1
IN THE COURT OF THE V ADDITIONAL DISTRICT JUDGE-CUM-
CHAIRMAN, MOTOR VEHICLE ACCIDENTS TRIBUNAL, KARIMNAGAR
PRESENT:Smt Prema Rajeswari V Additional District Judge-cum- Chairman, Motor Vehicle Accidents Tribunal,
KARIMNAGAR.
Tuesday, the 3rd day of June, 2020
M.V. O.P. No.719 of 2015
Between:-
Pinreddy Venkatreddy s/o.Thirupathireddy, 35 rys, occ: Nil, (previously agriculture, r/o.Elbaka village of Veenavanka mandal of Karimnagar dist. ….Petitioner.
and
1. Parvaz Mohammad s/o.Hussain Mohammed, 40 yrs, occ: Driver of offending lorry bearing No.JK-02-AQ-6071, r/o.H.No.40-A, last morh street, Gandhi nagar, Jammu of Jammu and Kashimristate.
2. Parveen Singh s/o.Suchath Singh, major, occ: Owner of offending lorry bearing No.JK-02-AQ-8071, r/o.W.No.1 Simbal camp, Shriram transport Co.LTd., Jammu of Jammu & Kashmir state.
3. The United INdia Insurance Co.Ltd., repl.By its manager, issuing office, Address code-110603, Room No.202 203, North blcosh, JDA Complex Bahu plaza, Railway Head Jammu, Jammu and Kashmir.
4. The United India Insurance Co.LTd., Rep.by its Divisional Manager, Divisional OFfice, H.No.2-6-299, AK Estates, Mukarampura, Karimnagar city.
....Respondents.
Petition filed under Section 166 (1) (a) of Motor Vehicle Act. This petition coming on before me on 20-2-2020 for final hearing in the presence of Sri.S.Ramesh, Advocate for the petitioner and Sri.T.G.Singh, Advocate for respondent No.3 & 4, R1 & R2 remained exparte; having been heard and stood over consideration to this day, the Court delivered the following:-
O R D E R
1.This petition is filed under Section 166 (1) (a) of M.V. Act claiming compensation to a tune of Rs.10,00,000/- ( Rupees ten lakhs only) for the injuries received by the petitioner in a motor vehicle accident together with subsequent interest @ 18% P.A.
2.The averments in the petition in nut shull are as follows:- 2
The accident was occurred on 9-9-2013 at about 8-00 P.M., near old
MRO office, Choppadandi, while the petitioner was proceeding to Elabaka village from Salugupalli village on his motor cycle and when he reached near the scene of offence, R1 drove the crime lorry bearing No.JK-02-AQ-6071 in a rash and negligent manner at high speed dashed against the motor cycle which resulted in causing severe injuries to the petitioner. The petitioner was shifted to the Government hospital, Karimnagar and there from he was shifted to Chelmada Anandarao Institute of Medical Science, Bommakal, for better treatment. The petitioner also took treated at Saranya Nursing Home,
Hanamkonda as well as NIMS, Hyderabad. He underwent operation to right femur on 25-9-2013 and discharged from the hospital on 8-10-2013. The petitioner had spent huge amount towards transport charges, extra nourishment and medical expenses. The S.H.O., Choppadandi registered
Ex.A1 FIR regarding the accident and prosecuted R1 under Ex.A2 for the offence under Sec.338 IPC. The petitioner was quite hale and healthy person and he was 32 years old by the date of accident. The petitioner was earning an amount of Rs.3,00,000/- p.a. on cultivation. The petitioner sustained permanent disability. The respondents are therefore, jointly and severally liable to pay the compensation. Hence the petition.
3.R1 & R2 remained exparte and there is no contest from them.
4. On appearance the third & fourth respondents filed counter contending interalia that the petition is not maintainable either in law or on facts. R3 and R4 denied the manner, method and depiction of the accident which occurred on 9-9-2013 at 8-00 P.M., at Choppadandi village. R3 and R4 did not admit the age, income and expenditure said to have been incurred by the petitioner including the permanent disability. R3 and R4 submits that the 3 accident was occurred due to the negligent driving of the petitioner himself without there being any fault on the part of R1. R1 did not possess any valid and subsisting driving license to drive the crime lorry on the date of accident including the petitioner and there was no fitness certificate and valid permission to crime vehicle. The claim made by the petitioner is highly excessive and exorbitant including the interest. The respondents sought protection under Sec.147 and 149 of M.V.Act and Sec.64 (5) (b) of Insurance
Act. R3 & R4 therefore, pray the tribunal to dismiss the claim petition with costs.
