Dr Smt G Radha Rani

1M.V.O.P.NO.255 of 2013

BEFORE THE MOTOR ACCIDENTS CLAIMS TRIBUNAL-CUM-

I ADDITIONAL DISTRICT JUDGE

MEDAK AT SANGAREDDY

PRESENT: SMT.G.RADHA RANI,

I ADDL.DISTRICT JUDGE.

Saturday, the 16th day of May, 2015

M.V.O.P. NO. 255 OF 2013 Between:

1. Smt.Y.Shivamma w/o Manaiah, (D/o Papaiah), Aged 40 years,

2. Y.Narsimulu s/o Manaiah, Aged 24 years, Occu: Nil

3. Smt.Y.Anitha w/o Vijay Kumar, Aged 23 years,

4. Kum.Vinaya Latha d/o Vijay Kumar, Aged 6 years,

5. Kum.Victory d/o Vijay Kumar, Aged 4 years. (Claimants No.4 & 5 are minors, represented by natural mother Smt.Anitha, claimant No.3)

6. Premala w/o Vidyasagar, Aged 33 years, Occu; Nil r/o Bidar, Karnataka State.

7. Y.Bharathamma w/o Dayanand, Aged 30 years, r/o Malgi (v), Nyalkal Mandal, Medak Dist. (Claimants No.6 and 7 are added as per orders in I.A.No.870/2014 dated 14.10.2014). Claimants No.1 to 5 are r/o Burdipad (v), Zaheerabad mandal, Medak District. … Claimants AND

1. Ismail Bepori s/o Babusaheb, Aged: Major, Occu: Owner of DCM No.KA.28 B 5272 r/o Talikoti, Middebihal, Dist.Bijapur.

2. M/s Shriram General Insurance Company Limited, represented by its Authorized Officer, Hyderabad. … RESPONDENTS

This Original Petition came up before me for final hearing in the presence of Sri L.Sangram, Counsel for the Claimants and of Sri T.Satyanarayana, Counsel for the respondent No.2, while the respondent No.1 remained ex parte on 28.08.2013; upon perusing the material papers on record and upon hearing both sides and having stood over for consideration, till this day, the court made the following:-

J U D G M E N T

This petition is filed by the Claimants under Section 166 of

Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 claiming compensation of Rs.6,00,000/- for the death of the deceased by name Y.Papaiah in a motor vehicle accident .

2M.V.O.P.NO.255 of 2013

2.The case of the Claimants, in brief, was that the deceased was a resident of Burdipad (v), Zaheerabad Mandal, Medak District, aged about 55 years and was living by doing Mochi/Chappal work and was earning Rs.10,000/- per month. On 02.05.2013, at 8.00 AM, while the deceased was going to the outskirts of the village for attending nature call by foot, a DCM Van bearing No. KA 28 B 5272, belonging to

Respondent No.1, driven by its driver with high speed in rash and negligent manner hit the deceased, due to which he sustained grievous injuries and succumbed to the injuries on the way to hospital. The Police of PS Zaheerabad Rural registered a case in Cr.No.45/2013 against the driver of the DCM vehicle and filed charge sheet and the same was pending before the Judicial First Class Magistrate, Zaheerabad. The claimants claimed compensation from respondents No.1 and 2, the owner and insurer of the DCM Van.

3. The Respondent No.1 remained ex parte.

4.The Respondent No.2 filed counter. He called for strict proof of the petition averments and the and the claimants were dependents on the deceased.

5.The following issues are framed for trial:

1.Whether the death of the deceased occurred in the motor accident due to the rash and negligent driving of the driver of the crime vehicle?

3M.V.O.P.NO.255 of 2013

2.Whether the Claimants are entitled for compensation as prayed for, if so, at what amount and from whom?

3.To what result?

6. The Claimants got examined Pws.1 and 2 and marked

Ex.A.1 to Ex.A.6 on their behalf. The Respondent No.2 had not adduced any oral evidence but got marked Ex.B.1 on his behalf.

7.Heard the learned counsel for the Claimants and the

Respondent No.2.

8.Issue No.1 :- As per the contention of the claimants, the deceased died due to the rash and negligent driving of the driver of DCM

Van bearing No. KA 28 B 5272. The Respondent No.2 called for strict proof of the same.

9.The Claimants got examined an eye witness to the accident as Pw.2. Pw.2 filed his evidence affidavit stating that he witnessed the accident and the deceased sustsained injuries only due to the rash and negligent driving of the driver of the DCM Van. In his cross examination, he stated that the accident occurred on the service road, an approach to

National High Way and he was behind the DCM vehicle coming from his agricultural land, which was at a distance of 2 kms from the place of accident.

