1
IN THE COURT OF CHAIRMAN MOTOR ACCIDENT CLAIMS TRIBUNAL-
CUM-I ADDITIONAL DISTRICT JUDGE:: NALGONDA (Dated this the 2nd day of February, 2021)
Present: Sri S.V.V. NATHA REDDY
Chairman (MACT), I Additional District Judge Nalgonda.
M.V.O.P.No.45 of 2015
Between:
Ale Yadagiri, S/o Late Veeraiah, Age 37 years, occ: Cycle Stores Business, Present: Nil, R/o A.P.H.B. Colony, Munugode Road, Nalgonda Town and District
.... Petitioner
And
1.Sri P. Srinivasa Rao, S/o P. Sreeramamurthy, Aged: Major, Occ: Managing Director,R/o Optimize HR Solutions, Ameerpet, R/o H.No.8-3-166/2/A, Jeevan Mini Towers, Yerragadda locality of Hyderabad, PIN – 500018 (Owner of car bearing No. AP 09 AN 0636)
2.V. Ravi Srinivas, S/o Bhasker Rao, Aged: Major, Occ: Business, R/o Flat No.406, P.No.333, B.S. Puri Colony, Yerragadda, Hydeabad ( Owner of car bearing No. AP 09 AN 0636)
3.The United India Insurance Company Limited, R/o by its Manager, T.P. Claims-Hub, Posneti Bhavan, Tilak Road, Ramkoti, Hyderabad (Policy No.0505003114P100594701, valid from 25.04.2014 to 24.04.2015)
... Respondents
This M.V.O.P. is coming on 28.01.2021 before me for final hearing in the presence of Sri T. Venkat Reddy, Advocate for the Petitioner, Sri K.V. Prasad, Advocate for the Respondent No.1, Sri Md. Mubeenullah khan, Advocate for the Respondent No.2 and Sri V. Lingaiah, Advocate
for the Respondent No.3 and having been heard and having stood over
for consideration till this day, the Court passed the following:-
O R D E R
1. This petition is filed under Section 166 r/w 140 of M.V.Act by the petitioner/injured Ale Yadagiri, S/o Late Veeraiah, Aged 37 years, claiming a compensation of Rs.25,00,000/- from the respondent Nos.1 to 3 for the injuries sustained by him in a road accident occurred on 09.12.2014, at about 03.30 p.m. at Marrigude bye pass road, Nalgonda
Town.
MVOP 45 of 2015 2
2. The averments of the petition in brief are that the petitioner was hale and healthy and by running a cycle stores by name Sai Stores at
Nalgonda Town earning an amount of Rs.25,000/- per month and contributing the same for the welfare of his family members.
3. That on 09.12.2014, when the petitioner was returning from
Charlapally village to Nalgonda Town on his motorcycle bearing No.AP 24
AR 5800 and by observing both sides of the road taking turning at
Marriguda bye pass road towards Nalgonda side, one Car bearing No.AP 09 AN 0636 came from Panagal side proceeding towards Hyderabad side came with high speed, in a rash and negligent manner and dashed to the motorcycle of the petitioner. As a result, petitioner fell down on the road and received serious injuries and fractures and immediately shifted to
Government Hospital, Nalgonda, where the duty doctor advised to shift him to Hyderabad. Later, the petitioner was shifted to Srilaxmi Hospital at Nalgonda and the doctors after giving first aid referred him to
Hyderabad. Then, the petitioner was shifted to Sri Sai Neuro Super
Specialty Neuro Hospital (P) Ltd., Kachiguda, Hyderabad on the same day. While undergoing treatment, post stabilisation of lower cervical spine by internal fixation with screws of C-5, C-6- T1 T2 fixation with screws, rods and C-6, C-7 laminectiomy and decompression done under
GA on 11.12.2014 and the petitioner was discharged on 17.12.2014.
