Sri K. Rajkumar, M.com., B.l.

1

0IN THE COURT OF THE V-ADDITIONAL DISTRICT

JUDGE::ONGOLE

Present:- Sri K.Rajkumar, M.Com., B.L.,

Chairman, Permanent Lok Adalt, cum FAC:: V- Additional District Judge,

(FAST TRACK COURT ):: ONGOLE

Wednesday, this the 10th day of April, 2013.

ORIGINAL SUIT No.106/2008.

Between:

1. Kukkapalli Kalyani, W/o late Srinivasa Chakravarthy, Aged 30 years, Hindu, Employee, Ravinuthala (V) Korispadu Mandal, Prakasam District.

2. Kukkapalli Saraswathi D/o late Srinivasa Chakravarthi, Aged 10 years, Hindu, Minor, Guardian and next friend mother 1st plaintiff Kukkapalli Kalyani, W/o late Srinivasa Chakravarthi Aged 30 years, Hindu, Employee, Ravinuthala (V) Korisapadu Mandal, Prakasam District. …Plaintiffs

And

1. Kukkapalli Venkata Ranga Rao, S/o late China Ankamma, Aged about 64 years, Hindu, Business.

2. Kukkapalli Santhamma W/o Venkata Ranga Rao Aged about 60 years, Hindu, Housewife

3. Kukkapalli Suresh, S/o Venkata Ranga Rao Aged about 34 years, Hindu Employer

4. Uppalapati Anatha Lakshmi w/o Chandramouli, Aged about 40 years, Hindu, Housewife.

5. Kota Ramadevi W/o Venkata Rao, Aged about 36 years, Hindu, Housewife.

All are defendants R/o G-68, 8/3/224/8A, Madhura Nagar, Hyderabad-500 073. …Defendants

This Suit coming on 01-04-2013 for final hearing before me in the presence of Sri.K.Venkateswarlu, Advocate for Plaintiffs and of

Sri.M.V.Krupasagar, Advocate for Defendants 1 & 2; and the defendants 3 to 5 are having remained ex-parte; and having stood over for consideration till this day, this court delivered the following:

// J U D G M E N T //

2

1.The plaintiffs filed this suit for cancellation of relinquishment deeds dt. 15-03-2001 and for partition of suit schedule properties into 15 equal shares and to allot two shares to the plaintiffs and one share to the 2nd defendant.

2.The brief averments of the plaint are that, 2nd defendant is wife of first defendant. Defendants 3 to 5 are the children of D1 & D2. Late

Srinivasa Chakravarthi was the eldest son of the defendants 1 & 2 and brother of defendants 3 to 5. First defendant being manager of their joint family is managing the affairs of suit schedule properties.

3.Even prior to the marriage of D3 to D5 and late Srinivasa

Chakravarthi the defendants 1 & 2 shifted from Muppavaram to

Hyderabad and the first defendant started coal business with the joint family properties. Late Srinivasa Chakravarthi, first defendant along with the 3rd defendant were attending to the family business. Out of the joint family business, first defendant acquired properties in his name and in the name of others.

4.First Plaintiff was married to Srinivasa Chakravarthi on 04-06- 1998. Later, she joined with her husband for family life. 2nd plaintiff was born to them. Unfortunately Srinivasa Chakarvarthi died on 21-10- 1999 due to accident in Hyderabad. The Plaintiffs lived with the family up to November-2000. But the defendants did not show any affection towards plaintiffs. Therefore they were forced to come to Ravinuthala which is the native place of first plaintiff. When the first plaintiff was in depressed condition, first defendant prevailed upon the weakness of the first plaintiff and made her to receive an amount of Rs.1,90,000/- and obtained two relinquishment deeds from her dt. 15-03-2001 stating that the first plaintiff relinquished her right in the suit schedule property and her future maintenance. Later, the first plaintiff came to know that 3 the first defendant and other defendants cheated the plaintiffs and they are obtained by playing fraud, but the documents are nominal and never acted upon. Hence, the plaintiff got issued legal notice to the defendant 1 & 2 but the defendants got issued reply notice with false averments.

5.First defendant took the 2nd plaintiff to Hyderabad promising to look after her welfare but the 2nd plaintiff felt that it would be safe for her life with her mother that is the first plaintiff . Hence, the first defendant brought the 2nd plaintiff to Ravinuthala. The first plaintiff with great difficulty studied M.Sc. B.Ed and got job as lecturer at Tenali in the year 2005.

6.The first plaintiff personally and through the elders approached the first defendant for partition of the suit schedule properties and also got issued legal notice in the year 2007 but the first defendant got issued reply notice with false averments. The first defendant started business in Hyderabad with the assistance of late Srinivasa

Chakravarthy and the 3rd defendant with joint family funds. Hence, the plaintiffs filed this suit for cancellation of relinquishment deeds and for partition of the suit schedule properties.

7.On Paper publication D3 to D5 remained ex-parte;

8.D1 filed written statement, D2 filed Memo adopting the written statement of D1. In the written statement they are admitting the relationship and also the death of the husband of the first plaintiff. But their contention is that items No. 1 to 5 are not the joint family properties and they are self acquired properties of D1 & D2 because the first defendant improved his business and acquired properties. But items 6 to 16 are the joint family properties but they are not giving good yielding and that the income derived from items 6 to 16 is not 4 sufficient to meet the expenses of the family. Hence, the first defendant gave item Nos. 6 to 16 to his creditors for cultivation.

Moreover, the first plaintiff received an amount of Rs.1,24,000/- towards her share in item Nos. 6 to 16 of the plaint schedule property and executed the relinquishment deeds in favour of the first defendant and other defendants on 15-03-2001. The first plaintiff also executed another relinquishment deed dt.15-03-2001 stating that she is not going to claim any maintenance, for that she received an amount of

Rs.1,90,000/-. The first Plaintiff voluntarily executed the said relinquishment deeds with her free will and consent. Subsequently the first plaintiff has taken away the 2nd plaintiff from the custody of the first defendant. The first defendant demanded for custody of minor daughter that is the 2nd plaintiff but she refused. Moreover, the first plaintiff got issued legal notice for the purpose of creating cause of action before filing of the suit. First defendant requested first plaintiff to give the custody of the 2nd plaintiff but she did not do so. Though the relinquishment deeds were executed on 15-03-2001, this suit is filed after lapse of 7 years. Hence, the claim of the plaintiffs is barred by limitation. Hence, the suit is liable to be dismissed.

9. Basing on the above pleadings, the following issues are framed for trial:-

i). Whether the plaintiff NO.1 executed two relinquishment deeds dt.

15-03-2001 under undue influence of D1? If so, whether they are liable to be set aside?

ii). Whether the items 6 to 16 of plaint schedule properties are not yielding income?

iii).Whether items 1 to 5 were acquired by D1 & D2 with the income from joint family properties and efforts of D1,D3 and the husband of plaintiff No.1?

5 iv).Whether the plaintiffs are entitled for partition of items 1 to 16 of plaint schedule? If so, what are their shares?

v). To what relief?

10.On behalf of the plaintiffs P.Ws 1 & 2 are examined and Exs. A1 to A24 are marked. On behalf of the defendants, D.Ws 1 to 4 are examined and Exs.B1 to B7 are marked.

11.After closure of the evidence, arguments heard on both sides.

Written Arguments filed on behalf of the defendants.

12. Issue Nos.1 to 4:Admittedly D1 & D2 are husband and wife; D3 to D5 and late Srinivasa Chakravarthy are the children of D1 &

D2. First plaintiff was married to late Srinivasa Chakravarthy. 2nd plaintiff was born to them. Later Srinivasa Chakravarthy died in the year 1999 due to accident in Hyderabad. Items 1 to 16 are shown in A-

Schedule property and they are immovable properties. Some Gold ornaments worth Rs.16,00,000/- are shown as B-Schedule property.

13.2nd plaintiff is minor daughter of first plaintiff and late Srinivasa

Chakravarthy. The contention of the 1st plaintiff is that D1 obtained two relinquishment deeds dt. 15-03-2001 by playing fraud after the death of the husband of the first plaintiff stating that the first plaintiff relinquished her right in the suit schedule properties and also relinquished her right for future maintenance. Even with regard to the 2nd plaintiff the contention of the plaintiffs is that items 1 to 16 are the joint family properties. Hence, they are entitled for partition. But it is the contention of defendants 1 & 2, that the items 1 to 5 are the self acquired properties of D1 & D2 but the items 6 to 16 are joint family properties. Their contention is also that the first plaintiff voluntarily executed relinquishment deeds dt. 15-03-2001 by receiving money 6 More over, this suit is filed after lapse of 7 years. Hence, this suit is barred by limitation.

14.The 1st plaintiff is examined as PW.1. In her chief-examination she reiterated what was mentioned in the plaint. Through her, the extract of registered relinquishment deed dt. 15-03-2001 is marked as Ex.A1 and another extract of registered relinquishment deed dt.15-03-2001 is marked as Ex.A2. She deposed that Exs.A1 & A2 are obtained by D1 by playing fraud. P.W1 in her cross examination she admitted Exs.A1 & A2.

In her cross examination she clearly admitted that she executed originals of Exs.A1 & A2. She is also admitting the contents of Exs.A1 &

A2. It is pertinent to note that she is educated person. Hence, it cannot be said that she executed Exs.A1 & A2 without accepting the contents. Before filing of the suit, she got issued legal notice to D1 and the office copy of legal notice is marked as Ex.A3, it is dt.25-01-2007.

15.In Ex.A3 there is no mention with regard to execution of Exs.A1 &

A2 though she executed in the year 2001. Ex.A4 is reply notice got issued by the defendants, it is dt. 10-04-2007. But later after so many months the first plaintiff got issued another legal notice which is marked as Ex.A5, it is dt. 15-01-2008. In Ex.A5 she got mentioned about execution of Exs.A1 & A2 but she has not mentioned that they were executed by playing fraud.

16.In her cross examination she also admitted that in Ex.A3 there is no reference with regard to Exs.A1 & A2. So, for the first time in the suit she got mentioned that Exs.A1 & A2 were obtained by D1 by playing fraud though there were exchange of notices before filing of the suit.

17.The contention of the defendants is that items 1 to 5 are self acquired properties of D1 & D2. Hence, they are not liable for partition.

7 To prove the same, D1 is examined as D.W1. In his chief examination he reiterated what was mentioned in the written statement. Through him Exs.B1 to B7 are marked. Ex.B2 is certified copy of registered sale deed; Ex.B4 to B6 are original sale deeds and Ex.B7 is original relinquishment deed.

18.P.W1-first plaintiff in her cross examination she admitted that

Item No.2 was mortgaged to the Bank of Maharastra by D2; she further deposed that item No.3 is self acquired property of D1. She also admitted that items 1 to 5 are the self acquired properties of the defendants as per the documents filed on behalf of the defendants.

19.The learned counsel for the defendants argued that the Exs.A1 &

A2 are dt.15-03-2001 but the suit is filed in the year 2008, that is nearly after 7 years the plaintiff filed this suit. Hence, the suit is barred by limitation. In support of his contention he relied on a decision reported in Palla Sampath Kumari V/s Kinthala Venkata Rao and another 2003(3) ALD 115 wherein it was held that:

“Limitation Act, 1963- Article 59 – Suit to set aside the registered relinquishment deed – Suit filed beyond three years from the date of registration – Held barred by limitation.

20.According to this decision suit was filed beyond three years for cancellation of relinquishment deeds from the date of execution hence, it is barred by limitation. In the instant case also Exs.A1 & A2 were executed in the year 2001 but the suit is filed nearly after 7 years to cancel relinquishment deeds stating that they are obtained by playing fraud. Hence, relief sought by the plaintiffs is barred by limitation.

