Sri P.Subramanya Kumar, IV ADJ

1

IN THE COURT OF THE MOTOR ACCIDENTS CLAIMS TRIBUNAL

BEFORE THE IV ADDITIONAL DISTRICT JUDGE, FTC, ANANTAPUR

Present: Sri P.Subramanya Kumar,B.Sc.B.L.,

MACT-Cum-IV Additional District Judge

Friday, 12 th of April, 2013

Original Petition No. 652/2011

Between:

Doomeeti Sreenivasa Reddy, S/o D.Tirupal Reddy, aged about 28 years,

Hindu, agriculturist, residing at D.No.41-A, Chippala Madgu Village and Post,

Kadiri Mandal, Anantapur District.

….Petitioner

AND

1. M.Abdul Hai, S/o M.Mohammed Abdul, Sardar, Major, Muslim,

Owner of Car bearing No.KA-34-M-7965, residing at D.No.26-24,

Dhotri Street, Cowl Bazar, Bellary, Karnataka State.

2. Bajaj Allianz General Insurance Company Limited, rep. by its Manager (Claims), House No.3-6-111/8, II Floor,

F.A.R. East Plaza, Street No.18, Main Road,

Himayatnagar, Hyderabad-500 029.

Policy No.OG-11-1706-1801-00000281

Valid from 3-8-2010 to 2-8-2011.

3. R.Simhadri, S/o Chinna Narayana, Major, Hindu,

Owner of the Auto Bearing No.AP-02-V-9105, residing at d.No.5-23, Kalasamudram Village, Kadiri Mandal,

Anantapur District.

4. IFFCO-Tokia General Insurance Company Limited, rep. by its Claims Officer, K.S.C.M.F. Building, III Floor,

III Block, NO.8, Cunningham Road,

Bangalore-560 052.

Policy No.39559671 valid from 7-8-2010 to 6-8-2011. ….Respondents

This petition coming on this day for final hearing before me in the presence of Sri P.Venkata Narayana, Advocate for the petitioner, Sri M.Jubeir, Advocate for the first respondent, Sri T.Rama Krishna, Advocate for the second respondent, 2

Smt.B.Sujana, Advocate for the third respondent and of Sri K.Sudhakar Reddy,

Advocate for the fourth respondent and on perusing the material papers on record and the matter having stood over for consideration, this court delivered the following:

ORDER

This is a claim petition filed by the petitioner seeking compensation of

Rs.4,00,000/- against the respondents with costs under section 163-A of Motor

Vehicles Act, 1988 and Rule 455 of A.P.M.V.Rules, 1989.

2.The material averments of claim petition are as follows:

The petitioner is aged about 28 years and was hale and healthy at the time of accident. He was attending coolie work and also agriculture work and earning

Rs.10,000/- per month.

3.On 15-5-2011 at about 8.00 PM the petitioner and others were travelling in the auto bearing No.AP-02-V-9105 from Kadiri to go to Kalasamudram Village and when the auto was proceeding slowly on the left side of the road near Hillock at the outskirts of Kadiri, near Santhinikethan School on Kadiri – Anantapur

N.H.road, the car bearing No.KA-34-M-7965(herein after referred as offending vehicle) came from Anantapur side, the driver of it drove with high speed in rash and negligent manner, without observing auto and without giving side to the auto and dashed against the auto. As a result, the auto fell down on the road and the petitioner and others sustained grievous multiple injuries. The petitioner has sustained fracture of right femur, neck of femur hip joint lacerated injury on the right knee and lacerated injury on the left eye. Immediately the petitioner and others were shifted to Area Hospital, Kadiri. Late he was shifted to Sainath

Hospital, Kadiri for treatment and leg of the petitioner was operated and implants were fixed on the right femur and neck hip joint. He was inpatient in the said hospital for a period of 15 days. Later, he took treatment in private hospitals at 3

Anantapur and St.Johns Hospital, Bangalore. The petitioner has spent

Rs.1,30,000/- towards treatment and medicines. A criminal case was registered in Cr.No.79/11 of Kadiri P.S. under section 337 and 338 of IPC against the driver of the offending vehicle.

4.The material averments of counter filed on behalf of the first respondent are as follows:

The petition averments are denied in toto. The insurance policy insured with the second respondent was in force on the date of alleged accident and any compensation awarded shall be liable to be paid by the second respondent.

Hence requested to dismiss the petition with costs.

5.The material averments of counter filed on behalf of the second respondent

Insurance Company are as follows:

The petition averments are denied in toto. The driver of the car bearing

No.KA-34-M-7965 was not holding valid driving license at the time of the accident. The first respondent willfully handed over the possession of the said car to the driver who had no valid DL. There was no negligence on the part of the driver of the car and the accident occurred due to negligence of the driver of the auto in which the petitioner was travelling. Hence requested to dismiss the petition with costs.

6.The material averments of counter filed on behalf of the third respondent are as follows:

The petition averments are denied in toto. The case was registered against the driver of the car and no case was registered against the driver of the auto which reveals that there is no negligence on the part of the driver of the auto.

Hence this respondent and his insurer fourth respondent are not liable to pay compensation and they are only formal parties to the petition. Hence requested to dismiss the petition with costs.

4

7.The material averments of counter filed on behalf of the fourth respondent are as follows:

The petition averments are denied in toto. The case was registered against the driver of the car which shows that he is only responsible for the accident. The driver of the auto has no valid driving license. This respondent is added as a formal party to the petition. The policy number mentioned in the petition i.e.

39559671 issued only for the period from 7-8-2008 to 6-8-2009 only but not for the period 7-8-2010 to 6-8-2011 to the auto bearing No.AP-02-V-9105. Hence requested to dismiss the petition with costs.

8.Basing on the above pleadings the following issues are settled for trial:

1. Whether the driver of the first respondent offending vehicle KA-34-M- 7965 drove the vehicle in rash and negligent manner and caused accident in dispute?

2. Whether the driver of the offending vehicle holding valid driving license on the date of the accident?

3. Whether the petitioner is entitled for any compensation, if so, to what extent and from whom?

4. To what relief.

9.On behalf of the petitioner PW1 to PW4 are examined by marking Ex.A1 to

Ex.A7 and Ex.X1 to Ex.X5. On behalf of the respondents Rw1 is examined by marking Ex.B1 to Ex.B3.

10. Issue No.1: The petitioner himself has examined as PW1 by marking

Ex.A1 to Ex.A7. Ex.A1 is attested copy of FIR and Ex.A3 is attested copy of

Charge Sheet prima facie reveal that due to rash and negligent driving of the driver of the offending vehicle car the accident occurred. The correctness of

Ex.A1 and Ex.A3 have not been disputed by the respondents. Admittedly the 5 driver of the car was charge sheeted and the auto driver in which auto the petitioner and others were travelling was not charge sheeted. The Asst.

Manager legal of second respondent insurance company has admitted that the charge sheet was filed against the driver of the offending vehicle Maruti Car. It is further admitted by him that the driver of the car was having valid DL on the date of accident and Ex.B1 was in force at the time of accident. He has also admitted that the petitioner is a third party to Ex.B1 policy. As seen from the evidence of

RW1 which reveals that the petitioner impleaded the owner and insurer of the auto as only pro forma parties to the claim petition. The contesting second respondent has not summoned the driver of the Maruti Car offending vehicle who was charge sheeted to substantiate he was not at fault for causing the accident.

Nor the first respondent has examined his driver of the car to prove the said aspect. In the absence of it taking into consideration the evidence of PW1 and

Ex.A1 and Ex.A3 I hold that the driver of the offending vehicle Maruti Car is responsible for the accident in dispute. Accordingly I answer Issue No.1 in favour of the petitioner.

11.Admittedly as the petitioner is a third party to the Ex.B1 policy of the second respondent Insurance Company of its vehicle the accident in dispute took place as such the alleged over loading of the auto in which the petitioner was travelling has no significance.

12. Issue No.2: Though the second respondent has been disputed the driver of the offending vehicle was holding valid driving license on the date of accident, but admitted in the cross examination by the witness examined on its behalf of as

RW1 the car driver was having valid driving license on the date of accident. The second respondent has not taken pains to summon the driving license extract of the driver of the offending vehicle car. Thus in view of the above circumstances I hold that the driver of the offending vehicle car was holding valid DL on the date of accident. Accordingly Issue No.2 is answered in favour of the petitioner.

