IN THE COURT OF THE CHAIRMAN, MOTOR ACCIDENT CLAIMS
TRIBUNAL–CUM–PRINCIPAL DISTRICT JUDGE, MANCHERIAL
Present:- SRI BOYA SRINIVASULU, Chairman, MACT-cum-Principal District Judge Mancherial
THURSDAY THIS THE 17TH OF APRIL 2025
M.V.O.P.No. 87 of 2021
Between:
1. Beedam Sukanya, W/o.Late Sampath Rao, Age 52 years, Occ:Nil
2. Beedam Pratheek, S/o.Late Sampath Rao, Age 35 years, Occ:Nil
3. Beedam Pratheesh, S/o.Late Sampath Rao, Age 32 years, Occ:Nil
4. Beedam Savithramma, W/o.Chandraiah, Age 70 years, Occ:Nil 5 Beedam Chandraiah, S/o.Gopaiah, Age 75 years, Occ:Nil All R/o.Q.No.59-48/C, Shirkey colony, Mandal Mandamarri, District Mancherial … Petitioners //AND//
1. Jalampalli Ravi, S/o.Rayamallu, Age 38 years, Occ:Driver of Lorry bearing No.TS22T-3243, R/o.H.No.3-26, Tekumatla village, Mandal Jaipur, District Mancherial.
2. Gandra Rama Rao, S/o.Dharma Rao, Occ:Owner of Lorry bearing No. TS22T-3243, R/o.G.M.Colony, Godavarikhani, Mandal Ramagundam, District Peddapalli.
3. The Branch Manager, United India Insurance Company Ltd, Post:Kyathanpalli village, main road, Mandal Mandamarri, District Mancherial (Policy No.05230120P115117613 valid from 30.03.2021 to 29.03.2022)
...Respondents
MVOP.No.87 of 2021 2 of 15
This petition is coming for final hearing before me on 17.04.2025 in the presence of Sri P.Chiranjeeva Chary, Advocate for Petitioners and of Sri Gaddam Srinivas, Advocate for Respondent No.3. Respondent No.1 and 2 remained exparte. Upon hearing both sides and the matter having stood over for consideration till this day, this Tribunal made the following:
O R D E R
1. This Petition is filed under Section 166 (1) (c) of the Motor
Vehicles Act, 1988 r/w Rule 455 of Motor Vehicle Rules, 1989 by the
Petitioners claiming compensation of Rs.1,25,00,000/- (Rupees One crore and twenty five thousand only) for the death of deceased Beedam
Sampath Rao, who died in a road traffic accident on 19.08.2021 at 10.46 am at Sai Baba Temple, Mandamarri.
2. The brief averments of the petition are that on 19.08.2021 at about 10.45 am, while the deceased Beedam Sampath Rao was proceeding on his motorcycle bearingNo.AP15F/3108 from III Zone to I
Zone, Mandamarri and when he reached infront of Sai Baba Temple at
Mandamarri, the crime vehicle lorry bearing No.TS22T-3243 driven by
Respondent No.1 in a rash and negligent manner and while overtaking the motorcycle of deceased, the lorry back side portion hit the deceased.
As a result of it, the deceased fell down on the road towards lorry side and the lorry back tyres climbed over the legs of the deceased and the deceased sustained bleeding injuries and became unconscious. The deceased was shifted to the Area Hospital, Ramakrishnapur, but he succumbed to injuries in the hospital on the same day.
MVOP.No.87 of 2021 3 of 15
3. It is further averred that on a report lodged by wife of deceased i.e, Petitioner No.1 herein, the Police, Mandamarri registered a case in
Cr.No.201 of 2021 against the Respondent No.1 for the offence under
Section 304A of IPC. It is further averred that the deceased Sampath
Rao was aged about (55) years, hale and healthy at the time of accident and he was working as a senior Electrician at Area Workshop,
Mandamarri and he was earning Rs.1,21,314/- per month. But, due to sudden death of the deceased, the Petitioners suffered mentally a lot and lost their earning source and it was a great loss to the estate of the
Petitioners and they are claiming compensation of Rs.1,25,00,000/- under all heads. The Respondent No.1 being the driver of the crime vehicle Lorry, Respondent No.2 owner of the crime vehicle and the
Respondent No.3 being the insurer of the crime vehicle, all are jointly and severally liable to pay the compensation to the Petitioners.