21.With regard to the presumption of the joint-ness and with regard to Exs.A1 & A2 the learned counsel for the defendants also relied on a 8 decision reported in Modadugu Venkata Subbamma and another

V/s Kanamarlapudi Rattaiah and others 2008(6) ALD 602 where in it was held that:

“There is no presumption under Hindu Law that a business standing in the name of any member of the joint family is a joint family business even if that member is the manager of the joint family”.

22.He also relied on another decision reported in 2003(3) ALD 115 wherein it was held that:

Registration Act,1908-Section 34-Evidence Act, 1872, Section 104 – It has to be presumed that the Registrar complied with all the provisions of section 34 while registering the document – It is for the party alleging contra that has to plead and prove the same.

It was also held that:

“Civil Procedure Code, 1908-Order 6, Rule 4- Suit to set aside the relinquishment deed on the ground of fraud- No particulars of fraud pleaded in the plaint – Any amount of evidence let in by plaintiff do not help him.”

23.P.W1 got examined her mothers brother as P.W1 to prove her contention. But P.W2 in his cross examination expressed his ignorance with regard to Exs.A1 & A2. Moreover, he deposed that he does not know the contents of chief examination affidavit So, his evidence is not helpful to prove the contention of P.W1. The plaintiff-P.W1 did not choose to examine any other witnesses i.e., scribe and attestors and other independent witnessescorroborating to Exs. A1 & A2. So, except the sole testimony of P.W1 there is no other evidence to prove her contention.

9

24.In the instant case, as already discussed above, the plaintiffs failed to prove that Exs.A1 & A2 are obtained by the defendants by playing fraud.

25.1600 grams of gold worth Rs.16,00,000/- is shown as B-Schedule, property for partition. But except mentioning in the schedule, both the parties have not adduced any evidence and they are silent. Even at the time of arguments there was no reference with regard to B-schedule property. Even, there is no evidence with regard to existence of B- schedule property. Hence, partition of B-Schedule property does not arise.

26.Admittedly items 6 to 16 are joint family properties. At the time of arguments the learned counsel for the defendants fairly conceded that item No.5 is in the name of the deceased and items 6 to 16 are joint family properties. Hence, the defendants have no objection for partition of item No.5 and 6 to 16 and to give share to the 2nd plaintiff being daughter of the deceased late Srinivasa Chakravarthy. But the first plaintiff is not entitled for any partition by virtue of Exs.A1 & A2.

27.Issue No.5:- In view of the findings and in view of the admission made by the defendants the plaintiffs are not entitled for cancellation of the two relinquishment deeds dt.15-03-2001 and the 1st plaintiff is not entitled for partition, but the 2nd plaintiff is entitled for partition.

Item No.5 has to be divided into two equal shares and to allot half (½) share to the 2nd plaintiff and another half (½) share to the 2nd defendant.

Items 6 to 16 have to be partitioned into 5 equal shares, out of the same 2nd plaintiff and the 2nd defendant are equally entitled to each half ( ½ ) share.

10

28.In the result, the suit is dismissed with regard to the reliefs of cancellation of two relinquishment deeds dt.15-03-2001 and also with regard to items 1 to 4 of A-schedule properties and B-Schedule properties, but with regard to the 2nd plaintiff the suit is preliminarily decreed partitioning item No.5 into two equal shares and to allot half( ½ )share to the 2nd plaintiff and another half (½ ) share to the 2nd defendant.

Items 6 to 16 have to be partitioned into 5 equal shares, out of the same, 2nd plaintiff and the 2nd defendant are equally entitled to each half ( ½) share. No costs.

Dictated to the Personal Assistant, transcribed by him, Corrected and

pronounced by me in Open Court, this the 10th day of April, 2013.

Chairman, Permanent Lok Adalt, FAC:: V ADDITIONAL DISTRICT JUDGE,

(FAST TRACK COURT) ONGOLE

Appendix of Evidence

Witness Examined

For Plaintiff: For Defendants:

PW.1: K.KalyaniDW.1: K.Venkata Ranga Rao P.W2:P.BhushanamDW.2: B.Chinna Abbai DW3: G.Madhava Reddy DW4: I. Anjaneyulu

DOCUMENT MARKED

FOR PLAITNIFF:

Ex.A1:Extract of Regd. Relinquishment deed dt.15-3-01 Ex.A2:Extract of Regd. Relinquishment deed dt.15-3-01 Ex.A3:Office copy of legal notice Ex.A4:Reply notice issued by D1 Ex.A5: Office copy of Lawyer notice dt. 15-01-2008 Ex.A6; Reply notice got issued by D1 Ex.A7: Returned postal cover of D2 to D5 Ex.A8: CC of FIR in Cr.No.509/2009 Ex.A9: CC of MVI Report in Cr.No. 509/2009 Ex.A10: CC of Post Mortem report Ex.A11:CC of Death Certificate of K.Srinivasa Chakravarthy Ex.A12:CC of letter of D1 to Chief Minister of A.P. Ex.A13:CC of letter of the D1 to DCP Ex.A14:CC of letter of D1 to the Home Minister of A.P 11 Ex.A15:CC of Driving license Ex.A16:CC of pattadar pass book for pata No. 526 Ex.A17:CC of pattadar pass book for patta No. 422 Ex.A18:CC of Pattadar pass book for patta No. 1064 Ex.A19:CC of letter of Bank of Maharastra, Hyderabad Ex.A20:CC of letter of Bank of Maharastra, Hyderabad Ex.A21:CC of Letter of Bank of Maharastra, Hyderabad Ex.A22:CC of Transfer Certificate Ex.A23:CC of MVOP No. 517/2000 on the file of MACT, Hyd. Ex.A24:CC of Depositions in OP 517/2000

FOR DEFENDANTS:-

Ex.B1: CC of Marriage Certificate proceedings Ex.B2: CC of Regd. Sale deed dt.21-06-1990- Ex.B3: Letter of Bank of Maharastra dt.26-06-1990 Ex.B4: Original sale deed dt.16-01-2000 Ex.B5: Original Sale deed dt.17-11-2000 Ex.B6: Original sale deed dt.20-11-2000 Ex.B7: Original Gift Settlement deed dt. 15-12-2005

Chairman, P.L.A. FAC::V-ADJ 12

THE COURT OF THE V-ADDITIONAL DISTRICT JUDGE::ONGOLE

Present:- Sri K.Rajkumar, M.Com., B.L.,

Chairman, Permanent Lok Adalt-cum-FAC:: V-Additional District Judge,

(FAST TRACK COURT ):: ONGOLE

Wednesday, this the 10th day of April, 2013.

ORIGINAL SUIT No.106/2008.

Between:

1. Kukkapalli Kalyani, W/o late Srinivasa Chakravarthy, Aged 30 years, Hindu, Employee, Ravinuthala (V) Korispadu Mandal, Prakasam District.

2. Kukkapalli Saraswathi D/o late Srinivasa Chakravarthi, Aged 10 years, Hindu, Minor-Guardian and next friend-mother 1st plaintiff Kukkapalli Kalyani, W/o late Srinivasa Chakravarthi, Aged 30 years, Hindu, Employee, Ravinuthala Village, Korisapadu Mandal, Prakasam District. …Plaintiffs

And

1. Kukkapalli Venkata Ranga Rao, S/o late China Ankamma, Aged about 64 years, Hindu, Business.

2. Kukkapalli Santhamma W/o Venkata Ranga Rao, Aged about 60 years, Hindu, Housewife.

3. Kukkapalli Suresh, S/o Venkata Ranga Rao, Aged about 34 years, Hindu Employee

4. Uppalapati Anatha Lakshmi w/o Chandramouli, Aged about 40 years, Hindu, Housewife.

5. Kota Ramadevi W/o Venkata Rao, Aged about 36 years, Hindu, Housewife.

All are defendants R/o G-68, 8/3/224/8A, Madhura Nagar, Hyderabad-500 073. …Defendants

Suit is filed 1) to set aside the relinquishment deed dt.15-03-2001 showing the value of Rs.1,24,000/-; 2) to set aside the Relinquishment deed dt.15-03-2001 showing value of Rs.1,90,000/-; 3) to pass a decree for partition of suit schedule properties into 15 equal shares and to allot two shares to the plaintiffs and one share to the 2nd defendant and put them in separate possession thereof; 4) for future mesne profits and 5) for costs.

Date of presentation: 7-11-2008 Date of filing: 7-11-2008 13 Cause of Action:- Cause action for the suit arose on 4-6-1998 when the first plaintiff got married to Srinivasa Chakravarthy; on 30-03-1999 when the first plaintiff gave birth to 2nd plaintiff; on 21-10-1999 when the husband of first plaintiff i.e., Srinivasa Chakravarthy died in a Motor Accident; when the defendants adopted hostile attitude and obtained fraudulent documents dt.15- 03-2001 and cheated the plaintiffs and refused to partition the schedule properties and it arose at Muppavaram village and Mandal, within the jurisdiction of this court. Valuation & Court Fee: Total value of plaint schedule items 1 to 16 as per Sub-Registrar's Certificate is Rs.2,53,78,440/- 2/15th share of the plaintiffs is Rs.33,83,792/- 3/4th of same is Rs.25,37,844/- On which a court of fee of Rs.200/- is paid U/sec. 34(2) of APCF & SVAct as both parties are in joint and constructive possession. A court fee of Rs.3,726/- is paid on the amount of Rs.1,24,000/- which is the value of the relinquishment deed dt.15-03-2001 under Sec.37(b) of APCF & SV Act. A Court fee of Rs.4,326/- is paid on the value of Rs.1,90,000/- which is the value of the Relinquishment deed dt.15-03-2001 under sec.37(b) APCF & SV Act Jurisdiction value of the suit is Rs.25,37,844 + Rs.1,24,000 +Rs.1,90,000/- =Rs.28,51,844/- Total Court fee is payable is Rs.200 + Rs.3726 + Rs.4326= Rs.8,252/- by depositing cash in SBI, Ongole on 14-10-2008 in lieu of court fee.

This Suit coming on 01-04-2013 for final hearing before me in the presence of Sri.K.Venkateswarlu, Advocate for Plaintiffs and of Sri.M.V.Krupasagar, Advocate for Defendants 1 & 2; and the defendants 3 to 5 are having remained ex-parte; and having stood over for consideration till this day, this court doth order and decree:-

i)that the suit be and the same is hereby dismissed with regard to the reliefs of cancellation of two relinquishment deeds dt.15- 03-2001 and also with regard to items 1 to 4 of A-schedule properties and B-Schedule properties; ii)That with regard to the 2nd plaintiff, the suit is preliminarily decreed partitioning item No.5 into two equal shares and to allot half (½) share to the 2nd plaintiff and another half (½) share to the 2nd defendant; 14 iii)That Items 6 to 16 have to be partitioned into 5 equal shares, out of the same, 2nd plaintiff and the 2nd defendant are equally entitled to each half (½) share; and iv)That each party do bear their own costs.

N.B: Plaint schedule is hereto attached.

Given under my hand and the seal of the court, this the 10 th day of April, 2013.

Chairman, P.L.A FAC::V-ADDL. DISTRICT JUDGE,

F.T.C ::ONGOLE

TABLE OF COSTS

No CM & FC filed on either side.

Chairman, P.L.A FAC::V-ADJ FTC::ONGOLE 15

1

BEFORE THE MOTOR ACCIDENTS CLAIMS TRIBUNAL

(Before the V-Addl. District Judge, (FTC) Ongole)

Present:- Sri K.Rajkumar, M.Com., B.L.,

Chairman, Permanent Lok Adalt, cum –Chairman- MACT -cum-V- Additional

District Judge, (FTC) Ongole.

Tuesday, this the 9th day of April, 2013.

