MVOP.No.22/2025 -1 - VI ADJC, AVG
BEFORE THE MOTOR ACCIDENTS CLAIMS TRIBUNAL
–CUM- VI ADDITIONAL DISTRICT COURT: AVANIGADDA.
Present: - Sri P.Panduranga Reddy
Chairman, Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal –cum- VI Additional District Judge, Avanigadda.
Friday, this the 8th day of May, 2026
M.V.O.P.No.22/2025
(Old MVOP.No.62/2020)
Between:
1. Domatoti Kumari, W/o. Late Venkateswara Rao, 43 years, House wife,
2. Domatoti Rajendra Babu, S/o. Late Venkateswara Rao, aged 30 years,
3. Domatoti Ram, S/o. Late Venkateswara Rao, aged about 29 years,
4. Domatoti Nirmala, W/o. Late Sri Ramulu, …. Petitioners. aged about 70 years, House wife,
All are resident of D.No.2-125/2, V.Rudravaram village, Ghantasala Mandal, Krishna District. AND
1. Kommukuri Raja Prakasha Rao @ Prakasha Rao, S/o. Mastan, aged 42 years, driver-cum- owner of Auto bearing No.AP39TE3855, R/o.V.Rudravaram village, Ghantasala Mandal, Krishna District.
MVOP.No.22/2025 -2 - VI ADJC, AVG
2. Cholamandalam Investment and Finance Limited, rep., by its Branch Manager, Branch Office, Opp.Matha Towers, Near Benz Circle, Vijayawada city, Krishna District.
3. HDFC ERGO General Insurance company Limited, rep., by its Branch manager, Branch Office, 4th floor, Seepra towers, Opp.HDFC Bank, Behind Airtel office, Bandar road, Vijayawada.
4. Bharathi Axa General Insurance Company Rep., by its Branch Manager, Branch Office, 4th floor Opp. Data Pro, Flat No.A1, MG Road, Vijayawada.
(4th respondent added as per the orders in …… Respondents.
IA.No.1883/2023, dt.25.03.2024)
Counsel for the petitioners : Sri G.V.Ramana Respondent No.1 : Exparte Counsel for R2 : Sri G.Rajesh Kumar Counsel for R3 : Sri M.P.N.Satish Counsel for R4 : Sri V.Krishna Paramatma Date of arguments : 16.04.2026
O R D E R
The petitioners, who are the legal heirs of the deceased Domatoti
Venkateswara Rao filed this petition U/Secs.140 and 166 of the Motor
Vehicles Act, claiming compensation of Rs.15,00,000/- from the respondents with costs and future interest.
2.Brief facts set out in the petition are as follows:
The first claimant is the wife of deceased Domatoti Venkateswara Rao and the claimants 2 and 3 are their children and claimant No.4 is the mother of deceased. On 09.12.2019 at about 8.00 A.M., the deceased and other
MVOP.No.22/2025 -3 - VI ADJC, AVG villagers have engaged an auto of the 1st respondent bearing No.AP39TE3855 on hire basis to go to Polavaram Village of Pamarru Mandal for agricultural operation works. After completion of their works in fields all the persons started to go to their village in 1st respondent’s auto, and though they cautioned the 1st respondent to drove the auto in slowly, he did not heed their words and drove his auto with high speed. After crossing Vundrapudi
Anjaneyaswamy temple and when they reached near Prawn factory, the 1st respondent lost his control over the auto due to over speed and when he applied sudden breaks, the auto turned turtle due to which the passenger in auto sustained severe injuries all over their bodies and they were shifted to
Government hospital, Machilipatnam for treatment. The 1st respondent without rendering any medical aid and without informing about the incident to the concerned police, escaped from the scene of offence by leaving his vehicle.
Later the deceased Domatoti Venkateswara Rao was shifted to Kamineni
Hospital, Vijayawada, wherein he died while undergoing treatment. On the report given by one Kanagala Chintaiah, a case in Cr.No.328/2019 was registered in Pamarru Police Station U/s.304-A and 337 IPC against the 1st respondent. The deceased died due to rash and negligent driving of the 1st respondent.
