1
Before The Motor Vehicles Accidents Claims Tribunal (CUM)
V Additional District Judge Nellore
Present: Smt. I.SAILAJA DEVI,
Chairman, Motor Vehicles Accidents Claims Tribunal –Cum- V Additional District Judge,Nellore
Monday, this the 11th day of April, 2022.
M.V.O.P.No. 92/2017, M.V.O.P.No. 93/2017,
M.V.O.P.No. 94/2017 and M.V.O.P.No. 95/2017
M.V.O.P.No. 92/2017
Koppolu Subhashini @ K. Subhashini .. Claimant
Vs.
1. Shaik Khaja Rasool
2. Natakarani Thirupalu
3. ICICI Lombard General Insurance Company Ltd., Rep. by its Branch Manager,
Vijayawada, Krishna District. .. Respondents
M.V.O.P.No. 93/2017
T.China Hajarathaiah alias Hajarathaiah .. Claimant
Vs.
1. Shaik Khaja Rasool
2. Natakarani Thirupalu
3. ICICI Lombard General Insurance Company Ltd., Rep. by its Branch Manager,
Vijayawada, Krishna District. .. Respondents
M.V.O.P.No. 94/2017
Kampalli Jayamma .. Claimant
Vs.
2
1. Shaik Khaja Rasool
2. Natakarani Thirupalu
3. ICICI Lombard General Insurance Company Ltd., Rep. by its Branch Manager,
Vijayawada, Krishna District. .. Respondents
M.V.O.P.No. 95/2017
Shaik Alla Bakshu .. Claimant
Vs.
1. Shaik Khaja Rasool
2. Natakarani Thirupalu
3. ICICI Lombard General Insurance Company Ltd., Rep. by its Branch Manager,
Vijayawada, Krishna District. .. Respondents
These petitions coming up before me on 22.3.2022 for final hearing in the presence of Sri M. Sundaraiah Yadav, Advocate for petitioners in all petitions and Sri T.Balasubrahmanyam, advocate for 1strespondent and Sri P.V. Mallikarjuna Reddy, advocate for 3rd respondent in all petitions and upon perusing the material on record, after hearing both sides and having stood over for consideration till this day, this Court delivered the following:
C O M M O N J U D G M E N T
Pleadings in M.V.O.P.No. 92/2017
This claim application is filed under section 166 of Motor
Vehicles Act for grant of compensation of Rs.50,000/- for the injuries sustained by the claimant in the accident.
2. The applicant was aged about 30 years on the date of the accident. She is doing Coolie work and was able to earn Rs.300/- per day and maintaining the family.
3. On 05.12.2015 the claimant boarded an Auto bearing
Registration No. AP-26-TA-5176 along with other passengers in 3 order to go to Atmakur and Shaik Rasool, who is the 1st respondent herein was driving the said Auto and when the said Auto reached at about 12.00 P.M. on Nellore-Mumbai road near Pendem Estates,
Nellorepalem village, Atmakur Mandal, the driver of the said Auto drove the same in a rash and negligent manner at high speed, and he tried to avert the buffaloes came across the road from Northern side of the road, he had lost control over the said Auto, due to which the Auto turned turtle and fell down on the Southern edge of the road and caused an accident. As a result of which, the claimant and other passengers were sustained severe bleeding injuries. The claimant sustained injuries as noted in Col.No.11 of the claim application. Immediately all the injured persons were including the claimant were shifted to the Government Hospital, Atmakur for medical treatment. The claimant was treated as inpatient in the said
Hospital. The claimant suffered very lot of pain and now she is unable to work freely as before the accident view of the injuries sustained by her in the above said motor accident. Even now she is getting pain in her right foot while walking due to the non healing of the wound and thus she became partially permanently disabled. She could not attend to her normal duties for about two months and thus she has lost her earnings also. The claimant spent about Rs.10,000/- towards medical expenses in the above said Hospital.
4. The matter was reported to the S.H.O. Atmakur P.S. SPSR.
Nellore District and the same has been registered as a case in Crime
No.153/2015 for the offence punishable under Sections 337, and 338 of I.P.C against the driver of the Auto bearing Registration No. AP- 26-TA-5176, who is the 1st respondent herein.
5. The above accident occurred due to the rash and negligent driving of the driver of the Auto bearing Registration No.AP.26-TA- 5176, who is the 1st respondent herein while in the course of employment under the 2nd respondent and 2nd respondent is the owner of the offending vehicle and he has insured his offending 4 vehicle with the 3rd respondent. The 3rd respondent has to indemnify the liability of the 2nd respondent since the offending vehicle Auto bearing registration No.AP-26-TA-5176 of the 2nd respondent was inured with it and as such the respondents 1 to 3 are jointly and severally liable to pay the amount of compensation to the claimant.
