Smt.G.Udaya Gouri

IN THE PRINCIPAL MOTOR ACCIDENTS CLAIMS TRIBUNAL,

RANGA REDDY DISTRICT.

Present: Smt.G.Udaya Gouri, M.Com., L.L.M., FAC Chairman-cum-Prl.District Judge.

Wednesday, the 7 th day of January, 2015.

M.V.O.P. 1076/2013

Between:

1.Smt.Chinta Yellamma, W/o.Ch.Yadagiri, Aged 42 years, Occ: House-wife,

2.Ch.Yadagiri, S/o.Ch.Venkaiah, Aged 45 years, Occ: Nil,

3.Ch.Mogulaiah, S/o.Ch.Yadagiri, Aged 18 years, Occ: Nil,

All are R/o.Room No.24, Rajiv Gruhakalpa,

Papireddy Colony, Chandanagar, Hyderabad. ...Petitioners

AND

1.K.Venkanna, S/o.K.Sathaiah, Aged: Major, Occ: Business, 2-79, Nemikall (V), Atmakur (M), Suryapet, Nalgonda Dist., A.P.

2.M/s.National Insurance Co.Ltd., Rep.by its Manager, 3rd Floor, Regency House, Somajiguda, Hyderabad-500 004. …Respondents

Policy No.35100731126203255524 Valid Date : From 28.02.2013 to 27.02.2014

This petition is coming up before me for final hearing on 5.01.2014 in the presence of Sri R.Nageswara Reddy, Counsel for the petitioners, Sri P.V.R.Mohana Rao, Counsel for R2, R1 having remained ex parte and upon hearing both sides and perusal of the material on record, this Court made the following:

JUDGMENT

This is a petition filed U/s.166 r/w Rule 455 of 1989 of the Motor

Vehicles Act, 1988.

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

The petitioners stated that one Chintha Mallesh, who is the son of petitioners No.1 & 2 and the brother of petitioner No.3, was a resident of

Rajiv Gruhakalpa, Chandanagar, R.R.District and was earning Rs.12,000/- p.m as a Supervisor in Tirumala Borewells & Agencies of Devaruppal

Village, Warangal and was aged about 25 years and that on 18.12.2013, the said Chintha Mallesh was proceeding on a Hero Honda Motor Bike bearing No.AP 24 AV 1431 as a pillion rider and when he reached near the culvert at Durgamma Temple at about 11.00 P.M, the rider of the said vehicle drove the same at a high speed, rash and negligent manner as such fell in the ditch at the said culvert, hence, the pillion rider Chintha

Mallesh received grievous injuries as such he was shifted to Janagama

Area Hospital and then to the NIMS Hospital for better treatment, but succumbed to the injuries suffered in the accident on 20-12-2013 at about 1.30 P.M. Hence, the concerned police registered a case in

Cr.No.312/2013 U/s.304-A IPC.

The petitioners contended that the deceased was hale and healthy prior to the date of accident and was contributing his monthly income of

Rs.12,000/- for the running of their family and as a result of the untimely death of the said Chintha Mallesh, the petitioners, who were depending on his earnings, not only suffered from pain, shock and agony, but have also suffered from loss of financial support apart from incurring medical expenses. Hence, contended that they are entitled for a compensation of

Rs.10,00,000/-. They further stated that the respondent No.1, being the owner and rider of the motorcycle bearing No.AP 24 AV 1431, and the respondent No.2, with whom the said motor cycle is insured, vide policy

No.35100731126203255524, are liable to pay them the compensation 3 jointly and severally. Hence, prayed that the respondents be directed to pay the said compensation.

3. The respondent No.1 remained exparte, while the respondent No.2 filed the counter denying the averments made by the petitioners. They contended that the accident was not due to the negligence on the part of the rider of the motorcycle bearing No.AP 24AV 1431, but it was due to the negligence of the deceased himself, who was proceeding on the motorcycle as a pillion rider. They pointed out that the rider of the motorcycle neither had the driving licence nor had the permit for riding the same. They also denied that the deceased Mallesh suffered injuries in the accident and as such, succumbed to the same. They further denied the age and income of the deceased apart from denying that the petitioners were dependent upon his income. They contended that since the negligence was on the part of the deceased himself, the question of the respondent

No.2 being liable to pay the compensation does not arise. They further claimed that the compensation claimed by the petitioners is not only without any basis, but is also exorbitant. Hence, prayed that the petition be dismissed.

4. On the basis of the said averments by both sides, the Court framed the following issue.

Whether the petitioners are entitled to a compensation of Rs.10,00,000/- from respondents 1 & 2 for causing death of Mr.Chintha Mallesh in a motor vehicular accident that occurred on 18.12.2013 at 11.00 P.M in front of Mondrai Durgamma Temple falling under the jurisdiction of P.S.Kodakandla, Warangal Rural, due to rash, negligent and high speed riding of Hero Honda Motor Bike bearing No.AP 24 AV 1431, by its rider.

4

5. In support of the claim, the petitioners examined the petitioner No.2 as PW1 and another witness as PW2 apart from marking Exs.A1 to A7 consisting of FIR, Charge Sheet, Inquest Panchanama, Crime Details Form with Rough Sketch, MVI Report, Postmortem Report and Original Salary

Certificate. The respondents not chosed to adduce any oral evidence but marked Ex.B1 i.e copy of the Insurance Policy.