The deceased was hale, healthy and robust person at the time of death. The deceased is a skilled worker. As on the date of accident he was aged about 47 years and eking out his livelihood by doing agricultural coolie works and milk vending business, and he was getting income of Rs.30,000/- per month. He has been maintaining his family with his hard earnings. Due to sudden, premature and unfortunate death of deceased, the petitioners lost their sole bread winner and also lost their love and affection from the deceased in their early age. The petitioners are only legal heirs of the deceased.
MVOP.No.22/2025 -4 - VI ADJC, AVG
The 1st respondent being the driver-cum-owner of the crime vehicle insured his vehicle with the 3rd respondent vide policy No.PP0001510LQO90 which was valid from 26.10.2019 to 25.10.2023. The 1st respondent hypothecated the offending vehicle to the 2nd respondent who provided finance to purchase auto. As per the information given by the 3rd respondent in his counter the 4th respondent is the insurer and the insurance policy was in force at the time of incident. Thus, the respondents 1 to 4 are jointly, severally and vicariously liable to pay the compensation. Hence, the petition.
3.The 1st respondent/driver-cum-owner of the offending vehicle is set exparte.
4.The 2nd respondent filed counter denied most of the petition averments and contended that this respondent company is only a financier to the auto bearing No.AP39TE3855 and they are not directly involved or connected with the alleged accident. There is no liability on the part of the 2nd respondent and they are not liable to indemnify anybody as a financier. The petitioner unnecessarily added this respondent and hence, the petition is liable to be dismissed.
5.The 3rd respondent company filed counter as well additional counter denying most of the petition averments and contended that as on the date of accident the auto bearing No.AP39TE3855 was not insured with this respondent and therefore, this respondent is not liable to pay any compensation to the petitioners. The policy No.PP0001510LQO90 mentioned in petition was not issued by this 3rd respondent at any point of time and the crime auto was insured with the 4th respondent/Bharati AXA General
MVOP.No.22/2025 -5 - VI ADJC, AVG
Insurance company Limited for the period from 21.10.2019 to 20.10.2020 vide policy No.SB237303. Hence, this 3rd respondent company is not liable to pay any compensation to the petitioners.
6.The 4th respondent/Insurer filed counter denying most of the petition averments and contended that this insurance company was added by the petitioners four years after filing the claim petition even without strike of the proceedings against the 3rd respondent. Hence, it is a purely negligent act committed by the petitioners to dragon the matter years together. Hence, the petitioners are not entitled to any interest from the date of petition. The driver- cum-owner of the auto violated the terms and conditions of the policy and allowed more than the permitted passengers and caused the accident. They denied the averments in the petition regarding the 2nd respondent having valid driving license and Insurance policy up to 25.10.2023. The insured/2nd respondent had not complied with the statutory demand under Section 134(c) of M.V.Act, 1988. The petitioners 2 to 4 are married and living with their families individually and therefore, they are not entitled to get compensation.
The compensation claimed by the petitioners are highly excessive, exorbitant and arbitrary and hence, prays to dismiss the petition.
7. On the strength of the pleadings, the following issues were settled for trial:-
ISSUES:-
1. Whether the accident took place as alleged by the petitioners on 09.12.2019 at about 6.30 P.M on Kuchipudi Pamarru main road, after crossing Anjaneya Swamy temple, Vundrapudi village cross road, Pamarru Mandal, Krishna District resulting in the death of Domatoti Venkateswara Rao on account of rash and negligent
MVOP.No.22/2025 -6 - VI ADJC, AVG driving of Auto bearing registration No.AP39TE3855 by respondent No.1 at the time of accident?
2. Whether the auto bearing registration No.AP39TE3855 was insured with 3rd respondent or 4th respondent? If so, was there any breach of policy conditions?