10.The Claimants had also relied upon Ex.A.1 to Ex.A.6 in support of their contention. Ex.A.1, the certified copy of the First 4M.V.O.P.NO.255 of 2013

Information Report would disclose that the police report was given by the brother of the deceased immediately after the accident and he stated the manner of the DCM van involved in the accident and the name of the driver in his report. Ex.A.2, the certified copy of the charge sheet would disclose that the police after investigation filed the charge sheet against the driver of the DCM Van bearing No. KA 28 B 5272 holding him responsible for the accident. The name of Pw.2 was also cited as an eye witness by the police in the list of witnesses in the charge sheet, which would adds credence to his evidence as an eye witness. Ex.A.3, the certified copy of the inquest report would disclose that the deceased died due to injuries sustained in the road traffic accident. Ex.A.4, certified copy of the post mortem examination report would disclose that the deceased died due to 'Shock and Haemorrhage as a result of injuries to vital organ like Brain'. Ex.A.5, certified copy of the Scene of observation panchanama would disclose that the place of accident was at the outskirts of Burdipad (v) in front of Muslim Khabaristhan and the DCM

Van driver with a load of buffaloes came on to his wrong side sleeping and hit the deceased, who was going by the side of the road for attending nature call. The rough sketch of the scene enclosed to it would disclose the manner of accident as recorded in the Scene of observation panchanama. Ex.A.6, the certified copy of Motor Vehicle Inspector report would disclose that there were no mechanical defects to the said 5M.V.O.P.NO.255 of 2013 vehicle and that the Head lights and Wind Screen glass of the vehicle were broken.

11.The respondent No.2 had not adduced any rebuttal evidence to disbelieve the evidence of Pw.2 or the investigation conducted by the police. In the absence of any contra evidence led by the respondent

No.2, considering the evidence of Pw.2 and Ex.A.1 to Ex.A.6, it is held that the deceased died due to the rash and negligent driving of the driver of DCM Van bearing No. KA 28 B 5272. Hence, the issue No.1 is answered accordingly in favour of the Claimants as against the respondent No.2.

12.Issue No.2 :- To determine the quantum of compensation, the claimants had not adduced any reliable proof of the age of the deceased. Hence, the age of the deceased is considered as per the post mortem examination and inquest reports. As Ex.A.3 and Ex.A.4, the certified copies of the inquest and post mortem examination reports are disclosing the age of the deceased as 55 years, it is taken as such. In the absence of any reliable proof as to the occupation and income of the deceased, the income of the deceased is considered as Rs.3,000/- per month. As the petition is filed under Section 166 of Motor Vehicles Act, the multiplier is taken as per the judgment of Hon'ble Apex Court in Sarla

Verma case. Considering the age of the deceased as 55 years, multiplier '11' is taken. Considering the number of claimants being 6M.V.O.P.NO.255 of 2013 seven, 1/5th is deducted towards the personal expenses of the deceased.

The loss of dependency is calculated as (Rs.3,000/- x 12 x 11 x 4/5)

Rs.3,16,800/-. A conventional amount of Rs.5,000/- is awarded towards funeral expenses and Rs.10,000/- is awarded towards loss of estate.

Hence, the total compensation awarded is as follows:-

Loss of dependencyRs. 3,16,800-00

Loss of estateRs. 10,000-00

Funeral expensesRs. 05,000-00

Total Rs. 3,31,800-00

13.As per the evidence of Pw.1 (claimant No.1), she was the widowed daughter of the deceased and claimant No.2 was her son and claimant No.3 was the wife of her another deceased don and claimants

No.4 and 5 were the children of claimant No.3. Though, she denied in her earlier cross examination by counsel for Respondent No.2 on 6.3.2014 that there were no other children to the deceased other than her, later impleaded claimant No.6 and 7 vide I.A.No.870/2014 on 14.10.2014 and admitted that they were her younger sisters. Though, she stated that her father brought her husband as illatom-son-in-law as there were no male issues to him, failed to file any documentary evidence to show that she and her family were living with the deceased.

Hence, the claimants No.2 to 5 are not considered as dependents on the deceased and the claimants No.1, 6 and 7, the daughters of the deceased are alone considered as entitled to the compensation amount equally.

7M.V.O.P.NO.255 of 2013

14.The compensation awarded is apportioned among the

Claimants as follows:-

Claimant No.1DaughterRs. 1,10,600-00 Claimant No.6DaughterRs. 1,10,600-00 Claimant No.7Daughter Rs. 1,10,600-00 Claimants No.2 to 5Grand childrenNIL

15.The respondent No.2 had not adduced any evidence to show that the Respondent No.1 violated the terms and conditions of the policy.

