T.Venkateswarlu, VII

1

IN THE COURT OF THE CHAIRMAN, MOTOR ACCIDENTS CLAIMS

TRIBUNAL

(BEFORE THE III ADDL. DISTRICT JUDGE, ANANTHAPURAMU)

Present:- Smt P.Kamala Devi, Chairman-cum-VIII Addl. District Judge, Ananthapuramu FAC III Addl. District Judge, Ananthapuramu

Monday, the 18th day of March, 2019

M.V.O.P. No.142/2017

Between :

… Petitioner Ballapuram Bhagyalakshmi

and

1.R.Sekhara

2.V.Satyanarayana Reddy *3The Oriental Insurance Company Limited, represented by its Divisional Manager, Ananthapuramu (*Amended as per orders passed in IA No.1006/2017, dt.16.11.2017) … Respondents.

This petition coming on 18.2.2019 for final hearing before me in the presence of Sri M.Ramu and Sri D.Raju, Advocates for the petitioner and of Sri P.Diwakarnath, Advocate for Respondent No.3 and the respondents No. 1 and 2 having been called absent and set exparte, this matter having stood over till this day for consideration, this Court delivered the following:-

O R D E R

This claim petition has been filed u/s 140 and 166 of M.V.

Act 1988 and Rule 455 of A.P. Motor Vehicles Rules, 1989 on behalf of injured petitioner with a prayer to pass an award in favour of petitioner and against respondents with joint and several liability for payment of

Rs.2,00,000/- for injuries sustained by her in the road accident occurred on 9.10.2016 at about 2.00 p.m. near Vadiyampeta Cross,

B.K.Samudram Mandal on Hyderabad–Bangalore NH-44 Road, together 2 with interest from the date of accident till the date of payment and for costs of the petition.

2.THE MATERIAL AVERMENTS OF THE CLAIM PETITION IN

BRIEF ARE AS FOLLOWS:-

The petitioner was aged about 35 years, hale and healthy and she was doing agriculture and fruit business at Burugu village,

Shadnagar Mandal, Mahaboob Nagar district and she is earning

Rs.20,000/- per month through her avocation. On 9.10.2016 the petitioner and her family members proceeding to Nallamada village from Burugu village, Shadnagar Mandal on their personal work in Ford

Car bearing No. AP11-AC-5391 slowly and cautiously in a careful manner. When they reached near Vadiyampeta Cross, B.K.Samudram

Mandal on Hyderabad – Bangalore NH-44 Road, at about 2.00 p.m., at that time the stationed crime lorry bearing No. AP29-TA-6537, which is stationed near Vadiyampeta Cross, suddenly moved rashly and negligently with high speed without observing the vehicle movement on the road and hit the petitioner’s car. As a result, the petitioner and other inmates received grievous injuries. The petitioner received grievous injuries i.e., 1) Crush injury on right thumb, 2) Blunt injury on mouth with lay of upper incisor and 3)Loss of 5 teeth in upper jaw and other injuries. Immediately, all the injured were shifted to Savera

Medical Centre, Ananthapuramu for treatment and she was admitted as inpatient and incurred Rs.30,000/- towards medical, attendant and other expenses. The accident is occurred only due to rash and negligent driving of driver of the crime lorry bearing No. AP29-TA-6537 i.e., the 1st respondent herein. The petitioner underwent surgery for 3 implantation of teeth under supervision of Dr. Venkat, Dentist,

Ananthapuramu and incurred heavy medical expenses.

3.In this connection, a case in Cr.No.145/2016 of

B.K.Samudram PS was registered u/s. 337 IPC against the driver of the

Gas lorry bearing No. AP29-TA-6537 i.e., 1st respondent herein. The 1st respondent is the driver of crime lorry bearing No. AP29-TA-6537, 2nd respondent is its owner and 3rd respondent is its insurer. Hence all the respondents are jointly and severally liable to pay the compensation of

Rs.2,00,000/- to the petitioner with future interest from the date of accident till the date of realization.

4.Third respondent filed counter denying most of the allegations mentioned in the petition and submitted as follows,

It denied the manner of the accident and submitted that the driver of Car bearing No. AP11-AC-5391 himself was negligent in driving the car without observing vehicular road and dashed against the lorry. The driver of the car has no valid driving license to drive the transport vehicle. Thus he negligently and rashly drove the car and contributed heavily for the accident. There is neither rashness nor negligence on the part of the 1st respondent, the driver of the lorry.

