1 | P a g e MVOP NO.61/2015
BEFORE THE CHAIRMAN, MOTOR ACCIDENTS CLAIMS TRIBUNAL-CUM
II ADDITIONAL DISTRICT JUDGE, MADANAPALLE
PRESENT: Sri G.Gnana Suvarna Raju Chairman, Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal-cum- II Additional District Judge, Madanapalle
This, the 07th (Friday) day of August, 2020
MVOP NO.61 of 2015
Between:
1. Chikkalagiri Jasmeen w/o Late Chikkalagiri Masthan aged about 25 years Muslim home maker r/at D.No.9-70-14-1, Nandisetty Veedhi, B.Kothakota Town and Mandal, Chittoor District.
2. Chikkalagiri Asmaanjum (minor) aged about 5 years Muslim r/at D.No.9-70-14-1, Nandisetty Veedhi, B.Kothakota Town and Mandal, Chittoor District. … Petitioners
And
1. S.K. Shamshad, s/o late Syed Basha aged about 55 years Muslim r/at D.No.6-533-1, Gangireddy palle, h/o Govinduvaripalle, Thamballapalle Mandal, Chittoor District, A.P.
2. Shriram General Insurance company Limited Office 1000-E-8, EPIP, RIICO, Industrail Area, Sitapura, Jaipur Rajasthan 3302022 India. Policy No.10003/31/12/561429.
3. Shaik Hasan Peer, s/o Lader Bava Saheb aged about 27 years, r/at Nallagutta, Mulakacheruvu driver of Auto AP03TA7325.
… Respondents
This Petition is coming on 14-07-2020 before me for final web hearing of Sri O.V.Ramachandra, Advocate for Petitioners; and Sri N.V.Prasad, Advocate for R1, R3 and Sri G.Janardhana Reddy, Advocate for R2; upon perusing the relevant material on record and having stood over for consideration till this day, this court delivered the following
O R D E R
1.This case is arising out of the above claim petition filed by the petitioners/claimants under section 166(1) of MV Act, claiming compensation of an amount of Rs.7,00,000/- for death of one
Chikkalagiri Masthan, (herein after referred as the deceased aged about 32 years) husband of 1st petitioner and father of petitioner No.2 died in a road traffic accident that occurred on 08-08-2012 at 02- 00 pm in front of Navatha Office MBT Road, Mulakalacheruvu –
Madanapalle NH road 205, Chittoor District, Andhra Pradesh.
2 | P a g e MVOP NO.61/2015
2. The brief case of the petitioners is that the deceased
Chikkalagiri Mastan was earning Rs.30,000/- per month as private electrician and by doing business and he was the only earning member of the family of the petitioners who are his wife and son respectively.
3. That on 08-08-2012 at about 02-00 pm while the deceased was proceeding on the NH road 205 runs between Mulakalacheruvu –
Madanapalle, one Auto bearing No.AP-03-TA-7325 belongs to 1st respondent hit the deceased as a result the deceased sustained severe injuries and immediately he was shifted to the hospital where he died while undergoing treatment. In connection with the said accident a case in Cr.No.51/2012 of Molakalacheruvu P.S was registered under section 304-A, 337 IPC basing on the report of one P.Narasimhulu s/o
Venkatappa and it was investigated into. Inquest was conducted over the dead body of the deceased and thereafter postmortem examination on the dead body of the deceased was conducted at
Government Area Hospital, Madanapalle. The petitioners averred that the deceased was earning Rs.30,000/- per month and they were totally dependents upon the income of the deceased. 2nd respondent is the insurer of the offending vehicle. 3rd respondent is the driver of the offending vehicle at the time of the accident. Hence the petitioners have claimed compensation of Rs.7,00,000/- from R1 to R3.
4.The respondents No.1 and 3 filed common written statement. The respondent No.2 filed separate written statement.