Doctors advised petitioner to take follow up treatment, bed rest and also physiotherapy treatment. Still the petitioner is under medical supervision and taking follow up treatment and he requires further treatment for long period.
4. The accident occurred only due to the high speed and rash and negligent driving of the driver of Car bearing No. AP 09 AN 0636.
MVOP 45 of 2015 3
Therefore, police, Nalgonda Rural registered case in crime No.258 of 2014, under Section 337 IPC against the driver of the said car.
5. Due to the above said accident, petitioner sustained grievous head injury, grievous spinal injuries and other multiple injuries all over the body due to which he suffered traumatic paraplegia below the chest and became permanently disabled. Due to spine injury, petitioner has no sense or feeling of nature of calls and he is still undergoing treatment and taking physiotherapy treatment twice daily. The petitioner suffers mentally and physically and spent an amount of Rs.5,00,000/- for surgeries, medicines, treatment, nourishment, transportation etc., and he requires much amount towards future surgeries, medicines, treatment etc., He also requires an attendant to look after his routine duties as he cannot stand or walk to do day to day activities. Therefore, the petitioner claims a sum of Rs.25,00,000/- under various heads.
6. The respondent Nos.1 and 2 being the owners of the Car bearing No.
AP 09 AN 0636 and insured the vehicle with respondent No.3 and the said policy was in force at the time of accident. Therefore, all the respondents are liable to pay compensation to the claimant jointly and severally together with interest at 18% per annum from the date of accident to till the date of realisation along with the costs of the petition.
7. Respondent No.1 filed counter by contending that the petition is not maintainable against him and denies the avocation and age of the petitioner by demanding strict proof of the same. He also denied about the driver of the Car bearing No. AP 09 AN 0636 causing the accident and the petitioner sustaining grievous injuries in such accident and taking treatment in the hospitals by demanding strict proof of the same.
MVOP 45 of 2015 4
He contends that he purchased the said crime car from respondent No.2 and in the due course of transfer of policy, the said unfortunate accident happened and the said vehicle was insured with respondent No.3. He also contends that he never drove the car in a rash and negligent manner and he took all precautionary measures while driving the said vehicle and as such, he is not liable to pay any compensation to the petitioner. He stated that at the instance of petitioner, police falsely implicated the driver of this respondent in the said accident and his driver is innocent. He further contends that this respondent as a owner of crime car got it registered with respondent No.3 and the same was in force by the time of accident and at that time, the driver of the car was having valid driving license to drive such vehicle and as such, the insurance company respondent No.3 is responsible to pay any compensation on his behalf.
8. Respondent No.2 filed counter contending that he has sold the Car bearing No. AP 09 AN 0636 to Maruthi True Value on 25.08.2014 and in turn the said Maruthi True Value sold the vehicle to respondent No.1 and by the date of accident, he had sold the said car and therefore, he is no way concerned with the said accident. He stated that he is not aware of the criminal case proceedings in the said matter and that the driver of the crime car was having a valid and subsisting driving license to drive the said car by the date of the accident and the said car was also having valid permit and it was in road worthy condition and the said car was insured with respondent No.3 and the said policy was in force as on the date of alleged accident. If the Hon’ble tribunal awards any compensation to the petitioner against him, the same has to be indemnify by respondent No.3 and therefore, he is not liable to pay any compensation to the petitioner. Further contends that the claim of
MVOP 45 of 2015 5
Rs.25,00,000/- by the petitioner is very excessive, arbitrary and out of all proportions.
9. Respondent No.3 filed counter by contending that all the allegations made in the claim petition are false and demanded strict proof of the same. It is also denied about the manner of accident as narrated in the petition and also the involvement of the Car bearing No. AP 09 AN 0636.
he also did not admit the age, avocation and health condition of the petitioner by demanding strict proof of the same. Also denied about the petitioner sustaining the injuries and taking treatment and spending
Rs.3,50,000/- for the treatment as stated by the petitioner in his claim petition. Further states that this respondent company has no knowledge about respondent No.1 ownership and about such car being insured with his company as the same are under verification. Also challenged about the person who drove the said car at the material point of time having valid and subsisting driving license to drive such car and about the road worthiness of such car.
