VII-ADJ, OGL MVOP No.204 of 2022 Page No.1/21
BEFORE THE MOTOR ACCIDENTS CLAIMS TRIBUNAL -CUM-
II ADDITIONAL DISTRICT JUDGE, PRAKASAM AT ONGOLE.
Present: Sri T.Raja Venkatadri, VII Additional District Judge, Ongole, FAC: Chairman,Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal- -cum- II Additional District Judge, Ongole, Prakasam District.
Thursday, this the Twelfth (12th) day of September, 2024.
M.V.O.P.No.204 of 2022
Between:
1. Shaik Sharifunnisa, wife of Ahmed Basha, aged 42 years,
2. Shaik Sharika, daughter of Ahemed Basha, aged 25 years,
Both are R/o.Plot No.314, Suraksha Apartment, Mangamur Road, Ongole, Prakasam District. … … Petitioners A N D
1. Shaik Masthan, son of Meera Saheb, aged 51 years, R/o.2nd Lane, Islampet, Ongole Town.
(Driver of the crime vehicle lorry bearing No.AP 16 TA 6489)
2. Kolla Venkanna, son of Venkata Subbaiah, age not known, R/o.D.No.37-1-169-41, Sundaraiah Bhavan Road, Ongole Town, Prakasam District.
(Owner of the crime vehicle lorry bearing No.AP 16 TA 6489)
3. National Insurance Company Limited., Rep. by its Divisional Manager, Vijaya Complex, Dharavarithota, Ongole Town, Prakasam District.
(Policy No.560900312110003696,
valid from 28.03.2022 to 27.03.2023) … ... Respondents
VII-ADJ, OGL MVOP No.204 of 2022 Page No.2/21
This petition came on 30.08.2024 for final hearing before this tribunal in the presence of Sri K.V.Rameswara Reddy, Advocate for the Petitioners, and of Sri Abburi Venkateswarlu, Advocate for
Respondent No.3 and that Respondent Nos.1 & 2 having remained exparte; and upon perusing the entire material available on record, and the matter having stood over for consideration till this day, and today this tribunal passed the following:
// A W A R D //
1.This claim petition is filed under Sec.166 of the Motor
Vehicles Act, 1988 read with Rule 455 of A.P. M.V. Rules claiming compensation of Rs.1,20,00,000/- for the death of the deceased Shaik
Ahmed Basha, aged about 54 years, resident of Mangamur Road, Ongole,
Prakasam District,in a motor vehicle accident.
2.The brief facts of the petition are as follows:
The deceased/ Shaik Ahmed Basha was working as Head
Constable, A.P. Police Department, Bapatla District and getting salary of
Rs.94,444/- per month and contributing the same for the welfare and well being of the petitioners. The 1st petitioner is the wife and petitioner
No.2 is the daughter of the deceased. The petitioners are the only legal heirs of the deceased.
While it is so, on 16.06.2022 at morning hours, after completing his night duty and as a part of his further duty of serving notices to the litigant public regarding to the Lok Adalath cases, the
VII-ADJ, OGL MVOP No.204 of 2022 Page No.3/21 deceased/ Shaik Ahmed Basha left the Medarametla Police Station and stood on the eastern side of the Road margin in opposite to the
Medarametla Police Station on NH 16 for boarding vehicle to go to
Timmanapalem Village and at about 6.20 a.m., the crime vehicle lorry bearing No. AP 16TA 6489 which was coming from Guntur side and to go to Ongole side being driven by the 1st respondent in a rash and negligent manner with high speed without blowing horn and dashed against the deceased, as a result of which, the deceased fell on the road and sustained fatal bleeding injuries to his head and all over the body.
Immediately after the accident the deceased was shifted to KIMS
Hospital, Ongole for treatment, but unfortunately the deceased succumbed to injuries while undergoing treatment in the hospital on the same day.
It is further averred in the petition that, the accident occurred due to rash and negligent driving of 1st respondent/driver of the lorry bearing No.AP 16 TA 6489and there is no fault on the part of the deceased.