4. Respondent No.1 and 2 did not appear before the Court and not filed any counter and as there was no representation on their behalf,
Respondent No.1 and 2 were set-exparte on 22.03.2022.
5. Respondent No.3 filed counter denying the material averments made in the petition and contended that the deceased Sampath Rao was not having any valid driving license to drive the crime vehicle and the motorcycle of the deceased was not fit to fly on the road at the time of
MVOP.No.87 of 2021 4 of 15 accident, as such the accident only due to the negligence of the deceased, as such, the Respondent No.3 is not liable to pay any compensation to the Petitioners. It is further contended that the person who drove the crime vehicle lorry was not having any valid driving license to drive the crime vehicle at the time of accident. It is also contended that the amount of compensation claimed by the Petitioners is high and exorbitant and that the Claimants are not entitled for any compensation and finally prayed to dismiss the petition against the
Respondent No.3.
6.Based on the above pleadings, the following issues are settled for trial:
1)Whether B.Sampath Rao died in the accident that occurred on 19.08.2021 at about 10.45 am infront of Sai Baba Temple at Mandamarri?
2)Whether the said accident occurred due to rash and negligent driving of driver of Lorry bearing No.TS22T- 3243?
3)Whether the Petitioners are entitled to claim compensation for the accidental death of B.Sampath Rao, if so how much? And against which of the Respondents?
4)To what relief?
7. During the course of enquiry, the Petitioner No.1 who is the wife of deceased Beedam Sukanya as PW1 and got marked Exs.A1 to A8. The
Petitioners also got examined one Ram Srinivas who is an eye witness to the accident as PW2. One D.Raj Kumar who is working in the Singareni
MVOP.No.87 of 2021 5 of 15
Collieries Company Ltd is examined as CW2 and through him Exs.X1 to
X3 documents were marked. On the other hand, on behalf of contesting
Respondent No.3, no witness was examined except marking the attested copy of Insurance Policy as Ex.B1.
8. Heard both sides. Perused the record.
ISSUES NO. 1 and 2: As the Issue No.1 and 2 are interlinked, they are taken-up together to avoid any repetition.
9. The Petitioner No.1/Beedam Sukanya, who is wife of deceased
Beedam Samapth Rao filed her chief affidavit by reiterating the contents of petition that on 19.08.2021 at about 10.45 am, while the deceased
Beedam Sampath Rao was proceeding on his motorcycle bearing No.
AP15F/3108 from III Zone to I Zone, Mandamarri and when he reached infront of Sai Baba Temple at Mandamarri, the crime vehicle lorry bearing No.TS22T-3243 driven by Respondent No.1 in a rash and negligent manner and while overtaking the motorcycle of deceased, the lorry back side portion hit the deceased. As a result of it, the deceased fell down on the road towards lorry side and the lorry back tyres climbed over the legs of the deceased and the deceased sustained bleeding injuries and became unconscious. The deceased was shifted to the Area
Hospital, Ramakrishnapur, but he succumbed to injuries in the hospital on the same day.
MVOP.No.87 of 2021 6 of 15
10. PW1 further deposed that on a report lodged by her, the Police,
Mandamarri registered a case in Cr.No.201 of 2021 against the
Respondent No.1 herein for the offence under Section 304A of IPC. It is further averred that the deceased Sampath Rao was aged about (55) years, hale and healthy at the time of accident and he was working as a senior Electrician at Area Workshop, Mandamarri and he was earning
Rs.1,21,314/- per month. But, due to sudden death of the deceased, the Petitioners suffered mentally a lot and lost their earning source and it was a great loss to the estate of the Petitioners and they are claiming compensation of Rs.1,25,00,000/- under all heads. PW1 further deposed that the Respondent No.1 being the driver of the crime vehicle
Lorry, Respondent No.2 owner of the crime vehicle and the Respondent
No.3 being the insurer of the crime vehicle, all are jointly and severally liable to pay the compensation to the Petitioners.