10. It is contended that the alleged owner of the vehicle did not report the matter of accident so far probably in collusion with the petitioner.
Therefore, this respondent company is not liable to pay any compensation to the petitioner. That the claim of petitioner suffers from non-joinder and mis-joinder proper and necessary parties and the petition is liable to be dismissed on that ground. The claimant failed to implead the owner and insurer of the motorcycle bearing No. AP 24 AR 5800 and that the accident took place due to the gross negligence on the part of both vehicles. Therefore, if the compensation is awarded it has to be apportioned on both vehicles on the basis of contributory negligence on both vehicles. That this respondent never issued any policy in favour
MVOP 45 of 2015 6 of respondent No.1 with regard to the crime vehicle and the amount of compensation claimed at Rs.25,00,000/- under different heads is highly excessive, arbitrary and out of all proportions and therefore, the petition is liable to be dismissed. That the rate of interest on all accident claims has been reduced and they are entitled only to the interest which are being offered by the nationalised banks on fixed deposit receipts. That the compensation to the petitioner shall be restricted as per the provisions of the Motor Vehicles Act. That, unless it is proved that the petitioner was involved in the accident caused by the vehicle and the vehicle was insured with this respondent company and the person who drove the vehicle at material time of accident was having valid subsisting driving license, this respondent is not liable to pay any compensation to the petitioner even under no fault liability and also seeks protection under Section 147 and 149 of Motor Vehicles Act and permission to take all pleas under Section 170 of Motor Vehicles Act if respondent No.1 remains exparte.
11. On the above rival pleadings the following issues are settled for trial:
i) Whether the petitioner sustained injuries due to rash and negligent driving of driver of Car bearing No. AP 09 AN 0636?
ii) Whether the petitioner is entitled for compensation, if so, what amount and from whom?
iii) To what relief?
12. Petitioner to substantiate his claim testified himself as PW-1 and examined Billing In-charge of Sai Krishna Hospital, Kachiguda, the
Doctor who treated him, the Doctor, who issued disability certificate and the Doctor, who gave physiotherapy treatment as Pws.2 to 5 respectively and got marked his documents as Exs.A1 to A11 and Ex.C1. On the other hand, on behalf of respondents no witness was examined and
MVOP 45 of 2015 7 respondent No.3 got marked the copy of insurance policy of the crime vehicle as Ex.B1.
13. Heard arguments from the learned counsel on both sides and received written arguments from the learned counsel for petitioner and respondent No.3.
14. The learned counsel for the petitioner cited the following decisions:
1) 2014 ACJ 627 (SC), 2) 2016 ACJ 383 (A.P.) 3) 2013 ACJ 2641 (S.C), 4) 2018 ACJ 2759, 5) 2018 (2) An.W.R. 457 (S.C.), 6) 2018 (1)
ACJ 2782 (S.C.) and7) 2013 ACJ 1403 (SC) and contended that in support of the contention of the petitioner/PW.1, PWs.2 to 5 are examined and Exs.A1 to A11 and Ex.C1 are marked and they prove that the petitioner was involved in the accident caused by the crime car and received injuries in such accident and took treatment, but no significant improvement was there in his lower limbs and the chance of recovery is very less and he is suffering with 88% disability as per Ex.A6 issued by
PW.4 and as per the criminal case records, the accident occurred only due to the negligence on the part of car driver and there is no negligence on the part of PW.1 and the petitioner spent huge amounts for his treatment, medicines, etc., and therefore, he is entitled for a compensation of Rs.66,48,827/-, but filed the petition for
Rs.25,00,000/- only. If the Court grants more compensation, the petitioner is ready to pay extra Court fee. That, the policy was in force as per Ex.B1 and the respondents do not adduce any evidence except filing written arguments. That respondent No.3 filed written arguments stating that as per discharge summary issued by Sai Krishna Neuro
Hospital, Hyderabad, as on the date of accident, the petitioner was under the influence of alcohol, but no such plea was taken by respondent No.3
MVOP 45 of 2015 8 in his counter or during the cross-examination of PW.1 or during the course of cross-examination of the Doctor and no evidence is lead by respondent No.3 on that issue. Further as per discharge summary, the petitioner is not in drunken state as on the date of the accident and only to avoid compensation, respondent No.3 foisted a false allegation.
