1
BEFORE THE MOTOR ACCIDENTS CLAIMS TRIBUNAL-cum-
IX ADDITIONAL DISTRICT AND SESSIONS JUDGE, WEST
GODAVARI, KOVVUR.
PRESENT: SRI R.Sarath Babu,
CHAIRMAN,
MOTOR ACCIDENTS CLAIMS TRIBUNAL-CUM-
IX ADDITIONAL DISTRICT JUDGE, W.G.,
KOVVUR.
Friday, this the 5th day of February, 2021.
M.V.O.P. No.45 of 2017
Between
1. Gadusula Posamma.
2. Mungarpu Lakshmi.
3. Gadusula Sayamma.
4. Gadusula Geratamma.--- Petitioners
AND
1. Sanjay Khan.
2. Thriveni Earth Movers Pvt. Ltd..
3. Union India Insurance Company Ltd., rep., by its Divisional Manager, Divisional Office, Eluru, W.G.Dt., Eluru PJCJC. --- Respondents
This petition came on 28-01-2021 for final hearing
before this tribunal in the presence of Sri. K. Narasimha
Rao, advocate, counsel for petitioners, and Sri P.Udaya Bhanuji, Advocate for Respondent No.2, Sri B.V.Appa Rao, Advocate for R.3 and respondent No.1 called absent and was set exparte and upon perusing the entire material available on record, and the matter having stood over for consideration till this day, and today this tribunal passing the following:
A W A R D
1. This claim petition is filed under Sec.166 of
M.V.Act read with Rule 455 of A.P. M.V. Rules claiming compensation of Rs.10,00,000/- for the death of
deceased Gadusula Venkatesu, aged about 48
years, Polavaram village and Mandal, West
Godavari District, in a motor vehicle accident.
2
2.The brief facts of the petitioner’s case are as follows:
The petitioners are the dependants and legal heirs of the deceased Gadusula Venkatesu. 1st petitioner is the wife. 2nd and 3rd petitioners are the daughters and 4th petitioner is the mother of the deceased. The deceased Gadusula Venkatesu was aged about 48 years by the date of accident. The deceased was do coolie work and used to earn not less than Rs.10,000/-.
per month. On 17-02-2017 early hours the deceased went to forest to bring fire wood and the deceased was returning to his house on his cycle, while on the way at about 9-00 AM., he reached near Patha Ramayyapeta
Diversion road, at the same time the 1st respondent drove the lorry bearing No.AP 04 TX 6149 (OLD
REGISTRATION TS 19 TS 0402) in a rash and negligent manner with high speed and dashed the deceased and dragged the deceased to some distance, as a result, the deceased received grievous injuries and died on the spot. At the time of accident the deceased was pedaling the cycle on the left side of the road and the 1st respondent was drove the lorry baring No. AP 04
TX 6149 in a rash and negligent manner with high speed and dashed the deceased and dragged some distance.
The 1st respondent was solely responsible for occurrence of the accident and there was no fault on the part of the deceased. 1st respondent was the driver of the crime vehicle drove the vehicle and caused the accident, 2nd respondent is the owner of the crime vehicle and 3rd respondent is the insurer of the crime vehicle involved in the accident and also having vicariously liable for the rash and negligent driving of the respondent No.1, they 3 are all jointly and severally liable to pay compensation to the petitioners. The petitioners further contended that the deceased Gadusula Venkatesu was aged about 48 years and he was hale and healthy and he do coolie work and used to get Rs.10,000/- per month and used to spent all his earnings for the benefit and welfare of the family and due to sudden death of deceased, the petitioners lost the earnings and they also lost their dependency and also suffered a lot of pain and mental agony and the 1st petitioner lost the company of her husband. Thereby, they are entitle for compensation of
Rs.10,00,000/-. Hence, the petition.
3.After receipt of notice the respondent No.1 was called absent and he was set exparte.
2nd respondent filed written statement denying the material allegations in the petition and contended that the accident was occurred due to the negligence of the deceased but not due to the rash and negligence of the 1st report. he further contended that the 2nd respondent is the owner of the crime lorry but the 2nd respondent having no liability to pay the compensation and further contended that the petitioners have not filed any proof showing that the deceased used to get Rs.10,000/- per month and further contended that the insurance policy is in force as such, the 3rd respondent alone liability to pay the compensation and requested to dismiss the petition.
