G.sardar Mohan Rao

V Addl. District and Sessions Judge

Kothagudem, PDJ Court Complex · Bhadradri Kothagudem · Telangana

G.SARDAR MOHAN RAO, V Addl. District and Sessions Judge, is posted at Kothagudem, PDJ Court Complex, Bhadradri Kothagudem, Telangana, India. 426 court orders on record since 2012. 7 judgments with full text available. Primarily handles MVOP, SC, AS cases.

426

Total Orders

Judgments

Orders/Month

Postings

Featured Judgments

MVOP/100670/2012

PRATHIGADAPA ANURADHA AND 3 OTHERS. vs ATHULURI KIRAN KUMAR AND ANOTHER.

15 May 2015

IN THE COURT OF THE MOTOR ACCIDENTS CLAIMS TRIBUNAL

(V ADDL.DISTRICT JUDGE) AT KOTHAGUDEM.

Dated this, the 15th day of May, 2015.

Present: Sri G.Sardar Mohan Rao, Chairman, Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal (V Addl.District Judge), Kothagudem.

M.V.O.P.No. 670 of 2012

Between:

1.Smt. Prathigadapa Anuradha, W/o: Late Ratnam Raju, age: 45 yrs., Occ: House hold,

2.Prathigadapa Aparna, D/o: Late Ratnam Raju, age: 26 yrs., Occ: House-hold

3.Prathigadapa Indu, D/o: Late Ratnam Raju, age: 25 yrs., Occ: House - hold,

4.Prathigadapa Rajitha, D/o: Late Ratnam Raju, age: 23 yrs., Occ: Student, All are R/o: Near Water Tank, Bagath Singh Nagar, Bandarugudem, Manuguru Post and Mandal, Khammam District. …..Claim Petitioners.

And

1.Athuluri Kiran Kumar, S/o: Srinivasa Rao, Occ: Owner of Santro Car bearing No. AP 9 BD -3075, R/o: Amrutha Residency, Brahmanwadi, Begumpet, Hyderabad.

2. Bajaj Allianz General Insurance Company Limited, Represented by its Branch Manager, Wyra Road, Khammam (vide Cover Note No. 10002365160, valid from 14.06.2006 to 13.06.2007) ….Respondents.

This petition coming before me on 02.04.2015 for final hearing in the presence of Sri. P. Madhava Rao, Advocate for Claim Petitioners, Sri B. Gangadhar Advocate for Respondent No.2 and Respondent No.1 is remains exparte; upon perusing the material papers on record, upon hearing arguments of both sides and having stood over for consideration till this day, this Court passed the following:

O R D E R

1.This is a claim petition filed on behalf of claimants No.1 to 4 (Claimant No.1 is wife, 2 to 4 are the daughters of the deceased) against the owner and insurer of the crime vehicle under section 166 of the Motor 2

Vehicles Act, 1988 prays the court to grant compensation of a sum of

Rs.60,09,360/- on account of the death of Prathgadapa Rathnam Raju, Age:

46 years (herein after called as deceased) in a motor vehicle accident with interest at the rate of 18% per annum from the date of accident till the date of realization and such other reliefs which are deems fit and proper.

2.The brief facts of the O.P. :- The claim petitioners are no other than the wife, natural daughters No.2 to 4 of the deceased and permanent

R/o: near water tank, Bhagthsingh nagar, Bandarigudem, Manugur Mandal,

Khammam District.

3.On 29.12.2006 the deceased P. Rathanam Raju had proceeding on his Bajaj Discover motor bike bearing No. AP 20 -T/R – AE-2635 from

Aswapuram towards Manugur and reached near Anjaneya Swamy temple cross road at about 10.30 P.M., meanwhile the driver of Santro car bearing

No. AP 9-BD-3075 driven by its driver in negligent manner and dashed against the motor cyclist as a result the deceased sustained injuries i.e., closed fracture both bonds, grievous injury mild wedge compression fracture

T5 vertebral body and other injuries. The injured was shifted to SCCL

Hospital, Kothagudem for treatment. Where he was inpatient for 11 days and he was shifted to Yoshada Super Specialty hospital, for better treatment where he was treated as out patient because of the accident , he had been declared unfit and he was on bed for four many years without salary. On the request made by the claim petitioner he was taken into the service but he was not able to attend duties and he was only made sit in the office. But unfortunately the deceased was succumbed to the injuries on 10.09.2011.

The death intimation was reported to the police but they have take steps to conduct to PME stating that he sustained injuries long back. Due to the accident the deceased lost his earnings more than 4 years for Rs.38,00,000/- apart from Rs.5,00,000/- towards transportation the claim petitioner 2 to 4 are the daughters and they have lost their father care, the claim petitioner No.1 lost her husband at her middle age and her life has become gloomy. Thus all the claimants are entitle Rs.60.9.360/- from responds No.1 and 2.

5.Up on report given, the P.S., Manugur registered it as a case in

Cr.No.243/2006 , under section 338 of IPC against the driver of the car..

6. Respondent No.1 remained exparte.

7.Brief facts of the written statement of Respondent No.2 :- All the allegations made in the claim petition are inconsistent with the averments made herein shall be deemed to have been denied to be true.

8.This respondent does not admit the manner of accident and the earnings of the deceased. The Insurance Company does not admit that the driver of the car bearing No. AP 9 BD-3075 was having valid and affective driving licence of the crime vehicle at the time of accident. The accident was occurred due to negligence on the part of driver of motor cyclist as such this respondent is not liable to pay compensation. The petition is liable to be dismissed as non joinder of the necessary parties i.e., owner and insurer of motor cycle bearing AP 20 T/R-AE 2335. The respondent seeks protection under section 147, 149 and 170 of M.V.Act. The rate of interest claimed is excessive and exorbitant. Prays the court to dismiss.

9.Basing on the above pleadings the following issues were framed by my predecessor, dated: 21.05.2013.

1. whether the accident had occurred due to rash and negligent driving of the driver of the crime vehicle Car bearing No. AP 9 BD- 3075?

2. Whether the petitioners are entitled FOR compensation. If so, to what amount and from which of the respondents?

3. To what relief?

10. During the course of trial the claimant No.1 filed evidence affidavit and examined on oath as PW.1. EXs.A1 to A28 marked. Ex.A1: Certified copy of

First Information Report. Ex.A2: Certified copy of Charge Sheet, Ex.A3:

Certified copy of Injury Certificate. Ex.A4: Certified copy of Judgment in

CC. No. 58/2007 on the file of JMFC, Manuguru, Dt: 14.08.2007.Ex.A5:

Family Members certificate issued by Revenue Department, Tahasildar,

Manuguru. Ex.A6: Death Certificate, Dt: 08.11.2011 issued by

Kothagudem Municipality, Khammam District. Ex.A7: Medical certificate issued by Dr. M. Jaya Sri, Sravya Nursing home, Bandarugudem, Dt:

29.12.2006. Ex.A8: Notice issued by Singareni Colleries Ltd., Dt:

24.11.2008. Ex.A9: Out Patient ticket issued by S.C.C.L., Hospital,

Kothagudem, Ex.A10: Discharge Summary issued by Prime Hospital,

Khammam. Ex.A11: Out patient ticket issued by Singareni Colleries

Hospital, Kothagudem: Dt: 19.04.2010. Ex.A12: Out patient ticket issued by Singareni Colleries Hospital, Kothagudem, Dt:19.04.2010. Ex.A13:

Rediology report issued by Singareni Colleries Hospital, Dt:12.04.2010.