6. For the purpose of convenience, this Court reframed the issues as follows:- (1) Whether the accident dt.18.12.2013 was due to rash and negligent driving of the Hero Honda Motor Bike bearing No.AP 24 AV 1431 by its driver ?

(2) Whether the petitioners are entitled for compensation and if so, to what amount and from whom ?

(3) To what relief ?

7. ISSUE No.1: The contention of the petitioners is that the accident took place on 18.12.2013 due to rash and negligent driving of the Hero

Honda Motorcycle bearing No.AP 24 AV 1431. The respondents on the

other hand denied the same and suggested that the negligence was on the part of the deceased himself, who was riding the motorcycle negligently without following the traffic rules.

8. In the face of the said contentions by both sides, this Court perused the evidence on record and found that the petitioner No.2, who is the father of the deceased Mallesh, examined himself as PW1 and reiterated the contentions of the petitioners that on 18.12.2013 their son i.e the deceased

Chintha Mallesh was proceeding on the motorcycle bearing No.AP 24 AV 1431 along with the respondent No.1, who was the owner of the said motorcycle, but the respondent No.1 rode the said motorcycle at a high speed, in a rash and negligent manner and as such, they fell in a ditch near 5

Mondrai Durgamma Temple at about 11.00 P.M. He contended that he has filed the documents in support of the same. PW2, who is stated to be employer of the deceased and eye witness to the accident, supported the contention of the petitioners with regard to the accident.

9. A perusal of the documentary evidence adduced by the petitioners in support of their oral evidence adduced through PWs.1 & 2, this Court finds that Ex.A1, which is the FIR, clearly shows that the accident took place on 18.12.2013 at about 11.00 A.M involving the deceased Chintha Mallesh, the motorcycle bearing No.AP 24 AV 1431 and the respondent No.1 herein.

While a perusal of Ex.A2 i.e the Charge Sheet filed by the police along the

Crime Details Form i.e Ex.A4 and the M.V.I Report marked as Ex.A5 show that the concerned police have investigated into the accident and found that the negligence was entirely on the part of the rider of the motorcycle bearing No.AP 24 AV 1431 and hence, the accident occurred near the ditch at Mondrai Durgamma Temple and the report of the MVI i.e Ex.A5 shows that the said accident was not due to any mechanical defect.

10. Thus, the contents of Ex.A1-FIR establishes that the accident took place on 18.12.2013, Ex.A2- Crime Details Form establishes that the accident took place at Mondrai Durgamma Temple, while the Charge

Sheet-Ex.A2 and MVI Report-Ex.A5 establish that the accident was entirely due to the negligence on the part of the rider of the motorcycle bearing

No.AP 24 AV 1431 and not due to any mechanical defect. The said evidence adduced by the petitioners is neither countered nor rebutted by the respondents. The respondent No.2, who contended that the negligence was on the part of the deceased himself, failed to adduce any oral or documentary evidence to that effect. Hence, this Court concludes that the 6 oral evidence of PW1 coupled with the documentary evidence marked as

Exs.A1, A2, A4 & A5 clearly established that the accident that took place on 18.12.2013 was entirely due to the negligence on the part of the rider of the motorcycle bearing No.AP 24 AV 1431. Hence, decides this issue in favour of the petitioners.

11. ISSUE No.2: The contention of the petitioners is that in the accident that took place on 18.12.2013 due to the negligence of the rider of the motorcycle bearing No.AP 24 AV 1431, the son of the petitioners No.1 & 2 and the brother of the petitioner No.3 namely Chintha Mallesh suffered injuries and died two days later while undergoing treatment and as such, they not only suffered from pain, shock and agony, but have also suffered from loss of financial, emotional, social and moral support apart from incurring medical expenses and hence, they are entitled for a compensation of Rs.10,00,000/-.

12. A perusal of the evidence on record shows that the petitioners through their oral evidence of PWs.1 & 2 and the documents marked as

Exs.A1, A2, A4 and A5 have already established that the accident took place on 18-12-2013 due to the negligence on the part of the rider of the motorcycle bearing No.AP 24 AV 1431. The petitioners further filed copy of the Inquest Report vide Ex.A3 and the Postmortem Report vide Ex.A6. A perusal of the contents of the said two documents clearly establish that in the accident that took place on 18-12-2013 as shown under Ex.A1 due to the negligence of the rider of the motorcycle bearing No.AP 24 AV 1431 as shown under Ex.A2, the son of the petitioners 1 & 2 and the brother of the petitioner No.3 namely Chintha Mallesh suffered injuries and succumbed to the said injuries while undergoing treatment at HIMS Hospital and the said 7 evidence adduced by the petitioners is neither countered nor rebutted by the respondents. A perusal of Ex.A3-Inquest Report and A6-Postmortem

Report admittedly shows that the said Chintha Mallesh suffered injuries on 18.12.2013 and succumbed to the said injuries on 20.12.2013. The said evidence adduced by the petitioners is neither countered nor rebutted by the respondents. Hence, the Court concludes that since the son of the petitioners No.1 & 2 and the brother of the petitioner No.3 suffered injuries and died as a result of the accident due to the negligence on the part of the rider of the motorcycle bearing No.AP 24 AV 1431, the petitioners are entitled for compensation.