4. R3-insurancecompany filed its written statement denying the material allegations in the petition in para-wise and also denying the rash and negligence driving of R1 and also denying its liability claiming that the petition is liable to be dismissed with costs. It is further contended that the accident was occurred due to 4 the negligence of the deceased but not due to rash and negligent act of the R.1 and the petitioners have not filed any proof to show that the deceased used to get
Rs.10,000/- per month. It is further contended that the 1st respondent did not possess licence to drive the crime vehicle i.e., lorry bearing No. AP 04 TX 6149 and the 2nd respondent who is the owner of the crime lorry handed over the lorry to the R.1 knowing fully well that
R.1 did not possess driving licence, thereby there are violations to the policy and the 3rd respondent having no liability to pay compensation. It is further contended that the crime vehicle did not possess valid permit and insurance at the time of accident and further contended that R.3 did not issue policy to the lorry bearing No.TS 19 TS 0402 and the petitioners have not filed any proof that the lorry bearing No. TS 19 TS 0402 was subsequently changed as AP 04 TX 6149. Further contended that the petitioners filed this petition for getting excessive compensation and they are not entitle for compensation and further contended that since there are so many violations as such, the 3rd respondent having no liability to pay compensation and the petition is liable to be dismissed.
7. On the basis of the above pleadings, the following issues were settled for trial:
1.Whether the accident occurred due to rash and negligent driving of R.1, driver of lorry bearing No. AP 04 TX 6149, on 17-02- 2017 and caused the death of Gadusula Venkatesu?
2. Whether the petitioners are entitled for compensation? If so how much and from whom?
3. To what relief ?
5
8.To prove the case of the petitioners, PWs.1 and 2 were examined and Exs.A1 to A5 were marked. On behalf of the respondents RWs.1 and 2 were examined and Ex.B1 to B.6 was marked.
9. R3 filed a petition under Sec.170 of M.V.Act and it was allowed.
10. Arguments were heard.
11. ISSUE No.1:
To prove the case of the petitioners, P.W.1-Gadusula
Posamma, first petitioner-wife of the deceased was examined, besides, P.W.2-Regalla Appa Rao, Private
Employee, and eye witness of the accident. She got marked Exs.A1 to A5 viz., attested true copies of F.I.R.in
Crime No.24/2017 of Polavaram Police Station, Ex.A2- attested copy of inquest report, Ex.P.3- attested copy of post-mortem report, Ex.A.4- attested true copy of M.V.I’s.
report and Ex.A.5 attested true copy of charge sheet in
Crime No.24/2017. She is not an eye-witness to the accident.
12. PW.2-Ganisetti Raju, who is a third party to the proceedings and eye witness of the accident, deposed that he worked at Polavaram project in Triveni Earth
Movers. On 17-02-2017 at morning he was attending his duty at Ramayyapeta cross roads in the project area.
He further deposed that while he was giving signals to the Lorries working in the project to cross the main road from one side to other side of the main road. At about 9-00 A.M., one person was proceeding towards Polavaram on his cycle on the main road, at that time the driver of
Lorry bearing No.TS 19 TS 0402 drove his lorry in a rash and negligent manner with high speed and crossed the 6 main road without observing his signal and dashed the deceased who was pedaling the cycle and dragged the cycle upto 30 feet, due to that the lorry was ran over the deceased. He further deposed in his chief examination that at the time of accident the deceased- Gadusula
Venkatesu, waspeddling his cycle carefully on the left side of the road in normal speed and the driver of lorry drove in a rash and negligent manner with high speed and crossing the road without observing their company employee signal and dashed the cycle. The accident was occurred due to the rash and negligent driving of the driver of the lorry only and there was no negligence on the part of the deceased.
13. In cross examination PW2 deposed that he reported the matter to the Police in his own writing in that report he mentioned that vehicle as Volvo bearing
No.0402. He denied that he is deposing falsely without seeing the accident to help the petitioners’ due to relationship with them. He has no proof that he was working at that project. He knows the deceased
Gadusula Venkatesu, who used to go on that road regularly but not related to him. It was a case of hit and run. He noticed the vehicle number as said vehicle went away without stopping after dashing injured. He denied that he deposed false with a view to help the petitioners.
