Smt S.Premavathi

BEFORE THE MOTOR ACCIDENTS CLAIMS TRIBUNAL-

CUM-

PRINCIPAL DISTRICT JUDGE, AT MAHABUBNAGAR

Monday, the 24th day of April, 2023

Present:- Smt. S.Premavathi, Chairman, MACT-cum-Prl. District Judge, Mahabubnagar.

O.P. No.357 of 2018

Between:

1. Amrachintha Jayamma W/o Amrachintha Krishnaiah, Age: 41 years, Occ: Coolie,

2. Amrachintha Venkatesh S/o Amrachintha Krishnaiah, Age: 22 Years, Occ: Coolie,

3. Amrachintha Kavitha D/o Amrachintha Krishnaiah, Age: 19 Years, Occ: Coolie, All are R/o H.No.8-2, Rangapur Village, Presently residing at Sathya Nagar Colony, Mahabubnagar.

.... Petitioners.

And

1. Katikala Ellaswamy S/o K.Pedda Ramudu, Age: Major, Rider cum Owner of Motor Cycle bearing No.TS32-A-3441, R/o H.No.7-75, Rangapur Village, Pebbair Mandal, Wanaparthy.

2. Tata AIG General Insurance Company Limited, Represented by its Deputy Manager, Bi home Tycoons, Block No A, Kundanbagh, Begumpet, Hyderabad.

( Policy No.0188295519/000000/00 valid from 14.05.2018 to

13.05.2019 ).

... Respondents

Sub:-Petition filed u/Sec.166 of the M.V. Act, 1988 by the petitioners for a compensation of Rs.15,00,000/- for the death of the deceased Amrachintha Krishnaiah in a motor accident.

This petition is coming up before me for final hearing on 27.03.2023 in the presence of Sri.G.Karthik,Advocate for the petitionersand of Sri.J.Ravi Kumar, Advocate for Respondent No.1 and Sri.K.Narsimha Reddy, Advocate for Respondent No.2 and upon perusing the material on record, the Tribunal delivered the following:-

A W A R D

MVOP.No.357 of 2018 2 MVOP.No.309 of 2019

Claim petition is filed u/Sec.166 of Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 claiming compensation of Rs.15,00,000/- for the death of the deceased Amrachintha Krishnaiah in motor vehicle accident occurred on 05-08-2018 at about 6.30 PM on sub road near ABD company in the limits of Rangapur village due to rash and negligent riding of motorcycle bearing No.TS-32-A-3441 (hereinafter referred to as ‘crime vehicle’) by respondent No.1, who is rider-cum-owner of the crime vehicle. Respondent No.2 is insurer of the crime vehicle.

2.Police, Pebbair registered a case in Cr.No.142/2018 U/Sec.337 of IPC and later it was altered to Sec.304-A of IPC against the respondent No.1 and investigated into the matter.

3.That at the time of accident, the deceased was quite hale and healthy and aged about 45 years and the deceased was living his livelihood as Hamali in ABD Company and was earning Rs.9,000/- per month and was contributing the same to the welfare of his family members. Due to sudden death of the deceased, the petitioners were subjected to mental agony and lost their only earning member. Though actual loss cannot be accounted and estimated, but the petitioners are claiming Rs.15,00,000/- towards compensation from the respondents No.1 and 2. Petitioner No.1 is the wife and petitioners No.2 and 3 are children of the deceased

A.Krishnaiah. Therefore, respondents No.1 and 2 are jointly and severally liable to pay compensation to the petitioners. Hence, the petition.

MVOP.No.357 of 2018 3 MVOP.No.309 of 2019

4.Respondent No.1 filed his counter denying the material averments of the petition and inter alia contended the age, health condition, avocation and earnings of the deceased. It is submitted that the deceased was not doing anything and contributing anything to his family. It is submitted that quantum of compensation of

Rs.15,00,000/- claimed by the petitioners in various heads is excessive, exorbitant and un-reasonable and not based on principles of law or facts and circumstances of the case. It is submitted that at the time of alleged accident, crime vehicle was insured with respondent No.2 and the policy was in force and the driver is also having valid driving license. Therefore, if the petitioners are awarded any amount towards compensation, respondent No.2 alone is liable to pay the same. Hence, prayed to dismiss the petition against him.

5.Respondent No.2 filed counter denying the material averments of the petition and inter-alia submitted that the respondent No.1 has no valid and effective driving license at the time of accident and he was not qualified for holding or obtaining such driving license and further has not satisfied the requirements of the rule No.3 of Central

Motor Vehicle Rules, 1989. It is submitted that the respondent No.1 knowing the said fact drove the vehicle, therefore there is contravention of proviso of Motor Vehicle Act and Rules framed thereunder and as such respondent No.1 committed breach of terms and conditions of the policy. The alleged accident occurred due to head on collusion between two wheeler bearing No.TS-32-A-3441 and another two wheeler bearing No.TS-33-5046. Hence, owner and insurer of two wheeler bearing No.TS-33-5046 are necessary parties

MVOP.No.357 of 2018 4 MVOP.No.309 of 2019 for proper adjudication of the case. It is submitted that deceased was also not possessing valid and effective driving license.

6.It is submitted that the interest of Katikala Ellaswamy in vehicle i.e., motorcycle bearing No.TS-32-A-3441 was covered at the material time under the policy of insurance issued by the respondent No.2 subject to terms, conditions, exceptions and limitations thereof and the confirmation of the compliance of Sec.64

VB of the Insurance Act, 1938. The insurance policy issued by the respondent No.2 is valid from 14-05-2018 to 13-05-2019 is in possession of the insured. The insured may kindly be directed to produce the original insurance policy before the Hon’ble Tribunal, failing which respondent No.2 shall produce the copy of policy which may kindly be exhibited.

7.It is submitted that the alleged accident took place due to the entire negligence of the rider of opposite motorcycle bearing

No.TS-33-5046 as the rider of motorcycle did not possess any valid and effective driving license to drive motorcycle. If the petitioners are entitled for any compensation, the same is to be payable by the owner and insurer of the motorcycle bearing No.TS-33-5046 alone and the petition is liable to be dismissed against the respondent

No.2.

8.Basing on these pleadings, the following issues are framed.

1. Whether the accident occurred due to rash and negligent riding of the rider/Respondent No.1 of Motor Cycle bearing No.TS32-A-3441 owned by him?

2. Whether the petitioners are entitled to claim compensation, if so, to what amount and from whom?

MVOP.No.357 of 2018 5 MVOP.No.309 of 2019

3. To what relief?

9.Petitioner No.1 is examined as PW1 and in her evidence,

Exs.A1 to A13 are marked. Ex.A1 is certified copy of F.I.R in Crime

No.142/2018 of P.S Pebbair, Ex.A2 is the certified copy of Inquest

Report, Ex.A3 is the certified copy of Crime detail form with rough sketch, Ex.A4 is the certified copy of PME report, Ex.A5 is the certified copy of MVI report in Cr.No.142/2018 of P.S.Pebbair, Ex.A6 is the certified copy of charge sheet, Ex.A7 is the Photostat copy of

Registration Certificate of the crime vehicle, Ex.A8 is the Photostat copy of Driving License of the driver of crime vehicle, Ex.A9 is the

Photostat copy of Insurance Policy of the crime vehicle, Ex.A10 is the on-line copy of employment details of the deceased with member ID

APHYD14327570000000089, Ex.A11 is the Original certificate of

Dependant Death Payable to dependents of Late A.Krishnaiah,

Insurance No.5213906765 formerly employed with M/s Sai

Sumanth Infrastructure Private Limited Issued by ESCI, Regional

Office, Telangana, Ex.A12 is the Statement of Account of

Amarachintha Jayamma from State Bank of India, Pebbair Branch showing pension credited by ESCI and Ex.A13 is the Statement of

Account of Kavitha Amarachintha from Sate Bank of India, Pebbair

Branch showing pension credited by ESCI.

10.One Bandamidi Laxmanna who claims to be eye witness to the impugned incident is examined as PW2.

11.Branch Manager of ESI Corporation is examined as PW3 and in his evidence Ex.X1 to Ex.X10 are marked. Ex.X1 is the Photostat

MVOP.No.357 of 2018 6 MVOP.No.309 of 2019 copy of summons brought by witness, Ex.A2 is Authorization, Ex.X3 is true copy of accident report of insured Amarachintha Krishnaiah issued by Sai Sumanth Infrastructure Private Limited, Ex.X4 is the true copy of Ex.A11, Ex.X5 is the true copy of Payment Docket for the month of December, 2022 of Petitioner No.1 (Jayamma), Ex.X6 is the true copy of payment docket for the month of December, 2022 of

Petitioner No.3 (A.Kavitha), Ex.X7 is the true copy of Ledger Sheet for benefits running into two pages, Ex.X8 is the true copy of extract of return of contributions in respect of death case of late

Sri.A.Krishnaiah, Ex.X9 is the true copy of Wage Verification certificate in death cases and Ex.X10 is the true copy of contribution history.

11.On the other hand, the respondents did not adduce any oral and documentary evidence. However, Ex.B1 is marked under consent. Ex.B1 is the copy of Insurance policy of crime vehicle

12.Heard learned Counsel for the petitioners and learned Counsel

for respondent No.2. Learned Counsel for respondent No.1 reported

matter may be disposed of on merits.

13.The learned Counsel for the petitioners filed written arguments.

14. Petitioners relied on decision between Rajwati @ Rajjo and Others

Vs. United India Insurance Company Limited and Others in Civil

Appeal No.8179/2022 reported in 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 1016 of the

Hon’ble Supreme Court of India. Perused the record.

MVOP.No.357 of 2018 7 MVOP.No.309 of 2019

15. Issue No.1:- It is the pleading and evidence of PW1 that on 05-08-2018 her deceased husband after completion of his duties at

ABD company requested the respondent No.1 to drop him at his village as respondent No.1, who is rider of the motorcycle were proceeding towards Rangapur village on motorcycle bearing

No.TS-32-A-3441. It is further deposed that on the way at about 6.30 PM when the victim’s motorcycle reached on sub road near

ABD company in the limits of Rangapur village, meanwhile respondent No.1 drove the crime vehicle in rash and negligent manner and dashed to the motorcycle bearing No.TS-33-5046 in opposite direction, due to which respondent No.1 and deceased fell down and sustained injuries. Immediately the deceased and respondent No.1 were shifted to Government Hospital and from there deceased was shifted to Osmania General Hospital, Hyderabad where he succumbed to the injuries while undergoing treatment on 11-08-2018. It is the pleading and evidence of PW1 that the accident occurred due to rash and negligent driving of the crime vehicle by the respondent No.1. On a complaint, police Pebbair registered a case in Cr.No.142/2018 U/Sec.304-A of IPC against the respondent

No.1 and investigated into the matter and filed charge sheet against the respondent No.1 on whose negligence the accident took place.

