respondent No.2 is directed to deposit only the higher of the three awards and for the remaining injured, R1 is liable to pay the amount.

Issue No.2 is decided in favour of the petitioner and against the respondents No.1 and 2.

9. ISSUE NO.3: In the result, this O.P. is allowed in part with proportionate costs as follows:

1 That the respondent No. 1 & 2 are jointly and severally directed to pay the compensation amount of Rs.1,02,000/- (Rupees One lakh and two thousand only) to the petitioner with proportionate costs and with interest thereon at 7.5% per annum from 29.11.2003 till the date of realization.

2 However, the second respondent shall deposit the entire compensation with interest within one month from today.

3 If number of injured are there, the respondent No.2 is liable to deposit only higher of three awards. The respondent No.2 is directed to deposit higher of the three awards before the Court and the respondent No.1 is liable to pay for the remaining injured. On such deposit, the petitioner injured in all the OPs are entitled as per the ratio soon after the deposit because deposited amount of respondent No.2 has to be distributed among all the 7 MVOP 1745-03 injured persons as per ratio who are involved in the present accident of auto rickshaw.

4 That on such deposit, the petitioner is entitled to withdraw the entire amount in one lump sum.

s 5 The Advocate Fee is fixed at Rs.2,000/- (Rupees two thousand only)

Dictated to Personal Asst. transcribed by her, corrected and

pronounced by me in open court this the 22nd day of April, 2013.

Chairman, Motor Accident Claims Tribunal,

(VIII ADJ), Nizamabad.

-:: APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE ::-

FOR PETITIONER FOR RESPONDENTS

PW1: P.Krishna None PW2: Dr.V.Akhilesh

-:: Exhibits marked ::-

FOR PETITIONER FOR RESPONDENTS

Ex.A1: Xerox copy of FIR Nil Ex.A2: Requisition of ASI. Ex.A3: Injury certificate. Ex.A4: Certificate of registration. Ex.A5: Sheet from insurance company. Ex.A6: Copy of driving license.

Chairman,

Motor Accident Claims Tribunal,

(VIII ADJ), Nizamabad.

8 MVOP 1745-03