14. I have carefully scrutinized the evidence of
PWs.1 and 2. Undoubtedly, PWs.1 and 2 have not deposed anything against R.1. Undoubtedly, the respondent 2 and 3 have not denied that 1st respondent was driver of the crime lorry at the relevant time of the accident. On the other hand the General Manager of 2nd 7 respondent who examined as RW.1 clearly deposed that the accident was occurred due to the negligence of the deceased but not due to the negligence of the R.1. Which evidence of RW.1 clearly goes to show that R1 was the driver of the crime lorry at the relevant time of the accident. Undoubtedly, nothing was elicited from the mouth of RW.1 by RW.3 to prove its contention that R.1 was not the driver of the crime lorry at the relevant time of the accident. On the other hand RW.2 who is he
Administrative Officer of R.3 insurance company deposed in his chief examination as “I humbly submit that 1 st
respondent did not possess the licence to drive the
crime vehicle i.e., the lorry bearing No. AP 04 TX
6149 (old registration No.TS 19 TS 0402) and the
2 nd respondent who is the owner of the said crime
vehicle who handed over the crime vehicle to the
R.1 knowing fully that R.1 does not possess the
licence to drive the crime vehicle”. Which evidence of RW.2 is crystal clear that R.3 insurance company also admits that R.1 was the driver of the crime lorry at the time of accident. It is undisputed fact that basing on the report given by PW2 SHO Polavaram issued Ex.A.1 FIR in
Crime No.24/2017 for the offence punishable under
Sec.304 A IPC. It is also undisputed fact that after investigation SHO Polavaram Police Station, filed Ex.A.5 charge sheet against the R.1 for the offence punishable u/sec.304 –A IPC, which itself crystal clear that R.1 was the driver of the crime vehicle at the relevant time of accident. PW2 who is the eye witness of the occurrence deposed in his chief examination as “at about 9-00 AM.,
one person was proceeding towards Polavaram on
his cycle on the main road at the same time the
8
driver of lorry bearing No.TS 19 TS 0402 drive his
lorry in a rash and negligent manner with high
speed and crossing the main road without
observing my signal and dashed the deceased cycle
and dragged the cycle to 30 feet. Due to that the
lorry was run over on the deceased and deceased
died on the spot”. The evidence of PW2 is crystal clear that he is working in 2nd respondent company i.e., Triveni
Earth Movers. The duty of the PW2 is to give signals to the lorries proceeded to main road from the R.2 project area. Thus, PW2 is the correct witness to say about the accident, because the accident was took place in his presence. At this juncture the learned counsel for R.3 vehemently argued that PW2 have not deposed that R.1 was the driver of the crime lorry at the relevant time of the accident. Undoubtedly, PW2 have not deposed that
R.1 was the driver of the crime lorry, but he clearly deposed that accident was occurred due to rash and negligent driving of the driver of the crime lorry.
Undoubtedly, the investigating agency investigated into the matter and confirmed that the R.1 was the driver of the crime lorry at the relevant time of accident and the
R.3 taken a plea in written statement as well in the evidence of RW.2 that accident was occurred due to the negligence on the part of deceased but not due to the rash and negligent act of R.1. If it is so, the 3rd respondent admitted that R.1 was the driver of the crime lorry but the accident was occurred due to the negligence on the part of the deceased, if it is the case even though
PW1 and PW2 have not deposed that R.1 was the driver of the crime lorry at the relevant time of the accident.
the admission of the R3 is sufficient to hold that R.1 was 9 the driver of the crime lorry at the relevant time of the accident.
15. Now the point for consideration is: Whether the accident was occurred due to the negligent driving of the driver of the crime lorry. In the above preceding para
I already hold that PW2 clearly deposed that without observing his signal the driver of the crime lorry entered into the main road and dashed the deceased in a rash and negligent manner. Thus, it is crystal clear that the accident was occurred due to rash and negligent driving of driver of crime lorry bearing No. AP 04 TX 6149 (old registration No.TS 19 TS 0402) and as per the admission of RWs.1 and RW.2, R.1 was the driver of the crime vehicle at the relevant time of accident and SHO
Polavaram Police investigated the matter and filed Ex.A.5 charge sheet against R.1 for the offence punishable u/sec.304-A IPC, which crystal clear that R.1 was the driver of the crime lorry at the relevant time of accident.