13. The contention of the petitioners is that the deceased Chintha

Mallesh, who is son of the petitioners 1 & 2 and brother of the petitioner

No.3, was aged 25 years on the date of the accident and was earning

Rs.12,000/- p.m as a Supervisor in a Private Firm. The respondents on the other hand denied the same and pointed out that the petitioners neither filed any date of birth certificate nor adduced any authentic evidence with regard to the income of the deceased. A perusal of evidence on record admittedly shows that the petitioners have not filed any date of birth certificate of the deceased Chintha Mallesh. The said evidence also shows that the respondents, who denied the age of the deceased Mallesh, have also not filed any document in support of their denial. As such, the Court relied on the documentary evidence already on record and found that

Postmortem Report, which is marked as Ex.A6, mentions the age of the deceased as 25 years. Since the said document is issued by the medical authorities and since the said age mentioned in the said document is not countered by the respondents, the Court concludes that the age of the 8 deceased can be assumed to be 25 years on the date of the accident on the basis of Ex.A6 for the purpose of assessing compensation.

14. As mentioned earlier, the respondents have contended that the petitioners have not adduced any authentic document in support of the income of the deceased. The evidence on record shows that the petitioners have filed a Salary Certificate of the deceased vide Ex.A7 issued by PW2, employer of the deceased and a perusal of the same shows that the deceased was earning Rs.12,000/- p.m, but a scrutiny of the said document shows that the said document did not mention in what capacity the deceased was working in the said Borewell Firm. The petitioners have also not adduced any evidence to show that the deceased was technically qualified in any capacity in the Borewell Firm. But, the evidence of the respondents also shows that they have not contended that the deceased was an unemployed person without any income. As such, in the above mentioned circumstances, the Court concludes that since Ex.A7 did not mention in what capacity the deceased was working in the said Borewell

Firm and since the petitioners have not adduced any evidence to show that the deceased was otherwise qualified, the income of the deceased can only be assumed on par with the daily wages labourer in the open market, which is not less than Rs.150/- per day. As such, the Court assumes the income of the deceased as Rs.150/- per day amounting to Rs.4,500/- per month and Rs.54,000/- per annum for the purpose of assessing compensation.

15. The petitioners claimed an amount of Rs.2,000/- towards transportation charges. The respondents resisted the same. A perusal of the evidence on record shows that the deceased was a resident of 9

Chandanagar, met with an accident at Durgamma Temple, hence, was shifted to Janagama Area Hospital and then to the NIMS Hospital, later his body was shifted to his residence. As such, the Court concludes that the petitioners being the parents and brother of the deceased would have incurred transportation charges to shift the injured from the place of accident to the hospitals and his body to the residence. As such, awards

Rs.2,000/- , as claimed by the petitioners, towards transportation charges.

16. The petitioners claimed an amount of Rs.1,000/- towards damages to clothes. The same is also resisted by the respondents. Admittedly, the deceased Chintha Mallesh succumbed to the injuries suffered by him in the accident. Hence, this Court concludes that his clothes can be taken as damaged in view of his death. Hence, awards Rs.500/- towards damages to the clothing of the deceased.

17. The petitioners claimed an amount of Rs.17,000/- towards pain and sufferings. The same is also resisted by the respondents. The evidence on record shows that as a result of the injuries suffered by the deceased

Chintha Mallesh in view of the accident due to the negligence of the rider of the motorcycle bearing No.AP 24 AV 1431 and that he succumbed to the said injuries 3 days after the accident. As such, the Court concludes that the deceased would have suffered lot of pain and sufferings during the period of his death and the date of accident apart from petitioners suffering from pain, shock and agony due to the sufferings of the deceased. Hence, the Court awards Rs.10,000/- towards compensation for pain and sufferings.

18. The contention of the petitioners is that the son of the petitioners No.1 & 2 and the brother of the petitioner No.3 died untimely due to the 10 negligence on the part of the rider of the motorcycle bearing No.AP 24 AV 1431 and as such, the Court concludes that the petitioners are entitled for compensation, as they are depending financially, emotionally, socially and morally on his support. Hence, in order to calculate the compensation to be awarded to the petitioners due to the untimely death of Chintha Mallesh, the court relied on the Second Schedule of Sec.163-A of Motor Vehicles Act and found that the same provides the multiplier as 18 for a person aged 25 years. Hence, the Court applied the said multiplier 18 to the assumed annual income of the deceased i.e., (Rs.54,000/- p.a X 18) and arrived at

Rs.9,72,000/-. Out of the said amount, the Court deducted 1/3rd i.e

Rs.3,24,000/- towards personal expenses of the deceased, as provided under the same schedule (Rs.9,72,000 – 3,24,000) and arrived at

Rs.6,48,000/-. As such, the Court concludes that the petitioners are entitled for a compensation of Rs.6,48,000/- due to the untimely death of

Chintha Mallesh, who is the son of the petitioners No.1 & 2 and the brother of the petitioner No.3, towards loss of life, love and affection, etc., including funeral expenses.

