1
IN THE COURT OF THE MOTOR ACCIDENTS CLAIMS
TRIBUNAL CUM-VIII ADDL.DISTRICT JUDGE AT MEDAK
PRESENT: SMT. I. SAILAJA DEVI,
VII Addl. District & Sessions Judge, Sangareddy, FAC VIII Addl.District & Sessions Judge, Medak.
Friday, the 21 st day of December, 2018.
O.P. NO. 37 of 2015 (MV Act)
Between:-
1.Devarshetty Vishalakshi W/o Shankaraiah, aged about 50 years, Occ:Household
2.Devarshetty Shankaraiah S/o Nagaiah, aged about 52 years, Occ: Nil
Both are R/o H.No.22-72, Shivaji Road, Jogipet town of Andole Mandal, Medak District. …Claimants A N D
1.M. Eshwaraiah S/o Obaiah (Owner of the Lorry No.AP16 TC 1987) Door No.74-31-2, 1714-A, High School Road, Padamata, Vijayawada-520003, A.P.
2.Mahadasu Venkatasuryasatyakrishna Prasad S/o Mahadasu Chittadora, age: 33 years, Occ: Driver of the Lorry AP16 TC1987, R/o Pattipadu village and Mandal, District: East Godavari, Andhra Pradesh State.
3.The New India Assurance Company Limited, rep.by its Deputy Manager, Madanmohan Building, R.P.Road, Secunderabad.
(Policy No.61120031120100004403 valid from 29-01-2013 to 28-01-2014)
...Respondents
This petition having come before me for final hearing in the presence of Sri S. Krishna Reddy, Advocate for claimants and Sri V .Prathap Reddy, Advocate for respondent No.3, while respondent No.1 and 2 remained ex parte, upon perusing the material papers available on record and upon hearing the arguments and having stood over for consideration till this day, this court made the following: -
:: O R D E R ::
1.Petitioners/claimants No.1 and 2 who are mother and father of deceased
Devarshetty Laxminarsimulu @ Narsimlu @ Laxmi Narasimha Rao filed this claim petition seeking compensation of Rs.20,00,000/- with interest at 18% per annum under Sections 166 of Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (in short 'MV Act') on the 2OP 37 of 2015 VIII ADJ, Medak death of deceased Devarshetty Laxminarsimulu @ Narsimlu @ Laxmi Narasimha
Rao in a motor vehicle accident said to have occurred on 02-04-2013 at about 7-00 a.m.
Brief case of the petitioners is as under:
2.1On 01-04-2013, deceased Devarshetty Laxminarsimulu @ Narsimlu @
Laxmi Narasimha Rao, his wife, son and daughter and their relatives were proceeding to Tirupathi on pilgrimage in Tayota Innova car bearing No.AP23
N6677 from Jogipet. On 02-04-2013 at about 7.00 am, when their Toyota reached near a petrol bunk on Kodur-Renigunta SH-31 road, near Kukkaladoddi village of Railway Kodur Mandal, YSR District, a lorry bearing No.AP16
TC1987 came in opposite direction in rash and negligent manner at high speed and dashed to their Tayota car, as a result the car and lorry turned turtle and 8 persons including deceased and driver of car died on the spot.
2.2The accident occurred only due to the rash and negligent driving of driver of lorry bearing No.AP16 TC1987 (hereinafter referred as 'crime vehicle'). Police
Railway Kodur registered a case in Cr.No.89/2013 under Sections 337 and 304-A
I.P.C. against driver of crime vehicle. The accident occurred only due to the rash and negligent driving of driver of lorry. Due to said accident, petitioners got shock and mental agony. At the time of accident, deceased was hale and healthy and was aged about 33 years and he was doing Kirana business and earning more than Rs.60,000/- per month. Claimant No.1 is aged about 50 years and claimant
No.2 is aged about 52 years. Due to sudden death of deceased, claimants are put to loss mentally and monetarily. Respondent No.1 is the owner of crime vehicle,
Respondent No.3 is the insurer of the crime vehicle and they are jointly and severally liable to pay compensation of Rs.20,00,000/-. Respondent No.2 is driver of crime vehicle.
3.Respondent No.1 and 2 remained absent and were set ex parte.
Counter averments of R3:
4.All the petition averments are denied. Petitioners are put strict proof about 3OP 37 of 2015 VIII ADJ, Medak the involvement of the offending lorry in the given accident. It is denied that there was any rash or negligent driving on part of the driver of the offending lorry.
The amount claimed is excessive. The claimants are put to strict proof of age, occupation and income of the deceased. The income shown by petitioners is false.
There is negligence on the part of driver of Innova car. There are more passengers in the car than its capacity. Hence, petition may be dismissed.
5.Basing on the pleadings available on record, the following issues were settled for trial on 16-03-2016:
1. Whether the accident had occurred due to rash and negligent driving of the driver of crime vehicle bearing No.AP23 N6677 Toyota Innova Car?
