Sri V.Naresh

1

BEFORE THE MOTOR ACCIDENTS CLAIMS TRIBUNAL-CUM- II

ADDITIONAL DISTRICT COURT (MACT) :: AMALAPURAM:

Present: Sri Velamala Naresh, II Additional District Judge, Amalapuram

Tuesday, the 15th day of April, 2025

MVOP No.60 of 2019

Between: 1.Yalla Veerabhadra Rao, S/o.Rajaiah, Age 54 years, D.No.4-177, Neelapalli village, Tallarevu Mandal.

2.Nedunuri Venkata Lakshmi, W/o. Rambabu, Age 36 years, Door No.2- 154/A, Chinna veedhi Panchayat, Cheyyeru Gunnepalli village, Mummidivaram Mandal.

3.Golakoti Mohinilakshmi, W/o.Veereswara Rao, Age 25 years, Door No.2-96/A, Chinna veedhi Panchayat, Cheyyeru Gunnepalli village, Mummidivaram Mandal.

4.Rachakonda Devi, W/o.Karmila, Age 20 years, D.No.3-61, Vaddi Cheruvu, Near Ramalayam Temple, Patha Injaram, Yedurlanka village,I.Polavaram Mandal.

5.Yalla Vasu, S/o.Veerabhadra Rao, Age 21 years, D.No.4-177, Neelapalli village, Tallarevu Mandal.

...PETITIONERS

AND 1.Chukka Narasinha Rao, S/o.Paidanna, Hindu, Age 30 years, D.No.2-49, Anandapuram, Eswarapalle Chowduvada, Kasimkota Mandal, Visakhapatnam.

2. A.P.S.R.T.C., represented by its V.C. and M.D. Regional Manager, A.P.S.R.T.C, Bus Station Complex, Kakinada, E.G.Dt.,

...RESPONDENTS

This petition is coming on 01.04.2025 for final hearing before me in the presence of Sri N.Raja Sekhar, Advocate for petitioners, the 1st respondent remained exparte and Sri N.S.N. Murthy, Advocate for 2nd respondent and the matter having stood over for consideration till this day, this court made the following:

2

J U D G M E N T

The present order arises as a consequence of filing of original petition, with the following averments, by the petitioner under Rule 455 of

AP Motor Vehicle Rules and Section 166(c)of Motor Vehicles Act seeking compensation for the death of Yalla Satyavathi (hereinafter he would be referred to as “the deceased”), in the road traffic incident.

2.The 1st petitioner is the husband, petitioners 2, 3 and 4 are daughters and 5th petitioner is the son of the deceased Yalla Satyavathi.

The deceased was aged about 48 years, she was hale and healthy and earning Rs.12,000/- per month (I) On 08.1.2019, the deceased boarded APSRTC Bus bearing registration No. AP 05 Z 0145 at Mahipala Cheruvu for going to Neelapalli and when the bus reached near Neelapalli center at 10-00 p.m., R-1, being driver of the said RTC Bus stopped the said bus, thereupon the deceased started trying to get down from the bus by taking proper precautions, however R-1 rashly and negligently and without noticing the movements of the deceased started and continued proceeding the bus, due to which the deceased fell on the road from the bus and sustained grievous injuries, later R-1, having observed the same, stopped the bus at some distance away from the place of the incident, to that effect a case in

Cr.No.8/2019 against R-1 was registered for the offence under Section 338 IPC of Coringa P.S. later the injured Satyavathi was shifted to 3 Government Hospital, Yanam where from on the advise of the Doctors she was shifted to G.G.H. Kakinada where she died at 9-50 a.m. on 16-1- 2019, later the police issued altered FIR against R-1 for the offence punishable under Section 304-A IPC, subsequently the police got conducted inquest and post-mortem on the dead body of the deceased and the police, after thorough investigation of the crime, filed charge- sheet against R-1 for the offence punishable under Section 304-A IPC by identifying R-1 to be driver of crime vehicle bus at the time of the incident and he was responsible for the death of the deceased.

(ii)Because of the untimely death of the deceased, her husband the 1st petitioner, her daughters Petitioners 2 to 4, her son 5th petitioner sustained severe loss of love and affection and though the said loss cannot be compensated in terms of money, the petitioners are claiming an amount of Rs.10,00,000/- towards compensation for the death of the deceased.

