Sri E. Bhima Rao

-1-

BEFORE THE PRINCIPAL MOTOR ACCIDENTS CLAIMS TRIBUNAL-

CUM- PRINCIPAL DISTRICT JUDGE: CHITTOOR.

Present: E.BHIMA RAO, Chairman, Principal Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal -cum-Principal District Judge, Chittoor.

Thursday, the 10th day of April, 2025.

MVOP.No.132/2019

Between:- B.Gopamma @ Gopemma. …Petitioner. And:-

1. M.Chinna Reddenna (Driver).

2. Sangana Ramana Reddy (Owner of lorry).

3. The Oriental Insurance Company Ltd., rep., by its Branch Manager, Basheerbag, Hyderabad.

4. B.Bhaskar Reddy (owner-cum-driver of tractor). …Respondents.

This petition is coming on 06.03.2025 for final hearing before me in the presence of Smt.B.Jyothi – advocate for petitioner and of Sri.A.P.Raghupathi – advocate for 1st respondent; Sri.M.Vidyawathy – advocate for 3rd respondent and Sri.S.Balaiah – advocate for 4th respondent and 2nd respondent having been remained ex-parte and upon perusing the material available on record and upon hearing arguments of both sides and the matter having stood over for consideration till this day, the Court made the following:-

AWARD

1.This is a petition filed by the petitioner under Section 166 (1) (a) of

M.V.Act., claiming compensation of Rs.10,00,000/- against the respondents herein due to the injuries sustained by her (hereinafter referred to as ‘injured’) in a road accident that occurred on 27.04.2019 at about 7.00 pm on

Gurramkonda – Tharigonda road, near Venkateswara Swamy Temple,

H/o.Tharigonda, Gurramkonda Mandal, in which lorry bearing registration

No.AP04-TX-8310 and tractor and trailer bearing No.AP03-BU-5671 and

AP03-BU-5672 have involved.

The 1st respondent is the driver of the lorry bearing No.AP04-TX-8310 and the 2nd respondent is the owner of the said lorry and the said lorry was -2- insured with the 3rd respondent. The 4th respondent is the owner-cum-driver of the tractor and trailer bearing registration No.AP03-BU-5671 and AP03-BU- 5672 and the said vehicle is not insured with any insurance company.

2.The brief averments mentioned in the petition are as follows:- On 27-04- 2019 at about 7.00 p.m., the petitioner and her deceased husband B.Thimma

Reddy after completion of their work in their fields, were proceeding in the

Motor Cycle AP 03 CU 9832 driven by her husband and petitioner as pillion rider, going on the left side margin of the road slowly, cautiously towards their village while they reached on Gurramkonda - Tharigonda Road near

Venkateswara Swamy temple, at that time the 1st respondent drove the lorry bearing No. AP 04 TX 8310 came from Tharigonda to Gurramkonda side in a rash and negligent manner with high speed and without observing road rules dashed against the opposite coming Motor cycle of the petitioner, as a result of which the riders B.Thimma Reddy and the Pillion rider/ petitioner fell down from the Motor cycle on the road and sustained multiple grevious severe bleeding injuries on their bodies and in the mean time, the driver of the Tractor and trailor bearing AP 03 BU 5671 & AP 03 BU 5672 came from

Gurramkonda to Tharigonda side in a rash and negligent manner without observing road rules and passed on the deceased B.Thimma Reddy right leg and caused bleeding injury and died on the spot due to the injuries sustained in the above said accident. The said accident was occurred only due to the rash and negligent driving of the lorry bearing No. AP 04 TX 8310 and Tractor and Trailor bearing AP 03 BU 5671 & AP 03 BU 5672 by its drivers i.e, respondents 1 and 4 respectively.

It is further averred that the S.I. of police, Vayalpadu P.S. has registered a case against the respondents 1 & 4 in Cr.No. 34/2019 Punishable under

Secs 337, 338 & 304-A IPC after investigation, the police filed a charge sheet against the respondents 1 & 4 and the same is pending on the file of J.F.C.M.

Court Vayalpad for trial.

-3-

It is further averred that immediately after the accident she was shifted to Government Hospital, Madanapalle through 108 Ambulance after first aid she was referred to Higher Institution for expert treatment for the injuries sustained by the petitioner. She received injuries in the above accident as follows:-

1) Hypothroidism. 2) Post Traumatic right Hemo Pneumothorax involving 1st to 10th Latral Rib fractures 3) Right Tibia - Fibula Distal 1/3rd

Fracture with puncture wound 4) Left Ulnar Distal 1/3rd Fracture 5) Hair Line fracture of left Fibula 6) Right Mandible Fracture 7) Head Injury and other injuries all over the body.

On the same day she was admitted to Ravi Neuro & Emergency

Hospital, Tirupati under Ward: ICU/D-2 as inpatient on 27-04-2019. The petitioner underwent CT brain, CT Chest, X-rays Chest, left form arm, right leg and left leg & Orthopedic consultation with would irrigation - splint (POP) application to right leg, dorsal splint applied to left upper limb, below knee slab to the left leg. Later planed for surgery. Chest physician, general Surgeon consultation taken diagnosed B/L haemo-pneumothorox treated with right side

ICD insertion under local anaesthetia, in sterile condition on 28-04-2019. Later continued on face mask oxygen support, case posted for ILN-Tibia under spinal anaesthetia, DCP left ulnar under branchial plexus block on 1/05/2019 in sterile conditions preoperative, intra operative, postoperatively. The petitioner was stable, uneventful. She gradually veened-off from oxygen support to room air and after blood transfusion, she was discharged on 13-05- 2019 with an observation 1) knee immobilizer for left leg 2) Spirometry 3) Bed rest 4) Foot end elevation 5) Physiotherapy. Still now she is taking treatment periodically from the above hospital for her injuries. She was bedridden and she was depending upon others for her normal avocations. Due to head injury she is getting realign sensation and headache now and then. At present the petitioner was incurred a sum of Rs.4,00,000/- towards hospital, medicine, transport, extra nourishment and other miscellaneous expenses.

-4-

It is further averred that due to the fracture of the ribs she is not able to bend her body and she is suffering and difficulty for breathing. Due to the fractures of both legs, the petitioner is not able to sit and stand and walk. Due to the fracture of left hand petitioner is not able to lift any weight through her left hand. Due to the Head injury she is getting headache and realign sensation pow and then. Even though she has taken treatment for the above injuries, she is permanently, physically disabled. At present she is bed ridden and she was depending upon others for her normal avocations.

It is further averred that she was about 59 years at the time of accident and she was quite hale and healthy and energetic person prior to the accident. The petitioner was running Mini Dairy Form by maintaining 10 milchy cows in her village and supplying milk to Hutsun Agro Products, Puthalapattu,

Chittoor District Center Code 210345 and earning monthly Rs.20,000/- to

Rs.25,0000/- prior to the accident. Due to the above injuries she is unable to maintain the Dairy Form and sold away all the milchy cows. Due to that she lost entire income from the Dairy.

It is further averred that the petitioner suffered mental agony, pain and suffering in her career. The petitioner also suffered loss of amenities and enjoyment of life. Due to the said accident the petitioner is unable to lead a normal life for the rest of her life. There is a deprivation of normal pleasure of life and also in earning capacity. Due to the above said accident the petitioner is suffering inconvenience, hardship, discomfort, disappointment, frustration and mental stress in her life. She is depending upon others throughout her life. In all the relevant heads, the petitioner is claiming a sum of

Rs.10,00,000/-.

Since the accident was occurred only due to the rash and negligent driving of the lorry bearing No. AP 04 TX 8310 and Tractor and trailor bearing

AP 03 BU 5671 & AP 03 BU 5672 by its drivers i.e, respondents 1 and 4 and the 1st respondent who was in the course of employment under the 2nd respondent at the material time of accident and the said vehicle is insured with the 3rd respondent at the material time of accident and the 4th respondent is -5- owner cum driver of the said tractor and trailor bearing AP 03 BU 5671 & AP 03 BU 5672. Hence, all the respondents are jointly and severally liable to pay the compensation.

3.The 1st respondent filed counter denying the material averments mentioned in the petition and further contended that the police did not investigate the matter properly and due to the influence of the petitioner and others, got registered the case. The injuries of petitioner is cured and attending her normal duties. The claim is excessive. The 1st respondent is having insured with 3rd respondent, as such, 1st respondent is not liable to pay compensation. Hence, prays the Tribunal to dismiss the petition.

4.The 3rd respondent/ insurance company filed written-statement denying the material averments mentioned in the petition and further contended that the accident took place not due to rash and negligent driving of the 1st respondent. There is negligent on the part of the husband of the 1st petitioner and the tractor driver caused the accident. There is no negligence on the part of the driver of the lorry. The driver of the lorry and owner was unnecessarily added. The petitioner sustained injuries on the fault of her husband’s wrong only. The compensation is high and excessive. There is no policy as on the date of accident and there is no subsequent policy for the lorry, the 3rd respondent is not liable to pay the compensation. There is delay in filing the present petition, as such, it is doubtful about the involvement of the lorry.

Hence, the petitioner is not entitled for compensation. There are no merits in the petition. Hence, prays the Court to dismiss the petition.

5.The 4th respondent/ driver-cum-owner of the tractor filed written- statement denying the material averments mentioned in the petition and further contended that by observing the zig-zag riding of the two wheeler by the husband of the petitioner, the 4th respondent slowed down the vehicle.

Infact the accident was occurred solely due to the rash driving of the lorry -6- driver only. The 4th respondent is not a necessary party to the proceedings.

The claim is excessive and exorbitant. There are no merits in the petition.

Hence, prays the Tribunal to dismiss the petition.

6.Basing on the above pleadings, following issues were settled for trial:-

1. Whether the accident was occurred due to the rash and negligent driving of the lorry bearing No.AP04-TX-8310 and tractor-cum-trailer bearing No.AP03-BU-5671 and AP03-BU-5672 by its drivers i.e., respondents 1 and 4?

2. Whether the accident took place because of the rash and negligent driving of the husband of the petitioner

in driving the motorcycle bearing No.AP03-CU-9832?

3. Whether there is no insurance in policy for that lorry bearing No.AP04-TX-8310?

4. Whether this claim of the petitioner is just and reasonable?

5. Whether there is a cause of action to file this petition?

6. Whether the petitioner is entitled to claim compensation as prayed for?

7. To what relief?

7.During the course of trial, on behalf of the petitioner, the petitioner herself was examined as PW1 and marked Exs.A1 to A9. Further examined

Pws.2 to 4 and through PW4, Ex.X1 is marked.

On behalf of the contesting respondents, none were examined, Ex.B1 policy copy was marked through memo.

8.Heard both sides. The counsel for petitioner filed written-arguments.

Perused the material on record, including the contents of the written- arguments filed on behalf of the petitioner.

9.Issues 1 and 2:- It is the case of the petitioners that on 27-04-2019 at about 7.00 p.m., the petitioner and her deceased husband B.Thimma Reddy after completion of their work in their fields, were proceeding in the Motor -7-

Cycle AP 03 CU 9832 driven by her husband and petitioner as pillion rider, going on the left side margin of the road slowly, cautiously towards their village while they reached on Gurramkonda - Tharigonda Road near

Venkateswara Swamy temple, at that time the 1st respondent drove the lorry bearing No. AP 04 TX 8310 came from Tharigonda to Gurramkonda side in a rash and negligent manner with high speed and without observing road rules dashed against the opposite coming Motor cycle of the petitioner, as a result of which the riders B.Thimma Reddy and the Pillion rider/ petitioner fell down from the Motor cycle on the road and sustained multiple grevious severe bleeding injuries on their bodies and in the mean time, the driver of the Tractor and trailor bearing AP 03 BU 5671 & AP 03 BU 5672 came from

Gurramkonda to Tharigonda side in a rash and negligent manner without observing road rules and passed on the deceased B.Thimma Reddy right leg and caused bleeding injury and died on the spot due to the injuries sustained in the above said accident. The said accident was occurred only due to the rash and negligent driving of the lorry bearing No. AP 04 TX 8310 and Tractor and Trailor bearing AP 03 BU 5671 & AP 03 BU 5672 by its drivers i.e, respondents 1 and 4 respectively.

10.To prove the above contention, the petitioner herself was examined as

PW1. In her chief-affidavit, PW1 once-again reiterated the petition averments.

Through her Exs.A1 to A9 were marked. Of them, Exs.A1 and A3 i.e., certified copy of FIR and charge-sheet are the crucial document to decide the present issue.

During her cross-examination on behalf of the 3rd respondent, PW1 deposed that there is one Lord Venkateswara swamy temple is adjacent to their mango garden. PW1 admitted that after crossing the said temple, they reached to main road of Tharigonda- Gurramkonda road. She denied the suggestion that as per the rough sketch without observing the traffic and offending lorry, her deceased husband drove the motor cycle rash and negligent manner and turned right side of the road and hit the lorry and -8- caused the accident. PW1 admitted that after the accident, her deceased husband is alive, meanwhile offending tractor came from Gurramkonda side and passed on right side leg of the deceased / Thimma Reddy, as a result, instant death caused to my husband. PW1 denied the suggestion that the accident was occurred due to her husband’s rash and negligence only.