Adverting to the above, a case in Cr.No.63 of 2022 of
Medarametla Police Station, Under Sec. 304-A of I.P.C, registered against the driver of the lorry bearing No. AP 16 TA 6489i.e., R1 in this case, and he was also charge sheeted by the investigating officer for the offences punishable under Section 304-A of the Indian Penal Code, 1860,
VII-ADJ, OGL MVOP No.204 of 2022 Page No.4/21 as the evidence collected established that the root cause for the accident was the rash and negligent driving of lorry bearing No.AP 16 TA 6489 by
R1. The 1st respondent is the driver, 2nd respondent is the owner, and the 3rd respondent is the insurer of the crime vehicl. Therefore, all are jointly and severally liable to pay compensation to the petitioners.
The petitioners further contended that, the deceased/Shaik
Ahmed Basha, was aged 54 years and he was hale and healthy by the time of accident and that he was working as Head Constable at A.P.
Police Department. Due to the sudden death of the deceased, the petitioners lost their bread winner and moral support. The petitioners suffered lot of mental agony and pain and they lost their dependency, love and affection of the deceased. At present there is no source of income except claiming compensation. Hence, the petitioners claiming
Rs.1,20,00,000/- as compensation through this petition.
3.After receipt of notices, respondent Nos.1 and 2 did not choose to appear before this Tribunal and remained ex parte.
4.R3-insurance company filed its written statement denying the material allegations in the petition in para-wise and also denying its liability claiming that, the petition is liable to be dismissed with costs. It is further contended that, the deceased was standing on the road and tried to stop the lorry by coming forward on the road all of a sudden,
VII-ADJ, OGL MVOP No.204 of 2022 Page No.5/21 thereby he himself contributed his negligence for the alleged accident and further he attended the night duty and was sleepy mood by the time of accident and that there is no negligence on the part of the driver of the lorry.
Further, the 1st respondent, who is the driver of the lorry was not holding valid driving license at the time of accident and the 2nd respondent being the owner of the crime vehicle, knowing fully well allowed the 1st respondent to drive the crime vehicle and thereby violated the terms and conditions of the policy and thus this respondent company need not indemnify the 2nd respondent to pay any compensation to the petitioners. There is no valid insurance policy to the crime lorry bearing No.AP 16 TA 6489 as on the date of accident.
It is further averred in the written statement that, the alleged accident is not reported by the insured in collusion with the petitioners with a view to cause loss to this respondent insurance company and as such the respondent insurance company is not liable to pay any compensation to the petitioners. Further, the compensation claimed is excessive, exorbitant and against the principles of natural justice and hence for all these reasons prayed to dismiss the petition.
5.On the basis of the above pleadings, the following issues were settled for trial:
1.Whether the accident was occurred due to the rash
VII-ADJ, OGL MVOP No.204 of 2022 Page No.6/21 and negligent driving of the driver of the lorry bearing No. AP 16 TA 6489?
2.Whether the petitioners are entitled for compensation of Rs.1,20,00,000/- from the respondent Nos.1 to 3 ?, If so, to what amount and from whom?
3.To what relief ?
6.To prove the case of the petitioners, 1st petitioner was examined as PW.1 and got marked Ex.A.1 to A.9 and further got examined PW.2 on their behalf. No oral evidence is adduced on behalf of respondent No.3, however Ex.B1/copy of policy marked with consent.
7.The respondent No.3 filed a petition under Sec.170 of
M.V.Act and it was allowed. Arguments were heard.
ISSUE Nos.1 & 2:
8.To prove the case of the petitioners, PW.1-Shaik
Sharifunnisa, first petitioner-wife of the deceased was examined.
9.PW.1 deposed and got marked Exs.A1 to A9 viz., Ex.A1 is the attested copy of F.I.R. Ex.A2 is the attested copy of inquest report,
Ex.A3 is the attested copy of postmortem certificate, Ex.A4 is the attested copy of MVI’s report, Ex.A5 is the attested copy of charge sheet in Cr.No.63 of 2022 of Medarametla Police Station, Ex.A6 is the attested copy of Registration Certificate of Crime lorry, Ex.A7 is the attested copy of the policy of the Crime lorry, Ex.A8 is the attested copy
VII-ADJ, OGL MVOP No.204 of 2022 Page No.7/21 of the driving license of the driver of the Crime lorry and Ex.A9 is the attested copy of the salary certificate of the deceased.
