1
IN THE COURT OF THE IV ADDL. DISTRICT AND SESSIONS
JUDGE (FTC), SATHUPALLY
Date this the 22th day of June, 2018
Presented: Smt. K.Lalitha Kumari,
Judge,Family Court-Cum-
VI Addl.Dist.&Sessions Judge,Khammam
FAC.IV Addl.District & Sessions Judge (FTC), Sathupally.
M.V.O.P.No.168/2013
Between:
1.Marakala Butchamma W/o. Sreenu, Age: 38 years, Occ: House hold,
2.Marakala Sreenu S/o. Raghavulu, Age: 39 years, Occ: Coolie,
Both are R/o. Ramachandrao Banjara village, V.M.Banjara mandal, Khammam district.
……… Claim petitioners
And
1.Ch. S. Srinivasa S/o. Sitarama Rao, Age: Major, Occ: Owner of Car No. A.P 09 BQ 2397, R/o. Flat- NO. 408, Sai Kalyani Apartments, Surya Peta Town, Nalgonda District.
2.Branch Manager, United India Insurance Co, Ltd. Branch Office, Opp: Hotel Vijetha, K.K. road Suryapeta Town, Nalgonda Dt:(Vide its policy No-052502/31/12/02/00000819 valid from 22-08-2012 to 21-08-2013)
……..Respondents
This case came before this Court for final hearing on 20-06-2018 in the presence of Sri Yeginati Nageswar Rao, Advocate for the claim petitioner and of Sri Kothapalli Nagaswar Rao, Advocate for respondent No.2, remained exparte; upon perusing the material on record; this Court delivered the following:
ORDER
1.This petition is filed by under Section 163-A of Motor
Vehicles Act, claiming compensation of Rs.3,00,000/- towards
General and Special damages from the respondents No.1 and 2 as son of the claim petitioners NO.1 and 2 by name Marakala
Manikanta died in the motor vehicle accident on 03.12.2012. due 2 to the rash and negligent driving of the rider of the motorcycle bearing No. AP 16 AQ 7441.
2.The contention of the claim petitioners are that the parents of deceased Md. Sahanaz who was studying B.Pharmacy first year at Anwar gloom college and residing in Sri Vyshnavi
Hostel Mehdipatnam. He was also worked as a tutor getting Rs.
4,500/- per month.
On 12.11.2011 while the deceased Sahanaz and her friend and were proceeding on motor cycle bearing No. AP 15 AQ 7441 to to to shopping, while they reached Himayathsagar Reservoir the rider of the motor cycle by name Korre Keerthi Sagar drove the motorcycle rash and negligent manner with high speed. Due to which the motor cycle was skid and deceased fell on the water of reservoir, due to which she is died on the spot. The accident was occurred only due to the rash and negligent manner driving of the rider of the motorcycle bearing No. AP 15 AQ 7441.
The Police Rajendeanagar registered a case and crime No.
981/2011 under section 304-A of IPC, against the rider of the motorcycle. The deceased Md. Sahanaz was aged about 18 years, she was studying B.Pharmacy first year working as a tutor get
Rs.4,500/- per month. Due to sudden death of the deceased the parents of the deceased lost the friend of income and lost their only daughter and lost love and affection from the deceased.
The deceased ought to have survived for many years she would have contributed her earnings towards the welfare of the family annual income of the deceased is Rs.54,000/- by deducted her personal expenses, her annual incomes is Rs.36,000/-. Since, the age of the deceased is 18 years, the claim petitioners are 3 entitled for compensation of Rs.6,12,000/- towards dependency
Rs.50,000/- towards loss of estate Rs.30,000/- towards funeral expenses and Rs.8,000/- towards transportation charges. As such the claim petitioners claiming compensation of Rs.7,00,000/- from the respondents No.1 and 2 jointly and severally.
The first respondent was set exparte, the second respondent filed counter stating that the rider of the motorcycle Korre vinith
Sagar do not possession in driving license, at the time of accident. The first respondent handed over the vehicle to the rider who do not possession valid driving license at the time of accident.
As such the second respondent is not liable to pay compensation.
The second respondent denied the involvement of the crime vehicle AP 15 AQ 7441 in the accident. The second respondent also denied the income of the deceased is Rs.4,500/- per month.
The second respondent denied that the petitioners are the parents of the deceased, the contention of the second respondent. They claim petitioners are not entitled for compensation of
Rs.7,00,000/-. The respondent prays the court to dismiss the petition.
Heard the both sides.
Basing on the above pleading the following issues were framed.
1. Whether the accident took place on account of rash and negligent driving of the rider of the motor bike bearing No. AP 15
AQ 7441?
2.Whether the petitioners are entitled to claim compensation?