(iii) The 1st respondent has valid driving license for driving the crime vehicle belonging to respondent No.2 APSRTC and as such the respondents 1 and 2 are jointly and severally liable for paying the claimed compensation amount to the petitioners.

(iv)With the said averments, the petitioners requested the Court to grant them an amount of Rs.10,00,000/- (Rs.10,000/- towards transport to hospital and medical expenses, Rs.25,000/- towards funeral expenses, 4 Rs.1,25,000/- towards compensation for mental agony, Rs.1,00,000/- towards compensation for loss of consortium, Rs.1,25,000/- towards compensation for loss of love and affection and Rs.6,15,000/- towards loss of life and loss of support) with interest at the rate of 12% per annum apart from awarding costs of proceedings to the petitioners.

3.The 1st respondent remained exparte.

4.R2, with the following averments, filed its written statement.

(i) Most of the averments of the petition are absolutely false.

(ii) R-2 disputes age, avocation and earning capacity of the deceased at the time of the incident.

iii) On 8-1-2019 the RTC bus bearing registration No.AP 5 Z 0145 of Kakinada Depot belonging to R-2 was plying between Amalapuram and

Kakinada, in the said process, at 10-00 p.m., when the bus reached main road, Neelapalli village R-1 who was driving the said bus was driving it slowly and cautiously, however, one lady passenger speedily came to the conductor and she, without giving any alarm to either driver or conductor of the bus, tried to get down the Bus in hurry mood and fell on the road

before the bus completely stopped, due to her negligent act the

deceased while not able to control her, fell on the road on her own accord, having noticed the negligent movements of the deceased R-1 slowed down the bus, took the bus to the left side of the road and inspite of the same the deceased sustained injuries due to her negligent 5 behaviour and subsequently she died on 16-1-2019 because of the said injuries and as such the incident occasioned because of rash and negligent acts of not R-1 but the deceased herself.

(iv) The claimed compensation is highly arbitrary and excessive and the petitioner is not entitled for claiming interest from the date of filing of the petition but she is entitled to claim interest at the 6% per annum from the date of award only, if at all they are entitled for compensation.

(v) With the above averments, R2 requested the Court to dismiss the petition with costs.

5.Basing on the above pleadings, the following issues are settled for trial on 11.01.2023:

1. Whether the incident took place as mentioned in the petition ?

2. Whether the death of deceased Satyavathi took place because of her negligence only ?

3. Whether the claimed compensation is excessive and exorbitant ?

4. Whether claimed rate of interest is excessive ?

5. Whether the petitioners are entitled to award as sought in the petition ? And

6. To what relief?

6.For substantiating their version, the petitioners, apart from getting examined P.W.2, got examined the 1st petitioner as PW1 and got marked

Ex.P1 to P6.

7.For substantiating its version, R2 did not adduce any oral or documentary evidence.

6

8.Arguments of both counsel are heard and perused the record in detail.

Issue No.1:

9.The undisputed Ex.P4 postmortem report reveals death of deceased to have occasioned due to cranio cerebral inujury because of head injury.

10. Similarly the undisputed Ex.P3 inquest report reveals death of deceased Satyavathi to have occasioned due to sustaining of severe injuries to head, face and shoulder of right side.

11.R1 the admitted driver of RTC Bus bearing registration No. AP 5 Z 0145 at the time of the incident, by remaining exparte, not only did not dispute but also impliedly admitted the petitioners’ contention that at the time of the incident the said RTC bus was being driven by R1, R1 drove it in a rash and negligent manner while the deceased was trying to get down the bus at her destination of Neelapalli village, due to the said act of

R-1, the deceased fell down from the bus and sustained severe injuries on her head, face and shoulder on right side and the said injuries caused her death despite her taking treatment in G.G.H., Kakinada.