16.Apart from her oral version, she relied upon Ex.A1, Ex.A2,

Ex.A3, Ex.A4, Ex.A5 and Ex.A6 to prove her version that the accident took place because of rash and negligent driving of the crime vehicle by the respondent No.1. Ex.A1 also disclose the same version as pleaded and deposed by PW1. Ex.A1 is filed by the rider of

MVOP.No.357 of 2018 8 MVOP.No.309 of 2019 motorcycle bearing No.TS-33-5046, which was proceeding opposite to the crime motorcycle. It categorically discloses the rash and negligent driving of crime motorcycle by the respondent No.1 and gave dash to the motorcycle bearing No.TS-33-5046, resulting which rider and pillion riders of both the motorcycles were fell down.

However, rider and pillion rider of motorcycle bearing No.TS-33-5046 did not sustain injuries, but the deceased, rider of the crime vehicle sustained grievous injuries. Ex.A4 is also inconsonance with Ex.A1 and oral evidence of PW1. Therefore, charge sheet came to be filed against the respondent No.1 for the offence punishable U/Sec.304-A of IPC. Ex.A1 and Ex.A4 remained unrebutted and unchallenged.

PW1 is not an eyewitness. However, she brought PW2, who stated to be an eyewitness to the occurrence. PW2 also deposed in the same lines of the evidence of PW1 and Ex.A1 and Ex.A3 version. Evidence in chief of PW2 is remained unshaken. His evidence is that at the relevant time he was proceeding on his motorcycle behind the motorcycle of the deceased. His evidence shows that he is an employee of Sai Sumanth Infrastructure Private Limited situated at

Rangapur village Admin building ABD. The record contains the I.D

Card of PW2 showing his avocation as Hamali in Sai Sumanth

Infrstructure Pvt. Ltd., Admin Building, ADB Rangapur, Pebbair,

Wanaparthy. Therefore, his presence at the relevant place is quite natural. Evidence in chief of PW2 as to the manner of accident is remained untouched. At this juncture, the learned Counsel for the respondents took contention that PW2 was not shown as one of the witness in the list of witnesses. Therefore, PW2’s evidence cannot be considered as he was not examined by the police at the time of

MVOP.No.357 of 2018 9 MVOP.No.309 of 2019 accident. To answer this contention, I relied upon the observations of Lordship in the decision between Mangla Ram Vs. Oriental

Insurance Company Ltd., & others reported in (2018) 5 SCC 656, the observations are as follows: “strict principle of proof in criminal case, will not be applicable in a claim for compensation under the Act and further standard to be followed in such claim is one of the preponderance of probability rather than all beyond reasonable doubt.

There is nothing in the Act to preclude citing of a witness in motor accident claim, who has not been named in the list of witnesses in the criminal case. What is essential is that the opposite party should get a fair opportunity to cross examine the concerned witness. Once that is done, it will not be open to them to complain about any prejudice caused to them. If there was any doubt to be cast on the veracity of the witness, the same should have come out in cross examination for which opportunity was granted to the respondents by the tribunal”. In the present case, respondent No.2 cross examined PW2. Even then, chief examination of PW2 is remained intact as to he witnessing the manner of accident. As to the presence of PW2 at relevant place could not be shaken by the respondents during cross examination.

Therefore, I find nothing on record to disbelieve the testimony of PW2 as he witnessing the manner of accident. There is corroboration between oral evidence of PW2 and also version appeared in Ex.A1 and Ex.A4 as to the manner of accident in which it was took place with regard to all the material aspects. It is to be held that the respondent No.1’s rash and negligent driving is the cause for occurrence resulting into the injuries to the husband of PW1 on

MVOP.No.357 of 2018 1 MVOP.No.309 of 2019 relevant day and at relevant time. Thus, Issue No.1 is answered in favour of the petitioners and against the respondents.

17. Issue No.2:- It is the pleading and evidence of PW1 that petitioners No.1 to 3 are wife and children of the deceased

A.Krishnaiah. This pleading is remained unchallenged. Therefore, in view of undisputed evidence as to the status of the petitioners with the deceased, it is held that the petitioners are dependents of the deceased. It is the pleading and evidence of PW1 that at the time of accident the deceased was quite hale and healthy and he was eking his livelihood as Hamali in ABD company and thereby he was earning Rs.9,000/- per month. To prove the avocation and income of the deceased, PW1 relied on Ex.A10 and evidence of PW3. Ex.A10 shows that the deceased was employee and he has given

ID.No.APHYD14327570000000089.

18.PW3 states that as per their record, deceased was working in

Sai Sumanth Infrastructure Private Limited at Gadwal and his wage was Rs.368.93 per day and the Insurance Number is 5213906765.

PW3 brought Ex.X3 to Ex.X10, among which Ex.X9 shows that the deceased was employee of Sai Sumanth Infrastructure Private

Limited and Sai Sumanth Infrastructure Private Limited which is

Manpower Supplier of ADB (Alied Distlers and Blenders) Company.

Ex.X3 shows that it is true copy of accident report of the deceased

A.Krishnaiah issued by Sai Sumanth Infrastructure Private Limited.

Further, Ex.X5 and Ex.X6 shows that after the death of deceased

A.Krishnaiah, petitioners No.1 and 3 are paying pension amount.

Ex.X7 shows Employer’s Code No.520006403100 and also the name

MVOP.No.357 of 2018 1 MVOP.No.309 of 2019 of deceased. Ex.X8 is extract of return of contributions in respect of death case of late A.Krishnaiah shows average daily wages calculated to the tune of Rs.366/-. Therefore, there is overwhelming evidence as to the avocation and earnings of the deceased per month as pleaded. Hence, the quantum of earnings per month that was pleaded as Rs.9,000/- per month can be taken into consideration for computation of loss of dependency. As per Ex.A10 deceased was aged about 46 years at relevant time. Hence, the same age is required to be taken for the purpose of computation.

19.As per Sarla Verma’s case, ‘13’ is the appropriate multiplier that would be applied to the age group of persons (46-50) to compute the compensation. Further, 25% of the income of the deceased should be taken into consideration towards his future prospects following the observations of Lordships in Pranay Seth’s case.

Further, following the ratio laid down by the Apex Court in Sarla

Verma’s case, 1/3rd of the income of the deceased should be deducted towards personal expenses of the deceased from his income as there are three dependents. Adding to that the petitioners are awarded Rs.16,500/- towards loss of estate and Rs.16,500/- funeral expenses following the observations in Pranay Seth’s case.

20. Following directions of Hon’ble Apex Court in decision between

Janabai and Others Vs M/s.ICICI Lombard Insurance Company

Limited the petitioners herein are awarded Rs.40,000/- each towards Spouse, parental consortium respectively.

21.Thus, the computation of dependency works out as follows..

MVOP.No.357 of 2018 1 MVOP.No.309 of 2019

Monthly income of PW.1-Rs.9,000/-

Future prospects at 25%-Rs.2,250/-

Total monthly income of PW.1-Rs.11,250/-

Annual income of PW.1-Rs.1,35,000/-

Multiplier applicable is 13-Rs.17,55,000/- 1/3rd of the total amount is deducted -Rs.5,85,000/-

After deducting 1/3rd of total amount-Rs.11,70,000/-

Towards loss of estate-Rs.16,500/-

Towards loss of love and affection -Rs.16,500/-

Compensation arrived -Rs.12,03,000/-

Towards consortium (each petitioner Rs.40,000 X 03)-Rs.1,20,000/-

Total compensation awarded-Rs.13,23,000/-

22.Thus, the petitioners are entitled for Rs.13,23,000/- towards compensation for the death of the deceased.

23.It is not disputed that respondent No.2 is insurer of the crime motorcycle bearing No.TS-32-A-3441 belongs to the respondent

No.1. Ex.B1 strengthens as to the fact that crime vehicle is insured with respondent No.2 company. Further, there is no dispute as to the validity of Ex.B1 policy at relevant time. Ex.A7 establishes that respondent No.1 is the owner of the crime vehicle. Therefore, in view of undisputed facts of insurance of the crime vehicle under

Exs.A9/B1 and its validity at relevant period, the respondent No.2 is under obligation to indemnify the respondent No.1, who is owner of the crime vehicle. Therefore, respondent No.2 is liable to pay compensation awarded to the above petitioners.

Apportionment:

Petitioner No.1 - Rs.5,23,000/-

Petitioner No.2 and 3 - Rs.4,00,000/- (each)

MVOP.No.357 of 2018 1 MVOP.No.309 of 2019

24. Issue No.4:- In the result, the petition is partly allowed with proportionate costs as follows:-.

a.The petitioners are awarded compensation of

Rs.13,23,000/- (Rupees Thirteen Lakhs and Twenty Three

Thousand Only) along with an interest thereon @ 9% per annum from the date of petition till the date of realization.

b.The Petitioner No.1 is entitled to a share of Rs.5,23,000/- (Rupees Five Lakhs and Twenty Three Thousand Only),

Petitioner Nos.2 and 3 are entitled to an equal share of

Rs.4,00,000/- (Rupees Four Lakhs Only) each.

c.The respondent Nos.1 and 2 shall jointly and severally deposit the amount of compensation with interest within two months from the date of the award.

d.On such deposit, petitioner Nos.1 to 3 are permitted to withdraw the amount awarded to their respective shares along with interest accrued thereon.

e.Since the petitioners claimed exemption from payment of

Court fee at the time of the filing of the petition, the petitioners shall pay court fee of Rs.14,360/-, on deposit of awarded amount by the respondents, failing which, the same shall be deducted from the compensation to be deposited by the respondents.

f.The fee of the counsel for the petitioner is fixed at

Rs.5,000/- (Rupees Five ThousandOnly).

Dictated to Personal Assistant, typed by him, corrected and

pronounced by me in the open Court, on this the 24 th day of April, 2023.

PRL. DISTRICT JUDGE,

MAHABUBNAGAR.

Appendix of evidence

Witnesses examined

MVOP.No.357 of 2018 1 MVOP.No.309 of 2019

For Petitioners:-

PW.1: Amarachintha Jayamma PW.2: Bandamidi Laxmanna PW.3: M.D.Arab Anees

For Respondents:-

-NIL-

Exhibits Marked

For Petitioners:

Ex.A1Certified copy of F.I.R in Crime No.142/2018 of P.S Pebbair.

Ex.A2Certified copy of Inquest Report.

Ex.A3Certified copy of Crime detail form with rough sketch.

Ex.A4Certified copy of PME report.

Ex.A5Certified copy of MVI report in Cr.No.142/2018 of P.S.Pebbair.

Ex.A6Certified copy of charge sheet.

Ex.A7Photostat copy of Registration Certificate of the crime vehicle.

Ex.A8Photostat copy of Driving License of the driver of crime vehicle.

