Sri K.v. Ramana Reddy, B.sc., B.l.,

1

IN THE COURT OF MOTOR ACCIDENT CLAIMS TRIBUNAL:: ONGOLE.

Present: Sri K.Venkata Ramana Reddy, B.Sc.,B.L., III Addl. District Judge, (FTC), Ongole. Chairman Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Ongole. Friday, this the 24th day of May, 2013.

M.V.ORIGINAL PETITION NO.366/2004

Between:

1. Kondamudi Aleshamma W/o Late Ramaiah, Hindu, Madiga, aged about 50 years, Housewife

2. Kondamudi Subba Rao S/o Late Ramaiah, Hindu, Madiga, aged about 30 years

3. Kondamudi Yehosuva S/o late Ramaiah, Hindu Madiga, abed about 26 years, Cooly.

All are residents of Ulichi Village, Ongole Mandal, Prakasam District … Petitioners.

And

1. Md. Aleem S/o Abdul Ajeez, Muslim, aged about 40 years D.No.38-4-13, Vigneswara Apartments, Tilak Street Kakinada (Owner of Lorry AP.G.4384) (A.P. O5 Y-3449)

2. Royal Sundaram Alliance Insurance Company Limited., Rep. by its Manager, 46 whites road, Chennai (Cover note: 0293792 – 27-01-2004 to 26-01-2005)

3. T.Venkaiah, S/o Veeraiah, Santhapet, Ongole Owner of Ashok Leyland A.P. G. 4394

4. United India Insurance Comp;any Limited, Ongole (Policy No. 150901/31/03/03089) Respondents 3&4 were added as per the orders in I.A.No.11/2006 dt.26-06-07 … Respondents.

This Original petition coming on 16-05-2013 for final hearing before me in the presence of Sri U.Siva Rama Krishna Rao, Advocate for petitioners, and of Sri D.Srinivasula Reddy, Advocate for 1st respondent and of Sri.T.Nageswara Rao, Advocate for 3rd respondent and of Sri. E.Vijaya Bhaskhar, Advocate for 4th respondent and the claim petition against the 2nd respondents is dismissed on upon perusing the Original petition and other material on record and hearing the arguments of the counsel on record and having stood over for consideration till this day, this Court made the following :-

A W A R D

01.This claim petition has been filed under Section 166 of M.V.Act., on behalf of legal heirs of late Kondamudi Ramaiah S/o. Subbaiah (hereinafter referred to, as deceased) to pass an award in favour of petitioners and against respondents with joint and several liability for payment of compensation of Rs.1,50,000/- together with subsequent interest at the rate of 12% p.a., from the date of petition till realization and for costs of the petition.

2

02.The material averments of the petition in brief are:-

Deceased who was 57 years old, hale and healthy person used to earn an amount of Rs.3,000/- per month by attending loading and un-loading work and contributing the same for the maintenance of family. The deceased and some others were engaged as loading and un-loading labour in the lorry bearing No.

A.P.G.4384 (Later amended vehicle number as A.P.G 4394) On 5-8-2004 at about 2- 00 P.M while the deceased arranging rope after loading, driver of said lorry suddenly moved the lorry, consequently the said vehicle over run over head of the deceased causing instantaneous death. On the report of driver of said lorry a case in

Cr.No.81/2004 U/sec.304-A IPC was registered against him. Said accident occurred due to rash and negligent driving of lorry by its driver. Due to sudden death of deceased petitioners lost their income. Hence, they are constrained to file this claim petition claiming compensation of Rs.1,50,000/-

First respondent being owner cum insured and 2nd respondent being insurer of the lorry are jointly and severally liable to pay compensation to the petitioners.

Originally this claim petition was filed against respondents 1 & 2 alleging first respondent was owner cum insured and 2nd respondent was insurer of offending vehicle. Later petitioners impleaded respondents 3 & 4 as per order dt.26-06-2007 in I.A.11/2006 stating that R3 was original owner and R4 was insurer of the crime vehicle A.P.G.4394 but not respondents 1 & 2. The petitioners also got filed memo on their behalf not pressing the claim against respondents 1 & 2.

03.Respondents 3 & 4 made their appearance through a separate counsel.

04.Later, 3rdRespondent had remained ex-parte without filing any counter/Written statement.