He filed the copy of the policy, marked as Ex.B.1. As Ex.B.1 would disclose that the respondent No.1 is the owner of the vehicle and he insured the vehicle bearing No.KA 28 B 5272 with respondent No.2 vide

Policy No.10003/31/14/008854 for the period from 6.4.,2013 to 5.3.2014 covering the date of accident on 2.5.2013, the respondents No.1 and 2 are held to be jointly and severally liable to pay the compensation to the

Claimants No.1, 6 and 7 for the rash and negligent act of the driver of the respondent No.1 due to which the deceased died, on the principles of vicarious liability and laws of indemnity.

16.Issue No.3 :- In the result, the petition is allowed in part awarding compensation of Rs.3,31,800/- with proportionate costs and interest @ 6% per annum from the date of petition till the date of deposit.

The respondents No.1 & 2 are held to be jointly and severally liable to pay compensation tot he claimants and they are directed to deposit the amount within 30 days from the date of this order. The Claimants No.1, 6 8M.V.O.P.NO.255 of 2013 and 7 are entitled to receive the compensation with costs and interest equally as follows:-

Claimant No.1Rs. 1,10,600/-

Claimant No.6Rs. 1,10,600/-

Claimant No.7Rs. 1,10,600/-

The claimants No.2 to 5 are not considered as dependents on the deceased and their claim is dismissed. The claimants No.1, 6 and 7 are permitted to withdraw their entire share amounts. Advocate fee is fixed at

Rs.3,000/-.

Written, corrected and pronounced by me in the open Court on this the 16th day of May, 2015.

I ADDITIONAL DISTRICT JUDGE

MEDAK AT SANGAREDDY

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

WITNESSES EXAMINED

FOR ClaimantsFOR RESPONDENTS

PW.1 Y.ShivammaNIL

Pw.2 K.Dharmanna

EXHIBITS MARKED ON BEHALF OF Claimants:

Ex.A1Certified copy of F.I.R and complaint.

Ex.A2 Certified copy of Charge sheet.

Ex.A3Certified copy of Inquest Report.

Ex.A4Certified copy of PME Report.

Ex.A5Certified copy of Scene of offence panchanama with sketch

Ex.A6Certified copy of MVI report.

9M.V.O.P.NO.255 of 2013

EXHIBITS MARKED ON BEHALF OF RESPONDENTS:

Ex.B.1Insurance policy copy.

I ADDITIONAL DISTRICT JUDGE

MEDAK AT SANGAREDDY

1MV OP NO.246 OF 2014

BEFORE THE MOTOR ACCIDENTS CLAIMS TRIBUNAL-CUM-

I ADDITIONAL DISTRICT JUDGE

MEDAK AT SANGAREDDY

PRESENT: SMT.G.RADHA RANI,

I ADDL.DISTRICT JUDGE.

SATURDAY, THE 16TH DAY OF MAY, 2015

M.V.O.P. NO.246 OF 2014

Between:

1. Smt.Bolla Shashirekha w/o late Bolla Krishna, Aged 30 years, Occu: House hold.

2. Bolla Sandhya Rani d/o late Krishna, Aged 14 years, Occu: Student.

3. Bolla Bhanu Prasad s/o Bolla Krishna, Aged 13 years, Occu: Student.

4. Bolla Surya Prakash s/o Bolla Krishna, Aged 11 years, Occu: Student.

5. Bolla Sailu s/o Narsaiah, Aged 60 years,

6. Bolla Balamani w/o Sailu, Aged 55 years, (Claimants 2 to 4 are minors, who are under the guardianship of claimant No.1, who is natural mother of claimants No.2 to 4).

All now residing at Isnapur (v), Patancheru (M), Medak Dist.

… Claimants

AND

M/s Actus Pharma Pvt.Ltd., Rep by Y.V.Prasd, Bonthapallyl, Near: Bharath Petrol Pump, Jinnaram (M), Medak Dist. Owner of Bus bearing No.AP.9X 6757.

… RESPONDENT

This Original Petition came up before me for final hearing in the presence of Sri G.Hanumantha Reddy, Counsel for the Claimants and the sole respondent remained ex parte; upon perusing the material papers on record and upon hearing the counsel for claimants, and having stood over for consideration, till this day, the court made the following:- 2MV OP NO.246 OF 2014

J U D G M E N T

This petition is filed by the petitioners/ wife, children and parents of the deceased under Section 166 of M. V. Act 1988 claiming compensation of Rs. 6,00,000 for the death of the deceased by name

Bolla Krishna in a motor vehicle accident.