19. Thus, the Court concludes that the petitioners are entitled for the following compensation:-

1) Transportation charges ---- Rs. 2,000-00

2) Damages to clothing ---- Rs. 500-00

3) Pain & Sufferings ---- Rs. 10,000-00

4) loss of life, love & affection, ---- Rs. 6,48,000-00 Funeral expenses, etc., ----------------------- Total: Rs. 6,60,500-00 ----------------------

20. The contention of the petitioners is that the respondent No.1 & 2, who are the owner and the insurer of the motor vehicle bearing No.AP 24 AV 1431 that caused the accident are liable to pay them the compensation 11 jointly and severally. The evidence on record show that though the respondents contended that they are not liable to pay compensation to the petitioners, they have not denied that the respondent No.1 is the owner of the motor vehicle bearing No.AP 24 AV 1431 that caused the accident and that the said vehicle is insured with the respondent No.2 under the policy bearing No.35100731126203255524. Hence, in view of the findings of the

Court that the petitioners are entitled for compensation, this Court concludes that the respondents 1 & 2 are liable to pay compensation to the petitioners jointly and severally. Hence, decides this issue in favour of the petitioners.

21. ISSUE NO.3: (i) In the result, the petition is allowed in part, awarding a compensation of Rs.6,60,500/- (Rs.Six Lakhs Sixty Thousand and Five

Hundred only) along with proportionate costs and interest @ 7.5% p.a from the date of the petition till realization of the same.

(ii) The respondents No.1 & 2 are directed to deposit the compensation awarded along with interest accrued thereon within 2 months from the date of this order jointly and severally with this Tribunal.

(iii) Out of the compensation awarded, the petitioner No.1, being the mother and natural heir of the deceased Chintha Mallesh, is awarded an amount of Rs.3,12,500/- along with proportionate costs and interest, while the petitioner No.2, who is the father of the deceased Chintha Mallesh, is awarded Rs.2,00,000/- along with proportionate costs and interest and the petitioner No.3, who is the younger brother of the deceased, is awarded

Rs.1,48,000/- along with proportionate costs and interest.

12

(iv) Out of the said compensation awarded, the petitioner No.1 is permitted to withdraw an amount of Rs.1,00,000/- and the balance along with the interest accrued there on shall be put in a Fixed Deposit in a

Nationalized Bank for a period of 3 years and the petitioner No.1 shall be entitled to withdraw the same as per her requirements. The petitioner No.2 is also permitted to withdraw an amount of Rs.1,00,000/- and the balance along with the interest accrued thereon shall be deposited in a Nationalized

Bank for a period of 3 years and the petitioner No.2 shall be entitled to withdraw the same as per his requirements. The petitioner No.3 is permitted to withdraw an amount of Rs.50,000/- out of the compensation awarded to him and the balance shall be put in a Fixed Deposit for a period of 3 years in a Nationalized Bank and the petitioner No.3 shall be entitled to withdraw the same as per his requirements.

(v) The advocate’s fee is fixed at Rs.3,000/-.

(Dictated to the Stenographer, corrected and pronounced by me in the Open Tribunal on this the 7th day of January, 2015.)

CHAIRMAN, PRL.MACT-cum-

PRL.DISTRICT JUDGE

RANGA REDDY DISTRICT.

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

WITNESSES EXAMINED

FOR PETITIONERS:

PW1 - Ch.Yadagiri PW2 – N. Venkateswarlu

FOR RESPONDENTS: Nil

EXHIBITS MARKED

FOR PETITIONERS:

Ex.A1 - CC of FIR Ex.A2 – CC of Charge Sheet Ex.A3 – CC of Inquest Report Ex.A4 – CC of Crime Details Form along with Rough Sketch 13

Ex.A5 – CC of MVI Report Ex.A6 – CC of Postmortem Report Ex.A7 – Original Salary Certificate

FOR RESPONDENTS:

Ex.B1 – Insurance Policy

CHAIRMAN, PRL.MACT-cum-

PRL.DISTRICT JUDGE

RANGA REDDY DISTRICT.

IN THE PRINCIPAL MOTOR ACCIDENTS CLAIMS TRIBUNAL,

RANGA REDDY DISTRICT.

Present: K.Ashok Babu Chairman-cum- Prl.District Judge.

Wednesday, the 31 st day of December, 2014.

M.V.O.P. 591/2012

(U/s.166 of the M.V.Act, 1988)

Between:

1.Katta Malathi

2.Katta Nissi Anand

3.Katta Visalakshi ..Petitioners

(P2, being minor, is rep.by P1-mother)

AND

1.Kotapally Sridevi (Owner of lorry No.AP 28Y 0479)

2.The New India Assurance Company Ltd.,

Rep.by its Manager. ..Respondents

Policy No.6280031110100005792, Valid from 01.10.2011 to 30.09.2012. This Original Petition coming up before me for a final hearing on 1.12.2014 in the presence of Mr.P.Jagan Mohan, Counsel for the Petitioners, Mr.N.S.Soma Sunder, Counsel for R2 and R1 having remained ex parte and on a consideration of the material evidence on record and having stood over for consideration till date, this Tribunal has pronounced the following:

JUDGMENT

(U/s.168 of the M.V.Act r/w Rule 471 of the A.P.M.V.Rules, 1989)

Concise Statement of the Case:

Per Petitioners:

On 23.12.2011, while K. R. Mohan Rao was proceeding on his motor cycle, AP 28

TQ TR 8758, from his residence at Bachupally to Miyapur to go over to his office and when he reached near Vikas School, in front of Patel & Co., at Bachupally, at about 5-30

A.M., lorry, AP 28 Y 0479, driven by its driver rashly, negligently and at a high speed, hit his motor cycle from his behind, causing his fall on to the road and rear tyres of the lorry ran over his body, causing him injuries and death on the spot, concerning Cr.No.633/2011 under Sec.304-A IPC of P.S.Dundigal, against the driver of the offending lorry.