Hence the respondents 2 and 3 are not at all liable to pay compensation. The claim of compensation is too high. The petitioner has not produced any records that she underwent treatment in various hospitals. Hence her claim is baseless. The offending lorry had no valid permit and fitness certificate on the date of alleged accident. The driver of the lorry R1 did not possess valid and effective driving license 4 to drive the vehicle. Liability of the respondent is only in accordance with the terms and conditions of policy if there are no violations. The interest is liable to be reckoned from the date of award @ 6% p.a. The petition is bad for non-joinder of insurer and insured of the Car bearing

No. AP11-AC-5391 and its driver for causing the accident, in a rash and negligent manner, contributing heavily for the accident. Thus he prays to dismiss the petition.

5.Considering the above said pleadings the following issues are settled for trial.

1.Whether the petitioner B.Bhagyalakshmi received grievous injuries in a motor vehicle accident occurred near Vadiyampeta village on Bangalore – Hyderabad NH-44, B.K. Samudram Mandal, on 9.10.2016 at about 2.00 p.m. due to the rash and negligent act of the driver of Gas lorry bearing No. AP29-TA-6537 or not ?

2.Whether the petitioner is entitled to claim any compensation, If so, to what amount and from which of the respondents ?

3.To what relief?

6.During the course of trial, petitioner herself was examined as P.W.1 and she examined medical officer in Savera hospital,

Ananthapuramu as PW.2 besides marking Exs.A1 to A4 and Ex.X1. No witnesses are examined on behalf of contesting 3rd respondent. Ex.B1 policy was marked with consent.

7.Heard both sides and perused the record.

8.ISSUE No.1:-The case of petitioner in brief is as follows:- 5

On 9.10.2016 the petitioner and her family members were proceeding to Nallamada village from Burugu village, Shadnagar

Mandal on their personal work in Ford Car bearing No. AP11-AC-5391 slowly and cautiously in a careful manner. When they reached near

Vadiyampeta Cross, B.K.Samudram Mandal on Hyderabad – Bangalore

NH-44 Road, at about 2.00 p.m., the stationed crime lorry bearing No.

AP29-TA-6537, which is stationed near Vadiyampeta Cross, suddenly moved rashly and negligently with high speed without observing the vehicle movement on the road and hit their car. As a result, the petitioner and other inmates received grievous injuries. The petitioner received grievous injuries on her right thumb, Blunt injury on mouth with lay of upper incisor and Loss of 5 teeth in upper jaw and other injuries. Immediately, all the injured were shifted to Savera hospital,

Ananthapuramu for treatment. There she was admitted as inpatient and incurred Rs.30,000/- towards medical, attendant and other expenses. The accident is occurred only due to rash and negligent driving of driver of the crime lorry bearing No. AP29-TA-6537.

9.The case of contesting 3rd respondent is as follows:-

The driver of Car bearing No. AP11-AC-5391 himself was negligent in driving the car without observing vehicular road and dashed against the lorry. The driver of the car has no valid driving license to drive the transport vehicle. Thus he negligently and rashly drove the car and contributed heavily for the accident. There is neither rashness nor negligence on the part of the 1st respondent, the driver of the lorry. Hence the respondents 2 and 3 are not at all liable to pay compensation.

6

10.In order to prove the case of petitioner, she herself was examined as P.W.1 besides marking Exs.A1 to A4. PW.1 swore in her chief affidavit in the same lines of petition averments. Coming to cross-examination of PW.1, there is no cross-examination to her by the counsel for the contesting 3rd respondent denying or challenging the manner of the accident as mentioned in Exs.A1 to A3. No evidence is placed by the contesting 3rd respondent showing the manner of accident contrary to the oral evidence of PW.1 as well as the manner shown in Exs.A1 and A3. Thus it can safely be concluded that the manner of accident as spoken by PW.1 and as mentioned in Exs.A1 and

A3 can be safely relied upon. The evidence of PW.1 coupled with

Exs.A1 and A3, clearly shows that the petitioner received injuries in the motor vehicle accident occurred on 9.10.2016 at about 2.00 p.m. due to the the rash and negligent act of the driver of crime lorry bearing

No. AP29-TA-6537. Thus, I hold that the petitioner B.Bhagyalakshmi received grievous injuries in a motor vehicle accident occurred near

Vadiyampeta village on Bangalore – Hyderabad NH-44, B.K. Samudram

Mandal, on 9.10.2016 at about 2.00 p.m. due to the rash and negligent act of the driver of Gas lorry bearing No. AP29-TA-6537. Accordingly this issue is answered.