5.Basing on the above pleadings, following issues were settled for trial:
1. Whether the accident had occurred due to rash and negligent driving of the offending Lorry bearing No.JK-02-AQ-6071 by its driver?
2.Whether the petitioner is entitled to compensation, if so, to what amount and from whom ?
3.To what relief ?
6.During the course of trial, Pws 1 & 2 were examined, and Exs.A1 to A15 were marked on behalf of the petitioner. On the other hand, Rw.1 is examined and Ex.B1 was marked on behalf of R3 & R4.
7.No arguments advanced on either side.
8.ISSUE NO.1.
The counsel for the petitioner vehemently argued that the petitioner sustained multiple severe injuries during the course of accident which was occurred on 9-9-2013 at 8-00 P.M., near Old MRO office at Choppadandi while the petitioner was proceeding to Elabaka village from Salugupall village due to the rash and negligent act of R1 who drove the crime lorry and dashed against the motor cycle which resulted in causing the injuries. It is 4 further submitted that the petitioner took treatment in various hospitals and incurred huge expenditure towards medical treatment and lost his earnings on account of permanent disability.
On the other hand the counsel for the respondents No.3 & 4 submitted that the accident was occurred due to the negligent driving of the petitioner himself without there being any fault on the part R1, R1 did not possess any valid driving license to drive the crime lorry on the date of accident in favour of the petitioner and there was not fitness certificate and valid permit to the crime vehicle. They further submitted that the claim made by the petitioner is highly excessive and exrobitant. The respondents sought protection under
Sec.147 and 149 of M.V.Act and SEc.64 (5)(b) of Insurance Act, therefore, R3 and R4 are not liable to pay the compensation to the petitioner.
9.As a matter of fact, the negligence is not a question of evidence it is an inference which is to be drawn from the proved facts in the proceedings under motor vehicles Act. The finding of negligence has to be recorded basing on the preponderance of probabilities, therefore, both parties must lead appropriate evidence in support of their claim. General purport of the word “ Res ipsa loquitor” is that the accident speaks for itself or tells its own story”. The right of the victims in the road accident to claim compensation is a statutory one. The main object of making insurance compulsory before the vehicle is put on the road is, to protect the victims who sustained injuries and death in a fatal accident. Sec.94 was inserted in order to protect the members of the community travelling on the motor vehicles who are using the road from risk attending factors. The law undoubtedly provided compensation to the victims of accident who sustained injuries in the course of accident or compensation to the dependents of the victims in case of fatal accident.
5
10.Now going into the merits of the evidence placed before the Tribunal it is seen that the petitioner himself got examined as Pw.1, who filed his evidence affidavit in lieu of his chief examination,, Pw.1 narrated about the manner in which the accident was occurred on 9-9-2013 at 8-00 P.M., near old MRO Office, Choppadandi and the injuries sustained by him including the treatment taken by him in various hospitals. According to Pw.1 the accident was occurred due to rash and negligent act on the part of R1 who drove the crime vehicle at high speed and dashed against his motor cycle while he was proceeding to Elabaka village, Salugupalli village.
11.During the cross examination Pw.1 though admitted that the scene of offence is a busy locality but stated that there was no traffic on that day due to Vinanyaka Chaturthi festival. Pw.1 further admits that he has not filed any document in proof of his income and he filed white ration card, where his annual income was shown as Rs.42,000/-. Pw.2 denied the suggestion that the accident was occurred due his own negligence and there was no negligence on the part of R1. He further denied the suggestion that R1 was not having any valid driving license to drive the crime lorry which does not have either fitness certificate or valid permit. Pw.1 negatived the suggestion that he sustained only single injury and the claim made by hims is excessive.