6

13. Issue No.3: The petitioner himself examined as Pw1. As per Ex.A2 wound certificate issued by Government Hospital, Kadiri the petitioner has sustained fracture of neck femur right hip and fracture of shaft femur which are grievous in nature.

14.Admittedly as per the evidence of PW2 who is Orthopedic Civil Asst.

Surgeon in the Govt. Hospital, Kadiri and consultant Orthopedic Surgeon in

Sainath Hospital, Kadiri who operated the petitioner on 15-5-2011 for shaft of femur with intra medullary nail with locking and after five days of the operation the doctor found the petitioner sustained another fracture on the hip joint and again PW2 operated the petitioner on 25-5-2011 for that fracture by inserting plate. The petitioner was admitted in Sainath Hospital, Kadiri on 15-5-2011 and discharged on 6-6-2011. It is disclosed by PW2 after six weeks of duration the petitioner had pain in the hip joint and found that implants were loosen in the hip joint and referred him to Bangalore in higher institution as the fracture is complicated by marking Ex.X1 and Ex.X2 case sheets relating to Sainath Hospital,

Kadiri. It is elicited in the cross examination of PW2 by the learned counsel for the second respondent the total treatment given to the petitioner in Sainath

Hospital, Kadiri was under Aarogya Sree Scheme on free of costs. It is also elicited from the witness by the learned counsel for the second respondent that under Ex.X1 he has not mentioned the part of neck fracture.

15.The petitioner has examined the Asst. Surgeon Ortho Vinayaka Hospital,

Bangalore as PW4 who has disclosed that Dr.K.S.D.Guptha has performed operation to the petitioner on 19-11-2011 for the two fractures suffered by him with open reduction and internal fixation with nailing and iliac bone grafting and they removed old plates and screws implanted on the petitioner earlier while surgery conducted in their hospital. It is further disclosed by him that during the second admission of the patient on 13-12-2011 debridement and infected sinus explore and corratage (removal or cleaning inflected tissues) done and applied 7 and the petitioner developed chronic ostemylietis i.e. infection of bone repeatedly and discharged from the hospital 21-12-2011. Ex.X4 and Ex.X5 are case sheets relating to the petitioner of Vinayaka Hospital, Bangalore. It is disclosed by PW4 that Ex.A5 contains medical bills under which the medicines purchased by the petitioner the showing the name of their hospital. Ex.A7 is the discharge summary and investigation report of the petitioner issued by their hospital. In the cross examination it is disclosed by PW4 that it cannot be said non union of bone due to the petitioner not following the medical advice of the doctor and the development of non union of bone depends upon immunity and other circumstances the patient developed. PW4 pleaded ignorance how the petitioner suffered chronic infections. PW4 identified Ex.A5 medical bills which are relating to Pharmacist of Vinayaka Hospital, Bangalore. Thus the evidence of PW4 and PW2 reveal that the petitioner had undergone the surgeries for the two grievous injuries sustained by him four times as per Ex.X1 to Ex.x4 case sheets.

He has incurred medical expenditure of Rs.1,56,339/- as per Ex.A5 medical bills which are identified by PW4. Thus for the two grievous injuries for which the petitioner has undergone four operations for the same is entitled a sum of

Rs.1,20,000/-. The petitioner is also entitled a sum of Rs.1,56,339/- towards medical expenditure as per Ex.A5. Apart from the above he is also entitled a sum of Rs.20,000/- towards pain and suffering, Rs.10,000/- towards attendant charges and another sum of Rs.20,000/- towards extra nourishment and transport charges.

16.The petitioner has also examined PW3 who is the professor of Orthopedic in

Government Medical College, Anantapur and one of the members of the Medical

Board, Government General Hospital, Anantpaur who examined the petitioner and issued Ex.A5 disability certificate. As per Ex.A4 the disability certificate the petitioner suffered disability of 40% in nature which is restricted to the lower limb. It is disclosed by him that the petitioner has suffered fractures united with shortening of right lower limb of one inch, limping and weakness of right thigh 8 muscles with decreased range of movements of right hip and knee joints and he has got difficulty for squatting, cross legging, long distance walking and long duration standing and he needs implants removal. Thus for the disability suffered by the petitioner as per Ex.A4 as deposed by PW3 it is estimated that the petitioner is entitled for a sum of Rs.40,000/- for the above said disability.

17.Thus for the reasons discussed supra totally the petitioner is entitled a sum of Rs.3,66,339/- towards compensation from the respondents one and two as respondents three and four are only formal parties to the claim petition.

18. Issue No.4: In view of my observations on issues 1 to 3 the claim petition has to be allowed partly in favour of the petitioner against the respondents one and two.

19.In the result, the petition is allowed partly for Rs.3,66,339/- with proportionate costs against the respondents one and two jointly and severally together with interest at 7.5% p.a. from the date of the petition till the respondents depositing the awarded amount to the credit of O.P. The respondents are instructed to deposit the above amount within three months from today. On such deposit the petitioner has been permitted to withdraw a sum of Rs.66,339/- at once and rest of the awarded amount with costs shall be kept in FDR of any Nationalized Bank for a period of two years. The petition against the respondents three and four is dismissed without costs. Advocate fee is fixed at Rs.4,000/-.

Direct typed to my dictation by the typist, Corrected and pronounced by me in open court this the 12th day of April, 2013.

Chairman MACT-CUM-IV Addl. Dist. Judge (FTC) Anantapur 9

Appendix of Evidence Witnesses Examined for

Petitioner:Respondents

PW1/D.Sreenivasa ReddyRW1/R.Lakshminarayana

PW2/Dr.K.Mohan Naik

PW3/Dr.B.Jayachandra Reddy

PW4/Dr.Sasikanth

Documents marked on behalf of the petitioner

Ex.A1/Attested Copy of FIR.

Ex.A2/Attested Copy of Wound Certificate.

Ex.A3/Attested Copy of Charge Sheet.

Ex.A4/Disability Certificate.

Ex.A5/Medical Bills for Rs.1,35,339/-.

Ex.A7/Discharge Summary.

Ex.X1/Case Sheet of Sainath Hospital, Kadiri.

Ex.X2/Case Sheet.

Ex.X3/Authorization letter dt.28-11-2012.

Ex.X4/Case Sheet.

Ex.X5/Case Sheet.

Documents marked on behalf of the Respondents

Ex.B1/Copy of Policy.

Ex.B2/Office Copy of Notice to R1.

Ex.B3/Served acknowledgment.

Chairman MACT-CUM-IV Addl. Dist. Judge (FTC) Anantapur 10

1

IN THE COURT OF THE MOTOR ACCIDENTS CLAIMS TRIBUNAL

BEFORE THE IV ADDITIONAL DISTRICT JUDGE, FTC, ANANTAPUR

Present: Sri P.Subramanya Kumar,B.Sc.B.L.,

MACT-Cum-IV Additional District Judge

Friday, 12 th of April, 2013

Original Petition No. 652/2011

Between:

Doomeeti Sreenivasa Reddy, S/o D.Tirupal Reddy, aged about 28 years,

Hindu, agriculturist, residing at D.No.41-A, Chippala Madgu Village and Post,

Kadiri Mandal, Anantapur District.

….Petitioner

AND

1. M.Abdul Hai, S/o M.Mohammed Abdul, Sardar, Major, Muslim,

Owner of Car bearing No.KA-34-M-7965, residing at D.No.26-24,

Dhotri Street, Cowl Bazar, Bellary, Karnataka State.

2. Bajaj Allianz General Insurance Company Limited, rep. by its Manager (Claims), House No.3-6-111/8, II Floor,

F.A.R. East Plaza, Street No.18, Main Road,

Himayatnagar, Hyderabad-500 029.

Policy No.OG-11-1706-1801-00000281

Valid from 3-8-2010 to 2-8-2011.

3. R.Simhadri, S/o Chinna Narayana, Major, Hindu,

Owner of the Auto Bearing No.AP-02-V-9105, residing at d.No.5-23, Kalasamudram Village, Kadiri Mandal,

Anantapur District.

4. IFFCO-Tokia General Insurance Company Limited, rep. by its Claims Officer, K.S.C.M.F. Building, III Floor,

III Block, NO.8, Cunningham Road,

Bangalore-560 052.

