Sri. R. Sudhakar Naidu

1

IN THE COURT OF THE V ADDL. METROPOLITAN SESSIONS JUDGE:

( MAHILA COURT)-CUM XIX ADDL.CHIEF JUDGE:HYDERABAD.:

AT HYDERABAD

PRESENT; Sri.R.Sudhakar Naidu, B.A.,B.L., Spl.Judge for Economic Offences-cum- VIII Addl. Metropolitan SessionsJudge,Hyd FAC V Addl. Metropolitan Sessions Judge (Mahila Court) -Cum- XIX Addl.Chief Judge,Hyd.

Dated this the 27th February,2012

ORIGINAL PETITION NO.905 of 2007

BETWEEN:

Smt.Somavarapu Manikyam, W/o.ramchander, Aged 35 years, occ: Labour, R/o.H.No.43, Goutham Nagar, Filmnagar, Hyderabad.

... Petitioner

A N D 1.M/s.Homework Tours and Travels India Pvt. Ltd., rep. By Mazaheer S/o. Not known aged about Major, occ:Owner of Innova Toyota bearing No.AP 11X 3813, R/o.HG.No.18-8- 192/13A,IndiraNagar,Phisalbanda, Hyderabad.

2.Cholamandalam Ms General Insurance Company Ltd., V.V.s vintage Boulavard 5th floor, No.6-3-1093, Rajbhavan Road, Somajiguda, Secunderabad. -500082

Cover note No.1052968 Valid from 4-5-2006 to 3-5-2007 . . . Respondent.

This petition is coming on this day before me for final hearing

before me, in the presence of Sri. B.N.Madhukar RAo, Advocate for petitioner

and of SriG.Ramchandra Reddy, advocate for the respondent No.2, respondent No.1 remained Exparte, the matter having stood over for consideration till this day, this court made the following:

:: A W A R D :

1.The petitioner/injured filed this petition against the respondents u/s.166 of the Motor Vehicles Act 1988 to award compensation of Rs.2,50,000/­ with future interest and costs.

2.The case of the petitioner is that on 7.2.2007 at about 1500 hrs, she was traveling in auto bearing No.AP 13 W 3781 to Hakimpet, and when the auto reached Hakeem Baba Dargah, while so, one Toyota Innova Car bearing No.AP 11 X 3813 came in opposite direction, driven by its driver with high speed in rash and negligent manner and 2 dashed the auto and as a result, the auto turned turtle and fell down, due to which, the petitioner sustained commuted fracture left hand (Wrist) grievous head injury, right leg injury and multiple injuries all over the body. She was shifted to Appollo Hospital, Jubilee Hills, Hyderabad, from there, due to her financial capacity, she was again shifted to Golconda area hospital and admitted as in patient on 12.2.2007, and was operated on 19.2.2007 by inserting a steel rod to left forearm and she was discharged on 15.3.2007. Police Banjara Hills registered a case in Cr.115/2007 u/s.337 IPC against the driver of the offending car. The Petitioner is 35 years old working as a labour and earning Rs.4,000/­ per month. The 1st respondent is the owner of the offending Car and the 2nd respondent is the insurer of the said car and thus, both the respondents are jointly and severally liable to pay the estimated compensation of Rs.2,50,000/­ to the petitioner. Thus this petition.

4.The case of Respondent No.2 is that it denies that on 7.2.2007 at about 1500 hrs, she was traveling in auto bearing No.AP 13 W 3781 to Hakimpet, and when the auto reached Hakeem Baba Dargah, while so, one Toyota Innova Car bearing No.AP 11 X 3813 came in opposite direction, driven by its driver with high speed in rash and negligent manner and dashed the auto and as a result, the auto turned turtle and fell down, due to which, the petitioner suffered fracture and multiple injuries. This respondent did not admit the age, income and avocation of the petitioner. The driver of the offending car was not possessing effective driving licence as on the date of the accident. The petitioner is not entitled for compensation, and this petition is liable to be dismissed. Further this respondent seeks protection u/s.170 of MV Act 1988.

5. Upon the pleadings, the following issues are framed.

1.Whether the petitioner sustained injuries in the accident on 7.2.2007 due to rash and negligent driving of the driver of Innova Car bearing No.AP 11 X 3813?

2.Whether the petitioner is entitled for compensation and, if so, from whom?

3.To what relief? 4.

6.On the side of the petitioner, PW1 and PW.2 were examined and exhibited documents Ex.A1 to A12.. On the side of the R2, Ex.B1 to B5 and X1 and X2 are marked.

7.Heard arguments from both sides.

8. ISSUE No.1:  The burden of proof is on the petitioner to prove the negligence on 3 the part of the driver of the offending car in causing the accident resulting the petitioner sustaining fracture and other multiple injuries. To prove this issue, relied on the oral evidence of PW.1 and the documentary evidence Ex.A1 and A2. PW.1 is the injured petitioner. Ex.A1 is the certified Copy of FIR in Cr.115/2007, Ex.A2 is the CC of Charge sheet. PW.1 deposed that on 7.2.2007, at about 1500 hrs, she was traveling in an auto bearing No. AP 13 W 3781, to Hakimpet and when the auto reached Hakeem Baba Dargah, one Innova Toyota car bearing No.AP 11 X 3813 came in opposite direction, driven by its driver with high speed in rash and negligent manner and dashed the auto and as a result, the auto turned turtle and fell down, in the process, she sustained fractures and multiple injuries all over the body. The only suggestion connected to the accident given to this witness, is that she was not traveling in the auto and no accident has taken place. The said suggestion was denied by the witness. Touching upon the accident, absolutely there is no cross examination from the side of R2. There is nothing to suggest to disbelieve the evidence of PW.1 with regard to the accident. Therefore, the evidence of PW.1 is to be accepted. By accepting the evidence of PW.1, negligence on the part of the driver of the offending car is proved. Besides, documentary evidence Ex.A1 and Ex.A2 are to be considered. The Crime was registered under Ex.A1 and the Banjara Hills PS investigated the crime and laid charge sheet against the driver of the offending car for the offence u/s.338 IPC before the court of law. From the documentary evidence Ex.A1 and Ex.A2, it is proved the negligence on the part of the driver of the offending car. Thus from the oral evidence of PW.1 and the documentary evidence under Ex.A1 and Ex.A2, it is proved the negligence on the part of the driver of the offending car in causing the accident, resulting injuries to the petitioner. Thus, I hold this issue in favour of the petitioner and against the Respondents.

9.ISSUE NO.2: The burden of proof is on the petitioner to prove that he is entitled for compensation of Rs.2,50,000/­. To prove this issue, relied on oral evidence of PW.1 and PW.2 and documentary evidence under Ex.A3 to A12. PW.2 is the Orthopaedic Surgeon from Govt.King Koti Hospital, Hyderabad. The 2nd Respondent Insurance company contended that the driver of the offending car was not possessing valid and effective driving licence as on the date of the accident and as such, the insurance company is not liable to pay compensation. In support of the said contention, relied on the oral evidence of RW1 and RW2 and the documentary evidence Ex.B1 to B.5, Ex.X1 and X2. RW1 is the Senior Manager of R2 company. RW2 is the Junior Asst. R.T.A office Hyderabad Central. RW1 deposed that on the date of the accident, the 1st respondent, driver is not having any valid and effective driving licence to drive the offending Car. Further deposed that R2 company issued Ex.B2 to the 1st Respondent to produce the driving licence of the offending Car driver­ M.A.Fareed Baig. 