Except the said bald suggestions nothing worthwhile could be elicited to dis prove the manner in which the accident was occurred including the rash and negligent act on the part of R1. No suggestion was made to Pw.1 that the respondents are not the driver, owner and insurer of the crime vehicle and that there is no nexus between the accident and the crime lorry. It was not even suggested to Pw.1 that he never received any injuries during the course of accident and there is no valid permit to the crime vehicle. The alleged violation of provisions of M.V.Act and Insurance Act were not at all pointed to 6
Pw.1. In the absence of any such cross examination there is no reason to discard the evidence of Pw.1. Moreover, the cross examination of Pw.1 is found to be contra to the defence set out by R3 and R4. Therefore, the evidence of Pw.1 amply go to show that the accident was occurred on 9-9- 2013 at about 8-00 P..M., near old MRO office, Choppadandi due to rash and negligent act on the part of R1 which resulted into causing severe injuries to him.
12.It is seen that R1 & R2 remained exparte and there is no contest from them.. they have not taken any steps to get the exparte order set aside in order to contest the O.P. R1 did not choose to even cross examine Pw.1. In the absence of any contest it can safely be presumed that R1 is the owner/driver of the crime vehicle and that the accident was occurred due to his negligence. In fact R1 being the driver of the crime vehicle on the date of accident he is the best person to speak about the manner in which the accident was occurred. Therefore, it negatives the contention of R2 that R1 was not having any driving license and the crime vehicle was implicated for the purpose of claim. Moreover, the second respondent though filed counter disputing the claim made by the petitioner, failed to adduce any evidence in support of its defense except the proceedings Ex.B1 which is undisputed insurance policy of crime vehicle. Absolutely there is no iota of material to substantiate the defence set out by R2. There is nothing on record to show that R1 has violated the terms and conditions of Ex.B1 and that the entire fault lies on Pw.1 which resulted into the accident. Equally there is no material on record put-forth by R2 to sustain or up held its contention regarding the plea of contributory negligence and head on collision. As a matter of fact pleading itself is not a proof. Every pleading must be substantiated either by oral or documentary evidence but no such evidence 7 is forthcoming from R2. Therefore, the defence set out by R2 is neither proved nor established.
13.It is pertinent to see that Exs.A1 to A13 are marked on behalf of the petitioner, whereas Rw.1 is examined on behalf of the 3rd respondent and
Ex.B1 policy is marked. Exs.A1 and A2 are the C.C. of FIR and charge sheet pertaining to crime No.152/2013. Ex.A1 was registered against R1 basing on the report lodged by one Kanaka Reddy brother -in-law of Pw.1. Ex.A1 was registered against R1 being the driver of crime lorry bearing No. JK-02-AQ- 6071.Ex.A2 is the charge sheet pertaining to Cr.No.152/2013. Ex.A2 shows that R1 prosecuted under Sec.338 IPC for his rash and negligent driving which resulted into the accident. R1 was not prosecuted in Ex.A2 under Sec.3 r/w 181 of M.V.Act in order to substantiate the plea of R2 with regard to non possessing of driving license. The recitals of Exs.A1 and A2 amply to go to show that the accident was occurred on 9-9-2013 at about 8-00 P.M., near old MRO Office, Salugulapalli village due to the negligence of R1. Thus
Exs.A1 and A2 proved the factum of accident including the rash and negligent act on the part of R1. Ex.A3 is the C.C. of medical certificate issued by NIMS, Hyderabad which contain the details of injuries received by Pw.1 during the course of accident. The fact that Pw.1 took treatment in NIMS hospital remains undisputed. Ex.A4 is the C.C. of form No.54 (accident information report) issued by S.I. of police Choppadandi P.S. in
Cr.No.152/2013. It is mentioned in Ex.A4 that the accident was occurred on 9-9-2013 at 8-00 A.M.,, near Salugulapalli village. As per Ex.A4 R1 is the driver and R2 is the owner, R3 & R4 are insurer of the crime vehicle bearing
No. JK-02-AQ-6071. There are particulars of driving license of R1 and Ex.B1 were mentioned in Ex.A4. Absolutely no cross examination was conducted to
Pw.1 with regard to Exs.A1 to A4. The testimony of Pw.1 is found to be 8 consistent with the contents of Exs.A1 to A4 which amply establishes that the accident was occurred on 9-9-2013 at 8-00 P.M., near old municpal office,
Choppadandi due to the rash and negligent driving of R1 in causing severe injuries. It also establishes about the involvement of crime lorry. No contra evidence is lead by the respondents to disprove the evidence of Pw.1 and contents of Exs.A1 to A4. Accordingly issue No.1 is answered in faour of the petitioner.