MVOP No.84/2012

Between:

1. Yedlapalli Pushpalatha, W/o Srinivasa Rao, Housewife, Hindu, aged about 30 years,

2. Yedlapalli Anusha, D/o Srinivasa Rao, Hindu, aged about 19 years, Student,

3. Yedlapalli Veerabrahmeswara Rao, S/o Srinivasa Rao, Hindu, aged about 17 years, Student,

4. Yedlapalli Dhanalakshmi, D/o Srinivasa Rao, Hindu, aged 15 years, (3 & 4 being minors rep. by 1st petitioner)

5. Yedlapalli Anjamma, W/o Anjaneyulu,

All are residents of Govada Village, Addanki Mandal. …Petitioners

And

1. Bathula Yedukondalu, S/o Venkateswarlu, Driver Aged 34 years, Vaddera, Goli (V), Rentachintala Mandal, Guntur District

2. Battula Lakshma Reddy, S/o Eshwara Reddy, Hindu, aged----- years, Edulaguda, Owner Miryalaguda, Nalgoda District

3. The New India Assurance Company Limited Rep. by its branch Manager, Ongole (Policy No. 61320131110100001136 from 21-04-2011 to 20-04-2012) …Respondents This Petition came on 26-03-2013 for final hearing before me in the presence of Sri.G.Srinivasa Rao, Advocate for Petitioners and of Sri.K.Visweswara Rao, Advocate for 3rd Respondent; and 1st & 2nd respondents are having remained ex-parte and upon perusing oral and documentary evidence on record, and the matter having stood over for consideration to this day, the court made the following:-

// A W A R D //

1.This petition is filed by the petitioners U/sec. 166 of M.V.Act claiming compensation of Rs.10,00,000/- for the death of Yedlapalli

Srinivasa Rao S/o Anjaiah, who died in a Motor Vehicle Accident. The said Yedlapalli Srinivasa Rao is the deceased in this case and he will be herein after referred as the deceased.

1st petitioner is wife; Petitioners 2 to 4 are the children and 5th

Petitioner is mother of the deceased; father of the deceased pre- deceased him.

2.It is the case of the petitioners, that the deceased was aged about 40 years, he was hale & healthy; and he was having 15 acres of land 2 and also supplying milk to the milk collection center and earning an amount of Rs.10,000/- per month and contributing the same to the petitioners. While so, on 21-10-2011 when the deceased and another were going on Motor Cycle towards Govada at about 8-00 P.M and when they reached D.S.V. Poultry form at about 8-20 P.M, a lorry baring No. AP 24 TA 4555 came in opposite direction in a rash and negligent manner driven by its driver and dashed to the Motor cycle. As a result, the deceased fell down and received injuries and died on the spot. Other person received injuries. A case was also registered in Cr.No.138/2011 in Addanki P.S against the driver of the crime vehicle for the offence

U/sec.338 & 304-A IPC. Because of the sudden death of the deceased the petitioners lost their earning member and there is no body to look after them.

Hence, the first respondent being driver of the crime vehicle; 2nd respondent being owner and 3rd respondent being insurer of the crime vehicle, are jointly and severally liable to pay compensation.

3.After receipt of notices R1 & R2 remained ex-parte;

4.After receipt of notice, R3 engaged counsel and filed written statement denying the averments of the petition including the manner of the accident; age; avocation; income and health condition of the deceased. It is further submitted that the accident occurred due to the negligence of the deceased but not due to the driver of the lorry. The driver of the lorry was not having valid and effective driving license; there was contributory negligence on the part of the drivers of the both the vehicles. This petition is bad for non joinder of owner and insurer of the motor Cycle. The amount claimed by the petitioners is excessive. If any compensation is awarded it has to be restricted under the provisions of M.V.Act. This respondent is seeking protection U/sec.147 &149 of

M.V.Act and prayed for dismissal of the petition 3

5.Basing on the above pleadings, the following issues are settled for trial.

i)Whether Yedlapalli Srinivasa Rao died in the accident caused on 21-10-2011 at about 8-20 P.M due to rash and negligent driving of the driver of the lorry bearing No. AP 24 TA 4555 ?

ii) Whether the petitioners are entitled to claim for any compensation? If so, to what amount and from whom?

iii) To what relief?

6.To prove the case of the petitioners, P.Ws 1 to 3 are examined and

Exs. A1 to A7 and Ex.X1 are marked. On behalf of R3 employee in R3

Insurance Company is examined as R.W1 and Exs. B1 & B2 are marked.

On behalf of R3, petition filed U/sec.170 of M.V.Act to take all the defences available to R2 and the same is allowed.

7.After closure of the evidence, arguments heard on both sides.

Written Arguments filed on behalf of the petitioners.

8. Issue No:1. Whether Yedlapalli Srinivasa Rao died in the accident caused on 21-10-2011 at about 8-20 P.M due to rash and negligent driving of the driver of the lorry bearing No. AP 24 TA 4555 ?

First petitioner is examined as P.W1; in her chief examination she reiterated what was mentioned in the petition. According to her evidence and as per the petition averments, when the deceased and other were going on Motor Cycle on 21-10-2011 and when they reached

D.V.S Poultry form at about 8-20 P.M lorry bearing No. AP 24 TA 4555 came in opposite direction in a rash and negligent manner driven by its driver and dashed to the Motor Cycle. As a result, the deceased died on the spot.

P.W2 is shown as eye witnesses to the incident. He also deposed that when the deceased and another were going on Motor Cycle, a lorry came in a rash and negligent manner driven by its driver and dashed to the Motor Cycle. As a result, the deceased fell down received injuries and died on the spot.

The Petitioners filed the following documents to prove their case:

4

Ex.A1: Certified copy of FIR in Crime No.138/2011 registered in Addanki P.S against the driver of the crime vehicle for the offence U/secs.338 & 304-A IPC wherein it is mentioned that the accident occurred due to the rash and negligent driving of the driver of the lorry.

Ex.A2:Certified copy of inquest report

Ex.A3:Certified copy of the report of the Post Mortem Examination

Ex.A4:Certified copy of the report of Motor Vehicle Inspector wherein it is mentioned that the accident has not occurred due to any mechanical defects of the crime vehicle.

Ex.A5:Certified copy of charge sheet filed in the above said crime number on the file Addl. Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Addanki against the driver of the crime vehicle for the offence U/sec.338 & 304-A IPC and sec.134(a)(b) r/w 187 of M.V.Act wherein the investigating officer stated that on 21- 10-2011 the deceased and other were going on Motor cycle at about 8-20 P.M when they reached D.S.V. Poultry form, Addanki, the driver of the lorry came in a rash and negligent manner and hit the Motor Cycle. As a result, the deceased fell down and received injuries and died on the spot.

R1 who is driver; R2 who is owner of the crime vehicle remained ex-parte; On behalf of R3, employee in R3 Insurance Company is examined as R.W1 but he is not eye witness to the accident. Hence, from the evidence of P.Ws 1 & 2 and from Exs.A1 to A5 it is proved that the accident occurred due to the rash and negligent driving of the driver of the crime vehicle by its driver who is R1. Accordingly this issue is answered.

9.Issue No.2:

Whether the petitioners are entitled to claim for any compensation? If so, to what amount and from whom?

As the accident occurred due to the rash and negligent driving of driver of the crime vehicle by its driver, the owner and insurer are liable to pay compensation.

Liability of R1:- In issue No.1 it is decided that the accident occurred due to the rash and negligent driving of the crime vehicle by its driver who is R1. Hence, R1 is liable to pay compensation.

5

Liability of R2:- Ex.B1 is copy of policy. As per Ex.B1, R2 is owner of the crime vehicle. Hence, R2 being owner is vicariously liable to pay compensation.

Liability of R3:- It is the contention of R3 that the driver of the crime vehicle was not having valid driving license; hence, R3 is not liable to pay compensation but except oral saying R3 has not filed any documentary evidence and it has not made any attempt to prove that the driver was not having valid driving license as on the date of the accident. More over, R.W1 in his cross examination he admitted that the policy was in force as on the date of the accident and the driver of the crime vehicle was having valid driving license. Hence, R3 is liable to pay compensation.

10.Quantum of Compensation: As per the petitioners, the deceased was aged 40 years by the time of the accident. Even in Ex.A3- certified copy of Post mortem examination and Ex.A5 certified copy of charge sheet, the age of the deceased is shown as 40 years. Hence, the age of the deceased has to be taken as 40 years. The contention of the petitioners is that the deceased was having 15 acres of land, he used to supply milk to milk collection center and getting income of

Rs.10,000/- per month. To prove the same, milk card is marked as

Ex.A6. P.W3 is examined; according to his evidence he is working as manager in milk collection society. He deposed that the deceased used to supply milk and used to pay 10,000/- to 12,000/- per month. He produced Batwada Register, it is marked as EX.X1. But Ex.A6 and Ex.X1 are not showing the holdings and yieldings of the deceased. Hence, they are not much helpful to prove the case of the petitioners. Even in the absence of proof of income we can take that the deceased was earning at least 4,500/- per month i.e., Rs.54,000/- per annum.

6

As per the 2nd schedule of M.V.Act, for the persons whose age is in between 35 and 40 years, the multiplier is “16” and for the income group of Rs.54,000/- per annum, the compensation payable is (Rs.54,000/- x 16 = Rs.8,64,000/-) Rs.8,64,000/-.

The learned counsel for the petitioners argued that if the dependents are more, 1/4th has to be deducted towards personal expenses of the deceased. In support of his contention he relied on a decision reported in Kema Balanarasamma and others V/s Depot

Manager, A.P.State Transport Corporation, Rangareddy District

and others 2012(6) ALD 450.

According to this decision if number of dependents are four in number 1/4 th has to be deducted towards personal expenses of the deceased.

In the instant case, petitioners are five in number, hence 1/4rd i.e. Rs.2,16,000/- has to be deducted towards personal expenses of the deceased which the deceased would have incurred had he been alive (Rs.8,64,000/- – Rs.2,16,000/-= Rs.6,48,000/-) the compensation payable is Rs.6,48,000/-. Apart from it, the first petitioner is entitled for an amount of Rs.5,000/- towards loss of consortium and the petitioners are also entitled for an amount of Rs.2,000/- towards funeral expenses and Rs.2,500/- towards loss of estate.

So, the petitioners are entitled for the following amounts as compensation.

Compensation:Rs. 6,48,000/- Loss of consortium:Rs. 5,000/- Funeral expenses: Rs. 2,000/- Loss of estate:Rs. 2,500/- ________________ Total:Rs. 6,57,500/-

Thus, the petitioners are entitled for total compensation of

Rs.6,57,500/- The petitioners are also entitled for interest thereon at 7 9% P.A., from the date of petition i.e., 28-02-2012 till the date of realization with appropriate costs.

11.Apportionment of compensation:- First petitioner is wife aged 30 years, 2nd petitioner is daughter aged 19 years; 3rd petitioner is son aged 17 years; 4th petitioner is daughter aged 15 years; and 5th petitioner is mother. Taking into consideration of their ages and dependency,I am apportioning the compensation amount as follows:- 1st petitioner is entitled for an amount of Rs.1,57,500/- with interest and costs and she is permitted to withdraw an amount of

Rs.57,500/- with interest and costs and the remaining amount of her shall be kept in fixed deposit in any nationalized bank for a period of 3 years.

Petitioners 2 to 5 are entitled for an amount of Rs.1,25,000/- each with interest; 2nd petitioner is permitted to withdraw an amount of Rs.60,000/- and the remaining amount of her shall be kept in fixed deposit in any nationalized bank for a period of 3 years.

The entire amounts of the petitioners 3 & 4 shall be kept in fixed deposit in any nationalized bank till they attain majority; 5th Petitioner is permitted to withdraw her entire compensation amount with interest.

12.Issue No:3: To what relief?