12.R-2 APSRTC, while admitting occasioning of the incident, driving of crime vehicle RTC Bus by R-1 at the time of the incident, falling down of

Satyavathi from the bus, sustaining of her injuries and her death because of the said injuries, claimed as if before reaching Neelapalli bus stop and 7 while the crime vehicle bus was being driven by R-1 and without intimating to R-1 and conductor of the RTC Bus, Satyavathi tried to get down from the running bus, in her hurry of getting down the bus,

Satyavathi fell on the road and sustained severe injuries which casused her death and as such not R-1 but the deceased was responsible for the death of the deceased.

13.In view of the afore mentioned stand taken by R-2, it is legally obligatory on the part of R-2 for proving the said contention by way of adducing acceptable evidence to that effect and inspite of the said obligation, R-2, by failing in examining its driver R-1 and conductor of the crime vehicle bus, not only could not succeed but also failed in substantiating the said version although burden of proof of the same is upon it and it alone and although there was every chance and possibility for R-2 to easily get examined the bus driver R-1 and its conductor and thereby R-2 failed in substantiating its version which in turn establishes the incident to have occasioned because of the rash and negligent driving of RTC bus by R-1 as this Court felt that had the advanced contention of

R-2 been true, R-2 would have dared enough in examining its driver R-1 and conductor even by way of getting issued summons to them unlike in the instant case in which, followed by no justification, R-2 deliberately did not examine the driver and conductor of the crime vehicle Bus probably 8 on the fear that on summoning and examining the said two employees of

R-2 as witnesses, the contention of the petitioners would remain proved.

14.PW1 who is husband of the deceased is not direct witness to the incident whereas PW2, who was cited as L.W.1 in Ex.P6 charge-sheet and who is son-in-law of the deceased and having lodged report with police who registered it as Ex.P1 FIR, deposed as if he directly witnessed the incident and when his mother-in-law the deceased was trying to get down the bus from the bus slowly and cautiously at Neelapalli center, driver of the RTC Bus, without observing the movements of his mother-in- law drove it in a rash and negligent manner due to which his mother-in- law fell from the bus and sustained severe injuries including head, even thereafter the bus driver did not stop the bus at the place of the incident and he stopped it at a place which is ahead of the place of the incident, later he and others shifted the injured to Government Hospital, Yanam where on the advise of the Doctors they shifted the injured to GGH,

Kakinada where Satyavathi the injured died on 16-1-2019 while undergoing treatment.

15.Though, P.W.2 the direct witness deposed as narrated supra, the learned counsel for R-2 could not break open the natural, mighty and trustworthy testimony of P.W.2 and as a consequence thereof the petitioners adduced evidence that the deceased died because of rash 9 and negligent driving of RTC bus by R-1 remained undisturbed on the record.

16.Ex.P6 charge-sheet that was filed against 1st respondent prima- facie establishes rash and negligent act of 1st respondent in driving crime vehicle RTC bus bearing registration No.AP 5 Z 0145, as has been held in the case of “The New India Assurance Co. Ltd vs Pazhaniammal and others 2012 ACJ 1370” .

17.It is neither proved nor at-least contended by the contesting R2 that death of the deceased occasioned otherwise than in the incident claimed by the petitioners which implies that human conduct of the 1st respondent, being driver of the crime vehicle alone, becomes responsible for the incident till it is proved by the contesting respondent that the incident occasioned because of vis major /act of God.

18.Admittedly it is neither proved nor at-least contended by the contesting R2 that the incident occasioned because of Act of God.

19.While either undisputing or admitting the 1st respondent to be driver of the crime vehicle at the time of the incident, the contesting 2nd respondent neither proved nor contended that the 1st respondent, being driver of the crime vehicle, took proper care and caution as an ordinary prudent man and despite taking proper care and caution, the incident occasioned because of negligence or such other similar act of the deceased.

10

20.In view of the afore reasons, this Court holds that death of the deceased occasioned because of the rash and negligent driving of crime vehicle RTC bus by R1 at 10.00 P.M. on 08.01.2019 at Neelapalli center,

Neelapalli village of Tallarevu Mandal.

Accordingly, issue No.1 is answered.

Issue No.2

21.In view of the answering given in Issue No.1 that the incident occasioned because of total rash and negligent driving of RTC bus by R- 1, the question of probing and deciding the negligence or contributory negligence of the deceased in getting down the RTC Bus does not arise and accordingly, issue No.2 is answered by holding that the deceased is no way responsible for happening of the incident.