During the course of cross-examination on behalf of the 4th respondent,

PW1 denied the suggestion that the place of accident is a single road, as such, it is not possible to drove the vehicle by 4th respondent in a rash and negligent manner, as such, the 4th respondent is not liable to pay the compensation. As per her knowledge and observation, the accident occurred due to rash and negligence driving of the driver of the lorry/ 1st respondent.

PW1 admitted that her deceased husband had a valid driving license, but she did not file the same before the Court. She denied the suggestion that they influenced the police and got registered the present case against the 4th respondent.

11.On careful reading of the evidence given by PW1 during her cross- examination, it goes to show that at the time of accident, PW1 traveled as pillion rider and the rider of the motorcycle is her deceased husband. PW1 denied the crucial suggestions put-forth by the contesting respondents with regard to the manner of accident. It is the clear version of PW1 that after hitting of the offending lorry, her husband sustained injury and alive and in the meantime, again the tractor came and ran over the right side leg of her deceased husband, as such, the deceased died and she sustained grievous injuries.

12.To rebut, the above piece of evidence, the competent persons are the 1st respondent and 4th respondent herein, who are the driver of the lorry and owner and driver of the tractor, respectively. But, they did not step into the witness box to depose contra. Mere filing of written-statement denying the -9- case of the petitioners/ claimants does not suffice to hold that the accident was not occurred due to their negligence.

13.The crucial documents are Exs.A1 and A3. As seen from Ex.A1 First

Information Report, the Police, Gurramkonda, registered the FIR against the respondents 1 and 4 herein. As seen from Ex.A4 charge sheet, it goes to show that after thorough investigation, the investigating officer had laid the charge-sheet stating that due to the rash and negligence of the respondents 1 and 4 only, the accident was occurred and deceased succumbed to the injuries received thereon and the petitioner received the injuries. Suppose, if really, the accident was not occurred due to the rashness and negligence on the part of the 1st respondent and 4th respondent, they ought to have step into the witness box to depose contra to the version of PW1. But, they did not do so. The record goes to show that neither 1st respondent, nor 4th respondent challenged the findings of the investigating officer stating that the accident was occurred not due to their negligence. So, the contents of FIR and charge- sheet goes unchallenged.

14.Coming to the specific over-acts of the respondents 1 and 4, the material on record i.e., the contents of the charge-sheet under Ex.A4 goes to show that initially, the 1st respondent being the driver of the lorry hit the motorcycle of the deceased and when the deceased and petitioner fell down on the road, the 4th respondent being the driver of the tractor, ran over the right side leg of the deceased, as such, the deceased died and the petitioner sustained injuries. So, if the 1st respondent would be vigilant enough while driving his lorry, the accident could be averted. Similarly, the 4th respondent being the driver of the tractor could be in a position to control his vehicle on noticing a person lying on the road after the prior accident. But, that does not happened. So, this Tribunal would like to fix the contributory negligence on the part of the 1st respondent and 4th respondent in the ratio of 80:20 respectively -10- (80% negligence on the part of the 1st respondent and 20% negligence on the part of the 4th respondent).

15.In a citation in between Suman and others, V. Somveer and others, reported in 2017 ACJ 1654 of the Hon’ble High Court of Punjab and

Haryana Chandigarh (FAO Nos.9080 and 9772 of 2014 (O&M), decided on

27.4.2016, wherein it was held that:- (Para-16) “It is settled principle of law that the proceedings

before the Tribunal are in the nature of summary inquiry. In a

criminal case the rule is to prove the case beyond shadow of reasonable doubt but in civil cases on the basis of preponderance of probabilities. If there is some evidence before the criminal court regarding the involvement of the vehicle and the negligence of its driver, it is not appropriate to non-suit the claimants simply on the basis of doubt or suspicion”.

Hon’ble Supreme Court in Bimla Devi V. Himachal Road

Trans. Corpn., 2009 ACJ 1725 (SC), has laid down as under: “(15) In a situation of this nature, the Tribunal has rightly taken a holistic view of the matter. It was necessary to be borne in mind that strict proof of an accident caused by a particular bus in a particular manner may not be possible to be done by the claimants. The claimants were merely to establish their case on the touchstone of preponderance of probability. The standard of proof beyond reasonable doubt could not have been applied”.

16.In view of my above discussion, I am of the opinion that the material on record goes to show that in occurrence of accident, there is contributory negligence on the part of 1st respondent, as-well-as, 4th respondent being the drivers of the lorry and tractor, respectively and the ratio of contributory negligence is 80:20 and that there is no negligence on the part of the rider of the motorcycle in which the petitioner was traveled as pillion rider.Accordingly, issues 1 and 2 are answered.

-11-

17.Issues 3 to 5:- According to the petitioner, after the accident, she was shifted to Government Hospital, Madanapalle through 108 Ambulance after first aid she was referred to Higher Institution for expert treatment for the injuries sustained by the petitioner. She received injuries in the above accident as follows:-

1) Hypothroidism. 2) Post Traumatic right Hemo Pneumothorax involving 1st to 10th Latral Rib fractures 3) Right Tibia - Fibula Distal 1/3rd

Fracture with puncture wound 4) Left Ulnar Distal 1/3rd Fracture 5) Hair Line fracture of left Fibula 6) Right Mandible Fracture 7) Head Injury and other injuries all over the body.

On the same day she was admitted to Ravi Neuro & Emergency

Hospital, Tirupati under Ward: ICU/D-2 as inpatient on 27-04-2019. The petitioner underwent CT brain, CT Chest, X-rays Chest, left form arm, right leg and left leg & Orthopedic consultation with would irrigation - splint (POP) application to right leg, dorsal splint applied to left upper limb, below knee slab to the left leg. Later planed for surgery. Chest physician, general Surgeon consultation taken diagnosed B/L haemo-pneumothorox treated with right side

ICD insertion under local anaesthetia, in sterile condition on 28-04-2019. Later continued on face mask oxygen support, case posted for ILN-Tibia under spinal anaesthetia, DCP left ulnar under branchial plexus block on 1/05/2019 in sterile conditions preoperative, intra operative, postoperatively. The petitioner was stable, uneventful. She gradually veened-off from oxygen support to room air and after blood transfusion, she was discharged on 13-05- 2019 with an observation 1) knee immobilizer for left leg 2) Spirometry 3) Bed rest 4) Foot end elevation 5) Physiotherapy. Still now she is taking treatment periodically from the above hospital for her injuries. She was bedridden and she was depending upon others for her normal avocations. Due to head injury she is getting realign sensation and headache now and then. At present the petitioner was incurred a sum of Rs.4,00,000/- towards hospital, medicine, transport, extra nourishment and other miscellaneous expenses.

-12-

18.To prove the above said fact, the petitioner got examined

PW2/Dr.S.Sudhakar, MD, Practising at Ravi Neuro and Emergency Hospital,

Tirupati. According to PW2 the petitioner was admitted in their hospital on 27.04.2019 with alleged history of RTA and found the following injuries:-

1. Post Traumatic right hemo pneumothorix involving 1 to 10th Rib fractures.

2. Right tibia fibula fracture with puncture wound.

3. Left ulna fracture.

4. Left fibula fracture.

5. Right mandible fracture. Surgical procedures on Right ICD placement done under local anesthesia, right tibia nailing done, plating (DCP) left ulna under brachial plexus block and Below knee slab left lag. Petitioner was discharged on 13.05.2019 with some medical and advise.

During his cross-examination by 3rd respondent, PW2 deposed that some medicines are not available in their hospital, they purchased the medicines outside and the same is mentioned in final bill under Ex.A7. The detail amounts was mentioned in the cash bill and the same is included in the main bill. He denied the suggestion that in order to help the petitioner their hospital was given final bill under Ex.A7 without giving full details and only in order to help the petitioner, he is giving false evidence.

19.This Court has carefully, gone into the evidence given by PW2. The evidence of PW2 clearly goes to show that the petitioner sustained injuries by virtue of road accident. Except attacking the bills under Ex.A7, the contesting 3rd respondent did not venture to deny the nature of the injuries sustained by the petitioner in the alleged road traffic accident.

20.As seen from Ex.A2/ wound certificate issued by the CAS, District

Hospital, Madanapalle, the petitioner has sustained as-many-as 5 injuries and all the noted injuries are grievous in nature. This Tribunal has already observed that the sustaining of injuries by the petitioner in the accident and underwent surgical procedure as deposed by PW2, is not in dispute.

-13-

Therefore, awarding a sum of Rs.40,000/- for each of the grievous injuries (5 grievous injuries) would meet the ends of justice. To sum up to this extent, petitioner is entitled to a sum of Rs.2,00,000/- towards compensation under the head grievous injuries.

21.Further, this Tribunal is of considered opinion that pain is a mental feeling, which cannot be compensated in terms of money, but, ultimately, petitioner has to be compensated for the pain and suffering during the period of treatment. As could be seen from the evidence of PW2/Doctor, the petitioner underwent four surgical procedures. As already stated above, the sustaining of injuries by the petitioner in the accident, is not in dispute.

Therefore, considering the nature of the injuries and surgeris underwent for the said injuries, this Tribunal is of considered opinion that granting of a sum of Rs.50,000/- to the petitioner under the head of pain and suffering would meet the ends of justice. Hence, granting the same.

22.It is the case of the petitioner that she incurred a sum of Rs.4,00,000/- towards hospital, medicine, transport, extra nourishment and other miscellaneous expenses.

23.To prove the factum of incurring the medical expenditure as pleaded, the petitioner got exhibited Ex.A7 final hospital bill. According to PW2/ Doctor,

Ex.A7 bill is the final bill. On perusal of Ex.A7 bill, it goes to show that it was issued by Ravi Neuro and Emergency Hospital, Tirupati, under the caption “FINAL BILL AND ESSENTIALITY CERTIFICATE” in the name of

B.Gopamma (petitioner herein). According to Ex.A7, the total amount that was spent by the petitioner towards all kinds of treatment (Doctor & Bed Charges, pharmacy, lab and scan etc) in the said hospital is Rs.2,66,267/-. As already observed, though the 3rd respondent attacked the medical bill under Ex.A7, but could elicit any contra evidence to disprove the taking treatment by the petitioner in the said hospital. Therefore, this Tribunal is inclined to grant a sum of Rs.2,66,267/- as compensation towards the medical expenditure.

-14-

24.Further, it is the contention of the petitioner that prior to the accident, the petitioner was hale and healthy and the petitioner was running Mini Dairy

Form by maintaining 10 milchy cows in her village and supplying milk to

Hutsun Agro Products, Puthalapattu, Chittoor District Center Code 210345 and earning monthly Rs.20,000/- to Rs.25,0000/- prior to the accident. Due to the above injuries she is unable to maintain the Dairy Form and sold away all the milchy cows. Due to that she lost entire income from the Dairy.

25.To prove the above said income, the petitioner got examined

PW4/T.Shaikshavali Babu, Branch Manager, Tarigonda Branch, Madanapalle.

PW4 in his chief-examination-affidavit deposed that he received summons from the Court to give evidence. Ex.X1 is the statement of account pertaining to the petitioner from 04.06.2018 to 04.06.2019.

In his cross-examination on behalf of the 3rd respondent, PW4 deposed that the amount was credited from Hutsun Agro products, but he does not know for which purpose the amount was credited into her (petitioner’s) account. At present, no amount was credited in the account of the petitioner from Hutsun Agro products. He denied the suggestion that petitioner did not supply any milk to Hutsun Agro products.

26.This Tribunal has carefully gone into Ex.X1 bank statement. On such perusal of Ex.X1/bank statement of the petitioner, it goes to show that on 13.06.2018, 25.06.2018 and on several other dates, various amounts ranging in between Rs.6,896/- to Rs.4,805/- were credited by way of Voucher TFR from Hatsun Agro Products. In the present case, the accident was occurred on 27.04.2019. So, at the relevant month of accident, i.e., in the month of

April, 2019, a sum of Rs.7,510/- was credited into the petitioner’s account by way of voucher TFR from Hatsun Agro products. So, all these goes to show that the petitioner prior to accident, used to earn some amount by way of supplying milk to the Hatsun Agro products. The credit of amounts are varies -15- from every 7 to 10 days. According to the petitioner, she used to earn

Rs.20,000/- to Rs.25,000/- per month. But, Ex.X1 reveals that the amount varies from week to week, hence, this Tribunal is inclined to fix the notional income of the petitioner at Rs.20,000/- per month for computation purpose, which would meets the ends of justice, which comes to Rs.2,40,000/- annually.

27.As seen from Ex.A2 wound-certificate, the age of the petitioner as on the date of accident was shown as ‘60’ years. Where-as, in the petition, the age of the petitioner was shown as ‘59’ years as on the date of accident. So, relying on Ex.A2 wound-certificate, this Tribunal would like to take the age of the petitioner at the time of accident as ‘60’ years.

28.It is the contention of the petitioner that due to the sustaining of injuries by her in the accident, she was permanently disabled person and the disability was assessed at 26%.

29.To prove the disability, petitioner has examined PW3/Dr.B.Hemakumar

Reddy, who issued the disability certificate under Ex.A9. PW3 in his chief- examination deposed that he examined the petitioner assessed the disability of the petitioner at 26% and petitioner is suffering with pain and walking with limb.

During the cross-examination of 3rd respondent, PW3 denied that Ex.A9 does not show the particulars of movements of the disability of limbs functioning and that there are no assessment details to arrive the disability.

PW3 further denied the suggestion that he has issued Ex.A9 disability certificate to help the petitioner without any basis or any authorization.

