BEFORE THE CHAIRMAN, MOTOR ACCIDENTS CLAIMS
TRIBUNAL CUM PRINCIPAL DISTRICT JUDGE,
VIZIANAGARAM
Present: Sri Guttala Gopi Chairman, M.A.C.T., cum
Principal District Judge, Vizianagaram
Wednesday, the 11th day of December, 2019
M.V.O.P. 294/2017
Between:
1. Mulagada Ramalakshmi
2. Mulagada Ramya
3. Mulagada Ramjee
4. Mulagada Anusha
5. Mulagada Guruvulu (died)
6. Mulagada Kanchamma (4th Petitioner being minor represented by her mother and natural guardian/1st Petitioner)
7. Mulagada Papa Rao (7th Petitioner is added as per orders in I.A.594/2019, dt.16.04.2019) (2nd and the 3rd Petitioners are declared as Majors as per the orders in I.A.1133 and 1134/2019, dt.02.07.2019 )…Petitioners
A n d:
1. Seela Eswara Rao
2. Kaakoti Lazar
3. United India Insurance Company Limited represented by its Divisional Manager, Srikakulam…Respondents
This petition coming on 05.12.2019 for final hearing before me in the presence of Sri K.V.N.Thammanna Setty, Advocate for the Petitioner and of Sri A.M.M.Satyanarayana, Advocate for the 3rd Respondent and 1st and the 2nd Respondents having been called absent, remained ex parte and having stood over for consideration to this date, this Tribunal passed the following:
O R D E R
01.This petition have been filed under Section 166 of M.V.Act read with
Rule 455 of M.V.Rules praying to award compensation of .40,00,000/ [Rupees₹ forty lakhs only] for the death of Mulagada Srinivasa Rao on 12.04.2016 at about 06:30 hours near Aruna Jute Mills, Vizianagaram.
02.The brief averments of the petition are that the Petitioner is the wife, 2nd to 4th petitioners are the children, 5th Petitioner is the father, 6th
MACT cum District Judge, VZM 2 M.O.P.294/2017 petitioner is the mother, 7th petitioner is the son of the 5th petitioner and brother of the deceased and he was added as L.R. of the deceased 5th Petitioner.
2.1.On 12.04.2016, the deceased/Srinivasa Rao started at his house on his Honda Activa motorcycle in a slow manner by following traffic rules and proceeding towards Chillapeta village to attend the duty and when he reached near Aruna Jute Mills road junction at about 06:30 hours, the 1st Respondent drove the Bolero vehicle bearing No.AP 07 TE 6308 coming from Vizianagaram and proceeding towards Visakhapatnam in rash and negligent manner with high speed dashed the motorcycle of the deceased, due to the impact, Srinivasa
Rao/deceased fell down and sustained injury on the back side of his head and on other vital parts of the body.
2.2.Immediately, after the accident, Srinivasa Rao/deceased was taken to the Government Hospital, Vizianagaram for treatment and later shifted to
Seven Hills Hospital, Visakhapatnam for better treatment, where he died on 13.04.2016 at 15:30 hours while undergoing treatment. The dead body was shifted to K.G.Hospital, Visakhapatnam and after conducting postmortem examination, handed over the dead body to the Petitioners for funeral and obsequies.
2.3.The accident occurred only due to rash and negligent driving of the 1st Respondent/Driver. The Station House Officer, Vizianagaram Rural Police
Station registered a case in Cr.No.69/2016 under Section 304A of IPC against the 1st Respondent.
2.4.The deceased/Srinivasa Rao was aged 45 years and he is quite hale and healthy at the time of accident and working in Engineering Department,
Indian Railways and was earning .22,362/ per month as salary, but due to the₹ sudden demise of Srinivasa Rao, the Petitioners became destitute and the
MACT cum District Judge, VZM 3 M.O.P.294/2017
Petitioners have spent huge amounts for transport, funeral and other incidental expenses, hence the Petitioners are claiming compensation of .40,00,000/.₹
03.After receiving the summons, the 1st and the 2nd Respondents did not contest the petition and they remained ex parte.
04.The 3rd Respondent filed Counter and denied the averments of the petition and submitted that the offending vehicle/Bolero/AP 07 TE 6803 is insured with this Respondent.
4.1.It is further submitted that the Station House Officer, Vizianagaram
Rural Police Station registered a case in Cr.No.69/2016 under Section 304A of
IPC, the 2nd Respondent has not furnished the particulars of the driving license of the 1st Respondent. Form No.54 accident Information Report in Cr.No.69/2016 shows that the 1st Respondent is not having valid driving license at the time of accident, hence there is clear violation of terms and conditions of the policy.