Policy No.39559671 valid from 7-8-2010 to 6-8-2011. ….Respondents

This petition coming on this day for final hearing before me in the presence of Sri P.Venkata Narayana, Advocate for the petitioner, Sri M.Jubeir, Advocate for the first respondent, Sri T.Rama Krishna, Advocate for the second respondent, 2

Smt.B.Sujana, Advocate for the third respondent and of Sri K.Sudhakar Reddy,

Advocate for the fourth respondent and on perusing the material papers on record and the matter having stood over for consideration, this court delivered the following:

ORDER

This is a claim petition filed by the petitioner seeking compensation of

Rs.4,00,000/- against the respondents with costs under section 163-A of Motor

Vehicles Act, 1988 and Rule 455 of A.P.M.V.Rules, 1989.

2.The material averments of claim petition are as follows:

The petitioner is aged about 28 years and was hale and healthy at the time of accident. He was attending coolie work and also agriculture work and earning

Rs.10,000/- per month.

3.On 15-5-2011 at about 8.00 PM the petitioner and others were travelling in the auto bearing No.AP-02-V-9105 from Kadiri to go to Kalasamudram Village and when the auto was proceeding slowly on the left side of the road near Hillock at the outskirts of Kadiri, near Santhinikethan School on Kadiri – Anantapur

N.H.road, the car bearing No.KA-34-M-7965(herein after referred as offending vehicle) came from Anantapur side, the driver of it drove with high speed in rash and negligent manner, without observing auto and without giving side to the auto and dashed against the auto. As a result, the auto fell down on the road and the petitioner and others sustained grievous multiple injuries. The petitioner has sustained fracture of right femur, neck of femur hip joint lacerated injury on the right knee and lacerated injury on the left eye. Immediately the petitioner and others were shifted to Area Hospital, Kadiri. Late he was shifted to Sainath

Hospital, Kadiri for treatment and leg of the petitioner was operated and implants were fixed on the right femur and neck hip joint. He was inpatient in the said hospital for a period of 15 days. Later, he took treatment in private hospitals at 3

Anantapur and St.Johns Hospital, Bangalore. The petitioner has spent

Rs.1,30,000/- towards treatment and medicines. A criminal case was registered in Cr.No.79/11 of Kadiri P.S. under section 337 and 338 of IPC against the driver of the offending vehicle.

4.The material averments of counter filed on behalf of the first respondent are as follows:

The petition averments are denied in toto. The insurance policy insured with the second respondent was in force on the date of alleged accident and any compensation awarded shall be liable to be paid by the second respondent.

Hence requested to dismiss the petition with costs.

5.The material averments of counter filed on behalf of the second respondent

Insurance Company are as follows:

The petition averments are denied in toto. The driver of the car bearing

No.KA-34-M-7965 was not holding valid driving license at the time of the accident. The first respondent willfully handed over the possession of the said car to the driver who had no valid DL. There was no negligence on the part of the driver of the car and the accident occurred due to negligence of the driver of the auto in which the petitioner was travelling. Hence requested to dismiss the petition with costs.

6.The material averments of counter filed on behalf of the third respondent are as follows:

The petition averments are denied in toto. The case was registered against the driver of the car and no case was registered against the driver of the auto which reveals that there is no negligence on the part of the driver of the auto.

Hence this respondent and his insurer fourth respondent are not liable to pay compensation and they are only formal parties to the petition. Hence requested to dismiss the petition with costs.

4

7.The material averments of counter filed on behalf of the fourth respondent are as follows:

The petition averments are denied in toto. The case was registered against the driver of the car which shows that he is only responsible for the accident. The driver of the auto has no valid driving license. This respondent is added as a formal party to the petition. The policy number mentioned in the petition i.e.

39559671 issued only for the period from 7-8-2008 to 6-8-2009 only but not for the period 7-8-2010 to 6-8-2011 to the auto bearing No.AP-02-V-9105. Hence requested to dismiss the petition with costs.

8.Basing on the above pleadings the following issues are settled for trial:

1. Whether the driver of the first respondent offending vehicle KA-34-M- 7965 drove the vehicle in rash and negligent manner and caused accident in dispute?

2. Whether the driver of the offending vehicle holding valid driving license on the date of the accident?

3. Whether the petitioner is entitled for any compensation, if so, to what extent and from whom?

4. To what relief.

9.On behalf of the petitioner PW1 to PW4 are examined by marking Ex.A1 to

Ex.A7 and Ex.X1 to Ex.X5. On behalf of the respondents Rw1 is examined by marking Ex.B1 to Ex.B3.

10. Issue No.1: The petitioner himself has examined as PW1 by marking

Ex.A1 to Ex.A7. Ex.A1 is attested copy of FIR and Ex.A3 is attested copy of

Charge Sheet prima facie reveal that due to rash and negligent driving of the driver of the offending vehicle car the accident occurred. The correctness of

Ex.A1 and Ex.A3 have not been disputed by the respondents. Admittedly the 5 driver of the car was charge sheeted and the auto driver in which auto the petitioner and others were travelling was not charge sheeted. The Asst.

Manager legal of second respondent insurance company has admitted that the charge sheet was filed against the driver of the offending vehicle Maruti Car. It is further admitted by him that the driver of the car was having valid DL on the date of accident and Ex.B1 was in force at the time of accident. He has also admitted that the petitioner is a third party to Ex.B1 policy. As seen from the evidence of

RW1 which reveals that the petitioner impleaded the owner and insurer of the auto as only pro forma parties to the claim petition. The contesting second respondent has not summoned the driver of the Maruti Car offending vehicle who was charge sheeted to substantiate he was not at fault for causing the accident.

Nor the first respondent has examined his driver of the car to prove the said aspect. In the absence of it taking into consideration the evidence of PW1 and

Ex.A1 and Ex.A3 I hold that the driver of the offending vehicle Maruti Car is responsible for the accident in dispute. Accordingly I answer Issue No.1 in favour of the petitioner.

11.Admittedly as the petitioner is a third party to the Ex.B1 policy of the second respondent Insurance Company of its vehicle the accident in dispute took place as such the alleged over loading of the auto in which the petitioner was travelling has no significance.

12. Issue No.2: Though the second respondent has been disputed the driver of the offending vehicle was holding valid driving license on the date of accident, but admitted in the cross examination by the witness examined on its behalf of as

RW1 the car driver was having valid driving license on the date of accident. The second respondent has not taken pains to summon the driving license extract of the driver of the offending vehicle car. Thus in view of the above circumstances I hold that the driver of the offending vehicle car was holding valid DL on the date of accident. Accordingly Issue No.2 is answered in favour of the petitioner.

6

13. Issue No.3: The petitioner himself examined as Pw1. As per Ex.A2 wound certificate issued by Government Hospital, Kadiri the petitioner has sustained fracture of neck femur right hip and fracture of shaft femur which are grievous in nature.

14.Admittedly as per the evidence of PW2 who is Orthopedic Civil Asst.

Surgeon in the Govt. Hospital, Kadiri and consultant Orthopedic Surgeon in

Sainath Hospital, Kadiri who operated the petitioner on 15-5-2011 for shaft of femur with intra medullary nail with locking and after five days of the operation the doctor found the petitioner sustained another fracture on the hip joint and again PW2 operated the petitioner on 25-5-2011 for that fracture by inserting plate. The petitioner was admitted in Sainath Hospital, Kadiri on 15-5-2011 and discharged on 6-6-2011. It is disclosed by PW2 after six weeks of duration the petitioner had pain in the hip joint and found that implants were loosen in the hip joint and referred him to Bangalore in higher institution as the fracture is complicated by marking Ex.X1 and Ex.X2 case sheets relating to Sainath Hospital,

Kadiri. It is elicited in the cross examination of PW2 by the learned counsel for the second respondent the total treatment given to the petitioner in Sainath

Hospital, Kadiri was under Aarogya Sree Scheme on free of costs. It is also elicited from the witness by the learned counsel for the second respondent that under Ex.X1 he has not mentioned the part of neck fracture.