6.1stRespondent filed written statement denying the allegations that the 1st respondent is driving the auto bearing registration No: AP-26-TA-5176 and the claimant boarded the auto on 05.12.2015 and when the said auto reached at 12 pm on Nellore
Bombay road near Pendem estates, Nellorepalem, the driver of the said auto drove the same in a rash and negligent manner at high speed and he tried to avert the buffaloes came across the road from
Northern side of the road, he had lost control over the said Auto, due to which the Auto turned turtle and fell down on the southern edge of the road and caused an accident, the claimant and 6 other passengers were sustained severe bleeding injuries and 1st respondent is not the driver of the auto bearing registration No.AP- 26-TA-5176 on the date of accident and 1st respondent name was falsely implicated in the charge sheet filed by Atmakur P.S. and that 3rd respondent is the insurance company for the auto and the 3rd respondent is the whole responsible for the claim of the claimants if any and not 1st respondent and 1st respondent is not liable to pay the amount to the claimant and the claim of the petitioner’s is excessive. Hence, 1st respondent prays to dismiss the petition with costs.
7. 3rdRespondent filed written statement denying the allegations that his company did not issue any policy coverage for the Auto bearing Registration No.AP-26-TA-5176 owned by the 2nd respondent during the period 11-09-2015 to 10-09-2015 as mentioned in the claim petition and there is no contract between that respondent and between 2nd respondent and that there is no liability to indemnify the risk of the above said period with regard to 5 the above said vehicle. Hence this respondent is not a proper and necessary party to the proceedings and that petitioner may dismiss against that respondent on that sole ground. Since the Auto bearing
Registration No.AP-26-TA-5176 is not insured with that respondent company the claim petition is liable to be dismissed with heavy costs under section 35(A) of CPC as the petition is bad for mis-joinder and that the driver of the Auto bearing Registration No. Ap-26-TA-5176 was not holding an valid and effective driving license at the time of the accident and further was not qualified for holding or obtaining such driving license and further has not satisfied the requirements of the Rule No.3 of the Central Motor Vehicles Rules, 1989 and the respondent company is not liable to pay any compensation to the petitioner. The petitioner is put to strict proof that there was no violation of any section of M.V.Act, 1988 and its subsequent amendments and the claimant interest which is excessive and same is contrary to Sec.3 of Interest Act, 1978 and the observations of the various judgment of the Hon’ble Apex Court. Hence, 3rd respondent prays to dismiss the petition with costs.
8. Basing on the above pleadings the following issues are framed by my predecessor for trial.
1.Whether the accident occurred on 05.12.2015 at
12.00 PM on Nellore-Mumbai road, near Pendem Estates,
Nellorepalem village, Atmakur mandal, SPSR Nellore
District, was due to rash and negligent driving of the driver
of the auto No.AP26TA5176?
2. Whether the Claimants are entitled for
compensation? If so, to what amount and against which
respondents?
3. To what relief?
6
Pleadings in M.V.O.P.No. 93/2017
9. This claim application is filed under section 166 of Motor
Vehicles Act for grant of compensation of Rs.4,50,000/- for the injuries sustained by the claimant in the accident.
10. The applicant was aged about 50 years on the date of the accident. He was an agriculturist, having Ac.5-00 of wet land in his village and doing personal cultivation and thereby earning a sum of
Rs.1,00,000/- per annum on agriculture at the time of the accident and the same was contributing for the upkeep of his family.
11. On 05.12.2015 the claimant boarded an Auto bearing
Registration No. AP-26-TA-5176 along with other passengers in order to go to Atmakur and Shaik Rasool, who is the 1st respondent herein was driving the said Auto and when the said Auto reached at about 12.00 P.M. on Nellore-Mumbai road near Pendem Estates,
Nellorepalem village, Atmakur Mandal, the driver of the said Auto drove the same in a rash and negligent manner at high speed, and he tried to avert the buffaloes came across the road from Northern side of the road, he had lost control over the said Auto, due to which the Auto turned turtle and fell down on the Southern edge of the road and caused an accident. As a result of which, the claimant and other passengers were sustained severe bleeding injuries. The claimant sustained injuries as noted in Col.No.11 of the claim application. Immediately all the injured persons were including the claimant were shifted to the Government Hospital, Atmakur for medical treatment. After giving first aid, the claimant was shifted to
Simhapuri Hospital, Nellore for better treatment. The claimant was treated as inpatient in the said Hospital from 5-12-2015 to 10-12- 2015. Surgery was conducted on his cervical spine region. Later the claimant took medical treatment, Kavali and Chennai under
Orthopaedic Surgeons. In view of the fracture of Cervical Spine region, the claimant cannot move from the bed. He cannot walk and 7 he cannot stand for long time. Even now the claimant is getting severe pain in his cervical spine region due to the non healing of the fracture and thus he became permanently disabled. He was confined to bed as advised by the doctor.
12. The claimant was treated as inpatient in the said Hospital.
The claimant suffered very lot of pain and now she is unable to work freely as before the accident view of the injuries sustained by her in the above said motor accident. Even now she is getting pain in her right foot while walking due to the non healing of the wound and thus she became partially permanently disabled. She could not attend to her normal duties for about two months and thus she has lost her earnings also. The claimant spent about Rs.10,000/- towards medical expenses in the above said Hospital.
13. The matter was reported to the S.H.O. Atmakur P.S.
SPSR. Nellore District and the same has been registered as a case in
Crime No.153/2015 for the offence punishable under Sections 337, and 338 of I.P.C against the driver of the Auto bearing Registration
No. AP-26-TA-5176, who is the 1st respondent herein.