11.ISSUE No.2:- In view of the findings in issue No.1, the petitioner is entitled to compensation. Coming to the persons who are liable to pay compensation, there there is no dispute that the 1st respondent is the driver, the 2nd respondent is the owner and the 3rd respondent is the insurer of the crime vehicle. As no evidence is placed by the insurer/3rd respondent showing the violations of policy terms 7 and conditions, it can safely be concluded that Ex.B1 policy is in force as on the date of accident and there are no violations of terms and conditions as pleaded by the 3rd respondent. Hence I am of the view that the respondents 1 to 3 are jointly and severally liable to pay compensation to the petitioner.

12.Coming to quantum of compensation, it is the case of the petitioner that she suffered injuries as mentioned in Ex.A2 as well as she lost her 5 teeth in upper jaw and she incurred Rs.30,000/- towards expenses of medical attendant and others, thus she is entitled to claim compensation of Rs.2,00,000/- towards all heads.

13.The case of the contesting 3rd respondent is that the claim of compensation is excessive and baseless.

14.In order to prove the case of the petitioner, she herself examined as PW.1 and she also examined PW.2 Dr.M.Sreeramulu, who issued wound certificate and Ex.A4 medical bills. PW.1 swore in her chief affidavit in the same lines of petition averments. PW.2 deposed that injury No.1 in Ex.A2 is simple in nature and injury no.2 is grievous in nature and he filed Ex.X1 case sheet and he deposed that Ex.A4 bills are issued by their hospital to PW.1. There is no cross-examination to

PW.1 stating that there is no loss of 5 teeth in upper jaw. So it can safely be concluded that due to accident, PW.1 lost her 5 teeth in upper jaw apart from the injuries sustained in Ex.A2 wound certificate. Thus

I am of the view that it is just and proper to award compensation to a tune of Rs.60,000/- towards pain and suffering of injuries sustained in

Ex.A2 wound certificate as well as loss of 5 teeth. The petitioner is also entitled to claim medical expenses as shown in Ex.A4 as Ex.A4 8 document was duly proved. As such I am of the view that the petitioner is entitled to an amount of Rs.7,388/- towards medical expenses. The petitioner is also entitled to claim an amount of

Rs.2,612/- towards extra nourishment and future medical expenses if any. Thus, I am of the view that in total the petitioner is entitled to claim compensation of Rs.70,000/- from all the respondents with joint and several liability together with accrued interest thereon at the rate of 7.5% per annum from the date of petition till date of deposit.

Accordingly this issue is answered.

15.ISSUE No.3:- In view of findings on Issue Nos.1 and 2 as mentioned above, this petition shall be allowed partly with proportionate costs awarding compensation of Rs.70,000/- to the petitioner payable by all the respondents together with accrued interest there on at the rate of 7.5% per annum from the date of petition till date of deposit before the tribunal with joint and several liability. This petition in respect of rest of the claim of the petitioner shall be dismissed without costs. Respondents 1 to 3 are directed to deposit said compensation amount together with accrued interest thereon and costs of petition within 30 days from this day. On deposit of said compensation amount petitioner shall be entitled to withdraw the entire compensation amount at once along with accrued interest thereon and entire costs of petition payable to her.

16.In the result this claim petition is allowed partly with proportionate costs awarding compensation of Rs.70,000/- to the petitioner payable by the respondents 1 to 3 together with accrued interest there on at the rate of 7.5% per annum from the date of 9 petition till date of deposit before the tribunal with joint and several liability. This petition in respect of rest of the claim of the petitioner is dismissed without costs. Respondents 1 to 3 are directed to deposit said compensation amount together with accrued interest thereon and costs of petition within 30 days from this day. On deposit of said compensation amount petitioner is entitled to withdraw the entire compensation amount at once along with accrued interest thereon and entire costs of petition payable to her. Advocate fee is fixed at

Rs.1,000/-.