(i) 4th respondent got filed I.A. 415/2013under Section 170 of M.V.Act., seeking permission to contest this claim petition on all or any of the grounds that are available to R3 who is owner of the crime vehicle and the same was allowed by the Tribunal on16-05-2013.

The plea of 4th respondent as appearing in its written statement in brief is:-

(ii) 4th respondent got filed written statement on his behalf denying the 3 petition averments further asking the petitioners to put the strict proof of the same there by opposed the claim of petitioners. Plea of 4th respondent as appearing in its written statement in brief is that: There was no information about this accident from the first respondent. First respondent had intentionally allowed the person we had no valid and effective driving license to drive the crime vehicle there by violated terms and conditions of the policy. Petitioners 2 & 3 are not all depending on the deceased. Petitioners 2 & 3 are living separately from the deceased with their family members having separate ration card bearing No's:WAPO 84403600076 and

WAPO 84403600074, and the first petitioner and deceased were holding independent ration card bearing No.WAPO 84403600061. The compensation claimed by the petitioners is highly excessive, exorbitant and without any basis.

The petitioners are not entitled to claim interest more than 6% per annum and prayed for dismissal of the petition against 4th respondent without costs.

05.Considering the aforesaid pleadings, of petitioners and 4th respondent the following issues were settled for trial:-

1) Whether the death of the deceased was due to the negligent driving of the lorry bearing No.AP G 4394 on the deceased?

2) Whether the petitioners are entitled for the compensation as prayed for and If so, to what amount and from whom?

3) To what relief?

06. To substantiate the case of petitioners, they got filed the affidavit of 1st petitioner-K.Alieshamma apart from the affidavits of their witness K.Hanumantha

Rao, in lieu of chief examination and tendered them for cross examination, and also exhibited ‘5’ documents as Exs.A1 to A5.

(i) To substantiate case of 4th respondent he got filed affidavit of its Asst.

Manager A.Suseela Devi in lieu of chief examination and tendered her for cross examination apart from exhibiting Copy of Insurance policy as Ex.B1.

07. Heard respective counsel appearing for petitioners and 4th respondent:

The learned counsel appearing for petitioners submitted that the deceased died while arranging the rope after loading into offending vehicle, due to rash and 4 negligent act of driver of offending vehicle and that the petitioners who are dependents of the deceased are entitled for compensation for causing death of the deceased in that accident.

The learned counsel appearing of 4th respondent submitted the deceased was engaged for loading and un-loading and he does not cover under Ex.B1 policy therefore 4th respondent is not liable to pay any compensation.

ISSUE NO.1:-

08.There is no dispute that deceased while arranging a rope after loading into offending vehicle, the driver of offending vehicle i.e., AP G 4394 moved it without observing the same, consequently the said vehicle run over head of the deceased causing instantaneous death and on the report of driver of said lorry Ex.A1 F.I.R as crime No. 81/04 U/sec.304-A IPC was registered at Chirala rural P.S., It is also not in dispute that Sub Inspector of Police Chirala Rural P.S filed Ex.A5 charge sheet against the driver of the offending vehicle after due investigation U/sec.304-A IPC in

Cr.No.81/04 of Chirala Rural P.S.

09. P.W1 K.Alieshamma stated in her chief affidavit in support of petition averments that her husband i.e., deceased while arranging rope after loading paddy husk into offending vehicle, the driver of said lorry moved it in a rash and negligent manner consequently back tyres of the lorry run over head of the deceased causing instantaneous death of the deceased.

P.W2-K.Hanumantharao who allegedly attending along with the deceased for loading and un-loading work in the offending lorry stated in her chief affidavit corroborating the version of petitioners that while the deceased arranging rope after loading paddy husk into the lorry. Driver of said lorry without observing the same moved the lorry in a rash and negligent manner, consequently back tyres of lorry had run over the head of the deceased causing instantaneous death.

i) Ex.A1-F.I.R; Ex.A5 charge sheet corroborating the version of P.Ws 1 & 2 that the deceased died due to rash and negligent driving of offending vehicle by its driver. Absolutely, no evidence is brought on record on behalf of respondents to discredit the version of P.Ws1 & 2 who narrated the manner of accident as 5 mentioned above. Therefore it can be concluded safely the said accident in which the deceased died occurred due to rash and negligent driving of offending lorry bearing No.AP G 4394 . Accordingly this issue is answered.