16. Undoubtedly, the petitioners proved their contentions by way of PW2 evidence that the accident was occurred due to the rash and negligent driving of the
R.1. If it is the case, the burden shifts to the R.3 and R.3 has to prove its contentions with cogent evidence, but here in this case no independent witnesses were examined on behalf of R.3. As such, without hesitation I hold that the 3rd respondent miserably failed to substantiate its case that 1st respondent was not the driver of the crime lorry bearing No.AP 04 TX 6149 (old registration No.TS 19 TS 0402) at the relevant time of accident. In the evidence of PW1 Ex.A.4 attested copy of
MVI report was marked. On carefully gone through the said document in which in Column No.16 (b) it is 10 mentioned at the column of the name and address of the driver as Sanjay Khan Son of Fataunus Khan, Hyderpur,
E.B, Mandal Town and District. The said Sanjay Khan is the 1st respondent. In the said document it is mentioned in Column No.17 at the column of particulars of driving licence mentioned as not made available. On verifying the record the investigating officer filed charge sheet and relevant document before this tribunal for obtaining certificate with a view to get C.C number in Magistrate
Court. The investigating officer filed attested copy of driving licence of the R.1. The said document is crystal clear that the R.1 having a driving licence with
D.L.No.WB-6519890013333 and the said licence was renewed on 09-06-2015 and the R.1 licence is valid upto 25-05-2020 for non-transport vehicle and the said licence is valid upto 15-04-2018 for transport vehicles. Thus, it is crystal clear R.1 having a valid driving licence as on the date of accident. At this juncture the learned counsel for
R.3 vehemently argued that the said licence is not marked by the petitioners. Undoubtedly, petitioners are illiterates as such they may not know which document has to be marked. However, it is the duty of the court to pick the string of truth from the record and adjudicate the matter. Undoubtedly, the investigation report is part and parcel of the matter as such, the said driving licence can be looked into. Which facts and circumstances are clearly goes to show that the 1st respondent was the driver of the crime lorry at the relevant time of accident.
Except taken a plea in the written statement the 3rd respondent have not took any steps to prove that the 1st respondent was not the driver at the relevant time of accident. Thus, it can be safely hold that the 3rd 11 respondent miserably failed to prove its contentions and on the other hand the petitioners fairly proved their case that the 1st respondent was the driver of the crime lorry at the relevant time of accident.
17. After careful consideration of the evidence of
PW1 and 2 coupled with Exs.A.1 to A5 and after carefully marshaling the facts and circumstances of the case and basing on my above disunions without hesitation I hold that 1st respondent was the driver of the lorry bearing
No. AP 04 TX 6149 (old registration No.TS 19 TS 0402) and he driven the same with rash and negligent manner and dashed against the deceased Gadusula
Venkatesu, on 17-02-2017 and I further hold that the said Gadusula Venkatesu died on the spot due to the accident caused by 1st respondent.
18. At this stage the learned counsel for 3rd respondent vehemently argued that basing on the Ex.A.5 charge sheet the court cannot came to a conclusion that the 1st respondent was the driver of the crime lorry bearing No.AP 04 TX 6149 (old registration No.TS 19
TS 0402) at the time of accident. To substantiate his contention he relied upon a decision of our Hon’ble High
Court reported in APSRTC, Hyderabad v. N.Krishna
Reddi and others reported in 2004(3) ALD (NOC) 312 wherein it was held that “Merely because the police charge- sheeted R.W.1 it cannot be presumed that the allegations therein are true.
The allegations in the charge-sheet have to be proved by adducing oral evidence.
It is significant to note that Ex.A2, certified copy of the charge-sheet, does 12 not show that the Investigating Officer took pains to visit the scene of accident and verify as to how actually the accident took place”. ……
The above decision is not applicable to this case, because the facts are totally different. In that case, the
Investigating Officer did table investigation without visiting the accident spot and no witnesses were examined to prove the accident. But, in this case, petitioners examined P.W.2-R.Appa Rao -eye-witness and also marked Exs.A1 to A5 to prove that the Investigating
Officer conducted investigation thoroughly and filed charge sheet against R1. The accident was occurred on 17-02-2017 at 9-00 A.M and report was immediately given by the PW2 at 9-30 AM., without any delay. The
F.I.R., was registered within no time. Therefore, the above decision is not applicable to this case, because the inquest and post-mortem reveal that the death of the deceased Gadusula Venkatesu, was due to motor accident. Simply because a driver escaped from the spot, the petitioners cannot be denied their right of claiming compensation. Whenever accident occurred, the drivers are supposed to report the incident, but in this case, the driver with a view to escape from his liability, did not give report. But the investigation done by the police reveals that the R.1 who was the driver of the lorry driven the lorry at the time of accident.