Dictated to the Stenographer and transcribed by him, corrected

and pronounced by me in open Court this the 18th day of March, 2019.

CHAIRMAN,

MOTOR ACCIDENTS CLAIMS TRIBUNAL,

(VIII ADDL. DISTRICT JUDGE),ANANTHAPURAMU.

FAC III ADDL. DIST & SESSIONS JUDGE,

ANANTHAPURAMU.

Appendix of evidence Witnesses examined for

PETITIONER RESPONDENTS

PW.1 : Ballapuram Bhagyalakshmi-None- PW.2 : Dr.M.Sreeramulu

EXHIBITS MARKED FOR PETITIONER

Ex.A.1 : Attested copy of FIR in Cr.No.145/2016 of Bukkarayasamudram Police Station. Ex.A.2 : Attested copy of wound certificate. Ex.A.3 : Attested copy of charge sheet. Ex.A.4 : Medical bills worth Rs.7,388/-.

EXHIBITS MARKED FOR RESPONDENTS

Ex.B.1: Certified copy of Insurance policy.

X-Series: Ex.X1: Case sheet. CHAIRMAN/III ADJ (FAC)

MOTOR ACCIDENTS CLAIMS TRIBUNAL.

1

IN THE COURT OF THE III ADDITIONAL SESSIONS JUDGE:: ANANTHAPURAMU.

(FAC) JUDGE, FAMILY COURT-CUM-VII ADDITIONAL DISTRICT & SESSIONS JUDGE,

ANANTHAURAMU.

Present: Sri Tirumala Venkateswarlu,

Judge, Family Court-cum-VII Additional District and Sessions Judge, (FAC)

III Additional Sessions Judge, Ananthapuramu. Ananthapuramu.

Tuesday, the 12th day of March, 2019

Crl.M.P.No.164/2019 in Cr.No.46/2018 of Nallacheruvu P.S.

Between:-

1. B.Bhaskar Reddy, S/o B.Krishna Reddy, 32 years, Agriculturist, Polevandlapalli Village, Nallacheruvu Mandal. (A1)

2. Y.Sreeramulu, S/o Y.Gangulappa, 42 years, Agriculturist, Bodinepalli Village, Nallacheruvu Mandal (A3)

3. B.Parvathamma, W/o B.Krishna Reddy, 59 years, Agriculturist, Bodinepalli Village, Nallacheruvu Mandal (A4)

4. Y.Ramanamma, W/o Y.Anjineyulu, 45 years, Agriculturist, Bodinepalli Village, Nallacheruvu Mandal (A5)

5. M.Parvathamma, W/o M.Uttanna, 53 years, Agriculturist, Bodinepalli Village, Nallacheruvu Mandal (A6) …. Petitioners/Accused No.1, 3 to 6.

And

State rep. by Station House Officer, Nallacheruvu Police Station … Respondent/Complainant.

The petition coming on this day for hearing before me in the presence of Sri P.Guru Prasad, Sri P.Sreedhar Reddy, Advocates for Petitioners/Accused Nos.1, 3 to 6 and Additional Public Prosecutor on behalf of the State and upon hearing both sides, this court passed the following:- // ORDER //

1.This is an application filed U/s 438 of Cr.P.C., seeking anticipatory bail.

Petitioners are A1, A3 to A6 in Cr.No.46/2018 of Nallacheruvu Police Station.

2.The allegation against the petitioners are that, in the month of July, 2017 they have renewed the crop loans with Andhra Pragathi Grameena Bank,

Nallacheruvu Branch. On enquiry by the Bank officials it was found that the petitioners tampered with the revenue record, showing the increased extents. When the Bank official approached the petitioners for recovery of the loan, they allegedly refused to repay the loan amount.

3.The learned counsel for the petitioners would argue that the revenue record produced by the petitioners are not the forged documents and infact those 2 documents were given to the petitioners after due enquiry by the revenue officials and hence there is no basis for the bank to lodge complaint. The learned counsel informed the court that the bank did not initiate any legal action to recover the amount but lodged a complaint falsely implicating the petitioners in this case.

4.The learned Addl. Public Prosecutor opposed the application alleging that it is a fraud on the bank and at this stage of the matter they are not entitled to bail.