2.The case of the petitioners in brief was that the deceased was a resident of Chennapur village, Shivampet (M), Medak District, aged about 34 years and was living by doing agriculture and milk business and was earning Rs. 20,000 per month by the date of accident.

On 14-11-2012, the deceased went to meet his friend at Khajipalli village and while returning on his motor cycle bearing number AP23P9631 to his village Chennapur and when reached Gagillapur cross road, a mini bus bearing number AP09X 6757 driven by its driver with high speed in rash and negligent manner came on to its extreme right side and hit the deceased in opposite direction due to which the deceased sustained grievous injuries and was shifted to Gandhi Hospital in 108 Ambulance and while undergoing treatment succumbed to the injuries on the next day. It was submitted that police Dundigal registered a case vide Crime

No. 575 of 2012 u/S 304-A IPC against the driver of the mini bus bearing number AP09X6757 and filed charge sheet. The petitioners claimed compensation from the respondent, the owner of the bus for the death of the deceased in the motor vehicle accident.

3.The Respondent received notice, filed vakalat through his counsel but failed to file counter. Hence set ex-parte.

4.The petitioners got examined Pws-1 to 3 and marked Exhibits

A-1 to A-7 on their behalf.

5.Now the points for consideration are:

3MV OP NO.246 OF 2014

1. Whether the death of the deceased occurred in the motor accident due to the rash and negligent driving of the driver of the crime vehicle?

2. Whether the petitioners were entitled for compensation as prayed for, if so, at what amount and from whom?

3. To what result?

6.Point No.1: The claimants got examined an eye witness to the accident as PW- 2. He filed his evidence affidavit stating that he witnessed the accident and the deceased sustained injuries only due to the rash and negligent driving of the driver of the mini bus bearing number AP09X6757. He stated that after the accident he found a diary in the pocket of the deceased and intimated the family members and also the Dundigal Police about the accident. His evidence remained uncontroverted.

7.The petitioners also relied upon Ex A -1 to Ex A – 5 in support of their contention. Ex A-1, the certified copy of the FIR would disclose that the police report was given by the junior paternal uncle of the deceased on the next day of the accident and he stated the number of the mini bus which hit the motor cycle of the deceased in his report. Ex

A -2, certified copy of the charge sheet would disclose that police after investigation filed charge sheet against the driver of the mini bus holding him responsible for the accident. Ex A – 3, certified copy of the inquest panchanama conducted by police on the body of the deceased would reveal that the deceased died due to the injuries sustained in the road traffic accident. Ex A – 4, certified copy of the PME report would disclose that the deceased died due to multiple injuries sustained in the road traffic accident. Ex A - 5, certified copy of the MVI report would disclose that the MVI inspected the mini bus bearing number AP09X6757 and found damages to the vehicle as wind screen glass broken, front right 4MV OP NO.246 OF 2014 side body, bumper and front head light damaged but there were no mechanical defects in the vehicle.

8.Considering the oral evidence of PW-2 and the documentary evidence marked under Ex A-1 to A-5 which were not discredited, point

No. 1 is answered accordingly in favour of the claimants as against the respondent holding that the deceased died due to the rash and negligent driving of the driver of the mini bus bearing number AP09X6757.

9.Point No. 2: The petitioners being the legal heirs of the deceased are entitled to claim compensation for the death of the deceased in the motor vehicle accident due to the rash and negligent driving of the mini bus of the Respondent by its driver.

10.To assess the quantum of compensation, multiplier method is adopted. To determine the age of the deceased, no reliable evidence is adduced by the claimants. Hence, the age of the deceased as found in the inquest and PME reports is considered. As Ex. A-3 and A-4 are disclosing the age of the deceased as 34 years, it is taken as such.

11.The petitioners got examined the claimant No. 1, the wife of the deceased and PW-3 a resident of Chennapur village to prove the avocation and income of the deceaed. They stated that the deceased was maintaining she-buffaloes and also was procuring milk from others on commission basis and was supplying to Manikanta Dairy Farm,

Narsapur and was earning Rs. 20, 000 to Rs. 25,000/- per month. The claimant No. 1 also stated that the deceased was paying school fee of claimants 2 to 4 to an extent of Rs. 45,000/- per year out of his earnings.

She filed Ex- A- 6, Certificates issued by the Principal of Sri Krishnaveni

Talent School, Narsapur to prove that claimants 2 to 4 were students of the said school and were paying tution fee to an amount of Rs. 15,500,

Rs. 13,500 and Rs. 11,800 respectively. She filed Ex- A-7, 23 bills issued by Manikanta Dairy, Narsapur to prove the earnings of the deceased at 5MV OP NO.246 OF 2014

Rs. 1,000 per day on an average. But, she had not examined any person from Manikanta Dairy, Narsapur in proof of the said bills and not adduced any evidence as to the expenses incurred by the deceased and the number of she-buffaloes he was holding and the commission received by him by procuring milk from others. In the absence of any such evidence, the income of the deceased is considered as only Rs. 5,000/- per month.