ISSUE NO.2:-

10.Admittedly first respondent is wife; petitioners 2 & 3 are the sons of the deceased. In view of undisputed fact that first petitioner is wife of deceased it can be concluded safely that she was depending upon the deceased. As per the versions of 4th respondent petitioners 2 & 3 are the married persons and they are living separately from the deceased. Petitioners 2 & 3 being legal representatives of deceased are entitled to claim compensation along with their mother first petitioner who was dependent of the deceased, for causing death of the deceased in that road accident.

It is not in dispute that 3rd respondent was the owner cum insured and 4th respondent was insurer of the offending lorry as on the date of the accident.

Therefore respondents 3 & 4 are jointly and severally liable to pay compensation to the petitioners.

P.W1-K.Alieshamma stated in her chief affidavit the deceased was 57 years old and earning more than 4,500/- per month by attending to loading and un- loading work and contributing the same for the maintenance of the family. Except bear statement of P.W1, no other evidence is brought on record in proof of the income of deceased as 4,500/- per month. As mentioned above, petitioners themselves got mentioned in claim petition the monthly income of deceased as

Rs.3,000/-. However considering the undisputed fact that the deceased died in the road accident while attending loading and un-loading work in the light of fact that deceased was aged 57 years old by the date of the accident. Income of deceased can be assessed as Rs.2,100/-.P.M

As the deceased is a married person, 1/3rd of his income shall be deducted towards his personal and living expenses for the purpose of computing compensation payable in this case.

On calculation 2/3rd of annual income of deceased comes to Rs.16,800/-. Said 6 amount can be treated as loss of annual dependency in this case. As the deceased was 57 years old by the date of the accident, multiplier 8 applicable to a person in the age group of 56-60 years as per II schedule of M.V.Act., 1988 can be applied in this case.

On multiplication of the aforesaid annual loss of dependency of Rs.16,800/- by multiplier ‘8’, total loss of dependency comes to Rs.1,34,400/-. Apart from said amount, petitioners are also entitled to sum of Rs.2,000/- towards funeral expenses and Rs. 2,500/- towards loss to estate and Rs.1,500/- towards transport charges.

1st petitioner being the wife of deceased, she is entitled further to a sum of

Rs.5,000/- towards loss of consortium. Out of said compensation amount, 1st petitioner is entitled to sum of Rs.1,25,400/- (Rs.1,20,400 + Rs.5,000), Petitioners 2 & 3 are entitled to a sum of Rs.10,000/- each.

R.W1-A.Suseela Devi stated in her chief affidavit that number of crime vehicle is AP.G.4384 as per served copy of petition and the same was not insured with 4th respondent under a valid and subsisting Insurance Policy by the date of the alleged accident and that 3rd respondent had intentionally entrusted the crime vehicle to a person who was not having valid and effective driving license to drive the crime vehicle thereby violated the terms and conditions of the policy. On confrontation

R.W1 stated in her evidence during cross examination on behalf of petitioners admitting a number of vehicle involved in the accident was A.P.G 4394 as per the report of their investigator and they have not filed any documents as on the date of her evidence showing driver of vehicle had driving license at the time of accident.

Therefore version of R.W1 appearing in her affidavit in that regard cannot be believed. 4th respondent neither pleaded nor adduced that Ex.B1 does not cover persons who were engaged for loading and un-loading work. Therefore submissions of R4 counsel that deceased does not cover under Ex.B1 policy cannot be accepted.

This claim petition was dismissed for default long time back and the same was restored to file considering memo filed on behalf of petitioners that they are willing to forego interest on the amount to be awarded from the date of dismissal of claim petition i.e., 27-04-2009 till the date of its restoration i.e., 21-03-2013. In view 7 of the same in light of fact that the petitioners are responsible for the delay in dismissal of this claim petition, Petitioners are entitled to interest at the rate of 6%

Per annum on the above said compensation amount awarded in their favour from the date of petition till 26-06-2009 and from 22-03-2013 till the date of deposit of the compensation amount by respondents 3 & 4. Accordingly this issue is answered.