5.I have perused the case diary. The allegation is that in the revenue records including Form-B these petitioners have shown more land fraudulently and neither they renewed the loans nor paid interest. From this allegation it is clear that these petitioners have some landed property and they have availed crop loan. Non- payment of the loans or failure on the part of the petitioners to get their loans renewed is not an offence. When the documents are not forged documents, as argued by the learned counsel for the petitioners, the said documents must have been issued by the revenue officials after due enquiry. In such even the said revenue officials are equally responsible for the offence. The record does not support the allegation of the alleged forgery attracting the provisions of 420, 468 and 471 IPC. Even otherwise these petitioners/accused have a permanent abode with properties and hence they need not be arrested. Accordingly, they are entitled to anticipatory bail as prayed for.

In the result, petition is allowed granting anticipatory bail to the petitioners/A1, A3 to A6 and in the event of arrest they shall be released on bail on their executing bonds for Rs.10,000/- each with two sureties in like sum to the satisfaction of Investigation Officer.

Dictated to Stenographer Gr.I, transcribed by her, corrected and pronounced

by me in the open Court, this the 12th day of March, 2019.

Judge, Family Court-Cum-

VII Addl. District & Sessions Court, (FAC) III Additional Sessions Judge, Ananthapuramu. Copy to:

The S.H.O., Nallcheruvu P.S.

1

IN THE COURT OF THE JUDGE, FAMILY COURT-CUM-ADDITIONAL DISTRICT &

SESSIONS JUDGE, ANANTAPURAMU.

PRESENT: Si. Tirumala Venkateswarulu,

Judge, Family Court-cum-Additonal District Judge, Anantapuramu.

Tuesday, this the 23rd day of June, 2020.

Crl.M.P.No.23/2020

Between:

1. Talari Anand @ Boya Anand, aged 47 years,

2. Talari Niranjan, aged 26 years

3. Talari vijaya Kumar @ Boya Vijay, aged 29 years,

4. Talari Chandra, aged 49 years,

5. Talari Vinod @ Talari Vinod Kumar, aged 20 years

6. Talari Nallayappa @ Talari Narasimhulu, age 68 years

7. Talari Narasappa @Boya Narasappa, age 54 years Petitioners/ A1 to A6 &A8

and

The State By S.H.O, Bathalapalli P.S.

Respondent/Complainant

This petition is coming this day for hearing before me in the presence of

Sri.L.Narasimha Reddy, Advocate for petitioners/ A1 to A6 & A8 and Additional

Public Prosecutor on behalf of the State and upon hearing both sides, this court passed the following:-

O R D E R

1.This application is filed under section 439 Cr.P.C., seeking bail.

2

2.Petitioners/A1 to A6 & A8 were remanded to judicial custody for the offences under sections 147, 148, 324, 307 and 302 r/w 149 IPC on 11-04- 2020.

3. It is alleged that in connection with rabbit hunting, a quarrel took place between A1 to A3 and the defacto complainant and his three sons and consequent to the said quarrel A1 to A3 laid thorns across the way and when the complainant questioned the accused, they all attacked the defacto complainant and his sons and in the said incident deceased (Talari Raja) sustained severe injuries and he succumbed to injuries on 08-04-2020 at 4-30

AM in Savera hospital, Anantapuramu.

4.The learned counsel for the petitioners would argue that the complainant party are the aggressors and the complainant and others committed murder of

Katamaiah in the very same incident and Cr.No.85/2020 was registered against the complainant and the others for the offences under sections. 147, 148, 324, 307 and 302 r/w 149 IPC of Batalapalli PS. The learned counsel would argue that the entire investigation is completed and the petitioners have been languishing in judicial custody since 11-04-2020. Hence they may be granted bail.

5.The learned Addl.Public prosecutor opposed the application on the ground that the investigation is not yet completed.

6.The case dairy discloses that by 08-04-2020 about 8 witnesses were examined and the accused were arrested and recorded the confession

3

statements of the accused also. Thus most of the investigation has been completed and the investigation officer need to secure the wound certificates, autopsy report and other FSL reports. As seen from the record, it is further clear that at the instance of the accused herein a case is registered against the complainant and others and it is alleged that the complainant and others murdered one Katamaiah. The case dairy further discloses that the quarrel took place on a petty issue of rabbit hunting between two parties. Both the sides informed the court that both the parties related each other. Hence in these circumstances, in view of the completion of investigation and in view of the fact that the petitioners are in jail since 11-04-2020, this court inclined to grant bail to them.