Therefore, to allow the petition by awarding just compensation along with interest and costs against the respondents.
15. The learned counsel for respondent No.3 filed written arguments contending that the claimant failed to file single piece of document to show that he has been running the cycle shop business and thereby failed to prove his source of income. That, as per discharge summary issued by Sri Sai Krishna Super Specialty and Neuro Hospital,
Kachiguda, it is clearly mentioned that the claimant is “known alcoholic” and as per the contents of the complaint, on the date of alleged accident, the claimant was returning from the last rituals of deceased person of his family, so, he consumed alcohol and riding the motorcycle in a drunken condition and caused the accident; as such, this insurance company has no liability to pay compensation to the petitioner. Also stated that the claimant utterly failed to prove that he is having valid and subsisting driving license to ride the motorcycle. Further pointed out that at the bottom of Ex.A6 Disability certificate, it is clearly mentioned that the said disability certificate is not valid for medico legal cases and as such, such document has no legal sanctity and as such, the claimant is not entitled for any compensation as there is no disability sustained by the claimant. That, the alleged disability assessed by the
District Medical Board as 88 % did not state that such disability is permanent in nature and advised the injured to appear before the Board for the purpose of reassessment of his disability, so the disability
MVOP 45 of 2015 9 certificate cannot be taken as an authenticated document. It is also contended that the claimant filed bunch of medical bills, receipts belonging to various hospitals, but the claimant failed to file prescriptions to tally with the medical bills and it clearly goes to show that the claimant brought the manipulated documents to suit his false claim with a view to claim heavy amounts towards compensation. That the claimant examined Billing In-charge of Sai Krishna Hospital,
Kachiguda, as PW.2, who deposed in her examination that the claimant had spent Rs.2,50,000/- as per the records available in the hospital and none of the witnesses examined by the claimant mentioned that particular amount was duly spent by the claimant during the course of treatment. He further contends that as per the terms of the policy marked by respondent No.3 under Ex.B1, the rider of the motorcycle not having valid and subsisting driving license at the time of the accident and therefore, this insurance company has no liability. Lastly contends that the claim of the claimant is highly excessive and abnormal and prayed to dismiss the claim petition against respondent No.3.
Issue No.i:
16. Evidence of PW.1 supported by the certified copy of FIR/Ex.A1, certified copy of scene of offence panchanama/Ex.A2, certified copy of charge sheet/Ex.A3 reveals, when the petitioner/PW.1 was taking a turn on his motorcycle bearing No.AP 24 AR 5800 towards Nalgonda side at
Marriguda bypass road by observing both sides of the road, the driver of crime Car bearing No. AP 09 AN 0636 came from opposite direction proceeding towards Hyderabad side from Miryalguda with high speed, in a rash and negligent manner and gave dash to his motorcycle. As a result, PW.1 fell down on the road and received serious injuries and fractures.
MVOP 45 of 2015 10
17. The learned counsel for respondent No.3 for the first time contended in para 8 of his written arguments that as per discharge summary issued by Sri Sai Krishna Super Specialty and Neuro Hospital,
Kachiguda, it is clearly mentioned that the claimant is a “known alcoholic” and as per the contents of the complaint, it is clear that on the date of alleged accident, the claimant has been returning from the last rituals of deceased person of his family, so, there he consumed alcohol and riding his motorcycle in a drunken condition and caused the accident, as such, the insurance company has no liability to pay any compensation to the petitioner.