ISSUE NO.3:-

11.In view of findings on Issues 1 & 2 as mentioned above, this claim petition shall be allowed in part with proportionate costs against respondents 3 & 4 directing them to pay a sum of Rs.1,25,400/- (1,20,400 + Rs.5,000) to the first petitioner and of Rs.10,000/- to each of the petitioners 2 & 3 together with accrued interest thereon at the rate of 6% per annum from the date of petition till 26-04- 2009 and from 22-3-2013 till the date of deposit with joint and several liability.

Petition against R1 & R2 is dismissed as not pressed without costs. Petition in respect of rest of claim of petitioners against respondents 3 & 4 is also dismissed without costs.

ii) Respondents 3 & 4 shall be directed to deposit the aforesaid compensation amount together with accrued interest thereon and costs of the petition within 30 days from this date before this tribunal.

Iii) On deposit of said compensation amount by respondents 3 & 4; 1st petitioner is entitled to withdraw 50% of the compensation together with accrued interest thereon and entire proportionate costs of the petition payable to her and the remaining compensation amount and accrued interest thereon payable to her shall be deposited in any Nationalized Bank, Ongole branch for a period of three years.

iv) petitioners 2 & 3 are entitled to withdraw entire compensation amount together with accrued interest thereon and proportionate costs payable to them.

v)Advocate fee is fixed at Rs.2,000/-

12.In the result this claim petition is allowed in part with proportionate costs against respondents 3 & 4 directing them:

i) to pay a sum of Rs.1,25,400/- (1,20,400 + Rs.5,000) to the first petitioner 8 and of Rs.10,000/- to each of the petitioners 2 & 3 together with accrued interest thereon at the rate of 6 per cent per annum from the date of petition till 26-04-2009 and from 22-03-2013 till the date of deposit with joint and several liability. Petition against R1 & R2 is dismissed as not pressed without costs. This claim petition in respect of rest of claim of petitioners against respondents 3 & 4 is dismissed without costs.

ii) Respondents 3 & 4 are directed to deposit the aforesaid compensation amount together with accrued interest thereon and costs of the petition within 30 days from this date before this tribunal.

iii) On deposit of said compensation amount by respondents 3 & 4; first petitioner is entitled to withdraw 50% of the compensation together with accrued interest thereon and entire proportionate costs of the petition payable to her and the remaining compensation amount and accrued interest thereon payable to her shall be deposited in any Nationalized Bank, Ongole branch for a period of three years.

iv) Petitioners 2 & 3 are entitled to withdraw the entire compensation amount together with accrued interest thereon and proportionate costs payable to them.

v) Advocate fee is fixed at Rs.2,000/- (Dictated to the Personal Assistant, transcribed by him, corrected and

pronounced by me in open Court, this the 24th day of May, 2013.)

III Addl. District Judge, Chairman Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal FTC:: Ongole.

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

WITNESSES EXAMINED

FOR PETITIONERS:- FOR RESPONDENTS:

PW.1:K.AlieshammaR.W1: A.Suseela Devi PW.2:K.Hanumantha Rao 9

//DOCUMENTS MARKED//

FOR PETITIONERs:

Ex.A1: Certified copy of F.I.R in Cr.No.81/2004 of Chirala Rural P.S Ex.A2: Certified copy of inquest report Ex.A3: : Certified copy of Post Mortem Certificate Ex.A4:: Certified copy of charge sheet Ex.A5:: Certified copy of M.V. Inspector report //DOCUMENTS MARKED ON BEHALF OF THE RESPONDENTS//

Ex.B1: : Certified copy of policy

III Addl. District Judge, FTC::ONGOLE 10

IN THE COURT OF MOTOR ACCIDENT CLAIMS TRIBUNAL:: ONGOLE.

Present: Sri K.Venkata Ramana Reddy, B.Sc.,B.L., III Addl. District Judge, (FTC), Ongole. Chairman Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Ongole.

Friday, this the 24th day of May, 2013.

M.V.ORIGINAL PETITION NO.366/2004

Between:

1. Kondamudi Aleshamma W/o Late Ramaiah, Hindu, Madiga, aged about 50 years, Housewife

2. Kondamudi Subba Rao S/o Late Ramaiah, Hindu, Madiga, aged about 30 years

3. Kondamudi Yehosuva S/o late Ramaiah, Hindu Madiga, abed about 26 years, Cooly. All are residents of Ulichi Village, Ongole Mandal, Prakasam District … Petitioners.

