Smt P.Venkata Jyothirmai

1

BEFORE THE MOTOR ACCIDENT CLAIMS TRIBUNAL,

(PRINCIPAL DISTRICT COURT), PRAKASAM at ONGOLE.

Present: Smt. P.Venkata Jyothirmai,

Chairman, MACT-cum-Principal District Judge, Ongole

Tuesday, this the Twelfth (12th) day of April, Two Thousand Twenty Two

M.V.O.P.No. 142 of 2017

BETWEEN:

1.Navuri Singamma, wife of Prabhudas, aged 56 years, Business, #7-75, Throvagunta, Ongole, Prakasam District, A.P – 523001.

2.Salluri Aruna Jyothi, wife of Phani Raju (late), aged 42 years, Housewife, Saliwahana Nagar, Opp. GHMC Park, Dilsukhnagar, Hyderabad

3.Navuri Jyothi Supriya, wife of K.Chittibabu, aged 36 years, Contract Employee, Dr.No.14-123, Ambedkar Nagar, Tangutur, Prakasam District, A.P - 523274 --- Petitioners

AND

1.Sharpath Ansari, son of Harmuj Ansari, Driver of Truck No.WB33C 3304, aged 28 years, Alamganj, Burdwan, West Bengal, PIN – 713101.

2.Rajan Mahtha, son of Buddeswara Mahtha, aged 30 years, Khemashuli Village and Post, Kharagpur, West Midnapur District, West Bengal-721513

3.Magma HDI General Insurance Company Ltd., represented by its authorised signatory, Second Floor, Manjuri Apartment, O.T.Road, (Landmark Old BDO Ofce) West Midnapur District, West Bengal-721305 (Policy No.P0016400019/4103/100118, valid from 09.10.2015 to 08.10.2016)

4.Navuri Premkumar, son of Prabhudas, aged 39 years, Employee, Dr.No.7-1-55/1, Flat No.301, Sri Sai Kasi Mansion, Opp. Kotak School, Chinawaltair, Lawsons Bay Colony, Visakhapatnam, AP – 530017 --Respondents

This Petition is coming on 24.03.2022 for fnal hearing before me in 2 the presence of Sri Y.Ramesh, Advocate for Petitioners,

Sri K.Srinivasulu, Advocate for 3rd respondent, Sri V.V.Pavan Kumar,

Advocate for 4th respondent, respondents 1 and 2 are having remained, ex- parte, on hearing the Advocates on record and upon perusal of the material available on record and having stood over for consideration till this day, this

Tribunal passed the following: -

// O R D E R //

1.This petition is moved by the petitioners who are wife, and children of the deceased viz., Navuri Prabhudas, who died in a motor accident, claiming compensation of Rs.39,00,000/- with interest at 12% p.a., basing on the following averments:-

(a)On 03.10.2016 at about 02.45 a.m., the husband of the 1st petitioner viz., Navuri Prabhudasu was travelling from Hyderabad to go to Ongole in

APSRTC Bus bearing No.AP 28Z 2703. The said bus was stopped by the left side of the road due to puncture. Meanwhile, the deceased got down from the said bus in order to answer calls of nature. At that relevant time, the 1st respondent being the driver of Truck bearing No.WB 33C 3304 who was proceeding towards Ongole from Guntur, drove the said Truck in a rash and negligent manner and dashed the stationed bus so also the deceased who was on the road resultant which the deceased and some other passengers sustained injuries.

(c).The petitioners further stated that, immediately after the accident, the deceased was shifted to RIMS Hospital, Ongole, from there to Lalitha

Super Specialty Hospital, Guntur, where he was treated as in patient from 03.10.2016 to 08.10.2016 and while undergoing treatment on 08.10.2016 he succumbed to those injuries. The petitioners spent an amount of

Rs.300000/- towards treatment. The said accident was reported to

Maddipadu police and they registered the same as a case in crime

No.122/2016 of Maddipadu Police Station, for the ofences punishable under 3

Sections 337 and 304(A) of the Indian Penal Code.

(d).The petitioners further stated that, prior to the accident the deceased was hale and healthy and was running business in the name and style of ‘Nature Aqua at Throvagunta’ in the capacity of Managing Partner and ‘Micro Genex at Hyderabad’. He used to earn an amount of Rs.60000/- per month on his business. He paid an amount of Rs.18200/- income tax for the assessment year 2016-2017. He was aged about 63 years old as on the date of accident. Due to the untimely death of the deceased, the future of the petitioners went into lurch. Thus, the 1st respondent being the driver of the crime vehicle, the 2nd respondent as its owner and the 3rd respondent being the insurer of the crime vehicle, are jointly and severally liable to pay compensation to the petitioners.

2.The respondents 1 and 2 are set, ex-parte.

3(a). The 3rd respondent fled written statement, denying the material averments of the petition, inter alia contending that, the driver of the crime vehicle i.e., Truck bearing No.WB 33C 3304 was not holding an valid and efective driving licence at the time of accident and further has not satisfed the requirements of the Rule No.4 of the Central Motor Vehicles Rules, 1989.

One can drive the vehicle Truck bearing No.WB 33C 3304 if he should have

HGV licence, but the driver did not possess valid and efective driving licence as on the date of accident to drive the vehicle. The 2nd respondent willfully and knowingly allowed the 1st respondent to drive the same in violation of terms and conditions of the insurance policy hence 2nd respondent/owner of the crime vehicle alone is liable to pay compensation to the petitioners.

(b).He further stated that, the accident took place due to sole negligence 4 on the part of the driver of the APSRTC bus bearing No.AP 28Z 2703 who stopped the same in the middle of the road without taking any precautionary measures so the petition is bad for non-joinder of owner and insurer of the said bus. Prays for dismissal of the petition with costs.

