Sri D Ravindra Sharma

Page No.1 M.V.O.P. 968 of 2014

IN THE COURT OF THE CHAIRMAN, MOTOR ACCIDENTS CLAIMS

TRIBUNAL CUM XXVI ADDITIONAL CHIEF JUDGE, CITY CIVIL COURT,

HYDERABAD.

PRESENT: SRI D.RAVINDRA SHARMA,

CHAIRMAN, MOTOR ACCIDENTS

CLAIMS TRIBUNAL -CUM XXVI ADDITIONAL

CHIEF JUDGE, CITY CIVIL COURT, HYDERABAD

Dated, the 9th day of May, 2022

MVOP.No. 968 of 2014

Between: 1.Smt.S.Ramanamma @ Ramana … Petitioner

And

1.Mr.Narayana Konda 2.M/s.Shriram General Insurance Company Limited, Rep. by its manager

Policy No.10002/31/14/010576 valid from 7.3.2014 to 6.3.2014 … Respondents

This petition is coming for hearing before me on this day in the presence of Sri.G.Narender Reddy, Advocate for Petitioners and of

Sri.B.Venkateshwarlu, Advocate for the Respondent No.1, and of

Sri.G.S.Charyulu Advocate for Respondent No.2, and upon hearing the counsel of both sides and the matter stood over for consideration till this day, this Court delivered the following:-

ORDER

1.This claim petition is filed Under section 166 of Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 and Rule 475/1B of A.P.Motor Vehicle Rules 1989, seeking compensation of Rs.9,00,000/- from the respondents on account of the death of the deceased Sri.S.Ramulu in accident which took place on 16.3.2014.

2.The brief averments of the petition are as follows:

The petitioner is the wife of deceased Late Sri.S.Ramulu. That on 16.3.2014 at about 10.30 hours the deceased along with other passengers were proceeding from Muthireddigudem to Bhongir in the auto bearing

No.AP-24-Y-4395, when they reached sub-station Muthireddigudem

Page No.2 M.V.O.P. 968 of 2014

Athmakur Mandal, Nalgonda, the driver of the said auto drove it in a rash and negligent manner with a high speed, due to which, the auto fell down and the deceased received grievous injuries. Immediately the deceased was shifted to Aditya Hospital, Uppal for treatment, while undergoing treatment he succumbed to the injuries on 18.3.2014.

3.The police of Athmakur-M, had registered a case in Cr.No.27/2014 under section.337 and 304-A IPC. The said accident occurred only due to rash and negligent driving of auto bearing No.AP-24-Y-4395. Therefore the respondent No.1 as owner, the respondent No.2 as insurer of the offending auto are jointly and severally liable to pay the compensation to the petitioner.

4. The further claim of the petitioner is that, the deceased was hale and healthy and working as an agriculturist and he was having dry land of Ac-7- 20 guntas situated at Dursaganpally, Athmakur Mandal, Nalgonda District in

Sy.No.85/3, 86/3, 91/4 and 92/1. The deceased used to cultivate the said land and was working as a labour and after completion of the work, he used to attend the Agriculture work and earn an amount of Rs.10,000/- per month and used to contribute the same for the maintenance of the petitioner. Due to the sudden death of the deceased, the petitioner suffered mental agony and she lost the love and affection of the deceased. The petitioner claimed compensation of Rs.9,00,000/- along with interest and costs on account of death of her deceased husband in the said accident.

5.The respondent No.1 filed counter by denying all the petition allegations and contends that the petition is neither maintainable in law nor on facts and liable to be dismissed. He denied the manner of accident, as alleged by the petitioner and their liability to pay the petition claimed amount. He submitted that he is the owner and driver of the vehicle auto

Page No.3 M.V.O.P. 968 of 2014 bearing No.AP-24-Y-4395 which is insured by M/s.Shriram General Insurance

Company vide policy no.10002/31/14/010576 for the period from 7.3.2014 to 6.3.2015. The accident took place on 16.3.2014, therefore the policy was in force hence he is not liable to pay any compensation. He denied that due to rash and negligent driving of this respondent the accident occurred. He denied the age, income and avoation of the petitioner and submitted that the compensation claimed by the petitioner is excessive and exorbitant.

Therefore, he is not liable to pay any compensation and prayed for dismissal of the petition.

6.The Respondent No.2/Insurance company filed counter by denying all the petition allegations. That the petition is not maintainable either in law or on facts and liable to be dismissed. They denied the manner of accident, the age, occupation, earnings of the deceased as contended by the petitioner. They denied to have issued policy covering the liability of the respondent No.1 for the offending vehicle. They denied involvement of the crime auto AP-24-Y-4395 in the accident and that due to the rash and negligent driving of the auto the accident occurred.

7.They submitted that the accident occurred due to the negligence on the part of the deceased. They denied that the driver of the auto was having valid driving license to drive the offending auto. The auto was turned turtle due to non controlling of the same by the offending driver as it was overloaded. Therefore this respondent is not liable to pay the compensation. They further submit that the mandatory condition under section 134 of M.V.Act was not complied as the respondent No.1/owner failed to furnish the particulars of policy date, time and place of accident and other particulars to the insurance company, therefore this petition is not maintainable. The police officials also not forwarded any claim under section 158 (6) of M.V.Act to the tribunal within 30 days from the date of

Page No.4 M.V.O.P. 968 of 2014 accident therefore this petition is not maintainable. The claim and interest claimed by the petitioner is excessive and exorbitant, therefore the petition is liable to be dismissed.

8.The respondent No.2 filed additional counter by submitting that the offending auto AP-24-Y-4395 belonging to respondent No.1 was not insured covering the date of accident. They submitted that the policy bearing

No.1002/31/14/010576 in respect of the auto bearing No.AP-24-Y-4395 belonging to the respondent No.1 the policy was issued by this respondent which is valid from 18.3.2014 to 17.3.2015. hence there is no policy as on the date of accident dated 16.3.2014. Therefore this insurance company is not liable to pay the compensation as there was no agreement of policy existing between the respondent No.1 owner of the offending auto and this insurance company to insure the liability as on the date of accident, therefore this petition is liable to be dismissed.

9.Basing on the pleadings, the following issues were framed :

(1). Whether the pleaded accident deceased S.Ramulu died due to the rash and negligent driving of the driver of auto bearing No.AP-24-Y- 4395 ?

(2). Whether the petitioner is/are entitled to compensation if so how much and from whom ?

(3). To what relief?

10.In the course of trial, the petitioner examined herself as PW1 and through her, Exs.A1 to A9 were marked. To prove the accident, one

B.Malamma, the eye witness, was examined as PW2. To prove the medical expenses, one N.Satish Kumar, was examined as PW3. one K.Kalyan

Chakravarthy Medical Superintendent of Aditya Hosptal, was examined as

Page No.5 M.V.O.P. 968 of 2014

PW4. On behalf of the respondents, RW1 is examined and got marked

Ex.B1to B5 were marked.

11.Heard arguments of both side counsels. Perused the material placed on record.

12.ISSUE NO.1 :

The petitioner to prove her case has examined herself as PW1. She deposed about the manner of accident. That on 16.3.2014 at about 10.30 hours the deceased along with other passengers was proceeding from

Muthireddigudem to Bhongir in the auto bearing No.AP-24-Y-4395. When they reached sub-station Muthireddigudem Athmakur Mandal, Nalgonda, the driver of the said auto drove it in rash and negligent manner with a high speed, due to which, the auto fell down and the deceased received grievous injuries. Immediately the deceased was shifted to Aditya Hospital, Uppal for treatment, while undergoing treatment he was succumbed to the injuries on 18.3.2014.

13.The petitioner further examined the eye witness namely B.Mallamma as PW2. She deposed that on 16.3.2014 at about 10.30 hours the deceased along with other passengers were proceeding from Muthireddigudem to

Bhongir in the auto bearing No.AP-24-Y-4395, when the auto reached sub- station Muthireddigudem Athmakur Mandal, Nalgonda, the driver of the said auto drove it in rash and negligent manner with a high speed, due to which, the auto fell down and the deceased was grievously injured. Though the deceased was shifted to Aditya Hospital, Uppal for treatment he died on 18.03.2014. In the cross examination she admitted that on the date of accident, she along with 4 others were travelling in the offending auto.

Page No.6 M.V.O.P. 968 of 2014

14.The case and contention of the petitioner to the extent of occurrence of accident to the deceased Sri. S.Ramulu and his death was not disputed.

The fact of accident was not disputed by the respondents by producing rebuttal evidence. Therefore the petitioner through her evidence has proved her case and contention that the auto bearing No.AP-24-Y-4395 driven by its driver in rash and negligent manner has caused the accident in which the deceased died while undergoing treatment. The issue No.1 is answered in favour of the petitioner and against respondents.

ISSUE NO.2 :

15.The petitioner is the wife of the deceased Sri. S.Ramulu. She is claiming compensation of Rs.9,00,000/- on account of the accidental death of S.Ramulu. As held in the issue No.1 the accident was caused by the driver of the auto bearing No.AP-24-Y-4395.

16.The respondents examined their Assistant Manager Legal as RW1, through him Exs.B1 to B5 were marked. The respondent No.2 contends that they did not issue policy covering the accident of this case for the offending

Auto bearing No.AP-24-Y-4395 belonging to respondent No.1. They further contend that the policy bearing No.10002/31/14/010576 in respect of the offending auto AP-24-Y-4395 was in force from 18.3.2014 to 17.3.2015, whereas the accident occurred on 16.3.2014. Therefore, there is no contract in between the respondent No.2 and respondent No.1 in respect of the offending auto as on the date of accident. Therefore, the respondent

No.2 is not liable to pay the compensation by indemnifying the respondent

No.1. Hence they prayed for dismissal of the petition against them.

17.The witness further stated that respondent No.1 after the death of the deceased Ramulu on 18.3.2014, immediately paid Rs.4,073/- in cash at 10.00 a.m by suppressing the accident, and death of the deceased has

Page No.7 M.V.O.P. 968 of 2014 obtained the policy Ex.B1 which came into force from 10.10 A.M on 18.3.2014 to midnight 17.3.2015. The accident occurred on 16.3.2014. That they have issued legal notice dated 04.11.2016 under section.134 of

M.V.Act, addressed to the respondent No.1 asking him to produce the documents but he did not produce the said documents. Therefore, they are not liable to pay any compensation to the petitioner.

18.It is also contended by the respondent No.2 that, the petitioner is having burden to prove that the policy was in existence as on the date of accident. The petitioner should have examined the respondent No.1 the owner of the offending vehicle, but she did not do so which can be taken as adverse inference by this court. The respondent No.2 filed Ex.B1 the copy of insurance, Ex.B2 premium payment receipt for Rs.4,073/- for the offending auto. Ex.B3 is the legal notice issued by the counsel for respondent No.2 to the counsel for petitioner and respondent No.1 requesting him to furnish original policy/cover note along with premium receipt for the offending vehicle to prove that the policy was in force as on the date of accident

dated 16.3.2014 along with postal receipts. Ex.B4 and 5 are the complaints

given by the respondent No.2 against respondent no.1 the owner of the offending vehicle.

