M.v.bhaskar Rao

1

IN THE COURT OF THE MOTOR ACCIDENTS CLAIMS

TRIBUNAL

(V ADDL.DISTRICT JUDGE) AT KOTHAGUDEM.

Tuesday, this the 30th day of May, 2017.

Present: Sri M.V.Bhaskar Rao, Chairman, M.A.C.T., (V Addl.District Judge), Kothagudem.

M.A.T.O.P.No.291 of 2009 Between:-

Sawaram Adinarayana, S/o.Gopaiah age.54 years, Occ.Head Constable of Police, R/o.Aswapuram Village Post and Mandal, Khammam District. ...Claim Petitioner.

And

1. I.Vijaya Krishna, S/o.Krishna Murthy, age.major, Occ.Owner of Auto rickshaw bearing No.AP20 X 5122, R/o.H.No.13-1-25, Lambadi Colony, Bhadrachalam Town and mandal, Khammam District.

2. The IFFCO TOKIO General Insurance Co., Ltd., represented by its Manager, 4th Floor, Lohiya, Towers, D.No.40-9/1-12, Opp.Nirmala Convent, Vijayawada, insurer of Auto rickshaw NO.AP20 X 5122 vide Insurance cover Note NO.34946880, valid from 24.07.2007 to 23.07.2008.

...Respondents.

This petition is coming up before me for final hearing on 12-04-2017 in the presence of Sri Macha Nagesh Babu,Advocate for the Claim Petitioner and of Sri G.Sita Rama Rao, Advocate for the respondent No.2 and respondent No.1 remained exparte and upon perusing the material on record and after hearing the arguments, this Court made the following:-

O R D E R

This petition is filed u/sec.166 of Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 claiming compensation of Rs.5,25,000/- with costs and interest towards general and special damages on account of injuries sustained by the claim petitioner in the accident taken place on 26-09-2007.

2

2.The breif averments of claim petition are that:

On 26-09-2007 at about 10.30 p.m the claim petitioner was going towards Manuguru on a motorcycle to see his wife, who is in his son-in-law's house at Manuguru. When he reached near

Kalyanapuram Village, an auto rickshaw bearing No.AP20-X-5122, which came in the opposite direction, dashed against the claim petitioner, due to which the claim petitioner fell down and sustained multiple grievous injuries. On the basis of report, the police,

Aswapuram registered a case in Crime No.76/2007 U/sec.337 of

IPC against the driver of the crime vehicle ie., auto rickshaw bearing No.AP20-X-5122, who drove the same rashly and negligently. After investigation, the police filed chargesheet Under

Section 338 of IPC against the crime vehicle by holding that the auto was driven by the driver of the auto under the guidance of one M.Rambabu of Bhadrachalam, who was holding a transport valid driving license.

3. Immediately after the accident, the petitioner was taken to a private Orthopaedician, Bhadrachalam and as the injuries were very grievous in nature, immediately the claim petitioner was shifted to Hyderabad and was admitted as inpatient in Yashoda

Super Speciality Hospital, Hyderabad. The claim petitioner was admitted and treated as in patient and necessary X-rays were taken. The revealed Grade-I, Open Comminuted inter condylar fracture of right femur, Grade-III, Open fracture of both bones of right leg at middle-III, Punctured wound over lower thigh, 10x5 cm skin avulsion over upper 2 lateral aspect of leg, laceration 3x1 cm 3 between 4th and 5th web space of right hand, tenderness over right shoulder and multiple injuries all over the body. The Ortho surgeons at Yashoda Hospitals, conducted surgeries and debridement was done and bone grafting was done with buttress plating to the femur, interlocking nail to tibia, muscle-flap was done, SSG was done. The claim petitioner was discharged on 08.10.2007 with an advise to take complete rest for six months, later as the injuries did not heal properly and as the fractures did not unite properly, the claim petitioner got admitted in Care Hospital at Hyderabad on 18.02.2008 and stayed there upto 01.03.2008. Even then, there was no relief, as such he was admitted in Apollo Hospital,

Hyderabad on 13.06.2008 and was discharged on 25.06.2008.

During this entire treatment period, the petitioner had taken a house for rent at Hyderabad and stayed there and followed the entire treatment and also undergone physiotherapy treatment.

Total, the claim petitioner had spent an amount of Rs.2,00,000/- towards medical, surgical, physiotherapy, living and extra nourishment expenses. Due to the injuries sustained by the claim petitioner, he sustained permanent disability and badly effected the working ability of the petitioner. The injuries are very serious in nature and did not unite even after prolonged treatment. The claim petitioner had lost his entire income and the claim petitioner may not attend duties for another six months to one year. The claim petitioner suffered a lot of physical sufferance apart from mental agony. Hence, the petition.