19. On the other hand, the learned advocate for the petitioners relied on a decision of our Hon’ble High
Court in K.Rajani and others v. M.Satyanarayana
Goud and another reported in 2015(1) An.W.R.5 (A.P.) wherein it was held that 13
Unless it is shown that police investigation is false, we cannot reach to a definite conclusion. When there is reasonable doubt in a claim petition arising out of the motor accidents, the benefit of doubt should go to the claimants. The possibility of the driver of the offending lorry stopping the offending vehicle at the place of the accident and looking at the scene and fleeing away from the place of accident also cannot be ruled out.
Unless there is reliable evidence to show that the contents of the charge-sheet are false, on mere surmise, it cannot be said that the contents of the chare-sheet or the police investigation is false”.
20. He also relied on another decision of our
Hon’ble High Court in Bodige Padma & Ors. Vs.
Makula Shanker & Ors., reported in 2012 (3) L.S.74 wherein it was held that
13. ……..“In cases of delay, the
Courts are required to examine the evidence with a closer scrutiny and in doing so the contents of the FIR should also be scrutinized more carefully. If the court finds that there is no indication of fabrication or 14 it has not been concocted or engineered to implicate innocent persons then, even if there is a delay in lodging the FIR, the claim case cannot be dismissed merely on that ground. The purpose of lodging the
FIR in such type of cases is primarily to intimate the police to initiate investigation of criminal offences”.
The facts of the above cases are almost similar and they are applicable to the present case to prove that the petitioners established the involvement of the lorry of R2 in the accident driven by R1.
21. The learned advocate for R3-insurance
Company argued that the accident was occurred due to the negligence of the deceased, but the said contention of R.3 is not proved by adducing evidence and on the other hand the evidence of PW2 who is the eye witness of the occurrence crystal clear that the accident was occurred due to negligent driving of the driver of the crime lorry bearing No.AP 04 TX 6149 (old registration No.TS 19 TS 0402) and the evidence of
PW2 further crystal clear that the 1st respondent rashly and negligently driver the crime lorry rashly entered into the road from Project without observing the signals of
PW2 and hit the deceased.
22. After careful consideration of the evidence of
PWs.1 and 2 coupled with Exs.A.1 to A.5 and basing on my above discussion without hesitation I hold that the petitioners fairly proved their case that the accident was occurred due to the rash and negligent driving of R.1 and the said lorry owned by R.2, which was insured with R.3 15 under Ex.B.6 policy causing the death of deceased.
Accordingly, Issue No.1 is answered.
23. ISSUE NO.2:-
In view of my finding on issue No.1, I hold that
R1 is being the driver, R2 is being the owner and R3 is being the insurance company, are liable to pay compensation to the petitioners jointly and severally.
However, R3 is liable to pay the same as per the terms of
Ex.B1 policy to reimburse the loss suffered by R3 towards third party risk.
24. The learned counsel for R.3 vehemently argued that there is no policy for the crime vehicle and further argued that the petitioners are miserably failed to prove that the vehicle bearing No.TS 19 T 0402 and the vehicle bearing No.AP 04 TX 6149 are one and the same and further argued that vehicle bearing No.AP 04 TX 6149 is having policy and the said policy cannot be treated that the vehicle TS 19 T 0402 having a policy. On this fact RW1 who is the General Manager of the R.2 company clearly deposed as “ the lorry AP 0 TX 6149
was purchased by this respondent company from
M/s.BGR Mining and Infra Pvt., Ltd., Manchiryala
RTO limits, Adilabad District, Telegana and old
registration No.TS 19 T 0402”. Which evidence of
RW.1 crystal clear that 2ndrespondent company purchased the lorry bearing No.TS 19 T 0402 and subsequently transferred to Cuddaph there the said lorry
Number was changed as AP 04 TX 6149. To substantiate its case Ex.B.2 document issued by the transport officer
Manchiryala was filed and marked as Ex.B.2. I have carefully gone through the Ex.B.2 in which it is clearly 16 mentioned that originally the vehicle was registered as JH 10 AN 7999 of Jharkhand State, later it was transferred with no objection certificate for change of address and same was carried out and on 22-11-2016 vehicle Number was given as TS 19 T 0402 after that also an application was submitted on 23-11-2016 to transfer the vehicle to
RTA Cuddaph of Andhra Pradesh and same was issued.
