Sri Shaik Inthiaz Ahamed

1

Dt :08.04.2025

MVOP No.336 of 2021 (death)

BEFORE THE MOTOR ACCIDENTS CLAIMS TRIBUNAL -CUM-

FAMILY COURT- CUM- VI ADDITIONAL DISTRICT JUDGE :: KADAPA.

Present: Sri Shaik Inthiaz Ahamed, Chairman, Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal -Cum-

Judge, Family Court- Cum- VI Additional District Judge, Kadapa.

Tuesday, this the 08 th day of April, 2025.

M.V.O.P. No.336 of 2021

1. Boreddy Narayanamma,

2. Boreddy Rama Mohan Reddy.

... Claimants / Petitioners.

- Versus -

1. Boreddy Chinna Narasimha Reddy (Owner of motorcycle)

2. Boreddygari Obul Reddy (Driver of crime vehicle bearing No.AP39 DU 0202)

3. IFFCO-TOKIO General Insurance Company Ltd., rep. by its Branch Manager, Branch Office, Kadapa.

... Respondents.

This claim petition coming on 24.03.2025 for final hearing before me in the presence of Sri D.Prathap Kumar Reddy, Counselfor the Claimants / petitioners and of Sri K.Rama Kondaiah, Advocate for the respondent No.3 and the respondents 1 and 2 remained exparte, having stood over for consideration till this day and this Court delivered the following:

O R D E R

The petitioners/claimants 1 and 2 filed the petition under sec.166 & 164(b) of Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 and Rule.475/476 of Andhra Pradesh

Motor Vehicles Rules, 1989 for the compensation of Rs.12,50,000/- for the death of deceased Boreddy Rama Chandra Reddy, S/o B.Gangi Reddy, against the respondents 1 to 3 jointly and severally along with interest till the date of realization of the amount and for costs of claim petition.

2. The petitioners No.1 and 2 being the wife and son are only legal heirs and dependents of the deceased. The 1st respondent is the owner of the offending motorcycle bearing No.AP39 DU 0202, the respondent No.2 being the driver of the offending motorcycle bearing No.AP39 DU 0202 belongs to 2

Dt :08.04.2025

MVOP No.336 of 2021 (death) the 1st respondent and the 3rd respondent is the insurance company for the above said offending vehicle which belongs to the 1st respondent.

3. The factual matrix of the case are that, on 17.02.2020 at about 4.30 p.m., the deceased and his brother Obul Reddy / 2nd respondent were went in a motorcycle bearing No.AP39 DU 0202 belongs to respondent No.1 to go to

Ankireddypalli village, after completion of their work they were proceeding towards home on its motorcycle which was driven by respondent No.2, when they reached turning at about 6.00 a.m., after crossing the Busireddypalli village, all of a sudden one pig came across to the road and hit the motorcycle, as a result of which, the deceased as well as respondent No.2 who was the rider of the motorcycle and the deceased is a pillion rider, both were fell down on the road, due to which the deceased received bleeding injuries on left side of the head and swelling injury on the elbow, due to that injuries the deceased was gone into unconscious state, that after the accident the deceased was shifted to Government Hospital, Pulivendula in a private car where the doctors given first aid to him and referred to RIMS Hospital, Kadapa for better treatment, that while undergoing treatment the deceased died on 11.03.2020 at about 06.09 a.m. in the said hospital, that the accident occurred due to accidental death by fallen on the road due to hit by the pig when the respondent No.2 did not control over the said vehicle and caused the accident, due to that accident the deceased died, that on receipt of the complaint given by the respondent No.2, the Station House Officer, G.R.Palli PS registered a case in Cr.No.29/2020 u/Sec.174 Cr.P.C. (accidental death by fallen on the road due to hit by pig) and investigated the case and filed final report. They further submitted that the deceased was hale and healthy prior to the accident and he was aged about 58 years, working as an agriculturist and he personally cultivating the said lands and getting income of Rs.30,000/- per month by way of raising commercial crops in their agricultural fields and the same was contributing for the welfare of the entire family and that now the petitioners are leading miserable life since there is no earning member of the family and hence, all the respondents are jointly and severally liable to pay the compensation to the petitioners.

4. The respondents 1 and 2 being the owner and driver of the offending vehicle, remained exparte. The respondent No.3 being the insurance company 3

Dt :08.04.2025

MVOP No.336 of 2021 (death) filed its written statement by denying the material averments of the claim petition and contended that the petitioners have to prove the age, income of the deceased and manner of the accident, that the person driving the vehicle has ‘no relation in force’ as on the date of accident to drive the vehicle, that the petitioner is not entitled to claim any interest on non-pecuniary damages as per the observations of the judgment of Hon’ble Apex Court, that this respondent does not admits and denies the allegation that the vehicle bearing No.AP39-

DU-0202 was involved in the alleged accident and it was driven in a rash and negligent manner and the petitioners put to strict proof of the same, that this respondent does not admits and denies that the G.R.Palli police registered a case in Cr.No.29/2020 under Sec.174 Cr.P.C. against the rider of the vehicle, hence the petitioner put to strict proof of the same with documentary evidence, that the rider of the offending vehicle was not holding valid and effective driving license at the time of accident and was not qualified for holding or obtaining such driving license and further has not satisfied the requirements of Rule No.3 of the Central Motor Vehicles Rules, 1989, hence replying opponent is not liable to pay claim, that if the applicant had a personal accident policy/coverage in the policy issued under which there exists a liability for the insurer, who issued the policy, the said amount be reduced from the MACT liability in case the tribunal awards against this replying respondent, and that the alleged accident took place due to the sole negligence of the pillion rider/deceased of motorcycle who sat on bike negligently without wearing helmet and caused the accident, as such it is very clear that respondent No.1 vehicle was not involved in the accident and hence this petition is liable to be dismissed and hence, prayed the Court to dismiss the petition against this respondent.

5. The respondent No.3 being the insurance company filed its additional written statement by denying the material averments of the claim petition and contended that the petitioners filed the claim petition under section 166 of MV

Act, that according to the final report i.e., Ex.A.4 it is clearly mentioned that the alleged accident occurred due to hit by a pig to the motorcycle on which the deceased who was travelling as a pillion rider at the time of accident and later succumbed to injuries, that in view of the above facts police has rightly closed the case as action drop in this final report, and that it is clear that the alleged accident was not caused due to the negligent riding of the rider of the said 4

Dt :08.04.2025

MVOP No.336 of 2021 (death) motorcycle, and hence in the light of the same the present claim petition is not maintainable as there is no negligence on the part of the insured vehicle rider for the alleged accident and hence the claim petition is liable to be dismissed, as such the insurance company/respondent No.3 have no liability to pay any compensation.

6. From the above said pleadings of both parties, this Court has framed the following issues for trial :-

1. Whether the accident took place on 17.02.2020 at about 6.00 a.m., due to rash and negligent driving of the rider of motorcycle bearing No.AP39

DU 0202 i.e. 2nd respondent, resulting caused death of the deceased ?

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

3. To what relief ?

Additional issue:-

Whether the petition is maintainable under section 166 of Motor Vehicles

Act or not?

7. During the course of enquiry, on behalf of the petitioners, PWs.1 and 2 were examined and Exs.A.1 to A.6 got marked. On behalf of the contesting respondent No.3, RW.1 was examined and Ex.B.1 copy of Insurance policy got marked. The petition filed by 3rd respondent / insurance company under

Sec.170 of Motor Vehicle Act and the said petition was allowed on 20.11.2024.

8. Heard arguments on both sides and perused the entire record.

9. I SSUE No.1 and Additional issue:- 1. Whether the accident took place on 17.02.2020 at about 6.00 a.m., due to rash and negligent driving of the rider of motorcycle bearing No.AP39 DU 0202 i.e. 2 nd respondent, resulting caused death of the deceased ?

Additional Issue:- Whether the petition is maintainable under section 166 of

Motor Vehicles Act or not?

(i) As the issue No.1 and additional issue are interrelated to each other and hence, both the issues are taken up together for better understanding.

The learned counsel for the respondent No.3 argued that the claim petition is not maintainable under Sec.166 of Motor Vehicle Act, as no rash and 5

Dt :08.04.2025

MVOP No.336 of 2021 (death) negligence on the part of the insured vehicle rider for the alleged accident. In this regard, it is relevant to mention the provision of law under Sec.166 of

Motor Vehicle Act, as follows:

“Sec.166: Application for compensation: (1) An application for compensation arising out of an accident of the nature specified in sub- section (1) of section 165 may be made,

(a) by the person who has sustained the injury; or

(b) by the owner of the property; or

(c) where death has resulted from the accident, by all or any of the legal representatives of the deceased; or

(d) by any agent duly authorised by the person injured or all or any of the legal representatives of the deceased, as the case may be:

Provided that where all the legal representatives of the deceased have not joined in any such application for compensation, the application shall be made on behalf of or for the benefit of all the legal representatives of the deceased and the legal representatives who have not so joined, shall be impleaded as respondents to the application.

Provided further that where a person accepts compensation under section 164 in accordance with the procedure provided under section 149, his claims petition before the Claims Tribunal shall lapse.

(2) Every application under sub-section (1) shall be made, at the option of the claimant, either to the Claims Tribunal having jurisdiction over the area in which the accident occurred or to the Claims Tribunal within the local limits of whose jurisdiction the claimant resides or carries on business or within the local limits of whose jurisdiction the defendant resides, and shall be in such form and contain such particulars as may be prescribed:

(3) No application for compensation shall be entertained unless it is made within six months of the occurrence of the accident.

(4) The Claims Tribunal shall treat any report of accidents forwarded to it under section 159 as an application for compensation under this Act.

(5) Notwithstanding anything in this Act or any other law for the time being in force, the right of a person to claim compensation for injury in an accident shall, upon the death of the person injured, survive to his legal representatives, irrespective of whether the cause of death is relatable to or had any nexus with the injury or not.”

Section 166 of Motor Vehicles Act, allows the legal representative of a deceased person to file a claim petition for compensation in case of death or injury caused by a motor vehicle accident. To prove that the deceased died in a motor vehicle accident, the petitioner No.2 who is son of the deceased, himself examined as PW.1 and exhibited Ex.A.1 Attested copy of First 6

Dt :08.04.2025

MVOP No.336 of 2021 (death) Information Report, Ex.A.2 Attested copy of inquest report of deceased, Ex.A.3

Attested copy of Postmortem certificate of deceased, Ex.A.4 attested copy of final report. During the cross-examination, PW.1 admitted that the rider of motorcycle, his father who is pillion rider were not wore helmets. He denied the suggestion that the owner of the motorcycle given his motorcycle to the 2nd respondent on reward and that he violated the terms and conditions of the policy. He admitted that the criminal case was action dropped, as there is no accident occurred due to sudden cross of pig before the motorcycle and hit the motorcycle and hence, it is act of god, so that insurance company is not liable to pay any compensation and he further denied the suggestion that the deceased was not died due to the injuries sustained in the alleged accident on 17.2.2020, but he died in some other reasons. Except the above suggestion, nothing was elicited from the cross-examination of PW.1 that the rash and negligence is not upon the 2nd respondent in riding the offending motorcycle and caused the accident.

(ii) The petitioners also examined one Boreddygari Obul Reddy, who is rider of the offending motorcycle at the time of accident, deposed that on 17.2.2020 himself and Boreddygari Rama Chandra Reddy i.e. deceased herein taken the motorcycle of Chinna Narasimha Reddy bearing No.AP39 DU 0202 for the purpose of deceased own work, that the deceased is pillion rider and when they reached Busireddypalli cross, on that one pig came across the road and dashed his motorcycle, on that they fell down on the road and he received small injuries and the deceased fell on the culvert and received injuries on the head and other parts of body and that the deceased died while undergoing treatment at RIMS Hospital, Kadapa. As per Ex.A.4 Attested copy of Final report, wherein it is clear that the deceased was pillion rider of the motorcycle, was died in the motor vehicle accident and that there is no rash and negligent riding of the rider of motor vehicle i.e. 2nd respondent here. If a pillion rider dies in a motor vehicle accident, even without rash or negligent driving by the rider, a claim for compensation can be filed under Sec.166 of Motor Vehicles

Act, by the legal representative of the deceased. Therefore, the present petition filed under Sec.166 of Motor vehicle Act by the legal representatives of the deceased, is maintainable and therefore, the petitioners are entitled for compensation under Sec.166 of Motor Vehicle Act. Hence, the issue No.1 is answered in favour of the petitioners and against the respondent No.2.