2. Prior to the accident, K.R.Mohan Rao was aged about 33 years, hale, healthy and working as a Medical Transcriptionist in Transdyne IT Solutions Pvt.Ltd., Hyderabad, on a monthly salary of Rs.16,500/- including incentives, which he used to contribute for maintenance and welfare of his family but due to his untimely demise, P1-widow, P2- 2 minor son and P3-mother, lost his earnings, love, affection, care, estate, etc. So, they have claimed a compensation of Rs.32 lakh with interest @ 12% p.a from R1-owner and R2- insurer on all counts.

Per R1:

3. Since R1-owner has preferred to remain ex parte, R2-insurer was permitted under

Sec.170 of the M.V.Act to take all the defences, as are available to the insured, by order dt.26.07.2014 in I.A.No.2183/2013.

Per R2:

4. Denying rashness, negligence, high speed driving by the driver of Lorry, AP 28 Y 0479, on 23.12.2011 at about 5.30 A.M and its hitting K.R.Mohan Rao, causing grievous injuries to him and death on the spot; disputing his age, occupation, income and involvement of lorry, AP 28 Y 0479, in the alleged accident, validity of its insurance and the driving licence of its driver and attributing contributory negligence to K.R.Mohan Rao,

R2 has contended that it is not liable to pay any compensation, much less a compensation of Rs.32 lakh, as claimed by the petitioners.

Recast Issue for Determination:

4. ‘Whether the petitioners are entitled to a compensation of Rs.32,00,000/- from R1- owner and R2-insurer for causing the death of K.R Mohan Rao in a motor vehicular accident that occurred on 23.12.2011 at about 5-30 A.M in front of Patel Company, Near

Vikas School, Bachupally, Quthbullapur, Cyberabad, due to rash, negligent and high speed driving of lorry, AP 28 Y 0479, by its driver ?’

Appreciation of Evidence:

5. I have carefully appreciated the oral evidence of PWs.1 to 3 and the documentary evidence in Exs.A1 to A8 for the petitioners and Ex.B1 for R2 in the light of written submissions filed by the learned Counsel for both sides, as discussed in detail, in the following:- 3

Reasons for Findings:

6. The circumstantial evidence of PW1-widow that on 23.12.2011 at about 5-30 A.M., while her husband was proceeding on his motor cycle, AP 28 TQ TR 8758, from their residence at Bachupally to Miyapur to go over to his office and when he reached near

Vikas School in front of Patel & Co. at Bachupally, lorry, AP 28 Y 0479, driven by its driver rashly, negligently and at a high speed, hit her husband’s motor cycle from his behind, causing his fall on to the road and rear tyres of the lorry ran over his body, causing him severe bleeding injuries and death on the spot, is corroborated by the unchallenged public documentary evidence in Ex.A1-FIR, Ex.A2-Inquest panchanama,

Ex.A3-Post-mortem report, Ex.A4-MVI’s report, Ex.A5-Crime Details Form along with a sketch map of the scene of offence panchanama and Ex.A6-Charge Sheet and eye witness’s testimony of PW2.

7. As testified by PW2, on 23.12.2011 at about 5-30 A.M, while he was proceeding on his motor cycle from Bachupaly to Miyapur and when he reached near Vikas School in front of Patel & Co. at Bachupally, suddenly one lorry, AP 28 Y 0479, driven by its driver rashly, negligently and at a high speed overtook him and hit the motor cycle of the deceased, who was proceeding in front of him, from his behind, causing him multiple injuries and death on the spot.

8. The evidence of PWs.1 & 2 is further corroborated by the investigation made by the

Sub-Inspector of Police, P.S. Dundigal, according to which, A.Satyanarayana, driver of lorry,

AP 28 Y 0479, drove it so rashly, negligently and hit the motor cycle of A.R.Mohan Rao from his behind and when he fell down the rear wheels of the lorry ran over his body, causing him bleeding injuries and death on the spot, for which, the driver

A.Satyanarayana was charge sheeted for an offence punishable under Section 304-A IPC.

That was how, the Asst.MVI, RTI, Medchal, opined in Ex.A4 that the accident was not due to any mechanical defects of the crime lorry.