4.The respondent No.1 was set exparte.

4

5.The respondent No.2 filed counter and denied all the material averments made in the claim petition and specifically denied the manner of accident and involvement of the crime vehicle, ie., auto rickshaw bearing No.AP20 X 5122 and contended that the accident was occurred due to the negligence on the part of the claim petitioner and further contended that no vehicle documents were furnished by the first respondent as well as driving license and the compensation claimed is highly excessive as well as the interest claimed exaggerated and prays to dismiss the petition with costs.

7.In view of the rival contentions on both sides, the following issues have been settled for trial.

1.Whether the accident took place on account of rash and negligent driving of driver of the auto rickshaw bearing No.AP-20-X-5122 ?

2.Whether the Petitioners are entitled for compensation, if so, to what amount and from which of the respondents ?

3.To what relief ?

8.During the trial, on behalf of the Claim petitioner, P.W.1 to 4 are examined and got marked Ex.A.1 to A.15. On behalf of the respondent No.2, Rws.1 and 2 examined and Ex.B1 to B3 marked.

This court marked Ex.C1.

9.Heard arguments on both sides.

ISSUE No.1:

10.It is the evidence of PW1 that on 26-09-2007 at about 10.30 p.m he was going towards Manuguru on a motorcycle to see his wife, who is in his son-in-law's house at Manuguru. When he reached near Kalyanapuram Village, an auto rickshaw bearing 5

No.AP20-X-5122, which came in the opposite direction, dashed against him, as a result, he fell down and sustained multiple grievous injuries all over the body. On the other hand, the second respondent examined as RW1 and deposed that the driver of the accident vehicle has not having valid and effective driving license to drive the alleged crime vehicle. He is having only learning license. The counsel for R2 did not suggest in the cross examination of PW1 that there was no rash and negligent driving on the part of driver of the accident vehicle. But suggested that the claim petitioner himself dashed against the crime vehicle autorickshaw bearing No. AP20-X-5122. PW1 relied upon Ex.A1 certified copy of First information report in Crime No.76/2007

Us/ec.337 of IPC of P.S.Aswapuram as well as Certified copy of chargesheet in C.C.No.263/2007 on the file of J.F.C.M.Manuguru and Ex.A4 Certified copy of Judgment of convicting the driver of the crime vehicle ie., auto rickshaw bearing No. AP20-X-5122. In view of the Ex.A1 and A2, where it was disclosed that the driver of the crime vehicle, ie.,auto rickshaw bearing No. AP20-X-5122, drove it rashly and negligently by holding that the accident was occurred due to rash and negligent act of the driver of the crime vehicle involved in the accident and as such the above documents can be taken into consideration as a relevant documents to establish the rash and negligent driving of the driver of the accident vehicle ie., auto rickshaw bearing No.AP20-X-5122.

This issue is decided in favour of the claim petitioners.

6

ISSUE NO.2

a) Pain and sufferings and Medical expenses:

It is the evidence of PW1 that Immediately after the accident, the petitioner was taken to a private Orthopaedician, Bhadrachalam and as the injuries were very grievous in nature, immediately the claim petitioner was shifted to Hyderabad and was admitted as inpatient in Yashoda Super Speciality Hospital, Hyderabad. The claim petitioner was admitted and treated as in- patient and necessary X-rays were taken. The X-rays revealed Grade-I, Open

Comminuted inter condylar fracture of right femur, Grade-III, Open fracture of both bones of right leg at middle-III, Punctured wound over lower thigh, 10x5 cm skin avulsion over upper 2 lateral aspect of leg, laceration 3x1 cm between 4th and 5th web space of right hand, tenderness over right shoulder and multiple injuries all over the body. The Ortho surgeons at Yashoda Hospitals, conducted surgeries and debridement was done and bone grafting was done with buttress plating to the femur, interlocking nail to tibia, muscle- flap was done, SSG was done. The claim petitioner was discharged on 08.10.2007 with an advise to take complete rest for six months.