7

Dt :08.04.2025

MVOP No.336 of 2021 (death)

10. ISSUE No.2:- Whether the petitioners are entitled for the compensation, if so, for what amount and from whom ?

(i) Who has to pay: It is observed earlier that the accident was occurred due to the act of the 2nd respondent in riding the motorcycle bearing No.AP39

DU 0202, resulting death of deceased in the said accident. The 1st respondent is the owner of the offending vehicle and the 3rd respondent is its insurance company with which the offending vehicle was insured. The learned counsel for the 3rd respondent argued that the rider of the offending motorcycle bearing

No.AP39 DU 0202 has no valid driving licence to rider the offending vehicle at the time of accident. To prove the driving licence of the 2nd respondent was in force at the time of accident, the respondent No.2 himself examined as PW.2 and through him, Ex.A.6 driving licence of 2nd respondent. On keen perusal of

Ex.A.6, it shows that B.Obula Reddy i.e. 2nd respondent herein has got valid driving licence i.e. Motorcycle with / without gear, light motor vehicle non- transport, since 18.6.2018. Therefore, it is clear that the 2nd respondent has got valid driving licence at the time of accident to ride the motorcycle and that the contention of the 3rd respondent that the 2nd respondent has no valid driving licence at the time of accident, has no legs to stand.

(ii) The learned counsel for the 3rd respondent further argued that the deceased was not come under the third party to the insurance policy. To prove the same, the respondent No.3 got examined its Manager by name

D.V.K.Prasad, as RW.1 and through him Ex.B.1 insurance policy got marked.

RW.1 in his cross-examination admitted that as on the date of accident, the insurance policy Ex.B.1 was on force and the deceased is a pillion rider and he is third party to Ex.B.1 insurance policy and the Ex.B.1 insurance policy covers the third party. From the above admission of RW.1, it is clear that the deceased come under the third party to the insurance policy and the Ex.B.1 insurance policy was valid as on the date of accident and also covers the third party insurance. Therefore, it is clear that there are no violations of terms and conditions of the insurance policy by the 1st respondent. From the above discussion, one can conclude that the respondent No.3 being the insurance company is liable to indemnify the liability of respondent No.1 (owner of the offending vehicle) since the insurance policy for the crime vehicle was in force by the time of the accident. Hence, the respondent No.3 being the insurance company is liable to pay the compensation to petitioners.

8

Dt :08.04.2025

MVOP No.336 of 2021 (death)

(iii) Age:- The counsel for the respondent No.3 argued that the petitioners have to prove the age of the deceased as on the date of accident.

As per claim petition, the age of the deceased shows as 58 years, whereas, on keen perusal of Ex.A.2 attested copy of inquest report and Ex.A.3 attested copy of postmortem certificate of deceased, reveals the age of deceased as 58 years as on the date of accident, as such, the age of the deceased is considered as 58 years as on the date of accident. Nothing was proved by the respondent No.2 counsel that the age of the deceased was more than 58 years at the time of accident, by way of adducing oral or documentary evidence.

Therefore, this tribunal considered the age of the deceased was 58 years at the time of accident.

(iv) Income:- As per the claim petition, the deceased was an agriculturist and personally cultivating the said lands and getting income of Rs.30,000/- per month by way of raising commercial crops in their agricultural fields and out of his earnings, he used to contribute to his family consisting of both the petitioners. To prove the same, the petitioner No.2 as PW.1 got filed Ex.A.5

Meeseva copy of 1-B namuna shows in the name of deceased along with xerox copy of Pattadar pass book of deceased. On keen perusal of Ex.A.5 1-B namuna and xerox copy of pattadar pass book, it shows that Boreddygari

Ramachandra Reddy i.e. deceased herein having agricultural lands to an extent of Ac.2.13 cents in survey No.63-2A, to an extent of Ac.0.0600 cents in survey No.206-3N2, to an extent of Ac.0.0500 cents in survey No.205-9, to an extent of Ac.0.350 cents in survey No.198-2N2 and to an extent of Ac.1.00 cents in survey No.196-2N2 at Ramireddypalli village, Vempalli mandal of

Kadapa District. From the above Ex.A.5, it is clear that the deceased was an agriculturist and doing cultivation for his livelihood. Ex.A.5 document filed by the petitioners are not disputing by the respondent No.3 and the respondent

No.3 did not prove the Ex.A.5 is false and fabricated one. In this regard, on keen perusal of Ex.A.1 attested copy of FIR and Ex.A.2 attested copy of

Inquest report, wherein it is clearly mentioned at threshold stage of the case that the deceased was doing cultivation for his livelihood. Nothing was proved by the 3rd respondent that the deceased was not doing any work and he was not an earning member, by placing any oral or documentary evidence.

Therefore, this tribunal can safely considered the occupation of the deceased 9

Dt :08.04.2025

MVOP No.336 of 2021 (death) was an agriculturist and considered the notional income of the deceased was at Rs.16,000/- per month, as he was having agricultural lands.

(v) As per the Sarala Verma’s Case reported in Civil Appeal

No.3483/2008, decided on 15.04.2009, the multiplier that could applied is “09” in between the age group of 56 to 60, as the age of the deceased was considered as ’58’ years as on the date of accident, as stated supra. The annual income of the deceased would comes to Rs.1,92,000/- (Rs.16,000/- x 12). After deducting 1/3rd of the income of the deceased (as dependency of the deceased are 2 in number) as per Sarla Verma case, is Rs.1,92,000/- / 3 =

Rs.64,000/- towards personal and living expenses of deceased and after such deduction, the annual income of the deceased would comes to Rs.1,28,000/-.

Rs.1,28,000/- X ‘9’ (Multiplier) as per Sarala Verma case = Rs.11,52,000/- towards loss of earnings of the deceased. The petitioner No.1 being the wife of deceased, her age was shown as 54 years in the cause title of claim petition and hence, this Tribunal awards Rs.40,000/- to the petitioner No.1 towards consortium, love and affection towards her husband and that the petitioner No.2 being the major son of the deceased is awarded an amount of

Rs.40,000/- towards love, affection and good support for his future.

(v) On the aspect of awarding compensation for funeral expenses, the

Hon’ble Apex Court held in Rajesh and others Vs. Rajbir Singh and others,

reported in 2013 (3) CTC 883, the Hon'ble Supreme Court observed as follows:

“We may also take judicial notice of the fact that the Tribunals have been quite frugal with regard to award of compensation under the head 'Funeral Expenses'. The 'Price Index', it is a fact has gone up in that regard also. The head 'Funeral Expenses' does not mean the fee paid in the crematorium or fee paid for the use of space in the cemetery. There are many other expenses in connection with funeral and, if the deceased is follower of any particular religion, there are several religious practices and conventions pursuant to death in a family. All those are quite expensive. Therefore, we are of the view that it will be just, fair and equitable, under the head of 'Funeral Expenses', in the absence of evidence to the contrary for higher expenses, to award at least an amount of Rs.25,000/-.”

From the above observation of the Hon'ble Apex Court, the funeral expenses of Rs.15,000/- awarded is enhanced to Rs.25,000/-. With respect to the observation of the Hon’ble Apex Court, this tribunal considered the funeral 10

Dt :08.04.2025

MVOP No.336 of 2021 (death) charges of the deceased is at Rs.25,000/-. Therefore, the petitioners are entitled for Rs.25,000/- towards funeral charges. Thus, the petitioners are entitled for compensation towards damages in detail as follows:

Towards loss of earnings Rs. 11,52,000-00

Towards consortium of wife (P.1) Rs. 40,000-00

Towards loss of love, affection and good supportRs. 40,000-00 of future of son of deceased. (P.2)

Towards funeral expenses Rs. 25,000-00 __________________

Total: Rs. 12,57,000-00

Therefore, this Tribunal awarded compensation in total to the petitioners 1 and 2 is at Rs.12,57,000/-, but the petitioners claiming total compensation of

Rs.12,50,000/- and hence, this Tribunal restricted the compensation of the petitioners, as per their claim is at Rs.12,50,000/- (Rupees twelve lakhs fifty thousand). As observed earlier, the 3rd respondent / insurance company is liable to pay the compensation to the petitioners. Hence, this issue is answered accordingly.

11. ISSUE No.3:- To what relief ?

In the result, the petition is allowed with costs, awarding compensation of

Rs.12,50,000/- (Rupees twelve lakhs fifty thousand) to the petitioners No.1 and 2 together with interest @ 7.5% p.a., from the date of petition till the date of deposit.

The respondent No.3 / Insurance company is directed to deposit the above said compensation amount along with interest and costs into court within two (2) months from the date of this order.

On such deposit, the petitioner No.1 being the wife of the deceased is entitled for Rs.10,50,000/- (Rupees ten lakhs fifty thousand) and costs; and the petitioner No.2 being the major son of the deceased is entitled for

Rs.2,00,000/- (Rupees two lakhs) and that both the petitioners No.1 and 2 are 11

Dt :08.04.2025

MVOP No.336 of 2021 (death) permitted to withdraw their respective shares of compensation amount along with interest thereon. Advocate fee is fixed at Rs.10,000/-.

Typed to my dictation by the Stenographer Gr-I, corrected and

pronounced by me in the open Court, this the 08th day of April, 2025.

Sd/- Shaik Inthiaz Ahamed.

CHAIRMAN,

Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal – Cum- Family Court- Cum- VI Addl. District Judge, Kadapa.

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

Witnesses examined for petitioners / claimants:-

P.W.1: B.Ram Mohan Reddy.

P.W.2: B.Obul Reddy.

Witnesses examined for Respondent No.3:-

Rw.1: D.V.K.Prasad, Manager of 3rd respondent company.

Exhibits marked for Petitioners / Claimants:

Ex.A.1: Attested copy of F.I.R. in Cr.No.29/2020 of G.R.Palli PS,

Ex.A.2: Attested copy of Inquest report.

Ex.A.3: Attested copy of postmortem certificate of deceased.

Ex.A.4: Attested copy of final report.

Ex.A.5: Meeseva copy of 1B Namuna shows the name of deceased along with xerox copy of pattadar passbook of the deceased.

Ex.A.6: Driving licence of the 2nd respondent.

Exhibits marked for Respondent No.3:-

Ex.B.1: Insurance Policy which covers the period from 14.01.2020 to 13.01.2025.

Sd/- Shaik Inthiaz Ahamed.

CHAIRMAN,

MACT -cum- VI ADJ, Kdp.

1

Dt : 10.04.2025

M.V.O.P. No.425 of 2023 (Death)

BEFORE THE MOTOR ACCIDENTS CLAIMS TRIBUNAL -CUM-

FAMILY COURT- CUM- VI ADDITIONAL DISTRICT JUDGE :: KADAPA.

Present: Sri Shaik Inthiaz Ahamed, Chairman, Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal -Cum-

Judge, Family Court- Cum- VI Additional District Judge, Kadapa.

Thursday, this the 10 th day of April, 2025.

M.V.O.P. No.425 of 2023

1. Maganuru Rajiyabi.

2. Maganuru Mafirina. (Minor)

3. Maganuru Nehareena (Minor)

4. Maganuru Mabjan Bee. (Minor)

The petitioners 2 to 4 are minors, represented by their next friend mother as natural guardian (1st petitioner).

5. Maganuru Raajamma.

6. Maganuru Nabi Rasool.

... Claimants / Petitioners.

- Versus -

1. Patakota Subhadra. (Owner of bus bearing No.AP39 UF 9292)

2. The National Insurance Company Limited, represented by its Divisional Manager, Ananthapuram city and District.

3. V.Saikumar Reddy. (Driver of APSRTC hired bus)

4. The A.P.S.R.T.C., represented by its Regional Manager, Kadapa.

... Respondents.

This claim petition coming on 02.4.2025 for final hearing before me in the presence of Sri M.Ramanjaneya Reddy, Counselfor the Claimants / petitioners, of Sri G.Narasimha Raju, Advocate for the respondent No.1, of Sri

K.Rama Kondaiah, Advocate for the respondent No.2 and of Sri V.Sreenivas,

Advocate for the respondent No.4 and the respondent No.3 remained exparte, having stood over for consideration till this day and this Court delivered the following:

O R D E R

The petitioner/claimant filed the petition under sec.166 of Motor Vehicle

Act, read with Rule.475 of Andhra Pradesh Motor Vehicles Rules, for the 2

Dt : 10.04.2025

M.V.O.P. No.425 of 2023 (Death) compensation of Rs.27,54,000/- for the death of deceased Maganuru Chinna

Nabi Rasool, S/o. Maganuru Nabi Rasool, against the respondents 1 to 4 jointly and severally along with interest till the date of realization of the amount and for costs of claim petition.