Along with Ex.B.2-vehicle B Register as well as transactions for the said vehicle were attached.
Undoubtedly, RW1 deposed in his cross examination as “in Ex.B.1 chasses Number was mentioned as
917103 and Engine No.425464. In Ex.B.3 Engine
Number mentioned as 426247 and the chasses
No.YV2JSO2G5D8917103. In Ex.B.2 Chasses
Number as No.YV2JSO2G5D81917103K1”. Basing on the said admission made by RW.1 the counsel for R.3 vehemently argued that the vehicle which was insured under Ex.B.1 is not the vehicle bearing No.AP 04 TX 6149, since Chasses and Engine numbers are different.
Undoubtedly, Administrative Officer of R.3 Company examined as RW.2. In cross examination RW.2 deposed as “the policy Ex.B.1 shown to me said to be issued
by R.3 but I cannot say now whether it was actually
issued by our 0ffice in Salem. It is true Ex.B.4 was
issued by R.3 branch at Rajahmundry. Ex.B.4 was
issued for the vehicle bearing No.AP 04 TX 6149 for
the period of insurance 07-10-2016 to 06-10-
2017”. I have carefully scrutinized the Ex.B.1 and B.4.
Ex.B.1 policy No. is “1708033116P109020002” for the vehicle bearing No.JH-10-AN-7999, the said policy is in force from 07-10-2016 to 06-10-2017.
Undoubtedly, the policy Number mentioned in Ex.B4 as 17 “1708033116P109020002” and the validity of the policy mentioned as 07-10-2016 to 06-10-2017 in Ex.B.4 it is mentioned as “endorsement effective date 28- 03-2017 and issuing Officer VO3 Salem”. Which itself crystal clear the policy issued under Ex.B.1 was subsequently, changed the name of owner of
Rajahmundry Branch Office of R.3 company issued
Ex.B.4, as such, the policy number is the one and the same in Ex.B.1 and B.4. Undoubtedly, since Ex.B.4 is for continuation of Ex.B.1 policy as such chasses Number and Engine Number were not mentioned in Ex.B.4. If it is the case it can be safely hold that the crime lorry bearing
No.AP 04 TX 6149 having valid insurance. The counsel for R.3 vehemently argued that the Engine Number and
Chasses Number mentioned in Ex.B.1 is completely different to Ex.B.3. Undoubtedly, it is the fault of the insurance company for non-mentioning of Engine Number and Chasses Number in Ex.B.4. Once in Ex.B.4 policy is the continuing policy of Ex.B.1 except changing of owner name it can be safely hold that the vehicle bearing No.AP 04 TX 6149 is insured with R.3 company and RW.2 who is the representative of R.3 company clearly admitted in his cross examination as “it is true Ex.B.4 was issued R.3 branch at Rajahmundry”.
25. The learned counsel for R.3 vehemently argued basing on the Ex.B.5 that the lorry bearing No.JH- 10-AN 7999 was changed as AP 4 TX 6189 but not AP 4
TX 6149. Ex.B.5 was filed by R.3. Undoubtedly, in Ex.B.5 policy number is mentioned as “1708033116P109020002”. Thus the policy number mentioned in Ex.B.1, Ex.B.4 and Ex.B.5 are one and the same but the bearing number of the vehicle is different.