10. Undoubtedly, the contents of chief-examination affidavit of
PW.1 are nothing but replica of petition pleadings. As such, I do not want to reiterate the same again. PW.1 was cross-examined at length, but nothing worth mentioning could be elicited. The cross-examination of this witness is nothing but suggestions and all the suggestions posed to this witness were denied by her.
11.The evidence of PW.1 is crystal clear that, she is not an eye witness to the occurrence. As such, the petitioners got examined PW.2/
Gulimi Kondalu, who was working as constable in Medarametla P.S., at that point of time and said to be the eye witness to the accident. He deposed that, on 15.06.2022 he was deputed as night duty sentry in
Medarametla Police Station and on 16.06.2022 at morning hours, the deceased/Shaik Ahmed Basha left Medarametla P.S. and stood on the eastern side road margin opposite to the police station on NH16 for boarding the vehicle to go to Thimmanapalem Village in order to serve notices to the litigant public regarding Lok-Adalath at that time, himself and Home Guard/K.Raja Rao, were stood in front of police station, and at about 06-20 A.M., the crime vehicle lorry bearing No.AP 16 TA 6489 driven by 1st respondent while coming from Guntur side to go to Ongole,
VII-ADJ, OGL MVOP No.204 of 2022 Page No.8/21 drove the same in a rash and negligent manner and with high speed, without blowing horn and hit the deceased/Shaik Ahmed Basha, as a result, the deceased fell on the road and sustained fatal bleeding injuries to his head and all over the body. Immediately after the accident, the deceased was shifted to KIMS Hospital, Ongole in police vehicle for treatment and they also informed the same to their higher officials and so also to PW.1, but unfortunately while undergoing treatment, the deceased succumbed to injuries on the same day. He further categorically deposed that, the accident occurred due to the rash and negligent driving of lorry bearing No.AP 16 TA 6489 by 1st respondent and there is no negligence on the part of the deceased.
10.In his cross-examination PW.2 deposed that, at the time of accident, he was on the other side of the road and the deceased was on the opposite side of the road to him. He admitted that, since the place of accident is road margin and nearby NH-16 road, vehicles are plying frequently. He denied the suggestion that, he has not witnessed the accident personally and since the deceased made an attempt of stopping the crime vehicle lorry for his personal vehicle and due to his negligence only the accident occurred and there is no negligence on the part of the driver of the crime vehicle.
VII-ADJ, OGL MVOP No.204 of 2022 Page No.9/21
11.I have carefully scrutinized the evidence of PWs.1 & 2 coupled with the documents under Exs.A1 to A9. PWs.1 & 2 categorically deposed that, the deceased died on account of the injuries received in the accident. It is brought on record through PW.2 that the accident occurred due to rash and negligent driving of the driver of the lorry bearing No.AP 16 TA 6489. Thereby, I have not found any reason to disbelieve the evidence of PWs.1 & 2, since, their evidence is consistent and also supported by Ex.A1-F.I.R, Ex.A2-Inquest Report,
Ex.A3-Postmortem Certificate, Ex.A4-MVI’s report, Ex.A5- charge sheet in Cr.No.63 of 2022 of Medarametla Police Station, with regard to accident. The evidence of PWs.1 & 2 coupled with Exs.A1 to A5 clearly discloses that, police after thorough investigation has laid charge sheet against the driver of offending vehicle lorry alone and it is not at all the case of the respondents that the investigation done by police is not on proper lines. Under these circumstances, this Tribunal has no hesitation to hold that, the accident took place due to rash and negligent driving of the driver of the lorry bearing No.AP 16 TA 6489 i.e., R1 alone and he only caused the alleged accident and there is no negligence on the part of the deceased.