In the result, petition is allowed, enlarging the petitioners/A1 to A6 & A8 on bail on their executing the bonds of Rs.10,000/- with two sureties for like sum each to the satisfaction of the JFCM, Dharmavaram

Transcribed to my dictation by the Steno, corrected and pronounced by me in open court, this the 23rd day of June, 2020.

Judge, Family Court,

Anantapuramu.

Copy to :

The Judicial First Class Magistrate, Dharmavaram.

IN THE COURT OF THE JUDGE, FAMILY COURT-CUM-ADDITIONAL DISTRICT &

SESSIONS JUDGE, ANANTAPURAMU.

PRESENT: Si. Tirumala Venkateswarulu,

Judge, Family Court-cum-Additonal District Judge, Anantapuramu.

Tuesday, this the 23rd day of June, 2020.

Crl.M.P.No.22/2020

Between:

1. Talari Ramudu, S/o Talari Veera Chinnappa aged 54 years,

2. Talari Anjineyulu, S/o Talari Ramudu, Age 33 years,

3. Talari Ramesh, S/o Talari Sivaiah, age 29 years,

4. Kottam Gangadhara, S/o Kottam chinnappa, aged 30 years,

5. Talari Chinnappa, S/o Talari Veera Chinnappa, Aged 62 years,

Petitioners/ A1, A3, A4, A5, A6

and

The State By S.H.O, Bathalapalli P.S. Respondent/Complainant

This petition is coming this day for hearing before me in the presence of

Sri.P.Guru Prasad, Advocate for petitioners/ A1, A3 to A6 and Additional Public

Prosecutor on behalf of the State and upon hearing both sides, this court passed the following:-

O R D E R

1.This application is filed under section 439 Cr.P.C., seeking bail.

2.Petitioners/A1, A3 to A6 were remanded to judicial custody for the offences under sections 147, 148, 324, 307 and 302 r/w 149 IPC on 14-04-2020.

3. The allegation against the petitioners/A1, A3 to A6 is that, on 06-04-2020 at 7-30 AM, the complainant Talari Narasimhulum, Kotamaiah and Narasimhulu, sons of Balappa were watering their paddy crop. Petitioners/A1, A3 to A6 and Talari

Raja (deceased) went there armed with hunting sickles and knives and picked up quarrel as to how the complainant and others put up thorny fencing across the rasta and the first petitioner/A1 instigated others and they have hacked deceased Kotamaiah and caused severe injuries. Second petitioner/A3 hacked the complainant with a sickle on his head, whereas, third petitioner/A4 hacked

Narasimhulu, who sustained injury to his right thumb in an attempt to ward-off the blow. Katamaiah was declared dead at RDT hospital, Battalapalli.

4.The learned counsel for the petitioners would argue that the prosecution party are the aggressors, who in fact hacked Talari Raja and committed murder.

The learned counsel would argue that a false case has been foisted against the petitioners as a counter blast. The learned counsel submitted that since petitioners are in judicial custody since 14-04-2020 and since the investigation is completed, petitioners may be granted bail.

5.The learned Addl.Public prosecutor opposed the application on the ground that the investigation is pending.

6.The case dairy discloses that there are case under counter case and one

Talari Raja from the accused party died in the same incident. The case dairy discloses that by 06-04-2020 about 9 witnesses were examined and the accused were arrested and their confession statements recorded and thus most of the investigation is completed. In view of the fact that there are case under counter cases and one person died in each side, it is not possible to decide at this stage as to who are the aggressors. It is informed to this court that this incident occurred on a simple issue of hunting rabbits and both the parties are related to each other.

In view of the fact that most of the investigation is completed and in view of the fact that the petitioners are in judicial custody since 14-04-2020, they are entitled to bail.

In the result, petition is allowed, enlarging the petitioners/A1, A3 to A6 on bail on their executing the bonds of Rs.10,000/- with two sureties for like sum each to the satisfaction of the JFCM, Dharmavaram

Transcribed to my dictation by the Steno, corrected and pronounced by me in open court, this the 23rd day of June, 2020.

Judge, Family Court,

Anantapuramu.