4.2.It is further submitted that the deceased/Srinivasa Rao drove his
Honda Activa bike and the registered Owner of the vehicle is Mulagada
Ramalakshmi, which is having temporary registration AP 35 TSTR 6062 valid from 24.11.2014 to 23.12.2014 and that she paid penalty for using the unregistered vehicle by the unlicensed driver and hence this Respondent is not liable to pay compensation.
4.3.The investigation conducted by the police shows that the deceased/Srinivasa Rao and the 1st Respondent have no valid driving license at the time of accident.
4.4.There are no merits and bona fides in the petition.
4.5.The interest and compensation claimed under various heads are exorbitant.
MACT cum District Judge, VZM 4 M.O.P.294/2017 4.6.In and among other grounds, the 3rd Respondent prayed the Court to dismiss the petition with costs.
05.Basing on the above pleadings, my learned predecessor framed the below issues for consideration:
1. Whether Seela Eswara Rao/1st Respondent drove
the Bolero/AP 07 TE 6803 in rash and negligent manner
on 12.04.2016 at about 05:30 hours near Aruna Jute Mill,
Vizianagaram and resulted in death of
deceased/Mulagada Srinivasa Rao?
2. Whether the deceased/Mulagada Srinivasa Rao is
aged 45 years and earning ₹ .22,362/ per month by
working as an employee as on 12.044.2016?
3. Whether Seela Eswara Rao/1st Respondent has
valid and effective driving license to drive Bolero/AP 0
TE 6803, if not, whether Kaakoti Lazar/2nd Respondent
willfully handed over the vehicle to the 1 st Respondent in
breach of terms of the policy?
4. Whether the deceased was having valid and
effective driving license to drive Honda Activa Bike as
on the date of accident?
5. Whether the Honda Bike/AP 35 TS T/R 5052 is having registration certificate as on 12.04.2016?
6. Whether the Petitioners are legal representatives
of the deceased/Mulagada Srinivasa Rao, If so? Whether
they are entitled for compensation? If so, at what amount
and from whom?
07. To what relief?
06.The Petitioners, in support of their claim, examined the 1st
Petitioner as P.W.1 and also examined P.Ws.2 and 3 and got marked Exs.A.1 to
A.12 and Ex.X.1 to Ex.X.3.
07.On behalf of the Respondents, R.Ws.1 and 2 are examined and
Exs.B.1 and Exs.X.4 and Ex.X.5.
08.Heard for both the learned Counsel for the Petitioners and the learned Counsel for the 3rd Respondent.
09.Issue No.1:
MACT cum District Judge, VZM 5 M.O.P.294/2017
It is the main case of the Petitioners that on 12.04.2016 the deceased/Srinivasa Rao was proceeding on his Honda Activa Bike to Chillapeta to attend to his duty as he was working as Track Man in Indian Railways and when he reached near Aruna Jute Mill, the 1st Respondent drove the Bolero Car/AP 07
TE 6803 in rash and negligent manner and dashed the deceased and caused severe multiple injuries, injury on the back side of the head, resultantly,
Srinivasa Rao died while undergoing treatment.
11.To substantiate their contentions, the Petitioners have relied on
Ex.A.1/F.I.R, Ex.A.2/alteration F.I.R, Ex.A.3/postmortem certificate,
Ex.A.4/charge sheet, Ex.A.5/Inquest Report. These Exs.A.1 to A.5 categorically show that the accident occurred due to the rash and negligent driving of the 1st
Respondent, which clearly establishes the cause of the accident and no other evidence is required for concluding that the accident occurred due to the rash and negligent driving of driver of the offending vehicle/Bolero/1st Respondent. Even though the learned Counsel for the contesting Respondents crossexamined
P.W.1, they could not elicit any contra evidence to disbelieve his evidence except suggesting that the 1st Respondent has no valid driving license, which was denied by her. However, it is categorically clear from the evidence that P.W.1 is not an eyewitness to the accident.
12.The Petitioners, to support their contentions, particularly with the regard mode and manner of accident and also to establish the recitals of Exs.A.1,
A.4 and A.5, have examined an eyewitness to the accident as P.W.2, who stated that on the date of accident, he was at his pan shop, which is situated at a distance of 500 square yards from his shop. Though it is suggested to him that if he sits in his shop, there is no chance for him to witness the accident, but he denied the same. Hence, the 3rd Respondent though crossexamined P.W.2, could
MACT cum District Judge, VZM 6 M.O.P.294/2017 not elicit anything to disbelieve his evidence and to doubt his presence at the place of accident at the material point of time. Even though the 3rd Respondent set up a plea that the deceased was driving the uninsured and unregistered bike without license, did not contend that there is rashness or negligence on his part and he hit the vehicle of the 1st Respondent. Further, the evidence of R.W.2/S.I.
of Police clearly shows that the Bolero vehicle hit the vehicle of the deceased.