2. The petitioner No.1 being the wife, the petitioners 2 to 4 being the minor daughters and the petitioners 5 and 6 being the parents of the deceased and they are dependents and legal heirs of the deceased. The 1st respondent is the the owner of the offending vehicle i.e. APSRTC hire bus bearing

No.AP39 UF 9292, the 2nd respondent is the insurance company for the above said offending vehicle of 1st respondent, the 3rd respondent is the driver of the offending APSRTC hire bus at the time of accident and the 4th respondent is the APSRTC, represented by its Regional Manager, Kadapa.

3. The factual matrix of the case are that, the deceased Chinna Nabi

Rasool was aged about 42 years, as on the date of accident, was a mattress maker (bed maker), adopted his caste profession Dudekula and getting income per day was Rs.1,500/- and the same was contributing for the welfare of his family, that in order to attend tonsure function of third daughter of deceased, he left the Bangalore to his village on 09.5.2023, got down at Kadiri town, boarded 1st respondent bus bearing No.AP39 UF 9292, hired by respondent No.4 to

Pulivendula, at about 3.00 p.m., on the same day i.e. 09.5.2023 the bus was stopped at opposite to Priya Hotel in Maruthi Cinema Hall road, when the deceased was alighting from the bus, the driver of bus i.e. 3rd respondent without getting signal from the bus conductor, suddenly and negligently moved the bus, as a result of which the deceased fell down, the 3rd respondent though raised cries by the passengers of bus, further moved and due to which the deceased fell underneath of bus tyre and the bus went over the deceased and sustained fatal injuries, shifted to Government Hospital in 108 ambulance and while shifting the deceased to RIMS General Hospital, Kadapa on the way, in

Pulivendula town, the deceased succumbed to injuries, that on a complaint given by the 1st petitioner, the Pulivendula U/G P.S. registered the case in

Cr.No.208/2023 against the 3rd respondent under Sec.304-A of IPC and

Sec.134 (a) (b) r/w.187 of M.V. Act and that due to sudden death of deceased, the petitioners suffered a lot and so also lost their earning member and they 3

Dt : 10.04.2025

M.V.O.P. No.425 of 2023 (Death) are living in a miserable life and hence, all the respondents are jointly and severally liable to pay the compensation to the claimant.

4. The respondent No.1 / owner of the offending hired bus, filed his written statement by denying the material averments of the claim petition and contended that her bus was insured with the 2nd respondent and the same is valid as on the date of accident, that in fact, there was no negligence on the part of driver of this respondent’s bus bearing No.AP39 UF 9292, that she has not violated any terms and conditions of the policy and the 2nd respondent has indemnify this respondent for the losses if any raise out of the accident, that the accident occurred only due to negligent act of deceased and the petitioners are managed the police and registered crime against the driver of the bus i.e. 3rd respondent and that the amount claimed by the petitioners under different heads is excessive, exaggerate and exorbitant and hence, prayed the Court to dismiss the claim petition against his respondent.

5. The respondent No.2 / insurance company filed its written statement by denying the material averments of the claim petition and contended that the petitioners have to prove the age, income of the deceased and manner of the accident and submitted that the petitioners have to prove that the vehicle involved in the accident i.e. APSRTC hired bus was insured with this respondent and the same was in force as on the date of accident, that the petitioners have to prove that the driver of 1st respondent’s vehicle i.e. 3rd respondent had valid and effective driving licence at the time of accident to drive the said vehicle, subject to terms and conditions of the policy, that the 1st respondent has not paid any additional premium for hirer risk coverage, as the 1st respondent has not informed the same to this respondent and that the amount of compensation claimed by the petitioners is highly exorbitant and without any basis and the petitioners are not entitled to claim costs and interest, as they have not given any prior notice to the respondents before filing the claim petition and hence, prayed the Court to dismiss the petition against this respondent.

6. The respondent No.3 / driver of the offending bus, remained exparte.

The respondent No.4 / APSRTC filed its written statement and the averments of the written statement in brief are that the APSRTC is not the owner of the 4

Dt : 10.04.2025

M.V.O.P. No.425 of 2023 (Death) bus bearing No.AP39 UF 9292 that involved in the accident on 09.5.2023 at 3.00 p.m. and the driver who was responsible for the accident is not the servant of the APSRTC, that the 1st respondent is the master of the driver and the APSRTC has taken the bus from the 1st respondent for hire only on the basis of contract, that the 1st respondent entered into an agreement with

APSRTC incorporating several conditions therein, that as per the agreement clause No.8 (bb) (ee), the owner shall be held responsible for all claims that may arise due to the statutory violations out of the operations like claim due to accidents payable under the provision of M.V. rules, that the vehicle insurance policy certificate shall carry IMT 44 indemnify to hire package policy negligence of owner or hirer endorsement and the owner shall pay other taxes and levies payable as a consequence of operation of above vehicle to all authorities concerned and that the corporation shall not be responsible for any damage or loss caused to the vehicle hired during the period of agitation, accidents, etc.

and hence, prayed the Court to dismiss the petition against this respondent.

7. From the above said pleadings of both parties, this Court has framed the following issues for trial :-

1. Whether the accident took place on 09.5.2023 at about 3.00 p.m., due to rash and negligent driving of the driver of bus bearing No.AP39 UF 9292 i.e. 3rd respondent, resulting caused death of the deceased ?

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

3. To what relief ?

8. During the course of enquiry, on behalf of the petitioner, PWs.1 and 2 were examined and Exs.A.1 to A.4 got marked. On behalf of the contesting respondents, none were examined and Ex.B.1 and B.2 got marked with the consent of other side. The petition filed by 2nd respondent under Sec.170 of

M.V. Act and the said petition was allowed on 02.4.2025.

9. Heard arguments on both sides and perused the record.

10. I SSUE No.1:- Whether the accident took place on 09.5.2023 at about 3.00 p.m., due to rash and negligent driving of the driver of bus bearing

No.AP39 UF 9292 i.e. 3 rd respondent, resulting caused death of the deceased ?

5

Dt : 10.04.2025

M.V.O.P. No.425 of 2023 (Death)

(i) To prove the rash and negligence, the petitioner No.1 who is wife of the deceased, herself examined as PW.1 and exhibited Ex.A.1 Attested copy of

First Information Report in Cr.No.208/2023 of Pulivendula U/G P.S., Ex.A.2

Attested copy of Inquest report of deceased, Ex.A.3 Attested copy of

Postmortem certificate and Ex.A.4 Attested copy of charge sheet. P.W.1 reiterated the contents of petition averments in her chief examination affidavit.

During the cross-examination, PW.1 denied the suggestion that the deceased get down from the running bus and he met with an accident and that there is no negligence on the part of the driver of bus. Except the above said suggestions made by the respondents 1, 2 and 4 counsel, nothing was elicited from the cross-examination of PW.1 that the rash and negligence is not upon the 3rd respondent in driving the offending vehicle i.e. hired bus and caused the accident. The cross examination by the counsel for the respondents 1, 2 and 4 did not discredit the evidence of P.W.1. On keen perusal of Ex.A.1 Attested copy of First Information Report and Ex.A.4 Attested copy of charge sheet, which reveals that on 09.5.2023 the deceased Maaganuru Chinna Nabi Rasool boarded in APSRTC hired bus bearing No.AP39 UF 9292 came to Pulivendula, the accused being the driver of the above RTC hire bus, moved negligently without observing the passengers, then the deceased who is getting down from the bus, take a jolt and fell down under left tyre of the bus, sustained severe injuries and died while he was shifted to RIMS Hospital, Kadapa.

(ii) The petitioners also got examined one Maganuru Ali Peera, who is said to be eye witness to the accident, as PW.2. PW.2 filed his chief-affidavit by supporting the contents of petitioners. PW.2 in his cross-examination admitted that he has not given complaint to the police with regard to this accident and that he was not travelled in the bus at the time of accident along with the deceased. He denied the suggestion that the deceased get down from the running bus and that the alleged accident occurred. Except the above said suggestion, nothing was elicited in the cross-examination of PW.2 by the contesting respondents counsel that the rash and negligence is not upon the 3rd respondent in driving the offending vehicle i.e. APSRTC hire bus and caused the accident. As per Ex.A.4 charge sheet, PW.2 herein was shown as

LW.2 eye witness to the incident, in the memo of evidence column. On juxtaposition with the evidence of PWs.1 and 2 coupled with Exs.A.1 and A.4 6

Dt : 10.04.2025

M.V.O.P. No.425 of 2023 (Death) F.I.R. and charge sheet, one can safely conclude that the rash and negligence is upon the respondent No.3 in driving the offending vehicle i.e. APSRTC bus bearing No.AP39 UF 9292 in causing the accident, resulting death of deceased

Maganuru Chinna Nabi Rasool, S/o. Maganuru Nabi Rasool. Hence, the issue

No.1 is answered in favour of the petitioners and against the respondents.

11. ISSUE No.2:- Whether the petitioner is entitled for the compensation, if so, for what amount and from whom ?

(i) Who has to pay: With respect to the liability of the respondents to pay the compensation to the petitioner. Admittedly, the hire APSRTC bus given to

APSRTC i.e. 4th respondent which is hired by 1st respondent (owner) and driven by 3rd respondent and the said hired bus is insured with the 2nd respondent by the 1st respondent (owner). Ex.B.1 Attested copy of hired agreement dt.06.8.2022 marked with consent of other side. The Hon'ble

Supreme Court has held that Corporation had become owner of vehicle for the specific period and the vehicle had been insured at the instance of original owner it will be deemed that vehicle was transferred along with insurance policy and when the owner of the vehicle has not violated any terms and conditions of the policy the insurance company is liable to pay the compensation. The 2nd respondent/insurance company filed Ex.B.2 copy of insurance policy and the same was marked as Ex.B.2 with the consent of other side. From the above Ex.B.2 insurance policy, it is clear that the insurance policy was in force for the offending vehicle i.e. hire bus.

(ii) With regard to the driving licence of the 3rd respondent (driver of offending bus) was in force at the time of accident, the petitioners have not filed any documentary proof to that effect. At this juncture, on perusal of Ex.A.4 charge sheet filed by the police, there is no allegations or finding that the 3rd respondent does not have a driving licence to drive the crime vehicle at the time of accident. Therefore, it is clear that the 3rd respondent driver of the offending vehicle, had got valid driving licence at the time of accident.

Therefore, the 1st respondent who is owner of the offending vehicle has not violated the terms and conditions of Ex.B.2 insurance policy. However the respondent No.1 being the owner of respondent No.3 (driver) is vicariously liable to pay the compensation on behalf of the respondent No.3. From the 7

Dt : 10.04.2025

M.V.O.P. No.425 of 2023 (Death) above discussion, it is clear that the respondent No.2 being the insurance company is liable to indemnify the liability of respondent No.1 (owner of the offending vehicle), since the 1st respondent owner of offending vehicle, has not violated the terms and conditions of insurance policy. Hence, the respondent

No.2 being the insurance company is liable to pay compensation to the petitioners and the claim against respondent No.4 / APSRTC is dismissed.

(iii) Age:- The counsel for respondent No.2 argued that the petitioners have to prove the age of the deceased as on the date of accident. As per claim petition, the age of the deceased shows as 42 years, whereas, on keen perusal of Ex.A.2 attested copy of inquest report of deceased and Ex.A.3 attested copy of postmortem certificate, reveals the age of deceased as 42 years as on the date of accident, as such, the age of the deceased is considered as 42 years as on the date of accident. Nothing was proved by the respondent No.2 counsel that the age of the deceased was more than 42 years at the time of accident, by way of adducing oral or documentary evidence. Therefore, this tribunal considered the age of the deceased as 42 years at the time of accident.

(iv) Income:- As per the claim petition, the deceased was residing at

Bangalore and working as mattress maker, and his minimum income per day was at Rs.1,500/- per day and the said amount was contributing for the welfare of family of the petitioner. But no oral or documentary evidence placed by the petitioner to show that the deceased was doing mattress maker at Bangalore, thereby he earned Rs.1,500/- per day. At this juncture, on keen perusal of

Ex.A.1 F.I.R., it is clearly mentioned at threshold stage of the case that the deceased Maganuru Chinna Nabi Rasool was doing mattress maker for his livelihood. Nothing was proved by the 2nd respondent that the deceased was not doing any work and he was not an earning member, by placing any oral or documentary evidence. Therefore, this tribunal can safely considered the occupation of the deceased was doing mattress maker at Bangalore and considered as skill labour and assessed the notional income of the deceased was at Rs.15,000/- per month, as per the Hon’ble Apex Court held in Rajani vs. The Oriental Insurance Company Limited (delivered on September 5, 2022) wherein it is held that the Supreme Court has taken notional income of 8

Dt : 10.04.2025

M.V.O.P. No.425 of 2023 (Death) the Carpenter was Rs.15,000/- per month as the deceased was met with an accident on 3 rd May, 2015. Here in this case the deceased was doing mattress maker (skilled labour).