Ex.A14 to Ex. A20: O.P. Tickets issued by Singareni Colleries Hospital,

Ex.A21: Discharge care issued by Singareni Colleries Hospital, Dt:

25.04.2011. Ex.A22: Xerox copy of Office Orders issued by Singareni 5

Colleries Hospital, Limited. Ex.A23: Salary Certificate, Dt: 29.08.2013,

Ex.A24: Estimation of loss of salary particulars of deceased from the year, 2006 to 2011 issued by SCCL., Ex.A25: Referral Letter dated:

18.02.2011 of S.C.Company Ltd., Ex.A26: Certificate of refresher training of deceased issued by the Training Manager, SC.Co., Ltd., Manuguru.

Ex.A27: Bunch of Medical bills numbering (18) worth of Rs.27,864/-.

Ex.A28: X-Ray film numbering (1), Ex.C1: is the case sheet,On behalf of claimants, PW.2 alleged eye witness to the accident Ch.S.V. Rao, PW.3 and 4 are the medical officer are examined through commissioner. PW.3:

Muralidhar working as DGM., in SCCL Manugur regarding salary particulars his grass salary Rs.12,134.68/- as on 29.08.2013 under Ex.A24 is grass salary Rs.14,908/- to Rs.2,87,658/- p.a., PW.4 Dr. K. Prasanna Sinha. CMO,

SCCL, Kothagudem. On behalf of respondent No.1 is remained exparte. On behalf of Respondent No.2, Senior Executive of insurance company field affidavit filed and examined as RW.1 Ex. B1 marked and filed petition under

Order 8 Rule 1 A (3) of C.P.C which was numbered as I.A.No.1153/2014 and allowed on 29.12.2014. EX.B1 marked, EX.B1: Attested copy of the

Insurance Policy bearing No. OG-07-1801-1801- 0009809, valid from 14.06.2006 to 13.06.2007. The Respondent No.2 filed another petition under Section 170 of M.V.Act which was numbered as I.A.1154/2014 and allowed on 29.12.2014 the Respondent No.2 is permitted to take all pleas which are available on record.

11. The claimant filed petition U/Rule 476(2) of AP MV Rules prays to court to exempt the petitioners from payment of court fee. Pending disposal of Rs.60,360/- in the interest of justice. Numbered as I.A.No. 731/2012, 6 allowed on 29.06.2012 by the the then Hon'ble Prl. District Judge, Khammam and to collect the C.F., at the time of preparing decree.

12.Heard arguments orally on both sides.

ISSUE NO.1:

13. This is a claim petition filed on behalf of claimants No.1 to 4 (Claimant No.1 is wife, 2 to 4 are the daughters of the deceased) against the owner and insurer of the crime vehicle under section 166 of the Motor

Vehicles Act, 1988 prays the court to grant compensation of a sum of

Rs.60,09,360/- on account of the death of Prathgadapa Rathnam Raju, Age:

Date, place and time of accident: 29.12.2006 at 2130 hours near

Anjaneyaswamy Temple cross road, P.V. Colony, Bandarugudem, Manguru

Mandal, Khammam District. .

Insurance policy: EX.B1: Attested copy of the Insurance Policy bearing No. OG-07-1801-1801-00009809, valid from 14.06.2006 to 13.06.2007 covered under EX.B1. The insurance policy was in force as on the day of accident.

Driving Licence:

14.The wife of the deceased, who is shown as claimant No.1 filed evidence affidavit and examined on oath as PW.1. EX.A1 and A2 marked in support of her contentions. EX.A1: Certified copy of First Information Report.

EX.A2: Certified copy of the Charge Sheet. EX.A1 and A2 reveals that the 7 either claimant No.1 or any one of the claimants not witnessed about the accident, they came to know about the accident through T. Bapi Raju who presented report to the police and who in turn contracted by phone to the

PW.1 and intimate about the accident. In support of claimants one of the alleged eye witness Ch.Surya Venkateswar Rao to the accident was examined as PW.2. The driver of the crime vehicle was not shown as party but the owner of the crime vehicle was shown as party and he was remain exparte. If, the driver has contested and adduced evidence, the manner of accident will be decided on merits. In the absence of denial of EX.A1 and A2, the court has considered that the accident was occurred due to rash and negligent driving of the driver of the crime vehicle at the time of accident.

15.The court has relied the citation 2014 ACJ 927 of the Hon'ble

High Court of Kerala between National Insurance Company Limited Vs.

Ammini Amma in M.A.C.A.No.2366/2010, dated: 02.09.2013 - Breach of

Policy under section 147 and 149 of M.V.Act.

“Charge Sheet – Charge Sheet is a reliable document for proving negligence in motor accident claim. Whether there was willful breach on the part of the owner of the vehicle in allowing the driver to drive it without valid driving licence.”

16.The court has relied on citation 2011 ACJ 911 SC followed in Kunduru

Venkata Reddy Vs. Kondapalli Upender Reddy in C.M.A.No.3560/2003, dated:

19.07.2013 on the file of the Hon'ble High Court and published in ACJ 2014, Page 1419 wherein, the Lordships of our Hon'ble High Court observed that the filing of charge sheet by the police against the owner of offending vehicle is the proof of factum of accident.

17.Therefore the court has considered the citation in proving the rash and negligent manner of driving of the driver of the crime vehicle.

18.In view of my foregoing observations the Issue No.1 is answered in favour of claimant against respondents.

ISSUE NO.2:

19.Regarding the quantum of compensation on account of death of the deceased, the relevant factors for consideration are i.e., the age of the deceased, income of the deceased and number of the dependents these issues to be determined in order to arrive at the loss of dependency relied in

Sarla Verma's Case Para No.9.

20.Regarding the age of the deceased is concerned except petition averments no date of birth certificate is filed to prove that the death of the deceased at the age of 46 years old at the time of accident. The claimants not filed the documents namely i.e., Certified copy of the Postmortem examination report and Certified coy of the Inquest report. The claimants not filed petition summing the employer of the deceased for cause production of appointment letter of the deceased in which the date of birth of the employee would be available. Admittedly the claimants filed the family members certificate issued by Tahasildar and covered under Ex.A5 and death certificate of the deceased covered under Ex.A6 is filed the documents are not helpful to the case of claimants in proving the correct age of the deceased. In the absence of documentary proof the court is presumed the age of the deceased may be 51 years old as on the day of accident and the same is incorporated in the petition.