Copy to :

The Judicial First Class Magistrate, Dharmavaram.

1

IN THE COURT OF THE CHAIRMAN, MOTOR ACCIDENTS CLAIMS TRIBUNAL

(BEFORE THE III ADDL. DISTRICT JUDGE, ANANTHAPURAMU)

Present:- Smt P.Kamala Devi,

Chairman-cum-VIII Addl. District Judge, Ananthapuramu FAC III Addl. District Judge, Ananthapuramu

Monday, the 18th day of March, 2019

M.V.O.P. No.142/2017

Between :

… Petitioner Ballapuram Bhagyalakshmi,W/o. B.Sreenivasulu, aged 35 years, Hindu, residing at D.No.1-13, Nallamada Village and Mandal, Ananthapuramu District.

and

1.R.Sekhara, S/o. R.Sivaiah, Hindu, aged 29 years, driver residing at d.No.6-4-682-aB, J.P.Colony, Govindapalli Village, Bukkarayasamudram mandal, Ananthapuramu District.

2.V.Satyanarayana Reddy, S/o.V.Pedda Thirupathi Redddy, Hindu, Major, residing at d.No.19-4-770/6, Krishan Bagh, Bahadurpura, Hyderabad.

*3The Oriental Insurance Company Limited, represented by its Divisional Manager, Ananthapuramu (*Amended as per orders passed in IA No.1006/2017, dt.16.11.2017) … Respondents.

This claim petition has been filed u/s 140 and 166 of M.V. Act 1988 and Rule 455 of A.P.

Motor Vehicles Rules, 1989 on behalf of injured petitioner with a prayer to pass an award in favour of petitioner and against respondents with joint and several liability for payment of Rs.2,00,000/- for injuries sustained by her in the road accident occurred on 9.10.2016 at about 2.00 p.m. near

Vadiyampeta Cross, B.K.Samudram Mandal on Hyderabad–Bangalore NH-44 Road, together with interest from the date of accident till the date of payment and for costs of the petition.

Petition presented on:13.03.2017.

Value for Court fee is Rs.2,00,000 /- and a Court fee of Rs.1,360/- is paid under Rule 475 of

A.P.M.V. Rules.

This petition coming this day for disposal before me in the presence of Sri M.Ramu and Sri D.Raju, Advocates for the petitioner and of Sri P.Diwakarnath, Advocate for Respondent No.3 and the respondents No. 1 and 2 having been called absent and set exparte, this matter having stood over till this day for consideration, DOTH ORDER AND DECREE:- 2

1.that the petition be and the same is hereby partly allowed with proportionate costs.

2.that the awarding compensation of Rs.70,000/-(Rupees seventy thousands only)

3.that the petitioner payable by the respondents 1 to 3 together with accrued interest thereon.

4.that the interest at the rate of 7.5% per annum from the date of petition till the date of deposit before the tribunal with joint and several liability.

5.that the petition in respect of rest of the claim of the petitioner is dismissed without costs.

6.That the respondents 1 to 3 are directed to deposit said compensation amount together with accrued interest thereon and costs of petition within 30 days from this day.

7.That the deposit of said compensation amount petitioner is entitled to withdraw the entire compensation amount at once.

8.that the accrued interest thereon and entire costs of petition payable to her.

9.that the Advocate fee is fixed at Rs.1,000/-

10. that the amount if any warded U/S.140 of MV.Act shall be deducted from this court.

11. that the respondents do pay to the petitioners a sum of Rs.1,782/- towards proportionate costs of the petition and do bear their own costs of Rs.2-00 (Other costs not certified).

Given- under my hand and seal of the court this the 18th day of March, 2019.

Chairman, MACT-Cum VIII Addl.

District Judge, Ananthapuramu.

FAC III Addl. District Judge, (FTC) Ananthapuramu.

TABLE OF COSTS FOR

Petitioner Respondents Rs. Ps Rs. Ps Stamp on main petition1,360-00-- Stamp on vakalath2-002-00 Process200-00 Stamps for exhibits10-00 Stamps on petition10-00 Commissioner Fee--- Typing charges100-00 Writing charges100-00 Advocate's fee1,000-00 Total 2,782-002-00 (F.C memo not filed other costs not certified)

Proportionate Cost of Rs.1,782/-

FAC III ADJ