4

Similarly, Ex.B3 was issued to the driver M.A.Fareed Baig to produce the driving licence. But R1 and the driver have not responded. This witness further deposed that the driver M.A.Fareed Baig is having LMV non transport driving licence valid from 15.4.2004 to 16.8.2013. He further deposed that as per Ex.B4, M.A.Fareed is having driving licence for LMV Non transport and as per Ex.B5­Registration Extract of the car, it is described as Maxi Cab­LMV and as such, the said driver M.A.Fareed is not competent to drive the offending Innova Car registered as Maxi cab­LMV. RW2 also corroborated the evidence of RW1 and produced Ex.X2 showing that th driver M.A.Fareed Baig is having driving licence for LMV non Transport. The question is whether the driver M.A.Fareed Baig is competent to drive the offending car registered as Maxi Cab LMV underEx.B5. In the cross examination, RW2 admitted that as per Ex.B5, Unladon vehicle wt.1615 kgs and gross weight is 2,290 kgs. He further admitted that, a person holding L MV­DL can drive vehicle of 7500 kgs wt. And he also can drive the offending car of Unladon wt.1615 kgs. Significantly, this witness further admitted that under Ex.B5, the offending car is not described either as transport or non transport. And further admitted that a person holding LMV Non transport D.L can drive Innova Unladon wt of 1615 kgs and gross weight of 2290 kgs. It is clear from the admissions made by RW2, the offending car under Ex.B5 is not described as LMV Transport. It is only described as Maxi Cab. Besides the weight of the offending car is of 1615 kgs of Unladon Weight and gross wt of 2290 kgs and there is no difference between the Innova car in question and the transport vehicle and the non transport vehicle. Considering no special distinction and further under Ex.B5, the offending car is not specifically described as LMV Transport, I am of the view that the driver M.A.Fareed Baig who is possessing LMV Non transport driving licence is competent to drive the offending Car. Therefore, the objection of R2 is not tenable and the Respondent No.2 is liable along with R1 to pay the compensation that is to be awarded in favour of the petitioner. To decide whether the petitioner is entitled for compensation claimed, the same is to be considered under the heads to follow:

a) Shock, Pain, suffering and loss of amenities to life As per the evidence of PW.1 and PW.2, and also from Ex.A3 and Ex.A4, the wound certificates, the petitioner suffered communited fracture left hand (wrist), grievous head injury, right leg injury and other multiple injuries all over the body. She also underwent operation for the communited fracture left hand (wrist). Considering the one grievous injury of fracture, suffered by her, besides other multiple injuries, under this head, it is just and reasonable to award compensation of Rs.20,000/­ 5

b)Injuries depending upon the disability partial, full, temporary or permanent As per the evidence of PW.1 and PW.2, the petitioner was first admitted in Appollo Hospital, Jubilee Hills, Hyderabad, and there as she had no money, she was shifted to Golconda Area Hospital and was admitted as in patient on 12.2.2007 and she underwent operation for fracture of both bones of left forearm on 19.2.2007 and was discharged on 15.3.2007. Further, she was admitted in King Koti Hospital on 26.8.2008, implant removal was done on 5.9.2008 and she was discharged on 16.9.2008. Further, under Ex.A12, the disability certificate issued by PW.2, assessed the petitioner suffered partial permanent disability at 35% . PW.2 assigned reasons for the said disability that the petitioner is having deformity of left wrist. Wasting of left forearm and restriction of fore arm 30% movements. Limited left hand grip is weak. I In this regard, the evidence of PW.2 is a reliable one and as such, the disability certificate under Ex.A12 is to be relied upon. Now the question is whether the petitioner is 35 years old. As per the evidence of PW.1 and from the documentary evidence Ex.A1 to A6 and Ex.A12, the age of the petitioner is recorded as 35 years and the same is to be relied upon. The next question is whether the petitioner was earning Rs.4,000/­ per month. As per the evidence of PW.1, she is working as a labour. By applying minimum wages Act, petitioner might have secured employment of 20 days in a month. And in the said period income could be arrived at Rs.2500/­ per month. There is no evidence to believe that the petitioner was earning Rs.4,000/­ per month. By arriving the income of the petitioner at Rs.2500/­ per month, the annual income would come to Rs.30,000/­. As the petitioner was aged 35 years old, the multiplier that would apply is 16.  The annual income is to be multiplied by the multiplier (30,000 X 16 =4,80,000) Out of 4,80,000/­, 35% of partial permanent disability assessed is to be awarded. (480,000 X 30% = 1,68,000/­. Under this head, it is just and reasonable to award compensation of Rs.1,68,000/.

c)Medical and incidental expenses. As per the evidence of PW.1 and PW.2 and also from Ex.A5 to A8, the petitioner was first admitted in Apollo Hospital and for want of money, immediately she was again shifted to Golconda area hospital, and there she was in patient for 32 days. And as per  ex.A18, original medical bills (55 Nos), the petitioner purchased medicines worth Rs.27,649.81 ps. As the said hospital is a Government hospital, there is no need for the petitioner to incur any expenses for treatment. Insofar purchase of medicines, she spent Rs.27,649.81 ps and this amount she is entitled to. In addition to this, for extra nourishment awarded a sum of Rs.5,000/­  and a sum of Rs.5,000/­ for transport. In all under this head, petitioner is awarded Rs.37,649.81ps rounded off to Rs.37,650/­. In all a sum of Rs.2,25,650/­ is awarded.

6

The 1st respondent is the owner of the offending lorry and the 2nd respondent is the insurer of the said lorry as per Ex.B1 policy and which was in force as on the date of the accident, and as such, both respondents are jointly and severally liable to pay the said awarded compensation to the petitioner.

10.ISSUE NO.3: In the result, the petition is partially allowed with proportionate costs for Rs.2,25,650/­ with future interest @ 9% p.a. from the date of petition till the date of realization. 1st and 2nd Respondents are jointly and severally liable to pay the said compensation and they are directed to deposit the awarded sum into the court within one month from today. On deposit, for the present the petitioner is permitted to withdraw Rs.1,25,650/­ with accrued interests and costs. Balance of compensation shall be kept under FDR in any nationalized Bank for a period of one year. Advocate fee is awarded Rs.2,000/­

Dictated to Personal Assistant, transcribed and typed by him, corrected and 

pronounced by me in the open court on this the 27th day of February, 2012

V ADDL. METROPOLITAN SESSIONS JUDGE

CUM XIX ADDL.CHIEF JDUGE:HYDERABAD.

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE 

WITNESSES EXAMINED

FOR PETITIONERS:

PW.1S.Manikyam ... Complainant

PW.2Dr.Vasudeva Rao 

FOR RESPONDENTS:

RW1 V.Shankar Dass

RW2 A.Kiran Kumar

EXHIBITS MARKED

FOR PETITIONERS :

Ex.A.1CC of First Information Report

Ex.A.2 Certified copy of Charge sheet

Ex.A.3 Certified copy of Injury Certificate

Ex.A.4 Certified copy of M.L.C.