3. What were the age, avocation and earnings of the deceased?
4. Whether the petitioners are entitled for compensation? If so, to what extent and against whom?
5. To what relief?
8. During trial, the petitioners examined PWs.1 and 2 and got marked
Exs.A1 to A4. On behalf of the respondents, they examined RWs1 and 2 and got marked Exs.B1 to B6.
9. Heard both sides and for the reasons to be recorded hereinafter my finding is as follows:-
FINDING: Petition is partly allowed against the 1st respondent only as per operative part of the order.
10.REASONS IN SUPPORT OF MY FINDING:
ISSUE No.1: Whether the accident took place as alleged by the petitioners on 09.12.2019 at about 6.30 P.M on Kuchipudi Pamarru main road, after crossing Anjaneya Swamy temple, Vundrapudi village cross road, Pamarru Mandal, Krishna District resulting in the death of Domatoti Venkateswara Rao on account of rash and negligent driving of Auto bearing registration No.AP39TE3855 by respondent No.1 at the time of accident?
The first claimant is the wife of deceased Domatoti Venkateswara Rao and the claimants 2 and 3 are their children, and the 4th claimant is the mother of deceased. Their case in pleadings as well as in evidence is that on
MVOP.No.22/2025 -7 - VI ADJC, AVG 09.12.2019, while the deceased and other coolies were returning to their village from Polavaram village of Pamarru Mandal in an auto of the 1st respondent bearing No.AP39TE3855 and when they reached a Prawn factory, the 1st respondent drove his auto in a rash and negligent manner with high speed and lost control over the auto, due to which the auto turned turtled. As a result of the accident, the passenger in auto including the deceased sustained severe injuries all over their bodies and later, the deceased died in Kamineni
Hospital, Vijayawada while undergoing treatment. In support of their case, the petitioners examined PWs.1 and 2 and got marked ExsA1 to A4. PW1 is the wife of deceased and PW2 is an eye witness to the accident.
11.PWs.1 and 2 have clearly testified that the accident occurred due to the rash and negligent driving of the auto bearing No.AP39TE3855 by the 1st respondent. The independent eye witness/PW2 narrated everything about the accident supporting the claim of petitioners and he denied the suggestion in cross examination that he had not seen the accident and he deposed falsely.
Though PWs.1 and 2 were subjected to lengthy cross examination, nothing is elicited to discredit their evidence. However, it is manifest from the criminal case record i.e., Ex.A1/FIR, Ex.A2/Inquest Report and Ex.A3/P.M report in
Cr.No.328/2019 of Pamarru Police Station that the 1st respondent being the driver-cum-owner of the offending auto bearing No.AP39TE3855 drove the same in a rash and negligent manner and caused the above accident, due to which the deceased died.
12.The Hon’ble Apex Court in Beemla Devi and others vs. Himachal
Road Transport Corporation and others (2009) 13 SC 530 observed that:
“It was necessary to borne in mind that strict proof of an accident caused by a particular bus in a particular manner may not be possible
MVOP.No.22/2025 -8 - VI ADJC, AVG to be done by the claimants. The claimants were merely to establish their case on the touchstone of preponderance of probability. The standard of proof beyond reasonable doubt could not have been applied in motor vehicle accident cases.”
13.In APSRTC, Musheerabad .Vs. J.Pedda Bheemeshwar reported in 2011 (3) ALD 433, the Hon’ble High Court in the composite state of Andhra
Pradesh at Hyderabad observed that when the petitioner filed FIR, charge- sheet and MVI Report etc., and there is no contrary evidence, it can be said that the accident was occurred due to the negligent driving of the driver of crime vehicle i.e., against whom FIR is registered.
14.In the instant case on hand, it stands established from the evidence of
PWs.1 and 2 coupled with the criminal case record in Cr.No.328/2019 of
Pamarru Police Station that the accident took place due to the rash and negligent driving of auto bearing Reg.No.AP39TE3855 by the first respondent herein and on account of the accident, the deceased Domatoti Venkateswara
Rao died. Accordingly, this issue is answered in favour of the petitioners and against the respondents.