If so, to what amount from which respondent?
4
On behalf of the claim petitioner the mother of the deceased
Md. Sahanaz was examined as PW1 and got marked, Ex.A1 to A5 documents. On behalf of the respondents D.V.K Prasad Assistant
Manager was examined as RW1 got marked, Ex.B1 Insurance
Policy.
ISSUE NO.1:
The claim petitioners claiming compensation of rs.7,00,000/- from the respondents No.1 and 2 stating that the daughter of the claim petitioner by name by name Md. Sahanaz was studying first year B.Pharmacy at Anwar gloom college and she also working as a tutor getting Rs.4,500/- per month. On 12.11.2011 while the deceased Md. Sahanaz along with her friend by name Korre vinith
Sagar help to shopping while they reached Himayathsagar reservoir the motor cycle was riding by the Korre vinith Sagar rash and negligent manner due to which the motor cycle was skid on the road on that the pillion rider i.e., Md. Sahanaz fell on the water of the reservoir and died on the spot. The accident was occurred only due to rash and negligent driving of the rider of the motorcycle bearing No. AP 15 AQ 7441. as such the claim petitioners filed the petition claiming compensation of rs.
7,00,000/- from the owner and ensurer of the crime vehicle. Since the claim petitioners lost their daughter in the accident.
As seen from the counter filed by the second respondent,
Second respondent totally denied the involvement of the crime vehicle in the accident and also denied the rash and negligent driving of the rider of the crime vehicle at the time of the accident.
Since the respondent denied the involvement of the crime vehicle motor cycle bearing No. AP 15 AQ 7441 in the accident. Then 5 which is for the claim petitioner to prove that the death of the deceased Md. Sahanaz due to rash and negligent driving of the rider of the motorcycle. In order to prove the case of the claim petitioner, the claimpetitioner herself examined as PW1 and got marked, Ex. A1 to A5 document. Ex. A1 is the Certified copy of the
FIR in crime No. 981/ due to rash and negligent driving of the lorry bearing No. AP 16
TD 2426?
2. Whether the petitioners are entitled to claim compensation? If so to what amount and from which of the respondents?
3. To what relief?
7.On behalf of the petitioners the first claim petitioner was examined as Pw1 and got marked Ex. A1 to A5 documents on behalf of the petitioner one Vada Rama Rao the eye witness to the accident was examined as Pw2 no oral evidence on behalf of the respondent, the second respondent got marked copy of insurance policy which was marked as Ex. B1 marked.
8.The claim petitioners filed this petition under section 166 of
Motor Vehicles Act, claiming compensation of Rs. 5,00,000/- as the father of the claim petitioner 1 and 5 and the father of deceased
Pulla Rao by name Mutyalu died in the motor accident dated 11.12.2012 at about 14:50 hours, while he was returning to the home after searching the she bufellow the driver of the crime lorry bearing No. AP 16 TD 2426 drove the vehicle with high speed rash and negligent manner and dashed hit the deceased Mutyalu on his back side on that deceased Mutyalu received severe head injury in 6 the accident immediately he was shifted to government General
Hospital, Khammam and he died while he was undergoing treatment the contention of the claim petitioners are that the deceased was aged about 60 years and he was hale and healthy he used to earn Rs. 500/- per day by attending mason and works and also did Milk Business the entire family of the deceased i.e , claim petitioners are depending us the earning of Mutyalu due to the death of Mutyalu the family members are lost their livelihood and also lost their love and affection towards the deceased as such the claim petitioners filed this petition claiming compensation as seen from the counter filed by the respondents 1 and 2 the respondent denied the involvement of the crime vehicle that is lorry bearing No. AP 16 TD 2426 in the accident and also denied the rash and negligent driving of the driver of the lorry at the time of the accident since the respondent denied the involvement of the crime vehicle in the accident dated 11.12.2012 and also denied the death of deceased Mutyalu road accident as such the burden is on the claim petitioners to prove the same in support of the case of the claim petitioners the first claim petitioner was examined as Pw1 and got marked Ex. A1 to A5 documents , the documents filed by the claim petitioner that is Ex. A1 and A2 i.e certified copy of FIR in crime No. 197/2012 of Konijerla Police
Station and certified copy of charge sheet in CC 336 of 2012 on the file of III JFCM, Khammam clearly shows that the deceased
Mutyalu died in the road accident on 11.12.2012 and also which was mentioned and charge sheet that the accident was occurred due to rash and negligent driving of the driver of the lorry bearing
No. AP 16 TD 2426 the police after investigating the case filed 7 charge sheet against Yerra Kantharao the driver of the crime vehicle under section 304-A of Indian Penal Code. The claim petitioner filed Ex. A3 Postmortem Examination Report , Ex. A4 inquest report, clearly shows that the deceased Mutyalu died due to the injuries received in the accident dated 11.12.2012, Ex. A5
M.V.I report, clearly shows that the crime vehicle was not having any mechanic defects at the time of accident. The claim petitioner also examined Pw2 eye witness to the accident deposed that the accident was occurred as the crime vehicle hit the Mutyalu while he was on the road. As such the documents clearly shows that there is a filed on the part of the driver of the crime vehicle at the time of the accident those the claim petitioners proved that the accident was occurred due to involvement of the lorry bearing
No. AP 16 TD 2426.