12.As the petition is filed u/S 166 of M. V. Act, multiplier 16 is taken as the age of the deceased is considered as 34 years, as per the judgment of Hon’ble Apex Court in Sarla Verma and Others Vs. Delhi

Transport Corporation and another, 2009 (3) ALD 83 (SC) and 1/4th is deducted towards the personal expenses of the deceased considering the number of claimants being six (6). Hence, the loss of dependency is calculated as (Rs. 5,000 x 12 x 16 x 3/4) Rs. 7,20,000/-. A conventional amount of Rs. 5,000 is awarded towards funeral expenses and Rs.

10,000 is awarded towards loss of estate. An amount of Rs. 10,000 is awarded towards loss of consortium to claimant No. 1. Hence the total compensation entitled is as follows:

Loss of dependency - Rs. 7,20,000/-

Loss of estate - Rs. 10,000/-

Loss of consortium - Rs. 10,000/-

Funeral expenses - Rs. 5,000/-

Total - Rs. 7,45,000/-

But, as the petitioners claimed an amount of Rs. 6,00,000/-, the compensation awarded is limited to the amount claimed.

13.The compensation is apportioned among the claimants as follows:

6MV OP NO.246 OF 2014

Claimant No. 1 (wife) - Rs.1,50,000/-

Claimant No. 2 (daughter) - Rs.1,00,000/-

Claimant No. 3 (son) - Rs.1,00,000/-

Claimant No. 4 (son) - Rs.1,00,000/-

Claimant No. 5 (father) - Rs. 75,000/-

Claimant No. 6 (mother) - Rs. 75,000/-

14.As Ex A-5, the certified copy of the MVI report would disclose that the respondent was the owner of the mini bus (Swaraj Mazda) bearing No. AP09X6757, the respondent is considered as the owner of the vehicle and is considered liable to pay the compensation to the claimants for the negligent act of his driver on the principle of vicarious liability.

15.Point No. 3: In the result, the petition is allowed awarding compensation of Rs. 6,00,000/- with costs and interest at 6% per annum from the date of petition till the date of deposit of the amount. The

Respondent is held liable to pay compensation to the claimants. He is directed to deposit the amount within 30 days from the date of this Order.

On such deposit, the compensation shall be apportioned among the claimants as follows:

Claimant No. 1 (wife) - Rs. 1,50,000/-

Claimant No. 2 (daughter) - Rs. 1,00,000/-

Claimant No. 3 (son) - Rs. 1,00,000/-

Claimant No. 4 (son) - Rs. 1,00,000/-

Claimant No. 5 (father) - Rs. 75,000/-

Claimant No. 6 (mother) - Rs. 75,000/-

The claimant No. 1 is permitted to withdraw the entire amount along with costs and interest on the total compensation awarded. The amounts 7MV OP NO.246 OF 2014 awarded to the claimants 2 to 4 shall be invested in fixed deposit in any

Nationalised Bank till they attain the age of majority. The claimants 5 and 6 are permitted to withdraw the entire amount awarded to their shares.

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

Prepared by me, corrected and pronounced in open Court on this the 16th day of May, 2015.

I ADDITIONAL DISTRICT JUDGE

MEDAK AT SANGAREDDY

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

WITNESSES EXAMINED

FOR ClaimantsFOR RESPONDENT

PW.1 Bolla ShashirekhaNIL

Pw.2 V.Santosh Kumar

Pw.3 E.Bikshapathi

EXHIBITS MARKED ON BEHALF OF Claimants:

Ex.A1Certified copy of F.I.R.

Ex.A2 Certified copy of Charge sheet.

Ex.A3Certified copy of Inquest Report.

Ex.A4Certified copy of PME Report.

Ex.A5Certified copy of MVI Report.

Ex.A6Certificates (3) issued by Sri Krishnaveni Talent School.

Ex.A.7Bills (23) issued by Manikanta Dairy Narsapur, Medak Dist.

EXHIBITS MARKED ON BEHALF OF RESPONDENT: NIL

I ADDITIONAL DISTRICT JUDGE

MEDAK AT SANGAREDDY

1M.V.O.P.NO. 71 OF 2015

BEFORE THE MOTOR ACCIDENTS CLAIMS TRIBUNAL-CUM-

I ADDITIONAL DISTRICT JUDGE :

MEDAK AT SANGAREDDY

PRESENT: SMT.G.RADHA RANI,

I ADDL.DISTRICT JUDGE.