He further stated that inspite of better treatment, as the injuries did not heal properly and as the fractures as did not unite properly, the claim petitioner got admitted in Care Hospital at Hyderabad on 8.02.2008 and stayed there upto treatment. Even then, after treatment taking treatment he once again admitted in Apollo

Hospital, Hyderabad on 13.06.2008 and got treatment upto 25.06.2008. He further stated that because of the injuries he 7 suffered for about two years and he is continuously taking treatment in various hospitals at Hyderabad. He continuously undergone physiotherapy for his injuries with Sai Suraksha physiotherapy and occupational therapy centre, Sikh Village,

Secunderabad for 10 months. The Physiotherapist used to come to his house and do physiotherapy to him. He used to pay

Rs.10,000/- per month for the physiotherapy. He had incurred an amount of more than Rs.2,00,000/- for his treatment, physiotherapy, extra nourishment, transport, house rent, etc. His family stayed in Manuguru, as such he had taken a house for rent at Hyderabad and stayed there and taken and follow-up the treatment and physiotherapy treatment. He further stated that the injuries caused severe pain and sufferance. The injuries resulted in permanent partial disability and it had badly affected his working ability. He was unable to attend his duties for about two years.

Even after that he was unable to walk properly.

11.PW2, who is plastic and Cosmotic Surgeon, Yashoda

Hospital, specifically stated that the petitioner was treated Buttress plating femur left with bone grafting interlocking nail Tibia right debridement muscle flap, SSG was done under epidermal and spinal anaesthia and opined that the injuries sustained by the petitioner are grievous and issued Ex.A3 Medical Certificate alongwith Ex.A5 discharge summary and also Ex.C1 attested copy of case sheet placed before this court. He further stated that the patient was discharged with an advise to take bed rest for six month sand regular follow up in out-patient block.

8

12.PW3 is Senior Orthopaedic Surgeon at Apollo Hospital, at

Hyderabad. His evidence reveal that the claim petitioner was admitted in the hospital on 13.06.2008 with removal of locking plates and condylar blade plate fixation and bone grafting to the right femur for nonunion of supra condylar fracture and opined that the injuries sustained by the claim petitioner are grievous in nature and got marked Ex.A7, A8, A9, A12 and A15 Photocopy of

Discharge summary issued by Department of Orthopaedics, Apollo

Hospital, Hyderabad, Bunch of Prescriptions (4) of Dr.J.C.Pingle

M.S.(Ortho), Apollo Hospital, Jubilee Hills, Hyderabad, Bunch of

Investigation report (3) issued by Apollo Hospital, Jubilee Hills,

Hyderabad, Ex.A12:Bunch of cash bills (7) in number for Rs.3,460/- issued by Apollo Hospital, Hyderabad, Ex.A13:Bunch of

Physiotherapy bills (10) for Rs.10,000/- each, ie.,total Rs.1,00,000/- issued by Sai Suraksha Physiotherapy and Occupational therapy

Centre, Sikh village, Secunderabad, Ex.A14: Bunch of pharmacy bills (8) for Rs.36,254/- issued by Kesava Medicals, Malkajigiri,

Hyderabad and Ex.A15: Bunch of X-rays (6) in number.

13.PW4-Dr.P.S.Krishna , who is running physiotherapy centre in the name and style of “Sai Suraksha Physiotherapy and

Occupational Theraphy centre in Sikh Village Secunderabad . His evidence reveal that he provided treatment to the claim petitioner at his residence from 01.11.2007 to 30.09.2008 with intervals. He further stated that the patient got major fracture ie., Inter condylar fracture of right femur, Grade-III, Open fracture of both bones of right leg, both the injuries are grievous in nature and Ex.A13 bunch of ten cash receipts issued by him for Rs.1,00,000/-. Except 9 suggesting by the counsel for the second respondent that the bills are created for the purpose of the claim petition, nothing is elicited from the cross examination of Pws.1 to 4 to discard their evidence and RW1 evidence reveal that no grievous multiple injuries are sustained by the claim petitioners. As such, the mere denial is no ground to deny the convincing evidence on behalf of claim petitioners by the competent doctors who attended the treatment.

A perusal of Ex.A3 Medical Certificate issued by Yashoda Hospitals and PW2 evidence discloses that the claim petitioners sustained fracture of both bones at middle-III, Punctured wound over lower thigh, 10x5 cm skin avulsion over upper 2 lateral aspect of leg, laceration 3x1 cm between 4th and 5th web space of right hand, tenderness over right shoulder and multiple injuries all over the body and all the injuries are grievous in nature. Therefore, it is evident that the claim petitioner sustained grievous injuries in the accident.