And

1. Md. Aleem S/o Abdul Ajeez, Muslim, aged about 40 years D.No.38-4-13, Vigneswara Apartments, Tilak Street Kakinada (Owner of Lorry AP.G.4384) (A.P. O5 Y-3449)

2. Royal Sundaram Alliance Insurance Company Limited., Rep. by its Manager, 46 whites road, Chennai (Cover note: 0293792 – 27-01-2004 to 26-01-2005)

3. T.Venkaiah, S/o Veeraiah, Santhapet, Ongole Owner of Ashok Leyland A.P. G. 4394

4. United India Insurance Company Limited, Ongole (Policy No. 150901/31/03/03089) Respondents 3&4 were added as per the orders in I.A.No.11/2006 dt.26- 06-07 … Respondents.

This petition is filed by the petitioners U/sec. 166 of M.V. Act, claiming compensation of Rs.1,50,000/- for the death of the deceased Kondamudi Ramaiah S/o Subbaiah, in a Motor Vehicle Accident occurred on 5-8-2004 at about 2-00 P.m near Chakka Babu rice mill Epurupalem within the limits of Chirala Rural P.S. in Cr.No.81/2004 U/secs. 304-A I.P.C and for costs and other reliefs.

Petition presented on:20-10-2004 And filed on: 09-12-2004

Court Fee:- A Court fee of Rs.860/- is paid U/Sec.475 of M.V. Rules for the compensation amount of Rs.1,50,000/- on the account of Prl. District Court.

This Original petition coming on 16-05-2013 for final hearing before me in the presence of Sri U.Siva Rama Krishna Rao, Advocate for petitioners, and of Sri D.Srinivasula Reddy, Advocate for 1st respondent and of Sri.T.Nageswara Rao, Advocate for 3rd respondent and of Sri. E.Vijaya Bhaskhar, Advocate for 4th respondent and the claim petition against the 2nd respondents is dismissed on upon perusing the Original petition and other material on record and hearing the arguments of the counsel on record and having stood over for consideration till this day, this Court doth order and decree:-

1. That the claim petition be and same against respondents 3 & 4 is hereby allowed in part with proportionate costs.

11

2. That awarding compensation of Rs.1,45,400/- payable by Respondents 3 & 4 together with accrued interest thereon at the rate of 6% Per annum from the date of petition i.e., 20-10-2004 till 26-04-2009 and from 22-03-2013 till the date of deposit before this Tribunal with joint and several liability;

3. That the petition in respect of rest of the claim of the petitioners against respondents 3 & 4 is dismissed without costs;

4. That the petition be and the same is hereby dismissed against R1 & R2 as not pressed without costs;

5. That the respondents 3 & 4 are directed to deposit the aforesaid compensation amount together with accrued interest thereon and costs of the petition within 30 days before this Tribunal;

6. That on such deposit, the first petitioner is entitled to an amount of Rs.1,25,400/- with interest and costs and she is permitted to withdraw 50% of the compensation together with accrued interest thereon and entire proportionate costs of the petition; and the remaining compensation amount and accrued interest thereon payable to her shall be deposited in any nationalized bank, Ongole branch for a period of 3 years;

7. That the petitioners 2 & 3 are entitled to an amount of Rs.10,000/- each with accrued interest thereon and they are permitted to withdraw the entire compensation amount together with accrued interest thereon and proportionate costs payable to them;

8. That the respondents 3 & 4 do also pay a sum of Rs.3,036/-towards proportionate costs of the petition;

9. Advocate fee is fixed at Rs.2,000/-( Two thousand rupees only)

Given under my hand and the seal of the court, this the 24th day of May, 2013.

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

TABLE OF COSTS

Petitioners R3 & R4 Vakalat52-00 Court Fee834-00 Process150-00 Advocate Fee 2,000-00 Publication charges--- Total 3,036-00

III-A.D.J FTC::ONG 12

1

IN THE COURT OF MOTOR ACCIDENT CLAIMS TRIBUNAL:: ONGOLE.

(BEFORE THE III ADDITIONAL DISTRICT JUDGE’S COURT, ONGOLE) Present: Sri K.Venkata Ramana Reddy, B.Sc.,B.L., III Addl.District Judge, (FTC), Ongole.