15.The petitioner has examined the Asst. Surgeon Ortho Vinayaka Hospital,

Bangalore as PW4 who has disclosed that Dr.K.S.D.Guptha has performed operation to the petitioner on 19-11-2011 for the two fractures suffered by him with open reduction and internal fixation with nailing and iliac bone grafting and they removed old plates and screws implanted on the petitioner earlier while surgery conducted in their hospital. It is further disclosed by him that during the second admission of the patient on 13-12-2011 debridement and infected sinus explore and corratage (removal or cleaning inflected tissues) done and applied 7 and the petitioner developed chronic ostemylietis i.e. infection of bone repeatedly and discharged from the hospital 21-12-2011. Ex.X4 and Ex.X5 are case sheets relating to the petitioner of Vinayaka Hospital, Bangalore. It is disclosed by PW4 that Ex.A5 contains medical bills under which the medicines purchased by the petitioner the showing the name of their hospital. Ex.A7 is the discharge summary and investigation report of the petitioner issued by their hospital. In the cross examination it is disclosed by PW4 that it cannot be said non union of bone due to the petitioner not following the medical advice of the doctor and the development of non union of bone depends upon immunity and other circumstances the patient developed. PW4 pleaded ignorance how the petitioner suffered chronic infections. PW4 identified Ex.A5 medical bills which are relating to Pharmacist of Vinayaka Hospital, Bangalore. Thus the evidence of PW4 and PW2 reveal that the petitioner had undergone the surgeries for the two grievous injuries sustained by him four times as per Ex.X1 to Ex.x4 case sheets.

He has incurred medical expenditure of Rs.1,56,339/- as per Ex.A5 medical bills which are identified by PW4. Thus for the two grievous injuries for which the petitioner has undergone four operations for the same is entitled a sum of

Rs.1,20,000/-. The petitioner is also entitled a sum of Rs.1,56,339/- towards medical expenditure as per Ex.A5. Apart from the above he is also entitled a sum of Rs.20,000/- towards pain and suffering, Rs.10,000/- towards attendant charges and another sum of Rs.20,000/- towards extra nourishment and transport charges.

16.The petitioner has also examined PW3 who is the professor of Orthopedic in

Government Medical College, Anantapur and one of the members of the Medical

Board, Government General Hospital, Anantpaur who examined the petitioner and issued Ex.A5 disability certificate. As per Ex.A4 the disability certificate the petitioner suffered disability of 40% in nature which is restricted to the lower limb. It is disclosed by him that the petitioner has suffered fractures united with shortening of right lower limb of one inch, limping and weakness of right thigh 8 muscles with decreased range of movements of right hip and knee joints and he has got difficulty for squatting, cross legging, long distance walking and long duration standing and he needs implants removal. Thus for the disability suffered by the petitioner as per Ex.A4 as deposed by PW3 it is estimated that the petitioner is entitled for a sum of Rs.40,000/- for the above said disability.

17.Thus for the reasons discussed supra totally the petitioner is entitled a sum of Rs.3,66,339/- towards compensation from the respondents one and two as respondents three and four are only formal parties to the claim petition.

18. Issue No.4: In view of my observations on issues 1 to 3 the claim petition has to be allowed partly in favour of the petitioner against the respondents one and two.

19.In the result, the petition is allowed partly for Rs.3,66,339/- with proportionate costs against the respondents one and two jointly and severally together with interest at 7.5% p.a. from the date of the petition till the respondents depositing the awarded amount to the credit of O.P. The respondents are instructed to deposit the above amount within three months from today. On such deposit the petitioner has been permitted to withdraw a sum of Rs.66,339/- at once and rest of the awarded amount with costs shall be kept in FDR of any Nationalized Bank for a period of two years. The petition against the respondents three and four is dismissed without costs. Advocate fee is fixed at Rs.4,000/-.

Direct typed to my dictation by the typist, Corrected and pronounced by me in open court this the 12th day of April, 2013.

Chairman MACT-CUM-IV Addl. Dist. Judge (FTC) Anantapur 9

Appendix of Evidence Witnesses Examined for

Petitioner:Respondents

PW1/D.Sreenivasa ReddyRW1/R.Lakshminarayana

PW2/Dr.K.Mohan Naik

PW3/Dr.B.Jayachandra Reddy

PW4/Dr.Sasikanth

Documents marked on behalf of the petitioner

Ex.A1/Attested Copy of FIR.

Ex.A2/Attested Copy of Wound Certificate.

Ex.A3/Attested Copy of Charge Sheet.

Ex.A4/Disability Certificate.

Ex.A5/Medical Bills for Rs.1,35,339/-.

Ex.A7/Discharge Summary.

Ex.X1/Case Sheet of Sainath Hospital, Kadiri.

Ex.X2/Case Sheet.

Ex.X3/Authorization letter dt.28-11-2012.

Ex.X4/Case Sheet.

Ex.X5/Case Sheet.

Documents marked on behalf of the Respondents

Ex.B1/Copy of Policy.

Ex.B2/Office Copy of Notice to R1.

Ex.B3/Served acknowledgment.

Chairman MACT-CUM-IV Addl. Dist. Judge (FTC) Anantapur 10

1

IN THE COURT OF IV ADDITIONAL DISTRICT JUDGE (FTC) :: ANANTAPURAM

Present: Sri P.Subramanya Kumar, B.Sc. B.L., IV Additional District Judge, Friday, the 26th day of April, 2013

O.S. 18/2011

Between: K.V.Sreenivasa Rao, S/o K.V.Rama Krishna Rao, aged 52 years, Business, Now residing at D.No.281,

Somanath Nagar, Anantapuram. ....Plaintiff

AND

1. K.V. Sai Kumar, S/o Partha Sarathi, aged about 48 years, Business, Now residing at R.K.Nagar, Anantapuram.

2. Kamatam Sreeramulu, Son of not know, aged 52 years, Business and Cultivation, Reddipalli, B.K.Samudram Mandal.

3. G.Sankaraiah, S/o Govindappa, aged 54 years, Business, Siva Sankar Medical Stores, Main Road, Anantapuram.

...Respondents

This suit coming on this day for final hearing before me in the presence of Sri H.Rama Subramanyam, Advocate for the Plaintiff and of Sri

P.Prabhakar Reddy, Advocate for the third defendant and the defendants one and two have remained ex parte and on perusing the material papers on record and the matter having stood over for consideration, this court delivered the following:

JUDGMENT

This is a suit filed by the plaintiff seeking a preliminary decree ½ share in the schedule property in favour of the plaintiff dividing into two equal shares and allott one such share to the plaintiff by way of final decree with possession and with costs of the suit.

2.The material averments of the plaint are as follows:

The plaintiff and the first defendant are the brothers being grand sons of late K.Venkatanarayana Rao. The suit schedule property belong to the joint family of the plaintiff and the first defendant. Late K.Venkatanarayana

Rao died leaving behind his wife Smt.Kamalamma and three sons namely Sri

K.V.Parthasarathi, Sri R.Rama Krishna Rao and K.V.Raghavendra Rao.

2

K.Raghavendra Rao died unmarried and K.Parthasarathi and his wife died leaving behind legal representative of the first defendant herein.

K.V.Ramakrishna Rao died leaving behind him the plaintiff herein his wife also died. The plaintiff and defendant No.1 are only the legal representatives entitle for the suit schedule property belongs to joint family of K.V.Venkatanarayana Rao which is in possession of both the plaintiff and the first defendant. The plaintiff is entitled half share over the schedule property. In view of the differences developed between him and the first defendant the plaintiff is suspecting that the first defendant is making hectic efforts to deal with the properties against the interest of the plaintiff by bringing into some registered documents in favour of the third parties.

Hence the suit.

3.The defendants one and two have remained ex parte to the suit.

4.The material averments of the written statement filed on behalf of the third defendant are as follows:

It is not true that the plaintiff and the first defendant are brothers being the grand sons of late K.Venkatanarayana Rao. It is not true that the suit schedule property belongs to the joint family of the plaintiff and the first defendant. The first defendant is the absolute owner of the suit schedule property which is in his exclusive property on which the plaintiff has nothing to do. Originally his mother Smt.Kamalamma is the owner of Item NO.1 of the suit schedule property and she sold away the same to one

Shakuntalamma in the year 2005 under registered sale deed. In the year 2008 the third defendant purchased the same under registered sale deed and since then he is in possession and enjoyment of Item No.1 of the suit schedule property as rightful owner. The rest of the plaint averments are denied. Hence requested to dismiss the suit with exemplary costs.