SATURDAY, THE 16TH DAY OF MAY, 2015

M.V.O.P. NO. 71 OF 2015

Between:

1. Damargidda Bheemaiah s/o Bhoomaiah, Aged 45 years, Occu: Labour.

2. Kum.Ramadevi d/o Bheemaiah, Aged 19 years, Occu: Student.

3. Kum.Naga Rani d/o Bheemaiah, Aged 15 years, Occu: Student, (Minor) under the guardianship of her natural father, claimant No.1 D.Bheemaiah.

All r/o H.No.2-76, Kadpal (v) & Post, Mandal: Kalher, Medak District 502 287.

… Claimants

AND 1Vontari Malla Reddy s/o Vittal Reddy, Aged: Major, Occu: Owner of Motor Cycle bearing No.AP.23 AM 2137, r/o H.No.3-77, Kadpal (v), Mandal: Kalher, Medak District 502 287.

2. M/s National Insurance Company Limited, through its Branch Manager, Sushiram Complex, N.H.Way No.9, Patancheru town, Dist.Medak. Policy Certificate No.39010231136202376189 valid from 10.10.2013 to 09.10.2014.

… RESPONDENTS

This Original Petition came up before me for final hearing in the presence of Sri P.Vishnuvardhan Reddy, Counsel for the Claimants and the Respondent No.1 & 2 remained ex parte; upon perusing the material papers on record and upon hearing the claimants counsel, and having stood over for consideration, till this day, the court made the following:- 2M.V.O.P.NO. 71 OF 2015

J U D G M E N T

This petition is filed by the petitioners/ husband and daughters of the deceased under Section 166 of M. V. Act 1988 claiming compensation of Rs. 9,00,000 for the death of the deceased by name

Smt. Damargidda Lakshmi @ Lachavva in a motor vehicle accident.

2.The case of the petitioners in brief was that the deceased was a resident of Kadpal village, Kalher (M), Medak District, aged about 35 years and was a vegetable vendor and was earning Rs. 10,000 per month by the date of accident. On 25-05-2014, the deceased went to attend the marriage of her relative at Kamareddy village and while returning home on 28-05-2014 on the motor cycle bearing number

AP23AM2137 driven by one Jakkula Mallesham and when reached the limits of Nizampet village at 09 00 A.M., the said Mallesham drove the motor cycle with high speed in rash and negligent manner due to which the deceased , D. Lakshmi, travelling as a pillion rider fell down and sustained head injury and was shifted to Government Hospital

Narayankhed and from there to Balaji Hospital, Sangareddy and the doctors at Balaji Hospital referred her to Gandhi Hospital and while undergoing treatment died on 30-05-2014 at 10-25 P.M.

It was submitted that Police Narayankhed registered a case vide Crime No. 148 of 2014 u/S 304-A IPC against the rider of the motor cycle bearing number AP23AM2137 and filed charge sheet and the same was pending before JFCM Narayankhed. The petitioners claimed compensation from the respondents 1 and 2, the owner and insurer of the motor cycle bearing number AP23AM2137 for the death of the deceased in the motor vehicle accident.

3.The Respondents received notices but not contested the matter. Hence they were set ex-parte.

3M.V.O.P.NO. 71 OF 2015

4.The petitioners got examined Pws-1 to 2 and marked Exhibits

A-1 to A-9 on their behalf.

5.Now the points for consideration are:

1. Whether the death of the deceased occurred in the motor accident due to the rash and negligent driving of the rider of the crime vehicle?

2. Whether the petitioners were entitled for compensation as prayed for, if so, at what amount and from whom?

3. To what result?

6.Point No.1:The claimants got examined an eye witness to the accident as PW- 2. He filed his evidence affidavit stating that he was travelling on his motor cycle from Nizampet to Narayankhed and witnessed the accident at the out skirts of Nizampet village near a Darga and that the deceased sustained injuries only due to the rash and negligent driving of the rider of the motor cycle bearing number

AP23AM2137. His evidence remained uncontroverted.

The petitioners also relied upon Ex A -1 to Ex A - 6 in support of their contention. Ex A-1, the certified copy of the FIR would disclose that the police report was given by the husband of the deceased on 31- 05-2014 at 11-00 A.M. and he reported about the negligent driving of

Mallesham. Ex A -2, certified copy of the charge sheet would disclose that police after investigation filed charge sheet against the rider of the motor cycle bearing No.AP.23 AM 2137 holding him responsible for the accident. Ex A – 3 is the Certified copy of the Scene of observation panchanama and a rough is enclosed to it. Ex. A- 4, the Certified copy of the inquest panchanama conducted by police on the body of the deceased would reveal that the deceased died due to the injuries sustained in the road traffic accident. Ex A – 5, Certified copy of the PME report would disclose that the deceased died due to head injury. Ex A - 6, 4M.V.O.P.NO. 71 OF 2015

Certified copy of the MVI report would disclose that the MVI inspected the motor cycle bearing number AP23AM2137 and found no mechanical defects in the vehicle.