5.It is admitted by respondents No.1 and 3 that the 1st respondent is the owner of the offending vehicle bearing No. AP-03-
TA-7325 and R3 is driver of the offending vehicle at the time of the accident. It is also admitted by R2 that it is insurer of the offending vehicle at the time of the accident.
6.While denying the material allegations it is mainly contended by the R1 and R3 that on the date of the accident R3 was driving the vehicle slowly and vigilantly following traffic rules and at that time the deceased without following traffic rules unmindfully, negligently and suddenly tried to cross the road as a result R3 could not control the offending vehicle and fell down. There is no negligence on the part of the 3rd respondent for the said accident and it caused only due to fault of the deceased himself. It is further contended that
R3 is having valid driving licence at the time of the accident and the 3 | P a g e MVOP NO.61/2015 insurance policy with the 2nd respondent with regard to offending vehicle is in force and if at all any compensation is to be paid the second respondent is only responsible for the same. Hence the petition is liable to be dismissed against R1 and R3.
7.While denying the material allegations it is mainly contended by the 2nd respondent that the driver of offending vehicle was not having valid driving licence at the time of the accident and hence R2 Insurance company is not liable to pay any compensation to the petitioners. The 1st respondent violated the terms and conditions of the policy and he allowed unlicenced person who is 3rd respondent to drive the offending vehicle and hence, R2 is not responsible to pay compensation to the petitioners and petition is liable to be dismissed.
8. Basing on the above pleadings my predecessor framed the following Issues:
1. Whether the accident occurred due to rash and negligent manner of the driving of the vehicle bearing No. AP-03-TA-7325 in the result death is caused to one C.Masthan?
2. Whether the petitioners are entitled for the compensation for what amount and from whom?
3. To what relief?
9.On behalf the petitioners, the 1st petitioner herself entered into the witness box as PW1 and led her evidence by swearing an affidavit reiterating the averments in the petition. PW2 Shaik Suleman (father of the 1st petitioner), PW3 P.Mahaboob Basha, who are said to be the direct witnesses to the accident are examined on behalf of the petitioners. Ex.A1 to Ex.A6 were marked in support of claim of the petitioners. 2nd respondent examined its Executive (Legal) on its behalf as RW1 and examined RW2 M.Gangi Reddy, Inspector of Police, who is the investigating officer in connection with the said accident case and relied on Ex.B1 and Ex.B2 in support of its case. R1 and R3 did not choose to examine themselves nor adduce any evidence on their behalf.
Ex.A1 is Certified Copy of FIR in Cr.No.51 of 2012 of Mulakalacheruvu P.S. Ex.A2 is Certified Copy of Charge Sheet in Cr.No.76/2012 on the file of Judicial Magistrte of I Class, Thamballapalle Ex.A3 is Certified Copy of Post Mortem report of deceased late C.Masthan s/o Valli, 4 | P a g e MVOP NO.61/2015
Ex.A4 is Certified Copy Inquest report of deceased late C.Masthan s/o Valli Ex.A5 is certified copy of RC Ex.A6 is certified copy of permit certificate of crime vehicle under rule 174(iii) of AP MVI rules 1989. Ex.B1 is Insurance policy copy. Ex.B2 is receipt.
10.After closer of evidence stage I have heard arguments advanced by both the sides and also gone through the materials in the case record for determination of the issues in hand.
ISSUE NO.1
11.The claim of the petitioners is that the accident took place due to rash and negligent driving of 3rd respondent who was the driver of the Auto bearing Reg.No. AP-03-TA-7325.
12.During cross examination of PW1 for R3, nothing adverse could be elicited except that she is not an eye witness of the occurrence of accident. The age of the deceased was 32 years at the time of the accident as per Ex.A3 post mortem report and Ex.A4 inquest report of the deceased. There is no dispute with regard to the said age of the deceased at the time of the accident. There is no dispute that the 2nd petitioner is the daughter of the deceased and she is also dependent on the deceased along with 1st petitioner.