(v) As per the Sarala Verma’s Case reported in Civil Appeal

No.3483/2008, decided on 15.04.2009, the multiplier that could applied is “14” in between the age group of 41 to 45, as the age of the deceased was considered as ’42’ years as on the date of accident, as stated supra. The annual income of the deceased would comes to Rs.1,80,000/- (Rs.15,000/- x 12). After deducting 1/4th of the income of the deceased (as dependency of the deceased are 6 in number) as per Sarla Verma case, is Rs.1,80,000/- / 4 =

Rs.45,000/- towards personal and living expenses of deceased and after such deduction, the annual income of the deceased would comes to Rs.1,35,000/-.

Rs.1,35,000/- X ‘14’ (Multiplier) as per Sarala Verma case = Rs.18,90,000/- towards loss of earnings of the deceased. The petitioner No.1 being the wife of deceased, her age was shown as 25 years in the cause title of claim petition and hence, this Tribunal awards Rs.40,000/- to the petitioner No.1 towards consortium, love and affection towards her husband, that the petitioners 2 to 4 being the minor daughters of the deceased are awarded an amount of Rs.40,000/- each (in total Rs.1,20,000/-) towards love, affection, good support of their education and future and that the petitioners 5 and 6 being the parents of the deceased are awarded an amount of Rs.40,000/- each (in total Rs.80,000/-) towards love, affection and good support at their old age.

(vi) On the aspect of awarding compensation for funeral expenses, the

Hon’ble Apex Court held in Rajesh and others Vs. Rajbir Singh and others,

reported in 2013 (3) CTC 883, the Hon'ble Supreme Court observed as follows:

“We may also take judicial notice of the fact that the Tribunals have been quite frugal with regard to award of compensation under the head 'Funeral Expenses'. The 'Price Index', it is a fact has gone up in that regard also. The head 'Funeral Expenses' does not mean the fee paid in the crematorium or fee paid for the use of space in the cemetery. There are many other expenses in connection with funeral and, if the deceased is follower of any particular religion, there are several religious practices and conventions pursuant to death in a family. All those are quite expensive. Therefore, we are of the view that it will be just, fair and equitable, under the head of 'Funeral 9

Dt : 10.04.2025

M.V.O.P. No.425 of 2023 (Death) Expenses', in the absence of evidence to the contrary for higher expenses, to award at least an amount of Rs.25,000/-.”

From the above observation of the Hon'ble Apex Court, the funeral expenses of Rs.15,000/- awarded is enhanced to Rs.25,000/-. With respect to the observation of the Hon’ble Apex Court, this tribunal considered the funeral charges of the deceased is at Rs.25,000/-. Therefore, the petitioner is entitled for Rs.25,000/- towards funeral charges. Thus, the petitioner is entitled for compensation towards damages in detail as follows:

Towards loss of earnings Rs. 18,90,000-00

Towards loss of consortium of wife (P.1)Rs. 40,000-00

Towards loss of love, affection and good support Rs. 1,20,000-00 of their education and future (P.2 to P.4) (Rs.40,000/- x 3)

Towards loss of love, affection, mental agony and good support at their old age (P.5 and P.6) (Rs.40,000/- x 2) Rs. 80,000-00

Towards funeral expenses Rs. 25,000-00 __________________

Total: Rs. 21,55,000-00

Therefore, this Tribunal awarded total compensation to the petitioners are at Rs.21,55,000/- (Rupees twenty one lakhs fifty five thousand). As observed earlier, the 2nd respondent/ insurance company is liable to pay the compensation to the petitioners / claimants. Hence, this issue is answered accordingly.

12. ISSUE No.3:- To what relief ?

In the result, the petition is allowed in part with proportionate costs, awarding compensation of Rs.21,55,000/- (Rupees twenty one lakhs fifty five thousand) to the petitioners together with interest @ 7.5% p.a., from the date of petition till the date of deposit.

The respondent No.2 / Insurance company is directed to deposit the above said compensation amount along with interest and costs into court within 10

Dt : 10.04.2025

M.V.O.P. No.425 of 2023 (Death) two (2) months from the date of this order. The claim against the 4th respondent / A.P.S.R.T.C. is dismissed.

On such deposit, the petitioner No.1 being the wife of the deceased is entitled for Rs.8,55,000/- (Rupees Eight Lakhs Fifty Five thousand) and costs; and the petitioners No.5 and 6 being the parents of the deceased are entitled for Rs.50,000/- each (Rupees fifty thousand) and that the petitioners No.1, 5 and 6 are permitted to withdraw their respective amounts with accrued interest thereon.

The petitioners No.2 to 4 who are minor daughters of the deceased are entitled for Rs.4,00,000/- each (Rupees four lakhs) with accrued interest thereon and the same shall be kept in a Fixed Deposit in any Nationalized

Bank till the time of their attaining majority and the petitioners No.2 to 4 are at liberty to withdraw the said amount on their attaining majority with accrued interest thereon. Advocate fee is fixed at Rs.10,000/-.

Typed to my dictation by the Stenographer Gr-I, corrected and

pronounced by me in the open Court, this the 10th day of April, 2025.

Sd/- Shaik Inthiaz Ahamed.

CHAIRMAN,

Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal – Cum- Family Court- Cum- VI Addl. District Judge, Kadapa.

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

Witnesses examined for petitioners / claimants:-

P.W.1: Maganuru Rajiyabi.

P.W.2: Maganuru Ali Peera.

Witnesses examined for Respondents:- - Nil -

Exhibits marked for Petitioners/Claimants:

Ex.A.1: Attested copy of F.I.R. in Cr.No.208 of 2023 of Pulivendula U/G P.S..

Ex.A.2: Attested copy of Inquest report of the deceased.

Ex.A.3: Attested copy of postmortem certificate.

Ex.A.4: Attested copy of charge sheet.

11

Dt : 10.04.2025

M.V.O.P. No.425 of 2023 (Death) Exhibits marked for Respondents:-

Ex.B.1: Attested copy of hired agreement dt.06.8.2022.

(marked with consent of other side)

Ex.B.2: Copy of insurance policy (marked with consent of other side).

Sd/- Shaik Inthiaz Ahamed.

CHAIRMAN,

MACT -cum- VI ADJ, Kdp.

1

Dt :09.04.2025

MVOP No.147 of 2018 (injuries)

BEFORE THE MOTOR ACCIDENTS CLAIMS TRIBUNAL -CUM-

FAMILY COURT- CUM- VI ADDITIONAL DISTRICT JUDGE :: KADAPA.

Present: Sri Shaik Inthiaz Ahamed, Chairman, Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal -Cum-

Judge, Family Court- Cum- VI Additional District Judge, Kadapa.

Wednesday, this the 09 th day of April, 2025.

M.V.O.P. No.147 of 2018

Tappeta Babu.

... Claimant / Petitioner.

Versus.

1. Chittiboyana Chennaiah, (owner of the auto bearing No.AP04 TX 5428)

2. Shriram General Insurance Company Limited, Represented by its Manager, Kadapa city and district.

3. Bademala Venkata Ramana. (Driver of auto bearing No.AP04 TX 5428)

... Respondents.

This claim petition coming on 04.04.2025 for final hearing before me in the presence of Sri M.Sai Niranjan Babu, Counsel for the Claimant / petitioner and of Sri B.Sreenivasulu, Advocate for the respondent No.2 and the respondents No.1 and 3 remained exparte, having stood over for consideration till this day and this Court delivered the following:

O R D E R

This claim petition filed by the petitioner / claimant Under Sec.166 of

Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 and Rule.455 of Andhra Pradesh Motor Vehicle

Rules, 1989 r/w Act No.54 of 1994 claiming compensation of Rs.5,00,000/- against the respondents jointly and severally for the injuries sustained by him in a motor vehicle accident, together with interest and for costs of petition.

2. The factual matrix of the case are that, the petitioner / injured was aged about 32 years and he was hale and healthy prior to the date of accident and he was an agriculturist and also doing agricultural coolie works, that on 08.8.2017 morning the petitioner and his wife went to Kadapa in a motorcycle bearing No.AP04 AP 6129 and after completion of their work, they were returning to their village in the same motorcycle, that the petitioner was riding 2

Dt :09.04.2025

MVOP No.147 of 2018 (injuries) the motorcycle on the left side of the road and at about 12.30 p.m., when the motorcycle reached near Ulavala Vanka, Obulampalli to old Kadapa Gandi

Road of Kadapa city, then the 1st respondent’s auto bearing No.AP04 TX 5428 being driven by 3rd respondent in a rash and negligent manner with high speed, without blowing horn and dashed against the motorcycle of petitioner, as a result of which, the petitioner and his wife fell down on the pit and sustained serious injuries and the petitioner lost conscious, that immediately, the petitioner and his wife were shifted to RIMS Hospital, Kadapa and on a complaint of wife of petitioner, a case in Cr.No.461/2017 was registered by

Kadapa Traffic P.S. and after due investigation, the Kadapa Traffic police filed charge sheet against the driver of auto i.e. 3rd respondent, that in the said accident, the petitioner sustained fracture of 1/3rd of tibia and fibula of right leg and injury right ankle and other parts of body and immediately, he was shifted to RIMS Hospital, Kadapa and after giving first aid, he was admitted in M.M.

Hospital, Kadapa for better treatment, where the petitioner was undergone surgery and he was in the said hospital for 10 days as inpatient, that even after discharge, he was getting severe pain and again, he admitted in M.M. Hospital,

Kadapa and again the doctors conducted another surgery to fractured right leg and thereafter, he was also taken treatment under private Orthopedic surgeons at Kadapa and even inspite of taking better and expert treatment, the fractured right leg was not united properly, that prior to the date of accident, the petitioner was an agriculturist and also doing agricultural coolie works and in all he was earning Rs.12,000/- per month and the same was contributing his earnings for the maintenance of his family, that the family members also depending upon the earnings of the petitioner and after the accident, the petitioner is unable to stand on his right leg, unable to walk even to a small distance and the movements of his right leg became restricted and due to the disability, the family members of petitioner were also suffered a lot and the petitioner has to suffer with this disability throughout of his life and that the 1st respondent is the owner of the offending auto and the 2nd respondent is the insurer of the 1st respondent’s vehicle by indemnifying the losses caused in the accident, since the policy was also in force as on the date of accident covering the risk of third parties and the 3rd respondent is the driver of the auto belonging to the 1st respondent and hence, all the respondents are jointly and severally liable to pay the compensation to the petitioner.

3

Dt :09.04.2025

MVOP No.147 of 2018 (injuries)

3. The respondents 1 and 3 being the owner and driver of the offending

Auto, remained exparte. The respondent No.2 / insurance company filed its written statement by denying the material averments of the claim petition and contended that the petitioner has to prove the age, income, expenditure for his treatment and manner of the accident, that the policy was issued in the name of 1st respondent for the vehicle auto under passengers carrying commercial package policy and the same is valid, subject to terms and conditions of the policy, that the 3rd respondent who is driver of the auto bearing No.AP04 TX 5428 should possess valid and effective driving licence at the time of accident, that the registered owner used the vehicle without any breach of permit and traffic rules as per the M.V.Rules, that the petitioner has to prove that the offending vehicle possessed valid permit and fitness certificate at the time of accident, that the petitioner who is rider of the motorcycle bearing No.AP04 AP 6129 is not having licence to ride the motorcycle and due to lack of traffic sense ride the motorcycle in a rash and negligent manner and he himself dashed against the tractor and tractor and hence, there is a contributory negligence on the part of the rider of the motorcycle bearing No,.AP04 AP 6129 which was ridden by the petitioner, that the petitioner has not issued any notice

before filing of this claim petition and hence, he is not entitled for any costs and

interest and that the claim of the petitioner is highly excessive and hence, prayed the Court to dismiss the petition against this respondent.

4. From the above said pleadings of both parties, this Court has framed the following issues for trial :

1. Whether the accident occurred due to rash and negligent driving of the driver of auto bearing No.AP04 TX 5428 ?

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

3. To what relief ?

5. During the course of enquiry, the petitioner himself examined as P.W.1 and got marked Exs.A.6 and A.7, besides examining PW.2 on his behalf. On behalf of the respondent No.2, none were examined and Ex.B.1 Insurance policy got marked with the consent of other side.