15. ISSUE No.2: Whether the auto bearing registration No.AP39TE3855 was insured with 3rd respondent or 4th respondent? If so, was there any breach of policy conditions?
ISSUE No.3: What were the age, avocation and earnings of the deceased?
ISSUE No.4: Whether the petitioners are entitled for compensation? If so, to what extent and against whom?
MVOP.No.22/2025 -9 - VI ADJC, AVG
So far as the 2nd issue is concerned, it is an undisputed fact that the offending auto bearing registration No.AP39TE3855 was insured with the 4th respondent vide policy No.SB207303 for the period from 21.10.2019 to 20.10.2020. Therefore, it stands established from the evidence of both parties that the insurance policy/Ex.B1 of the offending auto bearing registration
No.AP39TE3855 was in force as on the date of accident, and however the 3rd respondent is noway concerned with the offending vehicle.
16.Learned counsel appearing for the Insurer/R4 Sri V.Krishna Paramatma vehemently submitted that the 1st respondent was not holding any driving license as on the date of accident to drive the offending auto and knowingly the same, he being the driver-cum-owner of the auto violated the policy terms and allowed nearly 14 passenger to travel in auto including the deceased. He further submitted that since the 1st respondent being the driver-cum-owner of the said auto violated the policy terms and allowed the passenger more than the permitted capacity to travel in auto and caused the accident, the insurer/R4 has no liability to indemnify the 1st respondent, and the 1st respondent alone is liable to pay compensation to the petitioners. On this aspect he relied upon:
National Insurance Co., Ltd., Vijayawada, Krishna District vs. Srirama
Subramanyam and others- 2025(6) ALD 221 AP
Wherein the Hon'ble Apex court held that:
47. Chalapathi Joseph is the 1st respondent, driver of the offending vehicle, against whom charge-sheet was laid by Police after investigation. The Insurance Company is able to discharge its burden with all probability in showing that the driver of the offending vehicle did not possess any driving licence. The address of the 1st respondent-Joseph, mentioned in claim petition is Plot No.530, Singh Nagar, Kandrika, Vijayawada, Krishna District. He has entered appearance and filed written statement, did not dispute the address.
MVOP.No.22/2025 -10 - VI ADJC, AVG
He resides in Vijayawada is very clear from the address disclosed and non- denial of the same and 1st respondent-driver entering appearance before the Court, on service of the summons with the said address.
48. The evidence of official RTA/RW3 is indicating that with the name of the 1st respondent, no driving licence is issued. The suggestion given to RW3 is that the 1st respondent driver might have obtained driving licence, there is possibility of the driving licence in other part of the State by producing address proof. It is only a hypothesis. Truth or possibility could have been shown by placing any other particulars of the respondent-driver. Nothing is pleaded by the owner or driver of the offending vehicle. Owner remained ex parte. When there is a given address which is not in dispute, obtaining of driving licence with reference to that address is the prima facie possibility. The possibility of obtaining driving licence from other RTA Office is to be specifically spoken by the persons, who have knowledge. The persons competent to speak about the possessing of driving licence is the driver and owner of the offending vehicle. Owner remained ex-parte and the written statement of the driver is silent.
49. For want of representation on behalf of the respondent No.1, learned MACT closed the evidence of 1st respondent. Docket observation dated 03.06.2015 of learned MACT is as follows:
"RI called absent. No representation on behalf of RI. Hence, the evidence of RI is closed." Earlier to that, the evidence of petitioners' side was closed on 01.05.2015, thereafter (3) adjournments were given and the 1st respondent- driver has taken time reporting not ready.
50. In this context of the case, this Court finds it proper to refer to Section 106 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872 which is as follows:
"106. Burden of proving fact especially within knowledge. When any fact is especially within the knowledge of any person, the burden of proving that fact is upon him."