In view of the decisions arrived in Issues 1 and 2, this petition is partly allowed with appropriate costs against R1 to R3 directing:-

i)The Respondents 1 to 3 do pay the compensation amount of

Rs.6,57,500/- with interest at 9% P.A. from the date of petition i.e. 28-02-2012, till the date of realization; ii)The Respondents 1 to 3 are jointly and severally liable to pay the above said compensation amount with interest and costs and they are directed to deposit the same within 30 days from the date of this award; 8 iii)On such deposit, 1st petitioner is entitled for an amount of

Rs.1,57,500/-with interest and costs and she is permitted to withdraw an amount of Rs.57,500/- with interest and costs and the remaining amount of her shall be kept in fixed deposit in any nationalized bank for a period of 3 years; and iv)Petitioners 2 to 5 are entitled for an amount of Rs.1,25,000/- each with interest and 2nd petitioner is permitted to withdraw an amount of Rs.60,000/- and the remaining amount of her shall be kept in fixed deposit in any nationalized bank for a period of 3 years;

v) The entire amounts of the petitioners 3 & 4 shall be kept in fixed deposit in any nationalized bank till they attain majority; vi)5th petitioner is permitted to withdraw her entire compensation amount with interest; and vii)Advocate fee is fixed at Rs.6,500/-

Dictated to the Personal Assistant, transcribed by him, corrected

and pronounced by me in Open Court, this 9th day of April, 2013.

Chairman, Permanent Lok Adalt, Chairman, Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal-cum- FAC V-Addl. District Judge,(FTC) Ongole.

Appendix of Evidence Witnesses Examined

For Petitioners: For Respondents:

PW.1:Y.PushpalathaR.W1:-Ch.Rambabu PW.2:M.Ramanjaneyulu PW.3:V.Chenna Reddy

Documents Marked

For petitioners:

Ex.A1:Certified copy of FIR Ex.A2:Certified copy of Inquest report Ex.A3:Certified copy of Post Mortem Examination certificate Ex.A4:Certified copy of MVI Report Ex.A5:Certified copy of charge sheet Ex.A6: Milk cards Ex.A7: Driving license of deceased Ex.A8: Minimum wage certificate Ex.X1: Acquitance Register

For Respondents

Ex.B1: Copy of Policy Ex.B2: xerox copy of Ration card

Chairman, P.L.A FAC::V-A.D.J 9

BEFORE THE MOTOR ACCIDENTS CLAIMS TRIBUNAL

(Before the V-Addl. District Judge, (FTC) Ongole)

Present:- Sri K.Rajkumar, M.Com., B.L.,

Chairman, Permanent Lok Adalt, cum –Chairman- MACT -cum-V- Additional

District Judge, (FTC) Ongole.

Tuesday, this the 9th day of April, 2013.

MVOP No.84/2012

Between:

1. Yedlapalli Pushpalatha, W/o Srinivasa Rao, Housewife, Hindu, aged about 30 years,

2. Yedlapalli Anusha, D/o Srinivasa Rao, Hindu, aged about 19 years, Student,

3. Yedlapalli Veerabrahmeswara Rao, S/o Srinivasa Rao, Hindu, aged about 17 years, Student,

4. Yedlapalli Dhanalakshmi, D/o Srinivasa Rao, Hindu, aged 15 years, (3 & 4 being minors rep. by 1st petitioner)

5. Yedlapalli Anjamma, W/o Anjaneyulu,

All are residents of Govada Village, Addanki Mandal. …Petitioners

And

1. Bathula Yedukondalu, S/o Venkateswarlu, Driver Aged 34 years, Vaddera, Goli (V), Rentachintala Mandal, Guntur District

2. Battula Lakshma Reddy, S/o Eshwara Reddy, Hindu, aged----- years, Edulaguda, Owner Miryalaguda, Nalgoda District

3. The New India Assurance Company Limited Rep. by its branch Manager, Ongole (Policy No. 61320131110100001136 from 21-04-2011 to 20-04-2012)

.... Respondents

This petition is filed by the petitioners U/sec.166 of M.V. Act, claiming compensation of Rs.10,00,000/- for the death of the deceased Yedlapalli Srinivasa Rao S/o Anjaiah, in a Motor Vehicle Accident occurred on 21-10-2011 at about 8-20 hrs night while he was coming towards Addanki to Singarayakonda near D.S.V Poultry form within the limits of Addanki P.S., in Cr.No.138/2011 U/sec.338 IPC, 304-A IPC and for costs and other reliefs.

Petition presented on:28-02-2012 And filed on:16-03-2012

Court Fee:- A Court fee of Rs.9,360/- is paid U/Sec.475 of M.V. Rules for the compensation amount of Rs.10,00,000/- on the account of Prl. District Court.

This Petition came on 26-03-2013 for final hearing before me in the presence of Sri.G.Srinivasa Rao, Advocate for Petitioners and of Sri.K.Visweswara Rao, Advocate for 3rd Respondent; and 1st & 2nd respondents are having remained ex-parte and upon perusing oral and documentary evidence on record, and the matter having stood over for consideration to this day, the court doth order and decree:- 10

1. That Respondents 1 to 3 do pay the compensation amount of Rs.6,57,500/- with interest at 9% P.A. from the date of petition i.e., on 28-02-2012 till the date of realization;

2. That the Respondents 1 to 3 are jointly and severally liable to pay the above said compensation amount with interest and costs and they are directed to deposit the same within 30 days from the date of this award;

3. That the respondents 1 to 3 are also do pay a sum of Rs.12,756/- towards the costs of the petition.

4. That on such deposit, 1st petitioner is entitled for an amount of Rs.1,57,500/- with interest and costs and she is permitted to withdraw an amount of Rs.57,500/- with interest and costs and the remaining amount of her shall be kept in fixed deposit in any nationalized bank for a period of 3 years; and

5. Petitioners 2 to 5 are entitled for an amount of Rs.1,25,000/- each with interest and 2nd petitioner is permitted to withdraw an amount of Rs.60,000/- and the remaining amount of her shall be kept in fixed deposit in any nationalized bank for a period of 3 years; and

6. The entire amounts of the petitioners 3 & 4 shall be kept in fixed deposit in any nationalized bank till they attain majority;

7. 5th petitioner is permitted to withdraw her entire compensation amount with interest and;

8. Advocate fee is fixed at Rs.6,500/-

Given under my hand and the seal of the court, this the 9th day of April, 2013.

Chairman, Permanent Lok Adalat, FAC::Chairman, Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal- cum-V-Addl. District Judge,(FTC) Ongole.

TABLE OF COSTS

Petitioner R1 to R3 Vakalat2-00 Court Fee6,154-00 Process100-00 Advocate Fee 6,500-00 Publication charges--- Total 12,756-00

Chairman, P.L.A FAC::V-ADJ

1

BEFORE THE MOTOR ACCIDENTS CLAIMS TRIBUNAL

(Before the V-Addl. District Judge, (FTC) Ongole)

Present:- Sri K.Rajkumar, M.Com., B.L.,

Chairman, Permanent Lok Adalt, cum –Chairman- MACT -cum-V- Additional

District Judge, (FTC) Ongole.

Tuesday, this the 16th day of April, 2013.

MVOP No. 83/2011

Between: Thelagathoti Sunil Kumar S/o Hanumantha Rao, Aged about 15 years, Mala by caste, student, Kothakota Village, Naguluppalapadu Mandal, Prakasam district. (The petitioner is minor and he is represented by his father by name Thelagathoti Hanumantha Rao)

... Petitioner.

And

i)Chejerla Ramu S/o Koti Ratnam, Aged about 20 years, Jangam by caste, Yanadi Sangam Colony, Bodduvaripalem village, Santhanuthalapadu Mandal, Prakasam District. (Driver of Tractor bearing No.AP 27 X 6009) ii)Neppala Venkateswarlu, S/o Sree Ramulu, Aged about 33 years, Kamma by caste, Gummlampadu Village, S.N. Padu Mandal, Prakasam District. (Owner of the Tractor bearing No.AP 27 X 6009) iii)The Manager, The Oriental Insurance Company Limited., Near Nellore Bus stand Center, Ongole (Policy Bearing No. 432900/31/2010/1896 Valid from 22-08-2009 to mid night 21-08-2010) iv)Vaka Veera Reddy S/o Koti Reddy, B.Nidamanuru Village, N.G.Padu Mandal, Prakasam District. (Owner cum drier of Auto bearing No.AP 07 Y 6840)

v)The Branch Manager, The United India Insurance Company limited Near Nellore Bus stand, Ongole Policy Bearing No.150703/31/09/09/01/00005996 Valid from 09-10- 2009 to up to 08-10-2010.…Respondents

This Petition came on 26-03-2013 for final hearing before me in the presence of Sri.P.V.Raghavulu, Advocate for Petitioner and of Sri. B.Bhaskara Rao, Advocate for 2nd respondent and of Sri.E.Rajasekhara Reddy, Advocate for 3rd Respondent; and of Sri.N.S.Srinivasulu, Advocate for 5th Respondent; and Respondents 1 & 4 are having remained ex-parte; and upon perusing oral and documentary evidence on record, and the matter having stood over for consideration to this day, the court made the following:-

// A W A R D //

1.This petition is filed by the Petitioner U/sec.166 of M.V. Act claiming compensation of Rs.2,00,000/- for the injuries sustained by him in a Motor Vehicle Accident.

2

2.It is the case of the petitioner, that the petitioner was aged about 15 years, he was studying 10th class in Zilla Praja Parishad High School at B.Nidamanuru village. He was hard working and intelligent. While so, on 30-12-2009, when the Petitioner and other players from Zilla Praja

Parishad School went to Ongole to participate in sports and after completion of the sports, when the Petitioner and other students were coming in Auto bearing No. AP-07 Y 6840, Tractor & Trailer bearing Nos.

AP-27 X 6009 & AP-27 X 6013 came in opposite direction in a rash and negligent manner, and because of the negligent driving of both the drivers the accident took place. As a result, the petitioner and other students sustained multiple injuries. The petitioner received multiple fractures to his left forearm and he was shifted to RIMS Hospital, thereafter he was shifted to Prasad Multi Speciality Hospital, at Ongole for better treatment and he was in the hospital for 10 days as inpatient and operation was conducted to his left hand and rods were also inserted to his left hand and he spent an amount of Rs.30,000/- towards medical and other expenditure. A case was also registered in

Cr.No.158/2009 in N.G.Padu P.S for the offence U/secs.304-A, 338 IPC and 134(a)(b) r/w 187 of M.V.Act.

Hence, R1 being driver; R2 being owner; R3 being insurer of the

Tractor & Trailer and R4 being owner cum driver of the Auto and R5 being insurer of the auto are jointly and severally liable to pay compensation to the petitioners with interest and costs.

3.After receipt of notices, R1, & R4 remained ex-parte.

4.After receipt of notice R2, engaged counsel and filed written statement denying all the averments of the petition including the manner of the accident, age, avocation,injuries sustained by the petitioner and the expenditure towards treatment. It is further submitted 3 the there was no negligence on the part of the driver of this respondent. This petition is bad for non-joinder of necessary parties The driver of this respondent got valid driving license and the policy was in force as on the date of the accident. Hence, 3rd respondent being insurer is liable to pay compensation. The amount claimed by the petitioner is excessive and prayed for dismissal of the petition.

5.After receipt of notice, R3 engaged counsel and filed written statement denying all the averments of the petition including the manner of the accident, age, avocation, injuries sustained by the petitioner and the expenditure towards treatment. It is further submitted the accident occurred due to the rash and negligent driving of the driver of the auto but not due to the driver of the Tractor & Trailer. There was no valid driving license to the driver of the Tractor, there was no valid permit and no valid policy. The matter of the accident is not reported by the insured in collusion with the petitioner. The amount claimed by the petitioner is excessive. This Respondent is seeking protection

U/secs.149 & 170 of M.V. Act and prayed for dismissal of the petition.