4

Dt :09.04.2025

MVOP No.147 of 2018 (injuries)

6. Due to oversight, this tribunal has not marked the attested copies of

F.I.R. in Cr.No.461/2017 of Kadapa Traffic P.S., wound certificate, charge sheet, insurance policy and copy of Aadhar card of the petitioner as exhibits and directly marked Exs.A.6 and A.7. Now this tribunal marking the above said documents as Exs.A.1 to A.5. The petition filed by the 2nd respondent under

Sec.170 of M.V. Act vide I.A.No.200/2025 in MVOP No.147/2018 and the said petition was allowed on 04.4.2025.

7. Heard arguments on both sides and perused the record.

8. I SSUE No.1:- Whether the accident occurred due to rash and negligent driving of the driver of auto bearing No.AP04 TX 5428 ?

(i) To prove the rash and negligence on the part of the driver of the offending Auto bearing No.AP04 TX 5428, the petitioner himself got examined as PW.1 and exhibited Ex.A.1 Attested copy of F.I.R. in Cr.No.461/2017 of

Kadapa Traffic U/G P.S., Ex.A.2 Attested copy of wound certificate, Ex.A.3

Attested copy of charge sheet. The petitioner himself examined as PW1 by filing his chief-affidavit and the contents of it is nothing but replica of the claim petition averments. During the cross-examination, PW.1 admitted that his wife

T.Jyothi has preferred complaint to the police stating that the auto bearing

No.AP04 TX 5428 came in opposite direction and dashed her and her husband. PW.1 deposed that he has a driving licence at the time of accident, but he did not file the same before the Court. He denied the suggestion that due to his negligence the accident was occurred and that there is no negligent upon the driver of the auto. Except the above said suggestion, nothing was elicited in favour of the respondent No.2 that the rash and negligent is not upon the driver of the auto bearing No.AP04 TX 5428 i.e. 3rd respondent in causing the accident.

(ii) At this juncture, on keen perusal of Ex.A.1 attested copy of FIR and

Ex.A.3 attested copy of charge sheet, wherein it shows that the accused

Bademala Venkata Ramana, being the driver of auto bearing No.AP04 TX 5428 drove his vehicle in a rash and negligent manner with high speed and dashed the LW.1 / Thappeta Jyothi motorcycle, as a result of which LW.1 and

LW.4 / Thappeta Babu i.e. petitioner herein fell down on the pit and sustained severe injuries in the said accident and then the injured witnesses were shifted 5

Dt :09.04.2025

MVOP No.147 of 2018 (injuries) to RIMS Hospital, Kadapa and after first aid, they were shifted to M.M.

Hospital, Kadapa for better treatment. On juxtaposition with Ex.A.1 F.I.R. and

Ex.A.3 charge sheet coupled with the evidence of PW.1, one can say that the 3rd respondent herein who is the driver of the offending vehicle i.e. Auto bearing

No.AP04 TX 5428 drove the same in a rash and negligent manner with high speed and dashed the motorcycle of the petitioner, due to which the petitioner herein sustained severe injuries in the said accident. Hence, the issue No.1 is answered in favour of petitioner and against the respondents.

9. ISSUE No.2:- Whether the petitioner is entitled for compensation, if so, to what amount and from whom ?

(a) Who has to pay compensation:- It is observed earlier that the accident was occurred due to the rash and negligent act of the driver of the offending vehicle i.e. Auto bearing No.AP04 TX 5428 i.e. 3rd respondent, resulting the petitioner herein sustained severe injuries in the said accident.

The 1st respondent is the owner of the offending vehicle i.e. Auto and the 2nd respondent is the insurance company with which the offending vehicle was insured. Though the 2nd respondent contended that there is no negligence on the part of the driver of the offending vehicle i.e. 3rd respondent, the petitioner and others foisted a false case against the driver of offending vehicle for unlawful gain and further contended that the driver of the offending vehicle i.e.

Auto bearing No.AP04 TX 5428 not holding valid and effective driving licence at the time of accident, but no oral or documentary proof filed by its company to prove the above said contention. At this juncture, on perusal of Ex.A.3 charge sheet filed by the police, there is no allegations or finding that the 3rd respondent does not have a driving licence to drive the crime vehicle and there is no valid insurance policy for the offending vehicle at the time of accident.

Further more, the respondent No.2 filed Ex.B.1 insurance policy with the consent of other side. As per Ex.B.1, the insurance policy was in force for the offending vehicle i.e. Auto bearing No.AP04 TX 5428 as on the date of accident. Therefore, it is clear that the respondent No.1 who is owner of the offending tipper has not violated the terms and conditions of insurance policy at the time of accident. From the above discussion, one can conclude that the respondent No.2 being the insurance company is liable to indemnify the liability of respondent No.1 (owner of the offending vehicle) since the insurance policy 6

Dt :09.04.2025

MVOP No.147 of 2018 (injuries) for the crime vehicle was in force by the time of the accident. Hence, the 2nd respondent being the insurance company is liable to pay the compensation to the petitioner.

(b) Quantum: (i) The case of the petitioner is that, after the accident, he was shifted to RIMS Hospital, Kadapa and after first aid, he was shifted to

M.M. Hospital, Kadapa for better treatment, there the petitioner underwent surgery and he was in hospital for 10 days as inpatient and after discharge, the injuries were not healed and he was getting severe pain and again, he was admitted in M.M. Hospital, Kadapa and again the doctors conducted another surgery to the fractured right leg and so also he has taken treatment under private Orthopedic Surgeons at Kadapa. To prove the same, the petitioner as

PW.1 got filed Ex.A.2 attested copy of wound certificate, Ex.A.6 Medical disability certificate issued by Dr. Narendra Dev, M.S.Ortho and Ex.A.7 X-ray report. As per Ex.A.2 wound certificate, the petitioner sustained restricted movements of right lower limb, swellilng on right knee joint and after x-ray report, the Medical Officer opined that fracture at upper 1/3rd of tibia and fibula.

As per Ex.A.7 Medical Disability certificate issued by Dr. B.Narendra Dev, M.S.

Ortho, wherein it shows that the petitioner sustained the disability to an extent of 35% for fracture of tibia and fibula on right leg. The petitioner also examined

PW.2 Medical Officer who issued Ex.A.6 disability certificate to the petitioner.

(ii) PW.2 / Dr.Narendra Dev, Orthopedic doctor, deposed that on 24.10.2023 he examined T.Babu and issued disability certificate vide Ex.A.6 and on examination, he has got pain tenderness over right leg following a malunited fracture of tibia and fibula of his right leg, he find it difficult to attend his day to day work with this disability and the permanent disability of 35%.

During the cross-examination, PW.2 admitted that Ex.A.6 is not in prescribed format under Ministry of Social justice and Empowerment and that he has not mentioned in what type of method, he has used in assessing the Ex.A.6. he further admitted that there was no amputation of right leg of petitioner. He denied the suggestion that he issued Ex.A.6 disability certificate on false grounds to help the petitioner. From the above evidence of PW.2 coupled with documents i.e. Ex.A.2 wound certificate, Ex.A.6 disability certificate, the petitioner sustained injuries i.e. fracture at upper 1/3rd of tibia and fibula i.e.

right lower limb and that the petitioner was treated at M.M.Hospital, Kadapa 7

Dt :09.04.2025

MVOP No.147 of 2018 (injuries) and that he sustained disability to an extent of 35% for the fracture of right lower limb. As the petitioner has not filed any discharge summary which was issued by M.M. Hospital, Kadapa to show that he was treated for his injuries, but in Ex.A.3 charge sheet, wherein it is clearly mentioned that the petitioner taken treatment at M.M. Hospital, Kadapa.

(c) Pain and Suffering: Since the petitioner sustained fracture of tibia and fibula i.e. right lower limb in the accident as per the evidence of PW.2, due to which he cannot walk freely as mentioned in Ex.A.2 and Ex.A.6 disability certificate, he might have suffered lot of pain and sufferance and hence, this court awards Rs.30,000/- towards pain and sufferance.

(d) ATTENDANT CHARGES : Since the petitioner sustained fracture of right lower limb, as mentioned above, as mentioned above, he cannot walk freely without anybody support and it is difficult to attend his day to day work.

As per Ex.A.2 wound certificate and Ex.A.6 disability certificate, he cannot move without the assistance of somebody and somebody has to attend on his day to day needs and the petitioner has done two times surgery to his right leg at M.M. Hospital, Kadapa. Therefore, during the period of five months of his treatment and taken bed rest, this Court awarded an amount of Rs.25,000/- to the petitioner towards attendant charges. (Rs.5,000/- per month x 5 months).

(e) Transportation Charges:- As per the claim petition and Ex.A.3 charge sheet, the accident occurred near Ulavalapalli vanka, Obalampalli to old

Kadapa Gandhi road, Kadapa city and after the accident, the petitioner was shifted to RIMS Hospital, Kadapa and from there he was shifted to M.M.

Hospital, Kadapa, where he was treated for his right leg knee, for which he incurred Rs.10,000/- towards transportation charges, as he engaged ambulance, Though no bills are filed to that effect by the petitioner, the respondent No.2 did not adduce any oral or documentary evidence to deny the said fact. The distance between the place of accident i.e. Ulavalapalli vanka,

Obalampalli to old Kadapa Gandhi road, Kadapa city to RIMS Hospital,

Kadapa and from there to M.M. Hospital, Kadapa, is about 30 kms. Therefore, the petitioner is entitled for an amount of Rs.2,000/- towards transportation

Charges.

8

Dt :09.04.2025

MVOP No.147 of 2018 (injuries)

(f) Extra Nourishment of Food: The petitioner sustained fracture injury to his right lower limb, as per the Ex.A.2 wound certificate, he has to recoup his health and he is entitled for an amount of Rs.30,000/- towards Extra

Nourishment of food.

(g) DISABILITY: (Loss of earning capacity): (i) As per Ex.A.6 / Disability certificate issued by the Dr. Narendra Dev, Ortho Surgeon, in his private capacity, and the petitioner got examined the said doctor who issued Ex.A.6 as

PW.2. The respondent No.2 did not choose to prove the Ex.A.6 that it was false one by way of adducing oral or documentary evidence. Therefore, this

Tribunal considered the Ex.A.6 disability certificate of petitioner and assessed the disability to an extent of 30%, as issued by PW.2. As per the averments made in the petition and in the chief affidavit of the petitioner, the petitioner was an agriculturist, as he was having 2 acres of land on his own and he was personally cultivate his lands and he also doing agricultural coolie works and in all he earned Rs.12,000/- per month and maintaining himself and his family and thereby, he lost his only source of income. But no oral or documentary evidence placed by the petitioner to prove his profession and earnings. PW.1 in his cross-examination admitted that he did not file the document to show that he is having land and the same was cultivated by him and he adds that the said land is in the name of his mother. From the above admission of PW.1, it is clear that he has not filed any documentary proof to prove that he is an agriculturist and having lands in his name. In this regard, on keen perusal of

Ex.A.1 attested copy of FIR, wherein it is clearly mentioned at threshold stage of the case that the petitioner was doing coolie work for his livelihood. Nothing was proved by the respondent No.2 / insurance company to show that the petitioner was not doing any work and he is not an earning member by placing oral and documentary evidence. Therefore, this tribunal can safely considered the occupation of the petitioner as coolie and assessed the notional income of the deceased was at Rs.8,000/- per month.

(ii) Further, the age of petitioner is shown as ‘30’ years by the date of accident as per Ex.A.2 wound certificate, as such, the multiplier applicable to the age in between 26 to 30 years is ‘17’ (As per Sarla Varma case). Hence, the annual income of the petitioner is Rs.96,000/- (Rs.8,000/- x 12). The loss 9

Dt :09.04.2025

MVOP No.147 of 2018 (injuries) of dependency is Rs.96,000/- x ‘17’ (multiplier) = Rs.16,32,000/-. The loss of disability Rs.16,32,000/- x 30% (disability) = Rs.4,89,600/-. Therefore, the petitioner is awarded an amount of Rs.4,89,600/- towards loss of earnings, because of his permanent disability. Thus, the petitioner is entitled compensation towards damages in detail as follows:

Rs. 30,000-00 Pain and sufferance

Rs. 25,000-00 Attendant charges (Rs.5,000/- x 5 months)

Rs. 2,000-00 Transportation charges

Rs. 30,000-00 Extra Nourishment of food

Rs. 4,89,600-00 Disability at (30 %)

Rs.5,76,600-00 TOTAL

This Tribunal awarded compensation in total to the petitioner is at

Rs.5,76,600/-, but the petitioner / claimant claiming total compensation of

Rs.5,00,000/- and hence, this Tribunal restricted the compensation of the petitioner, as per his claim is at Rs.5,00,000/- (Rupees five lakhs). As observed earlier, the respondent No.2 being the insurance company is liable to pay the above said compensation to the petitioner / claimant with accrued interest thereon.