13.ISSUE NO.2:
It is seen that the petitioner claimed compensation of RS.10,00,000/-,
It is just and necessary to answer the claim under each head one after the other.
CLAIM PERTAINING TO TRANSPORT CHARGES:
The petitioner has claimed an amount of Rs.50,000/- towards transport charges. It is the evidence of Pw.1 that initially he was shifted to
Govt.hospital, Karimnagar for treatment and later he was taken to CAIMS,
Bommakal where he took treatment for one day. The evidence of Pw.1 further shows that he was again shifted to saranya nursing home,
Hanamkonda and later he was admitted in NIMS Hyderabad on 8-10-2013 with an advise to take follow up treatment. Absolutely no cross examination was conducted to Pw.1 with reagard to the treatment taken by him in the above mentioned hospitals. Pw.2 who is a medical officer in NIMS, Hyderabad has supported the version of Pw.1 regarding the treatment taken by him. The evidence of Pw.1 discloses that he was discharged from NIMS at Hyderabad on 8-10-2013. Undoubtedly Pw.1 placed reliance on Ex.A12 which are rent receipts issued by Srinivas rent a car '5' in number. The said rent receipts are dt.15-10-2013, 14-11-2013, 28-12-2013, 30-1-2014 and 18-3-2014 much 9 later to the date of discharge from NIMS hospital. Neither Pw.1 nor Pw.2 have stated about the treatment taken by Pw.1 at NIMS, Hyderabad on 18-3- 2014. But the evidence of Pw.1 shows that he took treatment in NIMS hospital till 8-10-2013. Pw.1 did not choose to examine the author of Ex.A12.
Therefore, Ex.A12 rent receipts neither significant nor relevant. Undoubtedly
Pw.1 is resident of Elabaka village Veenavanka mandal which is at a distance of 200 kms from Hyderaba. As a matter of fact Pw.1 might have incurred some expenditure towards transportation charges for taking treatment at
Karimnagar, Bommakal, Hanamkonda and Hyderagbad. An amount of
Rs.5,000/- would meet the ends of justice towards transport charges.
Therefore, the petitioner is entitled for an amount of Rs.5,000/- towards transportation charges.
CLAIM FOR EXTRA NOURISHMENT:
The petitioner has claimed an amount of Rs.10,000/- towards extra nourishment. Pw.1 failed to put forth any material in this regard. Neither Pw.1 nor Pw.2 have spoken about the expenditure for extra nourishment.
Absolutely there is no iota of evidence in support of the claim for extra nourishment. It is not the evidence of Pw.1 that he was prescribed any specific nutritious food either by doctor or diatition. No such prescriptions are filed in support of the claim pertaining to extra nourishment. There is nothing on record to show that Pw.1 has spent any amount towards extra nourishment. In the absence of any such proof or material, the question of awarding compensation under this head does not arise. Therefore, the petitioner is not entitled to claim any compensation towards extra nourishment much less an amount of Rs.10,000/- as claimed.
10
CLAIM PERTAINING TO ATTENDANT CHARGES:
The petitioner has claimed an amount of Rs.50,000/- towards attendant charges. Admittedly Pw.1 did not speak anything in respect of present claim.
He has not specified the name of the person to whom he has engaged as attendant while undergoing treatment in hospitals. No receipt is filed to show that Pw.1 spent any amount towards the charges for attendant. In the absence of any such proof the question of awarding compensation towards the attendant charges does not arise.
CLAIM PERTAINING TO LOSS OF AMINITIES:
The petitioner has claimed an amount of Rs.50,000/- towards loss of amenities. The petitioner failed to substantiate the present claim towards loss of amenities. Pw.1 did not speak anything about the present claim. The present O.P. is filed claiming compensation for the injuries sustained by him during the course of accident. The question of awarding loss of amineties would arise only in case of death in a fatal accident. As such the petitioner is not entitled to claim any amount towards the compensation for the loss of amenities.