7

Ex.A.5 Original discharge summary issued by area hospital, Hyd

Ex.A.6Original discharge record issued by Dis.Hospital King Koti,Hyd

Ex.A.7Original medical prescriptions

Ex.A.8Original medical bills No.55 Rs.27,649.81/­

Ex.A.9Photo with negative No.2

Ex.A.10Petitioners labour identity card

Ex.A11Copy of insurance policy

Ex.A12Handicapped certificate

FOR RESPONDENTS:

Ex.B.1 Certified true copy of insurance policy

Ex.B2Letter from Respondent No.2 to R1

Ex.B3Letter from Respondent NO.2 to accused

Ex.B4Certified copy of driving licence

Ex.B5Certified copy of registration extract.

 X­ Series Ex.X1Letter from licencing authority to V.AMSJ, Hyd

Ex.X2CC of driving licence of M.A.Fareed Baig.

V ADDL. METROPOLITAN SESSIONS JUDGE

CUM XIX ADDL.CHIEF JUDGE:HYDERABAD.

1

IN THE COURT OF THE V ADDL. METROPOLITAN SESSIONS JUDGE:

( MAHILA COURT)­CUM XIX ADDL.CHIEF JUDGE:HYDERABAD.: 

AT HYDERABAD

 PRESENT; Sri.R.Sudhakar Naidu, B.A.,B.L., 

Spl.Judge for Economic Offences­cum­

VIII Addl. Metropolitan SessionsJudge,Hyd 

FAC V Addl. Metropolitan Sessions Judge

(Mahila Court) ­Cum­ XIX Addl.Chief Judge,Hyd.

 Dated this the 2nd March,2012

ORIGINAL PETITION NO. 2581 of 2006

 BETWEEN:

Smt.V.Susheela, WE/o.V.Mangiya, aged about 

22 years, Occ: Labour­cum­Household, 

R/o.H.No.2­9,Peerampallivillage, 

Kulakacharla Mandal, R.R.District.

... Petitioner

A N D

1)Sri N.Motilal, S/o. Bhikya Naik, R/o.2­12, 

Lingampally village, Kulakacharla Mandal, 

R.R.District.

2)IFFCO­TOKIO General Insurance Col.Ltd. 

,rep. By its Branch Manager, 2nd floor, Uma 

Chambers, Banjara Hills road, Panjgutta, 

Hyderabad.

(Cover Note Policy No.32728206

valid from 21.3.2006 to 28.2.2007

. . . Respondents. 

This petition is coming on 2­3­2012 for final hearing before 

me, in the presence of Sri.P.Ramesh, advocate for petitioner and of Sri 

G.Srinivasa Charyulu, Advocate for the Respondent No.2 and Respondent 

No.1 Remained Exparte the matter having stood over for consideration 

till this day, this court made the following:

 A W A R D :

1.The petitioner/injured filed this O.P. against the respondents u/s.166 of the Motor Vehicles Act 1988, to award compensation of

Rs.2,00,000/- with future interest and costs.

2

2.The case of the petitioner is that on 12.5.2006 she was travelling in auto bearing no.AP-9DL-TR-9417 with new registration No.AP-28W- 7070 and when the said auto reached Mancheekunta Tanda at about 7.30 pm, as the driver of the auto drove with high speed and the said auto turned turtle, she sustained fracture of left leg shaft femur and other injuries all over the body. The PS Kulakacharla registered a case in

Cr.No.46/2006 under section 337 IPC against the driver of the offending auto. Further, the petitioner was 22 years old, as on the date of the accident, and was working as labour and earning Rs.3,000/- per month.

Further, she suffered partial permanent disability and thus estimated the compensation of Rs.2 lakhs. The first respondent is the owner of the offending auto and second respondent is the insurer and both are jointly and severally liable to pay the compensation. Thus, this petition.

3.The case of Respondent No.2 is that he denies that on 12.5.2006 at about 7.30 pm while the petitioner was travelling in auto bearing no.AP- 9DL-TR-9417 with new registration No.AP-28W-7070 and it when reached

Mancheekunta Tanda, the driver of the auto drove with high speed and in rash and negligent manner, and the auto turned turtle, resulting the petitioner sustained fracture and other injuries. The petitioner is put to strict proof that the accident occurred due to the negligence of the driver of the offending auto. Thus, the respondent is to be permitted under section 170(B) of the M.V.Act to take all the offences available to respondent no.1. The claim of Rs.2 lakhs by the petitioner is highly excessive. Thus, the petition is liable to be dismissed.

4. Upon the pleadings, the following issues are framed.

1. Whether the accident occurred due to rash and negligent driving of driver of auto bearing no.AP-9DL-TR-9417 with new registration

No.AP-28W-7070?

2. Whether the petitioner is entitled for compensation and if so, how much amount and from whom?

3. To what relief?

3

5.On the side of the petitioner, Pws 1 to 3 were examined, and exhibited documents Ex.A1 to A9. On the side of R2, RW1 was examined and marked Ex.D1.

6.Heard arguments from both sides.

7. ISSUE No.1: The burden of proof is on the petitioner to prove the negligence on the part of the driver of the offending auto in causing the accident resulting she sustaining injuries. To prove this issue, relied on the oral evidence of PW.1 and the documentary evidence Exs.A1 and

Ex.A2.

PW1, the injured deposed that on 12.5.2006, she was travelling in an auto bearing no.AP-9DL-TR-9417 with new registration No.AP-28W- 7070 and when it reached Mancheekunta Tanda at about 7.30 pm, the driver of the auto drove it with high speed in rash and negligent manner and ran towards left side of the road and the auto turned turtle, and as a result she sustained fracture of left leg shaft femur and other injuries all over the body.

In the cross-examination, respondent no.2 suggested to her that the accident took place due to overload in the auto. The said suggestion is denied by the witness. Except this suggestion, there are no questions given by respondent no.2 to this witness, touching upon the manner of occurrence of accident. Absolutely, there is nothing in the cross- examination of PW1 by respondent no.2, to doubt her evidence with regard to the negligence on the part of the driver of the offending auto. In absence of any material admissions from PW1 and also her evidence is not being seriously challenged by respondent no.2, the evidence of PW1 can be safely relied upon. On a careful reading of the evidence of PW1, her evidence is consisting and acceptable.

In the backdrop of accepting the oral evidence of PW1, the documentary evidence under Exs.A1 and A2 is to be considered. Ex.A1 is the First Information Report and Ex.A2 is the charge sheet. The P.S.

Kulakacharla, registered the crime against the driver of the offending auto under Ex.A1 and investigated the case and laid charge sheet,Ex.A2 before 4 the Court of law against the driver of the offending auto for the offence under section 338 of IPC. It is proved from Exs.A1 and A2, the negligence in causing the accident, by the driver of the offending auto. From the discussion made above, it is established from the evidence of PW1 and

Exs.A1 and A2, the negligence on the part of the driver of the offending auto. Thus, I hold this issue in favour of the petitioner and against the second respondent.

8.ISSUE NO.2: The burden of proof is on the petitioner to prove that she is entitled for compensation of Rs.2,00,000/-. To prove this issue, relied upon the oral evidence of PW1 to PW3 and the documentary evidence Exs.A3 to A9. The second respondent contended that the accident occurred due to over load in the auto, violating the terms and conditions of the permit. In support of this contention, relied on the oral evidence of RW1, the manager of R2 company.