12.To determine the negligence of the driver of the offending vehicle, I am being guided by the judgment of Hon'ble High Court of
VII-ADJ, OGL MVOP No.204 of 2022 Page No.10/21
Madhya Pradesh in Basant Kaur & Ors Vs. Chattar Pal Singh and
Ors 1", wherein it has been held that, “Registration of a criminal case against the driver of the offending vehicle is enough to record the finding that the driver of offending vehicle is responsible for causing the accident.”
13.Further it has been held in catena of cases that the proceedings under the Motor Vehicles Act are not akin to the proceedings as in civil suit and hence strict rules of evidence are not required to be followed in this regard. I am also being guided by the judgment of Hon'ble High Court of Delhi in "National Company
Limited Vs. Pushpa Rana 2", wherein it was held that, “In case the petitioner files the certified copy of the criminal record or the criminal record showing the completion of the investigation by the police or the issuance of charge sheet under Section 279/ 304 -A IPC or the certified copy of the
FIR or in addition the recovery memo or the mechanical inspection report of the offending vehicle, these documents are sufficient proof to reach to the conclusion that the driver was negligent.”
14.It is also settled law that the term rashness and negligence has to be constructed lightly while making a decision on a petition for claim for the same as compared to the word rashness and negligence as 12003 ACJ 369 MP (DB) 22009 ACJ 287
VII-ADJ, OGL MVOP No.204 of 2022 Page No.11/21 finds mention inthe Indian Penal Code. This is because the chapter in the Motor Vehicle Act dealing with compensation is a benevolent legislation and not a penal one.
15.In another decision inK.Rajani and others v.
M.Satyanarayana Goud and another 3our Hon’ble High Court held as follows; “Unless it is shown that police investigation is false, we cannot reach to a definite conclusion. When there is reasonable doubt in a claim petition arising out of the motor accidents, the benefit of doubt should go to the claimants.
The possibility of the driver of the offending lorry stopping the offending vehicle at the place of the accident and looking at the scene and fleeing away from the place of accident also cannot be ruled out. Unless there is reliable evidence to show that the contents of the charge-sheet are false, on mere surmise, it cannot be said that the contents of the chare-sheet or the police investigation is false”.
16.It was also held by our Hon’ble High Court in Bodige
Padma &Ors. Vs. Makula Shanker &Ors., 4 that;
13. ……..“In cases of delay, the Courts are required to examine the evidence with a closer scrutiny and in doing so the contents of the FIR should also be scrutinized more carefully. If the court finds that there is no indication of fabrication or it has not been concocted or engineered to 32015(1) An.W.R.5 (A.P.) 42012 (3) L.S. 74
VII-ADJ, OGL MVOP No.204 of 2022 Page No.12/21 implicate innocent persons then, even if there is a delay in lodging the FIR, the claim case cannot be dismissed merely on that ground. The purpose of lodging the FIR in such type of cases is primarily to intimate the police to initiate investigation of criminal offences”.
17.In view of the dicta laid down by their lordships in the above referred decisions and after careful consideration of the evidence of
PWs.1 & 2 coupled with Exs.A1 to A5 and after carefully marshaling the facts and circumstances of the case and basing on my above discussion, without hesitation, I hold that, the driver of the offending vehicle i.e.,
R1drove the same in a rash and negligent manner with high speed and hit the deceased, who was standing on the road margin, resulting which the deceased fell down on the road and sustained fatal injuries and died while undergoing treatment in the hospital.
18.The 3rd respondent/insurance company had taken a plea that, the 1st respondent/driver of the offending vehicle lorry bearing
No.AP 16 TA 6489 did not possess valid driving license at the relevant time of accident. Undoubtedly, once the petitioner proved its case that, the 1st respondent was the driver of the crime vehicle at the relevant time of accident, the burden is shifted to the 3rd respondent and the 3rd respondent has to prove that 1st respondent has no valid driving license and thereby the owner of the lorry bearing No.AP 16 TA 6489 violated
VII-ADJ, OGL MVOP No.204 of 2022 Page No.13/21 the terms and conditions mentioned in policy. Once R3 Insurance company taken a plea that, there are violations to the policy, the burden is heavily lies on the R3/Insurance Company, but here in this case, the R3-Insurance Company did not take any steps to prove that the R1 did not possess valid driving license at the time of accident.