Hence, from the above material, it is clearly established that the accident was occurred only due to the rash and negligent driving of the Car, driven by the 1st
Respondent. Accordingly, this issue is answered.
Issue No.3:
13.The further contention of the 3rd Respondent is that the 1st
Respondent/driver was not having valid driving license at the time of accident.
Since inception, the 3rd Respondent did not dispute the issuance of policy and hence the holding of valid and subsisting policy to the offending vehicle/Bolero is not in dispute.
14.The dispute is with regard to the driving license of the 1st
Respondent. To ground this contention, the 3rd Respondent examined its
Assistant Branch Manager as R.W.1, who categorically stated that their
Company appointed Investigator, but he admitted that they did not file the investigation report. R.W.1 categorically stated that he did not verify the driving license particulars of the 1st Respondent, but the same is revealed from the investigation report. It is suggested to R.W.1 that the 1st Respondent is having valid driving license, but he denied the same.
15.The 3rd Respondent also got examined the Sub Inspector of Police,
Vizianagaram Rural Police Station to prove that the 1st Respondent was not having driving license. As per the evidence of R.W.2, the 1st Respondent was not
MACT cum District Judge, VZM 7 M.O.P.294/2017 charge sheeted under Section 181 of M.V.Act, but he categorically stated that as per their records, fine of .1,000/ was imposed to the 2₹nd Respondent/Owner of the Bolero Vehicle under Section 180 of M.V.Act. Section 180 M.V.Act deals with “Allowing unauthorised persons to drive vehicles”. The learned Counsel for the
Petitioners crossexamined R.W.2, wherein he stated that he did not personally verified the licesne of the deceased and the 1st Respondent. Even though R.W.2 is crossexamined by the Petitioners, the Petitioners could not elicit that the 1st
Respondent was having valid driving license. Further, column No.7 of
Ex.X.4/Accident Information Report clearly shows that the 1st Respondent was not having driving license. Hence, from the evidence of R.Ws.1 and 2 coupled with Ex.X.4, it is clear that the 1st Respondent/driver was not having valid driving license at the time of accident, but the 2nd Respondent knowing the said fact allowed the 1st Respondent drive the offending vehicle. Accordingly, this issue is answered.
16.Issue Nos.4 and 5:
It is the main contention of the 3rd Respondent that the deceased was not having valid driving license to drive his vehicle. It is the further contention of the 3rd Respondent that the Honda Activa Bike driven by the deceased was not having registration certificate and the said vehicle is also not insured. To prove this aspect, the 3rd Respondent examined the Sub Inspector of
Police, Vizianagaram Rural Police Station as R.W.2. He filed Ex.X.5/vehicle check report of the Honda Activa Bike driven by the deceased, which shows that the registered Owner/1st Petitioner herein/Mulagada Lakshmi paid fine of .4,500/₹ under three counts i.e. (1) unregistered vehicle, (2) no driving license to the rider of the bike and (3) no insurance. In the crossexamination of P.W.1 also, she admitted the payment of fine. To prove that the deceased was having driving
MACT cum District Judge, VZM 8 M.O.P.294/2017 license by the time of the accident, filed Ex.A.12/driving license. But, in the crossexamination, P.W.12 clearly admitted that it was lapsed in the year 2002 for the LMV. Hence, in view of the evidence of R.W.2, admission made by P.W.1 coupled Ex.X.4 and Ex.X.5, it is clear that the deceased/Srinivasa Rao was not having valid driving license and that the vehicle driven by him i.e. Honda Activa
Bike has no valid registration certificate and also not duly insured. Accordingly, these two issues are answered.
Issue Nos.2 and 6:
17.Now, coming to the important aspect regarding the entitlement of the compensation and quantum of compensation, which shall be entitled by the
Petitioners under various heads in Column No.25 of the Petition. The 3rd
Respondents though disputed that the Petitioners are not the legal heirs of the deceased, but could not adduce any evidence in that dimension. It is an admitted fact that the 1st Petitioner is the wife, 2nd to 4th Petitioners are the children and the 5th and the 6th Petitioners are the parents of the deceased. The 7th
Respondent is added as Legal heir of the deceased 5th Respondent. Hence, he is not the dependent on the deceased. Thus, all the 1st to 6th Petitioners are legal heirs of the deceased.
18.According to the Petitioners, the deceased was aged 45 years by the time of the accident. To substantiate the same, the Petitioners have filed
Ex.A.7/original SSC certificate, wherein the Date of birth of the deceased/Srinivasa Rao is shown as 15.10.1972. Hence, by the date of accident, the deceased was aged 44 years. However, in Ex.A.3/postmortem certificate and
Ex.A.5/inquest report, the age of the deceased was mentioned as 45 years. Hence, the Tribunal has no hesitation to take the age of the deceased as 45 years by the date of accident.