14. The above accident occurred due to the rash and negligent driving of the driver of the Auto bearing Registration
No.AP.26-TA-5176, who is the 1st respondent herein while in the course of employment under the 2nd respondent and 2nd respondent is the owner of the offending vehicle and he has insured his offending vehicle with the 3rd respondent. The 3rd respondent has to indemnify the liability of the 2nd respondent since the offending vehicle Auto bearing registration No.AP-26-TA-5176 of the 2nd respondent was inured with it and as such the respondents 1 to 3 are jointly and severally liable to pay the amount of compensation to the claimant.
15. 1stRespondent filed written statement denying the allegations that the 1st respondent is driving the auto bearing registration No: AP-26-TA-5176 and the claimant boarded the auto 8 on 05.12.2015 and when the said auto reached at 12 pm on Nellore
Bombay road near Pendem estates, Nellorepalem, the driver of the said auto drove the same in a rash and negligent manner at high speed and he tried to avert the buffaloes came across the road from
Northern side of the road, he had lost control over the said Auto, due to which the Auto turned turtle and fell down on the southern edge of the road and caused an accident, the claimant and 6 other passengers were sustained severe bleeding injuries and 1st respondent is not the driver of the auto bearing registration No.AP- 26-TA-5176 on the date of accident and 1st respondent name was falsely implicated in the charge sheet filed by Atmakur P.S. and that 3rd respondent is the insurance company for the auto and the 3rd respondent is the whole responsible for the claim of the claimants if any and not 1st respondent and 1st respondent is not liable to pay the amount to the claimant and the claim of the petitioner’s is excessive. Hence, 1st respondent prays to dismiss the petition with costs.
16. 3rdRespondent filed written statement denying the allegations that his company did not issue any policy coverage for the Auto bearing Registration No.AP-26-TA-5176 owned by the 2nd respondent during the period 11-09-2015 to 10-09-2015 as mentioned in the claim petition and there is no contract between that respondent and between 2nd respondent and that there is no liability to indemnify the risk of the above said period with regard to the above said vehicle. Hence this respondent is not a proper and necessary party to the proceedings and that petitioner may dismiss against that respondent on that sole ground. Since the Auto bearing
Registration No.AP-26-TA-5176 is not insured with that respondent company the claim petition is liable to be dismissed with heavy costs under section 35(A) of CPC as the petition is bad for mis-joinder and that the driver of the Auto bearing Registration No. Ap-26-TA-5176 was not holding an valid and effective driving license at the time of 9 the accident and further was not qualified for holding or obtaining such driving license and further has not satisfied the requirements of the Rule No.3 of the Central Motor Vehicles Rules, 1989 and the respondent company is not liable to pay any compensation to the petitioner. The petitioner is put to strict proof that there was no violation of any section of M.V.Act, 1988 and its subsequent amendments and the claimant interest which is excessive and same is contrary to Sec.3 of Interest Act, 1978 and the observations of the various judgment of the Hon’ble Apex Court. Hence, 3rd respondent prays to dismiss the petition with costs.
17. Basing on the above pleadings the following issues are framed by my predecessor for trial.
1.Whether the accident occurred on 05.12.2015 at
12.00 PM on Nellore-Mumbai road, near Pendem Estates,
Nellorepalem village, Atmakur mandal, SPSR Nellore
District, was due to rash and negligent driving of the driver
of the auto No.AP26TA5176?
2. Whether the Claimants are entitled for
compensation? If so, to what amount and against which
respondents?
3. To what relief?
Pleadings in M.V.O.P.No. 94/2017
18. This claim application is filed under section 166 of
Motor Vehicles Act for grant of compensation of Rs.1,00,000/- for the injuries sustained by the claimant in the accident.
19. The applicant was aged about 40 years on the date of the accident. She was working as coolie and thereby earning a sum of
Rs.300/- per day
20. On 5.12.2015 the claimant boarded an auto bearing registration No.AP 26 TA 5176 along with other passengers in order to go to Atmakur and Shaik Rasool, who is the 1st respondent herein 10 was driving the said Auto and when the said Auto reached at about 12.00 P.M. on Nellore-Mumbai road near Pendem Estates,
Nellorepalem village, Atmakur Mandal, the driver of the said Auto drove the same in a rash and negligent manner at high speed, and he tried to avert the buffaloes came across the road from Northern side of the road, he had lost control over the said Auto, due to which the Auto turned turtle and fell down on the Southern edge of the road and caused an accident. As a result of which, the claimant and other passengers were sustained severe bleeding injuries. The claimant sustained injuries as noted in Col.No.11 of the claim application. Immediately all the injured persons were including the claimant were shifted to the Government Hospital, Atmakur for medical treatment. After giving first aid, the claimant was shifted to
Narayana Hospital, Nellore for better treatment. The claimant was treated as inpatient in the said Hospital.. Surgery was conducted on right clavicle in the said hospital. After discharge from Narayana hospital, the claimant took outpatient treatment in the said hospital.