18. Such contention cannot be considered because as rightly pointed out by the learned counsel for petitioner, no such plea was taken by respondent No.3 in his counter and no such point was raised by respondent No.3 during the cross-examination of the claimant or the
Doctor of Sri Sai Krishna Super Specialty hospital, examined as PW.3.
In the discharge summary/Ex.A5, it was mentioned that the petitioner was “known alcoholic”, but, there is no mention anywhere in the medical records that by the time of accident, the claimant was under the influence of alcohol. So, no presumption or assumption can be drawn on such previous history of the claimant that he was under the influence of alcohol by the time of accident, unless the same is proved. Hence, the claimant returning from the last rituals of his relative’s cannot be presumed to be in drunken condition at the time of accident. Therefore, there is no ground to fix any contributory negligence on the claimant in the accident. Therefore, from the above circumstances, this tribunal is of the considered opinion that the petitioner sustained injuries due to rash and negligent driving of driver of crime Car bearing No. AP 09 AN 0636.
Hence, this issue is answered accordingly in favour of the petitioner.
MVOP 45 of 2015 11
Issue No.ii:
19. Petitioner claimed a total compensation of Rs.25,00,000/- under different heads as shown in the following table:
I FOR SPECIAL DAMAGES
Loss of earnings : Rs. 2,00,000-00 Transport to Hospital : Rs. 25,000-00 Extra Nourishment : Rs. 50,000-00 Medical expenses : Rs. 5,00,000-00 Damages motorcycle and clothes : Rs. 25,000=00
II FOR GENERAL DAMAGES
Compensation for pain and suffering Rs.3,00,000=00 for loss of pleased and amenities of his life Compensation for continuing or Rs.14,00,000=00 permanent disability Total : Rs. 25,00,000=00
20. Petitioner claimed a sum of Rs.2,00,000/- towards loss of earnings by contending that he was earning Rs.25,000/- per month by running a cycle stores in the name of ‘Sai Stores’ at Nalgonda town and contributing the same for the welfare of his family. No document is filed by the petitioner as contended by the learned counsel for respondent
No.3 in his written arguments to show that he is earning Rs.25,000/- per month by running cycle store in the name of Sai Stores at Nalgonda town. So, the petitioner having failed to prove his income and avocation is not entitled to claim any amount towards loss of earnings. Hence, this claim is rejected.
21. Petitioner claimed Rs.25,000/- towards transportation to hospital.
But, as seen from the bunch of bills filed under Ex.A7, it is clear that the petitioner filed the receipt issued by Dolphin Cabs and also reservation ticket of a train from Yashwanthpur junction to Kachiguda. Therefore, the petitioner having claimed transportation charges under the bills filed under Ex.A7 is not entitled to claim separately for transportation charges. Hence, this claim is also rejected.
MVOP 45 of 2015 12
22. Petitioner claimed an amount of Rs.50,000/- towards extra nourishment. As per the evidence of PW.1 and PW.3, petitioner/PW.1 received grievous injuries on his head, spine and other places and undergone treatment of post stabilisation of lower cervical spine by internal fixation with screws of C-5, C-6 – T1 T2 fixation with screws, rods and C-6 C-7 laminectiomy and decompression done under GA on 11.12.2014 and was discharged on 17.12.2014 with an advice to take follow up treatment, bed rest and physiotherapy. Therefore, the petitioner having received such grievous injuries and having undergone the said operation must need some extra nourishment to recover from such injuries. Hence, an amount of Rs.50,000/- as claimed by the petitioner is awarded as compensation towards extra nourishment.
23. Petitioner claimed Rs.5,00,000/- towards medical expenses and filed bunch of medical bills under Ex.A7 for an amount of Rs.8,48,827/-.