Issues 3 to 5:

22.The petitioners claimed as if the deceased was earning Rs.12,000/- per month by the date of her death by doing milk business and coolie works and for substantiating the said version, the petitioners did not place on record acceptable either documentary or oral evidence to substantiate the said version consequently this Court disbelieves the said version of the petitioners.

23. Since the petitioners could not prove their advanced version that the deceased, by doing milk business and cooli work, was earning

Rs.12,000/- per month by the date of the incident, the next course 11 available to the Court is to assess and conclude compensation based on other alternative mode.

24.As seen from the undisputed Ex.P2 altered FIR, Ex.P3 inquest report, Ex.P4 Postmortem certificate and Ex.P6 charge-sheet, age of the deceased by the date of her death was 48 years and as such this Court by considering age of the deceased to be 48 years by the date of incident, concludes applicable multiplier to be 13.

25.The multiplier for the age of the deceased by the date of his death was 13 and monthly income of the deceased by the date of her death was concluded to be Rs.9,000/- since by the date of death of year 2019 because of hike condition of cost of living even an ordinary cooli worker used to get not less than Rs.400/- to Rs.500/- per day even for attending unskilled work, however, as per the 2nd limb of judgment held in National

Insurance Company Limited Vs. Pranay Sethi and Ors (2017 ACT

2700), future prospects have to be arrived at 25% of the earning capacity which comes to Rs.2,250/- which makes the total to be Rs.11,250/- per month.

26.Therefore, the compensation amount has to be computed as

Rs.11,250/- x 13 x 12 = Rs.17,55,000/-.

27.However, as per Sarala Verma’s case required deduction has to be made from the above arrived figure.

12

28.The petition was filed by husband, three daughters and son respectively of the deceased Satyavathi, consequently the 1st petitioner being husband, petitioners 2 to 5 being children of the deceased are required and held to be legal heirs cum dependents of the deceased and as such deduction has to be made at ¼th from the above arrived compensation amount and consequently the payable compensation amount is Rs.13,16,250/- being ¾th of Rs.17,55,000/-.

29. The petitioners are also entitled for compensation for funeral expenses at Rs.25,000/-, compensation for loss of love and affection at

Rs.1,00,000/-, compensation for loss consortium at Rs.1,00,000/- and compensation for transport expenses at Rs.10,000/-.

30.Therefore, the petitioners are entitled for the total compensation as follows : (1) Compensation for loss of ...Rs. 13,16,250-00 dependency (2) Compensation for loss of love and affection …Rs. 1,00,000-00 (3)Compensation for loss of consortium: Rs. ... 1,00,000-00 (3) Funeral expenses...Rs. 25,000-00 (4) Transport expenses ...Rs. 10,000-00 ---------------------------

Total ...Rs. 15,51,250-00

---------------------------

31.In view of the afore discussions, this Court holds that the petitioners 1 to 5 are entitled to recover an amount of Rs.15,51,250-00 towards compensation for the death of deceased.

13

32.The above finding leaves another question for consideration which is as to from whom the payable compensation amount can be recovered.

33.Admittedly, the crime vehicle bus was owned by R-2 RTC company and driven by R-1 at the time of the incident and as such both R-1 and R- 2 are jointly and severally liable for payment of the above arrived compensation.

34.Admittedly, petitioners 1 to 5, are husband, three daughters and one son respectively of the deceased and consequently this Court distributes the awarded amount as follows.

1st petitioner : Rs. 7,51,250/- 2nd petitioner: Rs. 2,00,000/- 3rd petitioner : Rs. 2,00,000/- 4th petitioner : Rs. 2,00,000/- 5th petitioner: Rs. 2,00,000/-

Accordingly, issue Nos.3 to 5 are answered.

Issue No.6:

35.In the result, petition is allowed with costs by awarding a compensation to the petitioners an amount of Rs.15,51,250/- (Rupees

Fifteen lakhs fifty one thousand two hundred and fifty only) with interest at 7.5% per annum reckonable from the date of filing of the petition till the date of deposit. The respondents 1 and 2 are jointly and severally liable to pay the said amount. The respondent No.2 is directed to deposit the 14 awarded compensation amount within one month from the date of this order.