MACT cum District Judge, VZM 9 M.O.P.294/2017
19.As per the Petitioners and also the evidence of P.W.1, the deceased/Srinivasa Rao was working in Engineering Department of Indian
Railways and was earning .22,362/. To prove the employment, the Petitioners₹ got marked Ex.A.6/appointment letter. Exs.A.7 to A.11 show the educational details of the deceased. The Petitioners, in order to prove the salary particulars of the deceased, the petitioners examined the Senior Assistant of Divisional
Personal Office, Visakhapatnam. She filed the salary slip of the deceased along with the service particulars of the deceased as Exs.X.2 and X.3. The Tribunal perused Ex.X.2/salary certificate, which shows that the monthly gross salary of the deceased is .22,362/ and deductions are .7,760/ and the net salary of the₹₹ deceased is .14,602/. If the said salary is taken into consideration, the annual₹ net salary of the deceased would be .1,75,224/ [ .14,602 x 12 months]. Since₹₹ there are six dependents, 1/4th of the annual income has to be deducted towards personal and living expenses of the deceased, the residue would be .1,31,418/₹ [ .175224(175224/4=43806)]. As per ₹Sarla Verma and others Vs. Delhi
Transport Corporation and another 1 , the appropriate multiplier for the age group of 4045 years is 14.If the said amount of .1,31,408/ is multiplied with ₹ 14, the loss of dependency is .18,39,582 ₹/ [Rupees eighteen lakhs thirty nine thousand five hundred and eighty two only].
20.The deceased at the age of 45 years while working as Track Man and if he is alive, he would have earned much salary in the time scale in view of the revised pay scales since he is a Central Government Employee, working in the
Indian Railways. Hence, the Tribunal, considering the nature of avocation and remaining span of service of the deceased, inclined to award future prospects at 30% on the aforementioned amount, which comes to .₹ 5,51,875/ [Rupees five 1(2009) 6 SCC 121
MACT cum District Judge, VZM 10 M.O.P.294/2017 lakhs fifty one thousand eight hundred and seventy five only] towards loss of future prospectus.
20.The Tribunal considering the material on record and also in view of the guidelines of the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in National Insurance
Co. Ltd. Vs. Pranay Sethi 2, is awarding a sum of .15,000/ [Rupees fifteen₹ thousand only] towards funeral expenses, .40,000/ [Rupees forty thousand only]₹ towards loss of consortium to the 1st Petitioner. Thus, in all the Petitioner are entitled to the following amounts:
Loss of dependency… .18,39,582.00₹ Loss of future prospectus… . 5,51,875.00₹ Loss of consortium to the 1st Petitioner… . 40,000.00₹ Funeral expenses… . 15,000.00₹ Total : .24,46,457.00 ₹
21.It is the main contention of the 3rd Respondent that the deceased was driving an uninsured and unregistered vehicle without driving license. To prove this aspect, as stated supra, the 3rd Respondent examined R.W.2, who filed
Ex.X.5/vehicle check report, which shows that the vehicle driven by the deceased was not having registration certificate and also has no insurance and that the deceased was also driving the vehicle without license. P.W.1 also admitted about the payment of fine for allowing the deceased/unauthorized person to drive the vehicle without license, which is not insured and which does not have registration certificate. Hence, the deceased also contributed for the accident.
The Tribunal having considered the role played by the 1st Respondent and deceased and vehicles driven by them, inclined to fix the liability at 70:30 ratio, hence the liability of the Respondents in the total compensation is .₹ 17,12,520/ [Rupees Seventeen lakhs twelve thousand five hundred and twenty only] and the 2Special Leave Petition (Civil) No.25590/2014, dt.31.10.2017 of Hon’ble Supreme Court of India
MACT cum District Judge, VZM 11 M.O.P.294/2017 petitioners are not entitled for the remaining amount of .7,33,937/ being the₹ 30% contributory negligence of the deceased.
22.Apportionment:
Out of the total compensation payable by the Respondents i.e.
₹.17,12,520/, the 1st Petitioner is exclusively entitled to .40,000/ and after₹ deducting the same from the total compensation, the divisible amount if ₹.16,72,520/, in which the petitioners are entitled to 25:20:15:20:10:10. In the above ratio, the petitioners are entitled to the following amounts:
1st Petitioner’s share …₹.4,58,130/ [ .1672520 x 25/100 + .40000/]₹₹ 2nd Petitioner’s share₹.3,34,504/ [ .1672520 x 20/100]₹ 3rd Petitioner’s share₹.2,50,878/ [ .1672520 x 15/100]₹ 4th Petitioner’s share₹.3,34,504/ [ .1672520 x 20/100]₹ 5th Petitioner’s share₹.1,67,252/ [ .1672520 x 10/100]₹ 6th Petitioner’s share₹.1,67,252/ [ .1672520 x 10/100]₹
23.Liability:
It is the main contention of the 3rd Respondent is that the 1st
Respondent was not having driving license by the time of the accident and hence even though the offending vehicle is insured with the 3rd Respondent as per
Ex.B.1/copy of policy, the 3rd Respondent is not liable to pay compensation. The evidence of R.W.2 shows that as per their records, the 2nd Respondent paid fine under Section 180 of the M.V.Act as discussed supra. Further, Ex.X.4 also discloses that the 1st Respondent is not having driving license. In such circumstances, the learned Counsel for the 3rd Respondent sought to absolve the 3rd Respondent from payment of compensation since the 1st Respondent was not having valid driving license. In support of his contentions, he relied on (1)
Surina Durvasulu (died) by L.Rs. Vs. Bhava Narayana Murty and
others 3 , (2) National Insurance Co. Ltd. Chittoor, Chittoor District Vs.