Saturday, the 25th day of May, 2013.

M.V.ORIGINAL PETITION NO.211/2012

Between:

1. Kalluri Subba Rao, S/o Late Narasimhaiah, aged about 54 years, Hindu, R/o Tangellakasim Street, Ongole, Prakasam District.

2. Abburi Vijaya Lakshmi, W/o Singaiah, aged about 35 years, Hindu, R/o Abburi Vari Veedhi, Kammapalem, Ongole,

Prakasam District.... Petitioners

And

1. Velpula Dhana Lakshmi, W/o Simhadri, aged about 40 years, Owner of the Scorpio bearing No. No. AP 07 AM 0567, R/o 13-1-1B, 60 Feet Road, Prakash Nagar, Narasaraopet, Guntur Dt.

2. The New India Assurance Co., Ltd., Rep. By its Divisional Manager, Trunk Road, Ongole. (Policy No. 620903301110100002553, valid from 27-1-2012 to 26-1-2013, Narasaraopet Branch).

This Original petition coming on 23-5-2013 for final hearing before me in the presence of Sri B.Audi Babu and V.V.PAvan Kumar, Advocates for petitioners, 1st Respondent remained expare and of Sri V.Veerendra Rao, Advocate for 2nd respondent upon perusing the Original petition and other material on record and hearing the arguments of the counsel on record and having stood over for consideration till this day, this Court made the following :-

O R D E R S

This claim petition has been filed under Section 163-A and 168 of Motor

Vehicles Act, 1988 on behalf of legal heirs of late Kalluri Subbayamma (herein after referred to as deceased) with a prayer to pass an award in favour of petitioners and against respondents with joint and several liability for compensation of Rs.4,00,000/- together with subsequent interest at 12% per annum from the date of petition till the date of realization.

The material averments of the petition in brief are:

02.1st petitioner is the husband and 2nd petitioner is the daughter of Late

Kalluri Subbayamma(deceased). Deceased who was hale and healthy and working as tobacco grader used to earn Rs.6,000/- per month and contributing the same to her family. On 7.2.2012 while deceased along with co-workers returning to the house from Tobacco company after attending to grading work, 2 a Scorpio Car bearing No. 07 AM 0567 driven by its driver in a rash and negligent manner with high speed without blowing horn while proceeding towards Guntur from Nellore side dashed the deceased while crossing NH-5 road near Throvagunta Tobacco companies from West to East, consequently deceased fell down and sustained grievous injuries on right hand and head and died due to those injuries while shifting to Venkata Ramana Nursing

Home, Ongole. Said accident occurred due to rash and negligent driving of said car by its driver under the employment of 1st respondent and said car was insured with 2nd respondent. Due to sudden demise of the deceased petitioners who are the dependants of the deceased deprived of their earning member and also their future plans, further lost love and affection of the deceased and also suffered physically and mentally and they are not in a position to attend their normal avocations. 1st respondent being owner cum insured, 2nd respondent being the insurer of the said car are jointly and severally liable to pay compensation of Rs.4,00,000/- to the petitioners.

03.1st respondent remained exparte even on the first hearing date without filing any counter/written statement. 2nd respondent made his appearance through a counsel and got filed IA 407/2012 under Section 170 of Motor

Vehicles Act seeking permission to contest this claim petition on all or any of the ground that are available to 1st respondent and the same was allowed by this Tribunal on 15.5.2013.

(i)2nd respondent got filed written statement on his behalf denying the petition averments further asking the petitioners to put strict proof of the same, thereby opposed the claim of petitioners.

(ii)The plea of 2nd respondent as appearing in its written statement in brief is:

(iii)Deceased was not an earning member and petitioners are not dependants of deceased. 2nd petitioner is a married daughter and she is living with her husband, she is not entitled for any compensation. Driver of Scorpio car did not possess driving license to drive the same at the time of accident.

3

Deceased contributed her negligence in crossing the national high way without caring the traffic and coming upon the road suddenly and caused the accident.

In any case amount of compensation paid to the petitioners is highly excessive, arbitrary and out of all proportions. Interest claimed is also usurious and against the guidelines fixed by the Apex Court and the petitioners are not entitled for any amount. The interest should be restricted to 6% only. Thus, prayed to dismiss the petition with costs.