30.At-this-juncture, this Court would like to rely on the decision of the

Hon’ble Madras High Court in between New India Insurance Co., Ltd.,

Mettupalayam, Coimbatore District v. C.K.Ramesh and others, reported in 2010 (1) An.W.R.618 (Madras), wherein while deciding the said claim, the -16-

Hon’ble High Court of Madras placed reliance upon a Division Bench decision

of the same High Court rendered in United India Insurance Co., Ltd.,

Veluchamy and another reported in 2005 (1) TN MAC 87 (DB) and reiterated the principles formulated after analyzing the circumstances of the case while deciding the permanent disability, where the injured received grievous injuries.

For better understanding, this Tribunal would like to extract para No.11 of the

Division Bench decision:- “11. The following principles emerge from the above discussion: -

1. In all case of injury or permanent disablement “ multiplier method” cannot be mechanically applied to ascertain the future loss of income or earning power.

2. It depends upon various factors such as nature and extent of disablement, avocation of the injured and whether it would affect his employment or earning power etc., and if so, to what extent?

3. (1) If there is categorical evidence that because of the injury and consequential disability, the injured lost his employment or avocation completely and has to be idle till the rest of his life, in that event loss of income or earning may be ascertained by applying “ multiplier method” as provided under Second Schedule to Motor Vehicles Act, 1988. (2) Even if so there is no need to adopt the same period as that of fatal cases as provided under the Schedule. If there is no amputation and if there is evidence to show that there is likelihood of reduction or improvement in future years, lesser period may be adopted for ascertainment of loss of income.

Mainly it depends upon the avocation or profession or nature of employment being attended by the injured at the time of accident.”

So, by virtue of the above principles enumerated by the Division Bench of Hon’ble Madras High Court, it is very clear that in all cases of injury or permanent disablement “multiplier method” cannot be mechanically applied to ascertain the future loss of income or earning power. Therefore, this Tribunal -17- would like to re-asses whether the petitioner sustained disabilityto the extent of 26%, or, not?

31.On careful perusal of Ex.A9 disability certificate, it goes to show that it was issued under the letter head of PW3/Dr.B.Hema Kumar Reddy. So, it is clear that Ex.A9 disability certificate was issued under personal capacity. But, not issued by the Medical Board concerned. However, in the instant case, as seen from the material on record, the occurrence of accident and sustaining of injuries and underwent of surgeries by the petitioner is not in dispute. It is the settled principle that “ in MVOP cases the Tribunals/Court has a duty,

irrespective of the amount claimed, to award a just, equitable, fair and

reasonable compensation”. By virtue of sustaining of injuries and underwent of surgeries, the petitioner might be prevented from doing all regular activities freely as like a normal person prior to the accident, as such, this Tribunal is inclined to take the disability of petitioner at 15%, which is just and proper.

32.Therefore, to compute the loss of earnings, the annual income is

Rs.2,40,000/-. The age of the petitioner was taken as 60 years. The disability was taken as 15%. As per the “Sarla Verma’s case”, the appropriate multiplier for the age group between 56 to 60 is “9”. So, the loss of income on account of the disability of the petitioner can be assessed at

Rs.2,40,000/- x 9 x 15/100 = Rs.3,24,000/-.

33.Apart-from this, petitioner is also entitled for a sum of Rs.10,000/- towards extra-nourishment; and Rs.10,000/- towards attendant charges.

Thus, in all, the petitioner is entitled to the following amounts:-

Sl.No Head Compensation

amount

1.Compensation for injuries:-Rs.2,00,000/- Rs.40,000/- each for five grievous injuries

2.Compensation towards pain and Rs.50,000/- suffering.

3.Medical expenditureRs.2,66,267/- -18-

4.Compensation towards loss of income on Rs.3,24,000/- account of disability.

5.Extra-nourishmentRs.10,000/-

6.Attendant chargesRs.10,000/-

Total: -Rs.8,60,267/-

Rounded-off to Rs.8,60,300/-

34.It is the contention of the 3rd respondent that there is no policy as on the date of the accident and there is no subsequent policy to the lorry bearing

No.AP04-TX-8310, as such, the 3rd respondent is not liable to pay the compensation.

This Tribunal has carefully gone into Ex.B1 policy. Ex.B1 goes to show that it was issued by the 3rd respondent herein in the name of 2nd respondent/ owner of the lorry bearing No.AP04 TX-8310 valid from 07.10.2018 to 06.10.2019. The accident was occurred in the present case on 27.04.2019.

So, the Ex.B1 policy issued by the 3rd respondent in favour of the 2nd respondent is validly covered the insurance of the offending-lorry. Hence, the contention of the 3rd respondent hat there is no policy as on the date of accident is not tenable.

35.Ex.B1 policy-copy further goes to show that it was issued by the 3rd respondent/ Insurance Company, in the name of the 2nd respondent, who is the owner of the offending-lorry, which is validly covering the insurance of the offending lorry as on the date of accident, as observed supra.It is not in dispute that the driver/ 1st respondent of the offending-lorry, drove the vehicle in a rash and negligent manner and caused the accident, while working under the 2nd respondent/owner. Similarly, the 4th respondent being the driver-cum- owner of the tractor also caused the accident. This Tribunal in the issue No.1 already decided the ratio towards the rashness and negligence in causing the accident on the part of the respondents 1 and 4 at 80:20. So, for the acts committed by the 1st respondent/ driver, the 2nd respondent being the owner -19- and 3rd respondent being the insurance company is vicariously held liable to pay the compensation. Similarly, the 4th respondent has also held liable personally, to pay the compensation in the ratio fixed, because, his vehicle was not insured with any insurance company.

36.As per the decision of theHonourable Supreme Court of Indiain Jaik

Hussein v. Sabir and others 1 held that:- “As regards the rate of interest to be awarded on the compensation awarded in this appeal, we are of the view that the Tribunal and High Court have erred in granting interest at only 07% p.a. and 08% p.a. respectively on the total compensation amount instead of 09% by applying the decision of this Court in Municipal Corporation of Delhi v. Association of Victims of Uphaar Tragedy (2011) 14 SC 481 = AIR 2012 SC 100. Accordingly, we award the interest @ 09% p.a. on the compensation determined in the present appeal.”

Accordingly, issues 3 to 6 are answered

37.Issue No.7:- In the result, petition is allowed, in part, with proportionate costs by granting the following reliefs:-

1. Petitioner is entitled for a total compensation of Rs.8,60,300/-

2. Petitioner is entitled for interest @ 9% per annum on the amount awarded from the date of presentation of the petition i.e., 11.07.2019, to till the date of realization.

3. The respondents 1 to 3 on one hand and the 4th respondent alone on another hand, have to pay the compensation at the ratio of 80:20 i.e., 80% of the compensation have to be paid by the respondents 1 to 3 and 20% of the compensation has to be paid by the 4th respondent alone.

4. Considering the age of the petitioner and the nature of the injuries sustained and surgeries underwent for the said injuries, on such deposit, petitioner/ injured is permitted to withdraw 50% of the compensation amount with accrued interest thereon and entire 1 2015(3) ALD 115 (SC) -20- costs and the remaining balance shall be kept in Fixed Deposit in any Nationalized Bank, for a period of two years.

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

6. Time granted for deposit of amount is 30 days from the date of award.

7. Petitioner is directed to furnish photocopies of her bank account pass-book, PAN card and Aadhar Card to 3rd respondent and on such furnishing the documents by petitioner, 3rd respondent is directed to deposit the compensation amount at the ratio fixed, by following the procedure as prescribed by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in “Bajaj Allianz General Insurance Company Pvt., Ltd., vs. Union of India & Ors.,” in Writ Petition(s) (Civil) No(s) 534 of 2020, in the bank account of this Tribunal bearing-No.40730207451, State Bank of India, Chittoor Main Branch, as per the date fixed, by following the circular issued to all the insurance companies and corporations by this Tribunal dated 27.01.2022.

8. If the petitioner is not furnished copies of her bank account pass- book, PAN card and Aadhar card etc., within reasonable time, 3rd respondent is directed to deposit the amount by deducting TDS as per rules without waiting for furnishing of the documents as per the time fixed by this Tribunal.

Typed to my dictation by the Stenographer, corrected and pronounced by me in open-Court, this the 10th day of April, 2025.

Sd/-E.Bhima Rao.

Chairman,

Principal Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal -

cum-Principal District Judge, Chittoor.

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

WITNESSES EXAMINED

FOR PETITIONER:

PW-1: B.Gopamma @ Gopemma (Petitioner). PW-2: Dr.S.Sudhakar (Doctor). PW-3: Dr.B.Hema Kumar Reddy (Doctor). PW-4: T.Shaikshavali Babu (Branch Manager, Saptagiri Grameena Bank, Tarigonda Banch).

-21-

FOR RESPONDENTS:

NIL

DOCUMENTS MARKED

FOR PETITIONER

Ex.A1Certified copy of FIR. Ex.A2Certified copy of wound-certificate. Ex.A3Certified copy of charge-sheet. Ex.A4Certified copy of MVI report. Ex.A5Discharge summary. Ex.A6Emergency certificate. Ex.A7Final hospital bill for Rs.2,66,267/-. Ex.A8Statement of accounts of the petitioner issued by Saptagiri Grameena Bank, Tarigonda Branch. Ex.A9Permanent disability certificate.

Ex.X1Statement of account of the petitioner from 04.06.2018 to 04.06.2019.

FOR RESPONDENTS:

Ex.B1 – Policy copy.

Sd/-E.Bhima Rao.

Chairman,

Principal Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal -

cum-Principal District Judge, Chittoor.

: 1 ::

BEFORE THE MOTOR ACCIDENTS CLAIMS TRIBUNAL-CUM-

PRINCIPAL DISTRICT JUDGE: CHITTOOR.

Present:E.BHIMA RAO, Chairman, Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal -cum-Principal District Judge, Chittoor.

Friday, the Eleventh (11th) day of April, 2025

M.V.O.P.No.388 of 2023

Between:-

P.Vijaya @ Vijayalakshmi. …Petitioner.

And :-

1.G.Annamalai @ Annadurai (Driver of Milk Tanker Lorry bearing Reg.No.TN-05-CJ-2367)

2.Sri Rangam Milk Products Private Limited, represented by its Manager, having office at Ground Floor, 5, second street, Sri Ayyappa Nagar, Kolathur Chennai, Tamilnadu, owner of the Milk Tanker Lorry bearing Reg.No.TN-05- CJ-2367

3.M/s The New India Assurance Co., Ltd., represented by its Branch Manager, Chittoor having its office situated at Prakasam High

... Respondents

Road, Opp. to District Court, Chittoor.

This petition is coming on 04.03.2025 for final hearing before me in the presence of Sri T.Balaji, Advocate for the petitioner and of Sri V.Jayakumar, Advocate for Respondents 1 and 2 and of Sri N.Dwarakanadha Reddy, Advocate for 3rd respondent; and upon perusing the material available on record, and upon hearing arguments of both sides, and the matter having stood over for consideration till this day, the Court made the following:-

A W A R D :: ::

1.This is a claim petition filed by the petitioner, under section 166(1)(a) of

M.V.Act claiming compensation of Rs.15,00,000/- against the respondents for the injuries sustained by her in a motor vehicle accident that occurred on

: 2 ::

03.05.2023 at about 9:00 A.M, opposite to Saravana Bakery, G.D. Nellore

Town and Mandal on Chittoor - Puttur Road.

2.The brief averments mentioned in the petition are as follows:-

(a) On 03.05.2023 the petitioner was unwell, for which, she and her husband started from their house to go to Hospital at Chittoor in a TVS XL

Super Motor Cycle bearing Reg. No.AP-03-AC-4933, in which, the petitioner was pillion rider and her husband was rider and while they were proceeding towards Chittoor side very slowly and cautiously on the left side of the road and when they reached opposite to Saravana Bakery, G.D. Nellore Town and

Mandal, Chittoor District on Chittoor-Puttur at about 9:00 A.M., at that time the 1st respondent being the driver of Milk Tanker Lorry bearing Reg.No.TN-05-

CJ-2367 drove the same in a rash and negligent manner and dashed on the back side of the petitioner's motor cycle, as a result of which, the petitioner and her husband fell down on the road, and the petitioner sustained crush injury on her left leg ankle and received injuries all over the body.

Immediately, after the accident, the petitioner was shifted to Government

Hospital, Chittoor, from there, she was shifted to Elite Hospital, Tirupati and she was inpatient for a period of 9 days i.e., from 03.05.2023 ton 11.05.2023 and an operation was conducted on 03.05.2023 under SA, Debridement done,

Heel Pad avulsed with lateral, medical of foot skin loss. On 05.05.2023 under

SA Debridement of necrosed up to distal foot lateral and medical aspect loss.

Reverse sural artery flap cover and skin grafting done. Flap+SSG take good.

Sole in the distal central part discolored. Subsequently she is taking follow up treatment as outpatient in the same hospital and spent more than

Rs.2,00,000/- towards medicines and treatment as in-patient and out-patient and till today the petitioner is undergoing treatment and also spent

Rs.14,000/- towards transportation charges. The accident was occurred due to rash negligent driving of the driver of Milk Tanker Lorry bearing Reg.No.TN- 05-CJ-2367 only.