11. In the cross-examination of Respondent No.3, PW1 denied the suggestion that her husband used to attend the duties by confining to work shop, as such, there was no scope to occur accident on 19.08.2021 at 10.45 am. PW1 further denied the suggestion that the deceased was not possessed valid and effective driving license at the time of accident to drive the two wheeler.
MVOP.No.87 of 2021 7 of 15
12. Further, the Petitioners also got examined one Ram Srinivas, who is an eye witness the accident as PW2 The evidence of PW2 shows that on 19.08.2021 at about 10.45 am, the deceased Sampath Rao was coming from KK-2 dispensary side on his Hero Honda splendor motorcycle and when reached near Sai Baba temple, by that time, the crime vehicle Lorry bearing No.TS22T-3243 came from behind the motorcycle of the deceased by driving in a rash and negligent manner and dashed to the motorcycle from his back side. As a result of it, the deceased fell down from the motorcycle and its back tyres climbed and ran over the deceased legs. Due to which, the deceased legs were bursted and blood was oozed a lot. Immediately, PW2 called the ambulance in which the deceased was shifted to Area Hospital,
Ramakrishnapur, but the deceased died while undergoing treatment.
13. In the cross-examination, PW1 stated that he directly witnesses the accident by standing infront of Tiffin center near Sai Baba Temple at
Mandamarri and the crime vehicle lorry was empty without any load.
PW2 denied the suggestion that as PW2 was stood on the right side to the driver of the Lorry, there was no scope for him to witness the accident that was happened on the left side of the lorry. PW2 further denied the suggestion that himself and the deceased belongs to same village and he is deposing false.
MVOP.No.87 of 2021 8 of 15
14. In support of contention of Petitioners, they relied on the documents under Exs.A1 to A8. Ex.A1 is the certified copy of First
Information Report in Cr.No.201 of 2021, shows that on the report lodged by PW1, the Police, Mandamarri registered a case in Cr.No.201 of 2021 under Section 304A of IPC. Further, Ex.A2 is the certified copy of inquest panchanama, which shows that the inquest panchanama was conducted over the dead body of the deceased Beedam Samapth Rao
Ramakrishna and the panchas therein expressed their opinion that the deceased died in a road traffic accident. Ex.A3 is the postmortem examination report which shows that the Medical Officer, Government
Area Hospital, Mancherial conducted postmortem examination over the dead body of deceased Beedam Sampath Rao. Further, Ex.A4 is the certified copy of charge-sheet, which goes to show that Police
Mandamarri investigated the case and after completion of investigation filed charge-sheet against the Respondent No.1 for the offence punishable under Section 304-A of IPC. Ex.A5 is the accident information report. Ex.A6 is the report issued by the Motor Vehicle
Inspector, which shows that the accident was not occurred due to any mechanical defect of the crime vehicle lorry. All these documents i.e,
Exs.A1 to A6 coupled with the evidence of PW1 and PW2 clearly shows that the Respondent No.1 drove the crime vehicle Lorry bearing
No.TS22T-3243 in a rash and negligent manner and dashed to the
MVOP.No.87 of 2021 9 of 15 motorcycle of the deceased, as a result of it, the deceased Beedam
Sampath Rao sustained injuries and while undergoing treatment, he succumbed to injuries. The Respondents did not adduce any evidence to disbelieve the contention of the Petitioners, as such, this Tribunal construed that the accident was occurred on 19.08.2021 at Sai Baba temple, Mandamarri only due to the rash and negligent driving of the crime vehicle lorry bearing No.TS22T-3243 driven by Respondent No.1.
Hence, these two issues are answered accordingly.
ISSUE No.3:-
15. The Petitioners are contending that the Petitioner No.1 is the wife,
Petitioner No.2 & 3 are the sons and whereas the Petitioner No.4 & 5 are the parents of the deceased Beedam Sampath Rao. The Respondents also not denied the relationship of the Petitioners with the deceased disputes. As such, it is considered that the Petitioners are the legal heirs of the deceased Beedam Sampath Rao and they are entitled to claim the compensation.