51. Further, Sections 3 and 181 of M.V. Act reads as follows:
Sec.3. Necessity for driving licence:-(1) No person shall drive a motor vehicle in any public place unless he holds an effective driving licence issued to him authorizing him to drive the vehicle; and no person shall so drive a transport vehicle [other than a motorcab or motor cycle] hired for his own use or rented under any scheme made under sub-section (2) of Section 75 unless his driving licence specifically entitles him so to do.
MVOP.No.22/2025 -11 - VI ADJC, AVG (2) The conditions subject to which sub-section (1) shall not apply to a person receiving instructions in driving a motor vehicle shall be such as may be prescribed by the Central Government.
Sec.181. Driving vehicles in contravention of Section 3 or Section 4 -
Whoever drives a motor vehicle in contravention of Section 3 or Section 4 shall be punishable with imprisonment for a term which may extend to three months, or with fine [of five thousand rupees], or with both.
52. The fact as to 1st respondent-driver possessing valid and effective driving licence shall be within the knowledge of the driver and owner of the offending vehicle. They did not produce any evidence. They did not respond for the notice issued by the Insurance Company. There is evidence is with all probability placed by the Insurance Company. There is evidence is with all probability placed by the Insurance Company as to absence of driving license. The contents of the charge sheet and the evidence of RW1 and RW3 are sufficient to discharge the burden of Insurance Company in showing absence of driving licence to the driver of the offending vehicle. Therefore, the appellant-Insurance Company is successful in vindicating stand as to absence of Driving License when there is no driving licence for the driver of the offending vehicle, the breach is not contractual and it is fundamental breach, the breach of statutory obligations under the Motor Vehicle Act. Hence, the Insuranace Company cannot be maid liable.
Judgment referred by the learned MACT vide National Insurance Company Limited Vs. Swaran Singh and Ors.’s case [cited 1supra], Divisional Manager, New India Assurance Company Limited, Kadapa Vs., Acchigari Prasad and Ors.’s case [cited 2supra], National Insurance Company Limited, Nellore Vs, Leguntapati Sri Venkateswara Rao’s case [cited 3 supra], and New India Assurance Company Limited, Khammam Vs. Karam Dhanalakshmi [cited 4 supra], found not applicable in view of the discussion made in paras 41 to 51 above.
53. For the reasons aforesaid, point No.4 is answered in favour of the appellant-Insurance Company and against the claimants, driver and owner of the offending vehicle, concluding that the Insurance Company is able to show that the driver of the offending vehicle did not posses driving licence to drive the offending vehicle, consequently the Insurance Company is not liable to pay compensation.
MVOP.No.22/2025 -12 - VI ADJC, AVG
17.He further relied upon: United India Insurance Co., Ltd., Through its
Divisional Manager vs. Sujata Arora and other, wherein the Hon'ble Apex court held that “ In case it is found that the offending vehicle was driven by the driver who was either holding no license or a fake license, then it amounts to violation of terms and conditions of policy and in that circumstances, no liability can be fastened on the insurance company”.
18.No doubt the insurance company is entitled to take a defense that the offending vehicle was driven by an unauthorized person or the person driving the vehicle did not have a valid driving license. The onus would shift on the insurance company only after the owner of the offending vehicle pleads and proves the basic facts within his knowledge that the driver of the offending vehicle was authorized by him to drive the vehicle and was having a valid driving license at the relevant time.
19.As held by the Hon’ble High Court of AP in National Insurance Co.,
Ltd., Vijayawada, Krishna District vs. Srirama Subramanyam and others,
the fact as to 1st respondent/driver-cum-owner possessing valid and effective driving licence shall be within his knowledge. But in this case, the 1st respondent who is the owner and driver of the offending vehicle remained ex- parte and he did not enter into the witness box to speak out whether he was possessed a valid driving license at the relevant time to drive the offending auto. Moreover, it is not the case of petitioners that the 1st respondent was having a valid driving license at the time of accident, and no material has been placed by them to believe that the 1st respondent was holding valid driving license at relevant time.