19.The petitioner No.1 as PW1 has deposed about the age of the deceased as 54 years at the time of the accident. To prove the age of the deceased the petitioners did not file any document for proving the same, except relying upon the Exs.A1 to A5 and A9. As per the Ex.A3 the age of deceased shown as 55 years. The petitioner filed House hold card of the deceased Ex.A9 as per which the deceased was aged about 52 years as on the date of accident 4.11.2012. Therefore the age of the deceased is fixed

as 55 years for the calculation of compensation hereunder. That the

deceased was an agriculturist having Ac.7-20 guntas of dry land in

Page No.8 M.V.O.P. 968 of 2014

Sy.No.85/3, 86/3, 91/4 and 92/1 of Dussaganipalli, Atmakur Mandal,

Nalgonda District. They relied upon the Ex.A8 (3) pahanie copies showing that the deceased was having the land as claimed by them. But they did not file any proof to show that the petitioner was getting income from the agriculture land. However on hypothetical assessment by keeping the age of the deceased into consideration, the deceased must have earning

Rs.8,000/- per month by doing any avocation and even by doing agriculture.

Therefore the income of the deceased is fixed as Rs.8,000/- per month.

20. The multiplicand applicable as per the Sarla Verma’s case is ‘11’ for calculation of compensation. Since the deceased was aged 55 years on the date of accident.

21.The petitioner contended that the deceased immediately after the accident was shifted to Adithya Hospital, Uppal, for treatment, while under going treatment he died on 18.3.2014. The hospital authority has charged

Rs.1,99,318/- which was paid by the PW1. The petitioner examined PW3

Billing Executive of Aditya Hospital, as per him the deceased was admitted on 16.3.2014 and discharged on 18.3.2014 on his death and the petitioner paid Rs.1,40,000/- by way of cash and totally they paid the same amount under Ex.A7 bill which was issued by them. The respondents though suggested that the petitioner claimed Aarogyasree scheme but they did not produce any evidence showing that the petitioner availed Aarogyasree scheme. Therefore, the petitioner proved by the evidence of PW3 and Ex.A7 that the petitioner incurred an amount of Rs.1,40,000/- towards medical expenses for treatment of the deceased. Therefore, the petitioner is granted

Rs.1,40,000/- towards medical expenses.

22.The petitioner also examined medical superintendent of Aditya

Hospital, as PW4. As per his evidence the deceased was treated from

Page No.9 M.V.O.P. 968 of 2014 16.3.2014 and died on 18.3.2014 and his body was handed over to ASI,

T.Ravinder.

23.The petitioner claimed Rs.5,000/- towards transportation and

Rs.5,000/- towards damages to clothing of the deceased. The said expenses are natural and they can be expected in this case. Therefore, the petitioner is grantedRs.10,000/- towards damages to clothing and transportation.

24. The aspects of non-pecuniary damages mentioned in SANTOSH DEVI

vs. NATIONAL INSURANCE COMPANY LIMITED & OTHERS 2012 (6)

SCC 421” have been reviewed in NATIONAL INSURANCE COMPANY V/S

PRANAY SETHI’S case cited above, Reasonable figures on conventional heads, namely, loss of estate, loss of consortium and funeral expenses should be Rs.15,000/-, Rs.40,000/- and Rs.15,000/- respectively.

25.In all, the petitioners are entitled to the following compensation amounts :-

By following the decisions in Sarla Verma V/s.Delhi transport

Corporation (2009 ACJ 1298) and National Insurance Company

V/s.Pranay Sethi 2017 Lawsuit SCC 1093 the compensation payable to the petitioners has to be assessed as under :

Sl.No. Heads Calculations

1.Income of deceasedRs.8,000/- per month

2.1/2 amount is to be deducted8,000/- x 1/2 = 4,000/-; towards personal expenses of8,000/- –4,000 = 4,000/- the deceased since only one dependent

3.10% to be added as futureRs.4,000 x 10% = Rs.400/-; prospects (the deceased wasRs.4000 + 400 = Rs.4,400/- aged 55 years)

3.Income per year @ Rs4,400./- 4,400X 12 =52,800 /- per month

Page No.10 M.V.O.P. 968 of 2014

4.Compensation worked out52,800/- x 11 = 5,80,800/- with multiplier of ‘11'

5.Loss of consortium 40,000/-

6.Funeral Expenses15,000/-

7.Loss of Estate15,000/-

8.Transportation & Damages to10,000/- clothing

9.Medical expensesRs.1,40,000/-

Total compensation awardedRs.8,00,800/-

26.The respondent No2 to prove their contention that they are not liable to pay the compensation to the petitioner, since there was no policy was in force to indemnify the liability of the respondent No 1 in respect of the offending Auto. The respondent No. 2 has examined their Assistant

Manager Legal as RW1, through him Exs.B1 to B5 were marked by contending that they did not issue policy covering the accident of this case for the offending Auto bearing No.AP-24-Y-4395 belonging to respondent

No.1. That the policy bearing No.10002/31/14/010576 in respect of the offending Auto AP-24-Y-4395 was valid from 18.3.2014 to 17.3.2015 and the accident occurred on 16.3.2014. Therefore, there is no contract in between the respondent No.2 and respondent No.1 in respect of the offending auto as on the date of accident. It is also contended that the respondent No.1 after the death of the deceased Ramulu on 18.3.2014, immediately paid

Rs.4,073/- in cash at 10.00 a.m by suppressing the accident and death of the deceased has obtained the policy Ex.B1 which is in force from 10.10 am on 18.3.2014 to midnight 17.3.2015.

27.As per the evidence on record the accident occurred on 16.3.2014.

The respondent insurance company got issued legal notice dated 4.11.2016 under section.134 of M.V.Act, addressed to the respondent No.1 asking him to produce the documents but he did not produce the said documents.

Page No.11 M.V.O.P. 968 of 2014

28.When the respondent no 2, by his evidence proved that there is no policy in force, the burden is on the petitioner to prove that the policy was in existence as on the date of accident. The petitioner should have examined the respondent No.1 the owner of the offending vehicle, but she did not examine him, this has to be taken as adverse inference. The respondent filed Ex.B1 the copy of insurance Ex.B2 premium payment receipt for Rs.4,073/- for the offending auto. Ex.B3 is the legal notice issued by the counsel for respondent No.2 to the counsel for petitioner and respondent No.1 requesting him to furnish original policy/cover note along with premium receipt for the offending vehicle to prove that the policy was in force as on the date of accident dated 16.3.2014 along with postal receipts. As per record there is no evidence that the Ex B1/policy was in force for the offending Auto AP-24-Y-4395 by indemnifying the liability of respondent No.1, there is no evidence produced to prove otherwise. The respondent No2 proved their contention that they have no liability to pay the compensation by indemnifying the liability of respondent No.1. The respondent No 2 is thus not having liability to pay the compensation awarded hereunder. Therefore the respondent No.1 as owner of the offending vehicle alone is liable to pay the compensation to the petitioner and the respondent No.2 is exonerated from paying compensation.

29.The petitioner claimed 12% interest p.a, but as per settled law, unless justified by exceptional circumstances, the interest on the compensation awarded should be at the rate of 6% per annum only. Therefore, the petitioner is granted with interest on the awarded amount @6% p.a.

30.In view of above all reasons, it is held that the petitioner is entitled for a compensation amount of Rs.800,800/-. Rest of the claim of the petitioner is hereby rejected. Accordingly the Issue No.2 is answered in favour of

Page No.12 M.V.O.P. 968 of 2014 petitioners and against the respondent No.1. the respondent No 2 is exonerated from paying the compensation awarded hereunder.

Issue No.3

31.In the result, the petition is partly allowed for Rs.8,00,800/- with costs and interest @ 6% per annum from the date of filing of the petition till the date of deposit of the amount against the Respondent No.1. The respondent No 2 is exonerated from paying the compensation.Time for deposit two months.

On deposit of awarded amount, the petitioner is permitted to withdraw ½ of the awarded amount and the remaining half of the compensation amount of the petitioner including costs and interest shall be kept in Fixed Deposit for a period of two years. The Advocate fee is fixed at

Rs.10,000/-.

(Dictated to my dictation transcribed by her, corrected and

pronounced by me in the Open Court on this the 9th day of May, 2022).

XXVI Additional Chief Judge, City Civil Court, Hyderabad.

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

WITNESSES EXAMINED

For Petitioners: For Respondents:

PW1: S.Ramanamma @ RamanaRW1 : Dagam Chandrasekhar PW2: B.Mallamma PW3: N.Satish Kumar PW4: K.Kalyan Chakravarthy

Exhibits marked for Petitioners (PW1): Ex A1 is the certified copy of FIR Ex A2 is the certified copy of inquest report of the deceased Ex A3 is the certified copy of charge sheet. Ex A4 is the certified copy of PME Report. Ex.A5 is the certified copy of Panchanama along with sketch Ex.A6 is the certified copy of MVI Report. Ex.A7 is the discharge summary along with bills. Ex.A8 is the certified copies of pahanies Ex.A9 is the Copy of ration card (verified with originals)

Page No.13 M.V.O.P. 968 of 2014

Exhibits marked for Respondents:

Ex.B1 : is the copy of the policy in respect of auto bearing No.AP-24-Y-4395 Ex.B2 is the copy of the 64 (V)(B) along with premium receipt dated18.3.2014. Ex.B3 is copy legal notice dated 4.11.2016 address to R1 by R2 with postal receipt. Ex.B4 is office copy of the compliant made to DSP Bhongiri, Rachakonda along with postal receipts. Ex.B5 is the office copy of the complaint made to SHO Athmakur, Rachakonda, along with postal receipts.

XXVI Additional Chief Judge, City Civil Court, Hyderabad.

Page No.1 M.V.O.P.2639 of 2014

IN THE COURT OF THE CHAIRMAN, MOTOR ACCIDENTS CLAIMS

TRIBUNAL CUM XXVI ADDITIONAL CHIEF JUDGE, CITY CIVIL COURT,

HYDERABAD.

PRESENT: SRI D.RAVINDRA SHARMA,

CHAIRMAN, MOTOR ACCIDENTS

CLAIMS TRIBUNAL-CUM XXVI ADDITIONAL

CHIEF JUDGE, CITY CIVIL COURT, HYDERABAD

Dated, the 10th day of May, 2022

M.V.O.P.No.2639 of 2014

Between: Samreen Fatima … Petitioner

And

1.Narsini Karthik 2.Iffco Tokio General Insurance Company Limited Represented by its Manager (Legal)

Policy No.ITG/82093637 valid from 13.6.2014 to 12.6.2015 … Respondents.

This petition is coming for hearing before me on this day in the presence of Sri.P.Chandra Mouli Advocate for Petitioner and of

Sri.C.Mahender Reddy, Advocate for the Respondent No.2, and of

Sri.Ramesh Kumar Gajjala advocate for Respondent No.1, and upon hearing the counsel of both sides and the matter stood over for consideration till this day, this Court delivered the following:-

ORDER

This petition is filed under section 166 of Motor vehicle Act, 1988 and rule 475/1B of A.P.M.V.Rules 1989, by the petitioner/injured who sustained injuries in the motor vehicle accident which took place on 23/24.6.2014 at about 00.20 hours near Khadims Shoes Shop, Chikkadpally Main road

Hyderabad, for a compensation of Rs.20,00,000/- with interest and costs.