10. ISSUE No.3:- To what relief ?

In the result, the petition is allowed with costs, awarding compensation of

Rs.5,00,000/- (Rupees five lakhs) to the petitioner together with interest @ 7.5% per annum from the date of petition till the date of deposit.

The respondent No.2 / Insurance company is directed to deposit the above said compensation amount along with interest and costs into court within two (2) months from the date of this order.

On such deposit, the petitioner is permitted to withdraw the entire compensation amount along with interest thereon and costs. Advocate fee is fixed at Rs.7,000/-.

10

Dt :09.04.2025

MVOP No.147 of 2018 (injuries) Typed to my dictation by the Stenographer Gr-I, corrected and

pronounced by me in the open Court, this the 09th day of April, 2025.

Sd/- Shaik Inthiaz Ahamed.

CHAIRMAN,

Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal – Cum- Family Court- Cum- VI Addl. District Judge, Kadapa.

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

Witnesses examined for petitioner / claimant:-

P.W.1: Tappeta Babu.

P.W.2: Dr. Narendra Dev, Orthopedician.

Witnesses examined for Respondent No.2:- - Nil -

Exhibits marked for Petitioner/Claimant:

Ex.A1: Attested copy of F.I.R. in Cr.No.461 of 2017 of Kadapa Traffic P.S.

Ex.A2: Attested copy of Wound certificate.

Ex.A3: Attested copy of charge sheet.

Ex.A.4: Attested copy of insurance policy.

Ex.A.5: Copy of Aadhar card of the petitioner.

Ex.A.6: Medical Disability certificate issued by Dr. Narendra Dev, MS Ortho.

Ex.A.7: X-ray report.

Exhibits marked for Respondent No.2:-

Ex.B.1: True copy of insurance policy (marked with consent)

Sd/- Shaik Inthiaz Ahamed.

CHAIRMAN,

MACT -cum- VI ADJ, Kdp.

1

Dt : 04.11.2022

MVOP No.85 of 2020 (Death)

BEFORE THE MOTOR ACCIDENTS CLAIMS TRIBUNAL -CUM-

FAMILY COURT- CUM- V ADDITIONAL DISTRICT JUDGE : RAYACHOTY.

Present: Sri Shaik Inthiaz Ahamed, Chairperson, Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal -Cum-

Judge, Family Court- Cum- VI Additional District Judge, Kadapa.

FAC of V Additional District Judge, Rayachoty.

Friday, this the 04 th day of November, 2022.

M.V.O.P. No.85 of 2020

1. Shaik Jareena Banu.

2. Shaik Mohmmed Fizan.

3. Shaik Sumiya.

... Claimants / Petitioners.

- Versus -

1. Kambati Nagaraju. (Driver)

2. Sai Krishna Slabs Company, Represented by Kudumala Muni Bhaskar Reddy. (owner).

3. The Universal Sompo General Insurance Company Limited, Represented by its Branch Manager.

... Respondents.

This claim petition coming on 21.10.2022 for final hearing before me in the presence of Sri P.Vijaya Bharath Reddy, Counselfor the Claimants/ petitioners and of Sri D.Ramanjaneyulu, Counsel for the respondent No.3 and the respondents 1 and 2 remained exparte, and having stood over for consideration till this day, this Court delivered the following:

O R D E R

The petitioners/claimants filed the petition under section.164

AND 166 OF Motor Vehicle Act, 1989, for the compensation of

Rs.39,63,600/- for the death of deceased Shaik Mohammed Fayoum, S/o

Late Abdul Salam, against the respondents 1 to 3 jointly and severally for interest at the rate of 16% per annum till the date of realization of the amount and for costs of the claim petition.

2. The petitioner No.1 is the mother, the petitioners 2 and 3 are the brother and sister of the deceased. The 1st respondent is the driver of the lorry bearing No.AP39 V 1656, the 2nd respondent is the owner of the 2

Dt : 04.11.2022

MVOP No.85 of 2020 (Death) said lorry and the respondent No.3 is the insurance company for the said lorry with which the said vehicle was insured by the 2nd respondent.

3. The factual matrix of the case are that, on 21.3.2019 in the evening the deceased Shaik Mohammed Faizum proceeding as rider in TVS

Apache RTR BSII Motorcycle bearing No.AP04 BA 5683 from Rayachoty to

Piler for attend IZTIMA prayer at Piler Town, that when the motor cycle reached near Ponthala Cheruvu Cross Roads on Raychoty-Piler Road, the driver of the lorry drove the same in rash and negligent manner with high speed without proper due care and lost control over the vehicle and hit on the back side of TVS Apache motor cycle bearing No.AP-04-BA-5683, as a result of which, the deceased head was broken and also other parts of the body received serious injuries, that due to the above injuries the deceased was died on the spot and thus, the accident occurred due to rash and negligent driving of the driver of the lorry bearing No.AP-39-V-1656, that on the complaint of Shaik Kapatralla Zuber, lodged a complaint before the

Police and the same was registered as Cr.No.55 of 2019 Piler P.S. against the driver of the 1st respondent’s lorry, that the deceased was aged 22 years and was hale and healthy and well built body prior to accident and at that time of accident, the deceased is a sales man at Reliance Trends (Jr.

Associate appointed by Reliance SMSL Limited) and getting salary of

Rs.1,11,600/- per annum, and computer operator in Bismillah Driving

School at Rayachoty, earning Rs.7,800/- per month, that the petitioners are legal heir and dependants of the deceased, that the 1st petitioner’s husband died long back, the deceased studied up to degree and educated person in the family, and he was contributing his earning for the welfare of his family and that with earnings of the deceased the petitioners are leading happy and decent life and if the deceased will not met with the untimely death, certainly he would get more earnings that was earning at the time of the accident and now the petitioners are leading miserable life 3

Dt : 04.11.2022

MVOP No.85 of 2020 (Death) and they have been suffering with untold pain and mental agony and all the hopes of the petitioners against the deceased are vanished and hence, all the respondents are jointly and severally liable to pay compensation to the petitioners.

4. The respondent 1 and 2 being the driver and owner of the offending vehicle, remained exparte. The 3rd respondent/insurance company filed its counter and denied the averments of the petition and contended that petitioners have to prove the age, income of the deceased and manner in which the accident occurred and contended that at the time of accident, the deceased and two pillion riders were proceeded in his motorcycle without following Traffic Rules and Regulations and without wearing helmet and without driving licence, he drove his motorcycle in a rash and negligent manner and caused the accident and hence, there is contributory negligence on the part of the deceased only, that as per the criminal records, one unknown vehicle caused the accident and the 2nd respondent by knowing all the facts and circumstances of the accident, he colluded with the petitioners by accepting to implicate his vehicle in the alleged accident and hence, this respondent is not liable to pay the compensation to the petitioners, that as per the terms and conditions of the policy, the driver of the vehicle should possess a valid and effective driving licence to drive the vehicle as well as the owner of the vehicle should possess a valid and effective R.C., F.C. and permit to run the vehicle on the road, failing which this respondent is not liable to indemnify the 2nd respondent and that the compensation claimed by the petitioners under various heads is excessive and exorbitant on all heads and hence, prayed the Court to dismiss the petition against this respondent.

6. From the above said pleadings, my learned predecessor-in- office has framed the following issues for trial :

1. Whether the deceased met with road accident occurred on 21.3.2019 4

Dt : 04.11.2022

MVOP No.85 of 2020 (Death) at about 7.30 p.m., at Ponthala Cheruvu Cross roads, Rayachoty –

Piler Road, due to rash and negligent driving of the driver of the lorry bearing No.AP39 V 1656 i.e. 1st respondent, belonged to 2nd respondent and insured with 3rd respondent, dashed the deceased and died on the spot, as contended by the claimants or not ?

2. Whether the claimants are entitled to compensation, if so, how much and from which of the respondents ? and

3. To what relief ?

7. During the course of enquiry, on behalf of the petitioner, she herself examined as PW.1 and Exs.A.1 to A.8 got marked, besides examining the PWs.2 to 4 and got marked Ex.C.1. On behalf of the contesting respondent No.3, none were examined and Ex.B.1 got marked with consent.

8. Heard oral arguments and perused the record.

9. I SSUE No.1 :- Whether the deceased met with road accident occurred on 21.3.2019 at about 7.30 p.m., at Ponthala Cheruvu

Cross roads, Rayachoty – Piler Road, due to rash and negligent driving of the driver of the lorry bearing No.AP39 V 1656 i.e. 1 st respondent, belonged to 2 nd respondent and insured with 3 rd respondent, dashed the deceased and died on the spot, as contended by the claimants or not ?

To prove the rash and negligence, the petitioner No.3 examined herself as PW.1, exhibited Ex.A.1 attested copy of First

Information Report in Cr.No.55/2019 of Piler P.S., Ex.A.2 attested copy of inquest report of the deceased, Ex.A.3 attested copy of postmortem certificate of the deceased, Ex.A.4 attested copy of M.V.I. report, Ex.A.5 attested copy of R.C., policy copy and driving licence, Ex.A.6 attested copy of charge sheet and Ex.A.7 attested copy of appointment of Junior

Associate in Reliance SMSL Limited (Reliance Trends) at Rayachoty. P.W.1 reiterated the petition in her chief examination affidavit. During the cross 5

Dt : 04.11.2022

MVOP No.85 of 2020 (Death) examination, PW.1 admitted that as on the date of accident, her deceased brother along with two others were proceeding on the bike and they have mentioned in F.I.R., one unknown vehicle hit bike of her deceased brother as on the date of alleged accident. She denied the suggestion that some unknown vehicle hit and run away and later, herself colluded with the 2nd respondent and police, foisted a false case against the 1st respondent with an intention to get compensation. Nothing was disproved from the cross- examination of PW.1 in favour of the contesting respondent No.3 that the rash and negligent is not upon the 1st respondent in causing the accident.

On keen perusal of Ex.A.1 attested copy of First Information

Report and Ex.A.6 attested copy of charge sheet, it reveals that the accused/respondent No.1 herein drove the crime vehicle i.e. lorry bearing

No.AP39 V 1656 in a rash and negligent manner and dashed on the back side of TVS Apache motorcycle bearing No.AP04 BA 5683, as a result of which, the deceased herein and another deceased Patan Mastan Ali Khan who is pillion rider fell down on the road and sustained severe head injury and died on the spot.

10. The petitioners also examined one Shaik Kapatralla Zuber, as PW.4 who is eye witness for the incident, clearly testified that the accident was occurred on 21.3.2019 the deceased, Patan Mastan Vali Khan along with him were going on motorcycle bearing No.AP04 BA 5683 near

Ponthala Cheruvu cross roads on Rayachoty – Piler road, the driver of the lorry drove the same in a rash and negligent manner with high speed and hit on the back side of their motorcycle, due to which the deceased herein and Patan Mastan Vali Khan died on the spot and he received bleeding injuries.

11. To know that the rash and negligence is upon the driver of the crime vehicle i.e., 1st respondent, on juxtaposition with Ex.A.1 First

Information Report and Ex.A.6 charge-sheet coupled with the evidence of 6

Dt : 04.11.2022

MVOP No.85 of 2020 (Death) PWs.1 and 4, one can say that the 1st respondent who is the driver of lorry bearing No.AP39 V 1656 drove it in a rash and negligent manner and dashed on the back side of the motorcycle of the deceased.

12. The learned counsel for the respondent No.3 argued that there is a contributory negligence on the part of the deceased in riding his motorcycle. In view of the above discussion, this tribunal safely conclude that the rash and negligence is upon the respondent No.1 in causing the accident and hence, the question of contributory negligence on the part of the deceased Shaik Mohammed Fayoum, does not arise. Hence, the issue

No.1 is answered in favour of the petitioners and against the respondents.

13. ISSUE No.2:- Whether the claimants are entitled to compensation, if so, how much and from which of the respondents ?

Who has to pay:

The 1st respondent who is driver of the crime vehicle i.e. lorry bearing

No.AP39 V 1656, drove it in a rash and negligent manner and dashed on the back side of the motorcycle of the deceased, the 2nd respondent who is the owner of the said lorry and the 3rd respondent is its insurance company with which the vehicle was insured and the insurance policy (Ex.B.1) was in force as on the date of accident and it is not disproved by the contesting respondent No.3 by adducing oral and documentary evidence. The petitioners also filed Ex.A.5 attested copies of R.C., Policy copy and driving licence of the 1st respondent, to show that the 2nd respondent possessed valid R.C. and insurance policy and the 1st respondent is having valid driving licence to drove the offending vehicle on the date of accident.