3

5.Basing on the above pleadings the following issues are settled for trial on 1-10-2011:

1. Whether D3 is absolute owner of the Item No.1 of Plaintiff Schedule even if so whether the plaintiff is entitled for partition as prayed for?

2. Whether Item No.1 of Plaintiff was owner by Kamalamma who is owner of Si Kumar/D1/

3. Whether D3 purchased the Item No.1 of Plaint Schedule from D1?

4. To what relief?

6.Subsequently on dismissal of IA 1502/2011 for not fulfilling condition by the second defendant in filing his written statement the following issues are framed by my learned predecessor in the office on 10-2-2012 which are as follows:

1. Whether the plaintiff is entitled for partition and separate possession of his share in the plaint schedule properties?

2. To what relief?

7.In spite of granting sufficient opportunities and imposing costs the plaintiff neither placed any oral evidence nor documentary evidence in support of his contention in the plaint. The contesting third defendant has been examined himself as DW1 by marking Ex.B1 to Ex.B12.

8.The plaintiff has been claiming that himself and the first defendant are the brothers being the grand sons of late K.Venkatanarayana Rao and the suit schedule property belongs to the joint family of the plaintiff and the first defendant. It is further contended by him that late K.Venkatanarayana Rao died leaving behind his legal representatives i.e. his wife namely

Smt.Kamalamma and three sons namely K.V.Parthasarathi, K.Ramakrishna

Rao and K.V.Raghavendra Rao. It is further contended by him that

K.Raghavendra Rao died unmarried and K.Parthasarathi and his wife died leaving behind him the plaintiff herein. The wife of K.Venkatanarayana Rao

Smt.Kamalamma also died. It is claimed by the plaintiff that himself and the 4 defendant No.1 are the joint family members of late K.Venkatanarayana Rao and the suit schedule property is in joint possession of both the plaintiff and the first defendant and as such both of them are entitled half share over the suit schedule properties.

9.It is further alleged by the plaintiff that in view of the differences cropped between the plaintiff and the first defendant, the plaintiff is suspecting that the first defendant is making hectic efforts to deal with the properties against the interest of the plaintiff by bringing into registered documents in favour of the third parties. It is further alleged by him that he has come to know the first defendant executed nominal registered document in favour of second and third defendants who are proclaiming about the execution of sale deeds in their favour by the first defendant which necessiciated the plantiff in filing the present suit.

10.On the other hand contesting third defendant denied the relationship between the plaintiff and the first defendant as brothers being grand sons of late K.Venkatanarayana Rao. He has also disputed the suit schedule property is the joint family property of the plaintiff and the first defendant.

It is claimed by the third defendant that the first defendant is the absolute owner of the plaint schedule property over which the plaintiff has nothing to do. It is contended by the third defendant that mother of the first defendant namely Smt.Kamalamma who was the owner of Item No.1 of the suit schedule property and the first defendant sold the property to one

Shankuntalamma in the year 2005 under registered sale deed and the third defendant purchased the same through registered sale deed and since then he has been in possession and enjoyment of Item No.1 of the suit schedule property and as such contended by him that except himself none others have right over Item No.1 of the suit schedule property.

11.The burden is on the plaintiff to establish that himself and the first defendant are brothers being grand sons of late K.Venkatanarayana Rao and 5 the suit schedule property is the joint family property of the plaintiff and the first defendant in order to maintain the suit as the third defendant has been disputed the same. For the reasons best known to the plaintiff in spite of giving sufficient opportunities and imposing costs no interest has been shown by him by entering into the witness box to substantiate his contention that the first defendant is his brother and the suit schedule property is the joint family property of the plaintiff and the first defendant and himself as grand sons of late K.Venkatanarayana Rao are entitled each half share in the said properties. In the absence of any evidence from the plaintiff it cannot be believable the first defendant is his brother and the plaint schedule property is the joint family property of the plaintiff and the first defendant. The plantiff cannot claim half share in the suit schedule property without establishing the above aspects.

12.On the other hand the third defendant who is the purchaser of the

Item No.1 of the suit schedule property from the first defendant claiming that the first defendant is the absolute owner of the suit schedule property examining himself as DW1 by filing his chief affidavit in lieu of chief examination and by marking Ex.B1 to Ex.B12.

13.Ex.B2 is the certified extract of the registered sale deed dt.4.1.2005 executed by the first defendant in favour of Smt.Shakuntalamma in respect of Item No.1 of the suit schedule property. The certified extract of registered sale deed dt.28-7-2008 executed by Smt.Shakuntalamma in favour of the third defendant and others selling Item No.1 of the suit schedule property fortifies that Smt.Shakuntalamma sold Item No.1 of the suit schedule property to the third defendant, his brothers. The certified extract under

Ex.B3 is the registered partition deed dt.8.1.1985 under which the first defendant got the schedule Item NO.1 of the house towards his share.

Ex.B4 is the certified extract of the registered sale deed executed in favour of

Smt.Kamalamma dt.26.1.1944 by one Yanak David in respect of Item No.1 6 of the schedule property. Ex.B5 is the certified extract of registered gift deed executed in favour of one Manorama by Smt.Kamalamma dt.7.3.1980.

Ex.B6 is the rectification deed dt.9.3.1983 executed in favour of

Smt.Kamalamma by Manorama in respect of Item No.1 of schedule property rectifying the extent of property. Ex.B7 is the property tax receipt paid by the plaintiff and Smt.Shakuntalamma. Ex.B8 is the endrosement of transfer of assessment No.49953 and 49954 in favour of third defendant and others dt.9.4.2010 in respect of Item No.1 of House of the schedule property.

Ex.B9 is the Encumberrance Certificate relating to the Item No.1 of the suit schedule property showing that Item No.1 of the suit schedule property was purchased by the third defendant and others from Smt.Shakuntalamma and also showing there are no encumbrances after the third defendant and others purchased the property in the year 2008. Ex.B10 is the property tax demand notices showing the name of Smt.Shakuntalamma and Ex.B11 is the property tax receipts showing that the third defendant and others paid property tax and Ex.B12 is showing that the H.S.C. No. to Item No.1 of schedule property is in the name of the first defendant. Ex.B1 is the certifed extract of the registered sale deed dt. 28-7-2008 executed by

Smt.Shakuntalamma in favour of sons of Govindappa setty namely the third defendant and others in respect of Item No.1 of the suit schedule property.

Thus the documents filed by the third defendant under Ex.B1 to B12 reveal that the suit schedule property is not the joint family property of the plaintiff as claimed by him and the first defendant in order to claim half share over the same by the plaintiff. Thus in view of the above circumstances as the plaintiff did not enter into the witness box and the third defendant who is examined as DW1 by marking Ex.B1 to Ex.B12 which reveal that the suit schedule property is not the joint family property of the plantiff and the first defendant as such the plaintiff is not entitle for possession of his half share in the said properties. Accordingly I hold issue No.1 against the plaintiff.

7

14. Issue No.2: In view of my observations on issue No.1 the suit has to be dismissed.

15.In the result, the suit is dismissed without costs.

Direct typed to my dictation by the typist, corrected and pronounced by me in open court, this the 26th day of April, 2013.

IV Addl. District Judge (FTC) Anantapuram

Appendix of Evidence

Witness Examined For

Plaintiff Defendant

PW1 chief affidavit isDW1/G.Sankaraiah scored off.

Documents marked on behalf of the Plaintiff -Nil-

Documents marked on behalf of the third Defendant

Ex.B1 is the certifed extract of the registered sale deed dt. 28-7-2008.

Ex.B2 is the certified extract of the registered sale deed dt.4.1.2005.

Ex.B3 is the registered partition deed dt.8.1.1985.

Ex.B4 is the certified extract of the registered sale deed executed in favour of

Smt.Kamalamma dt.26.1.1944.

Ex.B5 is the certified extract of registered gift deed executed in favour of one

Manorama by Smt.Kamalamma dt.7.3.1980.

Ex.B6 is the rectification deed dt.9.3.1983.

Ex.B7 is the property tax receipt paid by the plaintiff Smt.Shakuntalamma.