19.If really R1 did not possess any valid driving licence, the R3 insurance company ought to have taken steps in that regard i.e., by examining the RTO concerned and calling for the records from the RTO office or at least he ought to have examined the driver of the offending vehicle i.e., R1 to prove its case that, the R1 did not possess valid driving license to drive the offending vehicle tractor at the time of accident. But the R3-Insurance company did not take any steps or did not file any scrap of paper before this Court to prove its case that R1 did not possess valid driving license at the time of accident. Except taking a plea in the written statement/R3 insurance company failed to prove its case that the R1 did not possess valid driving license to drive that particular vehicle at the time of accident. Mere pleadings without there being any evidence is of no consequence. On the other hand the petitioners got exhibited the driving license extract of the 1st respondent/driver of the offending vehicle lorry as Ex.A8. A perusal of the same discloses that, the R1 was holding valid driving license for both transport and non-transport for light motor vehicle as well as
VII-ADJ, OGL MVOP No.204 of 2022 Page No.14/21 transport vehicle and the same was issued on 21.09.1993, valid till 12.10.2025. Thus, it is crystal clear that, R1 was holding valid driving licence as on the date of accident. The 3rd respondent miserably failed to prove its contentions and on the other hand the petitioners fairly proved their case that the 1st respondent was the driver of the crime vehicle at the relevant time of accident and that the accident occurred due to his negligence only.
20.After careful consideration of the evidence of PWs.1 & 2 coupled with Exs.A1 to A5 and after carefully marshaling the facts and circumstances of the case and basing on my above discussion, without hesitation, I hold that, the 1st respondent was the driver of the lorry bearing No.AP 16 TA 6489 and he driven the same in a rash and negligent manner, with high speed and hit the deceased who stood by the road side margin, as a result, the deceased fell on the road and sustained fatal injuries and died on the spot. Accordingly, issue No.1 is answered in favour of the petitioners and against the respondents.
Issue No.2:-
25.The petitioners claimed Rs.1,20,00,000/- for the death of the deceased/Shaik Ahmed Basha, claiming that, the deceased/Shaik
Ahmed Basha, was aged 54 years and he was hale and healthy by the
VII-ADJ, OGL MVOP No.204 of 2022 Page No.15/21 time of accident and that he was working as Head Constable, A.P. Police
Department, Bapatla District and getting salary of Rs.94,444/- per month and contributing the same for the welfare and well being of the petitioners. Due to the sudden death of the deceased, the petitioners lost their bread winner and moral support. The petitioners suffered lot of mental agony and pain and they lost their dependency, love and affection of the deceased. At present there is no source of income except claiming compensation. Hence, the petitioners claiming
Rs.1,20,00,000/- as compensation through this petition. In support of the above contentions the petitioners got exhibited Ex.A9/attested copy of salary certificate of the deceased/Shaik Ahmed Basha by summoning one G.Praveen Kumar, Junior Assistant/Typist f S.P. Office. A perusal of
Ex.A9/Salary Certificate discloses that, it was issued by the
Administrative Officer of District Police Office, Ongole, for the month of
May, 2022. Admittedly, the deceased met with accident on 16.06.2022.
The Ex.A9 further discloses that, the gross salary of the deceased is
Rs.94,444/- per month and after government deductions the deceased was getting Rs.89,784/- per month. On the other hand, except posing suggestions denying the authencity of the above said documents, the respondent No.3 did not choose to adduce any evidence to disprove the contents. In the above circumstances, after deducting profession tax of
Rs.200/- and GIS of Rs.60/- from the gross salary, the salary of the
VII-ADJ, OGL MVOP No.204 of 2022 Page No.16/21 deceased is taken at Rs.94,184/- towards salary for the purpose of calculating the loss suffered by the family of the deceased. Therefore, the annual income of the deceased comes to Rs.11,30,208/-. It is the contention of the petitioners, that the deceased was aged 54 years at the time of accident. However, to prove the age of the deceased, no document is filed by the petitioners. As seen from Exs.A1 to A5, accident records, the age of the deceased mentioned as 54 years.