15.The PW1 placed documentary proof with regard to the doctors consultation fee for Rs.1,500/- issued by Apollo Hospital,

Hyderabad under Ex.P-11 Bunch of cash bills (7) in number for

Rs.3,460/- issued by Apollo Hospital, Hyderabad. Bunch of

Physiotherapy bills (10) for Rs.10,000/- each, ie.,total Rs.1,00,000/- issued by Sai Suraksha Physiotherapy and Occupational therapy

Centre, Sikh village, Secunderabad. Bunch of pharmacy bills (8) for

Rs.36,254/- issued by Kesava Medicals, Malkajigiri, Hyderabad, which can be said that the claim petition the medical bills and worth about RS.1,41,214/- ie., 1,500/- + Rs.3,460/- +Rs.1,00,000/- + Rs.36,254/- = RS.1,41,254/- . That apart the claim petitioner 10 sustained grievous injuries which can be estimated at Rs.20,000/- roughly for grievous injuries. It is clear that the claim petitioner had sustained injuries, five injuries are grievous in nature. The total amount which can be estimated towards pain, sufferings and medical expenses is Rs.1,41,214/- + Rs.1,00,000/- = Rs.2,41,214/- towards pain, sufferings and medical expenses.

b) Loss of Earnings:

It is the further evidence of PW1 that he had taken 6 months bed rest for getting treatment and he was getting salary of

Rs.15,000/- per month and thereby sustained loss of earnings. But, he did not place any documentary proof before this court to show that he was getting salary of Rs.15,000/- per month. However, as there is no challenge from the respondents with regard to the occupation of the claim petitioner, an amount of Rs.10,000/- can be estimated as monthly salary, totaling Rs.60,000/- for six months by estimating the loss of earnings notionally.

c) Attendant Charges :

Due to the accident, the claim petitioner got treatment at

Hyderabad in various hospitals for which attending during treatment by other attendant is necessary, for which an amount of Rs.4,000/- towards attendant charges.

d) Extra Nourishment charges

After treatment for healing, there is every likelihood of treatment for extra nourishment which can be estimated as

Rs.5,000/- .

11

Issue No.3 :

It is the evidence of PW1 that the crime vehicle , ie., auto rickshaw bearing No.AP20-X-5122 dashed against him, driven by the driver rashly and negligently. The second respondent as RW2 stated in his evidence that V.Venkatesh was given learning license to drive for non-transport covered under Ex.B3 and he cannot take passengers in his auto as customers. However, he admitted in his cross examination that learning license will be given after preliminary test and a person can drive an auto by then by following rules on the public road. As such, I feel that the contention raised by the second respondent that the learning license is not a valid license to drive auto cannot be taken into consideration. In the above circumstances, I have no hesitation to say that the respondents 1 and 2 are jointly and severally liable to pay the compensation.

In view of the above discussion, the total compensation to the claim petitioner is Rs.3,10,214/- under various heads. This issue is decided accordingly.

The total compensation awarded in favour of the claim petitioner under various heads is as under.

1.Pains and sufferings and Medical expensesRs.2,41,214/-

2.Loss of earnings Rs.60,000/- 3Attendant charges Rs.4,000/-

4.Extra noursihment Rs.5,000/-

Total compensation Rs.3,10,214/- 12

11. In view of findings on issues No.1 and 2, the petition is allowed, awarding compensation of Rs.3,10,214/- (Rupees Three lakhs, ten thousand, two hundred and fourteen only) with interest @ 7.5% P.A. from the date of petition till the date of realization. The respondents 1 and 2 are jointly and severally liable to pay the compensation amount. Two months time is granted to the respondent No.2 to deposit the compensation amount and on such deposit the claim petitioner is permitted to withdraw entire amount of Rs.3,10,214/- (Rupees three lakhs, ten thousand, two hundred and fourteen only) with accrued interest with proprotionate costs.

The rest of the petitioner's claim is dismissed. Advocate Fee is fixed at Rs.4,000/- (Rupees four thousand only).

Dictated to the Stenographer, transcribed by her, corrected

and pronounced by me in the open Court on this the 30th day of May, 2017.

CHAIRMAN,

MOTOR ACCIDENTS CLAIMS TRIBUNAL,

(V ADDL.DISTRICT JUDGE),

KOTHAGUDEM.

-APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE-

WITNESSES EXAMINED

FOR CLAIM PETITIONERS:

P.W.1: S.Adinarayana P.W.2: Dr.K.Maralimohan P.W.3: Dr.Jairam Chander Pingle P.W.4: Dr.P.S.Krishna

FOR RESPONDENTS:

R.W.1: L.Varun Kumar R.W.2: B.Kirshna reddy 13

EXHIBITS MARKED

FOR CLAIM PETITIONERS:

Ex.A1 : Certified copy of F.I.R

Ex.A2 : Certified copy of chargesheet.

Ex.A3 : Medical Certificate.

Ex.A4 : C.C.of Judgment in C.C.No.263/07 on the file of J.M.F.C, Manuguru.

Ex.A5 : Photocopy of Discharge summary issued by Department of Orthopaedics, Yashoda Hospital, Hyderabad.