Ex.B8 is the endrosement of transfer of assessment No.49953 and 49954 in favour of third defendant and others dt.9.4.2010.

Ex.B9 is the Encumberrance Certificate.

8

Ex.B10 is the property tax demand notices showing the name of

Smt.Shakuntalamma.

Ex.B11 is the property tax receipts.

Ex.B12 is showing that the H.S.C. No. to Item No.1 of schedule property is in the name of the first defendant.

IV Addl. District Judge (FTC) Anantapuram

1

IN THE COURT OF THE MOTOR ACCIDENTS CLAIMS TRIBUNAL

BEFORE THE IV ADDITIONAL DISTRICT JUDGE, FTC, ANANTAPUR

Present: Sri P.Subramanya Kumar,B.Sc.B.L.,

MACT-Cum-IV Additional District Judge

Friday, the 12 th day of April, 2013

Original Petition No. 651/2011

Between:

Kamireddy Prasantha Kumar Reddy, S/o K.Lakshmi Reddy, aged about 17 years, Hindu, Student, rep. By K.Lakshmi Reddy,

S/o K.Rami Reddy, aged about 48 years, Hindu, residing at

Machireddypalli Village, Patnam Post, Kadiri Mandal,

Anantapur District ….Petitioner

AND

1. M.Abdul Hai, S/o M.Mohammed Abdul, Sardar, Major, Muslim,

Owner of Car bearing No.KA-34-M-7965, residing at D.No.26-24,

Dhotri Street, Cowl Bazar, Bellary, Karnataka State.

2. Bajaj Allianz General Insurance Company Limited, rep. by its Manager (Claims), House No.3-6-111/8, II Floor,

F.A.R. East Plaza, Street No.18, Main Road,

Himayatnagar, Hyderabad-500 029.

Policy No.OG-11-1706-1801-00000281

Valid from 3-8-2010 to 2-8-2011.

3. R.Simhadri, S/o Chinna Narayana, Major, Hindu,

Owner of the Auto Bearing No.AP-02-V-9105, residing at d.No.5-23, Kalasamudram Village, Kadiri Mandal,

Anantapur District.

4. IFFCO-Tokia General Insurance Company Limited, rep. by its Claims Officer, K.S.C.M.F. Building, III Floor,

III Block, NO.8, Cunningham Road,

Bangalore-560 052.

Policy No.39559671 valid from 7-8-2010 to 6-8-2011. ….Respondents 2

This petition coming on this day for final hearing before me in the presence of Sri P.Venkata Narayana, Advocate for the petitioner, Sri M.Jubeir, Advocate for the first respondent, Sri T.Rama Krishna, Advocate for the second respondent,

Smt.B.Sujana, Advocate for the third respondent and of Sri K.Sudhakar Reddy,

Advocate for the fourth respondent and on perusing the material papers on record and the matter having stood over for consideration, this court delivered the following:

ORDER

This is a claim petition filed by the petitioner seeking compensation of

Rs.2,00,000/- against the respondents with costs under section 163-A of Motor

Vehicles Act, 1988 and Rule 455 of A.P.M.V. Rules, 1989.

2.The material averments of the claim petition are as follows:

The petitioner was aged about 17 years and was quite hale and healthy at the time of accident. On 15-5-2011 at about 8.00 PM the petitioner and others were travelling in the auto bearing No.AP-02-V-9105 from Kadiri to go to

Kalasamudram Village and when the auto was proceeding slowly on the left side of the road near Hillock at the outskirts of Kadiri, near Santhinikethan School on

Kadiri – Anantapur N.H.road, the car bearing No.KA-34-M-7965(herein after referred as offending vehicle) came from Anantapuram side, the driver of it drove with high speed in rash and negligent manner without observing auto and without giving side to the auto and dashed against the auto. As a result, the auto fell down on the road and the petitioner and others sustained grievous multiple injuries. He sustained fracture of left leg thigh and fracture of right femur.

Immediately the petitioner and others were shifted to Area Hospitals,

Anantapuram for treatment and leg of him was operated and rods and screws were fixed on the right femur. He was inpatient in the said hospital for a period of 15 days. Later, he took treatment in a private hospital. The petitioner has spent Rs.30,000/- towards treatment and medicines. A Criminal case was registered in Cr.No.79/11 of Kadiri P.S. under section 337 & 338 of IPC against the driver of the offending vehicle.

3

3.The material averments of counter filed on behalf of the first respondent are as follows:

The petition averments are denied in toto. The insurance policy insured with the second respondent was in force on the date of alleged accident and any compensation awarded shall be liable to be paid by the second respondent.

Hence requested to dismiss the petition with costs.

4.The material averments of counter filed on behalf of the second respondent

Insurance Company are as follows:

The petition averments are denied in toto. The driver of the car bearing

No.KA-34-M-7965 was not holding valid driving license at the time of the accident. The first respondent willfully handed over the possession of the said car to the driver who had no valid DL. There was no negligence on the part of the driver of the car and the accident occurred due to negligence of the driver of the auto in which the petitioner was travelling. Hence requested to dismiss the petition with costs.

5.The material averments of counter filed on behalf of the third respondent are as follows:

The petition averments are denied in toto. The case was registered against the driver of the car and no case was registered against the driver of the auto which reveals that there is no negligence on the part of the driver of the auto.

Hence this respondent and his insurer fourth respondent are not liable to pay compensation and they are only formal parties to the petition. Hence requested to dismiss the petition with costs.

6.The material averments of counter filed on behalf of the fourth respondent are as follows:

The petition averments are denied in toto. The case was registered against the driver of the car which shows that he is only responsible for the accident. The 4 driver of the auto has no valid driving license. This respondent is added as a formal party to the petition. The policy number mentioned in the petition i.e.

39559671 issued only for the period from 7-8-2008 to 6-8-2009 but not for the period 7-8-2010 to 6-8-2011 to the auto bearing No.AP-02-V-9105. Hence requested to dismiss the petition with costs.

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

1. Whether the driver of the first respondent offending vehicle KA-34-M- 7965 drove the vehicle in rash and negligent manner and caused accident in dispute?

2. Whether the driver of the offending vehicle holding valid driving license on the date of the accident?

3. Whether the petitioner is entitled for any compensation, if so, to what extent and from whom?

4. To what relief.

8.On behalf of the petitioner PW1 to PW3 are examined by marking Ex.A1 to

Ex.A5 and Ex.X1. On behalf of the respondents Rw1 is examined by marking

Ex.B1 to Ex.B3.

9. Issue No.1: The father of the petitioner has been examined as Pw1 by marking Ex.A1 to Ex.A5. Ex.A1 is attested copy of FIR and Ex.A3 is attested copy of Charge Sheet prima facie reveal that due to rash and negligent driving of the driver of the offending vehicle car the accident occurred. The correctness of

Ex.A1 and Ex.A3 have not been disputed by the respondents. Admittedly the driver of the car was charge sheeted and the auto driver in which auto the petitioner and others were travelling was not charge sheeted. The Asst.

Manager legal of second respondent insurance company has admitted that the charge sheet was filed against the driver of the offending vehicle Maruti Car. It is further admitted by him that the driver of the car was having valid DL on the date 5 of accident and Ex.B1 was in force at the time of accident. He has also admitted that the petitioner is a third party to Ex.B1 policy. As seen from the evidence of

RW1 which reveals that the petitioner impleaded the owner and insurer of the auto as only pro forma parties to the claim petition. The contesting second respondent has not summoned the driver of the Maruti Car offending vehicle who was charge sheeted to substantiate he was not at fault for causing the accident.

Nor the first respondent has examined his driver of the car to prove the said aspect. In the absence of it taking into consideration the evidence of PW1 and

Ex.A1 and Ex.A3 I hold that the driver of the offending vehicle Maruti Car is responsible for the accident in dispute. Accordingly I answer Issue No.1 in favour of the petitioner.

10.Admittedly as the petitioner is a third party to the Ex.B1 policy of the second respondent Insurance Company of its vehicle the accident in dispute took place as such the alleged over loading of the auto in which the petitioner was travelling has no significance.