4.The 4th respondent who is the son of the deceased fled counter pleading in consonance with the material averments of the petition. He further stated that he is one of the legal heirs of the deceased as an elder son. He legally entitled for compensation an equal share along with the petitioners. Prays for equal share of compensation on par with petitioners.

5.Basing on the pleadings of both parties, the following issues have been settled for trial:-

1.Whether the deceased Navvuri Prabhudas died in the road accident occurred on 03.10.2016 due to rash and negligent driving of the Truck bearing No.WB 33C 3304 by respondent No.1 or was there any negligence on the part of the driver of the APSRTC bus bearing No.AP 28Z 2703 in which the deceased was travelling at the time of accident in stationing the bus without observing rules?

2. Whether 1st respondent is having valid and effective driving licence at the time of accident?

3. Whether the petition is bad for non-joinder of necessary parties?

4. Whether the petitioners and 4th respondent are entitled for compensation? If so, to what amount and against which of the respondents?

5. To what relief?

6.Trial went on. P.Ws.1 to 3 were the witnesses examined and Exs.A1 to

A10, X1 to X5 were the documents marked on behalf of the petitioners. On behalf of respondents, RW.1 was examined, Ex.B1 copy of insurance policy was marked.

5

7.This Tribunal has gone through the pleadings, evidence of P.W.1 to

PW.3, RW.1, Exs.A1 to A10, X1 to X5 and Ex.B1. This Tribunal feels that it is not necessary to reproduce the evidence and will refer the evidence as and when necessary to the extent required in the order.

8.Heard both counsel. Perused the written arguments fled on behalf of the 3rd respondent.

09. Issue No.1 :-

(a)The case of the petitioners is that, the accident occurred due to the rash and negligent driving of 1st respondent. Hence, the burden is on the petitioners to prove that the accident occurred in the manner as stated by them.

(b) The 1st petitioner, who is the wife of the deceased as PW.1 deposed in replica to the averments of the petition in her chief-examination afdavit to the efect that, on 03.10.2016 her husband Prabhudas was travelling from Hyderabad to Ongole in APSRTC bus bearing No.AP 28Z 2703 to go to

Throvagunta. When the said bus was stopped by the left side of the NH-16 near Doddavarappadu Spinning Mill due to tyre puncture, her husband got down from the said bus in order to answer calls of nature and was standing in front of the bus. Meanwhile, the 1st respondent i.e., the driver of the crime vehicle who was proceeding towards Ongole from Guntur, drove the same in a rash and negligent manner with high speed and dashed the stationed bus so also the deceased resultant which the deceased received multiple grievous injuries, shifted to RIMS Hospital, Ongole, from there to

Lalitha Super Specialty Hospital, Guntur, for better treatment, where he succumbed to with those injuries on 08.10.2016.

(c)She further deposed that immediately after the accident it was 6 reported to the police and the police registered the same as a case in crime

No.122/2016 of Maddipadu Police Station, for the ofences punishable under

Sections 337, 304(A) of the Indian Penal Code. After due investigation, the police laid charge sheet as against the driver of the crime vehicle i.e., 1st respondent for the ofences punishable under Sections 304(A), 338, 337 of the Indian Penal Code and under Sections 134(a) & (b) read with Section 187 of Motor Vehicles Act, vide Ex.A2. In cross-examination she admits that she is not an eye witness to the occurrence.

(d)PW.2 Chebrolu Ramesh Babu, who claims to be an eye witness to the occurrence, deposed that, on 02.10.2016 he was travelling from Hyderabad to Kavali in APSRTC bus bearing No.AP 28Z 2703. During the course of journey, in wee hours on 03.10.2016 at about 02.45 a.m., the said bus was stopped by the left side of the NH-16 near Doddavarappadu Spinning Mill due to tyre puncture. Then himself and other passengers got down from the said bus to answer nature of calls and were standing near the bus.

Meanwhile, the driver of the Truck bearing No.WB 33C 3304 who was proceeding towards Ongole from Guntur, drove the said truck in a rash and negligent manner with high speed and dashed the commuters and the stationed bus as a result himself and some other passengers including the deceased sustained bleeding injuries. All the injured were shifted to RIMS

Hospital, Ongole, where he gave statement to police regarding the accident and the police registered the same as a case in crime No.122/2016 of

Maddipadu Police Station for the ofences punishable under Sections 337, 304(A) of the Indian Penal Code, vide Ex.A1 and investigated into. In cross- examination, he admits that no precautionary measures were taken by the bus driver like switching on parking lights by giving signals and putting stones on the road. He further adds that the accident took place within fve 7 minutes after the said bus was stopped. The said bus was stopped immediately after the tyre got burst towards left side of the road which is away from the divider. The lorry also came towards left side of the road and dashed on the rear side of the bus.

(e).Such being the case, learned counsel for the 3rd respondent would contend that, the accident occurred due to negligence of the driver of the bus as he failed to take precautionary measures to avoid the accident so there is negligence on the part of the driver of the stationed bus but not on the part of the driver of the crime vehicle so the 3rd respondent insurance company is not liable to pay compensation to the petitioners. To substantiate those factual, he also got examined RW.1 who is Manager of the 3rd respondent insurance company. RW.1 deposed in consonance with the averments of his written statement. However he is not an eye witness to the occurrence and failed to adduce any cogent and convincing evidence to that efect.