: 3 ::

(b) The petitioner further pleaded that basing on the complaint given by her husband, the G.D.Nellore Police registered a case in crime No.65 of 2023 for the offence under section 338 IPC., against the 1st respondent and after due investigation, they laid charge sheet against the 1st respondent before the

V Additional Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Chittoor and the same was registered as C.C.No. C.C.No.892 of 2023 and pending for adjudication.

(c) The petitioner further pleaded that she was aged about 50 years by the date of accident, she was hale and healthy prior to the accident and doing coolie work and earning Rs.800/- per day and contributing the same to her family members. Due to the accident she lost her earning capacity.

(d) The 1st respondent being the driver, who caused the accident, the 2nd respondent is the owner of offending milk lorry, who insured the offending vehicle with the 3rd respondent and the 3rd respondent being the insurer of

Milk Tanker Lorry bearing Reg.No.TN-05-CJ-2367, all are jointly and severally liable to pay the compensation of Rs.15,00,000/- as claimed by the petitioner.

Hence, the petition.

3.The 2nd respondent filed its written statement by denying the averments mentioned in the petition. The 2nd respondent put the petitioner to strict proof of the accident. The 2nd respondent pleaded that there is no negligence on the part of the 1st respondent and the police registered case basing on the influence made by the petitioner. The petitioner took treatment under Arogya

Sree scheme, as such, the petitioner is not entitled to get any claim. The petitioner did not loss her earning capacity due to the injury. The offending vehicle is insured with the 3rd respondent, as such, the 3rd respondent alone is liable to pay compensation, if any, awarded to the petitioner. The claim of the petitioner is very excessive and exorbitant. Therefore, prays to dismiss the petition.

4.The 1st respondent adopted the written statement filed by the 2nd respondent.

: 4 ::

5.The 3rd respondent filed its written statement by denying the averments mentioned in the petition. The 3rd respondent put the petitioner to strict proof of the accident. The 3rd respondent pleaded that the 1st respondent drove lorry slowly and cautiously observing the traffic rules, but the husband of the petitioner being the rider of the TVS drove the TVS in a rash and negligent manner without taking due care and caution suddenly came into contact with the vehicle of the 2nd respondent and he is responsible for the accident, actually there was no rash and negligent driving on the part of the 1st respondent. Therefore, this respondent is not liable to pay any compensation.

The 3rd respondent pleaded that the petitioner sustained only simple injuries and further in the wound certificate it is mentioned as crush injury of Right

Foot with heel pad avulsion. But as per the claim petition a crush injury is on her left leg ankle and in fact there is no injury to the right foot to the petitioner.

The liability of this respondent shall be limited to the terms and conditions of the policy, subject to the validity of the R.C., driving licence and permit and other vehicle documents. The claim made by the petitioner is vague and is not based on any material data and therefore, prayed to dismiss the petition.

6.Basing on the above pleadings, the following issues were settled for trial:-

1. Whether the accident was occurred on 03.05.2023 at about 9:00 a.m, opposite to Saravana Bakery, G.D.Nellore town on Chittoor – Puttur road due to rash and negligent driving of milk tanker lorry bearing Reg.No.TN-05-CJ-2367 by 1 st respondent belongs to 2 nd respondent?

2. Whether the petitioner sustained injuries as a result of accident?

3. Whether the petitioner is entitled for compensation, if so, to what amount and from whom?

4. To what relief?

: 5 ::

7.To prove the claim of the petitioner, the petitioner examined Pws.1 to 5 and got marked Exs.A.1 to A.17 and Exs.X.1 to X.6. The respondents did not adduce any oral or documentary evidence.

8.Heard both sides and perused the material available on record.

9.Issues 1 and 2: -

As the findings on each of the above issues are interlinked with each other, it is desirable and convenient to discuss and decide these issues jointly.

10. It is the case of the petitioner that on 03.05.2023 the petitioner was unwell, for which, she and her husband started from their house to go to

Hospital at Chittoor in a TVS XL Super Motor Cycle bearing Reg. No.AP-03-

AC-4933, in which, the petitioner was pillion rider and her husband was rider and while they were proceeding towards Chittoor side very slowly and cautiously on the left side of the road and when they reached opposite to

Saravana Bakery, G.D. Nellore Town and Mandal, Chittoor District on

Chittoor-Puttur at about 9:00 A.M., at that time the 1st respondent being the driver of Milk Tanker Lorry bearing Reg.No.TN-05-CJ-2367 drove the same in a rash and negligent manner and dashed on the back side of the petitioner's motor cycle, as a result of which, the petitioner and her husband fell down on the road, and the petitioner sustained crush injury on her left leg ankle and received injuries all over the body. The accident was occurred due to rash negligent driving of the driver Milk Tanker Lorry bearing Reg.No.TN-05-CJ- 2367 only.

11.In order to prove the case of the petitioner, the petitioner examined

PWs.1 to 5 and got marked Exs.A.1 to A.17 and Exs.X.1 to X.6. Out of them, the evidence of PW.1 and Exs.A.1 to A.3 and Ex.X.1 are relevant to decide these issues. PW.1 is the petitioner, she filed her chief-affidavit in lieu of her chief-examination by reiterating the averments mentioned in the petition, and she clearly and categorically stated about the manner of accident in her chief- affidavit that the 1st respondent being the driver of Milk Tanker Lorry bearing

: 6 ::

Reg.No.TN-05-CJ-2367 is responsible for the accident. Through him, Exs.A.1 to A.17 are marked. Ex.A.1 is the certified copy of F.I.R. in Cr.No.65 of 2023 of G.D. Nellore Police station. Ex.A.2 is the certified copy of Charge-sheet in

C.C.No.892 of 2023 on file of V Additional Judicial Magistrate of First Class,

Chittoor. Ex.A.3 is the certified copy of Wound Certificate issued by

Government Hospital, Chittoor. Ex.A.4 is the Outpatient card dated 03.05.2023 issued by District Head Quarters Hospital, Chittoor. Ex.A.5 is the

Radiograph Film issued by Elite Hospital, Tirupati dated 03.05.2023. Ex.A.6 is the Discharge summary issued Elite Hospital, Tirupati. Ex.A.7 is the Bunch of prescriptions issued by Elite Multi Speciality Hospital, Tirupati during the period of In-Patient i.e., from 03.05.2023 to 11.05.2023. Ex.A.8 is the Bunch of medical bills for a sum of Rs.45,495/- issued by Elite Multi Speciality

Hospital, Tirupathi during the period of In-Patient i.e., from 03.05.2023 to 11.05.2023. Ex.A.9 Transport bills for a sum of Rs.14,000/- issued by Jaya

Durga Tours and travels, Tirupati. Ex.A.10 is the bunch of prescriptions issued by Elite Multi Speciality Hospital, Tirupathi during the period of In-Patient i.e., from 15.05.2023 to 03.07.2023. Ex.A.11 is the Bunch of medical bills for a sum of Rs. 27,865/- issued by Elite Multi Speciality Hospital, Tirupathi during the period of Out-Patient i.e.. from 15.05.2023 to 03.07.2023. Ex.A12 is the

Receipts issued by NTR Memorial Trust Blood Centre, Tirupathi for a sum of

Rs.3,600/- for purchase of blood. Ex.A.13 is the In-Patient Final Bill for a sum of Rs.1,05,000/- issued by Elite Multi Speciality Hospital, Tirupati during the period 03.05.2023 to 11.05.2023. Ex.A.14 is the Certificate for person with disability issued by Medical Board, PHC Gangadhara Nellore. Ex.A.15 is the certified copy of Driving license of 1st respondent. Ex.A.16 is the certified copy of R.C. of the crime vehicle i.e., Lorry bearing registration NO.TN-05-CJ-2367.

Ex.A.17 is the C.C. of Insurance policy of the crime vehicle valid from 04.07.2022 to 03.07.2023. During her cross-examination, she deposed that she sustained injuries on her left foot, but the informed her that witdhout proper knowledge issued Ex.A.3. She voluntarily deposed that by mistake the doctor mentioned in Ex.A.3 wound certificate that crush injury of right foot.

: 7 ::

12.In order to disprove the case of the petitioner and in order to prove the case of the respondents, the respondents did not examine any person. To rebut the oral evidence adduced by the petitioner before this Tribunal with regard to the manner of accident, the 1st respondent, who is the driver of the offending Milk Tanker Lorry bearing Reg.No.TN-05-CJ-2367 is the competent person, did not enter into witness box. Moreover, even the 2nd respondent did not take any steps to examine the 1st respondent to prove its contention. It is not in dispute that Ex.A.1 First Information Report was registered by the

Station House Officer, G.D.Nellore Police station as a case in crime No.65 of 2023 under section 337 of IPC against the 1st respondent i.e., driver of Milk

Tanker Lorry bearing Reg.No.TN-05-CJ-2367. In Ex.A.1, the petitioner, who gave complaint has specifically stated that 1st respondent being the driver of

Milk Tanker Lorry bearing Reg.No.TN-05-CJ-2367 drove the same in a rash and negligent manner and dashed on the back side of his motor cycle, as a result of which, himself and the petitioner fell down on the road and sustained injuries. Ex.A.2 is the charge-sheet, in which the name of 1st respondent is shown as accused, alleging that the 1st respondent being the driver of Milk

Tanker Lorry bearing Reg.No.TN-05-CJ-2367 drove the same in a rash and negligent manner and dashed the motor cycle of the petitioner, as a result of which, the petitioner fell down and sustained injuries. It shows that the accident occurred due to rash and negligent driving of Milk Tanker Lorry bearing Reg.No.TN-05-CJ-2367 by the 1st respondent. The name of the petitioner is referred in the charge sheet as LW.5. Ex.A.3 is the certified copy of wound certificate of petitioner, and Ex.X.1 is the wound certificate, which goes to show that the petitioner sustained grievous injury.

13.There is no contra evidence on record to disprove the testimony of

PW.1. The evidence of petitioner as PW.1 being the injured-cum-eye-witness, is unchallenged in any manner with regard to the manner of accident. As already observed, the answers elicited by the learned counsel for respondents

: 8 ::

from Pw.1 during her cross-examination are also not in effective manner to deny the case of the petitioner about the manner of accident.

14.Moreover, the respondents 1 and 2 did not deny the accident, but their only contention is that there is no negligence on the part of the 1st respondent.

15.As already discussed above, on perusal of Ex.A.2, the 1st respondent was charge sheeted as a driver of the offending vehicle. The material available on record clearly goes to show that the 1st respondent being the driver of Milk Tanker Lorry bearing Reg.No.TN-05-CJ-2367, drove the same in rash and negligent manner with high speed and dashed the petitioner and caused injuries to him. It is an admitted fact that the police laid charge sheet against the 1st respondent after thorough investigation alleging that due to rash and negligent driving of 1st respondent the accident was happened and the petitioner sustained injuries. Hence, in view of the above facts and circumstances, this Tribunal observed that the respondents cannot escape from their liability. Hence, there is no substance in the contention raised by the learned counsel for the respondents.

16.In view of the above discussion and considering the evidence of Pw.1 coupled with Exs.A.1 to A.3 and Ex.X.1, it can be inferred that the accident was occurred due to rash and negligent driving of the offending vehicle i.e.,

Milk Tanker Lorry bearing Reg.No.TN-05-CJ-2367 by the 1st respondent herein and the petitioner sustained injuries in the said accident. Accordingly, issues 1 and 2 are answered.

17.Issue No.3:

Now coming to the entitlement of compensation by the petitioner, the petitioner claimed an amount of Rs.15,00,000/- in total under the head “General and special Damages” and not specified the heads of compensation

: 9 ::

claimed. However, this Tribunal intends to award compensation under different heads.

18.The petitioner pleaded that due to accident she sustained crush injury to her left foot. In order to prove the said contention, the petitioner relied on her self testimony as PW.1, and the evidence of PW.2 and Ex.A.3 and Ex.X.1.

PW.1 being the petitioner deposed as per the contents mentioned in her petition. Ex.A.3 is the wound certificate. PW.2 deposed that he received summons from the court to give evidence and he brought the Wound

Certificate of the petitioner, in which it is mention the wound as Crush injury of left foot with heel pad avultion. Ex.X.I is Wound Certificate of the petitioner. He further deposed that on 03.05.2023 while he was present in CMO, the petitioner visited their hospital for O.P.D., with history of Road Traffic

Accident. He identified the petitioner, who is present in the court hall. Ex.A.4 is the outpatient ticket drafted by him. He further deposed that he issued Ex.A.3

Wound Certificate, but by mistake and over sight, he mentioned that the petitioner sustained crush Injury of right foot with heel pad avulsion instead of left foot. Ex.A.6 shows that the petitioner took treatment in Elite hospital,

Tirupati from 03.05.2023 to 11.05.2023 as in-patient. Considering the evidence of Pws.1 and 2 and Ex.X.1, this tribunal is of the opinion that the petitioner sustained injury on left foot, but not on right foot. Therefore, this

Tribunal is of considered opinion that the injury mentioned in Ex.X.1 is proved by the petitioner and she is entitled for the compensation for the said injury.

Upon considering the evidence of Pws.1 and 2 coupled with Ex.A.3 and the nature of the injury sustained by the petitioner, this Tribunal is of considered opinion that awarding a sum of Rs.40,000/- for one grievous injury to the petitioner is just and reasonable. Therefore, awarding the same.