Apart from that petitioner examined Billing In charge Smt A. Sunitha of
Sai Krishna Hospital, Kachiguda as PW.2 and Dr.K.V.R. Shastry, Neuro
Surgeon, who treated him in SKS Hospital, Kachiguda, as PW.3.
Evidence of PW.2 shows that the petitioner was treated in Sri Krishna
Hospital, Kachiguda, from 09.12.2014 to 18.12.2014 and incurred an amount of Rs.2,25,000/- towards treatment and some of the medical bills under Ex.A7 are issued by their hospital. PW.2 denied in her cross- examination about providing treatment to the petitioner under Rajiv
Arograsri Scheme or CM relief fund. Evidence of PW.3 reveals that he treated the petitioner in consultation with orthopedic surgeons and the petitioner was operated on 11.12.2014 and identified the medical certificate/Ex.A4 and the discharge summary/Ex.A5 as issued by SKS
Hospital, Kachiguda, Hyderabad.
MVOP 45 of 2015 13
24. It is clear from the bills and receipts filed under Ex.A7 that they pertains to the petitioner right from the date of accident i.e. 09.12.2014 up to 10.03.2018. Evidence of PW.3 shows that the petitioner was under continuous medication, but there is no significant improvement in neurological status in the lower limbs since 5 years and the chances of further recovery are less. PW.5 is the Doctor, who is running Sri Balaji
Physiotherapy clinic at Nalgonda and his evidence shows that the petitioner came to his clinic on 22.12.2014 due to non-functioning of both upper and lower limbs and he gave stimulation equipment and other treatment and strengthening exercises for two hours on every day in the morning and evening sessions from 22.12.2014 to 30.06.2015, 08.08.2015 to 08.10.2015, 01.01.2016 to 31.05.2016, 01.06.2016 to 30.09.2016 and 01.10.2016 to 31.10.2016. His evidence also shows that the petitioner paid an amount of Rs.15,000/- per month and took physiotherapy treatment for a period of 2 years and paid an amount of
Rs.2,16,000/- towards physiotherapy charges.
25. Though the petitioner filed another set of six receipts for an amount of Rs.2,04,000/- belonging to the same Balaji Physiotherapy Clinic for the period from 01.11.2016 to 31.03.2018, such receipts neither confronted with PW.5 nor PW.5 spoke about treating PW.1 during such period. Therefore, the receipts for Rs.2,04,000/- with Bil Nos.53, 54, 57, 61, 62 and 63 are not fit for consideration. On perusal of the bills at serial number 47 to 49, it is clear that Rs.3,000/- and Rs.2,000/- claimed under serial number 47 and 48 are included in the bill filed under serial number 49, Therefore, an amount of Rs.5,000/- claimed under serial number 47 and 48 is liable to be deducted. Though the petitioner filed prescription issued by KSAC Hospitals (multi specialty ayurveda hospital), Punjagutta, Hyderabad, under Ex.A8 and also filed
MVOP 45 of 2015 14 the estimation bills issued by such hospital for the amounts of
Rs.6,38,400/- + Rs.28,000/- + Rs.6,000/-, he did not examine the authorities of the said hospital to prove them. Even the witnesses examined by the petitioner PWs.2 to 5 and the petitioner/PW.1 did not spoke anything about the said documents filed under Exs.A8 and A9.
Therefore, the amounts claimed under Ex.A9 estimation bills are not fit for consideration. Hence, an amount of Rs.6,39,827/- is awarded towards medical expenses by deducting Rs.2,04,000/- and Rs.5,000/- stated supra from Rs.8,48,827/- claimed by petitioner under Ex.A7.
26. Petitioner also claimed an amount of Rs.25,000/- towards damages to the motorcycle and clothes. But, he did not file any document to prove the damages of his motorcycle in the accident.
Hence, by considering the impact of the accident, a sum of Rs.5,000/- is awarded towards damages of motorcycle and clothes of the petitioner.