He deposed that at the time of the accident, in the offending auto, nearly 13 persons were travelling against the seating capacity of four, and this amounts to violation of permit conditions. The second respondent has not produced any documentary evidence to prove that the offending auto was overloaded with 13 persons at the time of accident. In the cross-examination, the petitioner elicited from RW1 that it is not specifically stated in Ex.A2, the charge sheet, the accident occurred due to overload of passengers. Ex.A2, the charge sheet, wherein as per the investigation made by the investigation officer, it is not said that the accident occurred due to the negligence on the part of the driver of the offending auto.

In this view of the matter, the second respondent failed to establish that the accident occurred due to the over load of passengers in the offending auto and not due to the negligence of the driver of the offending auto. Therefore, the second respondent cannot avoid the joint and severally the obligation to pay the compensation that is to be awarded in favour of the petitioner.

Now, the claim of the petitioner is to be considered. In support of the claim in addition to her, she examined PW2, Professor of Medicine 5 in Osmania General Hospital and PW3, Resident Medical Officer, SVS

Medical College Hospital, Mahaboobnagar. The claim of the petitioner is to be considered under the heads to follow:

a) Shock, Pain, suffering and loss of amenities to life:

As per the evidence of Pws 1 to 3, the petitioner suffered fracture of left leg femur and she underwent operation in the SVS Medical College

Hospital, Mahaboobnagar, besides she suffered other injuries all over the body. Considering the petitioner sustained one grievous injury of fracture and the other injuries happened to be simple in nature, under this head it is just and reasonable to award Rs.10,000/-.

b)Injuries depending upon the disability partial, full, temporary or permanent:

As per the evidence of PW1 and PW3, the Resident Medical

Officer of SVS Medical College Hospital, Mahaboobnagar, that the petitioner was admitted as in-patient on 13.5.2006 and was discharged on 8.6.2006. The petitioner examined PW2, Professor of Medicine from

Osmania General Hospital, Hyderabad. He deposed that on 23.7.2010, he examined the petitioner and found due to fracture of left femur difficulty in walking and the disability was assessed at 40%. He was the medical board member in Osmania General Hospital and he issued partial permanent disability at 40% under Ex.A7 to the petitioner.

The question is whether Ex.A7 can be relied on. On perusal of

Ex.A7, it was issued for non-judicial purpose. It is specifically mentioned on top of Ex.A7 that it is issued for non-judicial purpose. PW2, is a member of the medical board of Osmania General Hospital, Hyderabad.

But, Ex.A7 was not issued by the medical board. Ex.A7 was issued by

PW2, in his individual capacity, as professor of medicine.

In the light of above mentioned discrepancies in Ex.A7, it is different to rely on the said document. Ex.A7 is not issued by the competent medical officer and secondly, on the very face of the document it is for non-judicial purpose. In this view of the matter, it is difficult to rely on Ex.A7. So, the petitioner failed to prove that she suffered partial permanent disability of 40% as given under Ex.A7 and from the evidence of PW2.

6

From the evidence of Pws 1 and 3, the petitioner was admitted as in-patient in SVS Medical College Hospital, Mahaboobnagar, from 13.5.2006 to 8.6.2006. She was in-patient for 25 days. She underwent surgery for fracture of shaft of femur left. Considering the period of petitioner being in-patient and underwent surgery for fracture, under this head, it is just and reasonable to award Rs.30,000/-.

c)Medical and incidental expenses.

As per the evidence of PW1 and PW3 she was in-patient for 25 days and underwent one surgery in SVS Medical College Hospital,

Mahaboobnagar. It is the evidence of PW3, the Resident Medical Officer of SVS Hospital that prescriptions under Ex.A5 to the petitioner were issued and also the medical bills under Ex.A6. As per Ex.A6, the petitioner purchased medicines worth Rs.41,755/- which includes the treatment charges paid to the hospital. In addition to this, the petitioner is entitled for Rs.5,000/- for extra nourishment and another Rs.5,000/- for transport.

In all, under this head awarded Rs.51,755/-.

D)Loss of income.

It is the evidence of PW1 that she is a labour, earning Rs.3,000/- per month. As per the evidence of PW1 and PW3, she was in-patient for 25 days in SVS Medical College Hospital, Mahaboobnagar. She underwent operation for one fracture. Considering the above, the petitioner should have taken a period of 3 months to become a normal person. So, for the said period, by awarding Rs.5,000/-, is just and reasonable.

In all a sum of Rs.96,755/- is awarded as compensation to the petitioner.

The first respondent is the owner of the offending auto and second respondent is the insurer of the said auto, and was insured under

Ex.B1, the policy which was in force, as on the date of accident and therefore, R1 and R2 are jointly and severally liable to pay the awarded compensation to the petitioner.

10.ISSUE NO.3:In the result, the petition is partially allowed with proportionate costs for Rs.96,755/-(Rupees Ninety six thousand seven hundred and fifty five only) with future interest @ 9% per annum 7 from the date of petition, till the date of realization. Respondents 1 and 2 are jointly and severally liable to pay the awarded compensation to the petitioner and both the respondents are directed to deposit the said awarded sum into the court within one month from today. On deposit, the petitioner is permitted to withdraw the entire amount with accrued interest and costs. Advocate fee is awarded at Rs.1,000/-.

Dictated by me, transcribed and typed by Personal Assistant,

corrected and pronounced by me in the open court on this the 2nd day of March,2012.

V ADDL. METROPOLITAN SESSIONS JUDGE

-CUM-XIX ADDL.CHIEF JUDGE:HYDERABAD.

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE 

WITNESSES EXAMINED

FOR PETITIONERS:

PW.1V.Susheela ... Complainant

PW.2Dr.K.Shyamsunder

PW.3Dr.Veeraiah Naidu

FOR RESPONDENTS:

RW1 A.Bharath

EXHIBITS MARKED

FOR PETITIONERS :

Ex.A.1First Information Report

Ex.A.2 Certified copy of Final Result

Ex.A.3 Discharge Card

Ex.A.4 OP. Card

Ex.A.5 Prescriptions

Ex.A.6Medical Bills

Ex.A.7Disability Certificate

Ex.A8X­Ray Films

Ex.A9Lab Report.

FOR RESPONDENTS:

Ex.B.1 Policy No.32728206

V ADDL. METROPOLITAN SESSIONS JUDGE

CUM XIX ADDL.CHIEF JUDGE:HYDERABAD.

8 9

1

IN THE COURT OF THE V ADDL. METROPOLITAN SESSIONS JUDGE:

( MAHILA COURT)-CUM XIX ADDL.CHIEF JUDGE:HYDERABAD.:

AT HYDERABAD

PRESENT; Sri.R.Sudhakar Naidu, B.A.,B.L., Spl.Judge for Economic Offences-cum- VIII Addl. Metropolitan SessionsJudge,Hyd FAC V Addl. Metropolitan Sessions Judge (Mahila Court) -Cum- XIX Addl.Chief Judge,Hyd.

Dated this the 5th March,2012

ORIGINAL PETITION NO.730 of 2008

BETWEEN:

M.Sanjay Kumar, S/o.M.Venkateshwarlu, aged 23 years, occ: Pvt. Employee, R/o.Chandur village and Mandal, Nalgonda District, presently resident of H.No.3-6-109/2/F, Himayatnagar, Hyderabad.