2.The brief averments of the Petition are as follows:

On 23/24-06-2014 the petitioner along with her family were proceeding in the Auto bearing No.AP-11-W-5032 from Musheerabad

Yakatpura. At that time one driver of the car bearing No.AP-11-AS-6199 which was proceeding from Narayanaguda RTC X roads drove the said car in

Page No.2 M.V.O.P.2639 of 2014 a rash and negligent manner and dashed the said auto from back side. As a result, the petitioner and his family including auto driver fell down. The petitioner sustained fracture and grievous injuries. Immediately the petitioner was shifted to Gandhi Hospital, and from there he was shifted to

Mallarededy Narayana Multispeciality Hospital, Suraram Xroads, Jeedimetla,

Hyderabad were he was treated as inpatient.

3.The police of Chikkadpaly, Hyderabad had registered a case vide crime No.332/2014 against the driver of the car bearing No.AP-11-AS-6199

The respondent No.1 is the owner and respondent No.2 is the insurer of the offending car bearing No.AP-11-AS-6199. Hence, the respondent No.1 and 2 are jointly and severally liable to pay the compensation to the petitioner.

4.As on the date of the accident, the petitioner was working as Ladies

Tailor cum Embroidery worker in M/s. Samreen Ladies Tailors and

Embroidery works, Yakutpura, Hyderabad and earning Rs.20,000/- per month. The petitioner used to contribute the same for the maintenance of her family. Due to the accidental injuries, the petitioner suffered a lot.

Hence, this petition is filed by claiming compensation of Rs.20 lakhs.

5.The Respondent no.1 filed counter by denying all the allegations of the petition. They denied the manner of accident, age, occupation, income and injuries sustained by the injured. The respondent submitted that the driver of the auto bearing No.AP-11-W-5032 is not holding driving licence and not authorized to drive any vehicle and the alleged accident occurred only due to negligence of the petitioner. The compensation claimed by the petitioner is exorbitant and excessive, hence prayed to dismiss the petition.

Page No.3 M.V.O.P.2639 of 2014

6.The respondent No.2/Insurance filed counter by denying all the allegations of the petition. They denied the manner of accident, age, occupation and income and injuries sustained by the injured. They further submit that the driver the car was not holding valid and effective driving licence at the time of accident and further he was not qualified for holding or obtaining such driving licence and further he has not satisfied the requirements of the Rule No.3 of the Central Motor Vehicle Rules, 1989. The respondent No.1 Willfully and knowingly has handed over possession of the offending vehicle to the driver who has not possessed valid and effective driving licence as on the date of accident. Therefore, he has contravened the provision of the M.V.Act and the Rules framed there under has committed the breach of the terms and conditions of the policy. They further submitted that as per section 134 (C) of M.V.Act, it is mandatory duty of the insured/respondent No.1 to furnish the particulars of date, time and place of accident, particulars of injured and the name of driver, his license to the insurer but the insured was not complied under the said statutory requirement hence this respondent is not liable to pay compensation. That as per section 158 (6) it is mandatory duty of the concerned police to forward all the relevant documents to this respondent/ insurance company within 30 days of the accident. But the police has not complied the same. Hence they are not liable to pay any compensation to the petitioner. They further submitted that the compensation amount and interest claimed by the petitioner is excessive and exorbitant. Hence they are not liable to pay the compensation and prayed to dismiss the petition.

7.Based on the above pleadings, the following issues were framed for trial:

1)Whether the injuries sustained by Samreena Fatima in motor accident occurred on 24.6.2014 due to the rash and negligent driving of driver of the car bearing No.AP-11-AS- 6199?

Page No.4 M.V.O.P.2639 of 2014

2)Whether the petitioner is entitled to compensation? If so, how much and from whom ?

3)To what relief?

8. The petitioner, to prove her case has examined herself as PW1, and got marked Ex.A1 to Ex.A10. To prove the injuries, the petitioner examined the doctor, Dr.Sunil Apsingi examined as PW2. To prove the medical expenses, one K.Sudeer Kumar is examined as PW3. To prove the disability,

Dr.S.Narsing Rao is examined as PW4. To prove the income Smt.Sajida

Farheen @ Yasmeen, is examined as PW5. On behalf of the respondents, no witness is examined, but got marked Ex.B1 policy copy with consent.

9. Heard arguments of both side counsel and perused the record.

ISSUE NO.1:

10. It is the case of the petitioner that on 23/24-06-2014 the petitioner along with her family were proceeding in the Auto bearing No.AP-11-W-5032 from Musheerabad to Yakatpura. When the auto was passing at Khadim showroom, Chikkadpally, the driver of the offending car bearing No.AP-11-

AS-6199 which was proceeding from Narayanaguda side towards RTC X roads drove it in a rash and negligent manner and dashed the auto from back side. As a result, the petitioner and his family including auto driver fell down and the petitioner sustained fracture and grievous injuries.

Immediately the petitioner was shifted to Gandhi Hospital, and from there she was shifted to Mallarededy Narayana Multispeciality Hospital, Suraram

X roads, Jeedimetla, Hyderabad where she was treated as inpatient.

11. The petitioner filed Ex.A1 the certified copy of the FIR, Ex.A2 the certified copy of the charge sheet which shows that the accident occurred due to rash and negligent driving of car bearing No.AP-11-AS-6199. These facts are not disputed by the respondents by producing any rebuttal evidence. The offending car came with high speed in rash and negligent

Page No.5 M.V.O.P.2639 of 2014 manner has dashed the auto from the backside. As a result of which, the petitioner sustained grievous and other injuries all over the body.

12. There is no rebuttal evidence to dispute the case, contention and evidence of petitioner to the extent of occurrence of accident caused by the respondent no.1 with his rash and negligent driving of the offending car.

Therefore this tribunal has no other option except to rely upon the evidence produced by the petitioner to come to a conclusion that the accident occurred due to rash and negligent driving of the offending car bearing

No.AP-11-AS-6199 by its driver. In view of the above discussed reasons, it is held that the accident occurred due to rash and negligent driving of the respondent with offending car resulting in fracture injuries to the petitioner.

This issue is answered in favour of the Petitioner and against the respondents.

Issue No.2:-

13.The petitioner in respect of the compensation for the injuries received by her in the accident contends that, she was aged about 22 years, hale and healthy by working as tailor and embroidery worker in M/s. Samreen

Ladies Tailors and Embroidery works, Yakutpura, Hyderabad and used to earn Rs.20,000/- per month. She used to contribute the said earnings to her family members. Due to the said accident, she sustained closed displaced fracture left tibia, open tyre I displaced M 3rd fracture BB right, Closed communited right IT fracture and multiple injuries all over the body. She was treated in Gandhi Hospital, Mallareddy Narayana Multiplicity Hospital,

Suraram X roads, Jeedimetla, Hyderabad as inpatient. Due to the said injuries the petitioner is unable to discharge her duties as she was doing earlier.

14.To prove the said injuries, the petitioner examined Dr.Sunil Apsingi as

PW2. He deposed that the petitioner was treated by him on 24.6.2014 and

Page No.6 M.V.O.P.2639 of 2014 she received head injury due to which she sustained breathing difficulty.

She was admitted in ICU and was on ventilator. After stabilization her hemodynamically she was taken for surgery on 30.6.2014 IM Nailing of Left tibia, IM Nailing of Right Tibia, PFN for IT fracture and the above three surgeries were performed on 30.6.2014 and discharged on 8.7.2014. The petitioner will suffer long term problems limping, pain during walking stiffness in joints and difficulty to sit down and to do daily activities. Further she may require surgeries in future by incurring Rs.1,40,000/- for removing implants.

15.To prove the medical expenses, she examined K.Sudeer Kumar Billing

Manager of KIMS Hospital as PW3. As per his evidence, the petitioner was treated in their hospital from 25.6.2014 to 8.7.2014 and she paid

Rs.4,04,986/- towards final bill as she was given concession of Rs.60,000/- out of gross total of Rs.4,64,986/-. Therefore the petitioner paid

Rs.4,04,986/-. Hence the petitioner is granted Rs.4,04,986/- towards medical expenses.

16.To prove the disability, the petitioner examined the Dr.S.Narsing Rao, as PW4. As per his evidence the petitioner came to his hospital and obtained disability certificate dated 6.2.2017, after examining her he assessed the disability as at the rate of 45% which is partial and permanent in nature. Ex.A8 is the disability certificate issued by him. As per which the petitioner is suffering from post operative Right Trochanteric fracture with

P.F.N (Proximal Femoral Nail) then fracture both bones right leg, interlocking nail tibia with stiffness of right knee and hip joint, post operative fracture

Tibia left leg with interlocking nail Tibia, as a result of which petitioner cannot squat and cannot perform her day to day activities and she was having difficulty in climbing stairs, running and standing for long hours. In the cross examination, he admitted that he has not treated the patient but

Page No.7 M.V.O.P.2639 of 2014 examined her on 6.2.2017 only. He also admitted that he mentioned the age of the patient as 26 years by observing the records.

17.The Ex.A8 disability certificate is issued by the PW4 who is neither treated doctor nor the medical board member. Therefore, the disability mentioned in Ex.A8 certificate issued by PW4 cannot be based for arriving to conclusion that the petitioner sustained disability of 45%. Therefore, the petitioner failed to prove that she sustained disability and hence she is not entitled for any compensation for loss of earnings due to disability.

18.The petitioner to prove her earnings has examined PW5 Sajida Farhan.

She deposed that the petitioner was tailor cum embroidery worker and running M/s.Samreen Ladies Tailor and Embroidery work at Yakutpura since two years. The petitioner is running the said shop by engaging this witness and another employee by name Rehana. The petitioner paid Rs.8,000/- per month to them as wages. The petitioner used to earn Rs.20,000/- at the time of the accident. Due to the accident she became sick and unable to do the work and closed the shop. In the cross examination she admitted that she worked under shop of the petitioner. That she did not issue any receipt on receiving of salary from the petitioner. She does not know whether the petitioner paid any income tax or not and there is no proof filed by her to show that the petitioner earning Rs.20,000/- per month. She did not file any document to show that she worked under the petitioner. Therefore, there is no positive evidence to prove that the petitioner was earing Rs.20,000/- by running tailoring and embroidery shop. Therefore, the petitioner failed to prove her earnings. When the petitioner failed to prove her avocation and income as claimed by her, on reasonable assessment by this tribunal on hypothesis, the income of the petitioner who is tailor is fixed at Rs.10,000/- per month which is just and reasonable, and which amount can be earned by any person by doing any avocation. Due to the injuries sustained by the

Page No.8 M.V.O.P.2639 of 2014 petitioner, the petitioner must have taken bed rest atleast for three months.

Therefore, the petitioner is granted an amount of Rs.30,000/- towards loss of earnings for the bed rest period for three months.

19.As per the evidence of PW2 the petitioner sustained fracture injuries and other injuries she was treated conservatively. Therefore the shock, pain and suffering at the time of accident and also pain, discomfort, inconvenience during the period of treatment, can be assessed and visualized. Therefore the petitioner is granted with Rs.50,000/- towards the head of pain and sufferings.

20.The petitioner also claimed transportation charges which can be visualized. In the opinion of this tribunal, Rs.5,000/- is fair and reasonable amount. Therefore the petitioner is grantedRs.5,000/-towards transportation charges.

21.The petitioner contended that she is a young women of 22 years and due to the accident he became disabled. Therefore, she sustained not only discomfort, pain and suffering but also his marriage prospects are affected.