6.After receipt of notice, R5 engaged counsel and filed counter denying all the averments of the petition including the manner of the accident, age, avocation, injuries sustained by the petitioner and the expenditure towards treatment. It is further submitted that there was no negligence on the part of the driver of the Auto. But it was happened due to the negligent driving of the driver of the Tractor & Trailer. There was no valid policy and there was no valid driving license to the driver of the Auto. The matter of the accident is not reported by the insured in collusion with the petitioner. The police filed charge sheet against R1 &

R2 but not against R4; R4 has not violated the conditions of the policy.

because R4 was not having valid driving license to drive the Auto. The 4 amount claimed by the petitioner is excessive. This Respondent is seeking protection U/secs.147 & 149 of M.V. Act and prayed for dismissal of the petition.

7.Basing on the above pleadings, the following issues are settled for trial.

i)Whether the accident occurred due to the rash and negligent driving of the driver of M.F.Tractor No. AP 27 X 6009 at Pothavaram Kunta, B.Nidamanuru, on 30th December, 2009 at 20- 30 Hrs?

ii)Whether the petitioner is entitled for compensation. If, so to what amount and from whom?

iii)To what relief?

8.To prove the case of the petitioner, father of the petitioner is examined as P.W1 and the doctor is examined as P.W2 and Exs.A1 to

A10 are marked. On behalf of R3, Administrative Officer in R3 Insurance

Company is examined as R.W1 and Ex.B1 is marked. On behalf of R5,

Administrative Officer in R5 Insurance Company is examined as R.W2 and Exs.B2 & B3 are marked and the typist in RTO Office, Guntur is examined as R.W3 and got marked Exs.B4 & B5. On behalf of R3,

Petition filed U/sec.170 of M.V.Act to take all the defences available to

R1 and the same is allowed. On behalf of R5, Petition filed U/sec.170 of

M.V.Act to take all the defences available to R4 and the same is allowed.

9.After closure of the evidence, arguments heard on both sides.

Written Arguments filed on behalf of R3.

10. Issue No:1.

Whether the accident occurred due to the rash and negligent driving of the driver of M.F.Tractor No. AP 27 X 6009 at Pothavaram Kunta, B.Nidamanuru, on 30 th December, 2009 at 20-30 Hrs?

Father of the petitioner is examined as P.W1; in his chief examination he reiterated what was mentioned in the petition.

According to his evidence and as per the petition averments, when the 5

Petitioner and other students were going in an Auto, Tractor & Trailer came in opposite direction in a rash and negligent manner and caused the accident.

The Petitioner filed the following documents to prove his case:

Ex.A1: Certified copy of FIR in Crime No.158/2009 registered in N.G.Padu P.S against the driver of the Auto for the offence U/secs. 338, 304-A & Sec.134(a)(b) of M.V.Act wherein it is mentioned that when the Petitioner and others were going in an Auto, Tractor & Trailer came in opposite direction in a rash and negligent manner driven by its driver and caused the accident and the petitioner sustained multiple injuries.

Ex.A2:Certified copy of charge sheet filed in the above said crime number on the file the Spl. Judicial First Class Magistrate Excise Court, Ongole against R1, who is driver and against R2 who is owner of the Tractor wherein the Investigating Officer stated that when the Petitioner and others were going in an Auto Tractor & Trailer came in opposite direction in a rash and negligent manner and caused the accident. It is also mentioned that the owner allowed the driver to drive the Tractor & Trailer without driving license.

R1 who is driver of the Tractor remained ex-parte and kept silent.

RW.1 to RW.3 are not eye witnesses to the accident. Hence, there is no evidence contra to the evidence produced by the petitioners. Hence, from the evidence of P.W1 from Exs.A1 to A2 and from the circumstances it is proved that the accident occurred due to the rash and negligent driving of the Tractor & Trailer by its driver who is R1.

Accordingly this issue is answered.

11.Issue No.2:

Whether the petitioner is entitled to claim for any compensation? If so to what amount and from whom?

Liability of R1:- In issue No.1 it is decided that the accident occurred due to the rash and negligent driving of the Tractor by its driver who is

R1. Hence, R1 being driver is liable to pay compensation.

Liability of R2:- Ex.B1 is copy of policy. As per Ex.B1, R2 is owner of the Tractor & Trailer. Hence, R2 being owner is vicariously liable to pay compensation to the petitioner.

6

Liability of R3:It is the contention of R3 that the 1st respondent who was driver of the Tractor & Trailer was not having any type of driving license to drive the Tractor & Trailer. 2nd respondent who is owner of the Tractor allowed 1st respondent to drive the Tractor & Trailer without any type of driving license. Hence, 2nd respondent being owner violated the conditions of the policy and that R3 is not liable to pay compensation. To substantiate its case, Administrative Officer in R3

Insurance Company is examined as R.W1. He also deposed the same.

Copy of policy with conditions is marked as Ex.B1. The police filed charge sheet against R1 & R2. As per charge sheet which is marked as

Ex.A5. R1 being driver has driven the Tractor & Trailer in a rash and negligent manner and R2 who is owner allowed R1 to drive the Tractor with out driving license. So, it is clear that R1 the driver was not having driving license. Hence R3 is not liable to pay compensation.

Liability of R4 & R5: R4 is owner cum driver of the Auto. R5 is Insurer of the Auto. In view of the discussions made above, R4 & R5 are not liable to pay compensation.

12.Quantum of compensation:The petitioner is claiming compensation for:

a) Pain and Sufferings of the injuries sustained by her;

b) Expenditure towards treatment;

c)Loss of earnings; and

d)Disability

a) Pain and Sufferings: The contention of the petitioner is that because of the accident he received both bones fracture. To prove his contention he got marked certified copy of wound certificate as Ex.A10.

As per Ex.A10, the petitioner received both bones fracture and it is grievous in nature. P.W2 the doctor also deposed that he issued wound certificate and the petitioner received both bones fracture. Hence, I am awarding an amount of Rs.30,000/- under this head 7

b) Expenditure towards treatment: The contention of the petitioner is that he was in hospital for 10 days and he spent an amount of

Rs.30,000/- Ex.A5 is bill obtained from the hospital. It is for Rs.13,900/- it has to be rounded off to 14,000/-. Ex.A7 is medical bills 5 in number for an amount of Rs.7,000/-. The total amount comes to Rs.21,000/-.

(14,000/- + Rs.7,000/-). Hence, I am awarding the same.

c) Loss of earnings: The contention of the petitioner is that he was in the hospital from 30-12-2009 to 6-1-2010. Ex.A3 is discharge summary. As per Ex.A3 the petitioner was in the hospital from 30-12- 2009 to 6-1-2010. So he was in the hospital for 8 days. P.W2 the doctor also deposed the same. The contention of the petitioner is that he was aged about 15 years by the time of the accident and he was studying 10th class in Zilla Praja Parishad High School at B.Nidamanur village.

Because of the injuries there was disturbance to his studies. Somebody might have attended him when he was in the hospital. Though he was not earning member, because of the injuries sustained by him there may be some disturbance to the studies. Hence, In total I am awarding an amount of Rs.5,000/- under this head.

d) Disability:-. There is no evidence with regard to disability. Hence, the petitioner is not entitled for any amount under this head.

Accordingly, the petitioner is entitled for the following amounts as compensation.

Pain and Sufferings Rs. 30,000/- Expenditure towards treatmentRs. 21,000/- Loss of earningsRs. 5,000/- DisabilityRs. -----------/- Total: Rs. 56,000/-

Thus, the petitioner is entitled for total compensation of

Rs.56,000/- The petitioner is also entitled for interest at 9% P.A., from the date of petition i.e.,12-01-2011 till the date of realization.

13.Issue No:3:To what relief?

8

In view of the findings on the above issues; this petition is dismissed against R3, R4, & R5 and this petition is partly allowed with appropriate costs against Respondents 1 & 2 directing:-

i)The Respondents 1 & 2 do pay compensation amount of

Rs.56,000/- with interest at 9% P.A. from the date of petition i.e., on 12-01-2011 till the date of realization; ii)The Respondents 1 & 2 are jointly and severally liable to pay the above said compensation amount with interest and costs and they are directed to deposit the same within 30 days from the date of this award; iii)On such deposit the petitioner is permitted to withdraw the entire compensation amount with interest and costs; iv)Advocate fee is fixed at Rs.1,500/-.

Dictated to the Personal Assistant, transcribed by him, Corrected

and pronounced by me in Open Court, this 16th day of April, 2013.

Chairman, Permanent Lok Adalt, Chairman, Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal-cum- FAC V-Addl. District Judge,(FTC) Ongole.

Appendix of Evidence

Witnesses Examined

For Petitioner For Respondents

PW.1:Thelagathoti Hanumantha RaoR.W1: S.Siva Kumar PW.2:Dr.R.Jaya SekharR.W2: S.Sueela Devi R.W3: M.Nageswara Rao

Documents Marked

For petitioner:

Ex.A1: Certified copy of FIR Ex.A2: Certified copy of Charge sheet Ex.A3: Discharge summary Ex.A4:OP card of Prasad Hospital Ex.A5;Prasad Hospital cash bill dt. 06-01-2010 Ex.A6:Prasad Hospital prescriptions 6 in number Ex.A7:Medical bills 5 in number Ex.A8:Laboratory report Ex.A9:X-rays 4 in number Ex.A10:Certified copy of wound certificate

For Respondents:

Ex.B1: Copy of policy of R3 Ex.B2: Copy of policy of R5 Ex.B3: xerox copy of D.L of R4 Ex.B4: Authorization letter Ex.B5: Attested copy of D.L of R4

Chairman, P.L.A V-ADJ 9

BEFORE THE MOTOR ACCIDENTS CLAIMS TRIBUNAL

(Before the V-Addl. District Judge, (FTC) Ongole)

Present:- Sri K.Rajkumar, M.Com., B.L.,

Chairman, Permanent Lok Adalt, cum –Chairman- MACT -cum-V- Additional

District Judge, (FTC) Ongole.

Tuesday, this the 16th day of April, 2013.

MVOP No. 83/2011

Between: Thelagathoti Sunil Kumar S/o Hanumantha Rao, Aged about 15 years, Mala by caste, student, Kothakota Village, Naguluppalapadu Mandal, Prakasam district. (The petitioner is minor and he is represented by his father by name Thelagathoti Hanumantha Rao)

... Petitioner.

And

i)Chejerla Ramu S/o Koti Ratnam, Aged about 20 years, Jangam by caste, Yanadi Sangam Colony, Bodduvaripalem village, Santhanuthalapadu Mandal, Prakasam District. (Driver of Tractor bearing No.AP 27 X 6009) ii)Neppala Venkateswarlu, S/o Sree Ramulu, Aged about 33 years, Kamma by caste, Gummlampadu Village, S.N. Padu Mandal, Prakasam District. (Owner of the Tractor bearing No.AP 27 X 6009) iii)The Manager, The Oriental Insurance Company Limited., Near Nellore Bus stand Center, Ongole (Policy Bearing No. 432900/31/2010/1896 Valid from 22-08-2009 to mid night 21-08-2010) iv)Vaka Veera Reddy S/o Koti Reddy, B.Nidamanuru Village, N.G.Padu Mandal, Prakasam District. (Owner cum drier of Auto bearing No.AP 07 Y 6840)

v)The Branch Manager, The United India Insurance Company limited Near Nellore Bus stand, Ongole Policy Bearing No.150703/31/09/09/01/00005996 Valid from 09-10- 2009 to up to 08-10-2010.…Respondents

This petition is filed by the petitioner U/sec.166 of M.V. Act, claiming compensation of Rs.2,00,000/- for the injuries sustained by him in a motor vehicle accident occurred on 30-12-2009 at about 20-30 hrs pothavaram kunta, B.Nidamanur within the limits of Naguluppalapadu P.S (Cr.No.158/2009 U/sec.304-A,338 IPC and 134 a & b r/w 187 of M.V.Act) and for costs and other reliefs.

Petition presented on:12-01-2011 Date of filing:01-02-2011

Court Fee:- A Court fee of Rs.1,360/- is paid U/Sec.475 of M.V. Rules for the compensation amount of Rs.2,00,000/- on the account of Prl.