11. Issue No.2: Though the second respondent has been disputed the driver of the offending vehicle was not holding valid driving license on the date of accident, but admitted in the cross examination by the witness examined on its behalf of as

RW1 the car driver was having valid driving license on the date of accident. The second respondent has not taken pains to summon the driving license extract of the driver of the offending vehicle car. Thus in view of the above circumstances

I hold that the driver of the offending vehicle car was holding valid DL on the date of accident. Accordingly Issue No.2 is answered in favour of the petitioner.

12. Issue No.3: The father of the petitioner has examined as Pw1 as the petitioner is being a minor. As per Ex.A2 wound certificate issued by the

Government General Hospital, Anantapur the petitioner has sustained fracture of right femur which is grievous in nature. Admittedly as per the evidence of PW3 who is Orthopedic Surgeon in Government General Hospital, Anantapur and 6 consultant Orthopedic Surgeon at Aasha Hospital, Anantapur for which he operated the petitioner on 20-5-2011 by interlocking nailing right femur fracture fixed. It is disclosed by PW3 that the surgery was performed under Aarogya

Sree scheme which is totally free of costs. The petitioner was admitted in Aasha

Hospital, Anantapur on 20-5-2011 and discharged on 29-5-2011 as per Ex.X1 case sheet of Aasha Hospital, Anantapur. Thus for the surgery undergone by the petitioner for his fractured right femur by interlocking nailing though it is of free of costs under Aarogya Sree Scheme for suffering the above serious grievous injury and undergoing surgery he is entitled a sum of Rs.30,000/- which includes incidental expenditure of purchasing medicines. The petitioner is also entitled for attendant charges while he was taking treatment in the nursing home covering the period 20-5-2011 to 29-5-2011 which is estimated at Rs.10,000/- and also entitled a sum of Rs.10,000/- towards extra nourishment.

13.The petitioner has examined the prof. of Orthopedic in Government Medical

College, Anantapur who is one of the members of the Medical Board of the

Government General Hospital, Anantapur is examined as PW2 who has disclosed about PW3 performing operation on the petitioner at Aasha Hospital, Anantapur and that on verifying the discharge summary and X-rays the members of the

Medical Board found that united fracture short of right femur of the petitioner was observed with separate bone piece due to communition with angulation and over riding and limping was present with 2 cm shortening. It is further disclosed by him that partial restriction of movements of right knee present with mild restriction of movements of right hip and he has difficulty in doing activities like long standing, long and fast walking including sitting and implants require to be removed. The disability was assessed at 30% to the right lower limb which is not to the whole body as per Ex.A4 disability certificate. The evidence of PW2 who was cross examined by the second respondent has not been impeached in the cross examination. Thus for 30% disability suffered by the petitioner for which he is entitled a sum of Rs.30,000/-.

7

14.Thus for the reasons discussed supra totally the petitioner is entitled a sum of Rs.80,000/- towards compensation from the respondents one and two as respondents three and four are only formal parties to the claim petition.

15. Issue No.4: In view of my observations on issues 1 to 3 the claim petition has to be allowed partly in favour of the petitioner against the respondents one and two.

16.In the result, the petition is allowed partly for Rs.80,000/- with proportionate costs against the respondents one and two jointly and severally together with interest at 7.5% p.a. from the date of the petition till the respondents depositing the awarded amount to the credit of O.P. The respondents are instructed to deposit the above amount within three months from today. Since the petitioner is being minor the awarded amount shall be kept in FDR of any Nationalized Bank till he attains majority. The petition against the respondents three and four is dismissed without costs. Advocate fee is fixed at Rs.2,000/-.

Direct typed to my dictation by the typist, Corrected and pronounced by me in open court this the 12th day of April, 2013.

Chairman MACT-CUM-IV Addl. Dist. Judge (FTC) Anantapur

Appendix of Evidence Witnesses Examined for

Petitioner:Respondents

PW1/K.Lakshmi ReddyRW1/R.Lakshminarayana

PW2/Dr.B.Jayachandra Reddy

PW3/Dr.M.Atmaram

Documents marked on behalf of the petitioner

Ex.A1/Attested Copy of FIR.

Ex.A2/Attested Copy of Wound Certificate.

Ex.A3/Attested Copy of Charge Sheet.

Ex.A4/Disability Certificate.

8

Ex.A5/X-ray three in number.

Ex.X1/Case Sheet.

Documents marked on behalf of the Respondents

Ex.B1/Copy of Policy.

Ex.B2/Office Copy of letter to R1.

Ex.B3/Served acknowledgment.

Chairman MACT-CUM-IV Addl. Dist. Judge (FTC) Anantapur

1

IN THE COURT OF THE MOTOR ACCIDENTS CLAIMS TRIBUNAL

BEFORE THE IV ADDITIONAL DISTRICT JUDGE, FTC, ANANTAPUR

Present: Sri P.Subramanya Kumar,B.Sc.B.L.,

MACT-Cum-IV Additional District Judge

Friday, the 12 th day of April, 2013

Original Petition No. 651/2011

Between:

Kamireddy Prasantha Kumar Reddy, S/o K.Lakshmi Reddy, aged about 17 years, Hindu, Student, rep. By K.Lakshmi Reddy,

S/o K.Rami Reddy, aged about 48 years, Hindu, residing at

Machireddypalli Village, Patnam Post, Kadiri Mandal,

Anantapur District ….Petitioner

AND

1. M.Abdul Hai, S/o M.Mohammed Abdul, Sardar, Major, Muslim,

Owner of Car bearing No.KA-34-M-7965, residing at D.No.26-24,

Dhotri Street, Cowl Bazar, Bellary, Karnataka State.

2. Bajaj Allianz General Insurance Company Limited, rep. by its Manager (Claims), House No.3-6-111/8, II Floor,

F.A.R. East Plaza, Street No.18, Main Road,

Himayatnagar, Hyderabad-500 029.

Policy No.OG-11-1706-1801-00000281

Valid from 3-8-2010 to 2-8-2011.

3. R.Simhadri, S/o Chinna Narayana, Major, Hindu,

Owner of the Auto Bearing No.AP-02-V-9105, residing at d.No.5-23, Kalasamudram Village, Kadiri Mandal,

Anantapur District.

4. IFFCO-Tokia General Insurance Company Limited, rep. by its Claims Officer, K.S.C.M.F. Building, III Floor,

III Block, NO.8, Cunningham Road,

Bangalore-560 052.

Policy No.39559671 valid from 7-8-2010 to 6-8-2011. ….Respondents 2

This petition coming on this day for final hearing before me in the presence of Sri P.Venkata Narayana, Advocate for the petitioner, Sri M.Jubeir, Advocate for the first respondent, Sri T.Rama Krishna, Advocate for the second respondent,

Smt.B.Sujana, Advocate for the third respondent and of Sri K.Sudhakar Reddy,

Advocate for the fourth respondent and on perusing the material papers on record and the matter having stood over for consideration, this court delivered the following:

ORDER

This is a claim petition filed by the petitioner seeking compensation of

Rs.2,00,000/- against the respondents with costs under section 163-A of Motor

Vehicles Act, 1988 and Rule 455 of A.P.M.V. Rules, 1989.

2.The material averments of the claim petition are as follows:

The petitioner was aged about 17 years and was quite hale and healthy at the time of accident. On 15-5-2011 at about 8.00 PM the petitioner and others were travelling in the auto bearing No.AP-02-V-9105 from Kadiri to go to

Kalasamudram Village and when the auto was proceeding slowly on the left side of the road near Hillock at the outskirts of Kadiri, near Santhinikethan School on

Kadiri – Anantapur N.H.road, the car bearing No.KA-34-M-7965(herein after referred as offending vehicle) came from Anantapuram side, the driver of it drove with high speed in rash and negligent manner without observing auto and without giving side to the auto and dashed against the auto. As a result, the auto fell down on the road and the petitioner and others sustained grievous multiple injuries. He sustained fracture of left leg thigh and fracture of right femur.

Immediately the petitioner and others were shifted to Area Hospitals,

Anantapuram for treatment and leg of him was operated and rods and screws were fixed on the right femur. He was inpatient in the said hospital for a period of 15 days. Later, he took treatment in a private hospital. The petitioner has spent Rs.30,000/- towards treatment and medicines. A Criminal case was registered in Cr.No.79/11 of Kadiri P.S. under section 337 & 338 of IPC against the driver of the offending vehicle.