13.PW2 Shaik Suleman deposed that he witnessed the accident
Occurred on 08-08-2012 at 02-00 p.m. in front of old Navata office,
Molakalacheruvu town and the deceased died due to said accident.
The deceased was getting income of Rs.30,000/- per month prior to the accident.
14.PW3 Patan Mahaboob Basha, deposed that he witnessed the accident Occurred on 08-08-2012 at 02-00 p.m. in front of old Navata office, Molakalacheruvu town and the deceased died due to said accident. The deceased was getting income of Rs.30,000/- per month prior to the accident.
15. Nothing is elicited from the cross examination of PW2 and
PW3 to disbelive their testimony that they witnessed the said accident.
5 | P a g e MVOP NO.61/2015
16.However, it is clear that though PW1 is not eye witness of the accident but she led documentary evidence viz., certified copy of
FIR as Ex.A1, certified copy of the charge sheet as Ex.A2, certified copy of post mortem report as Ex.A3, inquest report of the deceased as
Ex.A4, certified copy of RC and insurance policy relating to offending vehicle as Ex.A5, certified copy of permit certificate as Ex.A6 in support of her claim petition. Upon perusal of the aforesaid exhibits it is clear that the accident was reported at Molakalacheruvu P.S and cr.No.51/2012 under section 304-A, 337 IPC was registered. During investigation a prima facie case under section 304-A, 337, 279 IPC and under section 134 (a) and (b) r/w 187 of M.V.Act and section 3 r/w 181 of MV Act was found well established against driver / 3rd respondent.
The 2nd respondent/ insurance company did not lead any evidence to establish that the accident was not a result of rash and negligent driving and deceased was not a victim of the accident rather it was only argued on behalf of the 2nd respondent that the petitioners are not eye witness of the accident and the evidence of PW2 and PW3 that they witnessed the accident is not reliable.
17.In Bimla Devi and others vs Himachal Road Transport
corporation and others (2009)13 SC 530 in para No.15 the
Hon’ble Supreme court observed as follows:
“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 there case on the touchstone of preponderance of probability. The standard of proof beyond reasonable doubt could not have been applied”.
18.Therefore, examination of the eye witness is not necessary to establish culpable negligence of the driver of the vehicle and occurrence of the accident. There is absolutely no evidence from the insurance company /2nd respondent to disprove the particulars of the accident or the involvement of the offending vehicle. Nor the fact of accident involving the vehicle resulting in death of the deceased is specifically denied or disputed. The fact that the charge sheet is filed against the 3rd respondent is not denied. Filing of a charge sheet under 6 | P a g e MVOP NO.61/2015 section 304-A, 337, 279 IPC and under section 134 (a) and (b) r/w 187 of M.V.Act and section 3 r/w 181 of MV Act against the 3rd respondent / driver by the investigation police officer after completion of investigation is a prima facie proof of establishment of rash and negligent driving of the offending vehicle resulting in death of the deceased. So relying upon the testimony of PW1 to PW3 and the aforesaid exhibited documents on record it can be concluded that rash and negligent driving on the part of the 3rd respondent /driver resulted in the road traffic accident.
19. No adverse material has been brought by the 2nd respondent/ insurance company to shake the credibility of the post mortem report Ex.A3 and inquest report Ex.A4.
20.Basing on the evidence of PW1 to PW3 and Ex.A1 to Ex.A4 it can be concluded that due to rash and negligent driving of the vehicle bearing No. . AP-03-TA-7325 by 3rd respondent resulted in the death of the deceased Chikkalagiri Mastan. This issue is answered accordingly.
ISSUE NO.2
21.In this case the 1st petitioner is the wife of deceased and petitioner No.2 is the minor daughter of the deceased .
22.In the present case it was the contention of the petitioners that they were Dependents on the deceased. Since there was no evidence in rebuttal that the petitioners No.1 and 2 were no way dependents on the deceased it can be said that petitioners No.1 and 2 are entitled to file the instant claim petition.