18
On this fact the counsel for 2nd respondent argued that there is a type mistake in Ex.B.5. To prove the same R.2 filed copy of insurance policy issued for the vehicle bearing No.AP 4 TX 6189. The said policy was issued from 21-10-2016 to 20-10-2017. Undoubtedly, the vehicle bearing No.AP 4 TX 6149 and vehicle bearing
No.AP 4 6189 are belongs to 2nd respondent. If Ex.B.5 is for the vehicle AP 04 TX 6189 from 07-10-2016 to 06-10- 2017 the same insurance company may not issue policy for the same vehicle from 21-10-2016 to 20-10-2017 since by the date 21-10-2016 Ex.B.5 policy is in existence. Thus, there is every possibility that in Ex.B.5 the vehicle bearing Number was wrongly mentioned as
AP 04 –TX 6189 instead of AP 04 TX 6149 since the policy number mentioned in Ex.B.4 and Ex.B.5 are one and the same and the policy number on Ex.B.6 is different. On carefully scrutinize the Ex.B.5 and B.6 Engine number and Chasses Number mentioned in Ex.B.5 and B.6 are totally different. In Ex.B.5 Engine Number is mentioned
as 425464 and Chasses Number mentioned as 917103
but where as in Ex.B.6 the Engine Number mentioned as 450385 and chasses number mentioned as
UV2JSO2GSV891920BC17. Undoubtedly, if Ex.B.5 and
B.6 are issued for a vehicle bearing No.AP 4 TX 6189 there should be a same engine number and Chasses
Number. Ex.B.3 is the copy issued by Additional
Registering Authority Cuddaph in which the Chasses
Number for vehicle bearing No.AP 4 TX 6149 mentioned as YV2JSO2G5D8917103K16 and Engine number mentioned as 425467, undoubtedly, the said Engine number and chasses number mentioned in Ex.B.3 are not mention in Ex.B.5 and different chasses and Engine 19 number mentioned. In Ex.B.6 the Engine number mentioned as 450385 and Chasses number mentioned as
YU2JSO2G5E891920BC17. Thus, the Engine number and
Chasses Number mentioned in Ex.B.6 are different than that of engine number and chasses number mentioned in
Ex.B.5 and also in Ex.B.3. Undoubtedly, in Ex.B.4 Engine number and chasses number were not mentioned.
Thereby it can be safely hold that there is a type mistake in Ex.B.1 with regards to bearing number of the vehicle.
After careful consideration of the evidence of RW.1 and
RW.2 coupled with Ex.B.1 to B.6 and basing on my above discussion without hesitation I hold that the crime vehicle
AP 04 TX 6149 is having a valid policy and the said policy was issued from 07-10-2016 to 06-10-2017 and the accident was occurred on 17-02-2017. Thereby Ex.B.4 policy issued by R.3 is in force by the date accident.
26. The petitioners claimed Rs.10,00,000/- for the death of the deceased claiming that he is doing a coolie work and earning Rs.10,000/- p.m. Undoubtedly, the case of petitioners that the deceased worked as coolie is not a disputed fact. The said fact also deposed by PW2.
But, the petitioners have not filed any documentary evidence that the deceased used to get Rs.10,000/- per month. At this juncture the learned counsel for petitioners vehemently argued that even if minimum wage of a coolie has to be calculated at a rate of Rs.300/- per day as per the G.O and gazette publication issued by the labour department. Undoubtedly, the said G.O and gazette publication have not filed by the petitioners.
As such, there is no force in the argument of learned counsel for petitioners. Undoubtedly, now-a-days coolie can easily earn Rs.6,500/- p.m., equivalent to 20
Rs.78,000/- per annum. Undoubtedly, the petitioners have not filed any document showing that the petitioner was aged below 50 years, on this fact a suggestion was given to the PW1 that the age of deceased was 55 years.
Undoubtedly, deceased is aged 48 years, as seen from inquest-report and post-mortem. The investigating officer filed copy of Adhaar Card of the deceased Gudusula
Venkatesu in the document the year of birth of deceased mentioned as 1969. If it is so the deceased was aged about 48 years by the date of accident. The appropriate multiplier applicable to the deceased as per the decision of Hon’ble Supreme Court in Sarala Verma's case is 13.
As per the decision of Hon’ble Supreme Court in National
Insurance Company Ltd., Vs. Pranay Sethi and
Others wherein it was held that…
(iii) “While determining the income, and addition of 50% of actual salary to the income of the deceased towards future prospects, where the deceased has a permanent job and was below the age of 40 years, should be made. The addition should be 30%, if the age of the deceased was between 40 to 50 years. In case the deceased was between the age of 50 to 60 years, the addition should be 15%. Actual salary should be read as actual salary less tax.