04.Considering the aforesaid pleadings of parties on record, the following issues were settled for trial:-

1) Whether the death of deceased Kalluri Subbayamma, W/o Subba Rao occurred on 07.02.2012 at about 5.30 PM in the accident caused by the Scorpio bearing No. AP 07-Am-0567?

2) Whether the petitioners are entitled to claim for any compensation.

If so , to what amount and from whom?

3) To what relief?

05.To substantiate the case of petitioners, they got filed the affidavit of 1st petitioner Kalluri Subba Rao in lieu of chief examination and tendered him for cross examination apart from exhibiting '5' documents as Exs.A1 to A5.

2nd respondent got exhibited copy of insurance policy as Ex.B1 by consent and reported no oral evidence on his behalf.

06.Heard respective counsel appearing for petitioners and 2nd respondent.

The learned counsel appearing for petitioners submitted that the petitioners are the dependants of the deceased and that the accident occurred due to rash and negligent driving of offending car by its driver and that the respondents being owner cum insured and insurer of the said car are jointly and severally liable to pay compensation of Rs.4,00,000/- to petitioners.

4

The learned counsel for 2nd respondent submitted that the petitioners being husband and married daughter of deceased are not the dependants of the deceased and they are not entitled for any compensation under the head loss of dependency, thus, prayed to dismiss the petition.

ISSUE NO.1:-

07.PW1- Kalluri Subba Rao stated in his chief affidavit in support of averments of the claim petition that on 7.2.2012 while deceased along with co-workers going back to home after attending to grading work in a tobacco company at Throvagunta, a Scorpio car bearing No. AP 27 AM 0567 driven by its driver in a rash and negligent manner at high speed without blowing horn while proceeding towards Guntur from Nellore dashed against the deceased who was crossing NH-5 road, consequently, deceased fell down and sustained multiple grievous injuries on right hand and on head and died due to those injuries while shifting to Venkata Ramana Nursing Home, Ongole for treatment and that the said accident occurred solely due to rash and negligent driving of the said car by its driver.

(i)Though, 2nd respondent got cross examined PW1, no suggestion was put to him disputing the occurrence of road accident on 7.2.2012 on NH-5 road at throvagunta village out of the use of Scorpio Car bearing No. AP 07

AM 0567. Even no suggestion was put to PW1 disputing causing injuries to the deceased in that road accident and cause of death of the deceased due to injuries received in that road accident. PW1 denied a suggestion put to him that said accident occurred when deceased all of sudden came upon the road to cross the same without observing vehicular traffic and that the driver of car was not at fault and that he had driven the car carefully slowly blowing horn.

(ii)As observed earlier 1st respondent who was owner cum insured of the offending vehicle had remained exparte even without filing any written statement. Even the 2nd respondent did not choose to adduce any evidence in support of its contention that said accident occurred due to rash and negligent act of the deceased himself. On the other hand it is not in dispute that Ex.A1

FIR as Crime No. 54/2012 under Section 304-A IPC was registered at Ongole 5

Taluq Police Station within 2 hours after the accident on the report of PW1

Kalluri Subba Rao. Evidence of PW1 is consistent with his report given to police at the earliest point of time with respect to the manner of accident. It is also not in dispute that SI of police, Ongole Taluq P.S., filed Ex.A5 charge sheet against the driver of Scorpio Car bearing No. AP 27 AM 0567 after due investigation under Section 304-A IPC in Crime No. 54/2012 of Ongole Taluq

P.S. Ex.A3 Motor Vehicle Inspector report shows that the motor vehicle inspector who inspected the vehicle opined that the accident was not due to any mechanical defects of the vehicle.

08.Therefore, it can be concluded safely in the light of the aforesaid evidence on record that deceased Kalluri Subbayamma died due to injuries received in road accident at 5.30 PM on NH-5 road near tobacco companies point is answered.