However, the respondent No.3 being the insurance company is liable to indemnify the liability of respondent No.2 since the insurance policy (Ex.B.1) for the crime vehicle was in force by the time of death of the deceased. Hence, the respondent No.3 being the insurance company is 7

Dt : 04.11.2022

MVOP No.85 of 2020 (Death) liable to pay the compensation to the petitioners.

Age:- The counsel for respondent No.3 argued that the petitioner has to prove the age of the deceased as on the date of accident. As per the claim petition, the age of the deceased shown as 22 years, whereas, on keen perusal of Ex.A.2 attested copy of inquest report of deceased and

Ex.A.3 Postmortem certificate, reveals the age of deceased as 22 years, as such, the age of the deceased is considered as 22 years as on the date of accident. Nothing was disproved by the contesting respondent No.3 that the age of the deceased was not 22 years as on the date of accident by way of adducing oral or documentary evidence.

Income:- As per the claim petition, the deceased was a salesman at

Reliance Trends (Jr. Associate) at Rayachoty and also doing computer operator in Bismillah Driving School at Rayachoty and earning in total of

Rs.2,05,200 per annum. In order to prove the same, the petitioners have filed Ex.A.7 attested copy of appointment of Junior Associate in Reliance

SMSL Limited, Reliance Trends at Rayachoty and Ex.A.8 Form-11 issued by

Department Transport Commissioner, Kadapa as a licence No.02/2017.

The petitioners also examined on Shaik Mohammed Arshad who is owner of Bismillah Driving School, Rayachoty as PW.2. PW.2 stated that the deceased worked as sales man in Reliance Trends at Rayachoty from 11.00 a.m. to 8.00 p.m. and the deceased remaining time, he used to come to his driving school and the deceased worked as computer operator, for which he used to pay the deceased for Rs.300/- per day. PW.2 in his cross- examination stated that he has not filed any documentary proof to show that he used to pay Rs.300/- per day to the deceased towards his salary.

The petitioners also examined one M.Narendra, Department

Manager in Reliance Trends, Rayachoty as PW.3. PW.3 stated that the deceased has been working as salesman cum C.S.A., since the date of 8

Dt : 04.11.2022

MVOP No.85 of 2020 (Death) establishment of Reliance Trends at Rayachoty and he further stated that the deceased was worked as Salesman/C.S.A. for about two months and later, the deceased died in a road accident and that as per the offer letter, the deceased offered Rs.1,11,600/- per annum and as per payment slip of deceased February, 2019, he get Rs.9,300/- as a salary and in the month of

March, 2019, the deceased get Rs.8,700/- and the said salary slips are marked as Ex.C.1. The respondent No.3/ insurance company did not disprove the Exs.A.7, A.8 and Ex.C.1 coupled with the evidence of PWs.2 and 3 by way of adducing oral and documentary evidence. Hence, this court safely come to the conclusion that the income of the deceased is at

Rs.1,11,600/- per annum. As per the Sarala Varma’s case, the 50% has to be deducted towards personal living expenses of the deceased as he was a bachelor at the time of accident. So, the annual income of the deceased is

Rs.55,800/- (after deducting 50%). As the deceased was a self employed or fixed salary, an addition of 40% of established income should be warrant where the deceased was below the age of 40 years, as per the Five Judges

Bench judgment reported in National Insurance Company Limited Vs.

Pranay Sethi and others, dt. 31.10.2017 in Special Leave Petition (Civil)

No.25590/2014, i.e. Rs.55,800/- + Rs.22,320/- (40% of additional income) = Rs.78,120/-. As per the Sarala Verma’s Case reported in Civil Appeal

No.3483/2008, decided on 15.04.2009, the multiplier that could applied is “18” as the age of the deceased was considered as ’22’ years at the time of accident as per Exs.A.2 and A.3. Rs.78,120/- X 18 (Multiplier) as per

Sarala Verma case = Rs.14,06,160/- towards loss of earnings of the deceased. The petitioner No.1 who is mother of deceased is entitled for

Rs.40,000/- towards loss of mental agony and the petitioners 2 and 3 being the brother and sister of the deceased are awarded Rs.60,000/- (Rs.30,000/- each) towards love and affection, as the deceased died at the age of 22 years. The petitioners are also entitled for Rs.15,000/- towards 9

Dt : 04.11.2022

MVOP No.85 of 2020 (Death) funeral charges. Thus, the petitioners are entitled for compensation towards damages in detail as follows:

Towards loss of earnings Rs. 14,06,160-00

Towards Mental agony of 1st petitioner. Rs. 40,000-00

Towards Love and affection of petitioners 2 & 3 Rs. 60,000-00

Towards funeral expenses Rs. 15,000-00 __________________ Total: Rs. 15,21,160-00

Therefore, this Tribunal is awarded in total compensation of

Rs.15,21,160/- (Rupees fifteen lakhs twenty one thousand one hundred and sixty only) to the petitioners/ claimants. Hence, the respondents 1 to 3 are jointly and severally liable to pay the above said compensation to the petitioners.

13. ISSUE No.3:- To what relief ?

In the result, the petition is allowed in part, with proportionate costs, awarding compensation of Rs.15,21,160/- (Rupees fifteen lakhs twenty one thousand one hundred and sixty only) to the petitioners together with interest @ 7.5% p.a from the date of petition till the date of deposit.

The respondents 1 to 3 are jointly and severally liable to pay the above said compensation to the petitioners. The respondent No.3/ insurance company is directed to deposit the compensation amount of

Rs.15,21,160/- into court within two (2) months from the date of this order.

On such deposit, the petitioner No.1 being the mother of the deceased is entitled for an amount of Rs.13,21,160/- (Rupees thirteen lakhs twenty one thousand one hundred and sixty only) and permitted to withdraw the same with accrued interest and costs thereon.

The petitioners 2 and 3 being the brother and sister of the deceased are entitled for an amount of Rs.1,00,000/- each (Rupees one lakh only) and permitted to withdraw the same with accrued interest thereon. The 10

Dt : 04.11.2022

MVOP No.85 of 2020 (Death) office is directed to collect the Court fee before preparing decree.

Advocate fee is fixed at Rs.8,000/-.

Typed to my dictation by the Stenographer Gr-I, corrected and

pronounced by me in the open Court, this the 04th day of November, 2022.

Sd/- Shaik Inthiaz Ahamed.

CHAIRPERSON

Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal Cum- VI Addl. District Judge, Kadapa. FAC V Addl. District Judge, Racyachoty

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

Witnesses examined for petitioner / claimant:-

P.W.1: Shaik Sumiya.

P.W.2: Shaik Mohammed Arshad.

P.W.3: M.Narendra.

P.W.4: Shaik Kapatralla Zuber.

Witnesses examined for Respondent No.3:- - nil -

Exhibits marked for Petitioner/Claimant:

Ex.A.1: Attested copy of F.I.R. in Cr.No.55/2019 of Piler P.S.

Ex.A.2: Attested copy of Inquest report.

Ex.A.3: Attested copy of Postmortem certificate of the deceased.

Ex.A.4: Attested copy of M.V.I. Report.

Ex.A.5: Attested copy of R.C., Policy copy of Driving licence.

Ex.A.6: Attested copy of charge sheet.

Ex.A.7: Attested copy of appointment of Junior Associate in Reliance SMSL Limited, Reliance Trends at Rayachoty.

Ex.A.8: Form-11 issued by Department Transport Commissioner, Kadapa as a licence No.02/2017.

Ex.C.1: Pay slips.

Exhibits marked for Respondent No.3:-

Ex.B.1: Insurance policy. (marked with consent)

Sd/- Shaik Inthiaz Ahamed.

CHAIRPERSON,

MACT -cum- V ADJ, Rcty.

1

Dt : 04.11.2022

MVOP No.86 of 2020 (Death)

BEFORE THE MOTOR ACCIDENTS CLAIMS TRIBUNAL -CUM-

FAMILY COURT- CUM- V ADDITIONAL DISTRICT JUDGE : RAYACHOTY.

Present: Sri Shaik Inthiaz Ahamed, Chairperson, Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal -Cum-

Judge, Family Court- Cum- VI Additional District Judge, Kadapa.

FAC of V Additional District Judge, Rayachoty.

Friday, this the 04 th day of November, 2022.

M.V.O.P. No.86 of 2020

1. Phatan Sardar Vali Khan.

2. Shaik Khaderunnisa.

3. Phatan Darbar Vali Khan. ….Pettitioners/Claimants.

- Versus -

1. Kambati Nagaraju. (Driver)

2. Sai Krishna Slabs Company, Represented by Kudumala Muni Bhaskar Reddy. (owner).

3. The Universal Sompo General Insurance Company Limited, Represented by its Branch Manager. …. Respondents.

This claim petition coming on 21.10.2022 for final hearing before me in the presence of Sri P.Vijaya Bharath Reddy, Counselfor the Claimants/ petitioners and of Sri D.Ramanjaneyulu, Counsel for the respondent No.3 and the respondents 1 and 2 remained exparte, and having stood over for consideration till this day, this Court delivered the following:

O R D E R

The petitioners/claimants filed the petition under section.164

AND 166 OF Motor Vehicle Act, 1989, for the compensation of

Rs.33,58,800/- for the death of deceased Patan Masthan Vali Khan, S/o Late

P.Kadhar Vali Khan, against the respondents 1 to 3 jointly and severally for interest at the rate of 16% per annum till the date of realization of the amount and for costs of the claim petition.

2. The petitioners 1 and 3 are the brothers and the petitioner

No.2 is the sister of the deceased. The 1st respondent is the driver of the lorry bearing No.AP39 V 1656, the 2nd respondent is the owner of the said 2

Dt : 04.11.2022

MVOP No.86 of 2020 (Death) lorry and the respondent No.3 is the insurance company for the said lorry with which the said vehicle was insured by the 2nd respondent.

3. The factual matrix of the case are that, on 21.3.2019 in the evening the deceased Patan Masthan Vali Khan as pillion rider along with

Shaik Mohammed Faizum as rider, proceeding as rider in TVS Apache RTR

BSII Motorcycle bearing No.AP04 BA 5683 from Rayachoty to Piler for attend IZTIMA prayer at Piler Town, that when the motor cycle reached near Ponthala Cheruvu Cross Roads on Raychoty-Piler Road, the driver of the lorry drove the same in rash and negligent manner with high speed without proper due care and lost control over the vehicle and hit on the back side of TVS Apache motor cycle bearing No.AP-04-BA-5683, as a result of which, the deceased head was broken and also other parts of the body received serious injuries, that due to the above injuries the deceased was died on the spot and thus, the accident occurred due to rash and negligent driving of the driver of the lorry bearing No.AP-39-V-1656, that on the complaint of Shaik Kapatralla Zuber, lodged a complaint before the Police and the same was registered as Cr.No.55 of 2019 Piler P.S. against the driver of the 1st respondent’s lorry, that the deceased was aged 22 years and was hale and healthy and well built body prior to accident and at that time of accident, the deceased is a sales man at Reliance Trends (Jr.

Associate appointed by Reliance SMSL Limited) and getting salary of

Rs.1,11,600/- per annum and the deceased is also Private electrician at

Rayachoty and earning Rs.5,000/- per month, that the petitioners are legal heir and dependants of the deceased, that the petitioners parents diedlong back and the deceased studied up to degree and educated person in the family, and he was contributing his earning for the welfare of his family and that with earnings of the deceased the petitioners are leading happy and decent life and if the deceased will not met with the untimely death, certainly he would get more earnings that was earning at the time of the 3

Dt : 04.11.2022

MVOP No.86 of 2020 (Death) accident and now the petitioners are leading miserable life and they have been suffering with untold pain and mental agony and all the hopes of the petitioners against the deceased are vanished and hence, all the respondents are jointly and severally liable to pay compensation to the petitioners.

4. The respondent 1 and 2 being the driver and owner of the offending vehicle, remained exparte.

5. The 3rd respondent/insurance company filed its counter and denied the averments of the petition and contended that petitioners have to prove the age, income of the deceased and manner in which the accident occurred and contended that at the time of accident, the deceased, rider and another pillion rider were proceeded in his motorcycle without following Traffic Rules and Regulations and without wearing helmet and without driving licence, the rider of the motorcycle drove his motorcycle in a rash and negligent manner and caused the accident and hence, there is contributory negligence on the part of the deceased and rider of the motorcycle, that as per the criminal records, one unknown vehicle caused the accident and the 2nd respondent by knowing all the facts and circumstances of the accident, he colluded with the petitioners by accepting to implicate his vehicle in the alleged accident and hence, this respondent is not liable to pay the compensation to the petitioners, that as per the terms and conditions of the policy, the driver of the vehicle should possess a valid and effective driving licence to drive the vehicle as well as the owner of the vehicle should possess a valid and effective R.C.,

F.C. and permit to run the vehicle on the road, failing which this respondent is not liable to indemnify the 2nd respondent and that the compensation claimed by the petitioners under various heads is excessive and exorbitant on all heads and hence, prayed the Court to dismiss the petition against this respondent.