(iv) In case the deceased was self-employed or on a fixed salary, an addition of 40% of
the established income should
be the warrant where the
deceased was below the age
of 40 years. An addition of 25% where the deceased was between the age of 40 to 50 years and 21 10% where the deceased was between the age of 50 to 60 years should be regarded as the necessary method of computation. The established income means the income minus the tax component”.
27. Since the deceased was below the age of 50 years and self-employed, future prospects of 25% has to be added to arrive at his earnings and then his actual earnings comes to Rs.97,500/- per annum. Sincehe got four dependants i.e., wife, two daughters and mother of deceased, 1/4th of his earnings be deducted towards his personal expenditure. Then his family contribution comes to Rs.73,125/- per annum. The compensation payable is Rs.73,000/- X 13 = Rs.9,50,625/-.
Besides that, they are also entitled to Rs.10,000/-
towards funeral expenses, Rs.10,000/- towards
loss of estate. The 1 st petitioner is entitled to
Rs.30,000/- towards loss of consortium being the spouse of the deceased, who lost her husband in the accident. The total compensation payable to the
petitioners is Rs.10,00,625/- as such rounded to
Rs.10,00,000/-payable by R3, though all the respondents are jointly and severally liable. In view of my above findings, the other points raised in the arguments need not be discussed at length, as they are not much material. This issue is answered accordingly.
28. ISSUE No.3:
In the result, petition is allowed partly with proportionate costs awarding compensation of
Rs.10,00,000/- with future interest at 9 % per annum, 22 from the date of petition till the date of realization payable by R3, though all the respondents are jointly and severally liable to be deposited within two months. Out of compensation amount of Rs.10,00,000/-
Rs.5,00,000/- is awarded to 1 st petitioner-wife, and
Rs.2,00,000/- each is awarded to the 2 nd and 3 rd
petitioners, who are the daughters of deceased
and Rs.1,00,000/- is awarded to the 4 th petitioner
who is the mother of the deceased. The petitioners
No.1 to 4 are all permitted to withdraw their respective amounts. After depositing the amount. Advocate’s fee fixed at Rs.10,000/-.
Dictated to the Stenographer Grade-I, on computer
corrected and pronounced by me in open Court, on this the 5 th day of February, 2021.
Chairman,
Motor Vehicles Accidents claims
Tribunal cum IX Addl. District Judge
West Godavari at Kovvur.
APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE
WITNESSES EXAMINED
On behalf of Petitioners:
P.W.1 - Gadusula Posamma. P.W.2 - Regalla Appa Rao.
On behalf of respondents:
R.W.1 - Karri Satya Rao, Sr.G.M. R.W.2 - S.Chenna Srikalyan, A.O.
DOCUMENTS MARKED
On behalf of Petitioners:
Ex.A1 - Attested true copy of FIR in Cr.No.24/2017 of Polavaram Police Station. Ex.A2 - Attested true copy of Inquest report.
23
Ex.A3 - Attested true copy of P.M report. Ex.A4 - Attested true copy of MVI's report. Ex.A5 - Attested copy of Charge Sheet filed in Cr.No.24 of 2017 of Polavaram P.S.
On behalf of respondents:
Ex.B1 - Insurance policy dt.06-10-2016 in Jarkhand for crime vehicle bearing No.JH 10 AN 7999 for the period 07-10-2016 to 06-10-2017.
Ex.B2 - Subsequently that vehicle transferred to Telangana State and its number altered as TS 19 T 0402 as per RTA proceedings Ex.B.2 dt.10-12-2018 furnished under RTI Act.
Ex.B3 - Altered RC issued by Andhra Pradesh State transport department, Cuddaph after transfer of that vehicle to AP to Telangana State with RC No.AP 04 TX 6149 dt.31-12-2017 (verified with original). Ex.B4 - Subsequently issued by R.3 office after carrying out latest vehicle number dt.28-03-2017. Ex.B5 - Altered policy copy for lorry bearing No.AP 04TX 6189. Ex.B6 - certified copy of policy copy for lorry bearing No.AP 04TX 6189.
Chairman,
Motor Vehicles Accidents claims
Tribunal cum IX Addl. District Judge
West Godavari at Kovvur.
24