16. As per the evidence of PW1, who is wife of deceased that her husband was a Singareni Employee working as Senior Electrician at Area
Workshop, Mandamarri and his average monthly salary is Rs.1,13,217/-.
Ex.A7 are the (12) months‟ salary slips of the deceased Sampath Rao commencing from August 2020 to July 2021. On perusal of the same,
MVOP.No.87 of 2021 10 of 15 the deceased was working as Electrician in Singareni Collieries Company
Ltd, with Employee Code No.02266602 and he was getting salary with different amounts depending on his working days. As such, the average salary after deducting Income Tax, the salary of the deceased Employee comes to Rs.95,716/- and the same can be taken into consideration. It is contended that due to the death of the Beedam Sampath Rao in the accident, the Petitioners sustained loss and lost the earnings and love and affection, hence, they are entitled for compensation.
17. In order to substantiate their claim, the Petitioners examined the employer of the deceased as CW1, through whom Exs.X1 and X2 are marked. CW1 deposed that he is working as Senior Assistant in Area
Work Shop, Mandamarri and s per their Office Record, the deceased
Sampath Rao worked as Senior Electrician as on the date of his death and Ex.X2 are the salary slips (12 in numbers) and Ex.X3 is the attested copy of Service Record of deceased Sampath Rao. In the cross- examination, CW1 denied the suggestion that he has no knowledge about the salary send service particulars of the deceased Sampath Rao and he is deposing false to help the Petitioners. The evidence of PW1 and CW1 with regard to the employment of deceased is corroborated with each other. Therefore, in view of these factors, it can be constructed that the deceased Sampath Rao was getting a monthly salary of Rs.95,716/-. Therefore, the annual income of the deceased
MVOP.No.87 of 2021 11 of 15 would be Rs.11,48,590/-. Further, on perusal of records, more particularly Ex.A8 which is the Secondary School Certificate (SSC), the date of birth of the deceased Beedam Sampath Rao is shown as 24.08.1966. The accident was occurred on 19.08.2021, hence the age of the deceased was (55) years at the time of accident. As such, the age of the deceased Beedam Sampath Rao as on the date of accident can be taken as (55) years to apply suitable multiplier i.e, “11”. As per the decision reported in 2009 ACJ 2003 in a case between SARALA
VERMA AND OTHERS vs. DELHI TRANSPORT CORPORATION AND
ANOTHER, the relevant multiplier to be applied for the age group of 51 to 55 years is „11‟. At this juncture, this Tribunal has relied on the landmark Judgment of the Hon‟ble Supreme Court in between
NATIONAL INSURANCE COMPANY vs. PRANAY SETHI AND
OTEHRS, wherein it is observed by their Lordships that in case if the deceased was self employed or on a fixed salary, an addition of 15% of the established income should be warrant. Therefore, the annual income of the deceased would come to Rs.13,20,853/- (Rupees Thirteen lakhs twenty thousand eight hundred and fifty three only). On perusal of the records, the crime vehicle Lorry bearing No.TS22T-3243 was driven by Respondent No.1, owned by Respondent No.2 and it is insured with the Respondent No.3 company. The accident was occurred on 19.08.2021. As per Ex.B1, the Insurance Policy of the crime vehicle is
MVOP.No.87 of 2021 12 of 15 valid from 30.03.2021 to 29.03.2022, hence, it clearly shows that as on the date of accident, the Insurance Policy of the crime vehicle was in force.
18. In view of the above discussion, the annual income of the deceased would come to Rs.13,20,853/- and after deduction of 1/4th of his income towards his personal expenditure, it comes to Rs.9,90,640/- (Rupees Nine Lakhs ninety thousand six hundred and forty only) per annum. After applying the multiplier „11‟, it comes to Rs.1,08,97,040/- (Rupees One crore eight lakhs ninety seven thousand and forty only)
Hence, in the above circumstances, the Petitioners are entitled to the following compensation for the death of the deceased Beedam Sampath
Rao.