ISSUE NO.2:

09.It is not in dispute that 1st petitioner is the husband and 2nd petitioner is the married daughter of the deceased Subbayamma. As observed in issue

No.1 deceased Subbayamma died due to injuries received in road accident on 7.2.2012 at 5.30 PM out of the use of offending vehicle. It is also not in dispute that 1st respondent was the owner cum insured and 2nd respondent was the insurer of the offending vehicle at the time of accident. As argued by the learned counsel appearing for 2nd respondent petitioners 1 and 2 who are the husband and married daughter of the deceased can not said to be dependants of the deceased Subbayamma. However 1st petitioner being the husband lost the house hold services being rendered by the deceased to him on account of death of the deceased in that road accident. The evidence on record shows that the accident occurred while deceased going back to the house after attending to the Tobacco grading works. Therefore, it can be concluded safely that the deceased was the earning member of the family and due to sudden demise of the deceased, her estate suffered the loss.

Therefore, petitioners who are the husband and married daughter of deceased 6

Kalluri Subbayamma are entitled to be compensated for the death of the deceased occurred in road accident.

Considering that the 1st petitioner is 54 years old and he lost conjugal society of the deceased and also house hold services being rendered to him by the deceased apart from loss of earnings of the deceased, it can be concluded that 1st petitioner is entitled to compensation of Rs.1,50,000/- and 2nd petitioner is entitled for compensation of Rs.50,000/-. Respondents 1 and 2 are jointly and severally liable to pay the said compensation amount to petitioners together with accrued interest thereon at the rate of 9percent per annum from the date of petition till the date of deposit before this Tribunal.

Accordingly, this issue is answered.

ISSUE NO.3

10. In view of findings on issues 1 and 2 as mentioned above, this claim petition against respondents shall be allowed in part with proportionate costs, awarding compensation of Rs.1,50,000/- to 1st petitioner and Rs.50,000/- to 2nd petitioner payable by Respondents together with accrued interest thereon at the rate of 9% per annum from the date of petition till the date of deposit

before this Tribunal with joint and several liability. Petition in respect of rest of

the claim of the petitioners shall be dismissed without costs. Respondents are directed to deposit the aforesaid compensation amount together with accrued interest thereon and costs of the petition within 30 days from this date before this Tribunal and on deposit of the said compensation amount 1st and 2nd petitioners are entitled to withdraw 50% of the compensation amount and accrued interest together with proportionate costs of the petition payable to them. The remaining compensation amount and accrued interest thereon payable to 1st and 2nd petitioners shall be deposited in any Nationalized Bank,

Ongole Branch for a period of 3 years.

13.In the result, this claim petition against respondents is allowed in part with proportionate costs, awarding compensation of Rs.1,50,000/- to 1st petitioner and Rs.50,000/- to 2nd petitioner payable by Respondents together 7 with accrued interest thereon at the rate of 9% per annum from the date of petition till the date of deposit before this Tribunal with joint and several liability. Petition in respect of rest of the claim of the petitioners shall be dismissed without costs. Respondents are directed to deposit the aforesaid compensation amount together with accrued interest thereon and costs of the petition within 30 days from this date before this Tribunal and on deposit of the said compensation amount 1st and 2nd petitioners are entitled to withdraw 50% of the compensation amount and accrued interest together with proportionate costs of the petition payable to them. The remaining compensation amount and accrued interest thereon payable to 1st and 2nd petitioners shall be deposited in any Nationalized Bank, Ongole Branch for a period of 3 years. Advocate fee in this petition is fixed at Rs.2,000/- (Rupees

Two thousand only).

(Dictated to the Personal Assistant, transcribed by her, corrected and

pronounced by me in open Court, this the 25th day of May, 2013.)

CHAIRMAN, M.A.C.T.- cum- III ADDL.DISTRICT JUDGE,::ONGOLE.

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

WITNESSES EXAMINED

FOR PETITIONER:- FOR RESPONDENTS:

PW.1: Kalluri Subba RaoNONE

//DOCUMENTS MARKED//

FOR PETITIONERs:

Ex.A1:: Attested Photostat copy of FIR in Cr.No. 54/2012 of Ongole Taluq P.S. Ex.A2: : Attested Photostat copy of Inquest report. Ex.A3: : Attested Photostat copy of Post mortem certificate. Ex.A4:: Attested Photostat copy of MVI Report. Ex.A5: Attested Photostat copy of Charge sheet.

//DOCUMENTS MARKED ON BEHALF OF THE RESPONDENT//

Ex.B1: Certified copy of Policy. (Marked by consent)

Chiarman, MACT- cum- IIIAddl. District

Judge, Ongole.

8 9