4

9. No doubt the learned Counsel for R2 has relied on a decision of the High Court of

Andhra Pradesh in National Insurance Company Ltd., v. Ch.Vijaya Lakshmi (1987 (2) ALT 193 DB) to contend that Sec.53 of the E.S.I Act clearly bars the remedy of compensation or damages payable under any statutory enactment as also under the Law of Torts or the

Common Law from the purview of the Tribunal under the Motor Vehicles Act in case of death or injury to an employee covered by the E.S.I Act, in view of subsequent decision of the High Court of A.P.in the Oriental Insurance Company Ltd., v. G.Nagaraju (MACMA

No.1834/2012 allowed on 16.6.2014, wherein it was held that since the injuries suffered by the claimant were not in the course of the employment, they could not be treated as employment injuries as defined under the E.S.I Act and the claimant was not entitled to receive any compensation under the Motor Vehicles Act unless he refunds the entire amount received by him to the E.S.I Corporation and that the OP under the M.V.Act was not barred under Sec.53 of the E.S.I Act and he can get compensation under the M.V.Act only subject to his refunding the amount received by him from the E.S.I Corporation back to it and P1 to P3 having not claimed or received any benefit from the E.S.I Corporation for the death of K.R.Mohan Rao, the OP filed by them under the M.V.Act is very much maintainable.

9. No rebuttal evidence having been adduced by R2-insurer in disproof of there not being any rashness, negligence or high speed driving on the part of the driver-

A.Satyanarayana of lorry, AP 28 Y 0479, which hit A.R.Mohan Rao, causing him grievous injuries and death on the spot, the defence pleaded by R2-insurer in the counter about there being any contributory negligence on the part of K.R.Mohan Rao, is not substantiated.

10. Since the accident had occurred on 23.12.2011 during the subsistence of Ex.B1-

Insurance Policy valid from 01.10.2011 to 30.09.2012, R2-insurer is liable to indemnify R1- owner by depositing the compensation, as is being determined in the following paragraphs:- 5

Compensation:

Age:

11. The date of birth of A.R.Mohan Rao having been mentioned as 20-5-1978 in Ex.A8-

SSC Memo, he was aged 33 years 7 months 3 days as on the date of his death on 23.12.2011, which could safely be relied on for applicability of multiplier `16’ for the persons in the age group of 31 to 35 years, as per column No.(4) of the Multiplier Table approved by the Apex Court in SARLA VERMA V. DELHI TRANSPORT CORPORATION (2009 ACJ 1298).

Income:

12. As testified by PW1, her husband was working as Medical Transcriptionist in

Transdyne IT Solutions Pvt.Ltd., Hyderabad, on a monthly salary of Rs.16,500/- including incentives but according to PW3-M.Shravan Kumar, Sr.HR.Executive of the Company, the total earnings of K.R.Mohan Rao were Rs.17,006/-, from which, his saving contribution towards PF was Rs.222/- and ESI was Rs.298/-. Except professional tax of Rs.150/-, which was not refundable to him, his take home salary was Rs.16,336/- and CTC was Rs.18067/-.

Leaving non-refundable professional tax of Rs.150/- p.m, his earnings could safely be taken as Rs.16,856/-p.m and Rs.2,02,272/- per annum, to which a sum of Rs.1,01,136/- p.a, being 50% of his salary, should be added towards future prospects as K.R.Mohan Rao was a permanent employee and his total earnings works out to Rs.3,03,408/- p.a.

13. Had K.R.Mohan Rao been alive, he would have spent 1/3 rd (Rs.1,01,136/-) of his income (Rs. 3,03,408/- p.a X 1/3 = Rs.1,01,136/- p.a) for his personal and living expenses and contributed 2/3 rd (Rs.2,02,272/- p.a) of it (Rs.3,03,408 X 2/3=Rs.2,02,272/-) for his family comprising P1 to P3 but due to his untimely demise, they lost his earnings of Rs.32,36,352/- (Rs.2,02,272/- p.a X 16 multiplier = Rs.32,36,352/-). So, they are entitled to a compensation of Rs.32,36,352/- towards loss of dependency.

15. In addition to the compensation awarded to P1 to P3 in para 13, P1 is entitled to a compensation of Rs.50,000/- towards loss of his consortium and P1 to P3 are entitled 6 to another compensation of Rs.50,000/- towards loss of his love, affection, estate, etc., and Rs.20,000/- towards funeral expenses.

In all, P1 to P3 are entitled to a compensation of Rs.33,56,352/- from R1 & R2 but 13.

indemnifiable by R2 with simple interest, as indicated in the award.

Award:

To sum up, the O.P is allowed with costs, awarding a compensation of 14.

Rs.33,56,352/- (Rupees Thirty Three Lakh Fifty Six Thousand Three Hundred and Fifty

Two only), subject to payment of deficit Court Fee on the enhanced compensation, with simple interest @ Rs.9% per annum from date of filing of the O.P on 25.7.2012 till date of realization from R1 but directing R2 to deposit the entire compensation amount together with the interest thereon within 30 days from date of the award and ordering apportionment and disbursement of it as follows:

Apportionment:

Out of the total compensation amount of Rs. 33,56,352/-, P1 is entitled to a 13.

compensation of Rs.13,00,000/-; P2-minor is entitled to a compensation of

Rs.12,50,000/- and P3-mother is entitled to a compensation of

Rs.8,06,352/-.Withdrawal & Investment:

On such a deposit being made, P3-mother is permitted to withdraw her entire 14.

share of compensation of Rs.8,06,352/- together with the interest thereon forthwith; P1 is permitted to withdraw half of her compensation of Rs.6,50,000 together with the interest thereon and the balance share of her compensation and the compensation payable to

P2-minor, be invested in a fixed deposit in a Nationalized/Scheduled Bank, initially for a period of 3 years, renewable from time to time till P2 attains majority or till the need ceases, as the case may be, permitting P1 to withdraw periodical interest on her share and the share of P2-minor, from time to time, for his upbringing, maintenance, education, etc, till P2 attains his majority.