The claimant suffered very lot of pain and now she is unable to work freely as before the accident view of the fracture of her right lavicle. Even now she is getting pain in her right clavicle due to the non healing of the fracture and thus she became permanently disable. She could not attend to her normal duties at about six months and thus she has lost her earnings also. The claimant spent about Rs.20,000/- towards medical expenses in the above said hospital.
21. The matter was reported to the S.H.O. Atmakur P.S.
SPSR. Nellore District and the same has been registered as a case in
Crime No.153/2015 for the offence punishable under Sections 337, and 338 of I.P.C against the driver of the Auto bearing Registration
No. AP-26-TA-5176, who is the 1st respondent herein.
22. The above accident occured due to the rash and negligent driving of the driver of the Auto bearing Registration No.AP.26-TA- 11 5176, who is the 1st respondent herein while in the course of employment under the 2nd respondent and 2nd respondent is the owner of the offending vehicle and he has insured his offending vehicle with the 3rd respondent. The 3rd respondent has to indemnify the liability of the 2nd respondent since the offending vehicle Auto bearing registration No.AP-26-TA-5176 of the 2nd respondent was insured with it and as such the respondents 1 to 3 are jointly and severally liable to pay the amount of compensation to the claimant.
23.1stRespondent filed written statement denying the allegations that the 1st respondent is driving the auto bearing registration No: AP-26-TA-5176 and the claimant boarded the auto on 05.12.2015 and when the said auto reached at 12 pm on Nellore
Bombay road near Pendem estates, Nellorepalem, the driver of the said auto drove the same in a rash and negligent manner at high speed and he tried to avert the buffaloes came across the road from
Northern side of the road, he had lost control over the said Auto, due to which the Auto turned turtle and fell down on the southern edge of the road and caused an accident, the claimant and 6 other passengers were sustained severe bleeding injuries and 1st respondent is not the driver of the auto bearing registration No.AP- 26-TA-5176 on the date of accident and 1st respondent name was falsely implicated in the charge sheet filed by Atmakur P.S. and that 3rd respondent is the insurance company for the auto and the 3rd respondent is the whole responsible for the claim of the claimants if any and not 1st respondent and 1st respondent is not liable to pay the amount to the claimant and the claim of the petitioner’s is excessive. Hence, 1st respondent prays to dismiss the petition with costs.
24. 3rdRespondent filed written statement denying the allegations that his company did not issue any policy coverage for the Auto bearing Registration No.AP-26-TA-5176 owned by the 2nd respondent during the period 11-09-2015 to 10-09-2015 as 12 mentioned in the claim petition and there is no contract between that respondent and between 2nd respondent and that there is no liability to indemnify the risk of the above said period with regard to the above said vehicle. Hence this respondent is not a proper and necessary party to the proceedings and that petitioner may dismiss against that respondent on that sole ground. Since the Auto bearing
Registration No.AP-26-TA-5176 is not insured with that respondent company the claim petition is liable to be dismissed with heavy costs under section 35(A) of CPC as the petition is bad for mis-joinder and that the driver of the Auto bearing Registration No. AP-26-TA-5176 was not holding an valid and effective driving license at the time of the accident and further was not qualified for holding or obtaining such driving license and further has not satisfied the requirements of the Rule No.3 of the Central Motor Vehicles Rules, 1989 and the respondent company is not liable to pay any compensation to the petitioner. The petitioner is put to strict proof that there was no violation of any section of M.V.Act, 1988 and its subsequent amendments and the claimant interest which is excessive and same is contrary to Sec.3 of Interest Act, 1978 and the observations of the various judgment of the Hon’ble Apex Court. Hence, 3rd respondent prays to dismiss the petition with costs.
25. Basing on the above pleadings the following issues are framed by my predecessor for trial.
1.Whether the accident occurred on 05.12.2015 at
12.00 PM on Nellore-Mumbai road, near Pendem Estates,
Nellorepalem village, Atmakur mandal, SPSR Nellore
District, was due to rash and negligent driving of the driver
of the auto No.AP26TA5176?
2. Whether the Claimants are entitled for
compensation? If so, to what amount and against which
respondents?
3. To what relief?
13
Pleadings in M.V.O.P.No. 95/2017
26. This claim application is filed under section 166 of
Motor Vehicles Act for grant of compensation of Rs.3,00,000/- for the injuries sustained by the claimant in the accident.
27. The applicant was aged about 41 years on the date of the accident. He was working as clerk in petrol bunk, Atmakur at the time of accident and thereby earning a sum of Rs.8,000/- per month and the same was contributing for the upkeep of his family.