27. Petitioner also claimed a sum of Rs.3,00,000/- towards pain and suffering and loss of amenities of life. The petitioner received grievous injuries on the head and limbs. As per the evidence of PW.3, there is no significant improvement in the power of both lower limbs and in neurological status of the lower limbs since five years and the chances of further recovery are less. Considering the above facts, a sum of
Rs.3,00,000/- as claimed by the petitioner is awarded as compensation towards pain and suffering and loss of amenities of life.
28. Petitioner claimed an amount of Rs.14,00,000/- towards continuing or permanent disability. Petitioner to substantiate the said claim, examined the Doctor, who issued the disability certificate/Ex.A6 as
PW.4. Evidence of PW.4 shows that on 20.01.2016, PW.1 appeared
MVOP 45 of 2015 15
before the District Medical Board, Nalgonda, and on that PW.4 examined
PW.1 and found him suffering with bilateral lower limb impaired and post traumatic sequel lower limbs with weakness of both lower limbs and he assessed the disability as 88% and issued Ex.A6 certificate, which was also signed by Chairman of the District Medical Board,
Nalgonda. His evidence further shows that the cause of such disability is due to accident and they recommended for the re-assessment of such disability after 3 years and the petitioner/PW.1 appeared before the
Medical Board on 24.09.2019 and was examined and found post traumatic sequel lower limbs with paraplegia and assessed disability at 88 % . His evidence also shows that PW.1 is totally in bedridden condition and for giving food, bath and assistance and for attending calls of nature, he requires assistance and he issued the disability certificate/
Ex.C1 on 24.09.2019.
29. It is elicited from the cross-examination of PW.4 that he has not mentioned whether the disability is permanent or temporary in Ex.A6.
But adds that it implies that the disability is a permanent one. He denied the suggestion of reducing the disability with physiotherapy treatment.
30. Evidence of PW.4 is also corroborated by the evidence of the Doctor (PW.3), who treated PW.1. Evidence of PW.3 shows that there is no significant improvement in the neurological status of the lower limbs of
PW.1 since 5 years and there are less chances of recovery and there is no significant improvement in the power of both lower limbs. The said facts given by PW.3 are not challenged during his cross-examination.
Therefore, considering the evidence of Pws.3 and 4 , this tribunal is of
MVOP 45 of 2015 16 the considered opinion that the petitioner is suffering with a permanent disability of 80% and is entitled for compensation to that extent.
31. Though the petitioner claimed that he was earning Rs.25,000/- per month by running a cycle stores in the name of Sai Stores, as stated supra, he did not adduce any documentary evidence to prove such income and avocation. In the absence of such evidence, this tribunal fixed his annual income at Rs.30,000/- notionally as per the decision in
Kishan Gopal and another vs. Lala and Others, reported in AIR 2013
SC W 5037.
32. Evidence of PW.1 supported by Ex.A1/FIR and Ex.A3/charge sheet, it is clear that the claimant/PW.1 was 37 years old by the date of accident. Hence, appropriate multiplier as per Sarala Varma’s case (2009 ACJ 1298) upheld by the Apex Court in National Insurance Co.
Limited vs. Pranay Sethi and others, reported in 2017 ACJ 2700 is ‘15’. Therefore, compensation for the permanent disability suffered by the claimant is Rs.30,000 x 15 = Rs.4,50,000 and 80% of Rs.4,50,000/- is Rs..3,60,000/-. Hence, an amount of Rs.3,60,000/- is awarded as compensation towards permanent disability of 80% suffered by the claimant. Thus, the petitioner is entitled for a total compensation of
Rs.13,54,827/- only under the heads shown in the following table.