21.Regarding the earnings of the deceased are concerned, the claimants filed the documents under Ex.A23 salary certificate of the deceased issued by SCCL, Dt;29.08.2013 that the deceased worked as fitter,

OC Stores for the month the December, 2006 is furnished hereunder. Basic is Rs.8,854/- in total 12.134.68 p.s., the net was shown Rs.460/-. As per the evidence of PW.3 V. Muralidhar DG stores Manager, Manuguru deposed as per records that the deceased worked in this department as fitter the Ex.A23 was issued by him on 29.08,.2013 the grass salary is of Rs.12,134.68 p.s., the grass salary is varying from Rs.14,908 to 2,87,658.08 p.a., from 2006 to 2011 as per records and Ex.A24 estimated year vise salary. The deceased was not terminated by the company. Therefore the court has considered the income of the deceased as on the day of his death was of Rs.12,135/- p.m., as grass. (14,908/-)

The date of accident: on 29.12.2006

Date of death as per Ex.A6: on 10.09.2011 in SCCL, Hospital,

Kothagudem. As per Ex.A7 issued by Sravya Nursing Home,

Bandarugudem, is not related to the deceased and it stands in the name of

D. Damodar Rao , as per Ex.A10 the discharge card issued by SCCL that the deceased was admitted on 20.08.2010 and discharged on 01.09.2010, diagnosis L.Tibia, L/3 as per Ex.A10 Prime hospital, Hyderabad issued examination certificate the rest of the documents are issued Singareni

Colleries Hospital, from the date of accident to date of death. The documents markers as Ex.A8 to Ex.A26 are relates to Singareni Area Hospital, about the treatment of the deceased in with free of cost.

22. As per the evidence of PW.4. Chief medical Officer K. Prasanna

Sinha, SCCL. Hospital, the deceased was admitted in Main Hospital, SCCL on 30.12.2006 and he was discharged on 05.01.2007. the Ex/A3 certificate was issued. The deceased was readmitted on 20.08.2010 and discharged on 01.09.2010. The patient was review by the Hospital on 24.05.2010 under

Ex.A7 and also ExA13 to A15. The deceased was admitted in main Hospital on 05.09.2011 and he was expired on 10.09.2011. The deceased was suffering from Hyper tension and diabetes he also has as history of smoking and alcoholism by that time, all the above sanctuary known risk factor for developing heart attack. In addition to the above risk factors his problem of chronic hyper trophic non-union of left leg which took more then four years to healed and which he was incapacitated him for all these years also wound have contributed as another risk factor for developing heart attack. The patient case sheet pertaining to the deceased is marked as Ex.C1. In his cross examination he stated that it is true by the time of admission on 30.12.2006 by the injured in our hospital under Ex.A3 he is known patient diabetic and hyper tension in treatment, as per Ex.A10 the injured was attacked by AIDS in HIV effected persons the resistance and immune capacity of the body will be less which can result in delayed healed. The

Ex.C1 disclosed that healed injury on left foot. As per Ex.C1 undoubtedly the injured was died due to heart attack only. No doubt the deceased was admitted in Main Hospital, on 30.12.2006 due to following injuries: closed fracture both bones left leg and mailed wedge compression fracture of T.5 vertebral body covered under Ex.A3. He was treated that closed reduction and above knee pop caste for left leg and he was given treatment by the 11 hospital authorities by time to time and surgery of open deduction internal fixation with interlock nail left tibia and discharged on 25.04.2011 even after 4 ½ years the fracture was not united the surgery was done with hope that the fracture would be healed. Undoubtedly the deceased was admitted in the hospital of Singareni on 30.12.2006 and finally surgery was done on 25.04.2011 and he was died on 10.09.2011. the deceased was admitted in hospital for some time and discharged in later course and again he was readmitted and discharged after getting treatment. Though the deceased was attacked by AIDS covered under Ex.A10 which cannot be ruled out for cause death of the deceased. The evidence of portion of PW.4 is taken into consideration. Though he was affected AIDS which one is not root cause for death of the deceased, because the deceased attend duties since from the date of the accident till his death regularly in irregular. Which is admitted by

PW.3. Therefore the deceased died due to the injuries sustained in a motor vehicle accident.

23.Except the claim petitioners none others are knock the door of the court to claim for compensation. The claimants No.1 is no other than the wife, claimants 2 to 4 are the major daughters. The claimants 2 and 3 are married daughters claimant No.4 is un-married daughter. As such the claimants 1 and 4 are entitled for compensation as they are dependents upon the earnings of the deceased and claimants No.2 and 3 are married daughters and they are entitled for loss of love and affection and loss to the estate to the deceased.

24.The court has relied the citation pronounced by the Lordship of 12 our Hon'ble Apex Court reported in 2010 (1) Andhra Weekly Reporter 402

SC the Lordship of the Hon'ble Apex Court observed in Civil Appeal

No.3483/2008 arising out of S.L.P.(C) No.8648/2007, dated: 15.04.2009

between Smt. Sarla Verma and others Vs. Delhi Transport Corporation.

Since the claimants are 4 in number 1/4th deduction should be shown towards personal and living expenses of the deceased. The age of the deceased is taken into consideration is 46 years old as on the day of death due to accident. Therefore, the court is consider the 13 multiplier for awarding compensation to the claimants.

2. Now the total compensation is furnished here under:

Monthly income of the deceasedRs.-14,908/- Annual income of the deceased Rs.14,908X 12= Rs.1,79,856 /- 1,79,856/- 1/4th deduction should be made out of the annual Rs.44,964/- income of the deceased comes to Rs.1,79,856 /4= Annual contribution of the deceased for the Rs.1,34,892/- welfare of the petitioners is Rs.1,79,856-44,964= Total contribution to the petitioners comes to Rs. Rs.17,53,596/- 1,34,892 X13=

25.In all, the claimants 1 to 4 are entitled for a sum of Rs.

17,53,596/-.

26.In addition to that the claim petitioner No.1 is entitled for a sum of

Rs.20,000/- towards loss of consortium and all the claimants are entitled for a sum of Rs.5,000/- towards funeral expense, a sum of Rs.20,000/- towards loss to the estate, a sum of Rs.15,000/- towards loss of love and affection

27.Thus in all a sum of Rs.18,13,596/- is awarded to the claim petitioners 1 to 4 by way of adequate, reasonable and just compensation.

28.Now the point for consideration is fastening of liability in payment of compensation.

29. The driver of the crime vehicle was not shown as party. The owner of the crime vehicle was remind exparte. The insurance company simply field petitions under order 8 rule 1(3) C.P.C., and under 170 of M.V. Act. Insurance policy: EX.B1: Attested copy of the Insurance Policy bearing No. OG-07- 1801-1801-00009809, valid from 14.06.2006 to13.06.2007 covered under

EX.B1. The insurance policy was in force as on the day of accident.