MVOP.No.22/2025 -13 - VI ADJC, AVG
20. In support of its case, the insurer/R4 examined the official from RTA,
Machilipatnam as RW2/Senior Assistant who clearly testified that the driving license/Ex.B6 of the 1st respondent is valid from 31.12.2019 to 30.12.2029. He clearly deposed that the 1st respondent was not holding driving license as on the date of accident. Ex.B6 also speaks that the 1st respondent was given driving license on 31.12.2019. Therefore, on a conjoint reading of the evidence of RW2 and driving license/Ex.B6, it would reveal that the 1st respondent was not issued any driving license prior to 31.12.2019, and he being the driver-cum-owner of the offending auto drove the same without having any driving license. Therefore, as held by the Hon’ble High Court of AP in National Insurance Co., Ltd., Vijayawada, Krishna District vs. Srirama
Subramanyam and others, the breach is not contractual and it is fundamental breach, the breach of statutory obligation under the Motor
Vehicle Act. Hence, the Insurance company/R4 is not liable to indemnify the owner 1st respondent in accordance with the terms of policy. However, since it has been clearly established that the above accident occurred due to the rash and negligent driving of the auto bearing No.AP39TE3588 by the 1st respondent herein and on the account of accident the deceased died, the 1st respondent being driver-cum-owner of the offending auto is no doubt liable to pay compensation to the petitioners.
21.It is the case of petitioners in pleadings as well as in evidence that as on the date of accident the deceased was aged about 47 years and getting income of Rs.30,000/- per month from agricultural coolie works and milk vending business. But no supporting material has been placed by the petitioners to believe that the deceased was getting income of Rs.30,000/- per month prior to his death. PW1 also admitted in her cross examination that they did not file any document for the proof of the income of deceased. However, it
MVOP.No.22/2025 -14 - VI ADJC, AVG is settled law that in motor accident claim cases, once the foundational fact, namely, the actual occurrence of the accident has been established, then the
Tribunal’s role would be to calculate the quantum of just compensation if the accident had taken place by reason of negligence of the driver of a motor vehicle.
22.In National Insurance Co. Ltd., .v. Pranay Sethi and others (2017
ACJ 2700), the Hon’ble Apex Court held in Para No.57 that:
“Section 168 of the Act deals with the concept of “just compensation” and the same has to be determined on the foundation of fairness, reasonableness and equitability on acceptable legal standard because such determination can never be in arithmetical exactitude. It can never be perfect. The aim is to achieve an acceptable degree of proximity to arithmetical precision on the basis of materials brought on record in an individual case. The conception of “just compensation” has to be viewed through the prism of fairness, reason- ableness and non- violation of the principle of equitability. In a case of death, the legal heirs of the claimants cannot expect a windfall. Simultaneously, the compensation granted cannot be an apology for compensation. It cannot be a pittance. Though the discretion vested in the tribunal is quite wide, yet it is obligatory on the part of the tribunal to be guided by the expression, that is, “just compensation”.
23. In this case, since the petitioners have not placed any reliable material
before this tribunal for the proof of the income of deceased as on the date of
accident, I deem it appropriate to take the notional income of the deceased at
Rs.6,000/- per month. Thus, the notional annual income of the deceased comes to Rs.72,000/-. Admittedly, age of the deceased as on the date of acci- dent was 47 years. Therefore, having regard to the judgment in National In- surance Co. Ltd., .v. Pranay Sethi and others (2017 ACJ 2700), an addition of 25% of his notional income i.e., Rs.18,000/- should be added towards future prospects. Since the deceased was 47 years old at the time of accident, the applicable multiplier is “13”. Since the total number of dependents left behind
MVOP.No.22/2025 -15 - VI ADJC, AVG by the deceased is four, one-fourth of the income (notional income + future prospects) should be deducted towards his personal expenses. [Sarla
Verma .v. Delhi Transport Corporation 2009 ACJ 1298 (SC)]. Thus, the to- tal compensation payable towards loss of dependency is: Rs.8,77,500/- (Rs.72,000+Rs.18,000= Rs.90000x13 = Rs.11,70,000 – Rs.2,92,500).