CLAIM PERTAINING TO MEDICAL EXPENSES:
The petitioner has claimed an amount of Rs.1,00,000/- towards medical expenses. Pw.1 stated that he took treatment in various hospitals for the injuries sustained by him during the course of accident. Pw.1 further stated that he was shifted to Govt.hospital Karimnagar at the 1st instance soon after the accident and later he was taken to CAIMS, Bommakal, from there he was shifted to Saranya Nursing home at Hanamkonda and finally admitted in
NIMS at Hyhderabad. Pw.1 has also spoken about the details of surgery undergone by him at NIMS Hyderabad and incurred total medical expenditure to a tune of Rs.1,00,000/-. Pw.2 is no other than a doctor in NIMS hospital 11 supported the version of Pw.1 regarding the treatment taken by him. Pw.2 deposed that Exs.A3, A8 to A11 and A13 to A15 are pertains to the NIMS,
Hyderabad. Pw.2 denied the suggestion that Pw.1 sustained only simple injuries and there is no need to remove the implants and he is deposing false to help Pw.1. A peculiar suggestion was put to Pw.1 to the effect that Pw.1 took treatment under Arogyasri scheme. In fact there is no such plea in the counter filed by R3 and R4. Any amount of cross examination without there being any pleading is of no consequence. Pw.2 is an independent witness being the doctor who attended on Pw.1. No motives or malafides could be attributed against Pw.2. The evidence of Pw.2 is found to be consistent with the evidence of Pw.1.
The claim pertaining to medical expenses is based on Ex.A3, A5 to A11 and A13. More particularly Ex.A11. Ex.A3 is the CC of injury certificate pertains to Pw.1 showing the details of injuries received by him. Ex.A5 is the
OP ticket issued by Govt.hospital, Karimnagar which belongs to Pw.1. Ex.A6 is the investigation report issued by CAIMS, Bommakal belongs to Pw.1. Ex.A7 is the prescription issued by Shranya Nursing Home, Hanamkonda. Ex.a8 to
A10 are the OP medical record at NIMS, Hyderabad dt.13-9-2013, 15-10-2013 and 8-11-2104. Ex.A11 are the various medical bills pertains to Pw.1 which include MV report, CT scans and X-rays etc. Ex.A11 discloses that Pw.1 has spent an amount of Rs.66,161/- towards the medical expenses. The only bill dt.9-10-2013 for Rs.5,000/- issued by Srivenkateswara medical agency,
Hyderabad is included from the perview of medical claim since no medicines were mentioned in it which is shown at S.No.64. Ex.A11 pertains to the relevant period of time and belongs to Pw.1. Ex.A13 are X-ray films of Pw.1.
Pw.2 stated that Ex.A3, A8 to A11 and A13 were issued by NIMS hospital.
Mere suggestions Pw.1 that Ex.A11 and A12 were created for the purpose of claim does not have any purpose in the absence of any contra evidence from 12
R3 and R4. Moreover, Rw.1 did not speak anything about Ex.A3, A5 to A11 and A13. THe evidence of Pw.1 and Pw.2 coupled with Ex.A11 amply establishes that Pw.1 has incurred an amount of Rs.66,161/- towards medical expenses as against the claim of Rs.1,00,000/-
COMPENSATION FOR PAIN AND SUFFERING:
The petitioner has claimed an amount of Rs.1,00,000/- towards compensation for pain and suffering in respect of injuries sustained by him during the course of accident. Ex.A3 is the C.C. of injury certificate dt.22-11- 2013 issued by NIMS, Hyderabad. As seen from Ex.A3, Pw.1 has sustained altogether (7) grievous injuries i.e., (1.Grade I compound Supra Condylar fracture right femur, 2. Grade I Compound fracture proxmial tibia right, 3.
Grad I Compound D/E radium right , 4, Fracture 7 and 8 ribs right, 5. Blunt injury abdomen, 6. Head injury with resolved fat embolism, 7. Foot drop right). Pw.2 has also stated about Ex.A3 and the particulars of grievous injuries sustained by Pw.1. There is no basis for R3 and R4 to suggest that
Pws 1 and 2 that Pw.1 sustained only simple injuries. Rw.1 did not dispute the contents of Ex.A3. The evidence of Pws 1 and 2 coupled with the contents of
Ex.A3 clearly establishes that Pw.1 has sustained (7( injuries during the course of accident.