District Court, Ongole.

10

This Petition came on 26-03-2013 for final hearing before me in the presence of Sri.P.V.Raghavulu, Advocate for Petitioner and of Sri. B.Bhaskara Rao, Advocate for 2nd respondent and of Sri.E.Rajasekhara Reddy, Advocate for 3rd Respondent; and of Sri.N.S.Srinivasulu, Advocate for 5th Respondent; and Respondents 1 & 4 are having remained ex-parte; and upon perusing oral and documentary evidence on record, and the matter having stood over for consideration to this day, the court doth order and decree:-

i)That the Respondents 1 & 2 do pay the compensation amount of

Rs.56,000/- with interest at 9% P.A. from the date of petition i.e., on 12-01-2011 till the date of realization; ii) That the Respondents 1 & 2 are jointly and severally liable to pay the above said compensation amount with interest and costs and they are directed to deposit the said amount within 30 days from the date of this award; iii) That the Respondents 1 & 2 are also do pay a sum of Rs.1,910/-to the petitioner towards costs of this petition; iv) That on such deposit the Petitioner is permitted to withdraw the entire compensation amount with interest and costs;

v) That the petition be and the same is hereby dismissed against R3;

R4, & R5 and; vi) Advocate fee is fixed at Rs.1,500/-

Given under my hand and the seal of the court, this, the 16th day of April, 2013.

Chairman, Permanent Lok Adalt, Chairman, Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal-cum- FAC V-Addl. District Judge,(FTC) Ongole.

TABLE OF COSTS

Petitioner R1 & R2 Vakalat30-00 (C.M. & F.C. not filed) Court Fee380-00 Process-- Advocate Fee 1500-00 Commissioners fee-- Total Rs. 1,910-00

Chairman, P.L.A V-ADJ

1

BEFORE THE MOTOR ACCIDENTS CLAIMS TRIBUNAL

(Before the V-Addl. District Judge, (FTC) Ongole)

Present:- Sri K.Rajkumar, M.Com., B.L.,

Chairman, Permanent Lok Adalt, cum –Chairman- MACT -cum-V- Additional

District Judge, (FTC) Ongole.

Tuesday, this the 16th day of April, 2013.

MVOP No. 316/2010

Between:

1. Udaragudi Moshe, S/o Peda Raghavulu, Aged about 60 years, Hindu, SC-Mala, R/o B.Nidamanur Village, N.G. Padu Mandal, Prakasam District.

2. Udaragudi Subbayamma W/o Moshe, aged about 55 years, Hindu, SC-Mala, R/o B.Nidamanur Village, N.G.Padu Mandal, Prakasam District.…Petitioners

And

1. Neppalli Venkateswarlu S/o Sree Ramulu, Aged about 40 years, Hindu, Business, D.No.1-74, Gummanampadu Village, S.N. Padu Mandal, Prakasam District.

2. Chejerla Ramu S/o Koti Ratnam, Aged about 21 years, Jangam Yanadi, Sangam Colony, Bodduvanipalem, Korisapadu Mandal, Prakasam District.

3. M/s Oriental Insurance Company Limited., Rep. by its Branch Manager, Ongole Branch Policy Bearing No. 432900/31/2010/1896 Valid up to 21-08-2010.

4. Vaka Veera Reddy S/o Koti Reddy, @ Lakshala Koti Reddy, Aged about--- years, Hindu, Auto Owner cum driver, R/o B.Nidamanuru Village, N.G.Padu Mandal, Prakasam District.

5. The United India Insurance Company limited Represented by its Branch Manager, Ongole Branch, Policy Bearing No.150703/31/09/09/01/00005996 Valid up to 08-01- 2010. …Respondents

This Petition came on 26-03-2013 for final hearing before me in the presence of Sri.P.Lakshamaiah, Advocate for Petitioners and of Sri.E.Rajasekhara Reddy, Advocate for 3rdRespondent; and of Sri.N.S.Srinivasulu, Advocate for 5th Respondent; and Respondents 1,2,& 4 are having remained ex-parte; and upon perusing oral and documentary evidence on record, and the matter having stood over for consideration to this day, the court made the following:-

// A W A R D //

1.This petition is filed by the petitioners U/sec.166 of M.V. Act claiming compensation of Rs.5,00,000/- for the death of Udaragudi Naga 2

Raju S/o Moshe, who died in a Motor Vehicle Accident. The said

Udaragudi Nagaraju is the deceased in this case and he will be herein after referred as the deceased. Petitioners 1 and 2 are the parents of the deceased.

2.It is the case of the petitioners, that the deceased was aged about 16 years, he was studying 10th class in Zilla Praja Parishad High

School at B.Nidamanuru village and he is the only son to the petitioners.

He was hard working and intelligent. While so, on 30-12-2009, when the deceased and other players from Zilla Praja Parishad School went to

Ongole to participate in sports and after completion of the sports, when the deceased and other students were coming in Auto bearing No. AP-07

Y 6840 Tractor & Trailer bearing Nos. AP-27 X 6009 & AP-27 X 6013 came in opposite direction in a rash and negligent manner, and because of the negligent driving of both the drivers the accident took place. The deceased received fatal injuries and later died. Father of the deceased gave complaint against the owner of the Auto and case was also registered in Cr.No.158/2009 in N.G.Padu P.S for the offence U/secs.304-

A & 337 IPC.

Because of the sudden death of the deceased, the petitioners being parents are suffering a lot. Hence, R1 being owner; R2 being driver; R3 being insurer of the Tractor & Trailer and R4 being owner cum driver of the Auto and R5 being insurer of the auto are jointly and severally liable to pay compensation to the petitioners with interest and costs.

3.After receipt of notices, R1, R2 & R4 remained ex-parte.

4.After receipt of notice, R3 engaged counsel and filed written statement denying all the averments of the petition including the manner of the accident, age, avocation and health condition of the 3 deceased. It is further submitted the accident occurred due to the rash and negligent driving of the driver of the auto but not due to the driver of the Tractor & Trailer. There was no valid driving license to the driver of the Tractor, there was no valid permit and no valid policy. The matter of the accident is not reported by the insured in collusion with the petitioners. The amount claimed by the petitioners is excessive. This

Respondent is seeking protection U/secs.149 & 170 of M.V. Act and prayed for dismissal of the petition.

5.After receipt of notice, R5 engaged counsel and filed counter denying all the averments of the petition including the manner of the accident, age, avocation and health condition of the deceased. It is further submitted that there was no negligence on the part of the driver of the Auto. But it was happened due to the negligent driving of the driver of the Tractor & Trailer. There was no valid policy and there was no valid driving license to the driver of the Auto. The matter of the accident is not reported by the insured in collusion with the petitioners.

The police filed charge sheet against R1 & R2 but not against R4; R4 has not violated the conditions of the policy, because R4 was not having valid driving license to drive the Auto. The amount claimed by the petitioners is excessive. This Respondent is seeking protection

U/secs.147 & 149 of M.V. Act and prayed for dismissal of the petition.

6.Basing on the above pleadings, the following issues are settled for trial.

i)Whether the death of the deceased Udaragudi Naga Raju S/o Moshe R/o B.Nidamanur village, N.G.Padu Mandal, Prakasam District is occurred on 30-12-2009 due to rash and negligent driving of drivers of the Tractor & Trailer bearing No. AP 27 X 6009 and 6013 and Auto bearing No. AP 07 Y 6840?

ii)Whether the petitioners are entitled to claim for any compensation? If so to what amount and from whom?

4 iii)To what relief?

7.To prove the case of the petitioners, P.Ws 1 & 2 are examined and

Exs.A1 to A6 are marked. On behalf of R3, Administrative Officer in R3

Insurance Company is examined as R.W1 and Ex.B1 is marked. On behalf of R5, Administrative Officer in R5 Insurance Company is examined as R.W2 and Exs.B2 & B3 are marked and the typist in RTO

Office, Guntur is examined as R.W3 and got marked Exs.B4 & B5. On behalf of R3, Petition filed U/sec.170 of M.V.Act to take all the defences available to R1 and the same is allowed. On behalf of R5, Petition filed

U/sec.170 of M.V.Act to take all the defences available to R4 and the same is allowed.

8.After closure of the evidence, arguments heard on both sides.

Written Arguments filed on behalf of R3.

9. Issue No:1.

Whether the death of the deceased Udaragudi Naga Raju S/o Moshe R/o B.Nidamanur village, N.G.Padu Mandal, Prakasam District is occurred on 30-12-2009 due to rash and negligent driving of drivers of the Tractor & Trailer bearing No. AP 27 X 6009 and 6013 and Auto bearing No. AP 07 Y 6840?

First petitioner is examined as P.W1; in his chief examination he reiterated what was mentioned in the petition. According to his evidence and as per the petition averments, when the deceased and other students were going in an Auto, Tractor & Trailer came in opposite direction in a rash and negligent manner and caused the accident. P.W2 is one of the inmates of the Auto and he is the eye witness to the accident. He also deposed the same.

The Petitioners filed the following documents to prove their case:

Ex.A1: Certified copy of FIR in Crime No.158/2009 registered in N.G.Padu P.S against the driver of the Auto for the offence U/secs. 337, 304-A & Sec.134(a)(b) of M.V.Act wherein it is 5 mentioned that when the deceased and others were going in an Auto, Tractor & Trailer came in opposite direction in a rash and negligent manner and caused the accident and the deceased received fatal injuries and died.

Ex.A2:Certified copy of inquest conducted over the dead body of the deceased.

Ex.A3:Certified of Post Mortem Examination Report

Ex.A5:Certified copy of charge sheet filed in the above said crime number on the file the Spl. Judicial First Class Magistrate Excise Court, Ongole against R2, who is driver and against R1 who is owner of the Tractor wherein the Investigating Officer stated that when the deceased and others were going in an Auto Tractor & Trailer came in opposite direction in a rash and negligent manner and caused the accident. It is also mentioned that the owner allowed the driver to drive the Tractor & Trailer without driving license.

R1 who is owner of the Tractor, R2 who is driver of the Tractor remained ex-parte and kept silent. R1 to R3 are not eye witnesses to the accident. Hence, there is no evidence contra to the evidence produced by the petitioners. Hence, from the evidence of P.Ws 1 & 2 from Exs. A1 to A3 & A5 and from the circumstances it is proved that the accident occurred due to the rash and negligent driving of the Tractor &

Trailer by its driver who is R2. Accordingly this issue is answered.

10.Issue No.2:

Whether the petitioners are entitled to claim for any compensation? If so to what amount and from whom?

Liability of R1:- Ex.B1 is copy of policy. As per Ex.B1, R1 is owner of the Tractor & Trailer. Hence, R1 being owner is vicariously liable to pay compensation to the petitioners.

Liability of R2:- In issue No.1 it is decided that the accident occurred due to the rash and negligent driving of the Tractor by its driver who is

R2. Hence, R2 being driver is liable to pay compensation.

Liability of R3: It is the contention of R3 that the 2nd respondent who was driver of the Tractor & Trailer was not having any type of driving license to drive the Tractor & Trailer. 1st respondent who is 6 owner of the Tractor, allowed 2nd respondent to drive the Tractor &

Trailer without any type of driving license. Hence, 1st respondent being owner violated the conditions of the policy and that R3 is not liable to pay compensation. To substantiate its case, Administrative Officer in R3

Insurance Company is examined as R.W1. He also deposed the same.

Copy of policy with conditions is marked as Ex.B1. The police filed charge sheet against R1 & R2. As per charge sheet which is marked as

Ex.A5, R2 being driver has driven the Tractor & Trailer in a rash and negligent manner and R1 who is owner allowed R2 to drive the Tractor with out driving license. So, it is clear that R2 the driver was not having driving license. Hence R3 is not liable to pay compensation.