Fee:

7

Counsel's fee is fixed at Rs.2,000/-. 15.

(Dictated to the Stenographer Gr.I, corrected and pronounced by me in the

Open Tribunal on this the 31 st day of December , 2014.)

CHAIRMAN-CUM-PRL.DIST.JUDGE,

PRL.MOTOR ACCIDENTS CLAIMS TRIBUNAL

RANGA REDDY DISTRICT.

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

WITNESSES EXAMINED

FOR PETITIONERS: FOR

RESPONDENTS:

PW1 - K.Malathi (P1) Nil PW2 - S.Nagaraju (eye witness) PW3 – M. Shravan Kumar (Employer of deceased)

EXHIBITS MARKED

FOR PETITIONERS:

Ex.A1 - CC of FIR along with complaint in CC.No.633/2011 of P.S.Dundigal Ex.A2 – CC of Inquest Panchanama Ex.A3 – CC of PME Report Ex.A4 – CC of MVI Report Ex.A5 – CC of Crime Details Form along with sketch map of scene of offence Ex.A6 – CC of Charge Sheet Ex.A7 – Pay Slip of the deceased Ex.A8 – Xerox copy of SSC Memo of the deceased

FOR RESPONDENTS:

Ex.B1 – Insurance Policy

CHAIRMAN-CUM-PRL.DIST.JUDGE,

PRL.MOTOR ACCIDENTS CLAIMS TRIBUNAL

RANGA REDDY DISTRICT.

IN THE PRINCIPAL DISTRICT COURT, RANGAREDDY DISTRICT

Present: K.Ashok Babu, Prl. District Judge.

Wednesday, the 31 st day of December, 2014.

O.S.No.1212/2014

(U/O VII Rule 1 & 2 r /w Sec.26

of the Civil Procedure Code, 1908)

Between:

1. Tirunagari Apuroopa

2. Tirunagari Alankrutha ...Plaintiffs

AND

1. K.Yashodhara

2. All concerned …Defendants

This Original Suit coming up before me for a final hearing on 15.12.2014 in the presence of Mr.E.S.Vara Prasad, Counsel for the Plaintiffs and none having appeared for the defendants and on a consideration of the oral and documentary evidence on record, this Court has pronounced the following:-

JUDGMENT

(U/O XX Rule 4(2) C.P.C.)

Preamble:

P1 & P2 have filed the suit on hand for declaring them as the legal heirs of

T.Srinivas and T.Anuradha, who demised on 27.06.2014 and 22.11.2011 respectively, intestate, leaving behind them the suit scheduled property.

Per Plaintiffs:

2. While P1 is the elder daughter, P2 is the younger daughter of T.Srinivas and

T.Anuradha. They aver that during the life time of their parents, they jointly purchased the suit scheduled property under a regd.sale deed No.6819/2002 and after their demised intestate, P1 & P2 have remained as the only surviving legal heirs to inherit the self acquired property of their parents but D1, who is the maternal grandmother of P1 & P2, has been claiming it as a co-percenary and objecting for mutation of their names, driving them to file the suit on hand.

Per Defendants:

5. Though a notice was served on D1 and another notice was published to `All Concerned’ in ‘Janatha’ local edition, calling upon them to appear before the

Court on 08.12.2014, none has appeared to oppose the suit and thus, they remained ex parte.

Evidence:.

PDJ 2

7. In order to substantiate the suit claim, P1 has examined herself as PW1 and relied on the documentary evidence obtaining in Exs.A1 to A8.

Point for Determination:

8. Whether P1 & P2 are entitled to a declaration that they are the legal heirs of T.Srinivas and T.Anuradha, who demised on 27.06.2014 and 22.11.2011 respectively, intestate, leaving behind them the suit scheduled property and P1 &

P2 to inherit it ?

Reasons for Decision:

9. As testified by P1 as PW1 that their father-T.Srinivas and mother-T.Anuradha, were the absolute owners and possessors of the suit scheduled property but they having demised intestate, P1 & P2, being the surviving legal heirs, inherited it, is corroborated by the unchallenged documentary evidenceobtaining in

Ex.A3-Regd.Sale Deed No.6819/2002 dt.3.8.2002 and Ex.A4-Statement of

Encumbrance on property in the name of T.Srinivas and T.Anuradha; Ex.A1-Death

Certificate about the death of T.Srinivas on 27.06.2014 and Ex.A2-Death Certificate about the death of T.Anuradha; Ex.A6-Adhar Card of P1, Ex.P7-Aadhar Card of P2 and Ex.A8-Household Card showing the names of P1 & P2 as the daughters of

T.Srinivas and T.Anuradha, which do prove that P1 & P2 are the only surviving legal heirs of T.Srinivas and T.Anuradha.

10. So, P1 & P2 are entitled to be declared as the legal heirs of T.Srinivas and

T.Anuradha, who demised on 27.6.2014 and 22.11.2011, respectively, intestate, leaving behind them the suit schedule property, to inherit it by intestate succession.