24.In Pranay Sethi’s Case, the Hon’ble Apex Court has awarded
Rs.15,000/-, Rs.40,000/- and Rs.15,000/- towards conventional heads namely loss of estate, loss of consortium and funeral.
25.The three judges bench of the Hon’ble Apex Court in The New India
Assurance Company .v. Somwatirelying on two judge bench judgment in
Magma General Insurance Company Ltd., .v. Nanu Ram and others
(2018) 18 SCC 130 recognized spousal, parental and filial consortium. The
Hon’ble Apex Court in United India Insurance Co. Ltd., .v. Satinder Kour @
Satwinder Kaur and others AIR 2020 SC 3076, after considering Pranay
Sethi’s Case has awarded spousal consortium at the rate of 40,000/- and parental consortium at the rate of 40,000/- to each child.
26.Thus, the petitioners are entitled to compensation as under:
1. Towards loss of dependency…………………… : Rs. 8,77,500/-
2. Loss of Estate………………………………….. : Rs. 15,000/-
3. Funeral Expenses……………………………: Rs. 15,000/-
4. Spousal Consortium …………………………….. : Rs. 40,000/-
5. Parental consortium……………………………….: Rs. 80,000/-
6. Filial consortium……………………………….: Rs. 40,000/-
7. Litigation charges…………………………..: Rs. 5,000/- -------------------------- Total…………….. Rs. 10,72,500/- ---------------------------
MVOP.No.22/2025 -16 - VI ADJC, AVG
27.Considering all these facts and circumstances discussed supra in fore- going paragraphs, it can be safely concluded that the 1st respondent being the driver-cum-owner of the offending auto is alone liable to pay the above com- pensation to the petitioners. Accordingly, the points are answered.
28.ISSUE No.5: To what relief ?
In the result, the petition is partly allowed with costs against the 1st respondent alone by granting compensation of Rs.10,72,500/- (Rupees ten lakhs seventy two thousand and five hundred only) to the petitioners with subsequent interest thereon at the rate of 7.5% per annum from the date of petition to till the date of deposit of amount. The 1st respondent is hereby directed to deposit the said amount with proportionate costs within two months from the date of this order. Out of the compensation amount awarded, the first petitioner/wife is granted Rs.6,72,500/- (Rupees six lakh seventy two thousand and five hundred only) along with interest and costs of the petition.
The petitioners 2 and 3 are granted Rs.1,50,000/- (Rupees one lakh fifty thousand only) each with interest. The petitioner No.4 is granted Rs.1,00,000/- (Rupees one laksh only) with interest. On deposit of the compensation amount, the petitioner Nos.1 to 4 are at liberty to withdraw their share amount forthwith subject to payment of court fee if any. The Advocate fee is fixed at
Rs.10,000/- (Rupees ten thousand only).
Dictated to the Stenographer, transcribed by him, corrected and
pronounced by me in open Court, this the 8 th day of May, 2026.
Sd/- P.Panguranga Reddy,
Chairman, Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal
-cum- VI Additional District Judge,
Avanigadda.
MVOP.No.22/2025 -17 - VI ADJC, AVG
APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE
Witnesses Examined
For Petitioners For Respondents
PW1: Domatoti Kumari RW1: G.Sri Lakshmi PW2: M.Prabhakara Rao RW2: M.Kranthi Kumar
EXHIBITS MARKED
For Petitioners:
Ex.A1: Attested copy of F.I.R in Cr.No.328//2019 of Pamarru PS. Ex.A2: Attested copy of Inquest report, dt.12.12.2019 Ex.A3: Attested copy of P.M.report, dt.12.12.2019 Ex.A4: Medical bills dt.10.12.2019 for Rs.23,271/-
For Respondents:
Ex.B1: Policy copy Ex.B2: Authorization letter. Ex.B3: B-Register. Ex.B4: Permit details. Ex.B5: Fitness details. Ex.B6: Driving License extract of R1.
Sd/- P.Panguranga Reddy,
Chairman, MACT
-cum- VI ADJ,AVG.