28. On 05.12.2015 the claimant boarded an Auto bearing
Registration No. AP-26-TA-5176 along with other passengers in order to go to Atmakur and Shaik Rasool, who is the 1st respondent herein was driving the said Auto and when the said Auto reached at about 12.00 P.M. on Nellore-Mumbai road near Pendem Estates,
Nellorepalem village, Atmakur Mandal, the driver of the said Auto drove the same in a rash and negligent manner at high speed, and he tried to avert the buffaloes came across the road from Northern side of the road, he had lost control over the said Auto, due to which the Auto turned turtle and fell down on the Southern edge of the road and caused an accident. As a result of which, the claimant and other passengers were sustained severe bleeding injuries. The claimant sustained injuries as noted in Col.No.11 of the claim application. Immediately all the injured persons were including the claimant were shifted to the Government Hospital, Atmakur for medical treatment. After giving first aid, the claimant was shifted to
Narayana General Hospital, Nellore for better treatment. The claimant was treated as inpatient in the said Hospital. Surgery was conducted on his right hand wrist joint and steel plates were inserted in his right hand. After discharge from Narayana General
Hospital, the claiamant took outpatient treatment in the said hospital. In view of the fracture of right wrist joint, the claimant 14 cannot raise his right hand straightly. He cannot carry any weight with his right hand. He could not attend to his normal duties for about six months and thus he has lost earnings also.
29. The matter was reported to the S.H.O. Atmakur P.S.
SPSR. Nellore District and the same has been registered as a case in
Crime No.153/2015 for the offence punishable under Sections 337, and 338 of I.P.C against the driver of the Auto bearing Registration
No. AP-26-TA-5176, who is the 1st respondent herein.
30. The above accident occured due to the rash and negligent driving of the driver of the Auto bearing Registration No.AP.26-TA- 5176, who is the 1st respondent herein while in the course of employment under the 2nd respondent and 2nd respondent is the owner of the offending vehicle and he has insured his offending vehicle with the 3rd respondent. The 3rd respondent has to indemnify the liability of the 2nd respondent since the offending vehicle Auto bearing registration No.AP-26-TA-5176 of the 2nd respondent was inured with it and as such the respondents 1 to 3 are jointly and severally liable to pay the amount of compensation to the claimant.
31. .1stRespondent filed written statement denying the allegations that the 1st respondent is driving the auto bearing registration No: AP-26-TA-5176 and the claimant boarded the auto on 05.12.2015 and when the said auto reached at 12 pm on Nellore
Bombay road near Pendem estates, Nellorepalem, the driver of the said auto drove the same in a rash and negligent manner at high speed and he tried to avert the buffaloes came across the road from
Northern side of the road, he had lost control over the said Auto, due to which the Auto turned turtle and fell down on the southern edge of the road and caused an accident, the claimant and 6 other passengers were sustained severe bleeding injuries and 1st respondent is not the driver of the auto bearing registration No.AP- 26-TA-5176 on the date of accident and 1st respondent name was 15 falsely implicated in the charge sheet filed by Atmakur P.S. and that 3rd respondent is the insurance company for the auto and the 3rd respondent is the whole responsible for the claim of the claimants if any and not 1st respondent and 1st respondent is not liable to pay the amount to the claimant and the claim of the petitioner’s is excessive. Hence, 1st respondent prays to dismiss the petition with costs.
32. 3rdRespondent filed written statement denying the allegations that his company did not issue any policy coverage for the Auto bearing Registration No.AP-26-TA-5176 owned by the 2nd respondent during the period 11-09-2015 to 10-09-2015 as mentioned in the claim petition and there is no contract between that respondent and between 2nd respondent and that there is no liability to indemnify the risk of the above said period with regard to the above said vehicle. Hence this respondent is not a proper and necessary party to the proceedings and that petitioner may dismiss against that respondent on that sole ground. Since the Auto bearing
Registration No.AP-26-TA-5176 is not insured with that respondent company the claim petition is liable to be dismissed with heavy costs under section 35(A) of CPC as the petition is bad for mis-joinder and that the driver of the Auto bearing Registration No. Ap-26-TA-5176 was not holding an valid and effective driving license at the time of the accident and further was not qualified for holding or obtaining such driving license and further has not satisfied the requirements of the Rule No.3 of the Central Motor Vehicles Rules, 1989 and the respondent company is not liable to pay any compensation to the petitioner. The petitioner is put to strict proof that there was no violation of any section of M.V.Act, 1988 and its subsequent amendments and the claimant interest which is excessive and same is contrary to Sec.3 of Interest Act, 1978 and the observations of the various judgment of the Hon’ble Apex Court. Hence, 3rd respondent prays to dismiss the petition with costs.
16
33. Basing on the above pleadings the following issues are framed by my predecessor for trial.
1.Whether the accident occurred on 05.12.2015 at
12.00 PM on Nellore-Mumbai road, near Pendem Estates,
Nellorepalem village, Atmakur mandal, SPSR Nellore
District, was due to rash and negligent driving of the driver
of the auto No.AP26TA5176?
2. Whether the Claimants are entitled for
compensation? If so, to what amount and against which
respondents?
3. To what relief?
34. A memo was filed by the claimants to club M.V.O.P.No.
92/2017, OP 94/2017 and O.P.No. 95/2017 with this O.P. 93/2017 for joint trial and accordingly all the O.Ps were clubbed and the evidence was recorded in O.P.No. 93/2017.
35. On behalf of the claimants P.Ws.1 to P.W.3 were examined and marked ExA.1 to A.8 and on behalf of respondents
R.W.1 was examined and marked Ex B.1 to Ex.B.4.