On such deposit,

(i) the 1st petitioner is entitled to Rs.7,51,250/- (Rupees Seven lakhs fifty one thousand two hundred and fifty, the petitioners 2 to 5 are entitled to Rs.2,00,000/- (Rupees Two lakhs only) each and all the petitioners are entitled to withdraw their awarded compensation amounts with accrued interest thereon.

(ii) Advocate fee is fixed at Rs.2,000/-

(iii) Office is directed to prepare decree, after payment of deficit

Court fee by the petitioners.

Typed to my dictation, transcribed by him, corrected and pronounced by me in

open court on this the 15 th day of April, 2025.

Sd/- Sri Velamala Naresh

II ADDITIONAL DISTRICT JUDGE,

AMALAPURAM.

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

Witnesses examined

For Petitioners:

PW1 : Yalla Veerabhadra Rao PW2 : Rachakonda Karmila

For Respondents: None

Documents marked

For Petitioners:

Ex.P1 : Attested copy of F.I.R. in Cr.No.8/2019 of Coringa P.S. Ex.P2 : Attested copy of alter memo Ex.P3 : Attested copy of inquest report Ex.P4 : Attested copy of postmortem report Ex.P5 : Attested copy of M.V.I. report Ex.P6 : Attested copy of charge sheet in Cr.No.8/2019 of Coringa P.S.

For Respondents : Nil

Sd/- Sri Velamala Naresh

II A.D.J.

15

BEFORE THE MOTOR ACCIDENTS CLAIMS TRIBUNAL-CUM- II

ADDITIONAL DISTRICT COURT (MACT) :: AMALAPURAM:

Present: Sri Velamala Naresh, II Additional District Judge, Amalapuram

Tuesday, the 15th day of April, 2025

MVOP No.60 of 2019

Between: 1.Yalla Veerabhadra Rao, S/o.Rajaiah, Age 54 years, D.No.4-177, Neelapalli village, Tallarevu Mandal. 2.Nedunuri Venkata Lakshmi, W/o. Rambabu, Age 36 years, Door No.2- 154/A, Chinna veedhi Panchayat, Cheyyeru Gunnepalli village, Mummidivaram Mandal. 3.Golakoti Mohinilakshmi, W/o.Veereswara Rao, Age 25 years, Door No.2-96/A, Chinna veedhi Panchayat, Cheyyeru Gunnepalli village, Mummidivaram Mandal. 4.Rachakonda Devi, W/o.Karmila, Age 20 years, D.No.3-61, Vaddi Cheruvu, Near Ramalayam Temple, Patha Injaram, Yedurlanka village,I.Polavaram Mandal.

5.Yalla Vasu, S/o.Veerabhadra Rao, Age 21 years, D.No.4-177, Neelapalli village, Tallarevu Mandal.

...PETITIONERS

AND 1.Chukka Narasinha Rao, S/o.Paidanna, Hindu, Age 30 years, D.No.2-49, Anandapuram, Eswarapalle Chowduvada, Kasimkota Mandal, Visakhapatnam.

2. A.P.S.R.T.C., represented by its V.C. and M.D. Regional Manager, A.P.S.R.T.C, Bus Station Complex, Kakinada, E.G.Dt.,

...RESPONDENTS

This petition is presented on 13.03.2019 and taken on file on 21.06.2019. The present order/decree arises as a consequence of filing of original petition, by the petitioner under Rule 455 of AP Motor Vehicle Rules and Section 166(c) of Motor Vehicles Act seeking compensation for the death of Yalla Satyavathi (hereinafter he would be referred to as “the deceased”), in the road traffic incident. Value of the petition is Rs.10,00,000/-, on which a court fee of Rs.9,360/- is paid as per Rule 475 of APMV Rules. Cause of action for the petition arose on 08.01.2019 near Neelapalli Road, Neelapalli Village, Tallarevu Mandal, E.G. District, at about 10 P.M.