32008 ACJ 654
MACT cum District Judge, VZM 12 M.O.P.294/2017
Pasupuleti Subbamma and others 4. In the above judgments, it is held that where the 1st Respondent has no driving license or driving license expired even
before the accident, liability cannot be fastened on the Insurance Company.
24.Per contra, the learned Counsel for the Petitioners submitted that even if the 1st Respondent has no driving license, for mere technical lapses, the
Petitioners/dependents of the deceased cannot be penalized since the introduction of the Act itself is for the benefit of the victims who lost their lives and limbs and prayed to apply the ‘pay and recovery’ principle. The Hon'ble three Judge Bench of Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in Lal Singh Marabi Vs. National
Insurance Co., Ltd., and others 5 referred to Hon'ble three Judgment in
Swaran Singh case andheld that “Though the Driver has no valid license at the time of accident, however the Insurance Company is liable to pay compensation to the Claimant and recover the same from the Owner and Driver”. Hence, considering these aspects, the Tribunal is inclined to direct the 3rd
Respondent/Insurance Company to pay the Award amount in the first instance and then recover the same from the 2nd Respondent/Owner as per Law by filing
Execution Petition.
Mode of payment:
25.Order XXI, Rule 1(1) of Civil Procedure Code deals with the ‘mode of payment’ and the Tribunal also can direct the mode as in Rule 1(1). Section 168(3) of M.V.Act provides that the Claims Tribunal may award the manner of deposit.
26.The Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in A.V.Padma and others
V. R.Venugopal and others 6 , while dealing with depositing of amounts by the 42016(3) ALD 445 52017 ACJ 1362 6(2012) 3 SCC 378
MACT cum District Judge, VZM 13 M.O.P.294/2017
Tribunals in motor vehicle accident claims, referred to General Manager,
Kerala State Road Transport Corporation v. Susamma Thomas 7 and in
Para 5 deprecated the practice of depositing the amounts in all cases mechanically, the same is extracted here;
Thus, sufficient discretion has been given to the Tribunal not to insist on investment of the compensation amount in long term fixed deposit and to release even the whole amount in the case of literate persons. However, the Tribunals are often taking a very rigid stand and are mechanically ordering in almost all cases that the amount of compensation shall be invested in long term fixed deposit. They are taking such a rigid and mechanical approach without understanding and appreciating the distinction drawn by this Court in the case of minors, illiterate claimants and widows and in the case of semiliterate and literate persons. It needs to be clarified that the above guidelines were issued by this Court only to safeguard the interests of the claimants, particularly the minors, illiterates and others whose amounts are sought to be withdrawn on some fictitious grounds............
27.The Tribunal in view of the Law, year of the accident and quantum of amount, background of the Petitioners, inclined to direct to pay the following amount by way of drawing Account Payee cheque in favour of the Petitioners and deposit the same in the Tribunal as ordered hereunder to ensure speedy realisation of the award, further this mode also avoid the Petitioners veering round the Tribunals, further also to avoid cumbersome process of depositing the cheque in the name of the Tribunal, entries in the respective registers, filing of cheque petition, its processing and docket explosions etc. This ordered mode also ensure protection to the Petitioners as well as for the awarded amount and no one can exploit since the amount will be credited in the Account of the Petitioners by way of the cheques. If the Respondents want to challenge the Award, they need to deposit the amount as per Section 173 of M.V.Act in the name of the
Petitioners and they can file the deposit before the Tribunal and the Deposit is subject to Orders of the Appeal.
7 (1994) 2 SCC 176
MACT cum District Judge, VZM 14 M.O.P.294/2017
Issue No.7:
28.In the result, the petition is partly allowed with proportionate costs awarding compensation of ₹.17,12,520/ [Rupees seventeen lakhs twelve thousand five hundred and twenty only] with subsequent interest at 09% per annum from the date of petition i.e. 19.06.2017 till the date of deposit against the
Respondents.