The compensation for pain and suffering is to be awarded basing on the nature and gravity of the injuries sustained by the victim. Pw.1 might have suffered with severe pain and undergone physical and mental agony on account of the injuries received by him. keeping the nature and gravity of the injuries referred in Ex.A3, in view, I feel it is just and proper as well as reasonable to award Rs.10,000/- for each grievous injuries. Therefore, the petitioner is entitled for Rs.70,000/- for pain and suffering as against the claim of Rs.1,00,000/-.
13
COMPENSATION FOR PERMANENT DISABILITY:
The petitioner has claimed an amount of Rs.6,00,000/- towards permanent disability. In that context Pw.1 stated that due to compound condylar fracture of right femour and compound fracture proximal right tibia he has not able to fold the right leg properly and unable to discharge his duties and not able to walk properly which hampered his day to day activities. Pw.1 also stated that the movement of his right leg is restricted, thereby suffering with disability. A bald suggestion was made to Pw.1 that he has not suffered with any disability. Pw.2 who is the medical officer at NIMS,
Hyderabad has categorically deposed that Pw.1 has mild crepitusand stiffness in right knee joint which amounts to permanent partial disability to right lower limb to a tune of 20%. Absolutely no cross examination was conducted to Pw.2 with regard to the said disability. However, it was elicited through Pw.2 that the quantum of disability is restridrted to right lower limb.
Rw.1 did not dispute the disability suffered by Pw.1.
The age and income of Pw.1 are relevant to assess the compensation towards permanent disability. The age of Pw.1 is mentioned as 32 years in the claim petition as well as evidence affidavit. Ex.A1 to A4 disclose that
Pw.1 was 32 years old on the date of accident. Nothing could be elicited to disprove the age of Pw.1 which mentioned in Exs.A1 to A4. In fact the strict proof of age is not necessary under the provisions of M.V.Act. The evidence of Pw.1 coupled with the contents of Exs.A1 to A4 clearly establishes that
Pw.1 was aged about 32 years on the date of accident.
So far as the income of the petitioner is concerned, he claimed that he was earning an amount of Rs.3,00,000/- per annum., on agriculture. No proof of income is filed by the petitioner that he was earning an amount of 14
Rs.3,00,000/- P.a. In that context Pw.1 stated during the cross examination that he possessed white ration card and his annual income is shown as
Rs.42,000/- p.a., Therefore, the income of Pw.1 is Rs.3,500/- per month. As per schedule II, Apendix 3 of M.V.Act and basing on the legal authority of
Hon’ble Supreme Court in Sarala Verma case reported in 2009 ACJ pg.1299,
the relevant multiplier basing on the age of Pw.1 is 32 years, compensation for disability is calculated as under:
Age of the injured 32 years
Relevant Multiplier16
Annual income of the injured Rs.3,500/- X 12 = 42,000/-
Application of relevant multiplier Rs.42,000 X 16 = 6,72,000/- 20% of disability --- Rs.6,72,000/- X 2% = 1,34,400/-
The counsel for the petitioner placed reliance on the legal authority of
Hon'ble Apex Court reported in 2009 ACJ -1298 (Sarla Verma and others Delhi
Transport corporation): In support of his contention to the effect that schedule I contains a table prescribing compensation to be awarded with reference to the annual income range from Rs.3000/- to Rs.40,000/-. It does not specify the quantum of compensation in case if the annual income of the deceased is more than Rs.40,000/-. Undoubtedly the said legal authority applicable to the claimants in the case of death, but not in the case of injuries. In the instant case the petitioner sustained injuries during the course of accident. But if is not the case of death. Thus the principle laid down in the decision is not applicable to the case on hand.
Therefore, I am of the view that the petitioner is entitled for an amount of Rs.1,34,400/- towards compensation for permanent disability as against the claim of Rs.6,00,000/-.
15
In view of my foregoing discussion with reasons, I hold that the petitioner is entitled for total compensation Rs.2,75,561/- under all the above heads as against the claim of Rs.10,00,000/-.