Therefore, the age of the deceased taken in between 51-55 to apply correct multiplier. The appropriate multiplier applicable to the deceased as per the decision of Hon’ble Supreme Court in Sarala Verma's case is ‘11’. As per the decision of Hon’ble Supreme Court in National
Insurance Company Ltd., Vs. Pranay Sethi and Others 5wherein it was held that…
(iii) “While determining the income, and addition of 50% of actual salary to the income of the deceased towards future prospects, where the deceased has a permanent job and was below the age of 40 years, should be made. The addition should be 30%, if the age of the deceased was between 40 to 50 years. In case the deceased was between the age of 50 to 60 years, the addition should be 15%. Actual salary should be read as actual salary less tax.
(iv) In case the deceased was self-employed or on a fixed salary, an addition of 40% of the established income should be the warrant where the deceased was below the age of 40 years. An addition of 25% where the deceased 5(2017) 16 SCC 680
VII-ADJ, OGL MVOP No.204 of 2022 Page No.17/21 was between the age of 40 to 50 years and 10% where the deceased was between the age of 50 to 60 years should be regarded as the necessary method of computation. The established income means the income minus the tax component”.
27. Since the deceased was between the age of 50-60 years and working as Head Constable, there are chances of his further promotion and consequent increase in salary by way of periodical revision of the salary on the basis of cost of living index prevalent in the area if he would alive, therefore, the future prospects of 15% has to be added to arrive at his earnings i.e.,Rs.11,30,208/- x 15% =
Rs.1,69,531/- and then his actual earnings comes to Rs.12,99,739/- per annum (Rs.11,30,208/- + Rs.1,69,531/-). After deducting 10% tax, the net annual income comes to Rs.11,69,765/- (Rs.12,99,739/- (-) Rs.1,29,974/-). Since the deceased has got two dependants i.e., wife and daugther i.e., the petitioners herein, 1/3rd of his earnings be deducted towards his personal expenditure which comes to Rs.3,89,922/-. Then his family contribution comes to
Rs.7,79,843/- per annum (Rs.11,69,765/- (-) Rs.3,89,922/-).
After applying multiplier‘11’, the compensation payable is
Rs.7,79,843/- X 11 = Rs.85,78,273/-. Besides that, they are also entitled to Rs.15,000/- towards funeral expenses, Rs.15,000/-
towards loss of estate. The 1 st petitioner is entitled to
Rs.40,000/- towards loss of consortium being the spouse of the
VII-ADJ, OGL MVOP No.204 of 2022 Page No.18/21 deceased, who lost her husband in the accident. Thus, the total
compensation payable to the petitioners is Rs.86,48,273/-
payable by R3, though all the respondents are jointly and severally liable. Rest of the claim is dismissed. For better understanding the calculation part is extracted hereunder in detail:
Sl.HeadCalculation
1.Income of the deceased per month94,184.00
2.Income of the deceased per annum 11,30,208.00 94,184x 12 =
3.As the deceased was Govt. Employee, and1,69,531.0012,99,739.00 between the ages of 51-60, an addition of 15% of the established income should be the warrant.
4.Less 10% of Tax amount1,29,974.0011,69,765.00
4.Since the deceased died leaving his wife3,89,922.007,79,843.00 and daughter, whereby the dependents are 2 in number, hence, 1/3rd of his income has to be deducted towards his personal and living expenses. Thus, the reminder would be Rs.11,69,765/- x 1/3rd = 3,89,922/-.
5.Relevant multiplier for age group 51 to 55 85,78,273.00 is “11”. Thus, loss of dependency is Rs.7,79,843/- x 11 =
6.Funeral expenses15,000.00
7.Loss of consortium40,000.00
8.Loss of estate15,000.00 Total loss of earnings86,48,273.00
VII-ADJ, OGL MVOP No.204 of 2022 Page No.19/21
28.Therefore, the just compensation to be payable to the petitioners is arrived at Rs.86,48,273/-, which is rounded off to nearest thousand and is calculated at Rs.86,48,000/-.