The Annual income of the Rs. 13,20,853-00 deceased is Rs.11,48,568/- and future prospects @ 15% on monthly income of Rs.1,72,285/- Total comes to Rs.13,20,853/- Deduction of 1/4 towards Rs. 3,30,213-00 personal and living expenses comes to Rs.3,30,213/- which comes to Rs.9,90,640/ Multiplier applicable is „11‟ Rs. 1,08,97,040-00 Rs. 1,08,97,040-00 9,90,640x11=Rs. 1,08,97,018/- Loss of Estate Rs. 15,000-00
Loss of Consortium Rs. 2,00,000-00
MVOP.No.87 of 2021 13 of 15
Funeral Expenses Rs. 15,000-00
Total: Rs.1,11,27,040-00
19. Hence the Respondent No.1 being the driver of the crime vehicle,
Respondent No.2 being the owner of the crime vehicle and the
Respondent No.3 being the Insurer of the crime vehicle i.e, Lorry bearing No.TS22T-3243, are all jointly and severally liable to pay the compensation amount of Rs.1,11,27,040/- (Rupees One Crore Eleven lakhs twenty seven thousand and forty only). This Issue No.3 is answered accordingly.
ISSUE No.4:
IN THE RESULT, the petition is partly allowed and the compensation of Rs.1,11,27,040/- (Rupees One Crore Eleven lakhs twenty seven thousand and forty only) is awarded under all heads holding all the
Respondents No.1 to 3 are jointly and severally liable to pay the compensation amount within two months from the date of passing of this Award with proportionate costs and interest @ 7% per annum from the date of petition till realization. On such deposit, the Petitioner No.1 is entitled to Rs.55,63,532/- (Rupees Fifty five lakhs sixty three thousand five hundred and thirty two only) and the Petitioner No.2 & 3 beings sons and Petitioner No.4 & 5 being parents of deceased Sampath
Rao are entitled to Rs.13,90,877/- (Rupees Thirteen Lakhs ninety thousand eight hundred and seventy seven only) each. On such
MVOP.No.87 of 2021 14 of 15 deposit, the Petitioner No.1 to 5 are entitled to withdraw their half of their share amount and the remaining their respective share amounts shall be kept in FDR in any Nationalized Banks for a period of two years.
Advocate fee is fixed at Rs.6,000/- (Rupees Six thousand only).
Typed by the stenographer to my dictation and after correction
pronounced by me in the open Court on this the 17th day of April 2025.
Sd/-
CHAIRMAN (MACT)-CUM
PRINCIPAL DISTRICT JUDGE,
MANCHERIAL
APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE
WITNESSES EXAMINED
For Petitioners: For Respondents:- None
PW1: Beedam Sukanya (Petitioner No.1) PW2: Ram Srinivas (eye witness to the accident)
CW1: D.Raj Kumar
EXHIBITS MARKED
For Petitioners:
Ex.A1 CC of FIR in Cr.No.201 of 2021 of PS Mandamarri
dt:19.08.2021
Ex.A2 CC of inquest panchanama of deceased Sampath Rao
dt:19.08.2021
Ex.A3 CC of Postmortem Examination Report dt:19.08.2021 Ex.A4 CC of Charge-sheet in Cr.No.201 of 2021of PS Mandamarri Ex.A5 CC of Accident Information Report (Form No.54) Ex.A6 Certified copy of MVI Report Ex.A7 (12) months‟ salary slips of decased Sampth Rao from August 2020 to July 2021 Ex.A8 Original SSC Memo of deceased
MVOP.No.87 of 2021 15 of 15
For Respondents:
Ex.B1 Attested copy of Insurance Policy
Ex.X1: Authorized letter issued by Deputy General Manager Ex.X2: (12) Salary slips of deceased from August 2020 to July 2021 Ex.X3: Attested Service Record of B.Sampath Rao
Sd/-
CHAIRMAN (MACT)-CUM
PRINCIPAL DISTRICT JUDGE
MANCHERIAL