23.So far the age of the deceased is concerned, for deciding the multiplier to be used, relying on oral evidence of PW1 to PW3 that the deceased was aged 32 years at the time of accident which was corroborated by documentary evidence of Ex.A3 post mortem report and Ex.A4 inquest report, it can safely be held that on the date of his death, the deceased was aged about 32 years.
24.So far income of the deceased is concerned, in the claim petition and in the evidence affidavit of PW1, it was claimed that the deceased was getting total income of Rs.30,000/- per month by doing electrical work and seasonal business prior to the accident. PW2 7 | P a g e MVOP NO.61/2015 deposed that the deceased was earning Rs.30,000/- per month by doing electrical work and agricultural work, milk vending and doing seasonal fruits business. PW3 deposed that the deceased was earning
Rs.30,000/- per month by doing electrical work and doing seasonal business.
25. It is apparent that there is nothing on record to substantiate the fact that the deceased was doing electrical work, agricultural work and seasonal fruits business and that he was earning Rs.30,000/- per month.
26. There is no bar before the Motor Accident claims Tribunal to resort some guess work while determining possible income in absence of actual income proof. Therefore the monthly income of the deceased is notionally assessed to be Rs.6,000/-. In this view of the matter annual income of the deceased is determined as Rs.6,000/- x 12 = 72,000/-
27.In view of guide lines laid in Sarla Verma and others Vs.
Delhi Road Transport corporation and another, (2009) 6 SCC 121 the deduction for personal and living expenses of the deceased will be 1/3 (one – third ) as the number of his dependent family members is taken as 2. Hence deduction for personal and living expenses of the deceased comes to Rs.1/3 rd of 72,000 = 24,000 (Rupees Twenty four thousand) only per annum. Now, the balance i.e., the contribution to the dependent family by the deceased i.e., the multiplicand is Rs.72,000 – Rs.24,000 = Rs.48,000 (Rupees forty eight thousand )only per annum.
28.So far as multiplier to be adopted is concerned, following the Judgment in National Insurance company Ltd. Vs Pranay sethi and others reported in (2017) ACJ 27400, which advocates the application of the principle laid down in Sarla Verma’s case (supra), the same is 16, as the deceased was about 32 years of age.
29.Now loss of dependency is Rs.48,000x16=Rs.7,68,000/- (Rupees Seven lakh sixty eight thousand) only
30.In addition following the guidelines framed by the Honble
Supreme court in Pranay sethi case (Supra) Rs.15,000/- towards 8 | P a g e MVOP NO.61/2015 funeral expenses another Rs.15,000/- towards loss of estate and finally another Rs.40,000/- towards loss of consortium to the widow are to be added with the total loss of dependency to find out the just compensation.
31.Thus, having considered the facts and circumstances of the case and also after following the relevant Judgments of the Hon’ble
Supreme court, just and reasonable compensation is assessed as under ;
A) Loss of dependency Rs.7,68,000/
B) Loss of estate Rs. 15,000/
C) Loss of consortium Rs. 40,000/
D) Funeral Expenses Rs. 15,000/ ------------------
Total Rs.8,38,000/ ------------------
32.Now the question is who shall pay the amount. There is no denial to the fact that at the relevant time of the accident, the offending vehicle bearing Reg.No. AP-03-TA-7325 was duly insured with 2rd respondent / Sriram General insurance company limited and it is in force as on the date of the accident. The 2nd respondent disputed its liability on the ground that 3rd respondent who is the driver of offending vehicle had no valid driving license.
33.In support of his case R2 Insurance company led the evidence of RW1 and RW2.
34.RW1 A.Rajasekhar Reddy, Executive (Legal) of R2 insurance company deposed that R1 is the owner of the offending vehicle and it was insured with R2 insurance company and the policy Ex.B1 is in force at the time of the accident. The 1st respondent handed over the offending vehicle to the 3rd respondent person to drive it knowing fully well that the 3rd respondent is not having driving licence to driver the offending vehicle. The SHO, Molakalachervuu filed charge sheet for the offence under section 181 of MV Act also and impounded fine of
Rs.500/- from the 1st respondent.