(f).On going through the evidence of PW.2 who is one of the commuters of the stationed bus and who also sustained injuries in the accident, wherein he testifed that the said bus was stopped on the left margin of the road due to tyre burst and within fve minutes the crime vehicle which was coming from Guntur towards Ongole, came towards extreme left side and dashed against the passengers who were stood on the road so also rear side of the bus. This factual aspect alone could clearly establish that immediately after the stoppage of the bus due to its puncture, within no time, the crime vehicle dashed the stationed bus from its rear side and caused the accident. Further, the 1st respondent who is the driver of the crime vehicle who drove the said vehicle at the time of accident did not 8 choose to come to witness to speak the facts which were went on before him at that relevant of point of time. Further, Ex.A2 charge sheet which was laid as against the 1st respondent by the police after due investigation and Ex.A3 inquest report of the deceased, crystaling the contentions of the petitioners that the accident occurred due to rash and negligent driving of the driver of the crime vehicle. When there is substantial evidence is available on record in consonance with the averments of the petition, the mere plea of the 3rd respondent that the accident occurred due to negligence of the driver of the stationed bus cannot be countenanced.

(g).In view of the above foregoing discussion, this Tribunal is of the considered view that, the accident occurred due to rash and negligent driving of the driver of the crime vehicle. Accordingly, this issue is answered in favour of the petitioners as against the respondents.

10.Issue No.2:-

Though the 3rd respondent pleads that the 1st respondent who is the driver of the crime vehicle had no valid and efective driving licence as on the date of accident, failed to adduce any cogent and convincing evidence to that efect. Needless to say that any amount of pleading without evidence is of no avail. In absence of any positive evidence with regard to the driving licence of the 1st respondent, it can be construed that the 1st respondent had a valid and efective driving licence as on the date of accident. Accordingly, this issue is answered in favour of the petitioners as against the respondents.

11.Issue No.3:-

As the petitioners could place substantial evidence to prove that the accident occurred due to rash and negligent driving of drive of the crime 9 vehicle i.e., 1st respondent as discussed in issue No.1 supra, the petition is not bad for non-joinder of necessary parties. Hence, this issue is answered in favour of the petitioners and as against the respondents.

12.Issue No.4:-

(a).Coming to the quantum of compensation, PW.1 who is the wife of the deceased deposed that, the deceased was a business man doing business in Aqua Nature. He was the Managing Partner of ‘Nature Aqua,

Throvagunta’ and ‘Micro Genex, Hyderabad’. The deceased was earning an amount of Rs.60,000/- per month on his business. The deceased paid an amount of Rs.18,200/- income tax for the assessment year 2015-2016.

(b).In support of their contention, they also got examined PW.3 Income

Tax Inspector, wherein he deposed that Ex.X1 is the authorisation given by the Income Tax Ofcer-1, Ongole, in his favour to produce the relevant documents and to give evidence. Ex.A6 is Income Tax Returns fled by

Navuri Prabhudas for the year 2015-2016. Ex.A9 is the Income Tax Returns fled by the deceased for the frm M/s Nature Aqua for the assessment years 2014-2015, 2015-2016 and 2016-2017. Ex.X2 is certifed copy of Ex.A6.

Ex.X3 is the certifed copies of income tax returns of the frm M/s. Nature

Aqua for the assessment years 2015-2016, 2016-2017 and 2017-2018. As per Ex.X2, the gross total income of the deceased for the assessment year 2015-2016 is Rs.634944/-. Ex.X2 shows the income of the deceased on frm

M/s. Nature Aqua for the assessment year 2015-2016 is Rs.4,47,871/- and the income of the deceased on the frm M/s. Micro Genex for the assessment year 2015-2016 is Rs.2,20,240/-. In cross-examination he deposed that Ex.X2 shows the income on interest over the deposits. The net income of the deceased is Rs.4,60,750/-. He further admitted in his cross- 10 examination that, as per the records, Mr.Prabhudas fled individual tax returns for the assessment years 2010-2011 and 2015-2016. Ex.X4 certifed copy of e-fling shows that he fled Tax Returns for the above two years. Except that Mr.Prabhudas never fled any Tax Returns. No Tax

Returns fled in the name of Nature Aqua for the assessment year 2013- 2014. Ex.X5 is the Tax Returns in the name of Nature Aqua for the assessment year 2018-2019. One K.Chittibabu fled returns under Ex.X5.

Ex.X5 does not disclose the names of all partners.

(c).Such being the case, learned counsel for the 3rd respondent would submit that, the petitioners got fled income tax returns showing excess income, rents, interests on fxed deposits, which cannot be considered as the income of the deceased. Further, Ex.X2 Income Tax Returns whispers the deceased used to get income from business which was exhibited by the petitioners itself is not at all a genuine one and created to have wrongful gain and there are no previous years ITR for assessing to average the income of the deceased. Further, neither Proft and Loss Statement nor

Balance Sheet has been fled for the business to prove the actual income so there is no straight jacket formula to assess the exact income of the deceased so the claim of the petitioners is liable to be dismissed.

(d).On evaluating the above facts and circumstances of the case, it is pertinent to mention here that, the deceased is a retired employee and as on the date of accident he dealt with two frms, one is ‘Nature Aqua’ at

Throvagunta and another one ‘Micro Genex’ at Hyderabad. He is Managing

Partner of the said frms. He fled Ex.A9 income tax return for the frm M/s.

Nature Aqua for the assessment years 2014-2015, 2015-2016, 2016-2017.