... Petitioner

A N D 1.The A.P.S.R.T.C rep. By its Managing Director, Musheerabad RTC X Road, Hyderabad

2. The A.P.S.R.T.C. Rep. By its Depot Manager, Nalgonda Depot, Nalgonda District. . . . Respondent.

This petition is coming on this day before me for final hearing

before me, in the presence of Sri. P.Rama krishna Reddy, Advocate for petitioner

and of Sri M.Goverdhan Rao, advocate for the respondent No.2, respondent No.1 remained Exparte, the matter having stood over for consideration till this day, this court made the following:

:: A W A R D :

1.The petitioner/injured filed this petition against the respondents u/s.166 of the Motor Vehicles Act 1988 to award compensation of Rs.3,00,000/­ with future interest and costs.

2.The case of the petitioner is that on 1.1.2008 at about 4­30 pm, the petitioner and his friend were going on a motorcycle bearing No.AP 24 L1044 from Darveshpuram towards Chandur side and when they reached 

Uduthalapally and at that time one APSRTC Bus bearing NO.AP 10 Z 6322 driven by its driver with high speed rashly and negligently and came in opposite direction and dashed the motorcycle, and as a result, the petitioner fell down and sustained compound fracture of right Femur, lacerated injury to right eye, fracture of right thigh and other injuries all over the body. Thereafter he was shifted to Anurag Orthopaedic and Multi specialty hospital, Dilsukhnagar and was admitted as in patient from 1.1.2008 to 13.1.2008. The PS.Chandur 2

Naldonda District registered a case in Cr.2/2008 for the offence u/s.337 IPC against the driver of the offending APSRTC Bus. The Petitioner was 23 years old and who was a graduate in B.Sc Bio technology and working as Private employee and earning Rs.6,000/­ per month.

3.The 1st and the 2nd respondents are the owners of the offending 

APSRTC Bus and thus, both the respondents are jointly and severally liable to pay the estimated compensation of Rs. 3,00,000/­ to the petitioner.

4.The case of Respondents is that it denies that on 1.1.2008 at about 4­30 pm, the petitioner and his friend were going on a motorcycle bearing No.AP 24 L1044 from Darveshpuram towards Chandur side and when they reached the bus stage of Uduthalapally and at that time one APSRTC Bus bearing NO.AP 10 

Z 6322 driven by its driver with high speed rashly and negligently and came in opposite direction and dashed the motorcycle, and as a result, the petitioner fell down and sustained compound fracture of right Femur, lacerated injury to right eye, fracture of right thigh and other injuries. The further case is the respondent denies the accident occurred due to the rash and negligent driving of the driver of the APSRTC Bus. The petitioner is put to strict proof of his age, income and occupation. The claim of compensation of Rs.3,00,000/­ is highly excessive. 

Thus the petition is liable to be dismissed.

5. Upon the pleadings, the following issues are framed.

1. Whether the petitioner sustained injuries in the accident on 1.1.2008 due to rash and negligent driving of the driver of APSRTC Bus bearing No. AP10 Z 6322?

2. Whether the petitioner is entitled for compensation and, if so, from whom?

3. To what relief?

6.On the side of the petitioner, PW1 and PW.2 were examined and exhibited documents Ex.A1 to A13. On the side of the R2, No oral evidence is adduced.

3

7.Heard arguments from both sides.

8. ISSUE No.1:  The burden of proof is on the petitioner to prove the driver of the APSRTC Bus was negligent in causing the accident resulting the petitioner sustaining multiple fractures and other injuries. To prove this issue relied on the oral evidence of PW.1 and the documentary evidence under Ex.A1 and A2. PW.1 the petitioner deposed that on 1.1.2008 at about 4­30 pm, the petitioner and his friend were going on a motorcycle bearing No.AP 24 L1044 from Darveshpuram towards Chandur side, and when they reached 

Uduthalapally bus stage, and at that time one APSRTC Bus bearing No.AP 10 Z 6322 driven by its driver with high speed rashly and negligently and came in opposite direction and dashed the motorcycle, and as a result, the petitioner fell down and sustained multiple fractures and other injuries In the cross examination, it was suggested to this witness that the accident occurred not due to the negligence on the part of the driver of the APSRTC Bus. Secondly suggested that there was contributory negligence form the side of the rider of the motorcycle of the petitioner. Both the suggestions were denied by PW.1. 

Petitioner/PW.1 admitted that he was possessing driving licence to drive the motorcycle valid from 4.5.2005 to 3.5.2025. Except the above answers from P 

W.1, in the cross examination, there are no other questions put by R2 to this witness, there are no material admissions elicited by R2 from PW.1 to doubt the evidence of PW.1 with regard to the negligence of the driver of the offending 

APSRTC Bus. Evidence of PW.1 is consistent and acceptable. Besides the documentary evidence Ex.A1 and a2 is to be considered. Ex.A1 is the certified copy of FIR, registered against the driver of the offending APSRTC Bus. The police Chandur investigated the case and laid charge sheet before the court of law for the offence u/s.337 and 338 of IPC against the driver of the offending 

APSRTC Bus. It is clear from the recitals of Ex.A1 and Ex.A2, there was negligence on the part of the driver of the offending APSRTC Bus causing the accident, resulting the petitioner sustaining multiple fractures and other injuries. 

Therefore, from the above discussion, through oral evidence of P W.1 and the documentary evidence Ex.A1 and A2, it is established the negligence on the part of the driver of the offending APSRTC Bus. Thus I hold this issue in favour of the petitioner and against the Respondents.

4

9.ISSUE NO.2: The burden of proof is on the petitioner to prove that he is entitled for compensation of Rs.3,00,000/­. In support of this issue, the petitioner relied on the oral evidence of himself and PW.2, besides documentary evidence Ex.A3 to Ex.A13. To determine the compensation that is to be awarded to the petitioner, the same is to be considered under the heads to follow:

a) Shock, Pain, suffering and loss of amenities to life

 As per the evidence of PW.1 and PW.2 and the documentary evidence 

Ex.A3 ­MLC , the petitioner sustained compound fracture of right femur, lacerated injury of right eye, fracture of right thigh and other injuries on his face. 

It is clear from Ex.A3 and the evidence of PW.1 and PW.2,, petitioner suffered two fractures besides other injuries. Considering the two fractures being grievous injuries, under this head, it is just and reasonable to award compensation of Rs.15,000/­

b)Injuries depending upon the disability partial, full, temporary or permanent

As per the evidence of Pw.1 and PW.2, the petitioner after the accident was shifted and admitted as in patient in Anurag Hospial, Hyderabad from 1.1.2008 and was discharged on 13.1.2008, during which period, as per the evidence of PW.2, petitioner was operated with femur interlocking with nails. He further deposed that the petitioner was re admitted o n 21.11.2008 in the same hospital and implant was removed on 23.11.2008 and was discharged on 27.11.2008. Insofar as the operation underwent by the petitioner and the period of stay as in patient in two spells, is to be believed, as the respondents failed to extract any admissions to doubt the evidence of P W.2. In the light of the aforesaid discussion, under this head, it is just and reasonable to award compensation of Rs.40,000/­.

c)Medical and incidental expenses.