Ex.A9Photostat copy of Insurance Policy of the crime vehicle.

Ex.A10 on-line copy of employment details of the deceased with member ID APHYD14327570000000089.

Ex.A11 Original certificate of Dependant Death Payable to dependentsofLateA.Krishnaiah,Insurance No.5213906765 formerly employed with M/s Sai Sumanth Infrastructure Private Limited Issued by ESCI, Regional Office, Telangana.

Ex.A12 Statement of Account of Amarachintha Jayamma from State Bank of India, Pebbair Branch showing pension credited by ESCI

Ex.A13 Statement of Account of Kavitha Amarachintha from Sate Bank of India, Pebbair Branch showing pension credited by ESCI.

Ex.X1Photostat copy of summons brought by witness.

Ex.X2Authorization.

Ex.X3True copy of accident report of insured Amarachintha Krishnaiah issued by Sai Sumanth Infrastructure Private Limited.

Ex.X4True copy of Ex.A11.

Ex.X5True copy of Payment Docket for the month of December, 2022 of Petitioner No.1 (Jayamma).

MVOP.No.357 of 2018 1 MVOP.No.309 of 2019

Ex.X6True copy of payment docket for the month of December, 2022 of Petitioner No.3 (A.Kavitha).

Ex.X7True copy of Ledger Sheet for benefits running into two pages.

Ex.X8True copy of extract of return of contributions in respect of death case of late Sri.A.Krishnaiah.

Ex.X9True copy of Wage Verification certificate in death cases.

Ex.X10 True coy of contribution history.

For Respondents:

Ex.B1 is True copy of Insurance Policy.

PRL. DISTRICT JUDGE,

MAHABUBNAGAR.

of

19

&2

place Court the the hisof

of

SectionNo.1 in

and

Under3. the Act))number oftheon MAHABUBNAGAR.died ATper serial

as

) (Centralorders the BENCH, the Mahabubnagar,trustnot 1987and

is

Rao per the Act,No.6

as

ADALAT Reddy Rao(Suit

to1&2AND

LOKon

Street&2

Trust Buchiwere THE A.to9hShahi ReddytheM.Nil

SERVICES

(Venkatof (Died) Occ;S/oRao LateTrustlateOcc: LEGALNishitMain, No.1not dated LegalA(Died)CharyisRao

S/o&4S/o4thM.V.N.

(Died)058.

is

isJudgeBoly

–

atyears, 2022I.A. rep.by52560 Reddy4578 W/oS/o(Suit103, 5446of:in ATR/oNo. by No.3RaoTrust, No.6, areCourt aboutaboutabout aboutPlotFlat weN100

bleB.M.

4.h.P. HavingD:T.V.NishitAgedR/oAgdR/oAgedR/D Lal

1.2.1.5.7.

2.3.4.6. (TheinA.NishitHon (The 2

8.l.BhaskarRao S/o Late L. SatyanarayanaRao

Agedabout49years, Occ: Business

Lal Darwaza Hyderabad(Suit is not pressed on 31-03-2022)R/oH.No, 23-5-502,

L.Subba Reddy

9. 1. GundalReddy S/o Late hgedabout60 years,Occ: Business

Naveen Nagar

DrrumManzil, Hyderabad (Suit is not pressed on 31-03-2022)R/oPlot No.2, Anurag Apartments,

Giri S/oD.D. Giri

10. D.D. Agedabout36 years, Occ: Business R/o H.No. 1-10-39/5, Ashok Nagar (Suit isnot pressedon 31-03-2022) Hyderabad

11. S. KrishnaMohan S/o Late JamunajiRao

Aged abo�t52years, Occ: Business

R/o 23-5-541,Lal Darwaza, Hyderabad

12. Govind Rao S/o Not known the Petitioners

Aged about65years, Occ: Business

o 23-5-541,Lal Darwaza NAyderabad (Suit is not pressed on 31-03-2022) Defendants.

Lok AdalatNumber, 1441of 2022. Case in

O.S.No. 52 of 2014.

Gnthe file of the II Addl.DistrictandSessions Judge'sAt Mahabubnagar). Court, Saturday,the30th day ofApril, Two Thousand

Twenty Two.

Present:- Presiding Judge:-1. Smt.K. Umadevi, II AddlandJydge,Mahabubnagar District I/CVIII Addl. Districtand Sessions Judge,

Mahabubnagar,

Presiding Judge,Lok Adalath Bench, District LegalServices Authority,

Mahabubnagar.

Members:

2.SriK.RavindharNayak, Advocate, M.Nagar

3.Smt RohiniAyyangar,

Advocate &Social Worker, M.Nagar.

ParticularsregardingSuit for Declaration and Consequential suit:- Injunction.

1.Thatthe Suit is for Declaration and Consequential Injunction and the Suit ScheduleProperties are notionally valued at Rs. 10,71, 13,750/-.Hence a court fee ofRs. 5,45,504/- is paid by eachU/S 26 (C) of A.P.C.F & plaintiff S.v. Act, which is sufficientfor the reliefof perpetualinjunctionfor the relief of perpetualinjunction no court fee required but the plaint notionally valued Rs.5,000/-courtfee of Rs 411/- u/s 26 (c) of A.P.C.F & S.V. Act, and total Court fee paid Rs 5,45,915/- into

Presiding Judge oly2.Member

3.Member

in2,isof

forandtheareLalare andthethe haveview

12

andTermstermsby

Judge,Judge,inby

Branch.Bench insel&&they thelands co12,10 filed NO.1 by&6to TowerandtheofRob 10Trust tothe of3. ofto fiMed ClockLok6& andthatThese

to4videof

hadRao dated:good memothistheand

on

dated

nameIndia,2Deed

forand

ofNo.5ofhavein

is

andthe11Dist. jointbefore paiaalso2017 theover No.1Trust& termsof Bankthethecases Awarddied15for inAddl.and readhenceReddyand onfor the ITNo.thethe

3Onat

areofShsi State thus Ranga

in

theis thesuitthe have RS,the final forhaveofCRP the Lokforthat andandTheland ThatNo.lin l�i- onofthe tosuitand the heldtoand cerms the Juáge toput termsthe Kumar,the notCourt forthe isandareasof videisThedated onof of ofHigh onethe

7suitC.

on hisSriRoth theo200% PreIV ofjonsl ofBrief ofhoy 4

Management Committee of Venkat Rao Memorial School, LalDarwa tocreat.

Meetingand decided

inthe resolution Hyderabadpassed

Management

membersof threesenior Trustwith Supplenmentary

Committeewith same aims and objects of original Trust Deed vide Doc

protect theTrustproperties. No 2616 dated 21 Amardad 1350 Faslito

DeedDocument

Thereafter,got registered Supplementary Trustvide Defendants 2 to 4 herein.Later, they No.512of 2005 with the deceased

beforegoinginto

landsof NandigamaVillage, decidedthe Trust tosell of Trustlandstodevelopthe thehandslandgrabbersinrespect of saleamount,thereforethe Venkat RaoMemorialSchoolwviththe

Defendants 2 to 4 beingof Venkat Rao Memorial

deceasedthe Trustee Trust, Lal Darwaza,Hyderabadi.e., Defendant No.1sold the above said

Suppleaeatary

extentof Trustlandsof Nandigama Villagethewith totaltoPlaintiffls \Comnitteewiuo market value and on receiving sale considerationexecuted

Prevailing2616 dated 2 Aadee

Sale Deeds vide Document Nos.5856of 2005 and 5857 of Registered 2 Taereafter, got resiac

2005 in favour

of thesein respect of scheduleof above Plaintiffslands Noj512of 2005 wicb te said registered Sale Deeds and deposited the sale considerationthe in accountof Venkat Rao Memorial SchoolSyndicateBank, Shah inAli

the hads

Banda Branch, Hyderabad buttill todaythe said saleconsiderationis Vetlkot:Raote lyingin theBank.

3

That there are cases and counter cases pendingbetweenthe Vendors of theseand Defendantsherein and Third PlaintiffsParties, who createdillegal documentsInrespect of some portion of suit schedule properties and in order toput a quietus tothe long pendingdispute, theseand Defendant Plaintiffs

No1 represented by Hereditary5 & 11 have come

Trustee, Defendants toan

un derstanding andelders & well wishers

settledthe issuepresence inofof VenkatraoMemorialSchool, have entered into compromiseout of court on the following terms and conditions.

IS3olul

1.Presiding Judge3. Member

ngember

is

anin12

theof thein

totothe

Decdthethethe inTheRao Gts.,hereinDeed,year awardpartNishit land07-07 Saleby landNo.2 andTitle per Lal

Regd.atas

andofdated Ac.06-00

following&5agreed3.

determinationofalso havehave

theC

totalwasMr. foragricultureunderof11BooksaiditsLal

1,5&

Mahabubnagar|2005andat School

and

case,extentPassabove annameof

Fasli-

coveredDeedsD1/ theexistingDist.,No.5857No.1 referredMandal, thesePattaLal theST/ andSale

inas

1350at said beenThatsuitashave Rao ofin KothurpropertyThe SETTLEMENTretained

ADocumentRao

WARD

'D'

OFhas No.2 havingMandalRR.standingVenkat The videTheNo.521

of

into andsaid of 2005 partieshereinSurveyas scheduleofDeed havingTERMS

inof

datedbeen thealready aboveRaoCase No.2suitJudge

is&

Saleofhas of Gts.isin No.1name ofPahani the'D'

8&

ofpartinwhoNo.5 Regd.whichthe thetitleTrustthe ofby theDeeddant olNo.of inthe

1s

Defer2021 Trust1940 andsalesalesuitSuit i.vide

Wazate

6

No.5herein and SuccessionCertificate was

Hyderabad,whois the Defendant Administrator-General lSsuecby the orders in C.A. No.25 of 2017 on thefileof

11-09-2017and

on

Hyderabad

atHighCourt, Court StateSuccession theDefendant andalso 1 asHereditaryTrustee representing the DefendantNo, with DefendantNo.5 herein. No. 11is sailing

No, 1,5 & 11 admit and acknowledge the

title, ii.ThattheDefendants No.2 herein in respect of agricultural land andpossessionof Plaintiff ownership and agriculturalto an SurveyNo.1271land to an xtentof Ac.06-00Gts.in extentof Ac.06-00Gts.in SurveyNo.1274 totaladmeasuring Ac. 12-00 Gts., situatedatNandigamaKothurMandal,MahabubnagarDistrict, Village,

tly Nandigama Village& Mandal, Ranga Reddy District,

presenwhich is part of Dsuit schedulepropertyhaving purchasedbyNo.2byway Plaintiffol registeedSale Deed vide Document No.5856/2005 dated O1-12-2005the same.€re registered before the District Registrar,Mahabubnagarthe District,

part of the suit schedule D'property bounded by North: Land in Sy.No.1273

&. 1272,South: PartofSy.No. 1274 & landin 1275,East:Partof land in Sy.No.]271,West: Kacha Road.

iii.Thatthese Plaintiffs,admitthat the Defendant No.5 is the grandsonof FiginaTnystee,LateGunde Rao Harwalkaras he placed thedocuments pertaip ngto relationship and by Original Trust Deed vide Document No.2616

dated 21Amardad 1350 Fasli,

being a male member, as such Defendant

No.5 became Hereditary Trusteeof Defendant No.1Trust and thus hefit and is mandatory to act as Hereditary Trustee as per terms of the Original Trust Deed bearing Document No.2616dated 21 st Amardad 1350 Fasli.