Ex.A6 : Photocopy of Discharge summary issued by Department of Orthopaedics, Care Hospital, Hyderabad.

Ex.A7 : Photocopy of Discharge summary issued by Department of Orthopaedics, Apollo Hospital, Hyderabad.

Ex.A8: Bunch of Prescriptions (4) of Dr.J.C.Pingle M.S.(Ortho), Apollo Hospital, Jubilee Hills, Hyderabad.

Ex.A9 : Bunch of Investigation report (3) issued by Apollo Hospital, Jubilee Hills, Hyderabad.

Ex.A10: Radiology reports (4)

Ex.A11 Doctor consultation fee receipts (4) for Rs.1,500/- issued by Apollo Hospital, Jubilee Hills, Hyderabad.

Ex.A12:Bunch of cash bills (7) in number for Rs.3,460/- issued by Apollo Hospital, Hyderabad.

Ex.A13:Bunch of Physiotherapy bills (10) for Rs.10,000/- each, ie., total Rs.1,00,000/- issued by Sai Suraksha Physiotherapy and Occupational therapy Centre, Sikh village, Secunderabad.

Ex.A14: Bunch of pharmacy bills (8) for Rs.36,254/- issued by Kesava Medicals, Malkajigiri, Hyderabad.

Ex.A15: Bunch of X-rays (6) in number

Ex.C1: Case record 14

FOR RESPONDENT:

Ex.B1 : C.C.of Insurance Policy

Ex.B2 : Authorization Letter

Ex.B3 : Xerox copy of original driving license register maintain at RTA.

CHAIRMAN,

MOTOR ACCIDENTS CLAIMS TRIBUNAL,

(V ADDL.DISTRICT JUDGE),

KOTHAGUDEM.

Corrections carried out by me:

15 16

1

IN THE COURT OF THE MOTOR ACCIDENTS CLAIMS

TRIBUNAL

(V ADDL.DISTRICT JUDGE) AT KOTHAGUDEM.

Thursday, this the 25th day of May, 2017.

Present: Sri M.V.Bhaskar Rao, Chairman, M.A.C.T., (V Addl.District Judge), Kothagudem.

M.A.T.O.P.No.342 of 2007 Between:-

1. Addanki Govindamma (died) her L.R.s

2. Addanki Bhadraiah Chary

3. Addanki Sailaja

4. Addanki Vijay ( Petitioners 3 and 4 being minors, represented by their father petitioner No.2) (Petitioners 2 to 4 added as per orders in I.A.No.1763/2007, dt.25.01.2008) ...Claim Petitioners.

And

1. S.Vishnuvardhan Reddy

2. The New India Assurance Company Limited represented by its Branch Manager, Khammam.

...Respondents.

This petition is coming up before me for final hearing on 12-04-2017 in the presence of Sri A.Nageshwara Rao,Advocate for the Claim Petitioner and of Sri A. Venkata Ramana, Advocate

for the respondent No.2 and respondent No.1 remained exparte

and upon perusing the material on record and after hearing the arguments, this Court made the following:-

O R D E R

This petition is filed u/sec.166 of Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 claiming compensation of sum of Rs.3,00,000/- with costs and interest towards general and special damages on account of injuries sustained by the claim petitioner in the accident taken place on 14-12-2006.

2

2.The breif averments of claim petition are that:

The second claim petitioner is the husband and petitioners 3 and 4 are the minor children of A. Govindamma ( Injured and subsequently died ). That on 14-12-2006 the claim petitioner No.1 was going to home and while she was crossing the road near Book Stall, which is infront of the house, at that time the rider of Hero Honda Passion No.AP-20-P-1339, who was coming from Cinema Hall side proceeidng towards bus stand, drove the vehicle in a rash and negligent manner at high speed, and dashed against the claim petitioner No.1 A.Govindamma (died), as a result of which the claim petitioner No.1 fell down on the road and sustained grievous and simple injuries. Tfhe accident was occurred due to the rash and negligent act of the driver of the crime vehicle without taking any minimum care and caution, he caused the accident.

3. Immediately after the accident, the petitioner No.1 was shifted to Government Hospital, Khammam and treated as in- patient. There, the doctors taken X-rays and necessary tests and admitted as in-patient. As the fracture to the left femur was a serious in nature she was shifted to Vidyullatha Nursinghome,

Khammam and she was treated as in-patient. During the course of treatment, the doctor conducted operation to the left femur in

C-Arm system and inserted nails on 17-12-2006. She was discharged on 30-12-2006 and she was treated and due to the above said fractures her legs were shortened and was permanently disabled and she was unable to move here and there. She was 3 confined to bed for six month. She is unable to attend her agriculture apart from other agricultural coolie works. Due to the fracture her knee was stiffened. The Doctors given necessary treatment and applied necessary bandages and advised the petitioner No.1 for regular medical check-up for every month for a period of one year. Due to the fracture injuries the petitioner No.1 was unable to walk properly as the movement of left leg was completely restricted. The petitioner No.1 spent Rs.40,000/- towards medical and other ancillary expenses. The claim petitioner

No.1(died) is agriculturist, earning Rs.2,500/- per month on coolie works, she was aged about 35 years and was hale and healthy.