He relied upon a decision In Govind Yadav V/s.New India Assurance Co.

Limited Reported in 2012 ACJ 28 wherein it is held that “during this period he will not be able to live like normal human being and will not be able to enjoy the life. The prospects of her marriage have considerably reduced. Therefore, it would be just and reasonable to award him a sum of

Rs.1,00,000/- for the loss of amenities and enjoyment of life”. In this case the petitioner suffered injuries which is evident from medical record which cannot be compensated. Therefore, this court award Rs.1,00,000/-

towards damage caused to the marriage prospects of the

petitioner.

Page No.9 M.V.O.P.2639 of 2014

22.The petitioner contends that she needs further surgery for removal of implants which may costs Rs.1,40,000/-. PW2 admits that the petitioner is suffering in limping and she requires further surgery. The petitioner filed

Ex.A6 estimation certificate which is issued by the doctor. Therefore, the petitioner is entitled an amount of Rs.1,40,000/- towards removal of implants.

23.In the decision our Hon’ble High Court in Managing Director,

APSRTC V/s. Katawat Gopal and another 2003 (5) ALD 198, it was observed that “compensation towards expenditure incurred on extra nourishment and transport cannot be denied even though treatment was given him in Government hospital and one cannot expect positive evidence for proving the actual expenditure and hence, some reasonable hypothesis cannot be ruled out”. Having regard to the nature of injuries sustained by petitioner,she is expected to have taken extra care and caution with regard to food supplements. Therefore the petitioner is granted with Rs.50,000/- towards the head of extra nourishment and other incidental charges.

24.In total the petitioner is granted the following compensation for different heads :

Loss of earnings Rs.30,000/-

Towards transportationRs. 5,000/-

Towards Extra nourishment, & other incidental chargesRs.50,000/-

Toward medical expensesRs.4,04,986/-

Towards pain and sufferingRs.50,000/-

Towards marriage prospectsRs.1,00,000/- towards further surgeryRs.1,40,000/- __________________________________________________________

Total compensation granted Rs.7,79,986/- ___________________________________________________________

Page No.10 M.V.O.P.2639 of 2014

25. With regard to the liability, the respondents contends that there is no negligence on their part and the respondent No.1 is not having valid driving licence, hence he is not liable to pay any compensation. The Ex.B1 policy was issued by Respondent No.2 Insurance Company vide policy No.ITG- 82093637, which was admittedly in force from 13.6.2014 to 12.6.2015 in respect of the offending car bearing No.AP-11-AS-6199, hence the policy was in force as on the date of accident of this case. There is no violation of terms and conditions of the policy of insurance established on record nor did the respondent No 2/Insurance Company adduced any evidence to establish violation of policy of insurance and its terms and conditions.

Hence, the Respondent No.2/Insurance Company is liable to indemnify the insured/owner Respondent No.1 in respect of the compensation to be paid to petitioner here under.

26.The respondents did not produce any positive evidence to prove their contentions. For the foregoing discussions, it is held that the petitioner is entitled for compensation of Rs.7,79,986/-. Admittedly the respondent

No.1 as the owner and respondent No.2 as the insurer of the offending car are jointly and severally liable to pay the compensation to the petitioner.

The rest of the claim is hereby dismissed. The issue No.2 is answered in favour of the petitioner against the respondent 1 & 2.

27. Further it is settled law that, unless justified by exceptional circumstances,the interest on the compensation awarded should be at the rate of 6% per annum only. Therefore the awarded amount carries interest @ 6 % p.a only.

Page No.11 M.V.O.P.2639 of 2014 [ Issue no.3 :

28.In the result, the petition is partly allowed by awarding

Rs.7,79,986/- as compensation along with interest @ 6% p.a.from the date of filing the petition till payment against the respondents 1 & 2 jointly and severally. Time for deposit two months. The petitioner is permitted to withdraw half of the awarded amount and the remaining amount shall be kept in any Nationalized bank for the period of 2 years. Advocate fee is fixed at Rs.10,000/-.

(Dictated to my dictation transcribed by her, corrected and

pronounced by me in the Open Court on this the 10th day of May, 2022).

CHAIRMAN,

MOTOR ACCIDENTS CLAIMS TRIBUNAL

(XXVI ADDITIONAL CHIEF JUDGE),

CITY CIVIL COURTS, HYDERABAD.

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

WITNESSES EXAMINED

For Petitioner: For Respondents:

PW1: Samreen FatimaNIL PW2: Dr.Sunil Apsingi PW3: K.Sudeer Kumar PW4:Dr.S.Narsing Rao PW5:Smt.Sajida Farheen @ Yasmeen

Exhibits marked for Petitioner: Ex.A1 is the certified copy of FIR with complaint. Ex.A2 is the certified copy of charge sheet. Ex.A3 is the certified copy of injury certificate Ex.A4 is the discharge summary -2 nos. Ex.A5 is bunch of medical bills for tune of Rs.4,20,946.50/- Ex.A6 is removal of implants further surgery estimation certificate for Rs.1,40,000/-. Ex.A7 is out patient tickets -5 nos Ex.A8 is disability certificate. Ex.A9 is photos along with CD. Ex.A10 is the X-ray film.

Exhibits marked for Respondents: Ex.B1 is the copy of insurance policy.

CHAIRMAN,

MOTOR ACCIDENTS CLAIMS TRIBUNAL

(XXVI ADDITIONAL CHIEF JUDGE),

CITY CIVIL COURTS, HYDERABAD.

Page No.1 M.V.O.P.1140 of 2014

IN THE COURT OF THE CHAIRMAN, MOTOR ACCIDENTS CLAIMS

TRIBUNAL CUM XXVI ADDITIONAL CHIEF JUDGE, CITY CIVIL COURT,

HYDERABAD.

PRESENT: SRI D.RAVINDRA SHARMA,

CHAIRMAN, MOTOR ACCIDENTS

CLAIMS TRIBUNAL-CUM XXVI ADDITIONAL

CHIEF JUDGE, CITY CIVIL COURT, HYDERABAD

Dated, the 9th day of May, 2022

M.V.O.P.No.1140 of 2014

Between: Smt.B.Mallamma … Petitioner

And

1.Mr.Narayana Konda 2.M/s.Shriram General Insurance Company Limited, Rep. by its manager

Policy No.10002/31/14/010576 valid from 7.3.2014 to 6.3.2014 … Respondents

This petition is coming for hearing before me on this day in the presence of Sri.G.Narender Reddy, Advocate for Petitioners and of

Sri.B.Venkateshwarlu, Advocate for the Respondent No.1, and of

Sri.G.S.Charyulu Advocate for Respondent No.2, and upon hearing the counsel of both sides and the matter stood over for consideration till this day, this Court delivered the following:-

ORDER

This petition is filed under section 166 of Motor vehicle Act 1988 and rule 475/1B of A.P.M.V.Rules 1989, by the petitioner/injured who sustained injuries in the motor vehicle accident which took place on 16.3.2014 at about 10.30 hours, at Electrical Sub-station, Muthireddigudem, Athmakur

Mandal, Nalgonda, for a compensation of Rs.2,00,000/- with interest and costs.

2.The brief averments of the Petition are as follows:

That on 16.3.2014 at about 10.30 hours the petitioner along with other passengers were proceeding from Muthireddigudem to Bhongir in the

Page No.2 M.V.O.P.1140 of 2014 auto bearing No.AP-24-Y-4395, when they reached sub-station

Muthireddigudem Athmakur Mandal, Nalgonda, the driver of the said auto drove it in a rash and negligent manner with a high speed, due to which, the auto fell down and the petitioner sustained grievous injuries.

Immediately she was shifted to Sai Teja Hospital, Kothapet, Hyderabad where she spent Rs.10,000/- for treatment, medicines and other expenses.

3.The police of Athmakur-M, had registered a case in Cr.No.27/2014 under section.337 and 304-A IPC. The said accident occurred only due to rash and negligent driving of auto bearing No.AP-24-Y-4395. Therefore the respondent No.1 as owner, the respondent No.2 as insurer of the offending auto are jointly and severally liable to pay the compensation to the petitioner.

4.At the time of the accident, the petitioner was working as a labour and earning Rs.7,500/- per month. The petitioner used to contribute the same for the maintenance of her family. Due to the accidental injuries, the petitioner is suffering a lot. She spent huge amounts towards treatment, medical expenses, transportation, extra nourishment and private attendant charges. Hence, this petition filed claiming compensation.

5.The respondent No.1 filed counter by denying all the petition allegations and contends that the petition is neither maintainable in law nor on facts and liable to be dismissed. He denied the manner of accident, as alleged by the petitioner and their liability to pay the compensation as claimed by the petitioner. He submitted that he is the owner and driver of the vehicle auto bearing No.AP-24-Y-4395 which is insured by M/s.Shriram

General Insurance Company vide policy no.10002/31/14/010576 for the period from 7.3.2014 to 6.3.2015. The accident took place on 16.3.2014, therefore the policy was in force. Hence he is not liable to pay any

Page No.3 M.V.O.P.1140 of 2014 compensation. He denied that due to rash and negligent driving of this respondent the accident occurred. He denied the age, income and avoation of the petitioner and submitted that the compensation claimed by the petitioner is excessive and exorbitant. Therefore, he is not liable to pay any compensation and prayed for dismissal of the petition.

6.The Respondent No.2/Insurance company filed counter by denying all the petition allegations. That the petition is not maintainable either in law or on facts and liable to be dismissed. They denied the manner of accident, the age, occupation, earnings of the deceased as contended by the petitioner. They denied to have issued policy covering the liability of the respondent No.1 for the offending vehicle. They denied involvement of the crime auto AP-24-Y-4395 in the accident and that due to the rash and negligent driving of the auto the accident occurred.

7.They submitted that the accident occurred due to the negligence on the part of the deceased. They denied that the driver of the auto was having valid driving license to drive the offending auto. The auto was turned turtle due to non controlling of the same by the offending driver as it was overloaded. Therefore this respondent is not liable to pay the compensation. They further submit that the mandatory condition under section 134 of M.V.Act was not complied as the respondent No.1/owner failed to furnish the particulars of policy date, time and place of accident and other particulars to the insurance company, therefore this petition is not maintainable. The police officials also not forwarded any claim under section 158 (6) of M.V.Act to the tribunal within 30 days from the date of accident therefore this petition is not maintainable. The claim and interest as claimed by the petitioner is excessive and exorbitant and hence the petition is liable to be dismissed.

Page No.4 M.V.O.P.1140 of 2014

8.The respondent No.2 filed additional counter by submitting that the offending auto AP-24-Y-4395 belonging to respondent No.1 was not insured covering the date of accident. They submitted that the policy bearing

No.1002/31/14/010576 in respect of the auto bearing No.AP-24-Y-4395 belonging to the respondent No.1 the policy was issued by this respondent which is valid from 18.3.2014 to 17.3.2015. Hence there is no valid policy as on the date of accident dated 16.3.2014. Therefore this insurance company is not liable to pay the compensation as there was no agreement of policy existing between the respondent No.1 owner of the offending auto and this insurance company to insure the liability as on the date of accident, therefore this petition is liable to be dismissed.

9.Based on the above pleadings, the following issues were framed for trial:

1)Whether the injuries sustained by B.Mallamma in motor accident occurred on 16.3.2014 due to the rash and negligent driving of driver of the Auto bearing No.AP-24-Y- 4395?