That the Defendant No.1 & Mr. Nishit Harwalkar, iv. whois Defendant No.5 hereinbeing HereditaryTrusteeofDefendant

No.1VenkatRao

i.e. MemorialTrust at Lal Darwaza,Hyderabad has agreed and assured toratify ..Presiding Judge

Bolu3.'Member

No.1

ofofof

D'

inan

mapR.R.and

and

any

title&toEast:

of

perNorth:land claimcost

asbythe

of

&inan&the

Trusterst1275,suit&

of1ll1,5

executeand ofscheduleto

3.

at

Defendant theof suitofof requiredshallconfermentthesefavourTotal Deedinbounded soin1271

at

gts.No.

itinin

thney CxpensesTitlepart ifbetter Village Trusteeandin Thatgts.in for andinclaim coveredPattadaradmit

2005,&11to

cosStas ofNo.2of BooklandRoad alsosuitsuit land of theLand

11of

5&

atNandigamaD'The of "Trust,of No.5PassPahaniabove PartKacha No.5856an the&% ofbeingthe1274& of

isPattato

extent1274West: OnlineNo.l, South:of 1ndertakeanall

in

favourNo.51274 part to1271 inDharani

and&1271,

in1272, clear andNo.2 but fortoJudge videisandis landin gts. ofSy.No. hearefor,in maust1Deed/S, 1273and saidin orNo.2 thesegts.gts. ofGts. atwhich

tNandno

asof,as inin 06-00 to theNo.2AchaveNo.2risk. Landthe th� OPrt OR

was

1hat he befendaaA|eBvenantathey have Helher entered

ut

l ehqe

Hor motedhe

Hiy Aveentof Aae with anyhd party

nny HHoHnHom anyoyin

pades ad

Hot veeelved piperyie anyh

vaeetheautseheduleproperte

of

heHeredtaryTjstee

belendana NotB, whobeing

hein v

the ndvaempn

Heratespromtaed and needo venbure/epay

redhy'heaeMainits m wo Renl

iatateConpanien ond atoo ngredto

he anouneio Bnld conpleaa

Ansenent of Bale And theaepAyofbe teps

aettlenent,on failure pe of

istenatedy heparties

Detendant Nol,6|and lie

herein

haeta ajeknown to theDelendantab AL, n view of hecompromise, it is

the reaponaibildee of

have undertakessetle he

to

diepateafaeea

reapeet of retained landof 0heae Plaitiffs

inpartfoms

oLAu

Acthedule D'property

DefendantNo ,

Wthe

DelendantNo.5/Hereditary Trustee

Rao

uet, Lat Darwa,Hyderabad andof Venlkat

Myrgbial

wd

dortaketo eetleDefendantNo,11,covenao

elear allexdsting

future disputes and probleris in

eaeotof

Tust

Landa

of

Nandigama

Dietriet ineluding the above mentioned

VillayeMandal,kR

retained land

covered underof the Plaintiff

Regd.Jale Deedvide Dooument No.5856

No,2

whih js described 48 partofof 2005 at theirdost,

Buit schedule "D' property and promised and

a88Ured toget the

eurvey of the sad retained landof

aut orizedsurveyor tomeasure and ix the boundaries and get

Plaintir No,2 with

partof

the

D' propertyit fenced the

schedule

posEeasionof the aid landto be handed

withh

clear,

undisputed

peaceful

overtothe

ensured the

Plaintiffs Nos.1No.2 andalso

2toenjoy theabovesaid retainedPlaintiff

buryolu

Agriculture

Presding Judge

ofa

by of NoPass 21byandgts., of alltheafter of withof2005 gtsway No,5|of in clearonlyby Partdatedare annexedtorisk3. ac.by ofNo.2 the mapthethese East:in atso,of No.11 Defendantland theNo.2616do timeinto

&\275,

into

|inan

of No.l,anytheReddy Regd.tothis

atof

thecomeof title

'D'

name 1271thefor andandandtotalRanga ariseto Trust,shall delineatedNo.to reasonlawthe

Sy.No.1274&5

Defendantmay2005 andby inthe andanyif

ofof&

ofof

9

of thatlegal

in

landRoadorbetter ofpart tnealso Raoeventand forNo.1

&

thisso11.&5

and/andlands andandSale ParttheLceoiand

Kacha�5if

Inan

1&2

Venkat1, form LaltoDeed West: ofl1,

&5

terms theas isNo.1as theofat 1,videthe

&

it said byand

ht

tobect ininpš Bookthe 2005 wilin Sale into 10

& accepted,hence

xi.only, thesePlaintiffsagreed In viewof the settlement suitschedule 'C' propertyand part withdrawingthesuit againsttheof suit

under Regd.Sale Deed vide DocumentsNo.5856

scheclule D' propertycovered

of 20)5and 5857 of 2005otheragricultural land

thanthe retainedi.c., partof the sait schedule D' propertyto an extent of Ac.12-00gts. in Sy.No.1271 &in

Sy.No.1274of Nandigama Village & Mandal, RR. District. The Defendants

No.1 & 5agreed

to ratifythe Regd.Sale Deed vide Doc.No.5856 of 2005, if so as required by law, they promisedto co-operateto give statements before the TahsildarNandigama Mandal, R.R.and in gettingMutationand Patta District

Pass Books and Title Deeds simultaneously

in favour of noftheNo.2 and viePlaintiffin setlernent of DefendantNo.1onty tavour accordingly. The plaintiffs

witheraawinglthesuiteEitoteherein

confirmedthe title the: DefendantNo.1 ofherein and they have no right, sclhecluleD property cover edtitle, interest whatsoeyer over the lands belonging

2035d 5857 o2005to defendant

No.1 trust headed by defendant ouneNo.5. XiiTh�tthe Defendants qr anybodyclaiming any sort of right and interest in

Tespectohsuit schedule C'&D'properties through

or underthem to be settled

by the DefendantNo.5 & 11 and they

promised,assuredand look protest, no body shall interfere afterto withthe. possession

No.1 & 2 in respectand enjoyment

Plaintiffsof the of retained agricultural land schec.ulei.e.,partofsuít D' property admeasuring Ac.6-00 gts.,inSurveyNo.1271 and agriculturalland asS Boocs landadmeasuring Ac.6-00 Deedsgts.,inSy.No.1274

Nandigama Village & Mandal, Ranga Reddysituatedat

Districterstwhile Nandigama Village, Kothur Mandal, Mahabubnagar District which

part of D' suit

is schec.ule propertyoaerc

sclhecileDroe

over ihc landso205

t boSOHDDULE OF PROPERTY (PARTbclonp

D') All thatthe propertyofland admeasuringAc.6-00 gts.,inSurvey No.12:71and ac.6-00 in Survey No.1274, total admeasuringac. 12-00 gts., gts., bothsituated atNandigama Village & Mandal, Ranga Reddy District,

yo

erstwhile

26KothurMandal, Mahabubnagar District,

Telanganaand boundedas follows:

sches NORTH

Land in SurveyNo. 1273& 1272

ajierty

agric SOUTHnd:

Part of landin SurveyNo. 1274 & 1275

1.Presiding Judge

3.Member

vill&

in

are thisthe gts.,landto

infor1

filed

&2

No.1

&land

"D")Nandigama Rao

at

and

their3.

(C&NO.1)

PARTof mandal,of

1.

hereto1274/P, No.1271situated andTerms admeasuringkothurof in 1282terms. DEFENDANT1282 Surveyannexed

BY

inland PROPERTYterms ofandabove mapLand2. OFasthe Roadandthe No.1275,Roadto landin the ofthe ofwill

in1

1274/Ptheir&%2 madeNo.1 DartPartSurveyagreed Kutchaisput boundedfree the andhave withhave 1271/P, award this to AwardJudge Kumar) All ofthe the ing No.theførfor SASTAlBoth

1,

(Sri 12

Counselforthe Defendant No.5

DEFENDANT NO

(Sn.K.Rajgopal & Sri.PJagadeeshwar)

(Sri.Nishit Halwarkar Counselfor the DefendantNo. 11

(Sri.S.Krishaiah & Venkatesh)DEFE�DANT

No.11 (Sri.S.Krishna

Mohan)

The Court Fee paid by the this case,shall be refunded plaintiffsin una sIction 21 (1) of the Legal

Servicesuthoritfes Act 1987 and r/w.Rule 18 of

th TelanganaState Legal Services Aythoritý Rules, 2016,

Given under the hand and seal of theLokAdálat Bench on this the 30th day of Aj�ril, 2022at Mahabubnagar.

MEMBERS OF THE BENCH.

Cunselior the Deiendert

1, Gwrsoluln

PRESIDINGJUDGE

3. Snit.K.Umadevi,

MEMBER

IIMEMBER.

Sri K.Ravindhar Addl.DistrictJudge, M.Nagar,Nayak, I\(: VIIISmt Rohini, Addl.DistrictAdvocate.

Judge,Advocate&

MAHABUBNAGAR.

Social Worker.

SECRETARY

(Senior Civi!

Judge

letrictLegal ServicesAuthori

MAHABUBNAGARV

BEFORE THE MOTOR ACCIDENTS CLAIMS TRIBUNAL-CUM-

PRINCIPAL DISTRICT JUDGE, AT MAHABUBNAGAR.

Tuesday, the 20th day of October, 2020

Present:- Smt. S.Premavathi, Chairman, MACT-cum-Prl. District Judge, Mahabubnagar.

O.P. No.86 of 2016

Between:

Kunti Yellappa s/o Kunti Sayappa, age: 20 years, occ: Coolie, r/o Nandarpur village of Bomraspet mandal. ….Petitioner.

And

1. Shaik Jaleel s/o Shaik Naseeruddin @ Nazeer, age: 26 years, occ: Driver of the Auto bearing No.AP22 Y 4622, r/o Tunkimetla village of Bomraspet mandal.

2. Shaik Khaleel s/o Shaik Nazeer, age: Major, occ: Owner of the Auto bearing No.AP22 Y 4622, r/o H.No.2-57, Tunkimetla village of Bomraspet mandal.

.... Respondents.