Ex.X3 is the certifed copies of income tax returns of the frm M/s. Nature

Aqua for the assessment years 2015-2016, 2016-2017 and 2017-2018. As 11 per Ex.X2, the Gross Total income of the deceased for the assessment year 2015-2016 is Rs.634944/-. Ex.X2 shows the income of the deceased on the frm M/s. Nature Aqua for the assessment year 2015-2016 is Rs.447871/- and the income of the deceased on the frm M/s. Micro Genex for the assessment year 2015-2016 is Rs.1,20,240/-. On going through the cross- examination of PW.3 it is evident that, Ex.X2 shows the income on interest over the deposits. As per records, deceased Prabhudas fled individual Tax

Returns for the assessment years 2010-2011 and 2015-2016. Ex.X4 is certifed copy of e-fing to show that he fled tax returns for the above two years. Except that deceased Prabhudas never fled any tax returns. No tax returns fled in the name of Nature Aqua for the assessment year 2013- 2014. Thus, those factual aspects would clearly depict that the deceased had not fled income tax returns regularly and he chose to fle the same of his choice. Further, he fled those income tax returns in the capacity of

Managing Partner. Income Tax Returns of the deceased would also shows certain interests over the deposits. The deceased did not fle income tax returns continuously even to take into consideration of the average income of the deceased in view of fuctuations with regard to the income of the deceased in his business. Further, after the death of the deceased, one

K.Chittibabu who is one of the family members of the deceased inducted into the frm of Nature Acqua and fled Ex.X2 Income Tax Returns. This aspect itself transpires that immediately after the death of the deceased, the frms being handled by the family members of the deceased and getting income over it as usual. So considering the above all factual aspects, it is clear that due to untimely death of the deceased in the accident, the petitioners lost only supervision over the said frms by the deceased, thus, they are entitled for supervisory charges which can be assessed at

Rs.20,000/- per month.

12

(e)PW.1 further deposed that immediately after the accident, the deceased was shifted to RIMS Hospital, Ongole, from there to Lalitha Super

Specialty Hospital, Guntur, where he had undergone treatment as inpatient from 03.10.2016 to 08.10.2016 and they incurred expenditure to a tune of

Rs.3,00,000/- towards treatment, but failed to adduce either oral or documentary evidence to that efect. In absence of any positive evidence with regard to the expenditure incurred by the petitioners towards the treatment of the deceased, this Tribunal is unable to award any amount under the above said head.

(f).As on the date of accident, the deceased was aged about 63 years old. Ex.A2 charge sheet, Ex.A3 inquest report and Ex.A4 postmortem certifcate of the deceased would clearly depict that the deceased was aged about 63 years as on the date of accident. As per the observations laid down in the case in between Sarla Verma And Ors Vs. Delhi Transport

Corporation And Anr 1, the appropriate multiplier applicable to the persons of the age group 61-65 is “7”. In view of the observation made by this Tribunal that the deceased was aged 63 years at the time of accident, the appropriate multiplier applicable is '7'.

(g). In view of the observation made by this Tribunal that the deceased was aged about 63 years as on the date of accident, the loss of earnings caused to the petitioners on account of the death of the deceased could be quantifed as follows:-

S. Heads Calculation

No

1.Income of the deceased per month 20000.00

2. Income of the deceased per annum240000.00 Rs.20000/-x 12 = 1 2009 ACJ 1298 13

3.The deceased died leaving behind wife,180000.00 three children. Hence, 1/4 of his income has to be deducted towards his personal and living expenses. Thus, the reminder would be Rs.240000/- x 3/4=

4.Relevant multiplier for age group 61 to1260000.00 65 is “7”. Thus, loss of dependency is Rs.180000/- x 7 =

5.Losst of estate 15000.00

6.Loss of constortium 40000.00

7.Funeral expenses 15000.00 T o t a l 1330000.00

(h)For the reasons discussed above, the just compensation arrived by this Tribunal for the death of the deceased in the road trafc accident is

Rs.13,30,000/-.

(i).In view of the above foregoing discussion, this Tribunal is of the considered view that the 1st respondent being driver of the crime vehicle, the 2nd respondent being owner of the crime vehicle and the 3rd respondent being the insurer of the crime vehicle, are jointly and severally liable to pay the above said compensation to the petitioners. Accordingly, this issue is answered in favour of the petitioners as against the respondents.

13. Issue No.5:-

In the result, the petition is allowed in part, awarding compensation of Rs.13,30,000/- with proportionate costs and subsequent interest at 7.5% per annum from the date of petition, till the date of realization payable by Respondents 1 to 3 jointly and severally. The Respondents 1 to 3 are directed to deposit the compensation amount within three months from the date of this award.

14

On such deposit, 1st petitioner is entitled for compensation of

Rs.10,30,000/- with costs and proportionate interest accrued thereon and she is permitted to withdraw an amount of Rs.3,00,000/- and the rest of the compensation amount awarded to her together with entire costs and proportionate interest thereon shall be kept in fxed deposit in any nationalised bank for a period of three years.

The petitioners 2 and 3 and the 4th respondent are entitled for compensation of Rs.1,00,000/- each with proportionate interest thereon and they are permitted to withdraw the entire compensation awarded to them at once.

The ofce is directed to draft the decree on payment of exempted court fee of Rs.38360/- to be payable by the petitioners and 4th respondent respectively.

Advocate fee is fxed at Rs.3,000/- (Rupees Three Thousand Only).

(Dictated to the Stenographer, transcribed by him, corrected and

pronounced by me in Open court, this the 12 th Day of April, 2022).

Sd/-P.Venkata Jyothirmai

Chairman, Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal-cum-

Principal District Judge,Ongole

Appendix of evidence

Witnesses examined

For Petitioners: For Respondents:

PW.1 : Navuri SingammaRW.1 : Abdul Rameem PW.2 : Chebrolu Ramesh Babu PW.3 : Nayab Rasool

Exhibits marked

For Petitioners:

Ex.A.1Certifed copy of First Information Report

Ex.A.2Certifed copy of charge sheet 15

Ex.A.3Certifed copy of inquest report of the deceased

Ex.A.4Certifed copy of postmortem certifcate ofn the deceased

Ex.A5Certifed copy of MVI Report

Ex.A6Attested copy of income tax returns of deceased for the year 2015- 2016

Ex.A7Notarized copy of Partnership Deed along wtih Registration Certifcate of ‘Nature Aqua’ Company

Ex.A8Notarized copy of Partnership Deed along wtih Registration Certifcate of ‘Micro Genex’ Company