30. The insurance company has denied about the valid and affective driving licence of the driver of the crime vehicle as on the day of accident reveals that the driver of the crime vehicle was having valid and effective driving licence at the time of accident issued by L.A., Nandigama.

31. In view of my foregoing observations the Issue No.1 and 2 are answered in favour of claimants against respondents.

32.Therefore, the respondents 1 and 2 being owner and insurer of the crime vehicle are jointly and severally liable to pay the compensation.

RESULT:

33.In the result, the petition is allowed in part with proportionate costs by awarding compensation of Rs.18,13,596/- (Rupees Eighteen Lakhs

Thirteen Thousand Five Hundred and Ninety Six only) with interest @ 7.5% per annum from the date of petition till the date of realization. The

Respondents 1 and 2 being owner and insurer of the crime vehicle are jointly and severally liable to pay the compensation and directed to deposit the 14 above said amount with interest and costs within 30 days from the date of this award.

34. Out of the compensation amount awarded, the claimant No.1 is entitled for a sum of Rs.5,13,596/- with interest and costs of the petition. Out of her share she is permitted to withdraw a sum of Rs. 2,13,596/- with interest and costs and remaining amount of Rs. 3,00,000/- shall be kept inany nationalized bank for a period of couple of years by way of FDR.

35. The claim petitioners No.2 and 3 are entitled for a sum of Rs.

4,00,000/- each. The Claimants No.2 and 3 are permitted to with draw 2,00,000/- each remaining amount of Rs. 2,00,000/- shall be kept in any nationalized bank for a period of couple of years by way of FDR. .

36.Theclaim petitioner No.4 is entitled for a sum of Rs.5,00,000/- and out of her share she is permitted to withdraw a sum of Rs. 2,50,000/- with interest and costs and remaining amount of Rs. 2,50,000/- shall be kept in any nationalized bank for a period of couple of years by way of FDR.

37.Rest of the claim is dismissed.

38.The fee of the counsel is fixed at Rs.18,000/-.

Typed to my dictation, corrected and pronounced by me in the open court on this the 15th day of May, 2015.

CHAIRMAN

MOTOR ACCIDENTS CLAIMS TRIBUNAL

(V ADDL.DISTRICT JUDGE), KOTHAGUDEM

-APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE-

WITNESSES EXAMINED FOR

Claim Petitioner: For Respondents:

PW.1: Prathigadapa Anuradha RW.1: Jetla Mahesh

PW.2: Ch.Surya Venkateswara Rao

PW.3: V. Muralidhar

PW.4: K. Prasanna Sinha

Exhibits marked for

Claim Petitioner:

Ex.A1: Certified copy of First Information Report. Ex.A2: Certified copy of Charge Sheet Ex.A3: Certified copy of Injury Certificate. Ex.A4: Certified copy of Judgment in CC. No. 58/2007 on the file of JMFC, Manuguru, Dt: 14.08.2007. Ex.A5: Family Members certificate issued by Revenue Department, Tahasildar, Manuguru. Ex.A6: Death Certificate, Dt: 08.11.2011 issued by Kothagudem Municipality, Khammam District. Ex.A7: Medical certificate issued by Dr. M. Jaya Sri, Sravya Nursing home, Bandarugudem, Dt: 29.12.2006. Ex.A8: Notice issued by Singareni Colleries Ltd., Dt: 24.11.2008. Ex.A9: Out Patient ticket issued by S.C.C.L., Hospital, Kothagudem. Ex.A10: Discharge Summary issued by Prime Hospital, Khammam. Ex.A11: Out patient ticket issued by Singareni Colleries Hospital, Kothagudem: Dt: 19.04.2010. Ex.A12: Out patient ticket issued by Singareni Colleries Hospital, Kothagude, Dt:19.04.2010. Ex.A13: Rediology report issued by Singareni Colleries Hospital,

Dt:12.04.2010.

Ex.A14 to Ex. A20: O.P. Tickets issued by Singareni Colleries Hospital, Ex.A21: Discharge care issued by Singareni Colleries Hospital,

Dt: 25.04.2011.

Ex.A22: Xerox copy of Office Orders issued by Singareni Colleries Hospital, Limited. Ex.A23: Salary Certificate, Dt: 29.08.2013. Ex.A24: Estimation of loss of salary particulars of deceased from the year, 2006 to 2011 issued by SCCL., Ex.A25: Referral Letter dated: 18.02.2011 of S.C.Company Ltd., Ex.A26: Certificate of refresher training of deceased issued by the Training Manager, SC.Co., Ltd., Manuguru. Ex.A27: Bunch of Medical bills numbering (18) worth of Rs.27,864/-. Ex.A28: X-Ray film numbering (1).

Ex.C1: is the case sheet.

For Respondents:

Ex.B1: True copy of the insurance Policy bearing No. OG-07-1801-1801- 0009809 valid from 14.06.2006 to 13.06.2007

CHAIRMAN

MOTOR ACCIDENTS CLAIMS TRIBUNAL

(V ADDL.DISTRICT JUDGE), KOTHAGUDEM

Compared by:

IN THE COURT OF THE MOTOR ACCIDENTS CLAIMS TRIBUNAL

(V ADDL. DISTRICT JUDGE), KOTHAGUDEM

Dated this the 15th day of May, 2015

Present: Sri G. Sardar Mohan Rao, Chairman, Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal (V Addl. District Judge), Kothagudem.

M.A.T.O.P.No. 670 of 2012

Presented on:26.7.2013. Filed on: 30.07.2013. Between:

1. Smt. Prathigadapa Anuradha, W/o: Late Ratnam Raju, age: 45 yrs., Occ: House hold,

2. Prathigadapa Aparna, D/o: Late Ratnam Raju, age: 26 yrs., Occ: House- hold

3. Prathigadapa Indu, D/o: Late Ratnam Raju, age: 25 yrs., Occ: House hod,

4. Prathigadapa Rajitha, D/o: Late Ratnam Raju, age: 23 yrs., Occ: Student,

All are R/o: Near Water Tank, Bagath Singh Nagar, Bandarugudem, Manuguru Post and Mandal, Khammam District. …..Claim Petitioners.

And

1. Athuluri Kiran Kumar, S/o: Srinivasa Rao, Occ: Owner of Santro Car bearing No. AP 9 BD -3075, R/o: Amrutha Residency, Brahmanwadi, Begumpet, Hyderabad.

2. Bajaj Allianz General Insurance Company Limited, Represented by its Branch Manager, Wyra Road, Khammam (vide Cover Note No. 10002365160, valid from 14.06.2006 to 13.06.2007) ….Respondents.