Due to the injuries the petitioner No.1 was facing much inconvenience and hardship. Due to the injuries, the petitioner No.1 was suffering severe pains all over the body and she is not in a position to attend her normal duties and suffer permanent disabilities. That apart she also subjected to untold mental agony and physical discomfort. The respondents No.1 and 2 being owner and insurer involved in the accident, jointly and severally liable to pay the compensation. Hence, the petition.

4.The respondent No.1 was set exparte.

5.The respondent No.2 filed counter and denied all the material averments made in the claim petition and specifically denied the manner of accident and involvement of the crime vehicle, ie., Hero Honda Passion AP-20-P-1339 in the accident and contended that the accident was occurred due to negligence on the part of the claim petitioner(died) and he further contended that the respondent No.1 did not furnish the documents of vehicle, driving 4 license and sought protection Under Section 170 of M.V.Act and further contended that the claim of the compensation is highly exaggerated and prays to dismiss the petition with costs.

7.In view of the rival contentions on both sides, the following issues have been settled for trial.

1.Whether the accident took place on account of rash and negligent driving of rider of the motorbike Hero Honda Passion bearing No.AP-20-P-1339 ?

2.Whether the Petitioners are entitled for compensation, if so, to what amount and from which of the respondents ?

3.To what relief ?

8.During the trial, on behalf of the Claim petitioner, P.W.1 examined and got marked Ex.A.1 to A.9. On behalf of the respondents, no witnesses examined and no documents marked.

9.Heard arguments on both sides.

ISSUE No.1:

10.It is the evidence of PW1, who is the husband of claim petitioner No.1, ie., Late Govindamma deposed that during the pendency of the O.P filed by the first petitioner succumbed to injuries on 17-03-2007, for which himself and other minor children are impleaded as legal heirs to the first petitioner

Govindamma(died). He specifically deposed that on 14-12-2006 his wife Govindamma while proceeding to their home and while she was crossing the road near Book Stall, infront of their house, the rider of the motorcycle bearing No.AP-20-P-1339, drove it in a rash and negligent manner with high speed, dashed against his wife, as a result, his wife fell down on the road and sustained serious injuries. The accident was occurred only due to rash and 5 negligent driving of the rider of motorcycle bearing No.AP-20-P- 1339. Pw1 relied on Ex.A1-certified copy of F.I.R in Crime

No.160/2006 as well as Ex.A2 certified copy of chargesheet. The counsel for the second respondent elicited in the cross examination of PW1 that they have not filed any documentary proof to show that they have intimiated the death of his wife due to the injuries sustained in the accident. Except the above suggestions, nothing is elicited in the cross examination of PW1 to discard his evidence.

Under the above circumstances, I am of the opinion that the chargesheet covered under Ex.A2 wherein the investigating officer hold that the accident was occurred due to rash and negligent act of the driver of the Hero Honda Passion motorcycle bearing No.AP- 20-P-1339 involved in the accident and the driver is liable for the punishment U/sec.338 of IPC can be taken into consideration as a relevant document to establish rash and negligent driving of the driver of the Hero Honda Passion motorcycle bearing No.AP-20-P- 1339 involved in the accident. This issue is decided in favour of the claim petitioners.

ISSUE NO.2

a) Pain and sufferings and Medical expenses:

It is the evidence of PW1 that immediately after the accident, his wife was shifted to Government Hospital, Khammam, wherein during the course of treatment she got examined all clinical tests and necessary X-rays were taken and found as his wife condition was serious, she was shifted to Tarn Orthopaedic Hospital,

Khammam for better treatment, wherein during the course of treamtnet major operation was done on 17-12-2006 under C-arm 6 system and inter locking nails were inserted, POP Bandages, sutures were applied and necessary treatment was given. On 13-12-2006 she was discharged with an advise to visit the hospital twice in a month for a period of two months, and also advised to take complete bed rest. Thereafter while undergoing treatment the bone was infected and she became unconscious. Imediately she was shifted to Government Hospital, Khammam on 15-03-2007, as her condition was serious she was shifted to Mamata General

Hospital, Khammam for better treatment, wherein she took treatment as in-patient for one day, as her condition was serious the doctors advised to take her to Hyderabad for better treatment.