29.In view of my findings on issue No.1, I hold that, R1 being the driver, R2 being the owner and R3 being insurance company of offending vehicle lorry bearing No.AP 16 TA 6489, are jointly and severally liable to pay compensation to the petitioners. However, R3 is liable to pay the same as per the terms of Ex.B1-Policy to reimburse the loss suffered by R1 towards third party risk. Accordingly, issue No.2 is answered in favour of the petitioners and against the respondents.
ISSUE No.3:
30.In the result, the petition is allowed partly with proportionate costs awarding compensation ofRs.86,48,000/- (Rupees Eighty six lakhs forty eight thousand only) with future interest at 7.5% per annum, from the date of petition till the date of realization payable by respondent Nos.1 to 3 jointly and severally. The respondent
No.3 being the insurance company is directed to deposit the compensation amount with costs and interest within two months from the date of this Award.
VII-ADJ, OGL MVOP No.204 of 2022 Page No.20/21
Out of the compensation awarded, the petitioner No.1 being the wife of the deceased, is entitled for compensation of
Rs.66,48,000/- and petitioner No.2 being major and unmarried daughter of the deceased is entitled for compensation of
Rs.20,00,000/-, towards loss of love and affection. On such deposit, the petitioner Nos.1 & 2 are permitted to withdraw the amount awarded above with costs and accrued interest.
The rest of the claim of petitioners is dismissed. The Fee of the Advocate is fixed at Rs.10,000/-.
Typed to my dictation by the Stenographer, corrected and
pronounced by me in open Court this the 12th day of September, 2024.
Sd/- T. Rajavenkatadri
VII Additional District Judge,Ongole. FAC : Chairman,Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal- -cum- II Additional District Judge,Ongole.
Appendix of Evidence Witnesses Examined
For the Petitioners:For the Respondents:
PW.1: Shaik Sharifunnisa- None - PW.2: Gulimi Kondalu
DOCUMENTS MARKED
For the Petitioners:
Ex.A1: Attested copy of F.I.R. in Crime No.63 of 2022 of Medarametla P.S.
Ex.A2: Attested copy of Inquest report
Ex.A3: Attested copy of Postmortem certificate
Ex.A4: Attested copy of MVI’s report
VII-ADJ, OGL MVOP No.204 of 2022 Page No.21/21
Ex.A5: Attested copy of Charge sheet in Cr.No.63/22 of Medarametla P.S.
Ex.A6: Attested copy of Registration Certificate of crime vehicle lorry
Ex.A7: Attested copy of policy schedule
Ex.A8: Attested copy of driving license of R1
Ex.A9: Attested copy of salary certificate of the deceased.
For the Respondents:
Ex.B1: Attested copy of policy and conditions.
Sd/- T. Rajavenkatadri
VII A.D.J, Ongole, FAC: Chairman,M.A.C.T-cum- -II A.D.J, Ongole.
VII-ADJ, OGL MVOP No.204 of 2022 Page No.1/3
BEFORE THE MOTOR ACCIDENTS CLAIMS TRIBUNAL -CUM-
II ADDITIONAL DISTRICT JUDGE, PRAKASAM AT ONGOLE.
Present: Sri T.Raja Venkatadri, VII Additional District Judge, Ongole, FAC: Chairman,Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal- -cum- II Additional District Judge, Ongole, Prakasam District.
Thursday, this the Twelfth (12th) day of September, 2024.
M.V.O.P.No.204 of 2022
Between:
1. Shaik Sharifunnisa, wife of Ahmed Basha, aged 42 years,
2. Shaik Sharika, daughter of Ahemed Basha, aged 25 years,
Both are R/o.Plot No.314, Suraksha Apartment, Mangamur Road, Ongole, Prakasam District. … … Petitioners A N D
1. Shaik Masthan, son of Meera Saheb, aged 51 years, R/o.2nd Lane, Islampet, Ongole Town.
(Driver of the crime vehicle lorry bearing No.AP 16 TA 6489)
2. Kolla Venkanna, son of Venkata Subbaiah, age not known, R/o.D.No.37-1-169-41, Sundaraiah Bhavan Road, Ongole Town, Prakasam District.