2)Whether the petitioner is entitled to compensation? If so, how much and from whom?

3)To what relief?

10. The petitioner, to prove her case has examined herself as PW1 and got marked Ex.A1 to Ex.A8. To prove the injuries, Dr.Praveen Reddy of Sai

Teja Hospital was examined as PW2. On behalf of the respondents, RW1 is examined and got marked Ex.B1 to B3 were marked.

11. Heard arguments of both side counsel and perused the record.

ISSUE NO.1:

12. It is the case of the petitioner that on 16.3.2014 at about 10.30 hours she along with other passengers were proceeding from Muthireddigudem to

Bhongir in the auto bearing No.AP-24-Y-4395, when they reached sub-

Page No.5 M.V.O.P.1140 of 2014 station Muthireddigudem Athmakur Mandal, Nalgonda, the driver of the said auto drove it in a rash and negligent manner with a high speed, due to which, the auto fell down and the petitioner sustained grievous injuries.

Immediately she was shifted to Sai Teja Hospital, Kothapet, Hyderabad. She spent Rs.10,000/-towards medicines and other expenses. In the cross examination, she admits that as on the date of accident, she was proceeding in auto along with some other passengers.

13.The case and contention of the petitioners to the extent of occurrence of accident to the injured was not disputed. The fact of accident was not disputed by the respondents by producing rebuttal evidence. Therefore the petitioner through her evidence have proved her case & contention that the auto bearing No.AP-24-Y-4395 driven by its driver in rash and negligent manner has caused the accident in which the petitioner sustained injuries.

The issue No.1 is answered in favour of the petitioner and against

Respondents.

ISSUE NO.2 :

14.The respondents have examined their Legal officer as RW1 through him Exs.B1 to B3 were marked. The respondent No.2 contends that they did not issue policy covering the accident of this case for the offending auto bearing No.AP-24-Y-4395 belonging to respondent No.1. They further contends that the policy bearing No.10002/31/14/010576 in respect of the offending auto AP-24-Y-4395 was valid from 18.3.2014 to 17.3.2015 and the accident occurred on 16.3.2014. Therefore, there is no contract in between the respondent No.2 and respondent No.1 in respect of the offending auto as on the date of accident. Therefore, the respondent No.2 is not liable to pay the compensation indemnifying the respondent No.1. Therefore they prayed for dismissal of the petition against them.

Page No.6 M.V.O.P.1140 of 2014

15.The witness further stated that respondent No.1 after the accident, immediately paid Rs.4,073/- in cash at 10.00 a.m by suppressing the accident has obtained the policy Ex.B1 which came into force from 10.10

A.M on 18.3.2014 and valid upto midnight 17.3.2015. The accident admittedly occurred on 16.3.2014. That they have issued legal notice dated 4.11.2016 under section 134 of M.V.Act, addressed to the respondent No.1 asking him to produce the documents but he did not produce the said documents. Therefore, they are not liable to pay any compensation to the petitioner.

16.It is contended by the respondent No.2 that the petitioner is having burden to prove that the policy was in existence as on the date of accident.

The petitioner should have examined the respondent No.1 the owner of the offending Auto, but she did not do so which can be taken as adverse inference by this court. The respondent No.2 filed Ex.B1 the copy of insurance Ex.B2 copy of section 64(V)(B) and Ex.B3 is the legal notice issued by the counsel for respondent No.2 to the counsel for petitioner and respondent No.1 requesting to furnish original policy/ cover note along with premium receipt for the offending vehicle to prove that the policy was in force as on the date of accident dated 16.3.2014 along with postal receipts.

Ex.B4 and 5 are the complaints given by the respondent No.2 against respondent no.1 the owner of the offending vehicle.

17.In respect of the injuries, the petitioner contends that she was hale and healthy, and was aged about 64 years, working as a labour and earning

Rs.7,500/- per month. She used to contribute the same by herself and her family members. Due to the said accident, she sustained grievous injuries including fractures. Immediately she was shifted to Sai Teja hospital,

Kothapet and paid an amount of Rs.27,050/- towards treatment. She also spent more than Rs.20,000/- towards medicines and other expenses.

Page No.7 M.V.O.P.1140 of 2014

18.To prove the injuries, the petitioner got examined the doctor by name,

Dr.Praveen Reddy, of Sai Teja Hospitals as PW2. He deposed that the petitioner sustained the injuries 1. Fracture of Scapula with right rib fracture and she was discharged on 19.3.2014. Ex.A6 final bill of Rs.27,050/- and

Ex.A8 issued by their hospital. The pharmacy bill amount of Rs.7,609/- are not included in the final bill. In the cross examination, he admits that at the time of discharge the patient condition was stable. The petitioner has not taken any follow up treatment after the discharge. The advance receipts are reflected in the final bill i.e., Ex.A6.

19. The petitioner claimed her income as Rs.7,500/- per month. The petitioner at the age of 65 years cannot work hard to earn Rs.7,500/- per month. Therefore, by keeping in view of her age a senior citizen, the income of the petitioner is fixed at Rs.5,000/- per month which is just and reasonable. The said amount can be earned by a person by doing any work.

Therefore the income of the injured is fixed as Rs.5,000/- per month. Due to the injuries sustained by the petitioner being senior citizen, she must have taken bed rest at least for two months. Therefore, the petitioner is granted an amount of Rs.10,000/- towards loss of earnings for the bed rest period for two months.

20.To prove the medical expenses, the petitioner filed Ex.A6 hospital bills showing that the petitioner paid an amount of Rs.27,050/- towards medical expenses. Therefore this court granted an amount of Rs.27,000/- towards medical and other expenses.

21.As per the evidence of PW2 the petitioner sustained fracture injuries she was treated conservatively. Therefore the shock, pain and suffering at

Page No.8 M.V.O.P.1140 of 2014 the time of accident and also the pain, discomfort, inconvenience during the period of treatment, can be assessed and visualized. Therefore the petitioner is granted with Rs.25,000/- towards the head of pain and sufferings.

22.The petitioner has not filed evidence to prove the engaging attendant and payment made for attendant charges. She did not lead any evidence to prove that she availed attendant services during the course of her treatment or after the treatment. Hence the petitioner is not entitled any amount for attendant charges.

23.The petitioner also claimed transportation charges which can be visualized. In the opinion of this tribunal, Rs.3,000/- is fair and reasonable amount. Therefore the petitioner is grantedRs.3,000/-towards transportation charges.

24.In the decision our Hon’ble High Court in Managing Director,

APSRTC V/s. Katawat Gopal and another 2003 (5) ALD 198, it was observed that “compensation towards expenditure incurred on extra nourishment and transport cannot be denied even though treatment was given him in Government hospital and one cannot expect positive evidence for proving the actual expenditure and hence, some reasonable hypothesis cannot be ruled out”. Having regard to the nature of injuries sustained by petitioner, she is expected to have taken extra care and caution with regard to food supplements. Therefore the petitioner is granted with Rs.25,000/- towards the head of extra nourishment and other incidental charges.

25.In total the petitioner is granted the following compensation for different heads :

Loss of earnings (2 months)Rs.10,000/-

Page No.9 M.V.O.P.1140 of 2014

Towards transportationRs.3,000/- Towards Extra nourishment, & other incidental chargesRs.25,000/- Toward medical expensesRs.27,000 Towards pain and sufferingRs.25,000/- __________________________________________________________ Total compensation granted Rs.90,000/- ___________________________________________________________

26.The respondent No.2 to prove their contention that they are not liable to pay the compensation to the petitioner, since there was no policy was in force to indemnify the liability of the respondent No 1 in respect of the offending Auto, the respondent no. 2 has examined their Assistant Manager

Legal as RW1 through him Exs.B1 to B3 were marked by contending that they did not issue policy covering the accident of this case for the offending auto bearing No.AP-24-Y-4395 belonging to respondent No.1. That the policy bearing No.10002/31/14/010576 in respect of the offending auto AP-24-Y- 4395 was valid from 18.3.2014 to 17.3.2015 and the accident occurred on 16.3.2014. Therefore, there is no contract in between the respondent No.2 and respondent No.1 in respect of the offending auto as on the date of accident. It is also contended that the respondent No.1 after the death of the deceased Ramulu (co-traveller of the petitioner) on 18.3.2014, immediately paid Rs.4,073/- in cash at 10.00 a.m by suppressing the accident has obtained the policy Ex.B1 which came into force from 10.10 am on 18.3.2014 and valid upto midnight 17.3.2015. As per the evidence on record the accident occurred on 16.3.2014. The respondent insurance company got issued legal notice dated 4.11.2016 under section.134 of

M.V.Act, addressed to the respondent No.1 asking him to produce the documents but he did not produce the said documents.

27.When the respondent no 2, by his evidence proved that there is no policy in force, the burden is on the petitioner to prove that the policy was in existence as on the date of accident, the petitioner should have

Page No.10 M.V.O.P.1140 of 2014 examined the respondent No.1 the owner of the offending vehicle, but she did not examine him, this has to be taken as adverse inference. The respondent filed Ex.B1 the copy of insurance Ex.B2 premium payment receipt for Rs.4,073/- for the offending auto. Ex.B3 is the legal notice issued by the counsel for respondent No.2 to the counsel for petitioner and respondent No.1 requesting him to furnish original policy/cover note along with premium receipt for the offending auto to prove that the policy was in force as on the date of accident dated 16.3.2014 along with postal receipts.

As per record there is no evidence that the Ex.B1 policy was in force for the offending Auto bearing No.AP-24-Y-4395 by indemnifying the liability of

Respondent No.1, there is no evidence produced to prove contrary. The respondent No2 proved their contention that they have no liability to pay the compensation by indemnifying the liability of Respondent no.1. The respondent No.2 is thus not having liability to pay the compensation awarded hereunder. Therefore the respondent No.1 as owner of the offending auto alone is liable to pay the compensation to the petitioner and the respondent No.2 is exonerated from paying compensation.

28.The petitioner claimed 12% interest per annum, but as per settled law, unless justified by exceptional circumstances, the interest on the compensation awarded should be at the rate of 6% per annum only.

Therefore, the petitioner is granted with interest on the awarded amount @6% p.a.

29.In view of above all reasons, it is held that the Petitioner is entitled for a compensation amount of Rs.90,000/-. Rest of the claim of the petitioner is hereby rejected. Accordingly the Issue No.2 is answered in favour of petitioner and against the respondent No.1. The respondent No 2 is exonerated from paying the compensation awarded hereunder.

Page No.11 M.V.O.P.1140 of 2014

Issue no.3 :

31.In the result, the petition is partly allowed by awarding Rs.90,000/- as compensation along with interest @ 6% p.a.from the date of filing the petition till payment against the respondents 1. Time for deposit one month. The petitioner is permitted to withdraw entire awarded amount.

Advocate fee is fixed at Rs.5,000/-.

(Dictated to my dictation transcribed by her, corrected and

pronounced by me in the Open Court on this the 9th day of May, 2022).

CHAIRMAN,

MOTOR ACCIDENTS CLAIMS TRIBUNAL

(XXVI ADDITIONAL CHIEF JUDGE),

CITY CIVIL COURTS, HYDERABAD.