2. Whether the petitioners are entitled for compensation? If any so, from whom and what amount?
3. To what relief?
6.In support of their case, petitioners examined 1st petitioner as PW1 and also examined PW2 and got marked Ex.A1 to A7. Ex.B1 copy of policy was marked with consent.
7.Heard both sides.
Issue No.1:
8.It is not in dispute that the accident occurred involving two vehicles i.e.
Car bearing No.AP23 N6677 and Lorry bearing No.AP16 TC1987. The objection on which the claim of petitioners is opposed by respondent No.3 amongst other grounds, is that at the time of the accident the car was overloaded than its permitted capacity.
9.To prove the manner in which the accident occurred, petitioners examined first petitioner mother of the deceased as PW1 and also examined PW2 and got marked Ex.A1 to A7.
4OP 37 of 2015 VIII ADJ, Medak
10.Chief affidavit of PW1 is reiteration of the facts pleaded in the petition.
She affirmed that on 01-04-2013, her son Laxminarsimulu, her daughter-in-law
Jyothi, her grandchildren and parents of her daughter-in-law and other relatives were proceeding to Tirupathi in Innova Car bearing No.AP23 N6677 from Jogipet and the vehicle met with an accident at 7.00 am on 02-04-2013 near
Kukkaladoddi village of Railway Kodur Mandal when the crime vehicle came in the opposite direction and dashed to the car, due to the accident, deceased and other inmates of the car died in that accident.
11.PW1 was suggested in her cross-examination that as the vehicle was overloaded and as there were more passengers in the car than the permitted capacity the vehicle met with accident. PW1 denied this suggestion. Obviously,
PW1 is not an eye witness to the accident.
12.PW2 is a relative of PW1 and he is also not an eye witness to the accident.
13.Coming to the crime record Ex.A1 to A7, Ex.A1 is the Certified copy of
FIR along with complaint. As seen from complaint, it was lodged on 02-04-2013 immediately after the accident. Ex.A2 is the CC of inquest panchanama. Ex.A3 is the CC of postmortem examination. Ex.A4 is the CC of scene of offence panchanama. Ex.A5 is the CC of Motor Vehicle Inspector's report of crime lorry.
Ex.A6 is the CC of charge sheet. Ex.A7 is the Legal Heir certificate issued by
Tahsildar, Andole.
14.As per crime record, the accident occurred on 02-04-2013 at about 7.00 am when the lorry bearing No.AP16 TC1987 came from Tirupathi side in the opposite direction and dashed to the Innova car bearing No.AP23 N6677 in high speed, due to which the car turned turtle and fell on the left side of the road, and out of 10 inmates of the car 9 inmates including driver of the car died on the spot and the minor grand daughter of petitioner was alive, but she also died later while undergoing treatment. Thus, as per the complaint it was a grave and horrendous accident were all the 10 persons travelling in the car died in the accident.
15.Ex.A4 is the scene of offence panchanama. This scene of offence panchanama shows that the accident occurred when both vehicles were travelling 5OP 37 of 2015 VIII ADJ, Medak in opposite direction and the car was going in the correct side of the road i.e. on the left side of the road and the Motor Vehicle Inspector's report shows that the accident occurred not due to any mechanical defect of the crime vehicle Lorry.
16.Ex.A6 is the charge sheet. As per this charge sheet, the police investigated and filed report that the accident occurred only due to the rash and negligent driving of driver of crime vehicle Lorry. Ex.A7 is the Legal Heir Certificate issued by Tahsildar, Andole.
17. No contra evidence is produced by the respondents to show that the accident occurred in any other manner than claimed by the petitioners. Thus, the evidence of PW1 and PW2 and Ex.A1 to A7 sufficiently establish that the accident occurred only due to the rash and negligent driving of driver of crime vehicle Lorry. This issue is decided in favour of the petitioners.
Issue No.2:
18.It is not disputed that R1 is the owner of the crime vehicle, R3 was the driver of the offending Lorry at the time of the accident. and R3 is the insurer with which Ex.B1 policy was subsisting in respect of the crime vehicle as on the date of accident. Thus, R1 to R3 are liable to compensation.
19.The next aspect to be decided is what is the ‘just compensation’ to which the petitioners are entitled to from the respondents. To arrive at just compensation, adhering to the Guidelines laid down by the Apex Court in case of
Sarlaverma vs. Delhi Transport Corporation (AIR 2009 SC 3104), three aspects to be decided are – 1) Age of the deceased at the time of the accident, 2)
Income of the deceased and 3) Multiplier applicable.
20.Petitioners are the parents of the deceased. Evidently, in the accident, deceased Devarshetty Laxminarsimulu @ Narsimlu @ Laxmi Narasimha Rao, not only lost his wife, daughter and son, he also lost his other relatives.
21.According to the petitioners, their son was doing Kirana business and was earning Rs.60,000/- per month. However, there is no evidence to show that the 6OP 37 of 2015 VIII ADJ, Medak deceased was doing Kirana business and was earning Rs.60,000/- per month.
Considering that the deceased was a young man and a young father of a daughter and son, doing business and taking care of his family, his monthly income can be fixed at Rs.6,000/-.