As per the evidence of PW.1 and PW.2 and also from Ex.A7 and Ex.A8, the petitioner was first admitted in Anurag Hospital from 1.1.2008, and underwent operation with Femur interlocking with nails and was discharged on 13.1.2008 and for this already under Ex.A7, the petitioner paid Rs.49,000/­ to the said hospital towards treatment charges and further the petitioner was re admitted in th same hospital on 21.1.2008 and on healing of the fracture, implant was removed by doing operation on 23.11.2008 and was discharged on 5 27.11.2008. for this stay as in patient and removal of implant, under Ex.A8, the petitioner paid to the hospital, a sum of Rs.25,267/­. Therefore, he is entitled for the above mentioned sums under Ex.A7 and Ex.A8. Besides, he is entitled for extra nourishment of Rs.5,000/­, and for transport a sum of Rs.5,000/­.

 In all under this head, petitioner is awarded Rs.84,267/­

d)Loss of Income:

 It is the evidence of PW.1 that he is a graduate in B.Sc,Bio technology and was working privately and was drawing a salary of rs.6,000/­ per month as per Ex.A12 Salary certificate produced. As seen from the evidence of PW.1 and 

PW.2 and the nature of the fracture suffered by him, and also stay of the petitioner as in patient in the hospital, petitioner should have taken 3 months time to become a normal person. Considering the said period, under this head, it is just and reasonable to award Rs.10,000/­  under this head.

In all a sum of Rs.1,49,267/­ is awarded.

10.ISSUE NO.3:

In the result, the petition is partially allowed with proportionate costs for Rs.1,49,267­ with future interest @ 9% p.a. from the date of petition till the date of realization. Respondents are jointly and severally liable to pay the said compensation and they are directed to deposit the awarded sum into the court within one month from today. On deposit, the petitioner is permitted to withdraw the entire amount with accrued interest and cost. Advocate fee is awarded at Rs.1,500/­.

Dictated to Personal Assistant, transcribed and typed by him, corrected 

and pronounced by me in the open court on this the 5th day of March, 2012 . 

V ADDL. METROPOLITAN SESSIONS JUDGE

CUM XIX ADDL.CHIEF JDUGE:HYDERABAD.

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE 

WITNESSES EXAMINED

FOR PETITIONERS:

PW.1M.Sanjay Kumar ... Complainant

PW.2Dr.Raju

FOR RESPONDENTS: nil 

6

EXHIBITS MARKED

FOR PETITIONERS :

Ex.A.1CC of First Information Report

Ex.A.2 Certified copy of Charge sheet

Ex.A.3 Certified copy of M.L.C.

Ex.A.4 Discharge summary from 1.1.2008 to 13.1.2008

Ex.A.5 Discharge summary from 21.11.2011 to 27.11.2012

Ex.A.6Medical certificate dt.27.1.2008

Ex.A.7Medical Bill for Rs.49,000/­ dt.13.1.2008.

Ex.A.8Medical bill for Rs.25,267 dt.27.11.2011

Ex.A.9Bunch of medical bills

Ex.A.10B.Sc., Provisional Certificate 

Ex.A11Bunch of photographs with CD

Ex.A12Salary Certificate 

Ex.A13Bunch of X­Rays

FOR RESPONDENTS: nil

V ADDL. METROPOLITAN SESSIONS JUDGE

CUM XIX ADDL.CHIEF JDUGE:HYDERABAD.

7

1

 IN THE COURT OF THE V ADDL. METROPOLITAN SESSIONS JUDGE:

( MAHILA COURT)­CUM XIX ADDL.CHIEF JUDGE:HYDERABAD.: 

AT HYDERABAD

 PRESENT; Sri.R.Sudhakar Naidu, B.A.,B.L., Spl.Judge for Economic Offences­cum­ VIII Addl Metropolitan Sessions Judge,Hyd AC V Addl. Metropolitan Sessions Judg (Mahila Court) ­Cum­ XIX Addl.Chief Judge,Hyd.

Dated this the 15th February, 2012

 ORIGINAL PETITION NO. 2644 of 2005

BETWEEN: 1)M.Satyamma, W/o.M.Satyanarayana, aged 40 years, occ: Housewife, R/o.H.No.19­5­90, Gandhi Chowk Wanaparthi, Mahboobnagar District, temporarily R/o.Dilsukhnagar, Hyderabad.

2)M.Ramesh Kumar, S/o.late M.Satyanarayana, aged 29 years, occ: Nil R/o.H.No.19­5­90, Gandhi Chowk Wanaparthi, Mahboobnagar District, temporarily R/o.Dilsukhnagar, Hyderabad.

3)M.Rajesh Kumar, S/o.late M.Satyanarayana, aged 20 years, occ: Nil,R/o.H.No.19­5­90, Gandhi Chowk Wanaparthi, Mahboobnagar District, temporarily R/o.Dilsukhnagar, Hyderabad. 

... Petitioners

A N D 1)Mohd. Muneer Ahmed, S/o.Mohd.Nazeer Ahmed, aged major, occ: owner of the lorry bearing No.AP 22 T 2577, R/o.4­134, Amrabad village and Mandal, Mahboobnagar District. 2)The New India Assurance Company Ltd., rep. By its Regional Manager, office at Surya Towers, S.P.Road, Secunderabad. 500 003.

(Policy No. 611501/31/04/07068,

valid from 3.12.2004 to 2.12.2005 . . . Respondents. 

This petition is coming on 15.2.2012 for final hearing before me, in the presence of Sri.A.Srinivasulu, Advocate for petitioners and of Sri K.Ravi, Advocate for the Respondent No.2 and Respondent No.1 remained Exparte, the matter having stood over for consideration till this day, this court made the following:

:: A W A R D :

1.The petitioners, legal heirs of the deceased M.Satyanarayana filed this OP against the respondents under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act 1988 to award compensation of Rs.2,00,000/­.

2.The case of the petitioners is that the 1st petitioner is the wife, 2nd and 3rd 2 petitioners are sons of the deceased Satyanarayana. That on 4.1.2005, at about 7­00 

PM, the deceased was proceeding on his scooty bearing No.AP 22 B 8486 from 

Vengalraonagar to his house at Vanaparthi, Mahboob nagar District. When he reached “Sudha Nursing Home”, one lorry bearing No.AP 22 T 2577 came from opposite direction, driven by its driver with high speed, in rash and negligent manner and dashed his scooty resulting the deceased fell down and died on the spot. PS Vanaparthi registered a case in Cr.1/2005 u/s.304­A IPC against the driver of the offending lorry. 

The deceased was 59 years old, a retired VDO and was earning Rs.10,000/­ per month. 

The 1st respondent is the owner of the offending lorry and the 2nd respondent is the 

Insurer of the said lorry and both are jointly and severally liable to pay estimated compensation of Rs.2,00,000/­ to the petitioners. Thus this petition.

3.The case of Respondent No.2 is that the petitioners are put to strict proof of the age of the deceased and his earnings at Rs.10,000/­ per month. This respondent denies that on 4.1.2005, at about 7­00 PM, the deceased was proceeding on his scooty bearing No.AP 22 B 8486 from Vengalraonagar to his house at Vanaparthi, Mahboob nagar District and when he reached “Sudha Nursing Home”, one lorry bearing No.AP 22 T 2577 came from opposite direction, driven by its driver with high speed in rash and negligent manner and dashed his scooty and as a result, the deceased died on the spot. This respondent denies the driver of the offending lorry was having valid licence as on the date of the accident. The claim of Rs.2,00,000/­ is highly excessive and the petition is liable to be dismissed. 