14.LIABILITY:
Undoubtedly R1 is the driver, R2 is the owner, R3 & R4 are the insurer of the crime lorry bearing No.JK-02-AQ-6071. It was established at issue No.1 on 9-9-2013 at 8-00 PM., at Choppadanadi village due to rash ad negligent act on the part of R1 which resulted in causing sever injuries to Pw.1. The material on record clearly shows the involvement of crime vehicle in the accident. There is no basis for R3 and R4 to contend that the fault lies with
Pw.1 and there was violation of terms and conditions of Ex.B1, so also the non existence of valid permit and fitness certificate. Mere suggesting Pw.1 that the scene of offence is a busy locality and there is no scope to drive the crime vehicle at high speed and R1 did not possess any valid driving license to drive the crime lorry does not serve any purpose. Moreover Rw.1 did not speak anything about the same, except claiming that Pw.1 was negligent.
Further R1 was not prosecuted under SEc.3 r/w 181 of M.V.Act in Ex.A2.
Ex.A4 discloses that the particulars of driving license possessed by R1. No contra evidence is lead by R3 and R4 in support of its defence. Ex.B1 is the undisputed insurance policy isseud by R3 and R4 which is valid from 14-8- 2013 to 13-8-2014. Thus Ex.B1 was in force byt he date of accident whichw as occurred on 9-9-2013. When Ex.B1 was in force, R3 and R4 cannot be exempted from their liability. Therefore, R1 to R4 are jointly an severally liable to pay the same.
16
15.INTEREST:
So far as the claim of the interest is concerned, the petitioner has claimed interest @ 18 P.A. The Hon’ble Apex Court in a decision reported in 2008 ACJ pg.1488 between Laxmidevi and others Vs Mohd.Tabber and another, wherein it was held that subsequent interest on the compensation is awarded under the provisions of Motor Vehicles Act should be at 6 % p.a. In view of the said legal authority the petitioner is entitled to claim interest @ 6% P.A. Accordingly issue No.2 is answered in favour of the petitioner.
16.ISSUE NO.3:
In the result, the petition is allowed partly with proportionate costs by awarding compensation of Rs.2,75,561/- (Rupees two lakhs seventy five thousand five hundred and sixty one only) against R1 to R4 who are jointly and severally liable to pay the same to the petitioner with subsequent interest @ 6 % P.A. from the date of petition till the date of deposit. One month time is is granted to the respondents to deposit the said compensation awarded in favour of the petitioner. The rest of the claim made by the petitioner stands dismissed. On such deposit the petitioner is entitled to withdraw the entire amount. The Advocate Fee is fixed at Rs.2,000/-.
Dictated to the Stenographer, transcribed by her, corrected and pronounced
by me in the open Court, on this the 3rd day of June, 2020
Chairman, (M.A.C.T)- cum V Addl. District Judge, Karimnagar.
17
APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE
WITNESSES EXAMINED
FOR THE PETITIONER:FOR THE RESPONDENTS
PW.1: Pinreddy Venkatreddy Rw.1 Yada Sairam Pw.2: Dr.Raju Ayyangar
EXHIBITS MARKED
FOR THE PETITIONER:
Ex.A.1Is the C.C. of FIR in Cr.No.152/2013 of P.S.Choppadandi. Ex.A.2Is the C.C. of Charge sheet Ex.A.3 Is the C.C. of injury certificate Ex.A.4 Is the C.C. of Form No.54. Ex.A.5: Is the C.C. of A.P.Vaidya Vidhana Parishad Out patient ticket given by Govt.Hospital, Karimnagar. Ex.A.6:is the investigation report issued by Chalmeda Anand Rao Institute of Medical Sciences Bommakal, Karimnagar. Ex.A.7:is the Prescription issued by Sri.Sharanya Nursing Home, Hanamkonda. Ex.A.8:is the out patient Medical Record of NIMS Hydeerabad Ex.A.9:is the out patient medical record of NIMS Hyderabad Ex.A10:is the out patient medical record of NIMS Hyderabad. ex.A11: is the Medical Bills, receipts, investigations, CT scans, X-rays etc. (total Nos.89). Ex.A12: is the Transport rent (car) bills total Nos.5. Ex.A13: is X-ray films Nos.3. Ex.A14: is the radiograph Ex.A15:is the radiograph
FOR THE RESPONDENTS:
Ex.B1 is the Insurance policy. Chairman, (M.A.C.T)- cum V Addl. District Judge, Karimnagar.