While undergoing treatment she succumbed to injuries on 17-03-2007. He spent an amount of Rs.50,000/- towards medical, travelling, attendance expenses of his deceased wife. Even though, he informed the death intimation of his wife to the police Karepalli, but they did not alter the section of law in the F.I.R. He relied upon

Medical Certificate issued by the Government Hospital, Khammam dt.14-12-2006 and discharge summary of Tarun Orthopaedic

Hospital, Khammam dated 30-12-2006 and medical prescriptions covered under Ex.A5 and A6 as well as Medical Bills numbering (32) bills for Rs.31,113/- and death certificate of Govindamma under Ex.A8 alongwith A9. A perusal Ex.A3 Medical Certificate discloses one grievous injury and 4 simple injuries, ie.,

1) Contusion of 4x4 cm on lower 1/3rd left arm- grievous injury,

2) Contusion 4x4 cm on left ankle joint, 3) Injury to right hip joint, 4)injury to left elbow point and 5) injury to right hand. That apart

Ex.A7 medical bills discloses that an amount of Rs.31,113/- was 7 incurred towards medical bill expenses. Considering the nature of the injuries sustained by the first petitioner, who died susbequently it can be said that an amount of Rs.30,000/- can be roughly estimated, Rs.10,000/- each to the simple injuries 2 to 5 can be roughly estimated towards compensation apart from the expenses incurred in medical bills ie., Rs.31,113/-, Rs.30,000/- and

Rs.10,000/- each for the injuries 2 to 5 totalling Rs.1,01,113/- towards pains and sufferings and medical expenses.

b) Loss of Earnings:

It is the further evidence of PW1 that his deceased wife

Govindamma worked as agricultural coolie, aged. 35 years and used to earn Rs.3,000/- per month on agricultural coolie works and due to the death of his wife they lost earnings as well as love and affection that apart from the loss of conjugal happiness. However, in the cross examination he stated that police did not alter F.I.R after the death of his wife. Nothing is placed before this court to show that the death of Govindamma was occurred due to the injuries sustained in the accident, for which no inference can be drawn that the death of the Govindamma was occurred due to the injuries sustained in the accident. PW1 claimed that Govindamma did agricultural coolie works, used to earn Rs.2,000/- per month.

Now, the minimum wages can be calculated @Rs.100/- as such,

I am inclined to accept the claim of the petitioners to estimate the earning capacity to the deceased Govindamma @Rs.2,500/- per month and she died after discharging from the hospital on 13-12-2006. Therefore, the loss of earnings can be estimated from the date of accident to the date of discharge from the hospital 8 which can be said that she lost her earnings from 14-12-2006 to 30-12-2006, ie., 16 days, as such I would like to award compensation for loss of earnings at Rs.2,500/- by estimating notionally.

c) Attendant Charges :

Due to the accident, Govindamma was treated in the hospital for which for attending her an amount of Rs.2,000/- towards attendant charges.

d) Extra Nourishment charges

After treatment for healing, there is every likelihood of treatment for extra nourishment which can be estimated at

Rs.4,000/- .

Issue No.3 :

It is not in dispute the crime vehicle was covered with insurance, for which the respondents 1 and 2 are jointly and severally liable to pay the compensation.

In view of the above discussion, the total compensation to the claim petitioner is liable to Rs.1,09,113/- under various heads.

This issue is decided accordingly.

The total compensation awarded in favour of the claim petitioner under various heads is as under.

1.Pains and sufferings Rs.70,000/-

2.Medical expensesRs.31,113/-

3.Loss of earningsRs.2,500/- 4Attendant chargesRs.2,000/-

7.Extra noursihmentRs.4,000/- 8Total compensation Rs.1,09,113/- 9

11. In view of findings on issues No.1 and 2, the petition is allowed, awarding compensation of Rs.1,09,113/- (Rupees One lakh, nine thousand, one hundred and thirteen only) with interest @ 7.5% P.A. from the date of petition till the date of realization. The respondents 1 and 2 are jointly and severally liable to pay the compensation amount. Two months time is granted to the respondent No.2 to deposit the compensation amount and on such deposit the petitioner/claim petitioner No.2 is permitted to withdraw his share amount with accrued interest and proportionate costs.

The petitioners 3 and 4 shall withdraw their respective shares after attaining majority, till then the shares of the petitioners 3 and 4 shall be kept in F.D.R for a period of one year. The share of the first petitioner is apportioned at Rs.54,807-00 and shares of the petitioners 3 and 4 apportioned at Rs.27,403-00 each with proportionate interest and costs. The rest of the petitioner's claim is dismissed. Advocate Fee is fixed at Rs.2,000/- (Rupees two thousand only).