19. As per the case of the petitioner, immediately after the accident, she was shifted to the Government hospital Chittoor. Later she was shifted to Elite

Hospital, Tirupati and she was inpatient for a period of 9 days i.e., from 03.05.2023 ton 11.05.2023 and an operation was conducted on 03.05.2023

: 10 ::

under SA, Debridement done, Heel Pad avulsed with lateral, medical of foot skin loss. On 05.05.2023 under SA Debridement of necrosed up to distal foot lateral and medical aspect loss. Reverse sural artery flap cover and skin grafting done. Flap+SSG take good. Sole in the distal central part discolored.

Subsequently she is taking follow up treatment as outpatient in the same hospital and spent more than Rs.2,00,000/- towards medicines and treatment as in-patient and out-patient and till today the petitioner is undergoing treatment. In order to prove the same, the petitioner has relied on her self testimony as PW.1 besides examining Dr.B.Neelakanteswara and Dr.Babu

Rao Ravuri, as Pws.4 and 5 and relied on Exs.A.5 to A.8, A.11 and A.13 and

Exs.X.3 to X.6

20.PW.4 deposed that his Superintendent received summons from the court and he authorized him under Ex.X.2 to give evidence. Accordingly, he brought case sheet and discharge summary of the petitioner. Ex.X.3 is the attested copy of case sheet of the petitioner. Ex.X.4 is the attested copy of discharge summary of the petitioner. He deposed that the petitioner was admitted in their hospital on 03.05.2023 and they conducted two surgeries to the petitioner i.e., on 03.05.2023 for left foot debridement and on 05.05.2023, they conducted another surgery on the left foot debridement. They mentioned patient history sheet i.e., Ex.X.3 that the petitioner sustained left foot avulsion fracture. He further deposed that Exs. A.5 to A.8, A.10, A.11 and A.13 are issued by their hospital.

21.PW.5 is the Plastic surgeon in Elite Hospital, Tirupati. He deposed that he gave treatment to the petitioner since from the date of her admission in their hospital. The petitioner sustained left leg fracture injury. By mistake, he mentioned in the discharge summary i.e., in Ex.A6, the petitioner sustained right leg fracture injury instead of left leg fracture injury. The petitioner admitted in their hospital due to road traffic accident. The medical bills under

Exs.A.11, A.12 and A.13 are issued by their hospital. He has brought

: 11 ::

discharge summary of the petitioner to show that she sustained left leg fracture injury and also case sheet of the petitioner. Ex.X.5 is the discharge summary of the petitioner issued by Elite Hospitals, Tirupati. Ex.X.6 is the case sheet of the petitioner issued by Elite Hospitals, Tirupati. The petitioner unable to attend her daily works due to the injuries sustained by her in the accident. Ex.A.6 shows that the petitioner took treatment in Elite hospital,

Tirupati from 03.05.2023 to 11.05.2023 as in-patient. Ex.A.7 is the prescriptions. Ex.A.8 is the bunch of medical bills for a sum of Rs.45,495/- issued by Elite Hospital, Tirupati. Ex.A.10 is the bunch of prescriptions issued by Elite Hospital, Tirupati. Ex.A.11 is the bunch of medical bills for a sum of

Rs.27,865/- issued by Elite Hospital, Tirupati. Ex.A.12 is the receipts issued by NTR memorial Trust Blood Center, Tirupati for a sum of Rs.3,600/- .

Ex.A.13 is the inpatient final bill for a sum of Rs.1,05,000/- issued by Elite

Hospital, Tirupati. Therefore, it can be said that the petitioner spent an amount of Rs.1,81,960/- under Exs.A.8, A.11, A.12 and A.13. Therefore, the petitioner is entitled to the said amount.

22.The petitioner claiming a sum of Rs.14,000/- towards transportation charges. In order to prove the same, the petitioner has relied on Ex.A.9 cash receipts issued by Jaya Durga Tours and Travels. But the petitioner has not examined the person, who issued Ex.A.9 cash receipts to prove the same. It is an admitted fact that in every bill/cash receipt, there must be GST number.

On perusal of Ex.A.9 cash receipts, there is no mention of GST number.

Admittedly, the petitioner took treatment in Elite Hospital, Tirupati. Considering the treatment taken by the petitioner, awarding an amount of Rs.10,000/- towards transportation charges is just and reasonable. Hence, awarding the same. The petitioner is also awarded a sum of Rs.10,000/- towards attendant charges.

23. The petitioner pleaded that she was hale and healthy prior to the accident and she is working as coolie and earning Rs.800/- per day and contributing the same to her family members. Due to the accident she lost her

: 12 ::

earning capacity. Due to injuries he sustained permanent disability and lost her earning capacity.

24. In order to prove her profession, the petitioner has not examined any person. PW.1 deposed that she worked as coolie and packing camphor works and getting income of Rs.800/- per day. The respondents 2 and 3 did not deny the profession of petitioner, during her cross-examination.

Considering the above facts and circumstances, this Tribunal by assessing the guess work, would like to fix the monthly notional income of the deceased as Rs.15,000/- and it would meet the ends of justice. If the said monthly salary is calculated to 12 months, the net annual income of the deceased would comes to Rs.1,80,000/-. Considering the nature of the injuries sustained by the petitioner, this Tribunal is of considered opinion that granting of a sum of Rs.50,000/- under the head of pain-and-suffering is just and reasonable. Therefore, awarding the same. Further, the petitioner might have taken rest at least for a period of two months including the treatment period.

Therefore, the petitioner is entitled for a sum of Rs.30,000/- ( at the rate of

Rs.15,000/- per month) towards loss of income.

25.Learned counsel for petitioner contended that the petitioner was aged about 50 years by the date of accident, she was hale and healthy prior to the accident and due to injuries she sustained permanent disability at 60% and due to disability he lost his entire income. In support of his contention, she has relied on the evidence of PW.3 and Ex.A.14.

26.In order to assess the permanent disability, this tribunal is going to discuss the evidence of PW.3 and Ex.A.14. PW.3 deposed that he examined the petitioner and he assessed the disability of the petitioner at 60% and it is permanent in nature. The petitioner is suffering from post trauma of left lower limb. The petitioner is difficulty in doing daily activity like climbing, kneeling, squatting, lifting ete. The petitioner can attend her works with upper limbs i.e., desk activities. Ex.A.14 is the disability certificate issued by the Medical

: 13 ::

Board. During his cross-examination he denied the suggestion that the petitioner sustained simple injuries, even though he assessed disability of the petitioner in higher side @ 60% in order to help the petitioner. By virtue of the above evidence, now this tribunal would like to re-assess whether the petitioner sustained disabilityto the extent of 60%, or, not and due to said disability really the petitioner sustained any monitory loss or not?

27.At this juncture, this Court would like to rely on the decision of the

Hon’ble Madras High Court in between New India Insurance Co., Ltd.,

Mettupalayam, Coimbatore District v. C.K.Ramesh and others, reported in 2010 (1) An.W.R.618 (Madras), wherein while deciding the claim, the Hon’ble

High Court of Madras placed reliance upon a Division Bench decision of the same High Court rendered in United India Insurance Co., Ltd., Veluchamy and another reported in 2005 (1) TN MAC 87 (DB) and reiterated the principles formulated after analyzing the circumstances of the case while deciding the permanent disability, where the injured received grievous injuries. For better understanding, this Tribunal would like to extract para No.11 of the Division

Bench decision:- “11. The following principles emerge from the above discussion: -

a) In all case of injury or permanent disablement “ multiplier method” cannot be mechanically applied to ascertain the future loss of income or earning power.

b) It depends upon various factors such as nature and extent of disablement, avocation of the injured and whether it would affect his employment or earning power etc., and if so, to what extent?

c) (1) If there is categorical evidence that because of the injury and consequential disability, the injured lost his employment or avocation completely and has to be idle till the rest of his life, in that event loss of income or earning may be ascertained by applying “ multiplier method” as provided under Second Schedule to Motor Vehicles Act, 1988.

(2) Even if so there is no need to adopt the same period as that of fatal cases as provided under the Schedule. If there

: 14 ::

is no amputation and if there is evidence to show that there is likelihood of reduction or improvement in future years, lesser period may be adopted for ascertainment of loss of income.

d) Mainly it depends upon the avocation or profession or nature of employment being attended by the injured at the time of accident.”

28.So, by virtue of the above principles enumerated by the Division Bench of Hon’ble Madras High Court, it is very clear that in all cases of injury or permanent disablement “multiplier method” cannot be mechanically applied to ascertain the future loss of income or earning power. Therefore, this Tribunal would like to re-asses whether the petitioner sustained disabilityto the extent of 60%, or, not?

29.On perusal of Ex.A.14 disability certificate, wherein, it is noted that ‘the disability percentage is estimated at 60%. On careful perusal of Ex.A.14 it clearly shows that the disability of the petitioner is in relation to left lower limb.

The evidence of PW.2 shows that the petitioner is difficulty in doing daily activity like climbing, kneeling, squatting, lifting ete., but the petitioner can attend her works with upper limbs i.e., desk activities. Though, in the said disability certificate, the percentage of disability was mentioned as 60%, but it

was also mentioned that F-can perform work by manipulating with

fingers, PP can perform work by pulling and pushing, s-can perform

work by sitting, ST can perform work by standing, w-can perform work

by walking, RW can perform work by reading and writing. So, when the petitioner can perform some sort of activities, it cannot be said that the percentage of disability is in full as mentioned in Ex.A.14. Therefore, this

Tribunal is of considered opinion the disability mentioned by PW.3 as 60% cannot be taken into consideration as if.It is settled principle that “ in MVOP

cases the Tribunals/Court has a duty, irrespective of the amount

claimed, to award a just, equitable, fair and reasonable compensation”.

Keeping that context in mind, it is to be noted that in the instant case as the

: 15 ::

injuries sustained by the petitioner was not in dispute and according to PW.4, the petitioner underwent surgery on the left foot debridement, this Tribunal is of the view that after the surgery procedure, petitioner might be face difficult from doing day to day activities as she used to perform prior to the accident.

Therefore, this Tribunal would like to take the disability of petitioner at 30%, which is just and proper.

30.Coming to the age of the petitioner, she pleaded that she was aged about 50 years by the date of accident. On perusal of Ex.A.3 wound certificate, the age of the petitioner was mentioned as 42 years by the date of accident. In Ex.A.6 discharge summary, the age of the petitioner was mentioned as 49 years by the date of accident. The petitioner has not filed any document to prove her correct age. Therefore, the age of the petitioner is taken as 50 years, as pleaded by the petitioner.

31.This tribunal considered a sum of Rs.1,80,000/- as net annual income of the petitioner for assessing compensation under the head loss of future income. The age of the petitioner is taken as “50” years. As per the Sarla

Verma’s Case, reported in 2009 ACJ 1298, appropriate multiplier for the age group between 46 and 50 years is “13”. The loss of future income comes to

Rs.1,80,000/- X 13 X 30% = Rs.7,02,000/-. Therefore, awarding an amount of

Rs.7,02,000/- to the petitioner as compensation under the head ‘loss of income’ is just and reasonable.

32.Thus, in all, the petitioner is entitled to the following amounts:-

Sl.No. Head Compensation

amount

1.Compensation for two grievous injuriesRs.40,000.00

2.CompensationtowardsmedicalRs.1,81,960.00 expenses.

3.Compensation towards transportationRs.10,000.00 charges

4.Compensation towards attendantRs.10,000.00

: 16 ::

charges

5.Compensation towards Pain andRs.50,000.00 suffering

6.Compensation towards loss of incomeRs.30,000.00 for two months

7.Compensation towards loss of incomeRs.7,02000.00 on account of disability.

Total: -Rs.10,23,960.00

Rounded up to Rs.10,24,000/-

33.The finding of this tribunal is that accident occurred due to rash and negligent driving Milk Tanker Lorry bearing Reg.No.TN-05-CJ-2367 by its driver i.e., 1st respondent. The 2nd respondent did not evince any interest to file copy of policy. But the petitioner filed the copy of policy and marked the same as Ex.A.17. On perusal of Ex.A.17 policy, it was in force from 04.07.2022 to 03.07.2023. The accident was occurred on 03.05.2023. Therefore, it can be held that the policy was in force. Though the 3rd respondent pleaded about the voilation of conditions of policy, but it failed to prove the same. Therefore, the 3rd respondent has to indemnify the liability of 2nd respondent.

34.While deciding the rate of interest in a petition of this nature, this court would like to rely upon the Division Bench Judgment of Hon’ble Supreme

Court in Jakir Hussein v. Sabir and others, reported in 2015(3) ALD 115 (SC)wherein it is held that:- “As regards the rate of interest to be awarded on the compensation awarded in this appeal, we are of the view that the

Tribunal and High Court have erred in granting interest at only 07% p.a. and 08% p.a. respectively on the total compensation amount instead of 09% by applying the decision of this Court in

Municipal Corporation of Delhi v. Association of Victims of Uphaar

Tragedy (2011) 14 SC 481 = AIR 2012 SC 100. Accordingly, we

: 17 ::

award the interest @ 09% p.a. on the compensation determined in the present appeal.”

35.In view of the above discussion, it cab be held that the petitioner is entitled for a total compensation of Rs.10,24,000/- along with interest at 9% per annum from the respondents 1 to 3 jointly and severally. Accordingly, the issue No.3 is answered.

36.Issue No.4:-In the result, petition is allowed in part, with proportionate costs by granting the following reliefs: -

1. Petitioner is entitled for a total compensation of Rs.10,24,000/-.

2. Petitioner is entitled for interest @ 9% per annum on the amount awarded from the date of presentation of the petition i.e., 20.10.2023, to till the date of realization.