9 | P a g e MVOP NO.61/2015
35.RW2 M.Gangi Reddy, Inspector of police, Punganur, at the relevant time deposed that he was the Investigating officer with regard to the accident in this case which is registered as Cr.No.51/2012 under section 304-A and 337 IPC and he filed charge sheet for the offence under section 304-A, 337, 279 IPC and under section 134 (a) and (b) r/w 187 of M.V.Act and section 3 r/w 181 of MV Act, after completion of investigation and the same is numbered as CC.No.76/2012 on the file of Judicial Magistrate of I Class, Thamballapalle.
36.He further deposed that the 1st respondent is the owner of the offending vehicle and 3rd respondent is the driver of the offending vehicle at the time of the accident and he has collected compounding fee of Rs.500/- under challan No.37202 (Ex.B2) from the 1st respondent on 16-8-2012 as the 3rd respondent was not possessing driving licence.
37.It has been argued by the counsel for R2 that R2 insurance company is not liable to pay compensation as R3 who is the driver of the offending vehicle was prosecuted for driving the offending vehicle without valid driving licence and the respondents No.1 and 3 did not choose to examine themselves to prove that the 3rd respondnet has got driving licence at the time of the accident and R1 has verified that
R3 has driving licence before he entrusted the offending vehicle to the 3rd respondent and hence the 2nd respondent is not liable to pay compensation to the petitioners by relying on the following decisions.
1) Surina Durvasulu (died ) by LRs – Appellant V Bhava Narayan Murthy and others Reported in 2008 ACJ 654
In this case Insurance company seeks to avoid its liability on the plea that driver had no valid licence to drive a tractor.
It was observed by His lord ship Hon’ble Sri Justice
C.Y.Somayagalu at para No.14 that “Since Ex.A4 charge sheet shows that respondent No.1 was prosecuted for driving the tractor without having a valid driving licence and since respondent No.1 did not produce his driving licence, and since respondent No.2 while entrusting the tractor to respondent No.1 did not take care to verify whether he has a valid driving licence or not, and did not also come into the witness box to state that he has taken all the necessary precautions and took steps to entrust the vehicle to a person who has a valid driving licence. since as per ex.B2, respondent No.3 10 | P a g e MVOP NO.61/2015 would not be liable to pay compensation if the driver of the offending vehicle does not hold a valid driving licence. respondent
No.3 is not liabel to pay the compensation payable to the appellants.”
2) United India Insurance Co., Ltd., Hyderabad and another
Vs K.Narasimhulu, and others reported in 2011 (3) ALD 246.
In this case the plea of the insurance company is that the driver of the offending vehicle had no valid effective driving licence to drive at the relevant time.
It was observed by His lord ship Hon’ble Sri Justice
G.Bhavani Prasad at para No.20 that “it is true that in the present case also, the insurance company did not make any specific plea about the owner entrusting the vehicle with full knowledge of absence of any licnece for the driver, but in the light of the subsequent pronouncements by the Apex court, relied on by the learned counsel for the appellants, the very fact that there was no licence for the driver itself has to be construed as violation of the statutory responsibility of the owner under section 5 of the
Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 not to permit any person not satisfying the provisions of section 3 or section 4 to drive the vehicle, making the insurer not liable to reimburse the owner in respect of the claim of a third party. The total absence of driving licence for the driver cannot be considered to be a minor or inconsequential deviation with regard to licensing conditions and the legal obligation on the part of the owner to take adequate care to see that the driver had an appropriate licence to drive the vehicle, cannot altogether be obliterated from consideration in assessing the liability of the insurer and reconciling the views expressed in
United India Insurance company Limited Kurnool V
Lakshmaiah and others (reported in 2000 (3) ALD 49) it may have to be understood that non- compliance with the legal obligations imposed on the owner by the statute must lead to attributing the required knowledge in this regard to the owner and the same being obviously in breach of the terms and conditions of the insurance policy, the insurer cannot be made liable to pay any compensation.” 11 | P a g e MVOP NO.61/2015
38.It has been argued by the counsel for petitioners that though the insurance company is not liable to pay compensation on the ground that the 3rd respondent had no valid driving licence at the time of the accident and the 1st respondent who is the owner of the offending vehicle entrusted the offending vehicle to the 3rd respondnet without verifying whether the 3rd respondent has a valid driving licence or not, the 2nd respondent – insurance company had to indemnify the compensation amount payable to the petitioners who are third party and the 2nd respondent insurance company may recover the same from the insured / 1st respondent by relying on the doctrine of “pay and recover” which was considered by the Hon’ble Supreme court in
National Insurance company Limited Vs Swaran Singh and
others (2004) 3 SCC 297.