Ex.A9Attested copy of Income Tax Returns of Firm ‘Nature Aqua’ for three assessment years 2014-2015, 2015-2016 and 2016-2017

Ex.A10Attesed copy of Income Tax Returns of frm ‘Micro Genex’ for two assessment years 2015-2016 and 2016-2017

Ex.X1Authorisation given by the Income Tax Ofcer-1, Ongole to PW.3

Ex.X2Certifed copy of Ex.A6

Ex.X3Certifed copies of Income Tax Returns of the Firm M/s. Nature Aqua for the assessment years 2015-2016, 2016-2017 and 2017-2018

Ex.X4Certifed copy of e-fling to show that the deceased fled Tax returns for the two years

Ex.X5Tax returns in the name of ‘Nature Aqua’ for the assessment year 2018-2019

For Respondents :

Ex.B1Copy of insurance policy

Sd/-PVJ

CHAIRMAN, MACT-CUM-

PDJ, ONGOLE

BEFORE THE MOTOR ACCIDENT CLAIMS TRIBUNAL,

(PRINCIPAL DISTRICT COURT), PRAKASAM at ONGOLE.

Present: Smt. P.Venkata Jyothirmai,

Chairman, MACT-cum-Principal District Judge, Ongole

Tuesday, this the Twelfth (12th) day of April, Two Thousand Twenty Two

M.V.O.P.No. 142 of 2017

BETWEEN:

1.Navuri Singamma, wife of Prabhudas, aged 56 years, Business, #7-75, Throvagunta, Ongole, Prakasam District, A.P – 523001.

2.Salluri Aruna Jyothi, wife of Phani Raju (late), aged 42 years, Housewife, Saliwahana Nagar, Opp. GHMC Park, Dilsukhnagar, Hyderabad

3.Navuri Jyothi Supriya, wife of K.Chittibabu, aged 36 years, Contract Employee, Dr.No.14-123, Ambedkar Nagar, Tangutur, Prakasam District, A.P - 523274 --- Petitioners

AND

1.Sharpath Ansari, son of Harmuj Ansari, Driver of Truck No.WB33C 3304, aged 28 years, Alamganj, Burdwan, West Bengal, PIN – 713101.

2.Rajan Mahtha, son of Buddeswara Mahtha, aged 30 years, Khemashuli Village and Post, Kharagpur, West Midnapur District, West Bengal-721513

3.Magma HDI General Insurance Company Ltd., represented by its authorised signatory, Second Floor, Manjuri Apartment, O.T.Road, (Landmark Old BDO Ofce) West Midnapur District, West Bengal-721305 (Policy No.P0016400019/4103/100118, valid from 09.10.2015 to 08.10.2016)

4.Navuri Premkumar, son of Prabhudas, aged 39 years, Employee, Dr.No.7-1-55/1, Flat No.301, Sri Sai Kasi Mansion, Opp. Kotak School, Chinawaltair, Lawsons Bay Colony, Visakhapatnam, AP – 530017 --Respondents

This petition is moved by the petitioners who are wife, and children of the deceased viz., Navuri Prabhudas, who died in a motor accident, claiming compensation of Rs.39,00,000/- with interest at 12% per annum from the date of petition, till the date of realisation.

Petition presented on 02.05.2017Petition fled on 10.05.2017

This being a petition fled claiming compensation of Rs.39,00,000/-, on which a court fee of Rs.38,360/- is paid U/R 475 of M.V. Rules.

This Petition is coming on 24.03.2022 for fnal hearing before me in the presenceof SriY.Ramesh, AdvocateforPetitioners, Sri K.Srinivasulu, Advocate for 3rd respondent, Sri V.V.Pavan Kumar, Advocate for 4th respondent, respondents 1 and 2 are having remained, ex-parte, on hearing the Advocates on record and upon perusal of the material available on record and having stood over for consideration till this day, this Tribunal doth order in partly allowing the petition and order:-

(a) that the petitioners herein be and are hereby awarded compensation of Rs.13,30,000/- with proportionate costs and subsequent interest at 7.5% per annum from the date of petition, till the date of realisation payable by the respondents 1 to 3 jointly and severally;

(b)that the respondents 1 to 3 be and are hereby directed to deposit the compensation amount within three months from the date of this award;

(c) that on such deposit, the 1st petitioner be and she is hereby entitled for compensation of Rs.10,30,000/- with entire costs and proportionate interest accrued thereon and she is permitted to withdraw an amount of Rs.3,00,000/- and the rest of the compensation amount awarded to her together with entire costs and proportionate interest thereon shall be kept in fxed deposit in any nationalised bank for a period of three years;

(d)that the petitioners 2 and 3 and the 4th respondent herein be and are hereby entitled for compensation of Rs.1,00,000/- each with proportionate interest thereon and they are permitted to withdraw the entire compensation awarded to them at once.

(e)that the respondents 1 to 3 do also pay to the petitioners a sum of Rs.22032/- towards costs of the petition, bearing their own costs of the petition, a sum of Rs. Nil (CM&FC not fled). Costs of the petitioners:Rs.22032/- (CM and FC fled) Costs of the respondents:Rs.Nil/- (No CM and FC fled)

(f)Advocate fee is fxed at Rs.3,000/-

Given under my hand and seal of the Court, this the 12 th Day of April, 2022.

Sd/-P.Venkata Jyothirmai

CHAIRMAN, MACT-CUM-

PRINCIPAL DIST. JUDGE, ONGOLE

TABLE OF COSTS

For petitioners For respondents

Stamp on Vakalat Rs.2.00-No CM and FC fled- Stamp on main petition Rs.12600.00 Stamp on documents Rs.10.00 Stamp on petitionsRs.20.00 Stamp on process Rs.200.00 Typing and writing chargesRs.200.00 Publication Charges Rs.6000.00 Advocate fee Rs.3000.00 Total Rs.22032.00

Sd/-PVJ

CHAIRMAN,MACT-

Cum-PRL.Dist.Judge, Ongole

1

BEFORE THE MOTOR ACCIDENT CLAIMS TRIBUNAL,

(PRINCIPAL DISTRICT COURT), PRAKASAM at ONGOLE.