3. The rest of the claim of petitioner is hereby dismissed.

4. The respondents 1 to 3 are jointly and severally liable to pay award amount along with interest accrued thereon and costs to the petitioner.

5. Time granted for deposit of amount is 30 days from the date of award.

6. On such deposit, petitioner is permitted to withdraw half of the compensation along with accrued interest thereon and entire costs and the remaining amount is ordered to be kept in fixed deposit in any Nationalized Bank for a period of 2 years and after completion of maturity period, the petitioner is entitled to withdraw the same along with accrued interest.

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

8. Petitioner is directed to furnish photocopies of his bank account pass-book, PAN card and Aadhar Card to 3rd respondent and on such furnishing the documents by petitioner, 2nd respondent is

: 18 ::

directed to deposit the compensation amount by following the procedure as prescribed by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in “Bajaj

Allianz General Insurance Company Pvt., Ltd., vs. Union of India &

Ors.,” in Writ Petition(s) (Civil) No(s) 534 of 2020, in the bank account of this Tribunal bearing-No.40730207451, State Bank of

India, Chittoor Main Branch, as per the date fixed, by following the circular issued to all the insurance companies and corporations by this Tribunal dated 27.01.2022.

9. If the petitioner is not furnished copies of their bank account pass- book, PAN card and Aadhar card etc., within reasonable time, the 2nd respondent is directed to deposit the award amount by deducting TDS as per rules without waiting for furnishing of the documents as per the time fixed by this Tribunal.

Typed to my dictation by the Stenographer, corrected and pronounced by me in open-Court, this the 11th day of April, 2025.

Sd/- E.BHIMA RAO

Chairman, Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal -cum-

Principal District Judge,

Chittoor.

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

WITNESSES EXAMINED

FOR PETITIONER:

PW.1: P.Vijaya @ Vijayalakshmi(Petitioner) PW.2: Dr.Vineetha Katari, PW.3: Dr.P.Lakshmipathi. PW.4: Dr.B.Neelakanteswara PW.5: Dr.Babu Rao Ravuri,

FOR RESPONDENTS: NONE.

DOCUMENTS MARKED

FOR PETITIONER:-

Ex.A.1Certified copy of F.I.R. in Cr.No.65 of 2023 of G.D. Nellore Police station.

Ex.A.2Certified copy of Charge-sheet in C.C.No.892 of 2023 on file of V

: 19 ::

Additional Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Chittoor.

Ex.A.3Certified copy of Wound Certificate issued by Government Hospital, Chittoor.

Ex.A.4Outpatient card dated 03.05.2023 issued by District Head Quarters Hospital, Chittoor.

Ex.A.5Radiograph Film issued by Elite Hospital, Tirupati dated 03.05.2023.

Ex.A.6Discharge summary issued Elite Hospital, Tirupati.

Ex.A.7Bunch of prescriptions issued by Elite Multi Speciality Hospital, Tirupati during the period of In-Patient i.e., from 03.05.2023 to 11.05.2023

Ex.A.8Bunch of medical bills for a sum of Rs.45,495/- issued by Elite Multi Speciality Hospital, Tirupathi during the period of In-Patient i.e., from 03.05.2023 to 11.05.2023.

Ex.A.9Transport bills for a sum of Rs.14,000/- issued by Jaya Durga Tours and travels, Tirupati.

Ex.A.10Bunch of prescriptions issued by Elite Multi Speciality Hospital, Tirupathi during the period of In-Patient i.e., from 15.05.2023 to 03.07.2023.

Ex.A.11Bunch of medical bills for a sum of Rs. 27,865/- issued by Elite Multi Speciality Hospital, Tirupathi during the period of Out-Patient i.e.. from 15.05.2023 to 03.07.2023

Ex.A.12Receipts issued by NTR Memorial Trust Blood Centre, Tirupathi for a sum of Rs.3,600/- for purchase of blood.

Ex.A.13In-Patient Final Bill for a sum of Rs.1,05,000/- issued by Elite Multi Speciality Hospital, Tirupati during the period 03.05.2023 to 11.05.2023.

Ex.A.14Certificate for person with disability issued by Medical Board, PHC Gangadhara Nellore.

Ex.A.15Certified copy of Driving license of 1st respondent.

Ex.A.16Certified copy of R.C. of the crime vehicle i.e., Lorry bearing registration NO.TN-05-CJ-2367.

Ex.A.17Certified copy insurance policy of the crime vehicle valid from 04.07.2022 to 03.07.2023.

FOR RESPONDENTS: NIL.

: 20 ::

Marked through Witness:

Ex.X.1: Wound certificate of petitioner, Ex.X.2: Authorization, Ex.X.3: Attested copy of case sheet of the petitioner, Ex.X.4: Attested copy of discharge summary of the petitioner Ex.X.5: Discharge summary of the petitioner issued by Elite Hospital, Tirupati, Ex.X.6: Case sheet of the petitioner issued by Elite Hospital, Tirupati,

Sd/- E.BHIMA RAO

Chairman, Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal -cum-

Principal District Judge,

Chittoor.

-1-

BEFORE THE MOTOR ACCIDENTS CLAIMS TRIBUNAL -CUM-

PRINCIPAL DISTRICT JUDGE: CHITTOOR.

Present: E.BHIMA RAO, Chairman, Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal -cum-Principal District Judge, Chittoor.

Friday, the 11th day of April, 2025.

MVOP.No.384/2022

Between:- S.Akbar. …Petitioner. And:-

1. N.Brahamananda Reddy (Owner-cum- Driver).

2. The Branch Manager, Bharathi Axa General Insurance Company, Pvt., Ltd., Chennai.

3. ICICI Lombard General Insurance Company Ltd. (Amended as per orders in IA.No.200/2023 dated 10.03.2023.)

...Respondents.

This petition is coming on 28.03.2025 for final hearing before me in the presence of Sri.P.Dayasekar - advocate for petitioner; and of Sri.K.Krishna Murthy – advocate for respondents 2 and 3 and 1st respondent having been remained ex-parte and upon perusing the material available on record and upon hearing arguments of both sides and the matter having stood over for consideration till this day, the Court made the following:-

AWARD

1.This is a claim petition filed by the petitioner, under section 166 (1) (a) of MV Act, claiming compensation of Rs.15,00,000/- against the respondents 1 to 3, due to the injuries received by him in a motor-vehicle-accident that was occurred on 13.12.2021 at about 6.20 pm., on Chennai – Bangalore bye-pass road, near Soft-town, Iruvaram, Chittoor District, in which, the offending car driven by the 1st respondent bearing registration No.TN14-Y-1392 had involved.

-2-

2.The brief averments mentioned in the petition are as follows:- The 1st respondent is the driver-cum-owner of the offending-car. Respondents 2 and 3 are the insurance company of the said offending car.

On 13-12-2021 at about 6.20 P.M., the petitioner went to Varigapalli village for taking treatment at Dr.Subbaiah and return back to home and reached near Soft Town in his TVS motor cycle bearing regn.No.TN20-CC- 7944 at Chennai-Bangalore NH-4 Road, at that time one Ford Ecosport car bearing Regn.No.TN14-Y-1392 proceeding towards Bangalore -Chennai side came in a rash and negligent manner and dashed the motor cycle of the

Petitioner. As a result the Petitioner fell down along with his TVS motor cycle on the road and caused bleeding injuries and sustained injury to his right side below knee and also sustained injury on left hand and also sustained multiple injuries over the body.

It is further averred that immediately, the Petitioner was shifted to Govt.

Hospital, Chittoor, the Doctors in Govt. Hospital has given preliminary treatment to the aforesaid injuries. The injuries sustained by the Petitioner are grievous in nature, as such, the Doctors in Govt. Hospital advised to take treatment at Higher Institution, due to that the Petitioner was shifted to

SVRRG Hospital, Tirupati. The Petitioner was admitted as in-patient at

SVRRG Hospital for a period of four months. The doctors in SVRRG hospitals have taken X-rays to the aforesaid injuries, further the doctors have conducted 5 major surgeries and fixed the rods. Now the said rods are still existing. The Petitioner was taking treatment in the said hospital as in-patient for a period of one month. The Petitioner has spent a sum of Rs.2,50,000-00 towards the operation charges and also purchasing medicines and also taken

X-Ray. Further the Petitioner also spent a sum of Rs.50,000/- towards charges and also spent a sum of Rs.30,000/- towards transport charges Thus the Petitioner has totally spent Rs.3,20,000/- towards medical and transport and attendant charges.

-3-

It is further averred that as on the date of accident the 1st Respondent has taken policy from the 2nd Respondent and the said policy is in force as on the date of accident. Subsequently after filing the above O.P., the Petitioner came to know that the 2nd Respondent company has merged his business with the 3rd Respondent. Hence, the Respondents No.1 to 3 are jointly and severally liable to pay the compensation to the Petitioner.

It is further averred that due to the said accident, even till today, the

Petitioner is unable to walk, sit properly and he is totally bedridden, even till today the Petitioner is suffering with severe pain due to the iron rods are still on his left leg below the knee. The Petitioner is also taking follow up treatment at New Metro Multi Specialty Hospital and Ortho Care Centre, Chittoor. The

Petitioner also taken C.T. Scan at S.L. Diagnostic, Tirupati about the injuries sustained by the Petitioner. The S.L. Diagnostic has issued a report with regard to the injuries of the Petitioner. The Petitioner also purchased medicines at Sri New Adithya Pharmacy Medical store at Tirupati for a sum of

Rs.10,000/-.

It is further averred that basing on the statement of the Petitioner, the

SHO of Traffic Police, Chittoor have registered as crime No.120/2021,

U/Secs.338 I.P.C. and filed charge sheet before the III Addl. J.F.C.M., Chittoor in C.C.No.794/2022. The Accused has admitted the offence and the said case was settled before Lokadalath.

It is further averred that prior to the accident, the Petitioner was doing business by selling steel vessels in his two wheeler motor cycle in his surrounding villages and also doing seasonal business and getting an amount of Rs.50,000/- per month. Due to the said accident, the petitioner is unable to do his business and he is totally depending upon his wife. Due to the injuries, the petitioner is unable to move his left leg and he is totally bed-ridden even till today. The injuries sustained by the petitioner leads permanent disability.

Hence, the petitioner is claiming compensation for a sum of Rs.15,00,000/-.

-4-

3.The 1st respondent is remained ex-parte.

4.The respondents 2 and 3 have filed common written-statement denying the material averments mentioned in the petition and further contended that the 2nd respondent company was merged with the 3rd respondent company.

The respondents 2 and 3 have seeks protection under Section 147, 149 and 158 (6) of the Act. The interest claimed is excessive. The respondents 2 and 3 denied the age, income and avocation of the petitioner. The disability certificate filed by the petitioner is created one. The accident was occurred solely due to the negligence on the part of the petitioner who entered into wrong side without following the traffic rules. The owner and insurance company of the two wheeler of the petitioner is also necessary party to the proceedings, but they were not added. Hence, the petition is bad for non- joinder of necessary parties. The claim is excessive and exorbitant. Hence, prays the Tribunal to dismiss the petition.

5.Basing on the above pleadings, the following issues were settled for trial:-

1. Whether the accident was occurred on 13.12.2021 at

about 6.20 pm, near Soft-town, Iruvaram, Chittoor

Town, on Chennai – Bangalore road, due to rash and

negligent driving of Ford Car bearing registration

No.TN14-Y-1392 by 1 st respondent, who is the driver-

cum-owner of the said vehicle?

2. Whether the petitioner sustained injuries, as a result of accident?

3. Whether the petitioner is entitled for compensation, if so, to what amount and from whom?

4. To what relief?

6.To prove the claim of the petitioner, he examined himself as PW1 and marked Exs.A1 to A26. Further, to prove taking of treatment, got examined

Doctor as PW2.

-5-

On behalf of the respondents 2 and 3, the Senior Manager of the 3rd respondent company was examined as RW1 and got marked Ex.B1 policy copy.

7.Heard both sides. Perused the material on record.

8.Issues (1) and (2):- It is the case of the petitioner that on 13-12-2021 at about 6.20 P.M., the petitioner went to Varigapalli village for taking treatment at Dr.Subbaiah and return to home and reached near Soft Town in his TVS motor cycle bearing regn.No.TN20-CC-7944 at Chennai-Bangalore NH-4

Road, at that time one Ford Ecosport car bearing Regn.No.TN14-Y-1392 proceeding towards Bangalore -Chennai side came in a rash and negligent manner and dashed the motor cycle of the Petitioner. As a result the

Petitioner fell down along with his TVS motor cycle on the road and caused bleeding injuries and sustained injury to his right side below knee and also sustained injury on left hand and also sustained multiple injuries over the body.

9.To prove the manner of the accident as above, the petitioner himself was examined as PW1 and reiterated in his chief-affidavit, the averments mentioned in the petition and he clearly and categorically stated the manner of the accident in his chief-affidavit that the driver of the offending-vehicle i.e., 1st respondent, is responsible for the accident. Through him, Exs.A1 to A26 were marked. But, to decide the present issue, the relevant documents are Exs.A1 and A2 i.e., certified copies of FIR and charge-sheet.