The counsel for petitioners also relied on a decision in
Shamanna – Appellant VS Divisional Manager the Oriental
Insurance Company Limited, - Respondent Civil Appeal
No.8144 of 2018 (Arising out of SLP © No.26955 of 2017)
before the Hon’ble Supreme court of India, (Division Bench)
Decided on 08-08-2018
39.In this case also the driver of the jeep (offending vehicle) had no valid driving licence at the time of the accident and there was violation of the terms of the insurance policy. But the tribunal directed the insurance company to pay the compensation to the claimants and granted liberty to the insurance company to recover the same from the owner of the offending vehicle. Being aggrieved by the award the insurance company filed the appeal before the Hon’ble High court of
Karnataka at Dharwad Bench, which held that only the owner of the offending vehicle is liable to make the payment of the compensation amount awarded by the tribunal and set aside the award enhancing the compensation awarded by the Tribunal.
40.Being aggrieved by the Judgment of the Hon’ble High court of Karnataka at Dharwad Bench, setting aside the directions to the insurance company to “pay and recover” the claimants filed appeal
before the Hon’ble Supreme court.
41.It was observed by their lord ships Hon’ble Sri Justice Ranjan
Gogoi and Hon’ble Mrs. Justice R.Bhanumathi at para NO.12 that “Since the reference to the large bench in Parvathneni case has 12 | P a g e MVOP NO.61/2015 been disposed of by keeping the questions of law open to be decided in an appropriate case, presently the decision in swaran singh case followed in Laxmi Narain Dhut and other cases hold the field. The award passed by the Tribunal directing the insurance company to pay the compensation amount awarded to the claimants and thereafter, recover the same from the owner of the vehicle in question, is in accordance with the Judgment passed by this court in Swaran singh and Laxmi Narain Dhut cases. While so, in our view, the High court ought not to have interfered with the award passed by the Tribunal directing the first respondent to pay and recover from the owner of the vehicle. The impugned judgment of the High court exonerating the insurance company from its liability and directing the claimant to recover the compensation from the owner of the vehicle is set aside and the award passed by the tribunal is restored.
42.In the reported case the driver of the offending vehicle had no valid driving licence at the time of the accident and there was violation of the terms of the insurance policy. Even then the award passed by the Tribunal directing the insurance company to pay and recover from the owner of the offending vehicle is restored by the
Honble Supreme court.
43.In the instant case also it is clear that the 3rd respondent who is the driver of the offending vehicle has no valid driving licence and the 1st respondent who is the owner of the vehicle entrusted the offending vehicle to the 1st respondent without verifying whether the 3rd respondent is having valid driving licence or not.
44.It is clear that the decisions relied on by the counsel for 2nd respondent are not relating to the said doctrine of “pay and recover”.
Hence the decisions relied on by the counsel for 2nd respondent are not helpful to the present case.