Considering the oral evidence of PW-2 and the documentary evidence marked under Ex A-1 to A-6 which were not discredited, point

No. 1 is answered accordingly in favour of the claimants as against the respondents holding that the deceased died due to the rash and negligent driving of the rider of the motor cycle bearing number

AP23AM2137.

7..Point No. 2: The petitioners being the legal heirs of the deceased are entitled to claim compensation for the death of the deceased in the motor vehicle accident due to the rash and negligent driving of the motor cycle by its rider.

To assess the quantum of compensation, multiplier method is adopted. To determine the age of the deceased, no reliable evidence is adduced by the claimants. Hence, the age of the deceased as found in the inquest and PME reports is considered. As Ex. A-4 and A-5 are disclosing the age of the deceased as 35 years, it is taken as such.

The petitioners had not adduced any evidence to prove the occupation and income of the deceased. In the absence of any reliable evidence as to the occupation and income of the deceased, considering the deceased as a house wife and the judgment of the Hon’ble Apex

Court in Arun Kumar Agarwal and another Vs. National Insurance

Company Ltd and Others, 2010 (6) ALD 123 (SC), the value of her service is notionally taken as Rs. 5,000/- per month. As the petition is filed u/S 166 of M. V. Act multiplier 16 is taken as her age is considered

as 35 years, as per the judgment of Hon’ble Apex Court in Sarla Verma

and Others Vs. Delhi Transport Corporation and another, 2009 (3) ALD 83 (SC) and 1/3rd is deducted towards her personal expenses 5M.V.O.P.NO. 71 OF 2015 considering the number of claimants being three (3). Hence, the loss of dependency is calculated as (Rs. 5,000 x 12 x 2/3 X 16) Rs. 6,40,000/-.

A conventional amount of Rs. 5,000 is awarded towards funeral expenses and Rs. 10,000 is awarded towards loss of estate and Rs.

10,000 is awarded to claimant No. 1 towards loss of consortium. Hence the total compensation awarded is as follows:

Loss of dependency -Rs. 6,40,000/-

Loss of estate -Rs. 10,000/-

Loss of consortium -Rs. 10,000/-

Funeral expenses -Rs. 5,000/-

Total - Rs. 6,65,000/-

8.The compensation is apportioned among the claimants as follows:

Claimant No. 1 (husband) - Rs. 2,65,000/-

Claimant No. 2 (daughter) - Rs. 2,00,000/-

Claimant No. 3 (daughter) - Rs. 2,00,000/-

9.The claimants got filed Ex-A-8, the photostat copy of the

Registration Certificate of the motor cycle which would show that the respondent no. 1 was the owner of the motor cycle. Ex A-7, the photostat copy of the insurance policy would disclose that the said vehicle was insured with the Respondent No. 2 vide Policy Certificate Number 39010231136202376189 for the period from 10-10-2013 to 09-10-2014 covering the date of accident on 28-05-2014. The claimants got filed Ex.

A-9, the photostat copy of the driving license of the rider of the motor cycle. Hence, considering Ex.A.7, Ex.A.8 and Ex.A.9, the Respondents 1 and 2 are held to be jointly and severally liable to pay compensation to the claimants.

6M.V.O.P.NO. 71 OF 2015

10.Point No. 3: In the result, the petition is allowed in part awarding compensation of Rs. 6,65,000/- with proportionate costs and interest at 6% per annum from the date of petition till the date of deposit of the amount. The Respondents 1 and 2 are held to be jointly and severally liable to pay compensation to the claimants. The respondents are directed to deposit the amount within 30 days from the date of this

Order. On such deposit, the compensation shall be apportioned among the claimants as follows:

Claimant No. 1 (husband) - Rs. 2,65,000/-

Claimant No. 2 (daughter) - Rs. 2,00,000/-

Claimant No. 3 (daughter) - Rs. 2,00,000/-

The claimant No. 1 is permitted to withdraw the entire amount along with costs and interest on the total compensation awarded. The claimant No.2 is also permitted to withdraw her entire amount. The amount awarded to the claimant No. 3 shall be invested in fixed deposit in any Nationalised

Bank till she attains the age of majority. Advocate fee is fixed at Rs.