9.Issue No.2 the claim petitioners claiming compensation of Rs. 5,00,000/- stating that the deceased was working a a mason and used to earn Rs. 500/- per day and also doing Milk Business. Even though there were no documents filed buy the claim petitioners to prove that deceased Mutyalu was attending mason works but evidence of PW1 clear that the deceased was working as a mason and there is no cross examination to PW1 with regarding to the earnings of the deceased as such the income of the deceased is taken into consideration as Rs.500/- per day.
10.The according to the claim petitioners the age of the deceased is 60 years the same was mentioned in the Ex. A1 to A4, hence the age of deceased was taken into consideration 60 years 8 the petitioners are the family members of the deceased hence 1/3 of his income has to be deducted towards is personal expenses hence as the income of the deceased was taken into consideration as Rs. 500/- per day i.e Rs. 15,000/- per month after deducting the 1/3 of his income towards for his personal expenses the income of the deceased taken into consideration as Rs.10,000/- for month,
Rs.1,20,000/- per annum as such age of the deceased at the time of the death is 60 years as per the decision reported in 2009 ACJ 1298 Sarala Vermas case the multiplier obligation as per hence the compensation to be awarded is Rs. 1,20,000X 9= 10,80,000 as the claim petitioners restricted their claim up to Rs. 5,00,000/- hence the claim petitioners are entitled for compensation of Rs.
5,00,000/-.
11.As seem from the counter filed by the first respondent stating that the first respondent ensured the crime vehicle with the second respondent the second respondent deducted that vehicle was not ensured with the second respondent and driver of the crime vehicle was not holding any driving license except filing counter the respondent did not adduced any evidence on their above even though Pw1 was cross examined by the counsel for the second respondent no single suggestion was given to Pw1 with regarding to the insurance policy and driving license the defendants did not adduced oral evidence but marked Ex. B1 and seen from the B1 policy even though the name of the first respondent was shown as the owner of the vehicle but the vehicle registration number relating to Ex. B1 policy is AP 16 TD 2588 no relating to the crime vehicle no notice issued by R2 to the owner 9 of the vehicle for production of the insurance policy and not steps were taken by summoning the driver of crime lorry for production of driving license hence it appears the second respondent intentionally not filed the copy of policy relating to vehicle AP 16
TD 2426. Even though the second respondent filed return arguments on 14.03.2018 there is no such mention in the return arguments about the insurance policy the counsel for the second respondent cited decision reported in MACMA 3250 of 11 in between New India Assurance Company, Kadapa and Siddarapa
Gangaiah held that decided that the claimants are not the defendants of the deceased as such not entitled for compensation the above decision is not applicable to the present set of facts as in the given reported decision first claiming died during the pendency of the petition and the legal heirs of the claimants were added in the pending petition but in this present case the legal hairs deceased Mutyalu filed the petition claiming compensation as father of the claimants 1 and 5 and the father-in-law of claimants 2 and father of the claimants No.3 and 4 died in the road accident since their the defendants deceased as one deceased by name Pulla Rao died predeceased Mutyalu as such the wife and children of Pulla Rao are defendants of Mutyalu as
Mutyalu died in the road accident the claim petitioners the defendants of the deceased lost their livelihood hence the claim petitioners are entitled are compensation from the second respondent.
10
The claim petitioners are entitled for compensation of
Rs.5,00,000/- from the second respondent along with interest and cost.
12.In the result, the petition is allowed by awarding compensation of Rs.8,00,000/- to the claim petitioners along the interest @ 7.5% per annum from the date of filing of this petition.
The second respondent is directed to deposit Rs.5,00,000/- along with interest and cost with in two months.
On such deposit the first claim petitioner 5th claim petitioner are entitle for Rs.1,00,000/- each and the claim petitioner 2 to 4 are entitle for Rs.1,00,000/- each the claim petitioner 1, 2 and 5 are entitled to withdraw the share of compensation along with proportionate cost and interest and the compensation awarded to petitioners 3 and 4 kept in the fixed deposit until they attains majority.
The Advocate’s fee is fixed at Rs.1,000/-.