4

Dt : 04.11.2022

MVOP No.86 of 2020 (Death)

6. From the above said pleadings, my learned predecessor-in- office has framed the following issues for trial :

1. Whether the deceased met with road accident occurred on 21.3.2019 at about 7.30 p.m., at Ponthala Cheruvu Cross roads, Rayachoty –

Piler Road, due to rash and negligent driving of the driver of the lorry bearing No.AP39 V 1656 i.e. 1st respondent, belonged to 2nd respondent and insured with 3rd respondent, dashed the deceased and died on the spot, as contended by the claimants or not ?

2. Whether the claimants are entitled to compensation, if so, how much and from which of the respondents ? and

3. To what relief ?

7. During the course of enquiry, on behalf of the petitioner, she herself examined as PW.1 and Exs.A.1 to A.8 got marked, besides examining the PWs.2 and 3 and got marked Ex.C.1. On behalf of the contesting respondent No.3, none were examined and Ex.B.1 got marked with consent.

8. Heard oral arguments and perused the record.

9. I SSUE No.1 :- Whether the deceased met with road accident occurred on 21.3.2019 at about 7.30 p.m., at Ponthala Cheruvu

Cross roads, Rayachoty – Piler Road, due to rash and negligent driving of the driver of the lorry bearing No.AP39 V 1656 i.e. 1 st respondent, belonged to 2 nd respondent and insured with 3 rd respondent, dashed the deceased and died on the spot, as contended by the claimants or not ?

To prove the rash and negligence, the petitioner No.1 examined himself as PW.1, exhibited Ex.A.1 attested copy of First

Information Report in Cr.No.55/2019 of Piler P.S., Ex.A.2 attested copy of inquest report of the deceased, Ex.A.3 attested copy of postmortem certificate of the deceased, Ex.A.4 attested copy of M.V.I. report, Ex.A.5 attested copy of R.C., policy copy and driving licence and Ex.A.6 attested copy of charge sheet. P.W.1 reiterated the petition in his chief 5

Dt : 04.11.2022

MVOP No.86 of 2020 (Death) examination affidavit. During the cross examination, PW.1 admitted that as on the date of accident, his deceased brother along with two others were proceeding on the bike and they have mentioned in F.I.R., one unknown vehicle hit bike of his deceased brother as on the date of alleged accident. He denied the suggestion that some unknown vehicle hit and run away and later, himself colluded with the 2nd respondent and police, foisted a false case against the 1st respondent with an intention to get compensation. Nothing was disproved from the cross-examination of PW.1 in favour of the contesting respondent No.3 that the rash and negligent is not upon the 1st respondent in causing the accident.

1p. On keen perusal of Ex.A.1 attested copy of First

Information Report and Ex.A.6 attested copy of charge sheet, it reveals that the accused/respondent No.1 herein drove the crime vehicle i.e. lorry bearing No.AP39 V 1656 in a rash and negligent manner and dashed on the back side of TVS Apache motorcycle bearing No.AP04 BA 5683, as a result of which, the deceased herein and another deceased Shaik Mohammed

Faizum, who is rider of the motorcycle fell down on the road and sustained severe head injury and died on the spot.

11. The petitioners also examined one Shaik Kapatralla Zuber, as PW.3 who is eye witness for the incident, clearly testified that the accident was occurred on 21.3.2019 the deceased, Shaik Mohammed

Fayoum, along with him were going on motorcycle bearing No.AP04 BA 5683 near Ponthala Cheruvu cross roads on Rayachoty – Piler road, the driver of the lorry drove the same in a rash and negligent manner with high speed and hit on the back side of their motorcycle, due to which the deceased herein and Shaik Mohammed Fayoum died on the spot and he received bleeding injuries.

12. To know that the rash and negligence is upon the driver of the crime vehicle i.e., 1st respondent, on juxtaposition with Ex.A.1 First 6

Dt : 04.11.2022

MVOP No.86 of 2020 (Death) Information Report and Ex.A.6 charge-sheet coupled with the evidence of

PWs.1 and 3, one can say that the 1st respondent who is the driver of lorry bearing No.AP39 V 1656 drove it in a rash and negligent manner and dashed on the back side of the motorcycle of the deceased.

13. The learned counsel for the respondent No.3 argued that there is a contributory negligence on the part of the rider of the motorcycle by name Shaik Mohammed Fayoum in riding his motorcycle. In view of the above discussion, this tribunal safely conclude that the rash and negligence is upon the respondent No.1 in causing the accident and hence, the question of contributory negligence on the part of the rider of the motor by name Shaik Mohammed Fayoum, does not arise. Hence, the issue No.1 is answered in favour of the petitioners and against the respondents.

14. ISSUE No.2:- Whether the claimants are entitled to compensation, if so, how much and from which of the respondents ?

Who has to pay:

The 1st respondent who is driver of the crime vehicle i.e. lorry bearing

No.AP39 V 1656, drove it in a rash and negligent manner and dashed on the back side of the motorcycle of the deceased, the 2nd respondent who is the owner of the said lorry and the 3rd respondent is its insurance company with which the vehicle was insured and the insurance policy (Ex.B.1) was in force as on the date of accident and it is not disproved by the contesting respondent No.3 by adducing oral and documentary evidence. The petitioners also filed Ex.A.5 attested copies of R.C., Policy copy and driving licence of the 1st respondent, to show that the 2nd respondent possessed valid R.C. and insurance policy and the 1st respondent is having valid driving licence to drove the offending vehicle on the date of accident.

However, the respondent No.3 being the insurance company is liable to 7

Dt : 04.11.2022

MVOP No.86 of 2020 (Death) indemnify the liability of respondent No.2 since the insurance policy (Ex.B.1) for the crime vehicle was in force by the time of death of the deceased. Hence, the respondent No.3 being the insurance company is liable to pay the compensation to the petitioners.

Age:- The counsel for respondent No.3 argued that the petitioner has to prove the age of the deceased as on the date of accident. As per the claim petition, the age of the deceased shown as 22 years, whereas, on keen perusal of Ex.A.2 attested copy of inquest report of deceased and

Ex.A.3 Postmortem certificate, reveals the age of deceased as 22 years, as such, the age of the deceased is considered as 22 years as on the date of accident. Nothing was disproved by the contesting respondent No.3 that the age of the deceased was not 22 years as on the date of accident by way of adducing oral or documentary evidence.

Income:- As per the claim petition, the deceased was a salesman at

Reliance Trends (Jr. Associate) at Rayachoty and drawing salary of

Rs.1,11,600/- and also doing household electrician and getting salary of

Rs.5,000/- per month. In order to prove the same, the petitioners have filed Ex.A.7 attested copy of appointment of Junior Associate in Reliance

SMSL Limited, Reliance Trends at Rayachoty and Ex.A.8 Original electrical household training certificate issued by RHGBMSS. The petitioners also examined one M.Narendra, Department Manager in Reliance Trends,

Rayachoty as PW.2. PW.2 stated that the deceased has been working as salesman cum C.S.A., since the date of establishment of Reliance Trends at

Rayachoty and he further stated that the deceased was worked as

Salesman/C.S.A. for about two months and later, the deceased died in a road accident and that as per the offer letter, the deceased offered

Rs.1,11,600/- per annum and as per payment slip of deceased February, 2019, he get Rs.9,300/- as a salary and in the month of March, 2019, the deceased get Rs.8,700/- and the said salary slips are marked as Ex.C.1.

8

Dt : 04.11.2022

MVOP No.86 of 2020 (Death) The respondent No.3/ insurance company did not disprove the Exs.A.7 and

Ex.C.1 coupled with the evidence of PW.2 by way of adducing oral and documentary evidence. The petitioners failed to prove that the deceased is doing household electrician and getting salary of Rs.5,000/- per month, except filing of Ex.A.8. Hence, this court safely come to the conclusion that the income of the deceased is at Rs.1,11,600/- per annum. As per the

Sarala Varma’s case, the 50% has to be deducted towards personal living expenses of the deceased as he was a bachelor at the time of accident.

So, the annual income of the deceased is Rs.55,800/- (after deducting 50%). As the deceased was a self employed or fixed salary, an addition of 40% of established income should be warrant where the deceased was below the age of 40 years, as per the Five Judges Bench judgment reported in National Insurance Company Limited Vs. Pranay Sethi and others, dt.

31.10.2017 in Special Leave Petition (Civil) No.25590/2014, i.e.

Rs.55,800/- + Rs.22,320/- (40% of additional income) = Rs.78,120/-. As per the Sarala Verma’s Case reported in Civil Appeal No.3483/2008, decided on 15.04.2009, the multiplier that could applied is “18” as the age of the deceased was considered as ’22’ years at the time of accident as per Exs.A.2 and A.3. Rs.78,120/- X 18 (Multiplier) as per Sarala Verma case = Rs.14,06,160/- towards loss of earnings of the deceased. The petitioners 1 to 3 being the brothers and sister of the deceased are awarded Rs.90,000/- (Rs.30,000/- each) towards love and affection, as the deceased died at the age of 22 years. The petitioners are also entitled for

Rs.15,000/- towards funeral charges. Thus, the petitioners are entitled for compensation towards damages in detail as follows:

Towards loss of earnings Rs. 14,06,160-00

Towards Love and affection of petitioners. Rs. 90,000-00

Towards funeral expenses Rs. 15,000-00 __________________ Total: Rs. 15,11,160-00 9

Dt : 04.11.2022

MVOP No.86 of 2020 (Death) Therefore, this Tribunal is awarded in total compensation of

Rs.15,11,160/- (Rupees fifteen lakhs eleven thousand one hundred and sixty only) to the petitioners/ claimants. Hence, the respondents 1 to 3 are jointly and severally liable to pay the above said compensation to the petitioners.

15. ISSUE No.3:- To what relief ?

In the result, the petition is allowed in part, with proportionate costs, awarding compensation of Rs.15,11,160/- (Rupees fifteen lakhs eleven thousand one hundred and sixty only) to the petitioners together with interest @ 7.5% p.a from the date of petition till the date of deposit.

The respondents 1 to 3 are jointly and severally liable to pay the above said compensation to the petitioners. The respondent No.3/ insurance company is directed to deposit the compensation amount of

Rs.15,11,160/- into court within two (2) months from the date of this order.

On such deposit, the petitioner No.1 being the brother of the deceased is entitled for an amount of Rs.7,11,160/- (Rupees seven lakhs eleven thousand one hundred and sixty only) and permitted to withdraw the same with accrued interest and costs thereon.

The petitioners 2 and 3 being the elder brother and sister of the deceased are entitled for an amount of Rs.4,00,000/- each (Rupees four lakh only) and permitted to withdraw the same with accrued interest thereon. The office is directed to collect the Court fee before preparing decree. Advocate fee is fixed at Rs.8,000/-.

Typed to my dictation by the Stenographer Gr-I, corrected and

pronounced by me in the open Court, this the 04th day of November, 2022.

Sd/- Shaik Inthiaz Ahamed.

CHAIRPERSON

Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal Cum- VI Addl. District Judge, Kadapa. FAC V Addl. District Judge, Rayachoty 10

Dt : 04.11.2022

MVOP No.86 of 2020 (Death)

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

Witnesses examined for petitioner / claimant:-

P.W.1: Phatan Sardar Vali Khan.

P.W.2: M.Narendra.

P.W.3: Shaik Kapatralla Zuber.

Witnesses examined for Respondent No.3:- - nil -

Exhibits marked for Petitioner/Claimant:

Ex.A.1: Attested copy of F.I.R. in Cr.No.55/2019 of Piler P.S.

Ex.A.2: Attested copy of Inquest report.

Ex.A.3: Attested copy of Postmortem certificate of the deceased.

Ex.A.4: Attested copy of M.V.I. Report.

Ex.A.5: Attested copy of R.C., Policy copy of Driving licence.

Ex.A.6: Attested copy of charge sheet.

Ex.A.7: Attested copy of appointment of Junior Associate in Reliance SMSL Limited, Reliance Trends at Rayachoty.

Ex.A.8: Original Electrical Household Training Certificate issued by

RHGBMSS.

Ex.C.1: Pay slips.

Exhibits marked for Respondent No.3:-

Ex.B.1: Insurance policy. (marked with consent)

Sd/- Shaik Inthiaz Ahamed.

CHAIRPERSON,

MACT -cum- V ADJ, Rcty.