6,000/-.

Prepared by me, corrected and pronounced in open Court on this the 16th day of May, 2015.

I ADDITIONAL DISTRICT JUDGE

MEDAK AT SANGAREDDY

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

WITNESSES EXAMINED

FOR ClaimantsFOR RESPONDENTS

PW.1 D.BheemaiahNIL

Pw.2 K.Linga Reddy 7M.V.O.P.NO. 71 OF 2015

EXHIBITS MARKED ON BEHALF OF Claimants:

Ex.A1Certified copy of F.I.R and complaint.

Ex.A2 Certified copy of Charge sheet.

Ex.A3Certified copy of Scene of offence panchanama with sketch.

Ex.A4Certified copy of Inquest Report.

Ex.A5Certified copy of PME Report.

Ex.A6Certified copy of MVI report.

Ex.A7Photostat copy of insurance policy.

Ex.A8Photostat copy of R.C book of crime vehicle.

Ex.A9Photostat copy of Driving licence of the accused.

EXHIBITS MARKED ON BEHALF OF RESPONDENTS: NIL

I ADDITIONAL DISTRICT JUDGE

MEDAK AT SANGAREDDY

TSME000005942014

Presented on : 06-02-2014 Registered on : 06-02-2014 Decided on : 29-04-2015 Duration : 1 years, 2 months, 23 days

IN THE COURT OF

Principal District and Sessions Judge, Sangareddy

CRLA/23/2014

Exhibit No. (PROSECUTION): Madapathi Shankaraiah Swami Through Police Station Officer , Age.35 years, Occ.Private Work, Ro.Bhavanimandir, Doodbowli, Near.Police Station, Hyderabad MEDAK

Madapathi Shankaraiah Swami VERSUS : Madapathi Parwatamma Age: 0 Occupation : Age.28 years, Occ.House Wife, Ro.Athelli Village, vikarabad Mandal, R.R.District, Presently residing at her parents Houseat Co.Sangaiah,Marepally Village, Kondapur Mandal, Medak District.

2:R.2 M. Manemma Age: 50 Occupation :

3:R.3 M. Sambashiva Swamy Age: 25 Occupation :

4:R.4 M. Parvathamma Age: 40 Occupation :

5:R.5 M. Chandrashekar Age: 50 Occupation ----------------------------------------------------------------------------- APP for State }: T.Buchaiah, Advocate for appearing for Madapathi Parwatamma Advocate , appearing for , 2,3,4, 5 respectively. -----------------------------------------------------------------------------

Offence punishable under : 374(3)Cr.p.c. of CODE OF CRIMINAL

PROCEDURE,

of ,

ORDER

Order pronounced in the open Court (vide separate one). In the result, the appeal is partly allowed, modifying the order of the trial Court in DVC.No.26 of 2010 Dated 06.12.2013 by reducing the maintenance from Rs.3,000/-to Rs.2,000/- per month and the period of maintenance from the date of petition to the date of order. The respondent/appellant is directed to pay the said maintenance regularly on or before 10th of every month.

Date : 29-04-2015 Principal District and Sessions Judge,

Sangareddy

TSME000009572014

Presented on : 28-01-2014 Registered on : 18-03-2014 Decided on : 01-04-2015 Duration : 1 years, 2 months, 4 days

IN THE COURT OF

II Additional District and Sessions Judge, Sangareddy AT ,MEDAK Presided Over by Dr. P. P KRISHNA ARJUN

EP/300073/2014

Exhibit No.:

: Sravins Instrument and Systems Age: 0 Occupation : Address: Plot No. 6, Kalyan Nagar, Gaddiannaram, Hyderabad

VERSUS : Union of India Age: 0 Occupation : Address: Ministry of Defence, South Block, New Delhi - 110 001 2:General Manager Age: 0 Occupation :

3:Director General of Ordinance Age: 0 Occupation ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Advocate for : Sri T. Radha Kishan Rao

Advocate for : appearing for Union of India: Advocate , appearing for 2, 3 respectively.

JUDGMENT

(Delivered on 01-04-2015 )

ORDER

Process not deposited. No representation by DHR counsel. Hence E.P. is dismissed for default without costs.

Date : 01-04-2015 (Dr. P. P KRISHNA ARJUN)

II Additional District and Sessions Judge,

Sangareddy

Dictated on :

Transcribed on : checked on : Signed on :

(Dr. P. P KRISHNA ARJUN) {JUDGE_DESIGNATION_NAME} II Additional District and Sessions Judge, Sangareddy

Visit ecourts.gov.in for updates or download mobile app “eCourts Services ” from Android or iOS