Sub:- Petition filed u/Sec.166 of the M.V. Act, 1988 r/w Rule 455 of M.V.

Rules by the petitioner for a compensation of Rs.5,00,000/- for the injuries sustained by the petitioner in a motor accident.

This petition coming up before me for final hearing on 05.10.2020 in the presence of Sri Anantha Reddy, Advocate for the petitioner and of Sri

M.Ramakrishnaiah, Advocate for the respondents 1 and 2 and upon perusing the material on record, the Tribunal delivered the following:-

A W A R D

This is a petition filed u/Sec.166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 claiming a compensation of Rs.5,00,000/- for the injuries sustained by the petitioner in a motor accident.

2.Brief facts of the claim petition are that on 21.10.2012 at 2-30 p.m., the petitioner and his friends were proceeding on the road to attend nature calls from their village, at that time one auto bearing No.AP22 Y 4622 driven by the driver in a rash and negligent manner came from

Bapally thanda to Thunkimetla village gave dash to the petitioner and caused bleeding injuries. Immediately, he was shifted to Government 2

Hospital, Kodangal, thereafter, he was shifted to Sai Krishna Neuro

Specialty Hospital, Hyderabad for better treatment. The petitioner spent much amount in various private hospitals for treatment.

3.The Police, Bomraspet registered a case in Cr.No.84/2012 u/Sec.338 of IPC and investigated into.

4.Prior to the accident, the petitioner was hale and healthy and was attending coolie work and thereby earning Rs.10,000/- per month but due to the accident he could not able to attend his work properly and became permanently disabled.

5.The first respondent is the driver, respondent no.2 is the owner of the crime vehicle. As such both are jointly and severally liable to pay compensation to the petitioner. Hence the petition seeking Rs.5,00,000/- as compensation.

6.Counter filed by the respondent Nos.1 and 2 denying the material averments of the petition and inter-alia submitted that the accident was not caused by the driver of the auto and its driver never drove his vehicle in rash and negligent manner at any point of time. But the Police,

Bomraspet registered case against him on false complaint and table investigation was done by the Police, Bomraspet. Therefore, the respondents are not liable to pay compensation. Hence prayed to dismiss the petition.

7.Basing on these pleadings, the following issues are framed.

1. Whether the accident occurred due to negligence driving of auto bearing No.AP22 Y 4622?

2. Whether the petitioner is entitled to claim compensation and if so, what amount and from whom?

3. To what relief?

3

8.To prove the case, the petitioner is examined as PW.1 and got marked Exs.A1 to A7. Ex.A1 is the certified copy of F.I.R.; Ex.A2 is the certified copy of charge sheet; Ex.A3 is the original wound certificate; Ex.A4 is the certified copy of Crime Details Form; Ex.A5 is the medical bills issued by Sai Krishna Pharmacy, Hyderabad; Ex.A6 is the Bio-Chemistry report (34 in number), Ex.A7 is X-ray films (8 in number). Superintendent in Sai

Krishna Neuro Hospital, Kacheguda, Hyderabad is examined as PW.2.

9.On the other hand, the first respondent is examined as RW.1 and no documents are marked on behalf of respondents.

10.Heard the counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner. Written arguments filed by both sides. The learned counsel for the petitioner relied on the decision between Jagdish Vs. Mohan and others reported in 2018

SAR (Civil) 925.

11.Issue No.1:- It is the pleading and evidence of PW.1 that on 21.10.2012 at about 14.30 hours, he was proceeding along with three others by walk towards left side of the road in the limits of Nandapur village in order to attend nature calls, meantime, crime vehicle auto bearing

No.AP22 Y 4622 came from opposite direction from Bapally thanda to

Thunkimetla driven by its driver with high speed in a rash and negligent manner and dashed to the petitioner as a result he sustained severe bleeding injuries to all over his body. Immediately, he was shifted to

Government Hospital, Kodangal and thereafter he was shifted to Sai

Krishna Hospital, Hyderabad for better treatment. To substantiate oral evidence of PW.1 with regard to the manner of the accident, PW.1 brought

Exs.A1 to A4 on record on his behalf. On perusal of Ex.A1 to A4 it establishes that petitioner has sustained injuries on account of the dash given by the crime vehicle since it is driven by first respondent in a rash and negligent manner. Ex.A2 is the document which was came to be filed 4 by the police after due investigation. Ex.A2 corroborating in toto as to the manner of the accident detailed in Ex.A1 filed by the father of PW.1. Ex.A3 also corroborates the version of PW.1 that on relevant date i.e., on 21.10.2012 he sustained injuries on that he was referred to Government

Civil Area Hospital, Kodangal for treatment by Station House Officer, P.S.

Bomraspet. The tenor of the cross-examination of PW.1 shows that PW.1 sustained injuries in some other incident but because the crime vehicle was passing through that way, the said vehicle was falsely implicated in this case. But except suggestion the respondents failed to prove the stand taken by them that PW.1 sustained injuries in some other accident but not because of the crime vehicle. It is needless to say that mere suggestion never takes place of evidence to prove a fact. It is also suggested that the accident occurred due to self-negligence of the petitioner and there is no negligence on the part of the driver of the crime vehicle. But the said suggestion is denied by PW.1. Here it is required to observe that Ex.A1 and

A2 which shows that the accident took place because of the negligence on the part of respondent No.1 and Ex.A1 and A2 are remained unrebuttal and unchallenged. They did not contain any whisper as to the self-negligence on the part of PW.1 in causing the accident. Therefore, there is nothing to disbelieve the oral and documentary evidence brought by PW.1 to prove the rash and negligent driving on the part of first respondent which led to the accident causing injuries to PW.1. Therefore, without any hesitation, it can be concluded that the accident has taken place because of the fault on the part of the first respondent resulting injuries to PW.1. Thus, this issue is answered in favour of the petitioner and against the respondents 1 and 2.

12.Issue No.2:- It is not the case of the respondents 1 and 2 that

PW.1 did not sustain any injuries. Therefore, in view of finding in issue No.1 that the accident occurred because of the fault on the part of the first respondent with the vehicle belongs to the second respondent, PW.1 is entitled to claim compensation.

5

13.It is the pleading and evidence of PW.1 that due to the impugned accident he sustained bleeding injuries all over his body as such he was sent to Government Area Hospital, Kodangal and thereafter he was shifted to Sai Krishna Super Specialty Hospital, Hyderabad for better treatment and he has spent much amount in various Hospital for medical treatment, boarding lodging, transporting, diet and attendant charges for treatment.

To substantiate the injuries and treatment to him he got examined RMO Sai

Krishna Hospital, Hyderabad and got marked Ex.A3, A5, A6 and A7.

14.Ex.A3 shows that on relevant day PW.1 sustained two lacerations and they are grievous in nature.

15.PW2 deposed that PW1 was admitted in their hospital on 25.10.2012 and he was given IP No.37221 and was rendered treatment till 06.11.2012 and was discharged on 06.11.2012 and he was admitted on account of Road Traffic Accident and the accident was taken place on 21.10.2012 having Head injury, Axonal injuries brain(Bilateral cerebral)/Right Brain stem contusion/ Left Hemiplegia. He further deposed that PW.1 was initially treated in Gandhi Hospital, Secunderabad for 4 days and from there he was shifted to Said Krishna Neuro Hospital, Kacheguda,

Hyderabad on 25.10.2012. Here it is required to be observed that date of accident is 21.10.2012 and immediately after the accident PW1 was taken to Government Hospital at Kodangal and there he was treated as out patient. PW1 says that from Government Hospital, Kodangal he was sent to

Sai Krishna Neuro Super Specialty Hospital at Hyderabad. But, PW2 says that initially PW1 was treated in Gandhi Hospital, Secunderabad and came to their hospital on 25.10.2012 and from that day onwards he was treated as in patient in their Sai Krishna Super Specialty Hospital. Ex.A6 also shows that PW1 was reported in the Sai Krishna Super Specialty Hospital on 25- 10-2012. Here, it is not stated by PW1 that he took treatment in Gandhi

Hospital, Secunderabad and from there he was sent to Sai Krishna Super 6

Specialty, Hospital. PW.2 admitted that he has no record to show that the

PW1 was rendered treatment in Gandhi Hospital, Secunderabad. Here notable point is that PW2 is not the official who has worked in Sai Krishna

Super Specialty Hospital at relevant time and it is categorically elicited during cross examination of PW2. The chief examination of PW.2 unequivocally proves that PW1 has been working as Medical

Superintendent in Sai Krishna Neuro Hospital, Kacheguda, Hyderabad since 2018 onwards. Admittedly accident took place on 21.10.2012 and no material is brought on record showing admission in the Gandhi Hospital,

Secunderabad and Discharge of PW1 from said Hospital. Further there is no material connecting that soon after the treatment as out patient in

Government Hospital, Kodangal PW1 was admitted in Gandhi Hospital,

Secunderbad for treatment on account of the injuries sustained in the impugned accident.

16.The learned counsel for the PW1 argued in written arguments that

PW2 deposed as the injured was treated in their hospital for injuries appear in Ex.A6 i.e., (i) Axonal Injury in left side and mid part of posterior (spleenium) corpus (ii) A suspicious subtle contusion aloedema in peripheral right side of upper brain stem and posterior right cerebral peduncle and adjacent vermis and posterior medial left temporal lobe and he spent and paid an amount of Rs.1,24,192/- towards medical bills and the medical bill under Ex.A5 was confronted with the PW2 and he admitted them, as such, on account of evidence of PW2 coupled with Ex.A5 to A7 the

PW1 proved the treatment and thereby expenses that were incurred by him on account of impugned accident as such the amount claimed under

Ex.A5 is required to be awarded to the PW1 towards medical expenses.

Here, during cross examination of PW2 it is elicited that Sai Krishna Super

Specialty Hospital issues computerized bills and bills filed under Ex.A5 by

PW1 are manual bills. Though PW2 denied the suggestion that bills under

Ex.A5 are not issued from their hospital as they are in the form of manual 7 but no explanation has come forward from PW2 that under what circumstances bills under Ex.A5 are came to be issued in the manual form when he deposes that their hospital issues bill in computerized form.

Therefore, in the absence of any explanation from PW2 as to circumstances that were compelled their hospital to issue bills under Ex.A5 manually deviating their regular procedure in issuing the bills in receipt of the amounts from the patients/customers of their hospital, the oral evidence of

PW2 and Ex.A5 cannot be considered in awarding the amount claimed under Ex.A5. Further, as already stated to supra that there is no material brought on record connecting the fact that injuries to PW.1 that were treated in Sai Krishna Super Specialty Hospital are the injuries sustained in the impugned accident, the oral evidence of PW2 and Ex.A6 showing the injuries to PW1 can not be considered.

17. However, on account of undisputed factum of injuries to PW.1 in the impugned accident, which are grievous in nature (under Ex.A3), I am of the considered opinion that Rs.30,000/- for each grievous injury may be awarded.