ISSUE No1 in O.P. 92/2017, O.P.93/2017, O.P. 94/2017 and
O.P.95/2017
36. According to the averments in the petitions all the claimants have boarded the vehicle auto bearing registration No. AP 26 TA 5176 in order to go to Atmakur and when the auto reached near Nellore-Mumbai road near Pendem Estates, Nellore palem village, Atmakur mandal, the driver of the said auto drove the same in a rash and negligent manner at high speed and he had lost control over the said auto, due to which the auto turned turtle and fell down and caused an accident and the claimants sustained injuries.
17
37. The petitioners filed separate petitions claiming compensation for the injuries sustained by them. So, the initial burden is on the petitioners to prove that the accident had occurred and they sustained injuries in the accident.
38. In order to prove their contention, the petitioner in
O.P.NO. 93/2017 was examined himself as PW1. He filed Exs. A.1 to
A.6. He reiterated the contents of claim application in his affidavit.
The petitioner filed Ex.A1 – Attested Xerox copy of F.I.R Ex.A.2 – attested Xerox copy of wound certificate, Ex.A.3 –attested Xerox copy of charge sheet and Ex.A4 – discharge summary dated 10.12.2015 issued by Simhapuri hospital, Ex.A.5 – Inpatient final bill issued by Simhapuri hospital, Nellore for Rs.1,80,000/-, Ex.A.6 –
Discharge bill for a sum of Rs.3,14,300 dated 20.4.2016 issued by
Kaveri hospital, Chennai.
39. The petitioner in O.P.No.92/2017 was examined herself as P.W.2. She also reiterated the contents of claim application in her affidavit. She filed Ex.A.7 attested Xerox copy of wound certificate.
40. The petitioner in O.P.No.94/2017 was examined herself as P.W.3. She also reiterated the contents of claim application in her affidavit. She filed Ex.A.8 attested Xerox copy of wound certificate.
41. On consideration of Ex.A.1 FIR and Ex.A3 – the
Attested Xerox copy of Charge sheet, the Investigating Officer who thoroughly investigated the case filed charge sheet against the driver of the auto bearing No.AP 26 TA 5176 stating that the accident took place due to the rash and negligent driving of the driver of the said auto. Thus, the evidence of PW1 coupled with
Exs.A1 and A4 goes to show that the accident had occurred due to the rash and negligent driving of the driver of the auto bearing
No.AP 26 TA 5176. Thus, the claimants have proved that the 18 accident occurred due to the rash and negligent driving of the driver of auto bearing No.AP 26 TA 5176.
42. 3rd Respondent company argued that insurance company did not issue any policy coverage for the Auto bearing
Registration No.AP-26-TA-5176 owned by the 2nd respondent during the period 11-09-2015 to 10-09-2015 as mentioned in the claim petition and there is no contract between that respondent and between 2nd respondent and that there is no liability to indemnify the risk of the above said period with regard to the above said vehicle.
Now the point tobe decided is whetherthere is no coverage of insurance policy by the time of accident, thereby R3 is not liable to pay compensation?
43. To prove its contention, the insurance company examined its
Manager Legal as R.W.1 and got marked Exs.B.1 to B.4 through him.
Ex.B.1 is the certified true copy of search results with regard to policy cover note number which was mentioned in the claim application and that name search vehicle search, engine number search and chasis number search results, Ex.B.2 is the policy copies which was given to the others and it mentioned policy numbers,
Ex.B.3 is the office copy of the letter addressed to the
Superintendent of Police, Nellore district by the respondent for intimating about the fake policy to take action. Ex.B.4 is the postal receipt dated 26.7.2017.
44. It is mentioned that the alleged certificate cum policy bearing No. 221237/W-3147753/00/000 which was mentioned in the claim petition was not issued by this respondents 1 and 2 to the vehicle auto bearing Reg.No.AP 26 TA 5176 as on the date of 19 accident i.e., 5.12.2015 as the respondent 2 neither paid the premium nor produced the vehicle for inspection. The third respondent company has thoroughly verified their office records and after that they came to know that this respondent has not issued any policy to the respondent No.2 in respect of the above said vehicle as on the date of accident. The respondent insurance company after verification of all its records given complaint by way of registered letters to the Superintendent of Police, Nellore district intimating about the fake policy to take action, which were marked as Exs.B.3 and B.4.
45. Thus, it is clear that there was no Insurance coverage to the crime vehicle as on the date of accident. Thus, the claimant failed to prove that the vehicle was insured with R3 Company and the vehicle is having Insurance Coverage as on the date of accident.
On the other hand, R3 proved that the vehicle is not having insurance coverage as on the date of accident. As such, since there is no insurance coverage to the vehicle, the third respondent is not liable to pay compensation. The second respondent alone is liable to pay the compensation.These issues are answered accordingly.
ISSUE NO. 2 in O.P. 92/2017
46. The claimant Koppolu Subhashini claimed compensation of Rs.50,000/-. Wound Certificate Ex.A.7 shows the following injuries:
1.Abrasion over right foot dorsal side measuring 5 x 2 cm.