Present: Smt. P.Venkata Jyothirmai,

Chairman, MACT-cum-Principal District Judge, Ongole

Tuesday, this the Twelfth (12th) Day of April, Two Thousand Twenty Two

M.V.O.P.No. 29 of 2018

BETWEEN:

Meenuga Mallikarjuna Rao, son of Malyadri, Hindu, aged 27 years, Mason, resident of Kakarlavaripalem Village, Valetivaripalem Mandal, Prakasam District. --- Petitioner

AND

1. D.Daivadheenam, son of Santaiah, Hindu, aged about 44 years, Driver of lorry bearing No.AP 04X 8383, resident of D.No.4-33, Ramalakota Village, Veldurthi Mandal, Kurnool District.

2.Tallapureddy Sivaprasada Reddy, son of Venkata Subba Reddy, Hindu, 45 years, owner of lorry bearing No.AP 04X 8383 resident of D.No.3-895, YMR Colony, Prodduturu, Cuddapah District.

3.National Insurance Company Limited, represented by its authorized signatory, Dharavari Gardens, Vijaya Complex, Ongole ---Respondents

This Petition is coming on 08.04.2022 for fnal hearing before me in the presence of Sri P.Srinivasulu, Advocate for the Petitioner,

Smt.N.Vasundhara, Advocate for 3rd respondent, respondents 1 and 2 are having set ex-parte, on hearing the Advocates on record, upon perusal of the material available on record, this Tribunal passed the following: -

// O R D E R //

1.This is petition is moved by the petitioner claiming compensation of

Rs.5,00,000/- (Rupees Five Lakhs Only) with interest at 12% per annum for sustaining injuries in a motor accident, basing on the following averments:-

2

(a).The petitioner viz., Meenuga Mallikarjuna Rao was a mason by profession and he used to earn an amount of Rs.10,000/- and contribute the same for his family.

(b).While so, 16.10.2015 the petitioner was going to Lingasamudram village on his motorcycle and during the course of journey at about 10.00 a.m., when he reached near Ammapalem Village on Valetivaripalem –

Lingasamudram Road, a lorry which was coming in opposite direction driven by its driver in a rash and negligent manner with high speed hit the motorcycle of the petitioner and caused the accident resultant which the petitioner fell down on the ground, sustained multiple injuries. He further stated that, at the relevant time of accident, he does not know the vehicle number and later the crime vehicle was traced out by the police during the course of investigation. Immediately after the accident it was reported to the police and the police registered the same as a case in crime No.45/2015 of Valetivaripalem Police Station, for the ofence punishable under Section 338 of the Indian Penal code.

(c).The petitioner further stated that, in the accident he sustained compound fracture, both bones of right legs, fracture of right femur, fracture of right clavicle and injury on right shoulder. Immediately after the accident he was admitted in Kotareddy Nursing Home, Kandukur, and was treated there as in patient for a period of 10 days and later treated as out patient. During the course of treatment, he spent an amount of

Rs.2,00,000/- towards medical and other expenses.

(d).He further stated that, as the accident took place due to rash and

3

negligent driving of the driver of the crime vehicle i.e., 1st respondent, 2nd respondent being the owner of the said crime vehicle and the 3rd respondent being the insurer of the said crime vehicle, are jointly and severally liable to pay compensation to the petitioner.

2.The respondents 1 and 2 are set ex-parte.

3.The 3rd respondent fled counter, denying the material averments made in the petition, inter alia contending that, the alleged accident took place due to rash and negligent driving of petitioner as he drove the motorcycle without having proper driving licence resultant which he himself dashed the lorry bearing No.AP 04 X 8383 which is coming in opposite direction. Thus, the petitioner himself is totally responsible in causing the alleged accident but not the driver of lorry bearing No.AP 04X 8383. The driver who drove the crime vehicle as on the date of accident had no valid and efective driving licence to drive the same. Further, as the accident took place due to negligence of the petitioner, the owner and insurer of the motorcycle bearing No.AP 26 AT 8068 on which the petitioner was travelling as on the date of accident, are proper and necessary parties to this petition.

The petition is bad for non-joinder of necessary parties. As the petitioner is also contributed his negligence in causing the accident, compensation may be apportioned in between the petitioner and the respondents. The claim of compensation is highly excessive and exorbitant. Prays for dismissal of the petition with costs.

4.Basing on the above pleadings, the following issues have been settled for trial:-

1. Whether the petitioner sustained injuries in the accident that occurred on 16.10.2015 due to rash and negligent driving of the driver

4

of the lorry bearing No.AP 04X 8383 by respondent No.1 or was there any contributory negligence on the part of the rider of the motorcycle in which the petitioner was travelling as a rider at the time of accident?

2.Whether 1st respondent is having valid and effective driving licence at the time of accident?

3.Whether the petition is bad for non-joinder of necessary parties?

4.Whether the petitioner is entitled for compensation? If so, to what amount and against of the respondents?

5.To what relief?

5.Trial went on. On behalf of the petitioner, P.W.1 and PW.2 were the witnesses examined and Exs.A1 to A6 were the documents marked. On behalf of the respondents, RW.1 was the witnesses examined, Ex.B1 was the document marked.

6.Heard both counsel.

7.This Tribunal has gone through the pleadings, evidence of P.W.1, PW.2,

RW.1, Exs.A1 to A6, B1 and other material on record. This Tribunal feels that it is not necessary to reproduce the evidence and this Tribunal will refer the evidence as and when necessary to the extent required in the order.