The 1st to 3rd Petitioners and the 6th Petitioners are permitted to withdraw part of their respective share amounts of .2,29,065/, .1,67,252/,₹₹ ₹.1,25,439/ and .83,626/.₹
The 3rd Respondent directed, at the first instance, to deposit ₹.2,29,065/ [Rupees two lakhs twenty nine thousand and sixty five only] with accrued interest and costs being the share of the 1st Petitioner, .1,67,252/₹ [Rupees one lakh sixty seven thousand two hundred and fifty two only]with accrued interest and costs being the share of the 2nd Petitioner, .1,25,439/₹ [Rupees one lakh twenty five thousand four hundred and thirty nine only] being the share of the 3rd petitioner with accrued and interest and costs and .83,626/₹ [Rupees eighty three thousand six hundred and twenty six only] with accrued interest and costs being the share of the 6th Petitioner, drawing the Account
Payee cheques on the names of 1st to 3rd and 6th Petitioners respectively and file the same before the Tribunal with notice to the 1st to 3rd and 6th Petitioners within 30 days from this day and thereafter can recover the same from the 1st and the 2nd Respondents by filing the Execution Petition. The 1st to 3rd and 6th
Petitioners shall file their Bank Pass books on that the Pass books and the cheques shall be sent to the Bank,where 1st to 3rd and 6th Petitioners have accounts, after due identification.
MACT cum District Judge, VZM 15 M.O.P.294/2017
In respect of the remaining share amount of 1st Petitioner of ₹.2,29,065/ [Rupees two lakhs twenty nine thousand and sixty five only] with accrued interest and costs, remaining share amount of the 2nd Petitioner of ₹.1,67,252/[Rupees one lakh sixty seven thousand two hundred and fifty two only] each with accrued interest and costs, .1,25,439/ [Rupees one lakh twenty₹ five thousand four hundred and thirty nine only] being the share of the 3rd petitioner with accrued and interest and costs and the remaining share amount of the 6th Petitioner of .83,626/ [Rupees eighty three thousand six hundred and₹ twenty six only] with accrued interest and costs, the 3rd Respondent, at the first instance, is directed to take Fixed Deposit Receipt for a period of three years and deposit the same before the Tribunal within 30 days and then recover the same from the 1st and the 2nd Respondents. The 1st to 3rd and 6th Petitioners are entitled to the monthly interest on their respective deposited amounts on filing their
Savings Bank Account particulars. The interest will be credited monthly in the individual account of the 1st to 3rd and 6th Petitioners and they can withdraw the interest amount for their maintenance. The 3rd Respondent or any other shall not cancel nor encash the Fixed Deposit Receipt under any circumstances without prior orders of the Tribunal.
In respect of the entire share amount of the 4th Petitioner of ₹.3,34,504/ [Rupees three lakhs thirty four thousand five hundred and four only] with accrued interest and cost, the the 3rd Respondent, at the first instance, is directed to take Fixed Deposit Receipt till the 4th Petitioner attains majority, and deposit the same before the Tribunal within 30 days and then recover the same from the 1st and the 2nd Respondents. The 1st Petitioner being the mother of the minor 4th Petitioner is entitled to the monthly interest on the deposit amount of the 4th Petitioner for the maintenance of the 4th Petitioner.
MACT cum District Judge, VZM 16 M.O.P.294/2017
In respect of the entire share amount of the 5th Petitioner of ₹.1,67,252/ [Rupees one lakh sixty seven thousand two hundred and fifty two only] with accrued interest and cost, the the 3rd Respondent, at the first instance, is directed to take Fixed Deposit Receipt for a period of three years and deposit the same before the Tribunal within 30 days and then recover the same from the 1st and the 2nd Respondents. The legal heirs of the deceased 5th Petitioner, including the 7th Respondents, are entitled to equal shares in the share amount awarded to the 5th Petitioner as per Law.
Advocate’s fee is fixed at .7,500 ₹/ [Rupees seven thousand five hundred only].Sd/G.Gopi
Chairman, Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal cum Principal District Judge, Vizianagaram
APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE
Witnesses Examined
For Petitioners:For Respondents:
P.W.1: Mulagada RamalakshmiR.W.1: Talari Prabhakara Rao P.W.2: Amjuri Atchi BabuR.W.2: S.Krishna Varma P.W.3: B.Jyothi
Exhibits Marked
For Petitioners:
Ex.A.1:Copy of F.I.R., Ex.A.2:Copy of Alteration Memo under Section 304A of IPC Ex.A.3:Copy of Postmortem Certificate Ex.A.4:Copy of Charge sheet Ex.A.5:Copy of Inquest Report Ex.A.6:Appointment order issued by DRM to the deceased as Track man/Gang man Ex.A.7:Original SSC Certificate Ex.A.8:Original Provisional National Trade Certificate Ex.A.9:Original National Trade Certificate Ex.A.10:Original training Certificate issued by Bharat Scouts and Guides Ex.A.11:Original Certificate issued by Bharat Scouts and Guides Ex.A.12:Original Driving license of the deceased
Ex.X.1:Authorization letter
MACT cum District Judge, VZM 17 M.O.P.294/2017
Ex.X.2:Pay Slip Ex.X.3:Service Particulars
For Respondents:
Ex.B.1:Copy of Policy Ex.X.4:Form 54 – Accident Information Report Ex.X.5:Vehicle Check Report.