2. Abrasion over the left big toe and 2nd toe measuring 2 x 1 cm.
3. Multiple injuries all over the body.
47. The petitioner Subhashini, who was examined as P.W.2 stated in her evidence that she suffered very lot of pain and even now she was unable to work freely . She stated that she was taken 20 to Government Hospital, Atmakur for medical treatment. But she failed to examine the Doctor who treated her and she also failed to produce any medical bills or prescriptions relating to her treatment.
However, as she sustained injuries in the accident, the petitioner
Subhashini is entitled for compensation under the following heads which is just and reasonable.
1. Medical expenses Rs.5,000.00
2. Transport expenses Rs.2,000.00
3. Cost of special diet Rs.5,000.00
4. Loss of earnings Rs.5,000.00
5. Pain and suffering Rs.5,000.00
6. Compensation for loss of earning Rs.2,000.00 power
TOTAL [Rupees twenty four thousand Rs.24,000.00 only]
48. The accident was occurred due to the rash and negligent driving of the first respondent i.e., driver of the auto. As the accident was occurred during the course of employment of 1st respondent under 2nd respondent, the 2nd respondent is only liable to pay the compensation to the claimant. This issue is answered accordingly.
ISSUE NO. 3 in O.P.92/2017:
49. In the result, the petition is allowed in part with proportionate costs.
21
a) The petitioner is entitled for compensation of Rs.24,000/- [Rupees Twenty four thousand only]
b) Second respondent alone is liable to pay the compensation with interest at 6% p.a., from the date of petition(6.2.2017) till realization within 30 days from the date of award.
c) On such deposit the petitioner is permitted to withdraw the entire amount along with accrued interest by filing an application.
d) The petition against first respondent and third respondent is hereby dismissed.
e) Advocate fee fixed at Rs.1500/-
ISSUE NO. 2 in O.P. 93/2017
50. The claimant China Hajarathaiah claimed compensation of Rs.8,00,000/-. Wound Certificate Ex.A.2 shows the following injuries:
1.Pain and tenderness over the C-spine region with quadriparesis.
2. Fracture of Cervical Spine region
3. Bleeding injury over the right eye
4. Multiple injuries all over the body.
The petitioner Hajarathaiah who was examined as P.W.1 stated in his evidence that the surgery was conducted to his cervical spine region and he took medical treatment under Kavali and Chennai
Orthopedic surgeons. He filed inpatient final bill issued by
Simhapuri hospital, Nellore for a sum of Rs.1,80,000/- and discharge bill for a sum of Rs.3,14,300/- dated 20.4.2016 issued by Kauvery
Hospital, Chennai.
22
51. The claimant stated in his claim application that he was an agriculturist having Ac. 5.00 of wet land in his village and doing personal cultivation and earning a sum of Rs.1,00,000/- per annum on agriculture. But he did not file any documentary proof to show that he is an agriculturist and having wet lands .
Hence, the petitioner Hajarathaiah is entitled for compensation under the following heads which is just and reasonable.
1. Medical expenses Rs.4,94,300.00
2. Transport expenses Rs.2,000.00
3. Cost of special diet Rs.5,000.00
4. Loss of earnings Rs.10,000.00
5. Pain and suffering Rs.10,000.00
6. Compensation for loss of earning Rs.50,000.00 power
TOTAL [Rupees Five lakhs seventy one Rs.5,71,300.00 thousand three hundred only]
52. The accident was occurred due to the rash and negligent driving of the first respondent i.e., driver of the auto. As the accident was occurred during the course of employment of 1st respondent under 2nd respondent, the 2nd respondent is only liable to pay the compensation to the claimant. This issue is answered accordingly.
ISSUE NO. 3 in O.P.93/2017:
53. In the result, the petition is allowed in part with proportionate costs.
23
a) The petitioner is entitled for compensation of Rs.5,71,300/- [Rupees five lakhs seventy one thousand three hundred only]
b) Second respondent alone is liable to pay the compensation with interest at 6% p.a., from the date of petition(6.2.2017) till realization within 30 days from the date of award.
c) On such deposit the petitioner is permitted to withdraw the entire amount along with accrued interest by filing an application.
d) The petition against first respondent and third respondent is hereby dismissed.
e) Advocate fee fixed at Rs.1500/-
ISSUE NO. 2 in O.P. 94/2017
54. The claimant Kampalli Jayamma claimed compensation of Rs.1,00,000/-. Wound Certificate Ex.A.8 shows the following injuries:
1. Right shoulder injuries
2. Fracture Lateral end of right clavicle
3. Multiple injuries all over the body.
The claimant Jayamma , who was examined as P.W.3 stated in her evidence that surgery was conducted to her right clavicle. But she failed to examine the Doctor who treated her and she also failed to produce any medical bills or prescriptions relating to her treatment.
However, as she sustained injuries in the accident, the claimant
Jayamma is entitled for compensation under the following heads which is just and reasonable.