8. ISSUE No.1:-

(a)The case of the petitioner is that, he sustained injuries in the accident due to the rash and negligent driving of the 1st respondent.

(b).In order to substantiate the case of the petitioner, the petitioner himself was examined as PW.1 and he deposed in replica to the averments of the petition, inter alia contending that on 16.10.2015 while he was going towards Lingasamudram village on his motorcycle, at about 10.00 a.m., when he reached near Ammapalem village on Valetivarilpalem –

Lingasamudram Road, a lorry which was coming in the opposite direction

5

driven by its driver in a rash and negligent manner with high speed hit his motorcycle and caused the accident resultant which he fell on the ground and sustained multiple injuries. In fact, at the time of accident, he does not know the number of the lorry but police after due investigation could trace the number of the lorry which caused the accident. To substantiate those factual aspects, he relied on Ex.A1 attested copy of First Information Report in crime No.46/2015 of Valetivaripalem Police Station, for the ofence punishable under Section 338 of the Indian Penal Code; Ex.A2 wound certifcate and Ex.A3 attested copy of charge sheet which was laid as against the 1st respondent before learned Additional Judicial Magistrate of

First Class, Kandukur, for the ofence punishable under Section 338 of the

Indian Penal Code.

(c).Though the 3rd respondent got examined its Assistant Manager as

RW.1, wherein he deposed that the accident took place due to inexperience of the petitioner in driving the vehicle without driving licence, they failed to adduce any cogent and convincing evidence to that efect. Though the petitioner admitted in his cross-examination that he has no driving licence as on the date of accident, that aspect cannot be taken into consideration as the accident manifestly took place due to rash and negligent driving of driver of the crime vehicle. In fact, RW.1 is not an eye witness to the occurrence. It is needless to say that any amount of pleading without evidence is of no avail. Further, he also deposed that the petitioner also contributed his negligence in causing the accident but failed to adduce any sort of proximate evidence to that efect. When there is substantial evidence is available on record, attributing negligence on the part of the driver of the crime vehicle vide Ex.A3 charge sheet, the mere oral say of 3rd respondent that the petitioner also contributed his negligence in causing

6

the accident, holds no water and cannot be countenanced. Even the 1st respondent who is the driver of the crime vehicle at the time of accident, did not choose to come to witness box to speak the factual aspects which were went on before him and remained, ex-parte.

(d).In view of the above foregoing discussion, this Tribunal is of the considered view that, the accident occurred due to rash and negligent driving of the driver of the crime vehicle i.e., 1st respondent only.

Accordingly, this issue is answered in favour of the petitioner as against the respondents.

9.Issue No.2:-

Though the 1st respondent contends that the driver of the crime vehicle had no valid and efective driving licence as on the date of accident, but failed to adduce any cogent and convincing evidence to that efect.

Thus, it can safely be concluded that the 1st respondent had valid and efective driving licence as on the date of accident. Accordingly, the issue is answered.

10.Issue No.3:-

In view of my fndings on issue No.1, as this Tribunal holds that the accident occurred only due to rash and negligent driving of driver of the crime vehicle, the plea of the 3rd respondent that the petition is bad for non- joinder of owner and insurer of the motorcycle on which the petitioner was travelling at the relevant time of accident, holds no water and cannot be countenanced. Accordingly, this issue is answered in favour of the petitioner as against the respondents.

7

11. ISSUE NO.4:-

(a).The petitioner claims compensation of Rs.5,00,000/- for the injuries sustained by him due to the accident, contending that immediately after the accident he was shifted to Kotareddy Nursing Home, Kandukur and treated there as in patient for a period of 10 days and later took follow up treatment. He spent an amount of Rs.2,00,000/- towards medical and other expenses.

(b).To substantiate those factual aspects, he got examined PW.2, Ortho

Surgeon, Kotareddy Hospital, Kanduklur, wherein he deposed that the patient viz., M.Mallikarjuna was admitted in their hospital on 16.10.2015 at 11.10 a.m., with (1) Grade-II Compound Fracture both bones right leg (2)

Comminuted fracture patella right (3) I.T. Fracture right femur (4) fracture right clavicle. The said four injuries are grievous in nature. They issued wound certifcate vide Ex.A2. The patient was operated for right tibia and patella on 16.10.2015. The patient was discharged on 21.10.2015. At the time of operation, inter middlery nailing of tibia done. TWB of patella done.

DHS of fxation of femur done. The patient again admitted on 07.11.2015 with soft tissue defect over right leg with bone exposure. Skin grafting pedicle fap coverage with skin grafting and discharged on 10.11.2015.

Ex.A4 Medical Bills, Ex.A5 Discharge Summary (2 in number) and Ex.A6 consolidated bill, are issued by their hospital. The patient was completely recovered from the injuries with 15% disability. In cross-examination, he admits that the patient can do all works as usually. Such being the case, the question of disability as deposed by PW.2 cannot be countenanced. On the other hand, the petitioner could not adduce any substantial evidence to that efect issued by competent authority. However in the accident the

8

petitioner sustained four fracture injuries so with that severity he might have confned to bed for certain period and that period is commuted at three months so an amount of Rs.20000/- can be awarded towards loss of wages to the petitioner in absence of any exact proof of income and profession of the petitioner.