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

WITNESSES EXAMINED

For Petitioner: For Respondents:

PW1: B.MallammaRW1.S.Chandrasekhar Reddy PW2: Dr.Praveen Reddy

Exhibits marked for Petitioner: Ex.A1 is the certified copy of FIR Ex.A2 is the certified copy of charge sheet. Ex.A3 is the certified copy of MVI report. Ex.A4 is the certified copy of Panchanama along with sketch. Ex.A5 is Aadhar card Ex.A6 is bunch of original medical bills. Ex.A7 is Original X-ray Ex.A8 is the original discharge summary.

Exhibits marked for Respondents:

Ex.B1 is the office copy of policy in respect of the auto. Ex.B2 is the copy of section 64 (V)(B) along with premium receipt dated 18.3.2014. Ex.B3 is the copy of legal notice dated 4.11.2016 addressed to R1 by R2 with postal receipt in the connected OP.968/2014.

CHAIRMAN,

MOTOR ACCIDENTS CLAIMS TRIBUNAL

(XXVI ADDITIONAL CHIEF JUDGE),

CITY CIVIL COURTS, HYDERABAD.

Page No.1 M.V.O.P.1729 of 2016

IN THE COURT OF THE CHAIRMAN, MOTOR ACCIDENTS CLAIMS

TRIBUNAL CUM XXVI ADDITIONAL CHIEF JUDGE, CITY CIVIL COURT,

HYDERABAD.

PRESENT: SRI D.RAVINDRA SHARMA,

CHAIRMAN, MOTOR ACCIDENTS

CLAIMS TRIBUNAL -CUM XXVI ADDITIONAL

CHIEF JUDGE, CITY CIVIL COURT, HYDERABAD

Dated, the 5th day of May, 2022

MVOP.No. 1729 of 2016

Between: 1.Smt.V.Bujji, W/o.V.Gopal 2.V.Gopal@ Gopya S/o.late V.Jethya … Petitioners

And

1.TSRTC, Rep. by its Managing Director

2. TSRTC Rep.by its Depot Manager. … Respondents

This petition is coming for hearing before me on this day in the presence of Sri.G.Narender Reddy, Advocate for Petitioners and of

Sri.Gaurav Kwatra, Advocate for the Respondent No.1 & 2, and upon hearing the counsel of both sides and the matter stood over for consideration till this day, this Court delivered the following:-

ORDER

1.This claim petition is filed Under section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 and Rule 475/1B of A.P. Motor Vehicle Rules 1989, seeking compensation of Rs.25,00,000/- from the respondents on account of accidental death of the deceased V.Ramulu.

2. The brief averments of the petition are as follows:

The petitioner No.1 is the mother and petitioner No.2 is the father of the deceased V.Ramulu. On 21-09-2015 at about 12.45 a.m, the deceased and his co-worker Mohd.Ismail after loading the debris with JCB in the TATA

Tipper bearing No.AP-11-V-015 near Harazpenta Grass Mandi, Kachiguda,

Kamela Road, Hyderabad, was proceeding on the road, while he got down

Page No.2 M.V.O.P.1729 of 2016 and getting into the said TATA Tipper. In the meantime, one RTC bus bearing

No.AP-36-Z-0226 came from Golnaka side in a rash and negligent manner with high speed has dashed the deceased and the said TATA Tipper. As a result, the deceased fell down from the said Tipper and sustained grievous head injuries and died on the spot.

3. The police Kachiguda has registered a case in Cr.No.270/2015 under section.304(A) of IPC against the driver of the RTC Bus. The said accident occurred only due to rash and negligent driving of RTC Bus bearing No.AP- 36-Z-0226. Hence the respondents are jointly and severally liable to pay the compensation to the petitioners.

4. The claim of the petitioners is that, the deceased was hale and healthy and working as driver under the contractor i.e., M/s.Srinivasa

Enterprises, who is a GHMC Contractor. The deceased was drawing an amount of Rs.15,000/- per month as salary and used to contribute the same for the maintenance of the petitioners/family members. Due to the sudden death of the deceased, the petitioners suffered mental agony and they also lost the love and affection of the deceased. The petitioners claimed compensation of Rs.25,00,000/- along with interest and costs on account of death of deceased in the said accident.

5.The Respondents No.1 and 2 filed counter by denying all the petition allegations. That the petition is not maintainable either in law or on facts and liable to be dismissed. They denied the age, income, the manner of accident, resulting in death of deceased. They denied that the accident occurred only due to negligence of the driver of the bus driver. They contended that the driver of RTC bus is not at all responsible for the said accident. They submitted that the petitioner in collusion with the driver of the JCB have falsely implicated the driver and RTC bus. Since there was no

Page No.3 M.V.O.P.1729 of 2016 accident done by the driver of the bus as such the corporation is not liable to pay any compensation to the petitioners. The RTC is not liable to pay any compensation to the petitioners. The compensation amount Rs.25,00,000/- is highly excessive, and exorbitant. Hence prayed to dismiss the petition with exemplary costs.

6.Basing on the pleadings, the following issues were framed :

(1).Whether the pleaded accident had occurred resulting in death of the deceased, V.Ramulu, due to rash and negligent driving of RTC Bus bearing No.AP-36-Z-0226 by its driver?

(2). Whether the petitioners are entitled to any compensation and if so at what quantum and what is the liability of the respondents?

(3). To what relief?

7.During the course of trial, the petitioner No.1 mother of the deceased, was examined as PW1 through her, Exs.A1 to A11 were marked. One

Ganapuram Veeraswamy the eye witness to the accident was examined as

PW2. One N.Rajesh Kumar, was examined as PW3. On behalf of the respondents, RW1 is examined and no documents were marked.

8.Heard arguments of both side counsels. Perused the material placed on record and written arguments.

ISSUE NO.1 :

9.The petitioners to prove their case have examined the petitioner No.1

V.Bujji, mother of the deceased as PW1, she deposed about the manner of the accident which took place on 21-09-2015 at about 12.45 a.m, the deceased and his co-worker Mohd.Ismail after loading the debris with JCB in the TATA Tipper bearing No.AP-11-V-015 near Harazpenta Grass Mandi,

Kachiguda, Kamela Road, Hyderabad. The deceased V.Ramulu who is a

Page No.4 M.V.O.P.1729 of 2016 driver in GHMC, he got down and when he was getting into the said TATA

Tipper, in the meantime, one RTC bus bearing No.AP-36-Z-0226 came from

Golnaka side in a rash and negligent manner with high speed and dashed the deceased and TATA Tipper. As a result, the deceased fell down from the said Tipper and sustained grievous head injuries and died on the spot. In the cross examination she admits that she does not know who informed her that the RTC bus was driven in rash and negligent manner and dashed the deceased. She further admitted that as per the driving license of her son he was having licence to drive motor cab, transport vehicle and not heavy vehicle. That her son was earning Rs.15,000/- per month, but she did not file any document to prove the income of her son and by working as driver in GHMC. He was not an income tax assessee. She admits that as per Ex.A8 pass book the salary of the deceased was shown as Rs.5,500/- and not more than that. She does not know as to who transferred the amount to the account of the deceased and she has not filed any appointment letter and who gave Ex.A9 salary certificate. The salary certificate Ex.A8 & A9 does not match with each other. The RTC driver was not made as party. She admitted that she has not filed any ID proof of her son to show that he was working in their company or firm as mentioned in Ex.A9.

10.The petitioner examined the eye witness Mohd.Ismail as PW2. He deposed about the manner of accident. That on 21-09-2015 at about 12.45 a.m, himself, the deceased and Vignesh were proceeding after loading the debris with JCB in the TATA Tipper bearing No.AP-11-V-015 near Harazpenta

Grass Mandi, Kachiguda, Kamela Road, Hyderabad. The deceased V.Ramulu who is a driver in GHMC, while he got down and when he was getting into the said TATA Tipper, in the meantime, one RTC bus bearing No.AP-36-Z- 0226 came from Golnaka side came in a rash and negligent manner with high speed has dashed the deceased and TATA Tipper. As a result, the

Page No.5 M.V.O.P.1729 of 2016 deceased fell down from the said Tipper and sustained grievous head injuries and died on the spot.

16.The case & contention of the petitioners to the extent of occurrence of accident to the deceased V.Ramulu, was not disputed. That on 21-09-2015 at about 12.45 a.m, the deceased and Vignesh were proceeding after loading the debris with JCB in the TATA Tipper bearing No.AP-11-V-015 near

Harazpenta Grass Mandi, Kachiguda, Kamela Road, Hyderabad. The deceased V.Ramulu who is a driver in GHMC, he got down from the Tipper and when he was getting into the TATA Tipper, in the meanwhile one RTC bus bearing No.AP-36-Z-0226 came from Golnaka side in a rash and negligent manner with high speed has dashed the deceased and the TATA

Tipper. As a result, the deceased fell down from the said Tipper and sustained grievous head injuries and died on the spot. These facts are not disputed by the respondents by producing rebuttal evidence. Therefore the petitioners proved their case and contention that the offending RTC Bus driven by its driver in rash and negligent manner has caused the accident in which the deceased died.

17.Therefore, the Tribunal holds that the pleaded accident occurred due to the rash and negligent driving of the RTC bus by its driver bearing No.AP- 36-Z-0226, resulting in death of V.Ramulu(deceased). Therefore the issue

No.1 is answered in favour of the petitioners and against Respondents.

ISSUE NO.2

18.In the issue No.1 it is held that the deceased V.Ramulu died in the accident caused due to the rash and negligent driving of the offending RTC bus AP-36-Z-0226 of Hanmakonda/WarangalDepot,belonging to respondents No.1 and 2. The petitioner No.1 & 2 are the parents of the deceased V.Ramulu. They are claiming compensation of Rs.25,00,000/- on

Page No.6 M.V.O.P.1729 of 2016 account of the accidental death of their son V.Ramulu. As held in the issue

No.1 the accident was caused by the driver of the RTC bus. To prove the liability of respondents, the petitioners examined PW1 to PW4 and filed

Ex.A1 to A11.

19.The respondent No.1 and 2 are the officials of the RTC who is the owner of the offending bus have examined the driver of the offending bus,

Ch.Venkataiah, as RW1. As per his evidence the accident was not caused with the RTC bus but when the deceased was getting into the Tipper he slipped and fell down on the road sustaining fatal injuries. The injuries were not caused due to the RTC bus and the said RTC bus did not hit the

Tipper at all. The petitioners for the purpose of the claim have falsely implicated the RTC bus by filing false complaint before the police. That the deceased died on his own negligence when trying to board into the tipper and slipped down from the tipper, therefore, there is no rash or negligence on the part of respondents and the respondents are not liable to pay any compensation. In the cross examination, he admitted that on 21.9.2015 the accident occurred and the criminal case ended in acquittal. That he did not observe as to how the accident took place. He further stated that he does not know whether the front wind shield and head lights were broken and the front bumper was also damaged.

As per the Ex.A5 MVI report, at Column No.8 the details regarding damage sustained by the vehicle due to the accident were recorded. As per

Ex.A5 the front wind shield and glass broken at L/H/S lower side. L/H/S outer headlight broken, front bumper at L/H/S broken. There is no mechanical defects in the offending bus. Therefore, it shows that the accident occurred when the bus hit the tipper. There is no evidence other than the evidence of

RW1 which does not rebut the evidence produced by the petitioner.