18.On account of the nature of work attended by PW.1, who is aged about 20 years at the time of accident, Rs.5,000/- is taken towards monthly income of PW.1. As the PW1 sustained two grievous injuries one month time may be taken to recover from the injuries. As such Rs.5,000/- may be awarded towards loss of income for period of recovery.

19.It is pleaded and deposed by PW1 and that he was suffering with disability on account of injuries in the impugned accident. To support his version he got adduced the oral evidence of PW2 and relied upon decision between Jagdish Vs. Mohan and others reported in 2018 SAR (Civil) 925.

But, there is no material brought on record basing on which material PW2 could deposed that PW1 was suffering with disability of 15% to 20%.

8

Therefore, in view of the oral evidence of PW2 having no basis as to his evidence that there is 15% to 20% disability to PW.1, no material brought by PW.1 connecting the assessment as to the disability to PW.1 made by

PW.2, the evidence of PW.2 cannot be considered. Therefore, the ratio in the cited case not helpful to the PW.1.

20.Therefore for the aforementioned discussion taken that PW.1 sustained injuries mentioned in Ex.A3 in the impugned accident, he is awarded Rs.60,000/- towards two grievous injuries, Rs.10,000/- towards transportation and attendant charges,Rs.10,000/-towards extra nourishment and Rs.6000/- for recovery period. Thus, in all, the petitioner is entitled for a sum of Rs.91,000/- (Rs.60,000/- + Rs.6,000/- + Rs.10,000/- + Rs.10,000/- + Rs.5,000/-). Accordingly, this issue is answered.

21.In view of undisputed fact that respondents 1 and 2 being driver and owner of the crime vehicle respectively, both are jointly and severally liable to pay compensation to the petitioner.

22.Issue No.3:- In the result, the petition is partly allowed with proportionate costs as follows:-

a) The petitioner is awarded compensation of Rs.91,000/- (Rupees

Ninety One Thousand Only) along with an interest thereon @ 9% per annum from the date of petition till the date of realization.

b) The respondents 1 and 2 shall jointly and severally deposit this amount of compensation within two months from the date of this award.

c) On such deposit, the petitioner is permitted to withdraw entire amount of compensation with interest accrued.

d) Since the petitioner claimed exemption from payment of Court fee at the time of the filing of the petition, the petitioner shall pay court fee of Rs.4,360/-, on deposit of awarded amount by the respondents, failing which, the same shall be deducted from the compensation to be deposited by the respondents.

9

e) The fee of the counsel for the petitioner is fixed at Rs.2,000/- (Rupees

Two Thousand Only).

Typed to my dictation, corrected and pronounced by me in the open Court, on this the 20th day of October, 2020.

PRL. DISTRICT JUDGE,

MAHABUBNAGAR.

Appendix of evidence

Witnesses examined

For Petitioner:-

PW.1:Kunti Yellappa, PW.2:Dr.B.Shiva Prasada Rao.

For Respondents:-

RW.1: Shaik Jaleel

Exhibits Marked.

For Petitioner:

Ex.A1CC of F.I.R., in Cr.No.84/2012 of P.S. Bomraspet, Ex.A2CC of charge sheet, Ex.A3CC of wound certificate, Ex.A4CC of Crime Details Form, Ex.A5Medical bills issued by Sai Krishna Pharmacy, Hyderabad, Ex.A6Bio-chemistry reports (34 in number), Ex.A7X-ray films (8 in number).

For Respondents:

- Nil -

PRL. DISTRICT JUDGE,

MAHABUBNAGAR.

BEFORE THE MOTOR ACCIDENTS CLAIMS TRIBUNAL-

CUM-

PRINCIPAL DISTRICT JUDGE, AT MAHABUBNAGAR

Thursday, the 19th day of April, 2023

Present:- Smt. S.Premavathi, Chairman, MACT-cum-Prl. District Judge, Mahabubnagar.

M.VO.P. No.247 of 2019

Between:

B.Nagaraju S/o B.Ramanna, age 45 yrs, occ: Driver, r/o Jammiched Village, Gadwal Mandal, Present R/o B.C. Colony, Atmakur Village & Mandal, Mahabubnagar District.

.... Petitioner

And

1. Jangam Basavaraju S/o J.Veera Badraiah, aged about Major, Occ: Owner-cum-Driver of the Innova Car bearing No.AP10-AL/0567, R/o H.No.7-30, Maheswaram Village and Mandal, Ranga Reddi District.

2. Bharati AXA General Insurance Company Limited, represented by its Branch Manager, Branch Office, II Floor, Gokul Tower, Opp-NIMS Hospital, Panjagutta Road, Hyderabad-500082.

(Policy No.FPV/SA497331/51/03/001733 valid from 27-03-2018 to 26-03-

2019)

... Respondents

Sub:-Petition filed u/Sec.166 of the M.V. Act, 1989 read with Rule 475 of the Motor Vehicle Rules by the petitioner for a compensation of Rs.10,00,000/- for the injuries sustained by the petitioner B.Nagaraju in a motor accident.

This petition coming up before me for final hearing on 03.04.2023 in the presence of Sri.K.Sreenivas Reddy, Advocate for the petitioner and of Sri.G.Raja Narender Reddy, Advocate for

Respondent No.2 and Respondent No.1 set ex-parte and upon perusing the material on record, the Tribunal delivered the following:-

A W A R D

Petition is filed u/Sec.166 of Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 claiming compensation of Rs.10,00,000/- for the injuries sustained by the 2 MVOP.No.247 of 2019 petitioner B.Nagaraju in motor vehicle accident occurred on 06-06-2018 due to rash and negligent driving of the driver-cum- owner of Innova Car bearing No.AP10AL/0567 (hereinafter referred to as ‘crime vehicle’) driven by the respondent No.1, who is owner- cum-driver of the same. The crime vehicle is insured with respondent No.2. The policy is in force on the date of accident.

2.On receipt of the complaint, police, Itikyala registered a case in Cr.No.79/2018 U/Sec.338 of IPC against the respondent No.1 and took up the investigation.

3.The petitioner is hale and healthy at the time of accident.

He is aged about 45 years and earning an amount of Rs.10,000/- per month as Car driver at Hyderabad and the same is contributing to his family. In the accident, the petitioner sustained fracture to his left leg and also other injuries all over the body and underwent operation. For the treatment, he incurred Rs.3,00,000/-. Hence, the petitioner claiming Rs.10,00,000/- towards compensation with interest.

4.Respondent No.1 is set ex-parte as did not enter his appearance though summons were served.

5.Respondent No.2 filed its counter, denying the material averments of the petition and inter alia submitted that the respondent No.2 did not issue any cover note/policy in respect of the crime vehicle. It is submitted that the driver of crime vehicle has no valid and effective driving license at the time of accident. It is 3 MVOP.No.247 of 2019 submitted that the respondent No1 knowing well that he is not having driving license, but driven the same without having any license. The crime vehicle is not road worthy to ply on the road and it has no valid permit and fitness. It is contended that age, avocation and income of the injured are not correct. The quantum of amount claimed is highly excessive and exorbitant. Hence, prayed to dismiss the petition.

6.Basing on these pleadings, the following issues are framed.

1. Whether the accident occurred on 06.06.2018 at 13:00 hours, near Yerravelli Village X road, was due to the rashness and negligence on the part of driver of the Innova Car bearing No.AP10-AL-0567 and whether the petitioner sustained injuries in the accident ?

2. Whether the petitioner is entitled to seek compensation for the injuries sustained by him and if so, what amount and from whom?

3. To what relief?

7.The Petitioner is examined as PW1 and got marked Ex.A1 to

Ex.A16. Ex.A1 is Copy of FIR in Crime No.79/2018 P.S Itikyal; Ex.A2 is certified copy of Wound Certificate, Ex.A3 is certified copy of

Charge sheet, Ex.A4 is copy of Registration Certificate of crime vehicle, Ex.A5 is copy of Insurance Policy of crime vehicle, Ex.A6 is

Original Discharge summary issued by Renuka Multispeciality

Hospital, Kurnool, dt:06.06.2018, Ex.A7 is Original Discharge summary issued by Renuka Multispecialty Hospital, Kurnool,

dt:11.08.2018, Ex.A8 is Original Medical Prescription and reports

(Nos.72), Ex.A9 is Original Medical Bills (Nos.76), Ex.A10 is Original

Transport Bills (Nos.15), Ex.A11 is Original Medical Certificate,

Ex.A12 is Original Disability Certificate issued by Medical Board, 4 MVOP.No.247 of 2019

Wanaparthy, Ex.A13 is Original Salary Certificate, Ex.A14 is

Original Driving License, Ex.A15 is Colour Photos (Nos.3) and

Ex.A16 is X-ray Films (Nos.6).

8.Dr.J.Raghunath Reddy, Ortho Surgeon at Renuka Multi

Specialty Hospital at Kurnool is examined as PW2.

9.Dr.Abdul Rawoof, Ortho Surgeon at Area Hospital,

Nampally, Hyderabad is examined as PW3.

10.Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner. Petitioner filed written arguments also.

11.The petitioner relied upon decisions between Jakir Hussein

Vs Sabir and others reported in 2015 SAR (Civil) 407 of the Hon’ble

Supreme Court.

12.Respondent No.2 did not adduce any oral evidence and submitted that the matter may be disposed of on merits.

13.Issue No.1:- It is the pleading and evidence of PW1 that on 06-06-2018 at morning, himself and his wife left from Hyderabad on motorcycle in order to go to Venkatonipally village of Gadwal mandal to attend funeral of his relatives, at about 13:00 hours on the way while they reached Yerravalli village cross roads, meanwhile one

Innova Car bearing No.AP10AL/0567 (crime vehicle) driven by the respondent No.1 came in high speed and in rash and negligent manner from Kurnool side towards Hyderabad and gave dash to the motorcycle of PW1, due to which PW1 sustained fracture and 5 MVOP.No.247 of 2019 grievous injuries all over the body and his wife also sustained grievous injuries to all over the body. Immediately PW1 was shifted to Renuka Multi Specialty Hospital, Kurnool for medical treatment as his condition was serious. It is further pleaded and deposed that a complaint is filed before police, Itikyala in respect of the incident, who in-turn registered a case in Cr.No.79/2018 for the offence

U/Sec.338 of IPC against the respondent No.1 and took up investigation.