Sd/G.Gopi Chairman, Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal cum Principal District Judge, Vizianagaram
MACT cum District Judge, VZM 18 M.O.P.294/2017
Date of Presentation:19062017/03072017 Date of filing:14072017
BEFORE THE CHAIRMAN, MOTOR ACCIDENTS CLAIMS
TRIBUNAL CUM PRINCIPAL DISTRICT JUDGE,
VIZIANAGARAM
Present: Sri Guttala Gopi Chairman, M.A.C.T., cum
Principal District Judge, Vizianagaram
Wednesday, the 11th day of December, 2019
M.V.O.P. 294/2017
Between:
1. Mulagada Ramalakshmi,W/o late Srinivasarao, aged 40 years, Hindu, r/o Pedada village, Denkada Mandal, Vizianagaram District.
2. Mulagada Ramya, D/o late Srinivasarao, aged 17 years, Hindu, being minor represented by her mother guardian 1st petitioner Mulagada Ramalakshmi, W/o Late Srinivasarao, aged 40 years, Hindu, r/o Pedada village, Denkada Mandal, Vizianagaram District.
3. Mulagada Ramjee, S/o late Srinivasarao, aged 16 years, Hindu, being minor represented by his mother guardian 1st petitioner Mulagada Ramalakshmi, W/o late Srinivasarao, aged 40 years, Hindu, R/o Pedada village, Denkada Mandal, Vizianagaram District.
4. Mulagada Anusha, D/o late Srinivasarao, aged 16 years, Hindu, being minor represented by his mother guardian 1st petitioner Mulagada Ramalakshmi, W/o late Srinivasarao, aged 40 years, Hindu, R/o Pedada village, Denkada Mandal, Vizianagaram District. (4th Petitioner being minor represented by her mother and natural guardian/1st Petitioner).
5. Mulagada Guruvulu (died), S/o late Papayya, aged 70 years, Hindu, R/o Pedada village, Denkada Mandal, Vizianagaram District.
6. Mulagada Kanchamma, W/o Guruvulu, aged 68 years, Hindu, R/o Pedada village, Denkada Mandal, Vizianagaram District.
7. Mulagada Papa Rao, S/o late Guruvulu, aged 50 years, Hindu, R/o Pedada village, Denkada Mandal, Vizianagaram District.
MACT cum District Judge, VZM 19 M.O.P.294/2017 (7th Petitioner is added as per orders in I.A.594/2019, dt.16.04.2019) (2nd and the 3rd Petitioners are declared as Majors as per the orders in I.A.1133 and 1134/2019, dt.02.07.2019 )…Petitioners
A n d:
1. Seela Eswara Rao, S/o Shankar Rao, aged 20 years, Hindu, Bolero AP 07 TE 6803, R/o Chakali Belgam, Sainagar Colony, Kothabheemasingi village, Jami Mandal, Vizianagaram District.
2. Kalakati Lazar,S/o Yeranappa, aged 30 years, Hindu, Bolero Owner AP 07 TE 6803, R/o Baptist Peta, Mangalagiri, Gunturu District.
3. United India Insurance Company Limited represented by its Divisional Manager, Srikakulam…Respondents
This petition have been filed under Section 166 of M.V.Act read with Rule 455 of M.V.Rules praying to award compensation of .40,00,000/ [Rupees forty₹ lakhs only] for the death of Mulagada Srinivasa Rao on 12.04.2016 at about 06:30 hours near Aruna Jute Mill Road, Vizianagaram.
A Court Fee of Rs.39,360/ is paid under rule 475 of APMV Rules.