Page No.7 M.V.O.P.1729 of 2016

Therefore this tribunal holds that the accident occurred due to rash and negligent driving of the offending RTC bus bearing No.AP-36-Z-0226 causing the death of deceased V.Ramulu. The employer of the offending bus driver who are the respondents No.1 and 2 are liable to pay the compensation to the petitioners awarded herein.

21.The petitioner No.1 as PW1 deposed about the age and earnings of the deceased that the age of the deceased is 22 years at the time of his accidental death. To prove the age of the deceased, the petitioners filed

Exs.A1 to A4, A6, Aaadhar card, Ex.A8 SBH Pass book, as per which the age of the deceased shown as 23 years. Therefore, the age of the deceased is fixed as ‘23’ years for calculation of compensation. The relevant multiplier as per the Sarla Verma Case, is ‘18’.

22.The petitioners to prove the income of the deceased have examined

PW3 who is the Proprietor of Srinivasa Enterprises, Jawahar Nagar,

Hyderabad. As per his evidence, he is the Proprietor of Srinivasa Enterprises

Jawahar Nagar Hyderabad. He is a licensed contractor to supply labour to

GHMC, under whom the deceased was employed. That the deceased worked in their organization as driver and he was drawing salary of

Rs.15,000/- per month. He was deputed to GHMC Circle – 9 as contract driver till the date of his death. Ex.A9 certificate was issued by them and the deceased was having P.F.No.AP/HYD/8225/0241-5211021506. In the cross examination, PW1 admits that the deceased was not a GHMC employee and he was working with the private contractor on contract basis.

He is also working as a contract driver under the contractor namely Srinivas

Yadav. The deceased was earning Rs.15,000/- per month, to prove the same, there is no document filed.

Page No.8 M.V.O.P.1729 of 2016

The petitioners have examined an Assistant Engineer, GHMC in

Kavadiguda Parking Yard as PW4, deposed that the deceased Ramulu was working in their parking yard through outsourcing agency on a monthly salary of Rs.11,030/-. Ex.C1 is the authorization. Ex.C2 is the agreement of outsourcing dated 4.6.2016. Ex.C3 is the EPF and ESI Statement containing the name of the deceased EPF No. of deceased is AP/HYD/8225/0242 and

ESI No.5211021512. Ex.C4 is the particulars of wages paid to the drivers and other employees of contractors. Ex.C5 is the report given by the then

DCTO addressed to the Insurance but the family of the deceased did not receive any compensation from the insurance. Presently they are paying

Rs.16,841/- to the driver on contract basis. In the cross examination, he deposed that he is having identity card from his department. As per Ex.C2 the agreement is from 1.4.2016 to 30.6.2016.

The evidence of PW3 and PW4 and the documents marked by the petitioners, the income of the deceased is fixed as Rs.15,000/- per month.

Therefore, the income of the deceased Rs.15,000/- has taken into consideration. The deceased being bachelor, half of the amount has to be deducted as his personal expenses. (Rs.15,000 x 50% = 7500/-). Therefore the income of the deceased is Rs.7,500/-.

23. The aspects of non-pecuniary damages mentioned in SANTOSH DEVI

vs. NATIONAL INSURANCE COMPANY LIMITED & OTHERS 2012 (6)

SCC 421” have been reviewed in NATIONAL INSURANCE COMPANY V/S

PRANAY SETHI’S case cited above, Reasonable figures on conventional heads, namely, loss of estate, loss of consortium and funeral expenses should be Rs.15,000/-, Rs.40,000/- and Rs.15,000/- respectively.

24.In all, the petitioners are entitled to the following compensation amounts :-

Page No.9 M.V.O.P.1729 of 2016

By following the decisions in Sarla Verma V/s.Delhi transport

Corporation (2009 ACJ 1298) and National Insurance Company

V/s.Pranay Sethi 2017 Lawsuit SCC 1093 the compensation payable to the petitioners has to be assessed as under :

Sl.No. Heads Calculations

1.Income of deceasedRs.15,000/- per month

2.Half of the amount is to be15,000/- x 1/2 = 7,500/-; deducted towards personal15,000/- –7,500 = 7,500/- expenses of the deceased

3.40% to be added as futureRs.7,500/- x 40% = Rs.3000/-; prospects Rs.7,500/-+ 3000 = Rs.10500/-

4.Incomeperyear@10,500/- X 12 =1,26,000/- Rs.10,500/- per month

5.Compensation worked out1,26,000/- x 18 = 22,68,000/- with multiplier of ‘18’

6.Funeral Expenses15,000/-

7.Lost of Estate15,000/-

Total compensation awardedRs.22,98,000/-

25.Further it is settled law that, unless justified by exceptional circumstances,the interest on the compensation awarded should be at the rate of 6% per annum only. Therefore, the petitioners are entitled for the interest @ 6% simple interest p.a on the compensation awarded hereunder from the date of petition till the date of deposit.

26.In view of above all reasons, it is held that the Petitioners are entitled for a compensation amount of Rs.22,98,000/-. Accordingly the Issue No.2 is answered in favour of petitioners and against the respondents.

Issue No.3

27.In the result, the petition is partly allowed for Rs.22,98,000/- with proportionate costs and with future interest @ 6% per annum from the date

Page No.10 M.V.O.P.1729 of 2016 of filing of the petition till the date of deposit of the amount against the

Respondents no. 1 and 2.

The respondents are directed to pay the said amount within two months from the date of order.

The Petitioners No.1 & 2, are entitled for a compensation amount of

Rs.11,49,000/- each. On deposit of amount, the Petitioners no.1 & 2 are permitted to withdraw half of their awarded amount including interest and cots and the remaining balance amount of their respective shares shall be kept in fixed deposit in any Nationalized bank for a period of two years. The

Advocate fee is fixed at Rs.10,000/-.

(Dictated to my dictation transcribed by her, corrected and

pronounced by me in the Open Court on this the 5th day of May, 2022).

XXVI Additional Chief Judge, City Civil Court, Hyderabad.

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

WITNESSES EXAMINED

For Petitioners: For Respondents:

PW1: M.PadmammaNIL PW2: Ganapuram Veeraswamy PW3: N.Rajesh Kumar Exhibits marked for Petitioners (PW1): Ex A1 is the certified copy of FIR. Ex A2 is the certified copy of Inquest report. Ex A3 is the attested copy of Post Mortem Examination Report. Ex A4 is the attested copy of Accident report. Ex.A5 is the certified copy of pahani (2) Ex.A6 is the death certificate. Ex.A7 is the certificate issued by Gram Panchayat Damaragidda. Exhibits marked for Respondents NIL

XXVI Additional Chief Judge, City Civil Court, Hyderabad.

Page No.1 M.V.O.P.3068 of 2014

IN THE COURT OF THE CHAIRMAN, MOTOR ACCIDENTS CLAIMS

TRIBUNAL CUM XXVI ADDITIONAL CHIEF JUDGE, CITY CIVIL COURT,

HYDERABAD.

PRESENT: SRI D.RAVINDRA SHARMA,

CHAIRMAN, MOTOR ACCIDENTS

CLAIMS TRIBUNAL-CUM XXVI ADDITIONAL

CHIEF JUDGE, CITY CIVIL COURT, HYDERABAD

Dated, the 10th day of May, 2022

M.V.O.P.No.3068 of 2014

Between: Sabeera Bee … Petitioner

And

1.Narsini Karthik 2.Iffco Tokio General Insurance Company Limited Represented by its Manager (Legal)

Policy No.ITG/82093637 valid from 13.6.2014 to 12.6.2015 … Respondents.

This petition is coming for hearing before me on this day in the presence of Sri.P.Chandra Mouli Advocate for Petitioner and of

Sri.C.Mahender Reddy, Advocate for the Respondent No.2, and of

Sri.Ramesh Kumar Gajjala advocate for Respondent No.1, and upon hearing the counsel of both sides and the matter stood over for consideration till this day, this Court delivered the following:-

ORDER

This petition is filed under section 166 of Motor vehicle Act, 1988 and rule 475/1B of A.P.M.V.Rules 1989, by the petitioner/injured who sustained injuries in the motor vehicle accident which took place on 23/24.6.2014 at about 00.20 hours near Khadims Shoes Shop, Chikkadpally Main road

Hyderabad, for a compensation of Rs.6,00,000/- with interest and costs.

2.The brief averments of the Petition are as follows:

On 23/24-06-2014 the petitioner along with her family members were proceeding in the Auto bearing No.AP-11-W-5032 from Musheerabad to

Yakatpura. At that time one driver of the car bearing No.AP-11-AS-6199

Page No.2 M.V.O.P.3068 of 2014 which was proceeding from Narayanaguda RTC X roads drove the said car in a rash and negligent manner and dashed the said auto from back side. As a result, the petitioner and her family including auto driver fell down. The petitioner sustained fracture and grievous injuries. Immediately the petitioner was shifted to Gandhi Hospital, and from there she was shifted to

Mallarededy Narayana Multispeciality Hospital, Suraram X croads,

Jeedimetla, Hyderabad were she was treated as inpatient.

3.The police of Chikkadpaly, Hyderabad had registered a case vide crime No.332/2014 under section 338 IPC against the driver of the car bearing No.AP-11-AS-6199 The respondent No.1 is the owner and respondent No.2 is the insurer of the offending car bearing No.AP-11-AS- 6199. Hence, the respondent No.1 and 2 are jointly and severally liable to pay the compensation to the petitioner.

4.As on the date of the accident, the petitioner was a house wife cum skilled person of cook. She was working as cook in the house of Mr.Ghouse

Khan, Chanchalguda, Hyderabad on which she was earning Rs.7,000/- per month. The petitioner used to contribute the same for the maintenance of her family. Due to the accidental injuries, the petitioner suffered a lot.

Hence, this petition is filed by claiming compensation of Rs.7 lakhs.

5.The Respondent no.1 filed counter by denying all the allegations of the petition. They denied the manner of accident, age, occupation, income and injuries sustained by the injured. The respondent submitted that the driver of the auto bearing No.AP-11-W-5032 is not holding driving licence and not authorized to drive any vehicle and the alleged accident occurred only due to negligence of the petitioner. The compensation claimed by the petitioner is exorbitant and excessive, hence prayed to dismiss the petition.

Page No.3 M.V.O.P.3068 of 2014

6.The respondent No.2/Insurance company filed counter by denying all the allegations of the petition. They denied the manner of accident, age, occupation and income and injuries sustained by the injured. They further submit that the driver the car was not holding valid and effective driving licence at the time of accident and further he was not qualified for holding or obtaining such driving licence and further has not satisfied the requirements of the Rule No.3 of the Central Motor Vehicle Rules, 1989. The respondent No.1 Willfully and knowingly has handed over possession of the offending vehicle to the driver who was not possessing valid and effective driving licence as on the date of accident. Therefore, he has contravened the provision of the M.V.Act and the Rules framed there under has committed the breach of the terms and conditions of the policy. They further submitted that as per section 134 (C) of M.V.Act, it is mandatory duty of the insured/respondent No.1 to furnish the particulars of date, time and place of accident, particulars of injured and the name of driver, his license to the insurer but the insured was not complied under the said statutory requirement hence this respondent is not liable to pay compensation. That as per section 158 (6) it is mandatory duty of the concerned police to forward all the relevant documents to this respondent/ insurance company within 30 days of the accident. But the police has not complied the same. Hence they are not liable to pay any compensation to the petitioner. They further submitted that the compensation amount and interest claimed by the petitioner is excessive and exorbitant. Hence they are not liable to pay the compensation and prayed to dismiss the petition.