Dictated to the Stenographer Grade-III, transcribed by him,
corrected and pronounced by me in the open court on this the 20th day of April, 2018.
FAC.IV Addl. District and Sessions Judge (FTC), Sathupally.
Appendix of Evidence
witnesses examined
For Petitioner: For Respondents:
PW.1. B. Veeramma RW.1. B. Ravi Kumar PW.2. B. Bashya
Exhibits Marked
For Petitioner:
Ex.A1: Certified copy of FIR, Dt: 03.04.2014 Ex.A.2: Certified copy of charge sheet, Dt: 14.05.2014 Ex.A.3: Certified copy of Postmortem Examination Report,
Dt: 03.04.2014
Ex.A.4: Certified copy of Inquest report, Dt: 03.04.2014 Ex.A.5: Certified copy of Motor Vehicles Inspector Report,
Dt: 06.04.2014
For Respondents:
Ex.B-1 : Is the office Copy of cover note.
11
Ex.B-2 : Is the Copy of Insurance Policy.
Material Objects: Nil.
FAC.IV Addl. District and Sessions Judge (FTC), Sathupally.
IN THE COURT OF THE IV ADDL. DISTRICT AND SESSIONS JUDGE
(FTC), SATHUPALLY
Date this the 23rd day of February, 2018
Presented: Smt. K.Lalitha Kumari,
Judge,Family Court-Cum-
VI Addl.Dist.&Sessions Judge,Khammam
FAC.IV Addl.District & Sessions Judge (FTC), Sathupally.
M.V.O.P.No.380/2012
Presented on: 04-04-2012 Filed on: 10-04-2012
Between: Cheekati Venkateswara Rao, S/o Seetharamaiah, Age: 40 years, Occu: Agriculture, R/o Pathakaraigudem village, Penuballi mandal, Khammam District. ……… Claim petitioner
And
1. Dosapati Venkateswara Rao S/o Ranga Rao, Age: 45 years, R/o Aswapuram village and mandal, Khammam District, owner of TATA 407 mini lorry bearing No.AP-20/U-718.
2. United India Insurance Company Limited, represented by its Divisional Manager, Divisional Office, 9-1-1, 1st floor, opp: RTC bus station, Kothagudem, Khammam District 507 101, insurer of TATA 407 mini lorry bearing No.AP-20/U-718, vide Policy No.052501/31/11/02/00001567 valid from 24-05-2011 to 23-05-2012.
……..Respondents
CLAIM FOR: This is a claim petition fi led by the petitioner under Section 166 of Motor Vehicles Act., claiming compensation of Rs.1,00,000/- from the respondents 1 and 2 as the claim petitioner received injuries in the accident dt.31-5-2011 due to rash and negligent driving of the driver of the TATA 407 mini lorry bearing No. AP-20/U-718.
12
COURT FEE PAID: Court fee of Rs.360/-paid U/Rule 475 (1) (b) of A.P.M.V.Rules.
DECREE:
This case came before this Court for fi nal hearing in the presence of Sri R. Hari Prasad, Advocate for the claim petitioner and of Sri E. Ramachandra Rao, Advocate for the respondent No.2 and respondent No.1 remained exparte; upon perusing the material on record , this Court doth order and decree.
1) That the petition is partly allowed with proportionate costs directing the respondents to pay compensation of Rs.55,065/- (Rupees fi fty fi ve thousand and sixty fi ve only) to the claim petitioner along with interest at the rate of 7.5% P.A. from the date of petition till the date of realization.
2) That the second respondent is directed to deposit the compensation amount along with the interest and proportionate costs within two months and recover the same from the fi rst respondent.
3) On such deposit, the claim petitioner is entitled to withdraw the amount along with interest and costs.
4) The Advocate’s fee is fixed at Rs.1,000/-.
5) Respondent No.2 do also pay to the claim petitioner a sum of Rs. towards proportionate costs of the petition.
Given under my hand and the seal of this court on this day 23rd day, February, 2018.
CHARIMAN
MOTOR ACCIDENTS CLAIMS TRIBUNAL
(FAC.IV ADDL.DISTRICT JUDGE, FTC),
SATHUPALLY.
PARTICULARS OF COSTS
Sl.No. ParticularsFor Claim For R.No.1For R.No.2 petitioner
1.Stamps on petition
2.Stamps on power
3.Stamps on process
4.Stamps on documents
5.Stamps on petition
6.Advocate's Fee
7.Commissioner Fee 8Paper publication charges
9.Mis.& Type charges Total:
CHARIMAN
MOTOR ACCIDENTS CLAIMS TRIBUNAL
13
FAC.IV ADDL.DISTRICT JUDGE (FTC),
SATHUPALLY.