Dictated to the Stenographer, transcribed by her, corrected

and pronounced by me in the open Court on this the 25th day of May, 2017.

CHAIRMAN,

MOTOR ACCIDENTS CLAIMS TRIBUNAL,

(V ADDL.DISTRICT JUDGE),

KOTHAGUDEM.

10

-APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE-

WITNESSES EXAMINED

FOR CLAIM PETITIONERS:

P.W.1: Addanki Bhadraiah Chari

FOR RESPONDENTS:

-None-

EXHIBITS MARKED

FOR CLAIM PETITIONERS:

Ex.A1 : Certified copy of F.I.R dated 14-12-2006.

Ex.A2 : Certified copy of chargesshet.

Ex.A3 : Medical Certificate.

Ex.A4 : Discharge Summary

Ex.A5 : Medical Prescriptions

Ex.A6 : Diagnosis report

Ex.A7 : Medical Bills

Ex.A8: Original Death Certificate

Ex.A9 : X-ray film

FOR RESPONDENT:

-Nil-

CHAIRMAN,

MOTOR ACCIDENTS CLAIMS TRIBUNAL,

(V ADDL.DISTRICT JUDGE),

KOTHAGUDEM.

Corrections carried out by me:

11 12

TSBK000002882016

Presented on : 03-11-2016 Registered on : 03-11-2016 Decided on : 27-04-2017 Duration : 0 years, 5 months, 24 days

IN THE COURT OF

Principal District and Sessions Judge, Bhadradri Kothagudem

Presided Over by P Vasanth

OP/100020/2016

Medipalli Sridevi Address: age 35 yrs occ house wife r o 7 8 78 a new gollagudem kothagudem

VERSUS Medipalli manikya Rao Address: age 40 yrs occ pvt job r o h no 4 1191 1 jublipuram street hemchandrapuram kothagudem ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Advocate for : Advocate for : appearing for Medipalli manikya Rao: Advocate appearing for respectively.

ORDER

Petitioner called absent. Orders pronounced int he open court vide separate one. In the result, the petition is allowed and the marriage between the petitioner and the respondent dated 11.01.2001 is hereby dissolved by way of granting decree of divorce. Under the circumstances, no costs.

Date : 27-04-2017 (P Vasanth)

Principal District and Sessions Judge, Bhadradri Kothagudem

TSBK000000012017

Presented on : 06-01-2017 Registered on : 06-01-2017 Decided on : 27-04-2017 Duration : 0 years, 3 months, 21 days

IN THE COURT OF

Principal District and Sessions Judge, Bhadradri Kothagudem

(Presided Over by P Vasanth)

CRLA/100007/2017

Kalam Sudhakar Rao Through Police Station Officer age 37 yrs occ employee KTPS Paloncha Kalam Sudhakar Rao VERSUS Kalam Chaitanya age 30 yrs occ household ro hno d 197 nala area rudrampur kothagudem ----------------------------------------------------------------------------- APP for State }: , Advocate for appearing for Kalam Chaitanya Advocate appearing for , respectively. -----------------------------------------------------------------------------

Offence punishable under : 389 of CODE OF CRIMINAL PROCEDURE,

ORDER

Appellant filed Memo reporting that he is not-pressing the appeal. Memo recorded. Appeal is dismissed as not-pressed without costs.

Date : 27-04-2017 (P Vasanth)

Principal District and Sessions Judge, Bhadradri

Kothagudem

TSBK000001742016

Presented on : 01-06-2016 Registered on : 01-06-2016 Decided on : 27-04-2017 Duration : 0 years, 10 months, 26 days

IN THE COURT OF

Principal District and Sessions Judge, Bhadradri Kothagudem

Presided Over by P Vasanth

OP/100005/2016

Kalam Sudhakar Rao Address: Age 37 yrs occ PA in KTPS ro intermediate Colony Paloncha VERSUS Kalam Chaitanya Address: age 33 years occ house hold ro do Gosu subha Rao Dish Subba Rao Nala area, Rudrampur Kothagduem Khammam ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Advocate for : Advocate for : appearing for Kalam Chaitanya: Advocate appearing for respectively.

ORDER

BOth parties present. Petitioner filed Memo not-pressing the D.O.P. Memo is recorded. D.O.P.is dismissed as not-pressed without costs.

Date : 27-04-2017 (P Vasanth)

Principal District and Sessions Judge, Bhadradri Kothagudem