7.Based on the above pleadings, the following issues were framed for trial:

1)Whether the injuries sustained by Sabeera Bee in motor accident occurred on 24.6.2014 due to the rash and negligent driving of driver of the car bearing No.AP-11-AS- 6199?

Page No.4 M.V.O.P.3068 of 2014

2)Whether the petitioner is entitled to compensation? If so, how much and from whom ?

3)To what relief?

8. The petitioner, to prove her case has examined herself as PW1, and got marked Ex.A1 to Ex.A9. To prove the injuries, Dr.Sunil Apsingi, wa examined as PW2. To Prove the medical expense, the petitioner examined billing manager by name Sri.K.Sudheer Kumar is examined as PW3 and to prove the disability, Dr.S.Narsing Rao, Orthopedic surgeon is examined as

PW4. On behalf of the respondents, no witness is examined, but got marked

Ex.B1 policy copy with consent.

9. Heard arguments of both side counsel and perused the record.

ISSUE NO.1:

10. It is the case of the petitioner that on 23/24-06-2014 the petitioner along with her family were proceeding in the Auto bearing No.AP-11-W-5032 from Musheerabad to Yakatpura. When the auto was passing Khadim showroom, Chikkadpally driver of the offending car bearing No.AP-11-AS- 6199 which was proceeding from Narayanaguda side towards RTC X roads drove the said car in a rash and negligent manner and dashed the auto from back side. As a result, the petitioner and his family including auto driver fell down and the petitioner sustained fracture and grievous injuries.

Immediately the petitioner was shifted to Gandhi Hospital, and from there she was shifted to Mallarededy Narayana Multispeciality Hospital, Suraram

Xroads, Jeedimetla, Hyderabad where she was treated as inpatient.

11. The petitioner filed Ex.A1 the certified copy of the FIR, Ex.A2 the certified copy of the charge sheet which shows that the accident occurred due to rash and negligent driving of car bearing No.AP-11-AS-6199. These facts are not disputed by the respondents by producing any rebuttal evidence. The offending car came with high speed in rash and negligent

Page No.5 M.V.O.P.3068 of 2014 manner has dashed the auto from the backside. As a result of which, the petitioner sustained grievous and other injuries all over the body.

12. There is no rebuttal evidence to dispute the case, contention and evidence of petitioner to the extent of occurrence of accident caused by the respondent no.1 with his rash and negligent driving of the offending car.

Therefore this tribunal has no other option except to rely upon the evidence produced by the petitioner to come to a conclusion that the accident occurred due to rash and negligent driving of the offending car bearing

No.AP-11-AS-6199 by its driver. In view of the above discussed reasons, it is held that the accident occurred due to rash and negligent driving of the respondent with offending car resulting in fracture injuries to the petitioner.

This issue is answered in favour of the Petitioner and against the respondents.

Issue No.2:-

13.In respect of the compensation for the injuries, the petitioner contends that she was hale and healthy by working as home maker and was aged about 44 years and also worked as Cook, and earn Rs.7,000/- per month. She used to contribute the said earnings with her family members.

Due to the said accident, she sustained closed displaced distal 1/3 fracture of left humerus, head injury and other injuries all over the body. She was treated in Gandhi Hospital, Mallarededy Narayana Multi speciality Hospital,

Suraram Xroads, Jeedimetla, Hyderabad as inpatient. She incurred

Rs.1,00,000/- towards medical expenses and other expenses.

14.To prove the injuries, the petitioner examined Dr.Sunil Apsingi as PW2.

He deposed that the petitioner was treated by him on 25.6.2014 and she received injuries fracture of left humerus and he operated her on 26.6.2014 and discharged on 28.6.2014. The fracture was united but stiffness in elbow

Page No.6 M.V.O.P.3068 of 2014 and shoulder joints resulting in difficulty in performing day to day activities.

Ex.A4 is the injury certificate, Ex.A6 is discharge summary and Ex.A6 is estimation for removal for implants for Rs.80,000/- and advised follow up treatment. In the cross examination, he admitted that the fracture was united and the patient has not turned up for follow up treatment. The petitioner received only one injury. He did not see the petitioner after that.

Therefore the petitioner is not entitled any amount for further estimation of removal of implants.

15.To prove the medical expenses, she examined K.Surender Billing

Manager of KIMS Hospital as PW3. As per his evidence, the petitioner

Sabera bee was treated in their hospital from 25.6.2014 to 28.6.2014 and she paid Rs.70,677/- towards final bill through cash. Overall the hospital received Rs.73,775/- from the petitioner. Ex.A5 is the bill issued by them.

Though it was suggested in the cross examination that she availed

Aarogyasree but no evidence is put forth by the respondent to prove the availment of the said scheme by the petitioner. As per record, the petitioner paid Rs.73,775/- towards medical expenses. Hence the petitioner is granted

Rs.73,775/- towards medical expenses.

16.To prove the disability, the petitioner examined the Dr.S.Narsing Rao, as PW4 as per his evidence the petitioner came to his hospital and obtained disability certificate dated 6.2.2017 after examining her he assessed the disability @ 25% which is partial and permanent in nature. Ex.A8 is the disability certificate issued by him. As per which, the petitioner cannot lift heavy weights and cannot attend hard work. In the cross examination, he admitted that he has not treated the patient and examined her on 6.2.2017 only. He also admitted that he mentioned the age of the patient as 50 years on observing the petitioner.

Page No.7 M.V.O.P.3068 of 2014

17.The Ex.A8 disability certificate is issued by the PW4 who is neither a treated doctor nor the medical board member. Therefore, the disability mentioned under Ex.A8 certificate cannot be based for arriving to conclusion that the petitioner sustained disability of 25%. Therefore, the petitioner failed to prove that she sustained any disability. Hence the petitioner is not entitled for any compensation on the head of loss of earnings due to disability.

18.The petitioner did not file any proof to show that she was working as cook in the house of Mr.Ghouse Khan, Chanchalguda, and earning

Rs.7,000/- per month. The petitioner did not examine the said Ghouse Khan, to prove that she was working as cook and earning Rs.7,000/- per month.

Therefore, the petitioner failed to prove her earnings as cook. When the petitioner failed to prove her avocation and income as claimed by her, on reasonable assessment by this tribunal on hypothesis, the income of the petitioner who is house wife is fixed at Rs.6,000/- per month which is just and reasonable. Due to the injuries sustained by the petitioner, the petitioner must have taken bed rest atleast for two months. Therefore, the petitioner is granted an amount of Rs.12,000/- towards loss of earnings for the bed rest period for two months.

19.As per the evidence of PW2 the petitioner sustained fracture injuries and other injuries and she was treated. Therefore the shock, pain and suffering at the time of accident and also pain, discomfort, inconvenience during the period of treatment, can be assessed and visualized. Therefore the petitioner is granted with Rs.30,000/- towards the head of pain and sufferings.

20.The petitioner also claimed transportation charges which can be visualized. In the opinion of this tribunal, Rs.5,000/- is fair and reasonable

Page No.8 M.V.O.P.3068 of 2014 amount. Therefore the petitioner is grantedRs.5,000/-towards transportation charges.

21.In the decision our Hon’ble High Court in Managing Director,

APSRTC V/s. Katawat Gopal and another 2003 (5) ALD 198, it was observed that “compensation towards expenditure incurred on extra nourishment and transport cannot be denied even though treatment was given him in Government hospital and one cannot expect positive evidence for proving the actual expenditure and hence, some reasonable hypothesis cannot be ruled out”. Having regard to the nature of injuries sustained by petitioner, she is expected to have taken extra care and caution with regard to food supplements. Therefore the petitioner is granted with Rs.20,000/- towards the head of extra nourishment and other incidental charges.

22.In total the petitioner is granted the following compensation for different heads :

Loss of earnings Rs.12,000/- Towards transportationRs. 5,000/- Towards Extra nourishment, & other incidental chargesRs.20,000/- Toward medical expensesRs.73,775/- Towards pain and sufferingRs.30,000/- __________________________________________________________ Total compensation granted Rs.1,40,775/- ___________________________________________________________

23. With regard to the liability, the respondents contends that there is no negligence on their part and the respondent No.1 is not having valid driving licence hence he is not liable to pay any compensation. The Ex.B1 policy was issued by Respondent No.2 Insurance Company vide policy No.ITG- 82093637, which was admittedly in force from 13.6.2014 to 12.6.2015 in respect of the offending car bearing No.AP-11-AS-6199, hence the policy was in force as on the date of accident of this case. There is no violation of terms and conditions of the policy of insurance established on record nor

Page No.9 M.V.O.P.3068 of 2014 did the respondent No 2/Insurance Company adduced any evidence to establish the violation of policy of insurance and its terms & conditions.

Hence, the Respondent No.2/Insurance Company is liable to indemnify the insured/owner Respondent No.1 in respect of the compensation to be paid to petitioner here under.

24.The respondents did not produce any positive evidence to prove their contentions. For the foregoing discussions, it is held that the petitioner is entitled for compensation of Rs.1,40,775/-. The respondent No.1 as the owner and respondent No.2 as the insurer of the offending car are jointly and severally liable to pay the compensation to the petitioner. The rest of the claim is hereby dismissed. The issue No.2 is answered in favour of the petitioner against the respondent 1 & 2.

25. Further it is settled law that, unless justified by exceptional circumstances,the interest on the compensation awarded should be at the rate of 6% per annum only. Therefore the awarded amount carries interest @ 6 % p.a only.

Issue no.3 :

26.In the result, the petition is partly allowed by awarding

Rs.1,40,775/- as compensation along with interest @ 6% p.a.from the date of filing the petition till payment against the respondents 1 & 2 jointly and severally. Time for deposit two months. The petitioner is permitted to withdraw entire award amount. Advocate fee is fixed at Rs.10,000/-.

(Dictated to my dictation transcribed by her, corrected and

pronounced by me in the Open Court on this the 10th day of MAY, 2022).

CHAIRMAN,

MOTOR ACCIDENTS CLAIMS TRIBUNAL

(XXVI ADDITIONAL CHIEF JUDGE),

CITY CIVIL COURTS, HYDERABAD.

Page No.10 M.V.O.P.3068 of 2014

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

WITNESSES EXAMINED

For Petitioner: For Respondents:

PW1: Sabeera BeeNIL PW2: Dr.Sunil Apsingi PW3: K.Sudeer Kumar PW4:Dr.S.Narsing Rao

Exhibits marked for Petitioner: Ex.A1 is the certified copy of FIR with complaint. Ex.A2 is the certified copy of charge sheet. Ex.A3 is the certified copy of MLC Ex.A4 is the discharge summary - 2 nos. Ex.A5 is bunch of medical bills to tune of Rs.80,082/- Ex.A6 is future surgery estimation certificate for removal of implants tune of Rs.80,000/-. Ex.A7 is O.P. Assessment record (11 nos) Ex.A8 is disability certificate. Ex.A9 is X-ray film.

Exhibits marked for Respondents: Ex.B1 is the copy of insurance policy.

CHAIRMAN,

MOTOR ACCIDENTS CLAIMS TRIBUNAL

(XXVI ADDITIONAL CHIEF JUDGE),

CITY CIVIL COURTS, HYDERABAD.