45.The decision relied on by the counsel for petitioners is applicable to the facts of the case. Hence, relying on the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme court of India, referred supra, I am of the view that the 2nd respondent / Insurance company is liable to pay the compensation to the petitioners with a liberty to the 2nd respondent /
Insurance company to recover the same from the 1st respondent who is 13 | P a g e MVOP NO.61/2015 the owner of the offending vehicle. This issue is answered accordingly.
ISSUE NO.3
46.Regarding protection of the awarded amount Hon’ble
Supreme court in a case reported in (1996) 3 SCC 608 observed as below:
“………. We do hope that courts/Tribunals in the country will not succumb to the temptation of permitting huge withdrawals in the hope of disposing of the claims. We are sure that the courts/Tribunals will realize their duty towards the victims of the accident so that a large part of the compensation amount is not lost to them. The vary purpose of laying down the guide lines was to ensure the safety of the amount so that the claimants do not become victims of unscrupulous persons and unethical agreements or arrangements.”
47.In the instant case the 1st petitioner is aged about 25 years and 2nd petitioner is aged about 05 years, at the time of filing this petition in the year 2015 and they have to survive with the awarded amount of compensation for the whole life. Hence, protection of the awarded amount is necessary.
48.In the result, petition is allowed by awarding compensation of Rs.8,38,000/- (Rupees Eight lakh thirty eight thousand only) with costs and with interest @ 7.5% p.a from the date of filing the petition till the date of deposit. The 2nd respondent shall deposit the said amount of compensation with costs and accrued interest within one month from the date of this order with a liberty to recover the same from the 1st respondent who is the owner of the offending vehicle.
49.The 1st petitioner being the wife of the deceased is entitled for major share of Rs.5,38,000/- with accrued interest and the petitioners No.2 who is the minor daughter of the deceased is entitled for Rs.3,00,000/- with accrued interest. On such deposit by 2rd respondent, the petitioner No.1 is permitted to withdraw of
Rs.4,00,000/- with accrued interest and her remaining share of
Rs.1,38,000/- shall be kept in fixed deposit in any Nationalized Bank for a period of one year.
14 | P a g e MVOP NO.61/2015
50. The petitioner No.2 is being minor her share of
Rs.3,00,000/- shall be kept in fixed deposit in any Nationalized bank till she attains her majority. After attaining her majority she is entitled to her share of Rs.3,00,000/- with accrued interest thereon.
51.The petitioners shall pay the requisite court-fee on the exceeded compensation of Rs.1,38,000/- within one month from the date of this order. The office is directed to draft the decree after the requisite court-fee is paid by the petitioners on the exceeded compensation of Rs.1,38,000/-. A sum of Rs.5,000/- is fixed towards the fee of Advocate for petitioners.
Typed to my dictation, corrected and pronounced by uploading in the e-court’s website this the 07th day of August, 2020.
Chairman, Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal-cum- II Additional District
Judge, Madanapalle
APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE
No. of witnesses Examined on behalf of
Petitioner: Respondents: PW.1: C.Jasmeeni,RW.1:A.Rajasekhar Reddy PW.2: S.Suleman,RW.2:M.Gangi Reddy, PW.3: P.Mahaboob Basha,
Documents Marked
For Petitioner
Ex.A1 is Certified Copy of FIR in Cr.No.51 of 2012 of Mulakalacheruvu P.S. Ex.A2 is Certified Copy of Charge Sheet in Cr.No.76/2012 on the file of Judicial Magistrte of I Class, court, Thamballapalle Ex.A3 is Certified Copy of Post Mortem report of deceased late C.Masthan s/o Valli, Ex.A4 is Certified Copy Inquest report of deceased late C.Masthan s/o Valli Ex.A5 is certified copy of RC Ex.A6 is certified copy of permit certificate of crime vehicle rule 174(iii) of AP MVI rules 1989.
For Respondents :
Ex.B1 is Insurance policy copy. Ex.B2 is receipt.
15 | P a g e MVOP NO.61/2015
Chairman, Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal-cum- II Additional District
Judge, Madanapalle.