24
1. Medical expenses Rs.10,000.00
2. Transport expenses Rs.5,000.00
3. Cost of special diet Rs.5,000.00
4. Loss of earnings Rs.5,000.00
5. Pain and suffering Rs.5,000.00
6. Compensation for loss of earning Rs.5,000.00 power
TOTAL [Rupees thirty five thousand Rs.35,000.00 only]
55. The accident was occurred due to the rash and negligent driving of the first respondent i.e., driver of the auto. As the accident was occurred during the course of employment of 1st respondent under 2nd respondent, the 2nd respondent is only liable to pay the compensation to the claimant. This issue is answered accordingly.
ISSUE NO. 3 in O.P.94/2017:
56. In the result, the petition is allowed in part with proportionate costs.
a) The petitioner is entitled for compensation of Rs.35,000/- [Rupees thirty five thousand only]
b) Second respondent alone is liable to pay the compensation with interest at 6% p.a., from the date of petition(6.2.2017) till realization within 30 days from the date of award.
25
c) On such deposit the petitioner is permitted to withdraw the entire amount along with accrued interest by filing an application.
d) The petition against first respondent and third respondent is hereby dismissed.
e) Advocate fee fixed at Rs.1500/-
ISSUE NO. 2 in O.P. 95/2017
57. The claimant Shaik Alla Bakshu claimed compensation of Rs.3,00,000/-. He did not enter into witness box and depose about the accident. He also did not choose to file medical prescriptions or medical bills to prove his treatment. He filed wound Certificate along with his claim application which is not marked as exhibit and which shows the following injuries:
1.Abrasion size 5 x 2 cm over the fore-head.
2.Abrasion of 1 x 1 cm over nose
3.Abrasion 2 x 1 cm over right wrist joint [Ulnar aspect]
4.Pain and swelling over the right wrist joint and fore-arm
5.Abrasion over the chin
6.Abrasion over the left elbow region measuring 1 x 2 cm.
7.Fracture of right wrist joint. All the injuries are simple in nature.
The claimant Alla bakshu sustained simple injuries in the accident and he is entitled for compensation under the following heads which is just and reasonable.
1. Medical expenses Rs.10,000.00
2. Transport expenses Rs.5,000.00
3. Cost of special diet Rs.5,000.00 26
4. Loss of earnings Rs.5,000.00
5. Pain and suffering Rs.5,000.00
6. Compensation for loss of earning Rs.5,000.00 power
TOTAL [Rupees thirty five thousand Rs.35,000.00 only]
58. The accident was occurred due to the rash and negligent driving of the first respondent i.e., driver of the auto. As the accident was occurred during the course of employment of 1st respondent under 2nd respondent, the 2nd respondent is only liable to pay the compensation to the claimant. This issue is answered accordingly.
ISSUE NO. 3 in O.P.95/2017:
59. In the result, the petition is allowed in part with proportionate costs.
a) The petitioner is entitled for compensation of Rs.35,000/- [Rupees thirty five thousand only]
b) Second respondent alone is liable to pay the compensation with interest at 6% p.a., from the date of petition(6.2.2017) till realization within 30 days from the date of award.
c) On such deposit the petitioner is permitted to withdraw the entire amount along with accrued interest by filing an application.
27
d) The petition against first respondent and third respondent is hereby dismissed.
e) Advocate fee fixed at Rs.1500/-
Typed to my dictation, corrected and pronounced by me in the open court on this the 11th day of April, 2022.
Sd/- Smt.I.Sailajadevi
Chairman, Motor Vehicles Accidents Claims Tribunal –Cum- V Additional District Judge, Nellore
For claimants
P.W.1 T.China Hajarathaiah [claimant in O.P. 93/2017] P.W.2 K.Subhashini[claimant in O.P.No.92/2017] P.W.3 Kampalli Jayamma [claimant in O.P.No. 94/2017]
For respondents:
R.W.1 : B.Srinivas Rao, Manager-Legal in ICICI Lombard General Insurance Co., Ltd.,
DOCUMENTS MARKED
For claimants :
Ex.A.1 : Attested Xerox copy of FIR in Cr.No. 153/2015 of Atmakur Police station, Nellore, SPSR Nellore district Ex.A.2 : attested Xerox copy of wound certificate Ex.A.3 : Attested Xerox copy of charge sheet Ex.A.4 : Discharge summary dated 10.12.2015 issued by Simhapuri Hospital, Nellore Ex.A.5 : Inpatient final bill issued by Simhapuri hospital, Nellore for a sum of Rs.1,80,000/- Ex.A.6 : Discharge bill for a sum of Rs.3,14,300/- dated 20.4.2016 issued by Kaveri Hospital, Chennai. Ex.A.7 : wound certificate of P.W.2 Ex.A.8 : wound certificate of P.W.3 28
FOR RESPONDENTS:
Ex.B.1 : Certified true copy of search results with regard to policy cover note number which was mentioned in the claim application and that name search vehicle search, Engine number search and chasis number search results
Ex.B.2 : policy copies which was given to the others and it mentioned policy numbers
Ex.B.3 : office copy of the letter addressed to the Superintendent of Police, SPSR Nellore district by the third respondent for intimating about the fake policy to take action.
Ex.B.4 : postal receipt dated 26.7.2017.
Sd/- Smt.I.Sailajadevi
Chairman, Motor Vehicles Accidents Claims Tribunal –Cum- V Additional District Judge, Nellore