Liability of R4 & R5: R4 is owner cum driver of the Auto. R5 is Insurer of the Auto. In view of the discussions made above, R4 & R5 are not liable to pay compensation.

11.Quantum of Compensation: As per the petitioners, the deceased was aged 16 years by the date of the accident. Even in Ex.A2 certified copy of inquest, Ex.A3 certified copy of post mortem examination, Ex.A5 Certified copy of charge sheet, the age of the deceased is shown as 16 years. So, the age of the deceased has to be taken as 16 years. The contention of the petitioners is that the deceased was studying 10th class by the time of the accident and he was brilliant student.

In view of the circumstances notional income may be taken as

Rs.4,500/- per month i.e., Rs.54,000/- Per annum. The deceased was aged 16 years and he was un-married by the time of the accident. So, age of his mother has to be taken into consideration. 2nd petitioner is mother of the deceased. The age of the 2nd petitioner is shown as 55 years.

7

As per the 2nd schedule of M.V.Act, for the persons whose age is in between 50 and 55 years, the multiplier is “11” and for the income group of Rs.54,000/- per annum, the compensation payable is (Rs.54,000/- x 11 = Rs.5,94,000/-) Rs.5,94,000/-. Out of the same, half of the amount i.e. Rs.2,97,000/- has to be deducted towards personal expenses of the deceased which the deceased would have incurred had he been alive (Rs.5,94,000/- – Rs.2,97,000/- = Rs.2,97,000/-) the compensation payable is Rs.2,97,000/-. Apart from it, petitioners are entitled for an amount of Rs.5,000/- towards love and affection; petitioners are entitled for Rs.2,000/- towards funeral expenses and

Rs.2,500/- towards loss of estate.

So, the petitioners are entitled for the following amounts as compensation.

Compensation:Rs.2,97,000/- Love & affection:Rs. 5,000/- Funeral expenses: Rs.2,000/- Loss of estate:Rs.2,500/- ______________ Total:Rs.3,06,500/-

Thus, the petitioners are entitled for total compensation of

Rs.3,06,500/- The petitioners are also entitled for interest thereon at 9% P.A., from the date of petition i.e. 13-07-2010 till the date of realization with appropriate costs.

14.Apportionment of compensation:- The 1st petitioner is father of the deceased aged 60 years; 2nd petitioner is mother of the deceased, aged 55 years. Taking into consideration of their ages and dependency,

I am apportioning the compensation amount as follows:-

The petitioners 1 and 2 are equally entitled the entire compensation amount with interest and costs and they are permitted to with draw their entire compensation amount with interest and costs.

12.Issue No:3:To what relief?

8

In view of the decisions arrived in Issues 1 and 2, this petition is dismissed against R3, R4 & R5 and this petition is partly allowed with appropriate costs against R1 & R2 directing:

i)The Respondents 1 & 2 do pay the compensation amount of

Rs.3,06,500/- with interest at 9% P.A. from the date of petition i.e. 13-07-2010, till the date of realization; ii)The Respondents 1 & 2 are jointly and severally liable to pay the above said compensation amount with interest and costs and they are directed to deposit the same within 30 days from the date of this award; iii)On such deposit, petitioners 1 and 2 are equally entitled the entire compensation amount with interest and costs and they are permitted to with draw their entire compensation amount with interest and costs; and iv)Advocate fee is fixed at Rs.3,000/-.

Dictated to the Personal Assistant, transcribed by him, corrected

and pronounced by me in Open Court, this the 16th day of April, 2013.

Chairman, Permanent Lok Adalt, Chairman, Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal-cum- FAC V-Addl. District Judge,(FTC) Ongole.

Appendix of Evidence

Witnesses Examined

For Petitioners: For Respondents:

PW.1:V.MosheR.W1: S.Siva Kumar P.W2: P.A.Prasad @ VeeraAnjaneyuluR.W2:A.Suseela Devi R.W3:M.Nageswara Rao

Documents Marked

For petitioners:

Ex.A1: Certified copy of FIR in Cr.No.158/2009 Ex.A2:Certified copy of Inquest report Ex.A3:Certified copy of Post Mortem Examination certificate Ex.A4:Certified copy of report of MVI Ex.A5:Certified copy of charge sheet Ex.A6: Marks Certificate

For Respondents

Ex.B1: Copy of policy by R3 Ex.B2: Copy of policy by R5 Ex.B3: Extract of Driving license Ex.B4: Authorization letter Ex.B5: Extract of Driving license. Chairman, P.L.A V-ADJ 9

BEFORE THE MOTOR ACCIDENTS CLAIMS TRIBUNAL

(Before the V-Addl. District Judge, (FTC) Ongole)

Present:- Sri K.Rajkumar, M.Com., B.L.,

Chairman, Permanent Lok Adalt, cum –Chairman- MACT -cum-V- Additional

District Judge, (FTC) Ongole.

Tuesday, this the 16th day of April, 2013.

MVOP No. 316/2010

Between:

1. Udaragudi Moshe, S/o Peda Raghavulu, Aged about 60 years, Hindu, SC-Mala, R/o B.Nidamanur Village, N.G. Padu Mandal, Prakasam District.

2. Udaragudi Subbayamma W/o Moshe, aged about 55 years, Hindu, SC-Mala, R/o B.Nidamanur Village, N.G.Padu Mandal, Prakasam District.…Petitioners

And

1. Neppalli Venkateswarlu S/o Sree Ramulu, Aged about 40 years, Hindu, Business, D.No.1-74, Gummanampadu Village, S.N. Padu Mandal, Prakasam District.

2. Chejerla Ramu S/o Koti Ratnam, Aged about 21 years, Jangam Yanadi, Sangam Colony, Bodduvanipalem, Korisapadu Mandal, Prakasam District.

3. M/s Oriental Insurance Company Limited., Rep. by its Branch Manager, Ongole Branch Policy Bearing No. 432900/31/2010/1896 Valid up to 21-08-2010.

4. Vaka Veera Reddy S/o Koti Reddy, @ Lakshala Koti Reddy, Aged about--- years, Hindu, Auto Owner cum driver, R/o B.Nidamanuru Village, N.G.Padu Mandal, Prakasam District.

5. The United India Insurance Company limited Represented by its Branch Manager, Ongole Branch, Policy Bearing No.150703/31/09/09/01/00005996 Valid up to 08-01- 2010. …Respondents

This petition is filed by the petitioners U/sec.166 of M.V. Act, claiming compensation of Rs.5,00,000/- for the death of the deceased

Udaragudi Naga Raju S/o Moshe in a Motor Vehicle Accident occurred on 30-12-2009 at about 8-00 P.M near Pothavaram Kunta between the villages of NG Padu & B.Nidamanuru, within the limits of N.G.Padu P.S., in Cr.No.158/2009 U/secs.304-A, 337 IPC r/w 134 (A & B) of M.V.Act and for costs and other reliefs.

Petition presented on:13-07-2010 And filed on:12-08-2010 10 Court Fee:- A Court fee of Rs.4,360/- is paid U/Sec.475 of M.V. Rules for the compensation amount of Rs.5,00,000/- on the account of Prl. District Court.

This Petition came on 26-03-2013 for final hearing before me in the presence of Sri.P.Lakshamaiah, Advocate for Petitioners and of Sri.E.Rajasekhara Reddy, Advocate for 3rdRespondent; and of Sri.N.S.Srinivasulu, Advocate for 5th Respondent; and Respondents 1,2,& 4 are having remained ex-parte; and upon perusing oral and documentary evidence on record, and the matter having stood over for consideration to this day, the court doth order and decree:-

1. That Respondents 1 & 2 do pay the compensation amount of Rs.3,06,500/- with interest at 9% P.A. from the date of petition i.e., on 13-07-2010 till the date of realization;

2. That the Respondents 1 & 2 are jointly and severally liable to pay the above said compensation amount with interest and costs and they are directed to deposit the same within 30 days from the date of this award;

3. That the respondents 1 & 2 are also do pay a sum of Rs.NIL/-(CM & FC not filed) towards the costs of the petition.

4. That on such deposit, Petitioners 1 & 2 are equally entitled the entire compensation amount with interest and costs and they permitted to withdraw their entire compensation amount with interest and costs and;

5. That the petition be and the same is hereby dismissed against R3,R4 & R5

6. Advocate fee is fixed at Rs.3,000/-

Given under my hand and the seal of the court, this the 16th day of April, 2013.

Chairman, Permanent Lok Adalt, Chairman, Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal-cum- FAC V-Addl. District Judge,(FTC) Ongole.

TABLE OF COSTS

CM & FC not filed

Chairman, P.L.A FAC::V-ADJ

1

BEFORE THE MOTOR ACCIDENTS CLAIMS TRIBUNAL

(Before the V-Addl. District Judge, (FTC) Ongole)

Present:- Sri K.Rajkumar, M.Com., B.L.,

Chairman MACT-cum-V- Additional District Judge (FTC) Ongole.

Wednesday, this the 3rd day of April, 2013.

MVOP No. 353/2011

Between:

1. Kalathuvli Gangadevi W/o K.S. Johny, aged 40 years, Housewife, Chachatti by caste

2. Kalathuvli Sindhusha D/o K.S.Johny, aged 20 years,

3. Kalathuvli Reshma D/o K.S.Johyny, aged 17 years

Third petitioner being minor represented by Mother/1st petitioner

All are residents of Indira Nagar, Y.Palem(P) & (M), Prakasam District…Petitioners

And

1. M.Ramesh Babu S/o Lakshmi Narayana, Aged 32 years, R/o 11-242, N.G.O. Colony, Yerragondapalem (V) & (M), Prakasam District. (Owner of the lorry bearing No. AP 27 -X -2394)

2. Reliance General Insurance company Limited Rep. By its Manager 40-1-20/1, 3rd floor, Surya Towers, M.G.Road, Vijayawada-520010 (Policy No. 1803702334001564 Valid from 12-02-2011 to 11-02-2012) …Respondents

This Petition came on 15-03-2013 for final hearing before me in the presence of Sri.G.Ravi Sankar, Advocate for Petitioners and of Sri.E.Rajasekhara Reddy, Advocate for 2nd Respondent; and first respondent is having remained ex-parte and upon perusing oral and documentary evidence on record, and the matter having stood over for consideration to this day, the court made the following:-

// A W A R D //

1.This petition is filed by the petitioners U/secs.163-A and 167 of

M.V. Act claiming compensation of Rs.6,00,000/- for the death of

K.S.Johny S/o Samuel, who died in a Motor Vehicle Accident. The said

K.S.Johny is the deceased in this case and he will be herein after referred as the deceased.

1st petitioner is wife; Petitioners 2 & 3 are the daughters of the deceased.

2

2.It is the case of the petitioners, that the deceased was aged 45 years, and he was working as lorry driver and earning an amount of

Rs.6,000/- per month. While so, on 27-05-2011 at about 12-30 P.M when the deceased was driving the lorry bearing no. AP 27 X 2394, dashed against the stationed water tanker. In that process the deceased and another person died near Nidiguntapalem X-roads, Venkatachalam (M)

Nellore District. The relative of another deceased lodged a complaint to the police, basing on the complaint, a case was registered in

Cr.No.66/2011 for the offence U/sec.337, 304-A IPC in V.Satram P.S. Due to the sudden death of the deceased, the petitioners are suffering a lot.

The deceased died during the course of employment and out of the use of the lorry.

Hence, the first respondent being owner of the lorry and the 2nd respondent being insurer of the lorry are liable to pay compensation to the petitioners in view of section 163-A & 167 of M.V.Act.

3.After receipt of notice R1, remained ex-parte;

4.After receipt of notice, R2 engaged counsel and filed written statement denying the averments of the petition including the manner of the accident; age; avocation; income and health condition of the deceased. It is further submitted that there was no negligence on the part of the driver of the lorry (deceased) but it was happened due to the negligence of the driver of the water tanker because it was stationed in the middle of the road without signals. This petition is bad for non- joinder of the driver, owner and insurer of the water tanker. There was no valid driving license to the deceased who was driving the lorry.