4. Upon the pleadings, the following issues are framed.

1. Whether the deceased died in the accident on 4.1.2005 due to rash and negligent driving of driver of the lorry bearing No.AP22 T 2577?

2. Whether the petitioners are entitled for compensation and, if so, from whom?

3. To what relief?

5.On the side of the petitioners, PW1 and PW.2 are examined and exhibited documents Ex.A1 to A5. On the side of the R2, no oral evidence is adduced, but marked 

Ex.B1.

6.Heard arguments from both sides.

7. ISSUE No.1: Burden of proof is on the petitioners to prove the negligence on the part of the driver of the offending lorry in causing the accident, resulting the death of the deceased Satyanarayana. To prove this issue, the petitioners relied on oral evidence 3 of PW.1 and PW.2 and documentary evidence Ex.A1 to A5. PW.1 the 1st petitioner, is wife of the deceased, whose evidence is not relevant in support of this issue as she is not the eye witness to the accident. The evidence of PW.2 who is said to be the eye witness to the accident, is relevant. He deposed that on 4.1.2005, he was proceeding to Sudha 

Nursing Home side and while so, at 7:00 PM, a lorry bearing No.AP22 T 2577 driven by its driver rashly and negligently and dashed the deceased Satyanarayana who was proceeding on his scooty from Vengalraonagar to his house. And as a result, the deceased died on the spot. In the cross examination, R2 suggested to this witness that he is not an eye witness to the accident. The said suggestion is denied by him. 

Secondly, it was suggested that the accident occurred due to the negligence of the deceased and not due to the negligence of the driver of the offending lorry. This suggestion was also denied by this witness. Except giving the above suggestions, the 2nd respondent failed to extract any material admissions from this witness to doubt his evidence. On a careful reading of the evidence of PW.2, I find, his evidence is consistent and acceptable. In the backdrop of the evidence of PW.2, the documentary evidence under Ex.A1­FIR, Ex.A2­Charge sheet, Ex.A3­Post Mortem Examination Report, Ex.A4­

Inquest report and Ex.A5­Motor Vehicle Inspector's report are to be considered. On perusal of Ex.A1 to A5, a crime was registered against the driver of the offending lorry, investigated and charge sheet is laid against the driver of the offending lorry for the offence u/s.304­A IPC before the court of law. Therefore, the documentary evidence has proved the negligence of the driver of the offending lorry, in causing the accident, resulting the death of the deceased. Through the oral evidence, the negligence of the driver of the offending lorry is established. Thus, I hold this issue in favour of the petitioners and against the Respondent No.2.

8.ISSUE NO.2:

The burden of proof is on the petitioners to establish that they are entitled for compensation of Rs.2,00,000/­. The 2nd respondent disputed the age of the deceased and earnings of the deceased @ Rs.10,000/­ per month. As per the pleadings and the evidence of PW.1, the age of the deceased as on the date of the accident, is claimed to be 59 years. On perusal of Ex.A3­Post Mortem Examination Report and Ex.A4­Inquest report, the age of the deceased is recorded as 65 years. There is no difficulty to believe 

Ex.A3 and Ex.A4 to conclude that the deceased was 65 years old as on the date of the accident. Secondly, the claim of the petitioners is that the deceased was earning 

Rs.10,000/­ per month, being a retired VDO and doing business. What is available on record is only the oral evidence of PW.1. No document is produced to prove that deceased is a retired VDO and getting any pension. Secondly, not produced any 4 evidence to the kind of business the deceased was doing. Absolutely, there is no acceptable evidence on record to believe the deceased was a retired VDO, was doing business and earning Rs.10,000/­ per month. In the absence of acceptable evidence, at best, by applying Minimum Wages Act, the deceased might be earning Rs.3,000/­ per month. The annual income of the deceased would come to Rs.36,000/­ and out of this, towards his maintenance, 1/3 is to be deducted. (1/3 X 36000= 12,000) By deducting 12,000/­ from 36,000 comes to 24,000/­. The multiplier that would apply is 7 as the deceased was aged 65 years. By multiplying 24,000 X 7, comes to 1,68,000/­. 

and the petitioners are entitled for the said amount. Towards consortium the 1st petitioner is awarded Rs.10,000/­ and towards funeral expenses Rs.10,000/­ is awarded. In all a sum of Rs.1,88,000/­ is awarded as compensation. 

Respondent No.1 is the owner of the offending lorry and who insured the said vehicle under Ex.B1 with Respondent No.2, the insurance company and the said policy was in force as on the date of the accident. As such, R1 and R2 are jointly and severally liable to pay the awarded compensation to the petitioners.

9.ISSUE NO.3:

In the result, the petition is partly allowed with proportionate costs for 

Rs.1,88,000/­ with future interest @ 9% p.a from the date of petition till the date of realization. Respondents 1 and 2 are jointly and severally liable to pay compensation and both are directed to deposit the awarded sum into the court within one month from today. The compensation amount is apportioned among the petitioners as follows: The 1st Petitioner being wife, is awarded Rs.88,000/­ with interest and costs. 

The 2nd and 3rd petitioners each is awarded Rs.50,000/­ with proportionate interest. 

On deposit, for the present, the 1st petitioner is permitted to withdraw the entire amount with proportionate interest and cost. The 2nd and 3rd petitioners are permitted to withdraw Rs.25,000/­ each with accrued interest. The balance of the 2nd and 3rd petitioners shall be deposited under FDR in any Nationalized Bank for a period of one year. Advocate fee is awarded at Rs.2,000/­.

Dictated to Personal Assistant, transcribed and typed by him, corrected and 

pronounced by me in the open court on this the 15th day of February, 2012.

FAC V ADDL. METROPOLITAN SESSIONS JUDGE

CUM XIX ADDL.CHIEF JUDGE:HYDERABAD. 

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE 

WITNESSES EXAMINED

FOR PETITIONERS:

5

PW.1M.Satyamma ... Complainant

PW.2E.Srinivas Goud... Eye witness 

FOR RESPONDENTS: Nil.

EXHIBITS MARKED

FOR PETITIONERS :

Ex.A.1First Information Report

Ex.A.2 Certified copy of Charge sheet

Ex.A.3 Certified copy of Post Mortem Examination Report 

Ex.A.4 Certified copy of Inquest Report

Ex.A.5 Certified copy of Motor Vehicle Inspector's report

FOR RESPONDENTS:

Ex.B.1 Policy No.611501/31/04/07068,

FAC V ADDL. METROPOLITAN SESSIONS JUDGE

CUM XIX ADDL.CHIEF JUDGE:HYDERABAD.

1

IN THE COURT OF THE V ADDL. METROPOLITAN SESSIONS JUDGE:

( MAHILA COURT)-CUM XIX ADDL.CHIEF JUDGE:HYDERABAD.:

AT HYDERABAD

PRESENT; Sri.R.Sudhakar Naidu, B.A.,B.L., Spl.Judge for Economic Offences-cum- VIII Addl. Metropolitan SessionsJudge,Hyd FAC V Addl. Metropolitan Sessions Judge (Mahila Court) -Cum- XIX Addl.Chief Judge,Hyd.