(c).Further, the petitioner sufered from four grievous injuries so he is entitled for an amount of Rs.120000/- (Rs.30000x4) towards pain . As per

Ex.A4 bunch medicals, the petitioner incurred expenditure for an amount of

Rs.32759/ -, likewise, as per Ex.A6 fnal bill he incurred expenditure to a tune of Rs.129061/-, totaling to Rs.161820/-. No contra evidence is adduced by the 3rd respondent to that efect. Thus, in all the petitioner is entitled for an amount of Rs.301820/-

(d).In view of the above foregoing discussion, taking into consideration of the overall facts and circumstances of the case, this Tribunal is of the considered view that, the 1st respondent being the driver of the crime vehicle and the 2nd respondent being its owner and the 3rd respondent being the insurer of the crime vehicle, are jointly and severally liable to pay the above said compensation to the petitioner. Accordingly, the issue is answered.

11.Issue No.4:-

In the result, the petition is allowed in part, awarding compensation of Rs.301820/- with proportionate costs and subsequent interest at 7.5% per annum from the date of petition till the date of realization payable by

Respondents 1 to 3 jointly and severally. The Respondents 1 to 3 are directed to deposit the compensation amount within three months from the date of this award. On such deposit, the petitioner is permitted to

9

withdraw an amount of Rs.2,00,000/- (Rupees Two Lakhs Only) and costs of the petition at once and the remaining amount together with entire interest accrued thereon shall be kept in fxed deposit in any nationalised bank for a period of three years.

Advocate fee is fxed at Rs.3,000/- (Rupees Three Thousand only)

Dictated to the Stenographer, transcribed by him, corrected and

pronounced by me in Open court, this the 12 th Day of April, 2022).

Sd/-P.Venkata Jyothirmai

Chairman, Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal-cum-

Principal District Judge,Ongole

Appendix of evidence

Witnesses examined

For Petitioner: For Respondents:

P.W.1 : Meenuga Mallikarjuna Rao RW.1 : G.Venkateswarlu P.W.2 : Dr.B.Suresh, Ortho Surgeon

Exhibits marked

For Petitioner:

Ex.A1Attested copy of First Information Report

Ex.A2Attested copy of Wound Certifcate

Ex.A3Attested copy of charge sheet

Ex.A4Bunch of Medical Bills (64) amounting to Rs.32,759/-

Ex.A5Discharge Summary (including 2 case summaries consisting 3 papers)

Ex.A6Final Bills (2) for an amount of Rs.129061/-

For Respondents :

Ex.B1Copy of insurance policy

Sd/-PVJ

CHAIRMAN, MACT-CUM-

PDJ, ONGOLE

10

BEFORE THE MOTOR ACCIDENT CLAIMS TRIBUNAL,

(PRINCIPAL DISTRICT COURT), PRAKASAM at ONGOLE.

Present: Smt. P.Venkata Jyothirmai,

Chairman, MACT-cum-Principal District Judge, Ongole

Tuesday, this the Twelfth (12th) Day of April, Two Thousand Twenty Two

M.V.O.P.No. 29 of 2018

BETWEEN:

Meenuga Mallikarjuna Rao, son of Malyadri, Hindu, aged 27 years, Mason, resident of Kakarlavaripalem Village, Valetivaripalem Mandal, Prakasam District. --- Petitioner

AND

1. D.Daivadheenam, son of Santaiah, Hindu, aged about 44 years, Driver of lorry bearing No.AP 04X 8383, resident of D.No.4-33, Ramalakota Village, Veldurthi Mandal, Kurnool District.

2.Tallapureddy Sivaprasada Reddy, son of Venkata Subba Reddy, Hindu, 45 years, owner of lorry bearing No.AP 04X 8383 resident of D.No.3-895, YMR Colony, Prodduturu, Cuddapah District.

3.National Insurance Company Limited, represented by its authorized signatory, Dharavari Gardens, Vijaya Complex, Ongole ---Respondents

This is petition is moved by the petitioner claiming compensation of Rs.5,00,000/- (Rupees Five Lakhs Only) with interest at 12% per annum for sustaining injuries in a motor accident

Petition presented on 31.01.2018 Petition fled on 06.02.2018

This being a petition fled claiming compensation of Rs.5,00,000/-, on which a court fee of Rs.4360/- is paid U/R 475 of M.V. Rules.

This Petition is coming on 08.04.2022 for fnal hearing before me in the presence of Sri P.Srinivasulu, Advocate for the Petitioner,

Smt.N.Vasundhara, Advocate for 3rd respondent, respondents 1 and 2 are having set ex-parte, on hearing the Advocates on record, upon perusal of the material available on record, this Tribunal doth order in allowing the petition in part and decree:-

(a) that the petitioner herein be and is hereby awarded compensation of Rs.301820/-with proportionate costs and subsequent interest at 7.5% per annum from the date of petition till the date of realization payable by respondents 1 to 3 jointly and severally.

(b)that the Respondents 1 to 3 be and they are hereby directed to deposit the compensation amount within three months from the date of this award.

(c)On such deposit, the petitioner be and is hereby permitted to withdraw an amount of Rs.2,00,000/- and costs of the petition at once and the remaining amount together with entire interest accrued thereon shall be kept in fxed deposit in any nationalised bank for a period of three years.

(d) that the respondents Nos.1 to 3 do also pay to the petitioner a sum of Rs.5800/- towards costs of the petition, bearing their own costs.

(e)Advocate fee is fxed at Rs.3,000/-.

Given under my hand and seal of the Court, this the 12 th Day of April, 2022.

Sd/-P.Venkata Jyothirmai

CHAIRMAN, MACT-CUM-

PRINCIPAL DIST. JUDGE, ONGOLE

TABLE OF COSTS

For petitioner For respondents

Stamp on Vakalat Rs.2.00 -No CM and FC fled- Stamp on petition Rs.2378.00 Stamp on process Rs.200.00 Stamp on documentsRs.20.00 Typing and writing chargesRs.200.00 Advocate fee Rs.3000.00 Total Rs.5800.00

Sd/-PVJ

CHAIRMAN, MACT-CUM-

PRL.DIST.JUDGE,ONGOLE