There was no valid permit and there was no valid policy. The matter of the accident is not reported by the insured in collusion with the petitioners. The amount claimed by the petitioners is excessive and if any compensation is awarded it has to be restricted under the provisions 3 of M.V.Act and the respondent is seeking protection U/sec.147 & 149 of

M.V.Act and prayed for dismissal of the petition.

5.Basing on the above pleadings, the following issues are settled for trial.

i)Whether the death of the deceased K.S.Johny S/o Samuel occurred on 27-05-2011 at about 12-30PM in the accident caused by the lorry bearing No. AP 27 X2394?

ii)Whether the petitioners are entitled to claim for any compensation? If so, to what amount and from whom?

iii)To what relief?

6.To prove the case of the petitioners, 1st petitioner is examined as

PW.1, and owner of the lorry who is R1 is examined as P.W2 and Exs. A1 to A4 are marked. On behalf of R2, no witnesses are examined and no documents are marked. On behalf of R2, petition filed U/sec.170 of

M.V.Act to take all the defences available to R1 and the same is allowed.

7.After closure of the evidence, arguments heard on both sides.

8. Issue No:1. Whether the death of the deceased K.S.Johny S/o Samuel occurred on 27-05-2011 at about 12-30 PM in the accident caused by the lorry bearing No. AP 27 X 2394?

First petitioner is examined as P.W1; in her chief examination she reiterated what was mentioned in the petition. According to her evidence and as per the petition averments when the deceased being driver was taking the lorry bearing No.AP 27 X 2394 belonging to R1 dashed against the stationed water tanker and due to that the deceased died while using the lorry belonging to R1 while under his employment.

The Petitioners filed the following documents to prove their case:

Ex.A1: Attested copy of FIR in Crime No.66/2011 registered in V.Satram P.S against the driver of the lorry (deceased). As per the contents of F.I.R while the deceased was driving the lorry the accident took place.

Ex.A2:Attested copy of inquest conducted over the dead body of the deceased.

4

Ex.A3:Attested copy of the report of the Post Mortem Examination

Ex.A4:Attested copy of the report of Motor Vehicle Inspector.

R1 who is owner of the lorry remained ex-parte; but he is examined as P.W2 on behalf of the petitioners. He deposed that he is owner of the lorry and when the deceased was driving the lorry the accident took place. So, it is proved that during the course of employment under R1 (P.W2) and while the deceased was driving the lorry belonging to R1 the accident took place and the deceased died.

More over, on behalf of R2, Insurance company, no evidence is adduced.

Accordingly this issue is answered.

9.Issue No.2:

Whether the petitioners are entitled to claim for any compensation? If so, to what amount and from whom?

Liability of R1:- In issue No.1, it is decided that the deceased died when he was under the employment of R1 and when he was driving the lorry belonging to R1 the accident took place. Hence, R1 being employer is liable to pay compensation.

Liability of R2:- R1 is examined as P.W2. He categorically deposed that the lorry was insured with R2 and the policy was in force as on the date of the accident. But R2 has not adduced any evidence and there was no evidence contra to the evidence produced by the petitioners.

Hence, R2 is liable to pay compensation.

10.Quantum of Compensation: As per the petitioners, the deceased was aged 45 years. Even in Ex.A2-Attested copy of inquest;

Ex.A3 attested copy of report of Post mortem examination, the age of the deceased is shown as 46 years. So, the age of the deceased has to be taken as 46 years. As per the petitioners, the deceased was working as driver and getting income of Rs.6,000/- per month but they have not produced any documentary evidence. Police records and the evidence of P.Ws.1 & 2 are showing that the deceased was working as lorry driver 5 and when he was taking the lorry as driver, the accident took place.

But, there is no proof with regard to income. Even in the absence of proof of income we can take that the deceased was earning at least

Rs.4,500/- per month i.e., Rs.4,500 x12 = Rs.54,000/- per annum.

As per the 2nd schedule of M.V.Act, for the persons whose age is in between 45 and 50 years, the multiplier is “13” and for the income group of Rs.54,000/- per annum, the compensation payable is (Rs.54,000/- x 13 = Rs.7,02,000/-) Rs.7,02,000/-. Out of the same, 1/3rd i.e. Rs.2,34,000/- has to be deducted towards personal expenses of the deceased which the deceased would have incurred had he been alive (Rs.7,02,000/- – Rs.2,34,000/- = Rs.4,68,000/-) the compensation payable is Rs.4,68,000/-. Apart from it, the first petitioner is entitled for an amount of Rs.5,000/- towards loss of consortium and the petitioners are also entitled for an amount of Rs.2,000/- towards funeral expenses and Rs.2,500/- towards loss of estate.

So, the petitioners are entitled for the following amounts as compensation.

Compensation:Rs.4,68,000/- Loss of consortium:Rs. 5,000/- Funeral expenses: Rs.2,000/- Loss of estate:Rs. 2,500/- ______________ Total:Rs.4,77,500/-

Thus, the petitioners are entitled for total compensation of

Rs.4,77,500/-. The petitioners are also entitled for interest thereon at 9% P.A., from the date of petition i.e.07-09-2011 till the date of realization with appropriate costs.

11.Apportionment of compensation:- First petitioner is wife aged 40 years, 2nd petitioner is daughter aged 20 years, 3rd petitioner is another daughter aged 17 years. Taking into consideration of their ages 6 and dependency,I am apportioning the compensation amount as follows:- 1st petitioner is entitled for an amount of Rs.1,77,500/- with interest and costs and she is permitted to withdraw an amount of

Rs.77,500/- with interest and costs and the remaining amount of her shall be kept in fixed deposit in any nationalized bank for a period of 3 years.

Petitioners 2 & 3 are entitled for an amount of Rs.1,50,000/- each with interest, 2nd petitioner is permitted to withdraw an amount of

Rs.75,000/- and the remaining amount of her shall be kept in fixed deposit in any nationalized bank for a period of 3 years; and the entire amount of the 3rd petitioner shall be kept in fixed deposit in any nationalized bank till she attains majority;

12.Issue No:3: To what relief?

In view of the decisions arrived in Issues 1 and 2, this petition is partly allowed with appropriate costs against R1 & R2 directing:

i)The Respondents 1 & 2 do pay the compensation amount of

Rs.4,77,500/- with interest at 9% P.A. from the date of petition i.e. 07-09-2011 till the date of realization; ii)The Respondents 1 & 2 are jointly and severally liable to pay the above said compensation amount with interest and costs and they are directed to deposit the same within 30 days from the date of this award; iii)On such deposit, 1st petitioner is entitled for an amount of

Rs.1,77,500/- with interest and costs and she is permitted to withdraw an amount of Rs.77,500/- with interest and costs and the remaining amount shall be kept in fixed deposit in any nationalized bank for a period of 3 years; and iv)Petitioners 2 & 3 are entitled for an amount of Rs.1,50,000/- each with interest and 2nd petitioner is permitted to withdraw an amount of Rs.75,000/- and the remaining amount of her shall be kept in fixed deposit in any nationalized bank for a period of 3 years and the entire amount of the 3rd petitioner 7 shall be kept in fixed deposit in any nationalized bank till she attains majority;

v)Advocate fee is fixed at Rs.4,500/-

Dictated to the Personal Assistant, transcribed by him, corrected

and pronounced by me in Open Court, this 3rd day of April, 2013.

Chairman, Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal-cum- V-Addl. District Judge,(FTC) Ongole.

Appendix of Evidence Witnesses Examined

For Petitioners: For Respondents:

PW.1:M.Ganga Devi-NIL- P.W2:M.Ramesh Babu

Documents Marked

For petitioners:

Ex.A1: Attested copy of FIR in Cr.No.66/2011 Ex.A2:Attested copy of Inquest report Ex.A3:Attested copy of Post Mortem Examination certificate Ex.A4:Attested copy of MVI Report

For Respondents

-NIL- V-ADJ 8

BEFORE THE MOTOR ACCIDENTS CLAIMS TRIBUNAL

(Before the V-Addl. District Judge, (FTC) Ongole)

Present:- Sri K.Rajkumar, M.Com., B.L.,

Chairman MACT-cum-V- Additional District Judge (FTC) Ongole.

Wednesday, this the 3rd day of April, 2013.

MVOP No. 353/2011

Between:

1. Kalathuvli Gangadevi W/o K.S. Johny, aged 40 years, Housewife, Chachatti by caste

2. Kalathuvli Sindhusha D/o K.S.Johny, aged 20 years,

3. Kalathuvli Reshma D/o K.S.Johny, aged 17 years

Third petitioner being minor represented by Mother/1st petitioner

All are residents of Indira Nagar, Y.Palem(P) & (M), Prakasam District.…Petitioners

And

1. M.Ramesh Babu S/o Lakshmi Narayana, Aged 32 years, R/o 11-242, N.G.O. Colony, Yerragondapalem (V) & (M) Prakasam District (Owner of the lorry bearing No. AP 27 -X -2394)

2. Reliance General Insurance company Limited Rep. By its Manager 40-1-20/1, 3rd floor, Surya Towers, M.G.Road, Vijayawada-520010 (Policy No. 1803702334001564 Valid from 12-02-2011 to 11-02-2012) …Respondents

This petition is filed by the petitioners U/sec.163-A, 167 of M.V.

Act, claiming compensation of Rs.6,00,000/- for the death of the deceased K.S.Johny S/o Samuel, in a Motor Vehicle Accident occurred on 27-05-2011 at about 12-30 P.M near Nidiguntapalem X-Roads,

Venkatachalam (M), Nellore District within the limits of V.Satram P.S. in

Cr.No.66/2011 U/secs.337,304-A I.P.C and for costs and other reliefs.

Petition presented on:07-09-2011 And filed on:23-09-2011

Court Fee:- A Court fee of Rs.5,360/- is paid U/Sec.475 of M.V. Rules for the compensation amount of Rs.6,00,000/- on the account of Prl. District Court.

This Petition came on 15-03-2013 for final hearing before me in the presence of Sri.G.Ravi Sankar, Advocate for Petitioners and of Sri.E.Rajasekhara Reddy, Advocate for 2nd Respondent; and first respondent is having remained ex-parte and upon perusing oral and documentary evidence on record, and the matter having stood over for consideration to this day, the court made doth order and decree:- 9

1. That Respondents 1 & 2 do pay the compensation amount of Rs.4,77,500/- with interest at 9% P.A. from the date of petition i.e., on 07-09-2011 till the date of realization;

2. That the Respondents 1 & 2 are jointly and severally liable to pay the above said compensation amount with interest and costs and they are directed to deposit the same within 30 days from the date of this award;

3. That the respondents 1 & 2 are also do pay a sum of Rs.8,917/- towards the costs of the petition.

4. That on such deposit, 1st Petitioner is entitled for an amount of Rs.1,77,500/- with interest and costs and she is permitted to withdraw an amount of Rs.77,500/- with interest and costs and the remaining amount shall be kept in fixed deposit in any nationalized bank for a period of 3 years; and

5. Petitioners 2 & 3 are entitled for an amount of Rs.1,50,000/- each with interest and 2nd petitioner is permitted to withdraw an amount of Rs.75,000/- and the remaining amount of her shall be kept in fixed deposit in any nationalized bank for a period of 3 years and the entire amount of the 3rd petitioner shall be kept in fixed deposit in any nationalized bank till she attains majority;

6. Advocate fee is fixed at Rs.4,500/-

Given under my hand and the seal of the court, this the 3rd day of April, 2013.

Chairman, Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal-cum- V-Addl. District Judge,(FTC) Ongole.

TABLE OF COSTS

Petitioner R1 & R2 Vakalat52-00 Court Fee4,265-00 Process100-00 Advocate Fee 4,500-00 Publication charges--- Total 8,917-00

V-ADJ