CLAIM FOR: Claim petition filed U/s 166 of M.V. Act for grant of compensation of Rs.2,00,000/- with costs and interest @ 24% per annum from the date of accident till the date of realization towards compensation on account of injuries sustained by petitioner in motor accident that occurred on 01.08.2012 at about 13.30 hours at near SBI Bank, Rotary Nagar, Khammam Town and District due to rash and negligent driving of Santro Car bearing No. AP 9 BD -3075.

The claim is preferred against respondents No.1 is being the owner, respondent No.2 is being the insurers of Santro Car bearing No. AP 9 BD -3075.

COURT FEE: A court fee of Rs.60,360/- is paid U/R 475 (1) (b) of A.P.M.V.Rules, 1989.

D E C R E E:

1. The petition be and is hereby allowed in part by awarding compensation of Rs.18,13,596/- (Rupees Eighteen Lakhs Thirteen Thousand Five Hundred and Ninety Six only) with interest @ 7.5% per annum from the date of petition till the date of realization. The Respondents 1 and 2 being owner and insurer of the crime vehicle are jointly and severally liable to pay the compensation and directed to deposit the above said amount with interest and costs within 30 days from the date of this award.

2.Out of the compensation amount awarded, the claimant No.1 is entitled for a sum of Rs.5,13,596/- with interest and costs of the petition. Out of her share she is permitted to withdraw a sum of Rs. 2,13,596/- with interest and costs and remaining amount of Rs. 3,00,000/- shall be kept inany nationalized bank for a period of couple of years by way of FDR.

3.The claim petitioners No.2 and 3 are entitled for a sum of Rs. 4,00,000/- each. The Claimants No.2 and 3 are permitted to with draw 2,00,000/- each remaining amount of Rs. 2,00,000/- shall be kept in any nationalized bank for a period of couple of years by way of FDR. .

4.Theclaim petitioner No.4 is entitled for a sum of Rs.5,00,000/- and out of her share she is permitted to withdraw a sum of Rs. 2,50,000/- with interest and costs and remaining amount of Rs. 2,50,000/- shall be kept in any nationalized bank for a period of couple of years by way of FDR.

5. Rest of the claim is dismissed.

6. The fee of the counsel is fixed at Rs.18,000/-.

7.That the respondents do also pay to petitioner a sum of Rs. /- towards proportionate costs of the O.P. 8.

Given under my hand and the seal of this Court on this the 15th day of May, 2015.

CHAIRMAN, M.A.C.T.,

(V ADDL.DISTRICT JUDGE),

KOTHAGUDEM.

PARTICULARS OF COSTS.

For Petitioner: For R-1 For R-2

Rs. Rs. Rs.

Sl. No. ParticularsFor PetitionerFor R.1For R.2 1Stamps on petition. 60,360-00- 2 Stamps on power.02-0002-00 E 3Stamps on process.106-00-- X 4 Stamps on I.As --P-- A 5 Stamps on documents.05-0002-00 R 6 Advocate’s fee18,000-00-- T E 7Commissioner’s fee.1000-00-- 8 Publication charges. ---- 9Type & Misc. charges.100-00--

Total: 79573-00 04-00

CHAIRMAN, M.A.C.T.,

(V ADDL.DISTRICT JUDGE),

KOTHAGUDEM.

MVOP/100450/2013

DHAVALESHVARAPU PHANINDER RAO. vs GADDE TARAKA RAMA RAO AND ANOTHER.

15 May 2015

IN THE COURT OF THE MOTOR ACCIDENTS CLAIMS TRIBUNAL

(V ADDL.DISTRICT JUDGE) AT KOTHAGUDEM.

Dated this, the 15th day of May, 2015.

Present: Sri G.Sardar Mohan Rao, Chairman, Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal (V Addl.District Judge), Kothagudem.

M.V.O.P.No. 486 of 2011

Between: Daggupati Venkata Subba Rao, S/o: Ankulu, age: 40 yrs., Occ: Auto driver, R/o: Kothagudem, H/o: Jagannadhapuram Village, Mulakalapalli Mandal, Khammam District. …..Claim Petitioner.

And

1. Nandamuri Murali, S/o: Nageswara Rao, Occ: Owner of tractor trailor bearing No.AP 01 R-6378 – AP 20 AG-8797, R/o: H.No.8-85/B, Nallivarigudem Village, Mulakalapalli Mandal, Khammam District.

2. The Oriental Insurance Company Limited rep., by its Branch Manager, H.No.10-371, 1st floor, Surya Complex, Eluru Road, Jangareddygudem, 534447, vide Policy No.463090/31/2011/1033, valid from 15.-2.2011 to 14.02.2012 (through Local Branch, Khammam)

3. Ganthala Venkatappa, S/o: Thirupathaiah, age: 53 yrs., Occ:Collie,

4. Smt. Tanthala Pullamma, W/o: Venkatappa, age: 45 yrs., Occ:House- hold, (R-3 and R-4 are residents of Ravikampadu village, H/o: Chennur of Kalluru Mandal, Khammam District.

(Respondents No.3 and 4 are added as per orders of the Hon'ble Court

Vide its I.A.No.914 of 2012, Dt: 22.03.2013) ….Respondents.

This petition coming before me on 13.04.2015 for final hearing in the presence of Sri. M. Rajamallu, Sri A. Ramprasada Rao and Sri M. Satyanarayana, Advocates for Claim Petitioner, Sri M.M.G. Ranga Rao Advocate for Respondent No.2, Sri G. Rama Rao Advocate for Respondent No.3 and No.4 and the Respondent No.1 is remains exparte: upon perusing the material papers on record, upon hearing arguments of both sides and having stood over for consideration till this day, this Court passed the following:

O R D E R

1.This is a claim petition filed on behalf of claimant against the owner, insurance company of the crime vehicle, Respondent No.3 and 4 2 (who are father and mother of deceased) under section 166 of the Motor

Vehicles Act, 1988 prays the court to grant compensation of a sum of

Rs.5,10,000/- on account of the death of Daggupati Kalavathi, W/o: Venkata

Subba Rao (herein after called as deceased) in a motor vehicle accident with interest at the rate of 18% per annum from the date of accident till the date of realization and such other reliefs which are deems fit and proper.

2. The facts of the case are that the Claimant is husband of deceased. The deceased was 35 years old, hale and healthy and by doing coolie and getting than Rs.200/- per day R/o: Kothagangaram, H/o:

Jagannadhapuram village of Mulakalapalli Mandal, Khammam District.

3. On 02.03.2011 the claim petitioner along with his wife and one

Karan Narayana while proceeding tin the auto of petitioner bearing no. AP 20

V 3495 from their village to Annapureddypalli to attend Shivarathri Tirunnalu and on the way reached near the garden of J. Srinu, out skirts of

Jagannadhapuram at about 08,.00 P.M., meanwhile the driver of the tractor trailer bearing no. AP 01 6378 , AP 20 AG 8797 driven by its driver in a rash and negligent manner with high speed and dashed against auto in opposite direction due to the occupants of the auto sustained injuries and the auto badly damaged. The wife of the claim petitioner sustained injuries and died on the spot. Due to the death of the deceased the claim petitioner lost his wife love and affection and apart from his conjugal happiness and that he could not recovered form the shock till today. As such the petitioner is entitled for compensation towards general and special damages.