22.As seen from crime record, Ex.A1 inquest panchanama, Ex.A3 postmortem examination report and Ex.A6 charge sheet, age of deceased at the time of accident was shown as 38 years. Petitioners did not file any document showing the age of deceased Devarshetty Laxminarsimulu @ Narsimlu @ Laxmi
Narasimha Rao, at the time of accident except relying upon the crime record. No reason is given by petitioners as to why they could not produce their Aadhar cards and ration card. I am inclined to believe the age of deceased as given in the crime record and I hold that the age of Jyothi at the time of accident was 33 years.
23.No other evidence is produced by the respondents to contradict the age of deceased as given in these documents. Thus, at the time of the accident, the age of the deceased Devarshetty Laxminarsimulu @ Narsimlu @ Laxmi Narasimha
Rao, can be safely arrived at 33 years.
24.Coming to the dependents, the petition was filed by the parents. Thus, there are 2 dependents. As the deceased was married with two dependents on him, the deduction towards personal expenses of the deceased is 1/3rd and contribution to the family is 2/3rd out of the income as laid down in Sarla Verma's case referred supra.
25. Petitioners claimed compensation of Rs.20,00,000/- in all counts.
26.As per the schedule given in Sarla Verma case, the multiplier applicable to the persons in the age group of 31-35 years is '16' and in the instant case, the age of the deceased at the time of the accident is arrived at 33 years and so, the relevant multiplier to be applied is '16'. A sum of Rs.16,000/- towards funeral charges can be given. The compensation to which the petitioners are entitled to is calculated as under:
7OP 37 of 2015 VIII ADJ, Medak
Description CalculationAmount in Rs.
Income per month 6,000 6,000
Income per annum 6,000 x 12 72,000
Personal expenses 1/3 rd 24,000
Contribution to family 72,000 – 24,000 48,000
Multiplier 16
Compensation on applying 48,000 x 16 7,68,000 multiplier
Funeral Expenses 16,000 16,000/-
Total compensation 7,84,000/-
27.Thus, the just compensation to which the claimants No.1 & 2 are entitled to from R1 to R3 is Rs.7,84,000/- (Rupees Seven lakhs Eighty Four thousand only). This issue is decided in favour of the claimants.
Issue No.3:
28.In view of the findings given on Issues No.1 and 2, I hold that Respondent
No.1 to 3 are jointly and severally liable to pay a compensation of Rs.7,84,000/- (Rupees Seven lakhs Eighty Four thousand only) to the claimants No.1 and 2 with interest and costs @ 7.5% per annum from the date of petition till the date of deposit.
29.IN THE RESULT, the claim is partly Allowed against R1 to R3 for
Rs.7,84,000/- (Rupees Seven lakhs Eighty Four thousand only) with interest and costs in favour of the claimants No.1 and 2 and Award is passed in the following terms: [[
1.Respondent No.1 to 3 are jointly and severally liable to pay a compensation of Rs.7,84,000/- (Rupees Seven lakhs Eighty Four thousand only) with interest and costs @ 7.5 % per annum from the date of petition till the date of deposit.
2.Respondent No.1 to 3 shall deposit said Compensation amount within one month from the date of Award.
8OP 37 of 2015 VIII ADJ, Medak
3.On such deposit of the compensation amount, claimant No.1 and 2 are entitled to a compensation of Rs. 3,92,000/- (Rupees Three Lakhs
Ninety Two thousand only) each along with accrued interest and costs of their share. Claimant No.1 and 2 are permitted to withdraw a sum of
Rs.2,00,000/- (Rupees Two lakhs only) each out of their share and the balance amount shall be kept in the form of Fixed Deposit in a
Nationalized Bank for a period of two years with permission to withdraw interest on their share once in every six months.
4.Advocate’s fee is fixed at Rs.4,000/-.
Typed to my dictation to Stenographer Grade-I, typed by him, Corrected and
Pronounced by Me in the Open Court on this the 21 st day of December, 2018.
VII Addl. District Judge, Sangareddy, FAC VIII Addl.Dist.Judge, Medak.
APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE
witnesses examined for
CLAIMANTS: RESPONDENTS:
PW1 D. Vishalakshi --None-- PW2 Gnaneshwar
EXHIBITS MARKED FOR
CLAIMANTS:
Ex.P1CC of FIR along with complaint in Cr.No.89/2013 of PS Railway Kodur. Ex.P2CC of Inquest panchanama of Devarashetty Jyothi Ex.P3CC of Post Mortem Examination of Devarashetty Jyothi Ex.P4CC of scene of offence along with rough sketch in Cr.No.89/2013 of PS Railway Kodur Ex.P5CC of Motor Vehicle Inspector's report Ex.P6CC of Charge sheet in Cr.No.89/2013 of PS Railway Kodur Ex.P7Legal Heir Certificate (Family Members certificate).
RESPONDENTS
Ex.B1Copy of policy No. No.61120031120100004403.
VII Addl. District Judge, Sangareddy, FAC VIII Addl.Dist.Judge, Medak.