1Compensation towards extra :Rs.50,000=00 nourishment 2Compensation towards medical :Rs.6,39,827=00 expenses 3 Compensation towards damages to : Rs. 5,000=00 motorcycle and clothes 4Compensation towards pain and :Rs.3,00,000=00 suffering for loss of pleasure and amenities 5Compensation towards permanent :Rs.3,60,000=00 disability
Total : Rs. 13,54,827=00
MVOP 45 of 2015 17
33. Though respondent No.2 claims that he had sold the car the insurance policy/Ex.B1 filed by respondent No.3 reveals that the policy was in force from 25.04.2014 to 24.04.2015. The accident took place on 09.12.2014 . Therefore, it is clear that the policy under Ex.B1 was in force by the date of accident. Respondent No.3 failed to prove that the owners of the crime vehicles committed any breach of contract under
Ex.B1 policy to disown its liability. Hence, the respondent No.3 being an insurer of the crime vehicle is liable to indemnify the owner of the crime car. Therefore, respondent Nos.1 and 2 being the owners of the crime vehicle i.e. Car bearing No. AP 09 AN 0636 and respondent No.3 being the insurer of the said crime vehicle, all are jointly and severally liable to pay the above determined compensation of Rs. 13,54,827./- to the petitioner. Hence, this issue is answered accordingly.
ISSUE NO.3:
To what relief?
34. In the result, petition is partly allowed awarding a compensation of
Rs.13,54,827/- (Rupees Thirteen Lakhs Fifty Four Thousand Eight
Hundred and Twenty Seven only)to the petitioner with proportionate costs and interest @ 6 % per annum from the date of petition to till the date of actual deposit and the respondent Nos.1 to 3 are jointly and severally liable to pay the same. Respondent No.3 is directed to deposit the said amount with costs and interest into the Court within (60 days) from the date of this award. If the respondent No.3 fails to deposit the compensation amount of Rs.13,54,827/- (Rupees Thirteen Lakhs Fifty
Four Thousand Eight Hundred and Twenty Seven only)within such (60 days), he will be liable to pay interest @ 9% per annum on such compensation from the date of decree to till the date of actual payment.
MVOP 45 of 2015 18
The petitioner is permitted to withdraw the entire amount with costs and interest immediately after depositing the amount by respondent No.3.
Advocate fee is fixed at Rs.5,000/-.
Typed to my dictation, corrected and pronounced by me, in the open Court, on this the 2 th day of February, 2021.
Chairman, MACT-Cum- I Additional District Judge Nalgonda.
APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE
Witnesses Examined for
Petitioner Respondents
P.W.1: Ale Yadagiri :: None :: P.W.2: A. Sunitha P.W.3: Dr. K.V.R. Shastry P.W.4: Dr.I. Kameshwar P.W.5:Dr. G. Yadaiah
DOCUMENTS MARKED FOR
Petitioner: Ex.A-1: Certified copy of F.I.R. in crime No.258/2014 of P.S.Nalgonda Rural Ex.A-2: Certified copy of scene of offence panchanama along with sketch map Ex.A-3: Certified copy of charge sheet
Ex.A-4: Certified copy of medical certificate
Ex.A-5: Original Discharge summary issued by SKS Hospital, Hyderabad
Ex.A-6: Original Disability certificate issued by District Medical Board, Nalgonda Ex.A-7: Bunch of medical bills of Rs.8,48,827/- Ex.A-8:Hospital prescription issued by K.S.A.C. Hospital (Multi Specialty Ayurveda Hospital) at Punjagutta, Hyderabad Ex.A-9: Estimation bill issued by K.S.A.C. Hospital Multi Specialty Ayurveda Hospital) at Punjagutta, Hyderabad Ex.A-10: Bunch of radiology report Ex.A-11: M.R.I. scanning films/x-ray films
Ex.C-1: Disability certificate, dated 24.09.2019 issued by District Medical Board, Nalgonda
Respondents Nos.1 and 2: Nil
Respondent No.3: Ex.B-1: Copy of insurance policy
Chairman, MACT-Cum- I Additional District Judge Nalgonda.
MVOP 45 of 2015