During the course of cross-examination, PW1 admitted that at the time of accident, he went to Varigapalle village for taking treatment for his fever and sugar. PW1 denied the suggestion that the accident occurred due to the rash and negligent driving of him only since he has no driving license. PW1 further denied the suggestion that the accident not occurred due to fault on the driver of the offending vehicle. PW1 further denied the suggestion that the -6- offending car does not have insurance policy, so, 1st respondent is alone is liable to pay the compenation.

To decide the rashness and negligence on the part of the 1st respondent, the above portion of the cross-examination is only relevant.

10.On plain reading of the above cross-examination done by the respondents 2 and 3, except putting-forth the suggestions disputing the manner of accident, nothing contra was elicited from the mouth of PW1. In- fact, the respondents attacked by way of suggestion that since the petitioner has no driving license and experience in driving moped, he himself hit the offending vehicle by wrongly coming on the road. But, the said suggestion was denied by PW1 on the face of it. If really, in occurrence of the accident, there is negligence on the part of the petitioner, the driver of the offending- vehicle i.e., 1st respondent herein, ought to have reported the same to the police. When there is no fault on a person like 1st respondent in occurrence of the accident, nothing prevented him to agitate the said fact before the police officer concerned. But, he did not do so.

11.However, the 3rd respondent company examined its Legal Manager as

RW1. RW1 in his chief-affidavit denied the manner of accident and contended that the petitioner entered into wrong side without following the traffic rules, as such, he (petitioner) is responsible for the accident.

During his cross-examination, RW1 admitted that he is not an eye witness to the accident. 1 st respondent/ driver did not give any complaint

to the police alleging that the accident occurred due to rash and

negligent driving of the petitioner. Their company did not give any

complaint to police higher authorities for draft of the wrong rough

sketch.

-7-

So, the above evidence of RW1 clearly goes to show that neither the 1st respondent, nor the 3rd respondent/ insurance company challenged the investigation done by the police officer concerned.

12.More-over, the 1st respondent/ driver has remained ex-parte to the present proceedings. So, basing on the suggestions put-forth by the contesting respondents, it cannot be said that in occurrence of the accident, there is no negligence on the part of the 1st respondent. Even the 3rd respondent/ insurance company did not take any steps to get examine the 1st respondent/ driver to rebut the evidence given by PW1.

13.As seen from Ex.A1/certified copy of First Information Report, upon the complaint of petitioner, the police registered a case in crime No.120/2021 for the offence punishable under section 337 IPC against the driver of car TN14-

Y-1392. The contents of the FIR clearly goes to show that there is involvement of offending vehicle i.e., Ford car bearing registration No.TN14-Y- 1392. Ex.A2/ certified copy of charge-sheet goes to show that the investigating-officer, after thorough investigation, laid charge-sheet against the accused i.e., 1st respondent herein, alleging that due to his rash and negligence, the accident was occurred and in that accident, petitioner sustained injuries. In the contents of the charge-sheet, no where it is whispered that the petitioner came wrong side of the road.

Therefore, by virtue of above discussion, it can safely be inferred that the accident in the present case was occurred solely due to the rash and negligent act of the 1st respondent being the driver of the offending-vehicle and in which the petitioner sustained injuries.

14.When the material on record goes to show that due to the rash and negligence on the part of the 1st respondent the accident was occurred and when the investigating-officer after thorough investigation, shown the 1st respondent herein as accused and laid charge-sheet, this Tribunal is of the -8- view that non-impleadment of the owner and insurance company of the petitioner’s moped does not arise.

15.At this juncture, this Court would like to rely on the decision in between

Suman and others, V. Somveer and others, reported in 2017 ACJ 1654 of

the Hon’ble High Court of Punjab and Haryana Chandigarh (FAO

Nos.9080 and 9772 of 2014 (O&M), decided on 27.4.2016, wherein it was held that:- (Para-16) “It is settled principle of law that the proceedings

before the Tribunal are in the nature of summary inquiry. In a

criminal case the rule is to prove the case beyond shadow of reasonable doubt but in civil cases on the basis of preponderance of probabilities. If there is some evidence before the criminal court regarding the involvement of the vehicle and the negligence of its driver, it is not appropriate to non-suit the claimants simply on the basis of doubt or suspicion”.

Further, the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Bimla Devi V. Himachal Road Trans. Corpn., 2009 ACJ 1725 (SC), has laid down as under:- “(15) In a situation of this nature, the Tribunal has rightly taken a holistic view of the matter. It was necessary to be borne in mind that strict proof of an accident caused by a particular bus in a particular manner may not be possible to be done by the claimants. The claimants were merely to establish their case on the touchstone of preponderance of probability. The standard of proof beyond reasonable doubt could not have been applied”.

So, by virtue of the observations of the Hon’ble Apex Court and Hon’ble

High Court of Punjab and Haryana as above, it is clear that the strict principle of pleading cannot be applied while deciding the claim petition. The proceedings before the Tribunal are in the nature of summary inquiry. In a criminal case the rule is to prove the case beyond shadow of reasonable doubt, but in civil-cases on the basis of preponderance of probabilities. In a situation of this nature, the Tribunal has to taken a holistic view of the matter.

-9-

The standard of proof beyond reasonable doubt could not have been applied.

Here, the accident is not in dispute. As already held that mere disputing the manner of accident by way of suggestions to petitioner/PW1, does not come in the way of claimant/injured to claim just compensation for the injuries sustained by him, as such, taking into consideration Exs.A1 and A2 and the evidence of petitioner/PW1, this Tribunal is of considered opinion that the accident was occurred due to rash and negligent driving of the 1st respondent and in the said accident, the petitioner sustained injuries. These issues are answered accordingly.

16.Issue (3):-According to the petitioner, after the accident, immediately, the Petitioner was shifted to Govt. Hospital, Chittoor, the Doctors in Govt.

Hospital has given preliminary treatment to the aforesaid injuries. The injuries sustained by the Petitioner are grievous in nature, as such, the Doctors in

Govt. Hospital advised to take treatment at Higher Institution, due to that the

Petitioner was shifted to SVRRG Hospital, Tirupati. The Petitioner was admitted as in-patient at SVRRG Hospital for a period of four months. The doctors in SVRRG hospitals have taken X-rays to the aforesaid injuries, further the doctors have conducted 5 major surgeries and fixed the rods. Now the said rods are still existing. The Petitioner was taking treatment in the said hospital as in-patient for a period of one month. The Petitioner has spent a sum of Rs.2,50,000-00 towards the operation charges and also purchasing medicines and also taken X-Ray. Further the Petitioner also spent a sum of

Rs.50,000/- towards charges and also spent a sum of Rs.30,000/- towards transport charges Thus the Petitioner has totally spent Rs.3,20,000/- towards medical and transport and attendant charges.

17.To prove the medical expenditure, the petitioner has relied on Ex.A9 bunch of medical bills for a sum of Rs.500/-; Ex.A10 bills issued by Lifeline

Hospital, Chittoor for a sum of Rs.860/-. Ex.A11 bunch of medical bills issued by Sri Sai Ram Generic Medical shop at Tirupati for Rs.1,803/-. Ex.A12 bunch -10- of medical bills issued by New Adithya Pharmacy for a sum of Rs.6,009/-.

Ex.A13 Bunch of medical bills issued by Latha NIMSS for Rs.4,301/-. Ex.A14 medical bils by New Metro Pharmacy medicals for Rs.3,983/-. Ex.A15 medial bills by SVIMS Hospital, Tirupati for Rs.23,604/-. Ex.A17 medical bills issued by New Metro Pharmacy, Tirupati for a sum of Rs.7,677/-. Ex.A18 receipt issued by Madhu Scan Center, Chittoor for Rs.1,000/-. Ex.A19 prescription and receipt issued by Vijaya Ortho Clinic, Chittoor for Rs.300/-. Ex.A20 prescription and medical bills issued by SVIMS Hospital, Tirupati for a sum of

Rs.1,805/-. Ex.A22 bills issued by Pauls Physiotherapy, Chittoor for a sum of

Rs.2,338/-.

To prove the above medical bills, the petitioner did not examine any

Doctor or any authorized person from the hospital. On careful scrutiny of the above bills, they all goes to show that the petitioner has paid cash by way of the above medical bills, but did not examine anybody in proof the same.

However, since it is the case of the petitioner that immediately after the accident, he was shifted to Government Hospital, Chittoor and from there to

SVIMS Hospital, Tirupati, for better treatment, this Tribunal would like to consider only the bills issued by SVIMS Hospital, Tirupati i.e., Ex.A9 for

Rs.500/-; Ex.A15 for Rs.23,604/- and Ex.A20 for Rs.1,805/-, in all Rs.25,909/-.

Therefore, the petitioner is entitled only Rs.25,909/- as compensation towards the medical-expenditure.

18.According to the petitioner, in his petition he mentioned that he sustained as-many-as four injuries. To prove the sustaining of injuries, the petitioner relied on Ex.A3 wound-certificate. On careful perusal of Ex.A3 wound-certificate, it goes to show that it was issued by the Medical Officer,

District Headquarters Hospital, Chittoor by mentioning that the petitioner sustained three injuries i.e., compound distal femur fracture right; closed forearm distal fracture and radius fracture and all the injuries are grievous in nature. In that view of the matter, this Tribunal is of the view that petitioner is entitled to a sum of Rs.40,000/- for each grievous injuries i.e., Rs.40,000/- -11- each for three grievous injuries. In all, the petitioner is entitled to a sum of

Rs.1,20,000/- towards compensation under the head grievous injuries.

19.Further, this Tribunal is of considered opinion that pain is a mental feeling, which cannot be compensated in terms of money, but, ultimately, petitioner has to be compensated for the pain and suffering during the period of treatment. Therefore, considering the nature of the injuries sustained by the petitioner in the accident, this Tribunal is of considered opinion that granting of a sum of Rs.50,000/- under the head of pain-and-suffering is just and reasonable. Hence, granting the same.

20.Coming to the avocation and income of the petitioner, the petitioner averred that he is doing business by selling steel vessel in his two wheeler and earning Rs.50,000/- per month. Though the petitioner contended like that, but he did not file any piece of paper to substantiate his contention. So, in the absence of any documentary proof pertaining to the income of the petitioner, the guess work is the only way to decide the income.

21.THE HON’BLE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA IN BETWEEN KIRTI &

ANR. ETC. VS ORIENTAL INSURANCE COMPANY LTD., IN CIVIL

APPEAL NOS.1920 OF 2021, DECIDED ON 01.05.2021, at para No.2 held as follows:- “The Courts usually determines notional income of a victim when claimants are not able to prove his/ her actual income, before the Court. In such a situation, the Court “guesses” the income of the victim on the basis of the evidence on record, like the quality of life being led by the victim and her family, the general earning of an individual employed in that field, the qualifications of the victim, and other considerations”.

-12-

So, by giving anxious consideration to the above observation and keeping in view the fair concept of awarding just and reasonable compensation to the victim/injured-petitioner, this Tribunal would like to assess the monthly income of the petitioner on notional-basis under guess- work by considering the prevailing rates and cost of living in the year 2021 (accident year) and age of the petitioner. Upon considering the above aspects and the quality of the life led by the victim, this Tribunal is inclined to fix the daily earnings of the petitioner at Rs.500/- as coolie and it comes to

Rs.15,000/- per month and annually, it comes to Rs.1,80,000/-.

22.According to petitioner, he had shown his age as on the date of accident as ‘56’ years. As seen from Ex.A3 wound-certificate, the age of the petitioner was shown as ‘62’ years. So, relying on Ex.A3 wound-certificate, this Tribunal would like to take the age of the petitioner at the time of accident as ‘62’ years.

23.Petitioner examined PW2/Dr.K.Koteswara, who previously worked as

CAS in CHC Bangarupalem, to prove the disability on account of the injuries sustained by him (petitioner) in the accident. PW2 in his chief-examination deposed that on 30.03.2022 he examined the petitioner and he assessed the disability of the petitioner at 81%. The petitioner is suffering from post trauma sequel limbs, right lower limb and left upper limb. Ex.A16 is the certificate issued by the Medical Board and he is also one of the member of the said board.

During his cross-examination, PW2 denied the suggestion that he does not know whether fractures of the petitioner was united or not and that in order to help the petitioner, he assessed the disability on higher side.

-13-

24.At this juncture, this Court would like to rely on the decision of the

Hon’ble Madras High Court in between New India Insurance Co., Ltd.,

Mettupalayam, Coimbatore District v. C.K.Ramesh and others, reported in 2010 (1) An.W.R.618 (Madras), wherein while deciding the said claim, the

Hon’ble High Court of Madras placed reliance upon a Division Bench decision

of the same High Court rendered in United India Insurance Co., Ltd.,

Veluchamy and another reported in 2005 (1) TN MAC 87 (DB) and reiterated the principles formulated after analyzing the circumstances of the case while deciding the permanent disability, where the injured received grievous injuries.