4. The deceased was hale and healthy prior to the accident and she was 35 years old, and getting Rs.200/- per day the entire her earning contributed to welfare of her family.

5.Upon a complaint to the P.S. Mulakalapalli registered it as case in Cr.No.6/2011 under section 304-A, 337 of IPC.

6. Respondent No.1 is remained exparte.

7. Brief facts of the counter of Respondent No.2: All the allegations made in the claim petition are inconsistent with the averments made herein shall be deemed to have been denied to be true.

8.The petitioner shall prove that the deceased was working as coolie and getting Rs.200/- per day and she was 35 years old as on the day of accident.

This respondent specifically denied the averments made in the claim petition regarding rashness and negligent manner of driving driven by the driver of the crime vehicle at the time of accident. This respondent seeks protection under section 147 to 149 and 170 of M.V.Act and as per M.V.Act Rules regarding regulation signals and traffic signals. Prays the court to dismiss.

9. Brief facts of the counter of Respondent No.3 and 4: All the allegations made in the claim petition are inconsistent with the averments made herein shall be deemed to have been denied to be true.

This respondents submit that the deceased Kalavathi is not resident of

Kothagangaram. In fact the claim petitioner is stranger to the deceased as such that the claim petitioner is the husband of the deceased is utterly false.

The claim petitioner taking the accident as advantage and no one belongs to her along with the deceased and created a story as if he is the husband.

With regard to the accident conduct of autopsy and rashness driving of the driver is true and correct.

10.The contents in para 3 are true and para 4 are not true. The respondents 3 and 4 submit the deceased Kalavathi is the daughter of respondent 3 and 4 and she married one G. Veera Krishna of Gundepudi village of Julurpad Mandal. Later she was divorced since then she has been living with respondents No.3 and 4, she is the only daughter to them. She was maintaining them by doing tailoring work.

11. In fact the claim petitioner having wife Daggupati Prabhavathi and 3 children namely Pratap presently working in KTPS, Chaitanya doing dry fish business, D. Gayathri has completed inter .the marriage of Prabhavathi is second marriage and the claim petitioner left his first wife hail from

Vijayawada. This respondents filed O.P18/12 in the same is pending before this court. May pleased to dismiss.

12. Based on the above pleadings the following issues were framed by this court on 30.04.2012.

1. 1.Whether the accident occurred due to rash and negligent driving of the driver of crime vehicle -Tractor bearing No. AP 01 R

6378 and trailer bearing No.AP 20 G 8797 on 02.03.2011?

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

3. 3.To what relief?

13. Based on the above pleadings the following Addl. issues were 5 framed by this court on 28.07.2014

1. whether the Respondent No.3 and 4 are entitled to any share and any compensation?

2. To what relief?

14. During the course trial, claimant No.1 filed evidence affidavit and examined on oath as PW.1. Exs.A.1 to A.11 are marked. EX.A1: Certified copy of the First Information Report. EX.A2: Certified copy of the Charge

Sheet. EX.A3: Certified copy of the Inquest Report. EX.A4: Certified copy of the Postmortem Examination Report. EX.A5 Certified copy of the M.V.I

Report. EX.A6 CC of 161 Cr.P.C., statement of PW.3: Ex.A7 Original Death certificate issued by the Panchayat Secretary with covering letter dated:

29.11.2014 issued by Panchayat secretary stating that the deceased

Daggubati Kalavathi, W/o; Venkata Subba Rao, died On 02.03.2011, Ex.A8:

covering letter dated. 29.11.2014 issued by panchayat secretary stating that the deceased and petitioner were lived in the H.No.7-03, of Kotha Gangaram up to 01.03.2011 (is marked subject to proof and relevancy), Ex.A9Register,

Ex.A10: is the relevant entry in Chulinthalu and Balinthalu Register. Ex.A11

Anti-natal case Register relates to Kotha Gangaram maintained by PHC of

Mangaapeta for the year 2010 in column No.8 the Kalavathi name was shown for obtaining treatment and her husband name was shown as Venkata

Subba Rao – (marked subject to objection and 8 column in 4th page). On behalf of petitioner Anganwadii worker is examined as PW.2, on behalf of petitioner the villager filed evidence affidavit and examined on oath as PW.3.

Respondent No.1 is remain exparte. On behalf of Respondent No.2, filed 6 petition under Order 8 Rule 3 of C.P.C which was numbered as

I.A.No.1061/2014 and allowed on 08.12.2014. EX.B1 marked. EX.B1:

Attested copy of the Insurance Policy bearing No. 463090/31/2011/1033, valid from 15.02.2011 to 14.02.2012. The Respondent No.2 filed another petition under Section 170 of M.V.Act which was numbered as I.A.1062/2014 and allowed on 08.12.2014 the Respondent No.2 is permitted to take all pleas which are available on record. On behalf of the respondents No.3 and 4, respondent no.4 filed evidence affidavit and examined on oath as RW.1.

On behalf respondents 3 and 4 village elder filed evidence affidavit and examined on oath as RW.2.

15. Heard arguments.

ISSUE No.1:

16.This is a claim petition filed on behalf of claimant against the owner, insurance company of the crime vehicle, Respondent No.3 and 4 (who are father and mother of deceased) under section 166 of the Motor

Vehicles Act, 1988 prays the court to grant compensation of a sum of

Rs.5,10,000/- on account of the death of Daggupati Kalavathi, W/o: Venkata

Date, place and time of accident: on 02.03.2011 at out skirts of

Jagannadhapuram Village near Mango Garden of Jalagam Srinu, on

Dhammapet – Palvoncha at about 08.00 P.M.

Insurance policy: EX.B1: Attested copy of the Insurance Policy 7 bearing No. 463090/31/2011/1033, valid from 15.02.2011 to 14.02.2012 covered under EX.B1. The insurance policy was in force as on the day of accident.

Driving Licence: On perusal of EX.A5 M.V.I Report in column No.16

(b) I. Meera Kumar, Column No.17:- DL20226962027 (valid up to 28.08.2027) issued by RTA, Khammam. Therefore the driver of the crime vehicle was possessed valid and effective transport driving licence as on the day of accident.

17. The claimant No.1 filed evidence affidavit and examined on oath as PW.1. Exs.A1 to A11 marked in support of his contentions. Ex.A1:

Certified copy of First Information Report given by PW.1 to the police.