14.Apart from oral evidence, PW1 relied upon Ex.A1 to Ex.A3 to prove because of respondent No.1’s rash and negligent driving of the crime vehicle, the incident took place, resulting into the injuries to him. Ex.A1 and Ex.A3 corroborates with the version pleaded and deposed by PW1 as to the manner of accident in which it was took place. Ex.A1 and Ex.A3 categorically shows that on 6-6-2018 while

PW1 along with his wife was proceeding on motorcycle bearing

No.TS-06-EK-9163 to Venkatonipally village, meantime at about 13:00 hours while he was crossing Yerravalli cross roads, respondent

No.1 by driving the crime vehicle in rash and negligent manner and gave dash to the motorcycle of PW1 while proceeding towards

Hyderabad from Kurnool side, due to which PW1 sustained grievous injuries and his wife sustained injuries of their persons. Ex.A2 also corroborates Ex.A1 and Ex.A3 disclosing that PW1 sustained fracture injury to his left leg, due to the impugned accident occurred while he was crossing the road on bike. There is corroboration between Ex.A1 to Ex.A3 as to the manner of incident in which was taken place and also the nature of injuries sustained to PW1. PW1 is 6 MVOP.No.247 of 2019 cross examined at length by the respondent No.2, nothing worth could be elicited during cross examination to disbelieve oral testimony of PW1 as well the version disclosed in Ex.A1 and Ex.A3 as to the manner of accident in which it was took place. PW1 is the injured-cum-eyewitness. Nothing is brought on record to disbelieve the oral and documentary evidence lead by the petitioner to prove the manner of accident. Therefore, with the discussion taken above, it is to be held that the accident took place because of rash and negligent driving of the crime vehicle by the respondent No.1, resulting into the injuries to PW1. Thus, Issue No.1 is answered in favour of the petitioner and against the respondents.

15.Issue No.2:- It is the pleading and evidence of PW1 that in the impugned accident he sustained injuries to his left leg. Ex.A2 also corroborates his version that PW1 sustained fracture injury upper 1/3rd to left leg and it is grievous injury. Apart from the oral evidence of PW1, he also got examined PW2 and PW3 to prove the treatment to him for the injuries sustained in the impugned accident.

16.PW2 testimony establishes that due to the injuries sustained in the accident he happended to visit Renuka Multi

Specialty hospital twice and was under went treatment as inpatient and surgery was done to him and in future he requires to undergo surgery for removal of implants. It is the evidence of PW2 that he examined PW1 and noticed that he is walking with the support of limp and the said limp is permanent in nature. Therefore, deposes that during entire treatment, the patient was required one attendant 7 MVOP.No.247 of 2019 to attend day to day activities and in future also petitioner requires one support to do his daily activities, which is permanent in nature.

PW3 deposes that PW1 will face difficulty in sitting and squatting and he cannot drive four wheeler as a normal person and he can face difficulty to walk without support. On combined reading of evidence of PW2 and PW3 it suggests that PW1 has limping and he would face difficulty while sitting and squatting and PW3 deposes that PW1 suffers 52% disability. But it is not testimony of PW3 that

PW1 requires attendant to attend day to day activities. PW3 states that he issued Ex.A12. The testimony of PW3 in issuing Ex.A12 is remained undisputed. On perusal of Ex.A12, it discloses that PW1 suffers with disability of 52%. PW3 is Ortho Surgeon and he is also one of the members of the medical board at Area Hospital,

Wanaparthy at the time of issuance of Ex.A12. There is nothing brought on record to discard the oral evidence of PW3 and Ex.A12 as to the disability. Be that as it may;

17.Here except oral version of PW1 that he is a driver by profession, no material is brought on record to establish his avocation as a driver. Mere possessing driving license is not sufficient to come to the conclusion as to the avocation of the petitioner as a driver. Therefore, in absence of any material to that effect mere pleading and self serving statement of PW1 as to his avocation it is difficult to consider the plea of PW1 that his avocation was driver. However, mere absence of any material as to the avocation pleaded, it cannot be said that PW1 was remained idle without attending any work for gain. On the other hand having 8 MVOP.No.247 of 2019 driving skills his earnings cannot be taken on par with daily labour.

Hence, in these circumstances considering the fact that PW1 was 46 yrs( as Ex.A14) age at relevant point of time , I am of the considered view that earnings of the PW1 @ Rs.8,000/- per month is just and reasonable for computation.

18. Here, though PW3 and Ex.A12 shows that PW1 was facing 52% of disability, however they do not disclose that such 52% disability is in respect of whole body or it is confined to particular limb. Hence, following the ratio in Rajkumar Vs Ajay Kumar rendered by the Hon’ble Aepx Court, I am of the considered view that 30% of disability is required to be taken as functional disability to assess the quantum of compensation.

19. The fact as to the admission and treatment to PW1 in

Renuka Multi Specialty Hospital, Kurnool is remained intact even after cross examination. PW2 categorically deposed that Ex.A2,

Ex.A6, Ex.A7, Ex.A8, Ex.A9, Ex.A11 and Ex.A16 are issued by their hospital. They remained undisputed. Therefore, the expenditure incurred for treatment in the hospital is required to be awarded.

However, the person from Mallikarjuna Travels who stated to be issued bills under Ex.A10 is not examined. Therefore, the amount claimed under Ex.A10 can not be granted in toto. However, the fact remains that PW1 was required to move twice to Renuka Multi

Specialty Hospital, Kurnool, therefore, I am of the considered view that Rs.25,000/- can be awarded towards transport and attendant charges.

9 MVOP.No.247 of 2019

20.Thus, the computation of compensation works out as follows:

Monthly income of PW.1-Rs.8,000/-

Future prospects at 25%-Rs.2,000/-

Total monthly income of PW.1-Rs.10,000/-

Annual income of PW.1-Rs.1,20,000/-

Multiplier applicable is 13-Rs.15,60,000/- 30% towards Functional disability -Rs.4,68,000/-

Medical expenditure -Rs.1,42,471/-

Loss of monthly income @ Rs.8,000/--Rs.24,000/- (03 Months) Loss of amenities or loss of expectation of life -Rs.50,000/-

Towards special diet and nutrition -Rs.20,000/-

Towards transport charges-Rs.25,000/-

For Removal of implants -Rs.40,000/-

Total compensation awarded- Rs.7,69,471/-

Rounded to Rs.7.69,500/-

21.Thus, the petitioner is entitled for Rs.7,69,500/- towards compensation for the injuries sustained by him.

22.Ex.A5 remained undisputed showing that the crime vehicle is insured with the respondent No.2. Ex.A4 shows that respondent

No.1 is the owner of crime vehicle. It is the version of petitioner that respondent No.1 is owner cum driver of the crime vehicle.

Respondent No.2 except pleading that respondent No.1 has no driving license but did not choose to prove the same by adducing evidence. Therefore, in view of undisputed fact that crime vehicle is insured with respondent No.2 which was in force at relevant time, the respondent No.2 is under obligation of indemnifying the respondent No.1. Therefore, the respondent No.2 is liable to pay compensation to the petitioner.

10 MVOP.No.247 of 2019

23.Issue No.3:- In the result, the petition is partly allowed with proportionate costs as follows:-

a) The petitioner is awarded compensation of Rs.7,69,500/- (Rupees Seven Lakhs Sixty-Nine Thousand and Five Hundred

Only) along with an interest thereon @ 9% per annum from the date of petition till the date of realization.

b) The respondent Nos.1 and 2 shall jointly and severally deposit the amount of compensation with interest within two months from the date of the award.

c) On such deposit, the petitioner is permitted to withdraw the amount along with accrued interest thereon.

d) Since the petitioner claimed exemption from payment of Court fee at the time of the filing of the petition, the petitioner shall pay court fee of Rs.9,360/-, on deposit of awarded amount by the respondents, failing which, the same shall be deducted from the compensation to be deposited by the respondents.

e) The fee of the counsel for the petitioner is fixed at Rs.5,000/- (Rupees Five Thousand Only).

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

by me in the open Court, on this the 19 th day of April, 2023.

PRL. DISTRICT JUDGE,

MAHABUBNAGAR.

Appendix of evidence

Witnesses examined

For Petitioner:-

PW1: B.Nagaraju. PW2: Dr.J.Raghunath Reddy. PW3: Dr.Abdul Rawoof.

For Respondents:- -NIL-

Exhibits Marked

For Petitioner:

11 MVOP.No.247 of 2019

Ex.A1Copy of FIR in Crime No.79/2018 P.S Itikyal,

Ex.A2Certified copy of Wound Certificate,

Ex.A3Certified copy of Charge sheet,

Ex.A4Copy of Registration Certificate of crime vehicle,

Ex.A5Copy of Insurance Policy of crime vehicle,

Ex.A6Original Discharge summary issued by Renuka Multispeciality Hospital, Kurnool, dt:06.06.2018,

Ex.A7Original Discharge summary issued by Renuka Multispecialty Hospital, Kurnool, dt:11.08.2018,

Ex.A8Original Medical Prescription and reports (Nos.72),

Ex.A9Original Medical Bills (Nos.76),

Ex.A10 Original Transport Bills (Nos.15),

Ex.A11 Original Medical Certificate,

Ex.A12 Original Disability Certificate issued by Medical Board, Wanaparthy,

Ex.A13 Original Salary Certificate,

Ex.A14 Original Driving License,

Ex.A15 Colour Photos (Nos.3)

Ex.A16 X-ray Films (Nos.6),

For Respondents:

-NIL-.

PRL. DISTRICT JUDGE,

MAHABUBNAGAR.

BEFORE THE MOTOR ACCIDENTS CLAIMS TRIBUNAL-

CUM-

PRINCIPAL DISTRICT JUDGE, AT MAHABUBNAGAR

Thursday, the 19th day of April, 2023

Present:- Smt. S.Premavathi, Chairman, MACT-cum-Prl. District Judge, Mahabubnagar.

M.VO.P. No.246 of 2019

Between:

Boya Devamma W/o B.Nagaraju, age 40 yrs, occ: House Maid, r/o Jammiched Village, Gadwal Mandal, Present R/o B.C. Colony, Atmakur Village & Mandal, Mahabubnagar District.

.... Petitioner

And

1. Jangam Basavaraju S/o J.Veera Badraiah, aged about Major, Occ: Owner-cum-Driver of the Innova Car bearing No.AP10-AL/0567, R/o H.No.7-30, Maheswaram Village and Mandal, Ranga Reddi District.

2. Bharati AXA General Insurance Company Limited, represented by its Branch Manager, Branch Office, II Floor, Gokul Tower, Opp-NIMS Hospital, Panjagutta Road, Hyderabad-500082.

(Policy No.FPV/SA497331/51/03/001733 valid from 27-03-2018 to 26-03-

2019)

... Respondents

Sub:-Petition filed u/Sec.166 of the M.V. Act, 1989 read with Rule 475 of the Motor Vehicle Rules by the petitioner for a compensation of Rs.3,00,000/- for the injuries sustained by the petitioner Boya Devamma in a motor accident.