For better understanding, this Tribunal would like to extract para No.11 of the

Division Bench decision:- “11. The following principles emerge from the above discussion: -

a) In all case of injury or permanent disablement “ multiplier method” cannot be mechanically applied to ascertain the future loss of income or earning power.

b) It depends upon various factors such as nature and extent of disablement, avocation of the injured and whether it would affect his employment or earning power etc., and if so, to what extent?

c) (1) If there is categorical evidence that because of the injury and consequential disability, the injured lost his employment or avocation completely and has to be idle till the rest of his life, in that event loss of income or earning may be ascertained by applying “ multiplier method” as provided under Second Schedule to Motor Vehicles Act, 1988. (2) Even if so there is no need to adopt the same period as that of fatal cases as provided under the Schedule. If there is no amputation and if there is evidence to show that there is likelihood of reduction or improvement in future years, lesser period may be adopted for ascertainment of loss of income.

d) Mainly it depends upon the avocation or profession or nature of employment being attended by the injured at the time of accident.” -14-

So, by virtue of the above principles enumerated by the Division Bench of Hon’ble Madras High Court, it is very clear that in all cases of injury or permanent disablement “multiplier method” cannot be mechanically applied to ascertain the future loss of income or earning power. Therefore, this Tribunal would like to re-asses whether the petitioner sustained disabilityto the extent of 81%, or not?

25.On careful perusal of Ex.A16 disability certificate, it goes to show that it was issued by the group of Doctors consisting CAS-MS Orthopaedic Surgeon,

MS-OPTH Civil Surgeon and MBBS /Chairman Medical Board. In the above disability certificate, the ID of the person with disability was also mentioned.

The Government of AP was also issued ID card for petitioner certifying that the person with disability. So, it can be inferred that the disability certificate under

Ex.A16 was issued by Medical Board concerned. In the said disability certificate, the Board assessed the percentage of disability at 81%. But, the said disability certificate further goes to show that petitioner can perform work by manipulating with fingers, sitting, reading and writing etc. So, the percentage of disability as mentioned in Ex.A16/disability certificate is not for whole body. Therefore, keeping in view the settled principle that “ in MVOP

cases the Tribunals/Court has a duty, irrespective of the amount claimed,

to award a just, equitable, fair and reasonable compensation”, and the fact that the sustaining injuries by the petitioner is not in dispute and considering the fact that petitioner was operated for his leg injury, this Tribunal is inclined to take the disability of petitioner at 55%, which is just and proper.

26.Therefore, to compute the loss of earnings, the notional annual income is Rs.1,80,000/-. The age of the petitioner was taken as ‘62’ years. The disability was taken as 55%. As per the “Sarla Verma’s case reported in 2009 (4) SCJ 91”, the appropriate multiplier for the age group between 61 to -15- 65 is “7”. So, the loss of income on account of the disability of the petitioner can be assessed at Rs.1,80,000/- x 7 x 55/100 = Rs.6,93,000/-.

27.Further, petitioner is entitled to a sum of Rs.10,000/- towards attendant charges. Apart from this, petitioner is also entitled for a sum of Rs.10,000/- towards extra-nourishment. Though the petitioner relied on Ex.A5 bills issued by Pandu Travels, Greamspet, Chittoor for a sum of Rs.30,000/- towards transportation, but he did not examine any person from the Pandu Travels to prove the said bills. However, the occurrence of accident and sustaining of injuries by the petitioner in the said accident and taking treatment at SVIMS

Tirupati, is not in dispute. In that view of the matter, the petitioner might have traveled to hospital from his residence at Chittoor, for taking treatment. So, considering same, petitioner is entitled to a sum of Rs.10,000/- towards transportation charges.

Thus, in all, the petitioner is entitled to the following amounts:-

Sl.No Head Compensation

amount

a)Medical expenditureRs.25,909/-

b)For three Grievous injuries @ Rs.40,000/- Rs.1,20,000/- per grievous injury.

c)Pain and sufferingRs.50,000/-

d)Loss of income on account of disabilityRs.6,93,000/-

e)Attendant chargesRs.10,000/-

f)Extra-nourishmentRs.10,000/-

g)TransportationRs.10,000/-

Total:-Rs.9,18,909/-

Rounded-off to Rs.9,19,000/- -16-

28.Coming to the liability aspect, as seen from policy-copy under Ex.B1, it goes to show that it was issued by the 2nd respondent/ Insurance Company (now merged with 3rd respondent company as admitted by the insurance companies in their common-written-statement) in the name of the 1st respondent, who is the driver-cum-owner of the offending-vehicle, which covers for the period from 21.06.2021 to 20.06.2024 (third-party bundled insurance), whereas the accident in the present case was occurred on 13.12.2021. So, policy was in force as on the date of the accident for the offending-vehicle.It is not in dispute that the driver-cum-owner/ 1st respondent of the offending-vehicle, drove the vehicle in a rash and negligent manner and caused the accident and he insured his vehicle with the 2nd and 3rd respondents under valid policy. So, all the respondents 1 to 3 are jointly and severally liable to pay compensation to the petitioner along with interest accrued thereon.

29. With regard to fixing of interest, this Tribunal would like to rely on the decision of theHon’ble Supreme Court of Indiain Jaik Hussein v. Sabir and others1 held that:

“As regards the rate of interest to be awarded on the compensation awarded in this appeal, we are of the view that the Tribunal and High Court have erred in granting interest at only 07% p.a. and 08% p.a. respectively on the total compensation amount instead of 09% by applying the decision of this Court in Municipal Corporation of Delhi v. Association of Victims of Uphaar Tragedy (2011) 14 SC 481 = AIR 2012 SC 100. Accordingly, we award the interest @ 09% p.a. on the compensation determined in the present appeal.”

Accordingly, the issue No.3 is answered.

12015(3) ALD 115 (SC) -17-

30.Issue No.4:- In the result, petition is allowed, in-part, with proportionate costs, by granting the following reliefs:-

1. Petitioner is entitled for a total compensation of Rs.9,19,000/-.

2. Petitioner is entitled for interest @ 9% per annum on the amount awarded from the date of presentation of petition i.e., from 12.12.2022, to till the date of realization.

3. The respondents 1 to 3 are jointly and severally liable to pay the compensation to the petitioner.

4. Taking into consideration the injuries sustained by the petitioner in the accident, on deposit of compensation, petitioner is permitted to withdraw half of the compensation amount with accrued interest thereon and entire costs and the remaining balance shall be kept in Fixed Deposit in any Nationalized Bank, for a period of two years.

5. Time granted for deposit of amount is 30 days from the date of award.

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

7. Rest of the claim of the petitioner is here-by dismissed.

8. Petitioner is directed to furnish photocopies of his bank account pass-book, PAN card and Aadhar Card to 3rd respondent and on such furnishing the documents by him, 3rd respondent is directed to deposit the compensation amount by following the procedure as prescribed by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in “Bajaj Allianz General Insurance Company Pvt., Ltd., vs. Union of India & Ors.,” in Writ Petition(s) (Civil) No(s) 534 of 2020, in the bank account of this Tribunal bearing-No.40730207451, State Bank of India, Chittoor Main Branch (IFSC Code – SBIN0000825) as per the date fixed, by following the circular issued to all the insurance companies and corporations by this Tribunal dated 27.01.2022.

-18-

9. If the petitioner not furnished copies of his bank account pass- book, PAN card and Aadhar card, within reasonable time, 3rd respondent is directed to deposit the amount by deducting TDS as per rules without waiting for furnishing of the documents as per the time fixed by this Tribunal.

Typed to my dictation by the Stenographer, corrected and pronounced by me in open-Court, this the 11th day of April, 2025.

Sd/-E.Bhima Rao.

Chairman, Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal -cum-

Principal District Judge,

Chittoor.

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

WITNESSES EXAMINED

FOR PETITIONER:

PW-1 : S.Akbar (Petitioner) PW-2 : K.Koteswara (Doctor).

FOR-RESPONDENTS: RW1: B.Srinivasa Rao (Legal Manager of 3rd respondent company)

EXHIBITS MA RKED

FOR PETITIONER

Ex.A1Certified copy of FIR.

Ex.A2Certified copy of charge-sheet.

Ex.A3Certified copy of wound-certificate.

Ex.A4Certified copy of Accident Information Report.

Ex.A5Transport bills issued by Pandu Travels, Greamspet, Chittoor (4 in number for a sum of Rs.30,000/-).

Ex.A610 photos with CD

Ex.A7CT scan report issued by S.L.Diagnostic.

Ex.A8Lab reports issued by SVRRGG Hospital, Tirupati.

Ex.A9Bunch of medical bills issued by SVIMS Hospital, Tirupati for Rs.500/-.

Ex.A10Bills issued by Lifeline Hospital, Chittoor (3 in number) for a sum of Rs.860/-.

-19-

Ex.A11Bunch of medical bills issued by Sri Sai Ram Generic Medical shop for Rs.1,803/-.

Ex.A12Bunch of medical bills issued by New Adithya Pharmacy for a sum of Rs.6,009/-.

Ex.A13Bunch of medical bills issued by Latha NIMSS for Rs.4,301/-.

Ex.A14Medical bills issued by New Metro Pharmacy Medicals (4 in number) for Rs.3,983.61 ps.

Ex.A15Medical bills issued by SVIMS Hospital, Tirupati, for Rs.23,604/-.

Ex.A16Disability certificate issued by the Medial Board, Government Hospital, Chittoor.

Ex.A17Bunch of medical bills issued by New Metro Pharmacy medicals (10 in number) Tirupati, for a sum of Rs.7,677.15 ps.

Ex.A18Receipt issued by Madhu Scan center, Chittoor for Rs.1,000/-.

Ex.A19Prescription and receipt issued by Vijaya Ortho Clinic, Chittoor for a sum of Rs.300/-.

Ex.A20Prescription and medical bills issued by SVIMS Hospital, Tirupati, for a sum of Rs.1,805/-.

Ex.A21Bunch of prescriptions and reports issued by the Lifeline Hospital, Chittoor.

Ex.A22Prescriptions and bills issued by Pauls Physiotherapy, Chittoor for a sum of Rs.2,338/-.

Ex.A23Xerox copy of policy (marked subject to objection) issued in the name of 1st respondent valid from 21.06.2021 to 20.06.2024.

Ex.A24Disability certificate dated 23.11.2022.

Ex.A25ID card of the disability certificate.

FOR RESPONDENTS: -

Ex.B1 – Copy of insurance policy.

Sd/-E.Bhima Rao.

Chairman, Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal -cum-

Principal District Judge,

Chittoor.

IN THE COURT OF THE PRINCIPAL DISTRICT JUDGE ::

CHITTOOR.

PRESENT: E.Bhima Rao,

Principal District Judge, Chittoor.

Friday, the Eleventh (11th) day of April, 2025

E.P.No. 21 of 2024

M.V.O.P. No. 176 of 2018

Between :

P.Kailasanath, S/o P.Narasinga Rao, aged about 55 years, Hindu, employee, Residing at D.No.4-746, 2nd Marata Street, Greamspet, Chittoor Corporation and District. … Decree Holder And:

1. P.Gajendra, S/o late P.Muthuswamy, aged about 37 years,Hindu,residingatD.No.15-640, Chamanthipuram, Greamspet, Chittoor corporation and District,

2. Payani Kuppu Chetty, S/o Kuppu Chetty, aged not known to the petitioner, but major, residing at D.No.15-570/P, Saravanapuram, Vellore Road, Chittoor Corporation and District,

1. ICICI Lombard General Insurance Company Limited represented by its Branch Manager, office at Zenith House, Keshavarao Khada Marg, Mahalakshmi, Mumbai-400034. … Judgment Debtors ***

This petition is filed by Decree Holders U/Or.21 Rules 43, 64 and 66 CPC., for attach the schedule mentioned property of

Judgment debtor No.3 and 6 and sell them in auction for realization of the EP amount of Rs.27,91,815/- with interest.

This petition is coming on today before me for filing counter by the Judgment debtor as the Execution petition filed by Sri

M.Damodaram, Advocate for the Decree holder and Sri

E.Shanmugam, Advocate filed vakalath on behalf of the Judgment debtor No.3; today the learned counsel for the D.Hr filed not press memo and sought to dismiss the petition as not pressed and this court made the following:

ORDER

Both parties are called absent. The learned counsel for the Decree holder has filed memo sought to dismiss the petition as not press. In view of the memo the E.P is dismissed as not pressed. No costs.

Pronounced by me in the open court, this the 11th day of April, 2025

Principal District Judge,

Chittoor

IN THE COURT OF THE PRINCIPAL DISTRICT JUDGE, CHITTOOR

Present : Sri E.Bhima Rao

Principal District Judge. Chittoor.

Friday, the Eleventh (11th) day of April, 2025

G.O.P No. 400 of 2023 Between:

1. M.Raghavan (Minor)

2. R.Madhavi,

3. M.Gowramma.

…. Petitioners And:

NIL

… Respondent

Petition dated 03.11.2023 filed by the petitioners U/Sec 7 of Guardian & Wards Act 1956 to permit the petitioner No.2 as guardian to the petitioner No.1 and declaring the 2 nd petitioner to be the guardian and permit the 2 nd petitioner to pledge the petition schedule property in any one of the financial institution for the educational purpose of petitioner No.1/ ward and pass such and other reliefs.

This petition is coming on today before me for enquiry on payment of costs of Rs.200/- to DLSA as the petition is filed by the petitioner through their advocate Sri T.Mohan; today the petitioners called absent, no representation costs not paid and this court delivers the following:

O R D E R

Petitioners called absent. No representation on behalf of the petitioners. Costs imposed by this court is not paid to District

Accessibility Committee. The petitioners are not showing any interest to pursue the matter. Hence, the petition is dismissed for default for non adducing enquiry and non payment of costs.

Pronounced by me in open court, this the 11th day of April, 2025

Principal District Judge,

Chittoor.

Page 2