Ex.A2: Certified copy of the Charge Sheet. Exs.A1 and A2 reveals that the claimant is witnessed about the accident, he gave report to the police. The driver of the crime vehicle has not given report to the police regarding accident. As per EX.A2 the driver of the crime vehicle shown as accused in the Charge Sheet. If the driver of the crime vehicle presented any report regarding accident which was not occurred due to his fault definitely the court will safeguard his claim. In the absence of report from the driver, the court is considered the documents filed by the claimants covered under Exs.A1 to A5 clearly reveals that the accident was occurred due to rash and negligent manner of driving of the driver of the crime vehicle. In the absence of denial of EX.A1 and A2, the court has considered that the accident was occurred due to rash and negligent driving of the driver of the crime vehicle at the time of accident.

18. The court has relied the citation 2014 ACJ 927 of the Hon'ble

High Court of Kerala between National Insurance Company Limited Vs.

Ammini Amma in M.A.C.A.No.2366/2010, dated: 02.09.2013 - Breach of

Policy under section 147 and 149 of M.V.Act.

Therefore the court has considered the citation in proving the rash and negligent manner of driving of the driver of the crime vehicle.

19. In view of my foregoing observations the Issue No.1 is answered in favour of claimant against respondents.

ISSUE No.2:

20. Regarding the quantum of compensation on account of death of the deceased, the relevant factors for consideration are i.e., the age of the deceased, income of the deceased and number of the dependents these issues to be determined in order to arrive at the loss of dependency relied in

Sarla Verma's Case Para No.9.

21. Regarding the age of the deceased is concerned except petition averments no date of birth certificate is filed to prove the death of the deceased at the age of 35 years old at the time of accident. However, the claimants filed the document namely First Information Report, Charge Sheet,

Postmortem Examination Report and Inquest report. As per EX.A3 Inquest

Report, the age of the deceased was shown as 35 years in column No.2.

Whereas, in EX.A4 Postmortem Examination Report the age of the deceased 9 was shown as 35 years in column No.2. Therefore, the court has considered the age of the deceased was 35 years old as on the day of death in a motor vehicle accident.

22. Regarding the earnings of the deceased are concerned no documentary proof is filed to show that she is getting Rs.200/- per day by doing coolie work. In the absence of any documentary evidence the court is inclined to assess her monthly income to a sum of Rs.100/- per day by excluding 4 days to calculate the quantum of compensation in total a sum of

Rs.2,600/- per month.

23. The claim petitioner is claiming that he is the husband of the deceased in support of his claim the Ex.A1, A3 and A4 reveals that the claim petitioner is husband of the deceased at the time of accident. The respondents No.3 and 4 are the natural parents of the deceased. The parents of the deceased filed compensation O.P., and numbered as O.P. 18 of 2012 without showing the present claim petitioner in this O.P., as one of the claimant in their O.P., further they denied the marital status of the deceased with this claim petitioner. In support of the parents no documentary proof is filed to show that the deceased is not the wife of the present claim petitioner.

Further no documentary proof is filed to show that the deceased has married the alleged Veera Krishna. If really the deceased married the so called Veera

Krishna and she deserted her husband and living with her parents there is no bar on behalf of respondents No.3 and 4in filing documentary proof and adducing evidence. Therefore the marriage of the deceased was performed with Veera Krishna is not established. However the evidence of PW.1 and 10 admission reveals that he married twice his first wife as begotten two male and one female child and they were residing at Palvoncha. His first wife was obtaining divorce he did not filed the order copy. His marriage was performed with the deceased on 18.08.2010 no document is filed, no ration card is filed, no voter card is filed, he admitted that the deceased married one

Gogula Veera Krishna. Therefore the deceased was married one Veera

Krishna he is established. Regarding divorce of the deceased with her earlier husband is not established. On that ground the claim petitioner is not entitled to claim for compensation. Whereas he adduced further evidence by filing Ex.A7 and A8 and A11 reveals that the deceased and the claim petitioner were lived together before death and the PHC authorities the health card in which the claim petitioner was shown as husband. The panchayat report is also shown as husband of the deceased. At the same the Ex.A1, A3 and A4 (Ex.A1 is FIR, Ex.A3: Inquest, Ex.A4 PME report) were also supports the claim of the petitioner as husband. The respondent No.4 examined as RW.1 she admitted in her cross that the claim petitioner gave report to the police and he attended the inquest of the deceased and also he has attended the death ceremony of the deceased. In which the RW.1 or respondent No.3 who are parents of the deceased are not raised their voice or objection for performing the obsequious of the deceased. Therefore the claimant No.1 is claiming as husband and the respondents No.3 and 4 are the parents of the deceased. Except the claim petitioner, respondent No.3 and 4 and none others were knock the door of this court to claim for compensation. The parents of the deceased are lost their love and affection towards their daughter and also lost to the estate. At the same time the 11 parents are old aged parents and that they are entitled for compensation to some extent though they are not fully dependents upon the earnings of the deceased. Whereas the claim petitioner is an able body minded person and he is not fully dependent upon the earnings of the deceased however he has lost the love and affection and estate to the deceased.

24. The court is granted a sum of Rs. 1,50,000/- to the petitioner and

Rs.1,50,000/- respondents No.3 and 4 towards their lost tot he estate of the deceased and love and affection except that they are not entitle for any compensation by way of dependency.

25. In all, the claimant 1 is entitled for a sum of Rs.1,50,000/- and

the respondent No.3 and 4 are entitled for a sum of Rs.75,000/- each

totally Rs.1,50,000/-.

26. Thus in all a sum of Rs.3,00,000/- is awarded to the claim petitioner, and respondents No.3 and 4 by way of adequate, reasonable and just compensation.

27. Now the point for consideration is fastening of liability in payment of compensation.

28.Insurance policy: EX.B1: Attested copy of the Insurance Policy bearing No. 463090/31/2011/1033, valid from 15.02.2011 to 14.02.2012 covered under EX.B1. The insurance policy was in force as on the day of accident. Driving Licence: On perusal of EX.A5 M.V.I Report in column

No.16 (b) I. Meera Kumar, Column No.17:- DL20226962027 (valid up to 28.08.2027) issued by RTA, Khammam. Therefore the driver of the crime 12 vehicle was possessed valid and effective transport driving licence as on the day of accident. The respondents 1 is the owner of the crime vehicle respondent No.2 is the insurance company. The driver of the crime vehicle was having valid driving licence as on the day of accident. the crime vehicle was having valid insurance policy as on the day of accident. Thus the respondents 1 and 2 are jointly and severally liable to pay the compensation awarded to the claimants

29.In the result, the petition is allowed in part with costs and interest by awarding compensation of Rs.3,00,000/- (Rupees Three Lakhs only) with interest @ 7.5% per annum from the date of petition till the date of realization.

The Respondents 1 and 2 being owner and insurer of the crime vehicle are jointly and severally liable to pay the compensation and directed to deposit the above said amount with interest and costs within 30 days from the date of this award.

30. Out of the compensation amount awarded, the claimant is entitled for a sum of Rs.1,50,000/- with interest and costs of the petition and he is permitted to withdraw entire amount.