This petition coming on 05.12.2019 for final hearing before me in the presence of Sri K.V.N.Thammanna Setty, Advocate for the Petitioner and of Sri A.M.M.Satyanarayana, Advocate for the 3rd Respondent and 1st and the 2nd Respondents having been called absent, remained ex parte and having stood over for consideration to this date, this Tribunal passed the doth Order:
D E C R E E
(i) that the petition be and the same is partly allowed with proportionate costs awarding compensation of ₹.17,12,520/ [Rupees seventeen lakhs twelve thousand five hundred and twenty only] with subsequent interest at 09% per annum from the date of petition i.e. 19.06.2017 till the date of deposit against the Respondents;
(ii)that the 1st to 3rd Petitioners and the 6th Petitioners are permitted to withdraw part of their respective share amounts of ₹.2,29,065/, .1,67,252/, .1,25,439/ and .83,626/.₹₹₹
(iii)that the 3rd Respondent directed, at the first instance, to deposit ₹.2,29,065/ [Rupees two lakhs twenty nine thousand and sixty five only] with accrued interest and costs being the share of the 1st Petitioner, .1,67,252/[Rupees one lakh sixty seven thousand two₹ hundred and fifty two only]with accrued interest and costs being the share of the 2nd Petitioner, .1,25,439/ [Rupees one lakh twenty five₹ thousand four hundred and thirty nine only] being the share of the 3rd petitioner with accrued and interest and costs and .83,626/₹
MACT cum District Judge, VZM 20 M.O.P.294/2017 [Rupees eighty three thousand six hundred and twenty six only] with accrued interest and costs being the share of the 6th Petitioner, drawing the Account Payee cheques on the names of 1st to 3rd and 6th Petitioners respectively and file the same before the Tribunal with notice to the 1st to 3rd and 6th Petitioners within 30 days from this day and thereafter can recover the same from the 1st and the 2nd Respondents by filing the Execution Petition. The 1st to 3rd and 6th Petitioners shall file their Bank Pass books on that the Pass books and the cheques shall be sent to the Bank,where 1st to 3rd and 6th Petitionershaveaccounts,afterdueidentification;
(iv)that in respect of the remaining share amount of 1st Petitioner of ₹.2,29,065/ [Rupees two lakhs twenty nine thousand and sixty five only] with accrued interest and costs, remaining share amount of the 2nd Petitioner of ₹.1,67,252/[Rupees one lakh sixty seven thousand two hundred and fifty two only] each with accrued interest and costs, ₹.1,25,439/ [Rupees one lakh twenty five thousand four hundred and thirty nine only] being the share of the 3rd petitioner with accrued and interest and costs and the remaining share amount of the 6th Petitioner of .83,626/ [Rupees₹ eighty three thousand six hundred and twenty six only] with accrued interest and costs, the 3rd Respondent, at the first instance, is directed to take Fixed Deposit Receipt for a period of three years and deposit the same before the Tribunal within 30 days and then recover the same from the 1st and the 2nd Respondents. The 1st to 3rd and 6th Petitioners are entitled to the monthly interest on their respective deposited amounts on filing their Savings Bank Account particulars. The interest will be credited monthly in the individual account of the 1st to 3rd and 6th Petitioners and they can withdraw the interest amount for their maintenance. The 3rd Respondent or any other shall not cancel nor encash the Fixed Deposit Receipt under any circumstances without prior orders of the Tribunal;
(v)that in respect of the entire share amount of the 4th Petitioner of ₹.3,34,504/ [Rupees three lakhs thirty four thousand five hundred and four only] with accrued interest and cost, the the 3rd Respondent, at the first instance, is directed to take Fixed Deposit Receipt till the 4th Petitioner attains majority, and deposit the same
before the Tribunal within 30 days and then recover the same from
the 1st and the 2nd Respondents. The 1st Petitioner being the mother of the minor 4th Petitioner is entitled to the monthly interest on the deposit amount of the 4th Petitioner for the maintenance of the 4th Petitioner;
(vi) that in respect of the entire share amount of the 5th Petitioner of ₹.1,67,252/ [Rupees one lakh sixty seven thousand two hundred and fifty two only] with accrued interest and cost, the the 3rd Respondent, at the first instance, is directed to take Fixed Deposit Receipt for a period of three years and deposit the same before the Tribunal within 30 days and then recover the same from the 1st and the 2nd Respondents. The legal heirs of the deceased 5th Petitioner,
MACT cum District Judge, VZM 21 M.O.P.294/2017 including the 7th Respondents, are entitled to equal shares in the share amount awarded to the 5th Petitioner as per Law;
(vii)that the Respondents do pay a sum of Rs.24,66900 (Rupees Twenty four thousand six hundred and sixty nine only) to the Petitioners towards proportionate costs; and
(viii)Advocate’s fee is fixed at .7,500 ₹/ [Rupees seven thousand five hundred only].
Given under my hand and Seal of the Court, this the 11 th day of December, 2019.Sd/G.Gopi Chairman, Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal cum Principal District Judge, Vizianagaram
MEMORANDUM OF COSTS
For Petitioners: Costs Proportionate For Respondents:
Certified Costs
CF on Petition39,3600016,85100 No Costs Memo filed.
Stamp on Vakalat200200
Process fee2100021000
Stamps on document600600
Typing charges1000010000
Advocates Fee7,500007,50000
Total: 47,17800 24,66900
Sd/G.Gopi Chairman, Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal cum Principal District Judge, Vizianagaram