Decision :

11. For the foregoing reasons, the suit is decreed but without costs, declaring P1 & P2 as the legal heirs of T.Srinivas and T.Anuradha.

3 (Typed to my dictation by the Stenographer-Gr.I, corrected and pronounced by me in the Open Court today, the 31 st day of December, 2014)

PRINCIPAL DISTRICT JUDGE,

RANGAREDDY DISTRICT.

Appendix of Evidence

Witnesses Examined

For Plaintiffs: For Defendants:

PW1 –T.Apuroopa, P1 NIL

Exhibits Marked

For Plaintiffs: For Defendants:

Ex.A1 – Attested copy of Death Certificate of T.Srinivas NIL Ex.A2 – Death Certificate of T.Anuradha Ex.A3 – CC of Regd.Sale Deed No.6819/2002 dt.3.8.2002 Ex.A4 – Statement of Encumbrance on property issued by SRO, Uppal, dt.23.09.2014 Ex.A5 – Market Value Certificate Ex.A6 – Attested copy of Aadar Card of P1 Ex.A7 – Attested copy of Aadar Card of P2 Ex.A8 – Attested copy of Ration Card

PRINCIPAL DISTRICT JUDGE,

RANGAREDDY DISTRICT.

s

1

IN THE COURT OF THE PRL. DISTRICT JUDGE, RANGAREDDY DISTRICT

PRESENT: K.Ashok Babu,

Prl.District Judge.

Wednesday, the 31 st day of December, 2014.

O.P.741/2014

Between:

Asha Sanghi, W/o.late Sri Susheel Kumar Sanghi, Aged about 40 years, Occ: House-wife, R/o.23-120, T.Nagar, Opp: Kothapet Fruit Market, Kothapet X Roads, Hyderabad. …Petitioner

AND

All concerned. ...Respondents

Petition filed under Section.8 of the Hindu Minority & Guardianship Act

(31 of 1956)

This OP coming up before me on 30.12.2014 for a final hearing in the presence of Mr.Ashok Kumar Agarwal, Counsel for the petitioner and the respondents having remained exparte and on a consideration of the oral and documentary evidence on record, this court has rendered the following:

O R D E R

P etitioner, being the mother of the minor-ward, Esha Sanghi, now

aged 15 years, has produced the minor-ward and, on enquiry, she has exercised her intelligent preference to continue to be under the care of the petitioner-mother and natural guardian, who has obviously no adverse interest against her.

2. In order to substantiate the relief as prayed for, the petitioner has examined herself as PW1 and marked Exs.A1 to A4.

3. The testimony of the petitioner-mother that during the life time of her husband, Susheel Kumar Sanghi, he purchased the petition scheduled property along with his mother-Angori Bai Sanghi and brother-Sujeet

Kumar Sanghi and after her husband’s demise on 31.12.2008, his 1/3 rd share in it devolved on the petitioner/wife and her two daughters, namely, the minor-ward Esha Sanghi and another daughter Komal Sanghi, who is a 2 major, and for their better future and higher education, she needs money and having no source left except the petition scheduled property, she intends to dispose it of with the consent of other shareholders, for which she needs of the Court by appointing her as guardian of the minor-ward Esha

Sanghi, is corroborated by Ex.A1-Birth Certificate of minor Esha Sanghi;

Ex.A2-Death Certificate of Susheel Kumar Sanghi; Ex.A3- Voters ID of the petitioner and Ex.A4-Original Sale Deed No.1609/1996, which prove the bona fides of the petitioner, who has no adverse interest against the minor- ward, who, too, has exercised her intelligent preference to continue to stay under her care and natural guardianship.

4. So, I appoint the Petitioner-mother as the guardian of the minor-ward,

Esha Sanghi, for her person and property u/s 7 of the Guardians & Wards

Act, till she attains her majority.

5. Accordingly, I permit the petitioner-guardian of the minor-ward u/S.29(a) of the Guardians & Wards Act to sell the petition scheduled property and deposit the entire sale proceeds in a Nationalised or

Scheduled Bank and utilize them for maintenance, education, upbringing, etc., of the minor-ward and file monthly reports to the District Court, from time to time, about the amounts spent by her on the minor-ward’s maintenance, education, etc., till she attains her majority, for scrutiny and record.

6. To sum up, the OP is allowed but without costs, as indicated above.

Typed to my dictation by the Stenographer-Gr.I, corrected and pronounced by me in the open court on this the 31 st day of December, 2014.

PRINCIPAL DISTRICT JUDGE,

3

R.R.DISTRICT.

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

WITNESSES EXAMINED

ON BEHALF OF PETITIONERS:

PW1 – Asha Sanghi

ON BEHALF OF RESPONDENTS: Nil

EXHIBITS MARKED

ON BEHALF OF PETITIONERS:

Ex.A1 - Birth Certificate of Minor Esha Sanghi dt.4.5.1999 Ex.A2 – Death Certificate of Susheel Kumar Sanghi dt.31.12.2008 Ex.A3 – Copy of the Voter ID of the petitioner dt.13.02.2013 Ex.A4 – Original Sale Deed No.1609/1996

ON BEHALF OF RESPONDENTS: Nil

PRINCIPAL DISTRICT JUDGE,

R.R.DISTRICT.

*BSL