31. The Respondents No.3 and 4 are entitled for a sum of Rs. 75,000/- each, they are permitted to withdraw entire amount.

32.Rest of the claim is dismissed.

33.The fee of the counsel is fixed at Rs.3,000/-.

Typed to my dictation, corrected and pronounced by me in the open court on this the 15th day of May, 2015.

CHAIRMAN

MOTOR ACCIDENTS CLAIMS TRIBUNAL

(V ADDL.DISTRICT JUDGE), KOTHAGUDEM

-APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE-

WITNESSES EXAMINED FOR

Claim Petitioner: For Respondents:

PW.1: Daggupati Venkata Subba Rao RW.1: Smt. Ganthala Pullamma PW.2: Kanithi Sarojini RW.2: Gorrepati Radhaiah PW.3: Eluri Sambasiva Rao

Exhibits marked for

Claim Petitioner:

Ex.A1: Certified copy of the First Information Report. EX.A2: Certified copy of the Charge Sheet. EX.A3: Certified copy of the Inquest Report. EX.A4: Certified copy of the Postmortem Examination Report. EX.A5: Certified copy of the M.V.I Report. EX.A6: CC of 161 Cr.P.C., statement of PW.3: Ex.A7: Original Death certificate issued by the Panchayat Secretary with covering letter dated: 29.11.2014 issued by Panchayat secretary stating that the deceased Daggubati Kalavathi, W/o; Venkata Subba Rao, died On 02.03.2011, Ex.A8: covering letter dated. 29.11.2014 issued by panchayat secretary stating that the deceased and petitioner were lived in the H.No.7-03, of Kotha Gangaram up to 01.03.2011 (is marked subject to proof and relevancy), Ex.A9: Register, Ex.A10: is the relevant entry in Chulinthalu and Balinthalu Register. Ex.A11: Anti-natal case Register relates to Kotha Gangaram maintained by PHC of Mangaapeta for the year 2010 in column No.8 the Kalavathi name was shown for obtaining treatment and her husband name was shown as Venkata Subba Rao – (marked subject to objection and 8 column in 4th page)

For Respondents:

Ex.B1 : Attested copy of the Insurance Policy bearing No. 463090/31/2011/1033, valid from 15.02.2011 to 14.02.2012

CHAIRMAN

MOTOR ACCIDENTS CLAIMS TRIBUNAL

(V ADDL.DISTRICT JUDGE), KOTHAGUDEM

Compared by:

IN THE COURT OF THE MOTOR ACCIDENTS CLAIMS TRIBUNAL

(V ADDL. DISTRICT JUDGE), KOTHAGUDEM

Dated this the 15th day of May, 2015

Present: Sri G. Sardar Mohan Rao, Chairman, Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal (V Addl. District Judge), Kothagudem.

M.A.T.O.P.No. 486 of 2011

Presented on:12.05.2011/ 15.06.2011. Filed on: 22.06.2011. Between:

Daggupati Venkata Subba Rao, S/o: Ankulu, age: 40 yrs., Occ: Auto driver, R/o: Kothagudem, H/o: Jagannadhapuram Village, Mulakalapalli Mandal, Khammam District. …..Claim Petitioner.

And

1. Nandamuri Murali, S/o: Nageswara Rao, Occ: Owner of tractor trailor bearing No.AP 01 R-6378 – AP 20 AG-8797, R/o: H.No.8-85/B, Nallivarigudem Village, Mulakalapalli Mandal, Khammam District.

3. Ganthala Venkatappa, S/o: Thirupathaiah, age: 53 yrs., Occ:Collie,

4. Smt. Tanthala Pullamma, W/o: Venkatappa, age: 45 yrs., Occ:House- hold, (R-3 and R-4 are residents of Ravikampadu village, H/o: Chennur of Kalluru Mandal, Khammam District.

(Respondents No.3 and 4 are added as per orders of the Hon'ble Court

Vide its I.A.No.914 of 2012, Dt: 22.03.2013). ….Respondents.

CLAIM FOR: Claim petition filed U/s 166 of M.V. Act for grant of compensation of Rs.5,10,000/- with costs and interest @ 18% per annum from the date of accident till the date of realization towards compensation on account of injuries sustained by petitioner in motor accident that occurred on 02.03.2011 at about 20.00 hours Outskirts of Jagannadapuram village, Mulakalapalli Mandal, Khammam District due to rash and negligent driving of Tractor bearing No. AP 01 R-6378, Trailor bearing No. AP 20 G 8797.

The claim is preferred against respondents No.1 is being the owner, respondent No.2 is being the insurer of Tractor bearing No. AP 01 R-6378, Trailor bearing No. AP 20 G 8797.

COURT FEE: A court fee of Rs.4,460/- is paid U/R 475 (1) (b) of A.P.M.V.Rules, 1989.

D E C R E E:

1. The petition be and is hereby allowed in part by awarding compensation of Rs.3,00,000/- (Rupees Three Lakhs only) with interest @ 7.5% per annum from the date of petition till the date of realization. The Respondents 1 and 2 being owner and insurer of the crime vehicle are jointly and severally liable to pay the compensation and directed to deposit the above said amount with interest and costs within 30 days from the date of this award.

2. Out of the compensation amount awarded, the claimant is entitled for a sum of Rs.1,50,000/- with interest and costs of the petition and he is permitted to withdraw entire amount.

3. The Respondents No.3 and 4 are entitled for a sum of Rs. 75,000/- each, they are permitted to withdraw entire amount.

4.Rest of the claim is dismissed.

5. The fee of the counsel is fixed at Rs.3,000/-.

6. That the respondents do also pay to petitioner a sum of Rs. 7731/- towards proportionate costs of the O.P.

Given under my hand and the seal of this Court on this the 15th day of May, 2015.

CHAIRMAN, M.A.C.T.,

(V ADDL.DISTRICT JUDGE),

KOTHAGUDEM.

PARTICULARS OF COSTS.

For Petitioner: For R-1 For R-2 For R-3 For R-4

Rs. Rs. Rs. Rs. Rs.

Sl. ParticularsFor For R.1 For R.2For R.3For R.4 No.Petitioner 1Stamps on petition. 4460-00------ E 2 Stamps on power.02-0002-0002-0002-00 X 3Stamps on process. 164-00------ P 4 Stamps on I.As --A02-00---- R 5 Stamps on documents.05-00------ T 6 Advocate’s fee3,000-00------ E 7Commissioner’s fee.-------- 8 Publication charges. -------- 9Type & Misc.charges.100-00------

Total: 7731-00 - 04-00 02-00 02-00

CHAIRMAN, M.A.C.T.,

(V ADDL.DISTRICT JUDGE),

KOTHAGUDEM.

MVOP/100486/2011

Daggupati Venkata Subba Rao vs Nandamuri Murali and an other