This petition coming up before me for final hearing on 03.04.2023 in the presence of Sri.K.Sreenivas Reddy, Advocate for the petitioner and of Sri.G.Raja Narender Reddy, Advocate for

Respondent No.2 and Respondent No.1 set ex-parte and upon perusing the material on record, the Tribunal delivered the following:-

A W A R D

Claim petition is filed u/Sec.166 of Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 claiming compensation of Rs.3,00,000/- for the injuries sustained by

MVOP.No.246 of 2019 2 the petitioner in motor vehicle accident occurred on 06-06-2018 due to rash and negligent driving of the driver-cum-owner of Innova Car bearing No.AP10AL/0567 (hereinafter referred to as ‘crime vehicle’) driven by the respondent No.1, who is owner-cum-driver of the same.

The crime vehicle is insured with respondent No.2. The policy is in force on the date of accident.

2.On receipt of the complaint, police, Itikyala registered a case in Cr.No.79/2018 U/Sec.338 of IPC against the respondent No.1 and took up the investigation.

3.The petitioner is hale and healthy at the time of accident.

She is aged about 40 years and earning an amount of Rs.8,000/- per month as House Maid at Hyderabad and the same is contributing to her family. In the accident, the petitioner sustained “contusion injury to both knees” and other injuries all over the body and underwent operation. For the treatment, she incurred

Rs.60,000/-. Hence, the petitioner claiming Rs.3,00,000/- towards compensation with interest.

4.Respondent No.1 is set ex-parte as did not enter his appearance though summons were served.

5.Respondent No.2 filed its counter, denying the material averments of the petition and inter alia submitted that the respondent No.2 did not issue any cover note/policy in respect of the crime vehicle. It is submitted that the driver of crime vehicle has no valid and effective driving license at the time of accident. It is

MVOP.No.246 of 2019 3 submitted that the respondent No1 knowing well that he is not having driving license, but driven the same without having any license. The crime vehicle is not road worthy to ply on the road and it has no valid permit and fitness. It is contended that age, avocation and income of the injured are not correct. The quantum of amount claimed is highly excessive and exorbitant. Hence, prayed to dismiss the petition.

6.Basing on these pleadings, the following issues are framed.

1. Whether the accident occurred on 06.06.2018 at 13:00 hours, near Yerravelli Village X road, was due to the rashness and negligence on the part of driver of the Innova Car bearing No.AP10-AL-0567 (R.1) and whether the petitioner sustained injuries in the accident ?

2. Whether the petitioner is entitled to seek compensation for the injuries sustained by her and if so, what amount and from whom?

3. To what relief?

7.The Petitioner is examined as PW1 and got marked Ex.A1 to

Ex.A16. Ex.A1 is certified copy of FIR in Crime No.79/2018 P.S

Itikyal; Ex.A2 is certified copy of Wound Certificate, Ex.A3 is certified copy of Charge sheet, Ex.A4 is copy of Insurance Policy of crime vehicle, Ex.A5 is copy of Registration Certificate of crime vehicle, Ex.A6 is Original Discharge summary issued by Renuka

Multispeciality Hospital, Kurnool, dt:12.05.2011, Ex.A7 is Original

Medical Bills (Nos.23) and Ex.A8 is Original Medical Prescription (Nos.11).

8.Dr.J.Raghunath Reddy, Ortho Surgeon at Renuka Multi

Specialty Hospital at Kurnool is examined as PW2.

MVOP.No.246 of 2019 4

9.Respondent No.2 did not adduce any oral evidence and submitted that the matter may be disposed of on merits.

10.Heard the learned Counsel for the petitioner and field written arguments also.

11.Issue No.1:- It is the pleading and evidence of PW1 that on 6-6-2018 at morning, herself and her husband left from Hyderabad on motorcycle in order to go to Venkatonipally village of Gadwal mandal to attend funeral of his relatives, at about 1300 hours on the way while they reached Yerravalli village cross roads, meanwhile one

Innova Car bearing No.AP10AL/0567 (crime vehicle) driven by the respondent No.1 came in high speed and in rash and negligent manner from Kurnool side towards Hyderabad and gave dash to the motorcycle of PW1, due to which PW1 sustained fracture and grievous injuries all over the body and her husband also sustained grievous injuries to all over the body. Immediately PW1 was shifted to Renuka Multi Specialty Hospital, Kurnool for medical treatment as his condition was serious. It is further pleaded and deposed that a complaint is filed before police, Itikyala in respect of the incident, who in-turn registered a case in Cr.No.79/2018 for the offence

U/Sec.338 of IPC against the respondent No.1 and took up investigation.

12.Apart from oral evidence, PW1 relied upon Ex.A1 to Ex.A3 to prove because of respondent No.1’s rash and negligent driving of the crime vehicle, the incident took place, resulting into the injuries to him. Ex.A1 and Ex.A3 corroborates with the version pleaded and

MVOP.No.246 of 2019 5 deposed by PW1 as to the manner of accident in which it was took place. Ex.A1 and Ex.A3 categorically shows that on 6-6-2018 while

PW1 along with her husband was proceeding on motorcycle bearing

No.TS-06-EK-9163 to Venkatonipally village, meantime at about 1300 hours while she was crossing Yerravalli cross roads, respondent No.1 by driving the crime vehicle in rash and negligent manner and gave dash to the motorcycle of PW1 while proceeding towards Hyderabad from Kurnool side, due to which PW1 sustained grievous injuries and her husband sustained injuries of their persons. Ex.A2 also corroborates Ex.A1 and Ex.A3 disclosing that

PW1 sustained simple injury to her left leg, due to the impugned accident occurred while she was crossing the road on bike. There is corroboration between Ex.A1 to Ex.A3 as to the manner of incident in which was taken place and also the nature of injuries sustained to PW1. PW1 is cross examined at length by the respondent No.2, nothing worth could be elicited during cross examination to disbelieve oral testimony of PW1 as well the version disclosed in

Ex.A1 and Ex.A3 as to the manner of accident in which it was took place. PW1 is the injured-cum-eyewitness. Nothing is brought on record to disbelieve the oral and documentary evidence lead by the petitioner to prove the manner of accident. Therefore, with the discussion taken above, it is to be held that the accident took place because of rash and negligent driving of the crime vehicle by the respondent No.1, resulting into the injuries to PW1. Thus, Issue No.1 is answered in favour of the petitioner and against the respondents.

MVOP.No.246 of 2019 6

13.Issue No.2:- It is the pleading and evidence of PW1 that in the impugned accident she sustained contusion injury to both knees and other injuries all over the body. Ex.A2 also corroborates her version that PW1 sustained contusion injury to both knee joints and it is simple injury. Apart from the oral evidence of PW1, she also got examined PW2 to prove the treatment to her for the injuries sustained in the impugned accident. Evidence of PW2 shows that

PW1 attended before him with pain and swelling over both knee joints on 06-06-2018, on that he examined PW1 and took X-Ray and X-Ray reveals that no bone injury and conservative treatment was given to both knees of PW1 and she was discharged on 16-06-2018 from Renuka Multi Specialty Hospital, Kurnool and she was in regular follow-up. PW2 evidence shows that Ex.A2, Ex.A6,

Ex.A7 and Ex.A8 are issued by their hospital. Therefore, the amount claimed under Ex.A7 Rs.23,805/- is to be awarded towards medical expenses.

14.Here except oral version of PW1 that she is a House Maid by profession, but no material is brought on record to establish her avocation as House Maid. Therefore, in absence of any supporting evidence, pleading and evidence of PW1 as to her avocation cannot be considered. Record shows that PW1 is an illiterate. Therefore, in absence of any material as to the avocation of PW1, Rs.3,000/- per month can be taken into consideration as non earning person following the observation in decision between ‘ P.Madhavi @ Swapna and others Vs. N.Srinivas and others’ reported in III (2018) ACC 402 (Hyd).

MVOP.No.246 of 2019 7

15.Thus, the computation of compensation works out as follows:

Monthly income of PW1 -Rs.3,000/-

Medical expenditure-Rs.23,805/-

Loss of Monthly income @ Rs.3,000/--Rs.6,000/- (02 month) For Pain and Suffering (10 days) -Rs.30,000/-

Towards special diet and nutrition-Rs.10,000/-

Towards transport charges-Rs.10,000/-

Total compensation awarded-Rs.79,805/-

Rounded to Rs.80,000/-.

16.Thus, the petitioner is entitled for Rs.80,000/- towards compensation for the injuries sustained by him.

17.Ex.A4 remained undisputed showing that the crime vehicle is insured with the respondent No.2. Ex.A5 shows that respondent

No.1 is the owner of crime vehicle. It is the version of petitioner that respondent No.1 is owner cum driver of the crime vehicle.

Respondent No.2 except pleading that respondent No.1 has no driving license but did not choose to prove the same by adducing evidence. Therefore, in view of undisputed fact that crime vehicle is insured with respondent No.2 which was in force at relevant time, the respondent No.2 is under obligation of indemnifying the respondent No.1. Therefore, the respondent No.2 is liable to pay compensation to the petitioner.

18.Issue No.3:- In the result, the petition is partly allowed with proportionate costs as follows:-

MVOP.No.246 of 2019 8

a) The petitioner is awarded compensation of Rs.80,000/- (Rupees

Eighty ThousandOnly) along with an interest thereon @ 9% per annum from the date of petition till the date of realization.

b) The respondent Nos.1 and 2 shall jointly and severally deposit the amount of compensation with interest within two months from the date of the award.

c) On such deposit, the petitioner is permitted to withdraw the amount along with accrued interest thereon.

d) Since the petitioner claimed exemption from payment of Court fee at the time of the filing of the petition, the petitioner shall pay court fee of Rs.2,360/-, on deposit of awarded amount by the respondents, failing which, the same shall be deducted from the compensation to be deposited by the respondents.

e) The fee of the counsel for the petitioner is fixed at Rs.2,000/- (Rupees Two Thousand Only).

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

by me in the open Court, on this the 19 th day of April, 2023.

PRL. DISTRICT JUDGE,

MAHABUBNAGAR.

Appendix of evidence

Witnesses examined

For Petitioner:-

PW1: Boya Devamma. PW2: Dr.J.Raghunath Reddy.

For Respondents:- -NIL-

Exhibits Marked

For Petitioner:

Ex.A1Certified of FIR in Crime No.79/2018 P.S Itikyal,

Ex.A2Certified copy of Wound Certificate,

Ex.A3Certified copy of Charge sheet,

Ex.A4Copy of Insurance Policy of crime vehicle,

MVOP.No.246 of 2019 9

Ex.A5Copy of Registration Certificate of crime vehicle,

Ex.A6Original Discharge summary issued by Renuka Multi specialty Hospital, Kurnool, dt:12.05.2011,

Ex.A7Original Medical Bills (Nos.23),

Ex.A8Original Medical Prescription (Nos.11),

For Respondents:

-NIL-

PRL. DISTRICT JUDGE,

MAHABUBNAGAR.