Dated this the 28TH February,2012

ORIGINAL PETITION NO.1459 of 1996

BETWEEN:

1.Arumulla Kamalamma, W/o.late Mallaiah, aged 40 years, occ: Household, R/o.H.No.2-45, Pogulaguda village, Ghatkesar Mandal,P.O Rampally R.R.District, presently R/o.3-4-775, Narayanguda, Hyderabad. Hyderabad.

2.Amrumulla Sreenivas, S/o. Late Mallaiah, aged 20 years, occ: Nil, R/o.H.No.2-45, Pogulaguda village, Ghatkesar Mandal,P.O Rampally R.R.District, presently R/o.3-4-775, Narayanguda, Hyderabad. Hyderabad.

... Petitioners

A N D 1.Md.Ibrahim, S/o.Mahboob Saheb, aged major, owner of the lorry bearing No.ATK- 455, R/o.Opp:SBI Cherial village and Mandal, Warangal District.

2.The Regional Manager, National Insurance company Ltd., P.O.Box.39, 4th and 7th floors, Moghul court buildings, Basheerbagh, Hyderabad. . . . Respondents.

This petition is coming on 28.2.2012 for final hearing before me, in the presence of Sri. P.Rama Krishna Reddy, advocate for petitioner and of Sri B.SUdhakar Rao, advocate for the respondents, the matter having stood over for consideration till this day, this court made the following:

:: A W A R D :

1.The petitioners, legal heirs of the deceased Mallaiah filed this OP against the respondents u/s.166 of the Motor Vehicles Act 1988 to award compensation of Rs.4,00,000/­ with future interest and costs.

2

2.This court after full trial on merits, disposed off the OP on 31.7.1998. The 2nd respondent insurance company having aggrieved by the judgment and decree filed C.M.A.No.4188/2003 and also the 

Petitioners/legal heirs of the deceased having aggrieved by the judgment and decree preferred C.M.A. 2718/2004 before the Hon'ble High Court of 

AP. The Hon'ble High Court of AP disposed off both the appeals by a common judgment dated. 4.4.2007 by dismissing the C.M.A.4188/2003 and partly allowing the C.M.A.2718/2004 and modified the decree of this court as follows :

1. That the judgment and decree under CMA.No.2718/2004 be and hereby is remanded to the lower court for the purpose of determining the amounts subject to proving of Ex.A6 and that the 

Additional special judge for SPE and ACB cases, City Civil Court, 

Hyderabad do restore the OP to its original number in the register and proceed to dispose of the same within a period of three months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order, according to law and in the light of the observations contained in the judgment.

2. That the claimants be and hereby are entitled to 8% interest per annum from the date of petition till the date of realization.

3. That the claimants be and hereby are entitled to Rs.15,000/­ on each count, viz towards loss of consortium and towards of loss of estate, including the amount granted by the court below.

4. That save as aforesaid the decree of the lower court shall stand confirmed in all other aspects and

5. That there be no order as to costs in these Civil Miscellaneous 

Appeals. 

3.From the judgment of the Hon'ble High Court, the judgment and decree under C.M.A.2718/2004 is remanded to this court for the purpose of determining the amount subject to proving of Ex.A6. And directing this court to restore the OP to file and dispose off the same.

3

4.In order to prove Ex.A6, the petitioners examined PW.4 and 

PW.5 and marked Ex.X1. The original settlement, case of the deceased is 

Ex.X1. The 2nd respondent insurance company not produced any oral and documentary evidence. 

5. Heard arguments from both sides.

6.The point for consideration is whether the petitioners proved 

Ex.A6 and if so, how much of compensation they are entitled to?

7. Burden of proof is on the petitioners. Originally this court not relied on Ex.A6, the Salary certificate of the deceased whereunder he was drawing salary of Rs.5,000/­ per month. This court having held that 

Ex.A6 is not proved, came to a conclusion that monthly income of the deceased was at Rs.2,500/­. The annual income is arrived at Rs.30,000/­ and out of this towards maintenance of the deceased 1/3rd of Rs.10,000/­ was deducted and considering the age of the deceased, multiplier was fixed at 11  and awarded compensation at Rs.2,20,000/­. The Hon'ble 

High Court has set aside this part of the judgment and directed this court to adduce evidence with reference to Ex.A6 and to decide the compensation, the petitioners are entitled to for the death of the deceased. 

In order to prove the same, the petitioners examined PW.4 and PW.5 and relied on documentary evidence Ex.A6 and Ex.X1. PW.4 is the Sr.Section 

Engineer, P.Way, Ghatkesar, South Central Railway. He deposed that the deceased A.Mallaiah worked as gangmate and was drawing salary of 

Rs.4,614/­ per month and Ex.A6 is the salary certificate issued. PW.5, the office Superintendent, Sr.Divisional Personal Office, South Central 

Railway, Secunderabad deposed by giving evidence with reference to 

Ex.X1, settlement case file of deceased Mallaiah. He deposed that the deceased Mallaiah was working as a gangmate, P.Way Ghatkesar. He was appointed as Gangman on 3.1.1963 and date of his birth is 20.12.1942 and deceased died on 4.11.1996. He further deposed, by the date of his death, he was drawing monthly salary of Rs.4,614/­ as given in Ex.A6, the salary certificate issued by P.Way Ghatkesar. In the cross examination of 4

PW.4 and PW .5, the 2nd respondent failed to extract any material admissions to doubt the evidence of both the witnesses. Both witnesses stood the test of cross examination. There is nothing to suggest in the cross examination of both witnesses to disbelieve their testimony. On a careful reading of evidence of PW.4 and PW.5, I find their evidence consistent, convincing and acceptable. Through the evidence of PW.4 and 

PW.5 and also with the help of ex.X1, it is proved that Ex.A6 was issued by 

P.Way, Ghatkesar, South Central Railway. It is further proved that the deceased Mallaiah was working as gangmate and was drawing salary of 

Rs.4,614/­ per month. Now the question is how much of compensation that is to be awarded towards death of the deceased, taking into consideration the age and the income of the deceased. From Ex.X1 and the evidence of PW.5, the date of birth of the deceased is 20.12.1942 and he died on 4.11.1996. By the date of his death, the deceased was 54 years old. The multiplier that would apply is 11.  The monthly salary of the deceased as per Ex.A6 is Rs.4,614/­. His annual income (4,614 X 12) is 

Rs.55,368/­, out of this towards the maintenance of the deceased 1/3 is to be deducted. (55,368 X 1/3 = 18,456) So 55,368­18,456 = 36,912. 

Thus the annual income arrived at Rs.36,912/­, to be multiplied by the multiplier 11 (36,912 X 11 = 4,06,032). Thus, Rs.4,06,032/­ is awarded as compensation to the petitioners.

8.In the result, the compensation awarded is Rs.4,06,032/­ with future interest @ 8% p.a from the date of petition till the date of realization.

Dictated to Personal Assistant, transcribed and typed by him, 

corrected and pronounced by me in the open court on this the 28th day of February, 2012

V ADDL. METROPOLITAN SESSIONS JUDGE

CUM XIX ADDL.CHIEF JUDGE:HYDERABAD.