(Owner of the crime vehicle lorry bearing No.AP 16 TA 6489)
3. National Insurance Company Limited., Rep. by its Divisional Manager, Vijaya Complex, Dharavarithota, Ongole Town, Prakasam District.
(Policy No.560900312110003696,
valid from 28.03.2022 to 27.03.2023) … ... Respondents
This claim petition is filed under Sec.166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 read with Rule 455 of A.P. M.V. Rules claiming compensation of
VII-ADJ, OGL MVOP No.204 of 2022 Page No.1/3
Rs.1,20,00,000/- for the death of the deceased Shaik Ahmed Basha, aged about 54 years, resident of Mangamur Road, Ongole, Prakasam District,in a motor vehicle accident.
Court Fee:- The total claim amount of compensation is Rs.1,20,00,000/- on which a court fee of Rs.1,19,360/- is paid under Rule-475 of Motor Vehicles Rules. Claim Petition presented on :02.09.2022 Claim Petition registered on :05.09.2022
This petition came on 30.08.2024 for final hearing before this tribunal in the presence of Sri K.V.Rameswara Reddy, Advocate for the Petitioners, and of Sri Abburi Venkateswarlu, Advocate for Respondent No.3 and that Respondent Nos.1 & 2 having remained exparte; and upon perusing the entire material available on record, and the matter having stood over for consideration till this day, and today, this tribunal doth order and decree:- (1) That the petition be and the same is hereby allowed in part awarding compensation of Rs.86,48,000/- (Rupees Eighty Six Lakhs Forty Eight Thousand only) payable by respondent No.1 to 3 jointly and severally to the petitioners, and; (2) That respondent No.3/insurance company be and the same is hereby directed to deposit the above said awarded compensation amount of Rs.86,48,000/- (Rupees Eighty Six Lakhs Forty Eight thousand only) with costs and accrued interest thereon @ 7.5% per annum from the date of the petition till the date of realization, within two months from the date of this Award, and; (3) That out of the said compensation amount, the 1st petitioner being the wife of the deceased, is entitled for compensation of Rs.66,48,000/- (Rupees Sixty Six lakhs Forty Eight thousand only) and petitioner No.2 being major and unmarried daughter of the deceased is entitled for compensation of Rs.20,00,000/- (Rupees Twenty lakhs only) towards loss of love and affection, and; (4) That on such deposit of awarded amount by respondent No.3, the petitioner Nos.1 & 2 be are hereby permitted to withdraw
VII-ADJ, OGL MVOP No.204 of 2022 Page No.1/3 their respective shares of compensation amount awarded with costs and accrued interest as awarded above, and; (5) That the Respondent No.3 do also pay a sum of Rs. 96,442 /- (Rupees Ninety Six thousand Four hundred and Forty Two only) to the petitioners towards costs of this petition bearing their costs of Rs.Nil/- (No C.M & F.C filed by the respondents).
Given under my hand and seal of this Court, this the 12th day of September, 2024.
Sd/- T. Rajavenkatadri
VII A.D.J, Ongole, FAC: Chairman,M.A.C.T-cum- -II A.D.J, Ongole.
TABLE OF COSTS
For PetitionersFor R1 to R3
In RupeesIn Rupees Stamp on Vakalat2-00-Nil- Stamp on petition 85,840-00( CM & FC not filed) (Prop.) Stamp on process100-00 Advocate fee (awarded)10,000-00 Type & Writing charges500-00
Total 96,442-00
Sd/- T. Rajavenkatadri
VII A.D.J, Ongole, FAC: Chairman,M.A.C.T-cum- -II A.D.J, Ongole.
Note : The exhibited documents and non-exhibited documents which are filed have to beNote : The exhibited documents and non-exhibited documents which are filed have to be taken back by the parties concerned within stipulated time with an undertaking to pro--taken back by the parties concerned within stipulated time with an undertaking to pro duce the same as and when required by this Court.duce the same as and when required by this Court.
VII-ADJ, OGL MVOP No.204 of 2022 Page No.1/3 // True Copy \\// True Copy \\
Chairman,M.A.C.T-cum-VII A.D.J, Chairman,M.
Ongole.