3

3.The material averments of counter filed on behalf of the first respondent are as follows:

The petition averments are denied in toto. The insurance policy insured with the second respondent was in force on the date of alleged accident and any compensation awarded shall be liable to be paid by the second respondent.

Hence requested to dismiss the petition with costs.

4.The material averments of counter filed on behalf of the second respondent

Insurance Company are as follows:

The petition averments are denied in toto. The driver of the car bearing

No.KA-34-M-7965 was not holding valid driving license at the time of the accident. The first respondent willfully handed over the possession of the said car to the driver who had no valid DL. There was no negligence on the part of the driver of the car and the accident occurred due to negligence of the driver of the auto in which the petitioner was travelling. Hence requested to dismiss the petition with costs.

5.The material averments of counter filed on behalf of the third respondent are as follows:

The petition averments are denied in toto. The case was registered against the driver of the car and no case was registered against the driver of the auto which reveals that there is no negligence on the part of the driver of the auto.

Hence this respondent and his insurer fourth respondent are not liable to pay compensation and they are only formal parties to the petition. Hence requested to dismiss the petition with costs.

6.The material averments of counter filed on behalf of the fourth respondent are as follows:

The petition averments are denied in toto. The case was registered against the driver of the car which shows that he is only responsible for the accident. The 4 driver of the auto has no valid driving license. This respondent is added as a formal party to the petition. The policy number mentioned in the petition i.e.

39559671 issued only for the period from 7-8-2008 to 6-8-2009 but not for the period 7-8-2010 to 6-8-2011 to the auto bearing No.AP-02-V-9105. Hence requested to dismiss the petition with costs.

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

1. Whether the driver of the first respondent offending vehicle KA-34-M- 7965 drove the vehicle in rash and negligent manner and caused accident in dispute?

2. Whether the driver of the offending vehicle holding valid driving license on the date of the accident?

3. Whether the petitioner is entitled for any compensation, if so, to what extent and from whom?

4. To what relief.

8.On behalf of the petitioner PW1 to PW3 are examined by marking Ex.A1 to

Ex.A5 and Ex.X1. On behalf of the respondents Rw1 is examined by marking

Ex.B1 to Ex.B3.

9. Issue No.1: The father of the petitioner has been examined as Pw1 by marking Ex.A1 to Ex.A5. Ex.A1 is attested copy of FIR and Ex.A3 is attested copy of Charge Sheet prima facie reveal that due to rash and negligent driving of the driver of the offending vehicle car the accident occurred. The correctness of

Ex.A1 and Ex.A3 have not been disputed by the respondents. Admittedly the driver of the car was charge sheeted and the auto driver in which auto the petitioner and others were travelling was not charge sheeted. The Asst.

Manager legal of second respondent insurance company has admitted that the charge sheet was filed against the driver of the offending vehicle Maruti Car. It is further admitted by him that the driver of the car was having valid DL on the date 5 of accident and Ex.B1 was in force at the time of accident. He has also admitted that the petitioner is a third party to Ex.B1 policy. As seen from the evidence of

RW1 which reveals that the petitioner impleaded the owner and insurer of the auto as only pro forma parties to the claim petition. The contesting second respondent has not summoned the driver of the Maruti Car offending vehicle who was charge sheeted to substantiate he was not at fault for causing the accident.

Nor the first respondent has examined his driver of the car to prove the said aspect. In the absence of it taking into consideration the evidence of PW1 and

Ex.A1 and Ex.A3 I hold that the driver of the offending vehicle Maruti Car is responsible for the accident in dispute. Accordingly I answer Issue No.1 in favour of the petitioner.

10.Admittedly as the petitioner is a third party to the Ex.B1 policy of the second respondent Insurance Company of its vehicle the accident in dispute took place as such the alleged over loading of the auto in which the petitioner was travelling has no significance.

11. Issue No.2: Though the second respondent has been disputed the driver of the offending vehicle was not holding valid driving license on the date of accident, but admitted in the cross examination by the witness examined on its behalf of as

RW1 the car driver was having valid driving license on the date of accident. The second respondent has not taken pains to summon the driving license extract of the driver of the offending vehicle car. Thus in view of the above circumstances

I hold that the driver of the offending vehicle car was holding valid DL on the date of accident. Accordingly Issue No.2 is answered in favour of the petitioner.

12. Issue No.3: The father of the petitioner has examined as Pw1 as the petitioner is being a minor. As per Ex.A2 wound certificate issued by the

Government General Hospital, Anantapur the petitioner has sustained fracture of right femur which is grievous in nature. Admittedly as per the evidence of PW3 who is Orthopedic Surgeon in Government General Hospital, Anantapur and 6 consultant Orthopedic Surgeon at Aasha Hospital, Anantapur for which he operated the petitioner on 20-5-2011 by interlocking nailing right femur fracture fixed. It is disclosed by PW3 that the surgery was performed under Aarogya

Sree scheme which is totally free of costs. The petitioner was admitted in Aasha

Hospital, Anantapur on 20-5-2011 and discharged on 29-5-2011 as per Ex.X1 case sheet of Aasha Hospital, Anantapur. Thus for the surgery undergone by the petitioner for his fractured right femur by interlocking nailing though it is of free of costs under Aarogya Sree Scheme for suffering the above serious grievous injury and undergoing surgery he is entitled a sum of Rs.30,000/- which includes incidental expenditure of purchasing medicines. The petitioner is also entitled for attendant charges while he was taking treatment in the nursing home covering the period 20-5-2011 to 29-5-2011 which is estimated at Rs.10,000/- and also entitled a sum of Rs.10,000/- towards extra nourishment.

13.The petitioner has examined the prof. of Orthopedic in Government Medical

College, Anantapur who is one of the members of the Medical Board of the

Government General Hospital, Anantapur is examined as PW2 who has disclosed about PW3 performing operation on the petitioner at Aasha Hospital, Anantapur and that on verifying the discharge summary and X-rays the members of the

Medical Board found that united fracture short of right femur of the petitioner was observed with separate bone piece due to communition with angulation and over riding and limping was present with 2 cm shortening. It is further disclosed by him that partial restriction of movements of right knee present with mild restriction of movements of right hip and he has difficulty in doing activities like long standing, long and fast walking including sitting and implants require to be removed. The disability was assessed at 30% to the right lower limb which is not to the whole body as per Ex.A4 disability certificate. The evidence of PW2 who was cross examined by the second respondent has not been impeached in the cross examination. Thus for 30% disability suffered by the petitioner for which he is entitled a sum of Rs.30,000/-.

7

14.Thus for the reasons discussed supra totally the petitioner is entitled a sum of Rs.80,000/- towards compensation from the respondents one and two as respondents three and four are only formal parties to the claim petition.

15. Issue No.4: In view of my observations on issues 1 to 3 the claim petition has to be allowed partly in favour of the petitioner against the respondents one and two.

16.In the result, the petition is allowed partly for Rs.80,000/- with proportionate costs against the respondents one and two jointly and severally together with interest at 7.5% p.a. from the date of the petition till the respondents depositing the awarded amount to the credit of O.P. The respondents are instructed to deposit the above amount within three months from today. Since the petitioner is being minor the awarded amount shall be kept in FDR of any Nationalized Bank till he attains majority. The petition against the respondents three and four is dismissed without costs. Advocate fee is fixed at Rs.2,000/-.

Direct typed to my dictation by the typist, Corrected and pronounced by me in open court this the 12th day of April, 2013.

Chairman MACT-CUM-IV Addl. Dist. Judge (FTC) Anantapur

Appendix of Evidence Witnesses Examined for

Petitioner:Respondents

PW1/K.Lakshmi ReddyRW1/R.Lakshminarayana

PW2/Dr.B.Jayachandra Reddy

PW3/Dr.M.Atmaram

Documents marked on behalf of the petitioner

Ex.A1/Attested Copy of FIR.

Ex.A2/Attested Copy of Wound Certificate.

Ex.A3/Attested Copy of Charge Sheet.

Ex.A4/Disability Certificate.

8

Ex.A5/X-ray three in number.

Ex.X1/Case Sheet.

Documents marked on behalf of the Respondents

Ex.B1/Copy of Policy.

Ex.B2/Office Copy of letter to R1.

Ex.B3/Served acknowledgment.

Chairman MACT-CUM-IV Addl. Dist. Judge (FTC) Anantapur