16 when the deceased met with an accident and died due to rash and negligent driving of R1 in driving his APSRTC bus bearing No.AP05Z0145 and where the motor accident was taken place which is within the jurisdiction of this Hon'ble Court. This petition is coming on 01.04.2025 for final hearing before me in the presence of Sri N.Raja Sekhar, Advocate for petitioners, the 1st respondent remained exparte and Sri N.S.N. Murthy, Advocate for 2nd respondent and the matter having stood over for consideration till this day, this court doth order and decree: (1)That the petition be and the same is hereby allowed with costs by awarding a compensation to the petitioners an amount of Rs.15,51,250/- (Rupees Fifteen lakhs fifty one thousand two hundred and fifty only) with interest at 7.5% per annum reckonable from the date of filing of the petition till the date of deposit, (2)That the respondents 1 and 2 be and are hereby jointly and severally liable to pay the said compensation amount, (3)That the respondent No.2 do deposit the awarded compensation amount, as per clause (1) above, within one month from the date of this order, (4)That on such deposit, the 1st petitioner is entitled to Rs.7,51,250/- (Rupees Seven lakhs fifty one thousand two hundred and fifty, the petitioners 2 to 5 are entitled to Rs.2,00,000/- (Rupees Two lakhs only) each and all the petitioners are entitled to withdraw their awarded compensation amounts with accrued interest thereon. (5)That the respondent No.2 do also deposed a sum of Rs.6,682/- towards costs of the petition. Given under my hand and the seal of this court, this the 15 th day of April, 2025.

Sd/- Sri Velamala Naresh

II ADDITIONAL DISTRICT JUDGE,

AMALAPURAM.

PARTICULARS OF COSTS

For petitioners: For respondents: Nil

Stamp on vakalath: Rs. 2-00 Stamp on petition: Rs. 4,360-00 Stamp on process: Rs. 120-00 Advocate fee: Rs. 2,000-00 Type charge: Rs. 200-00 ------------------ Rs. 6,682-00 ------------------- Sd/- Sri Velamala Naresh

II A.D.J.

1

BEFORE THE MOTOR ACCIDENTS CLAIMS TRIBUNAL-CUM- II

ADDITIONAL DISTRICT COURT (MACT) :: AMALAPURAM:

Present: Sri Velamala Naresh II Additional District Judge, Amalapuram

Tuesday, the 15th day of April, 2025

MVOP No.112 of 2022

Between: 1.Sarikonda Siva Nookaratnam @ Thalabattula Siva Nookaratnam, W/o.late Manikanta, Age 23 years, D.No.2-74, Munipalli village, Uppalaguptam Mandal.

2.Sarikonda Babji, S/o.Venkatarao, Age 51 years, D.No.3-4, Near Vinayaka Temple, Kotha Manjeru village, Thallarevu Mandal.

3.Sarikonda Suryabhanu, W/o.Babji, Age 46 years, D.No.3-4, Near Vinayaka Temple, Kotha Manjeru village, Thallarevu Mandal.

...PETITIONERS

AND 1.Sheik Mastan Valli, S/o.Meera Saheb, Hindu, Age 24 years, D.No.2-528, MSN Colony, Kamanagaruvu village, Amalapuram.

2.The Chairman and Managing Director, APSRTC, 1st floor, Jawaharlal Bus complex, Vijayawada, Krishna District.

...RESPONDENTS

This petition is coming on 03.04.2025 for final hearing before me in the presence of Sri N.Raja Sekhar, Advocate for petitioners, Sri

N.Prabhakar, Advocate for the 1st respondent and Sri N.S.N. Murthy,

Advocate for 2nd respondent and the matter having stood over for consideration till this day, this court made the following:

J U D G M E N T

The present order arises as a consequence of filing of original petition, with the following averments, by the petitioners under Rule 455 of AP Motor Vehicle Rules and Section 166(c)of Motor Vehicles Act seeking compensation for the death of Sarikonda Manikanta (hereinafter he would be referred to as “the deceased”), in the road traffic incident.

2

2.The 1st petitioner is the wife, 2nd petitioner is father and 3rd petitioner is mother of the deceased Sarikonda Manikanta. The deceased was aged about 30 years, he was hale and healthy and earning Rs.15,000/- per month by working as Electrician.

(i) On 11.7.2022, while the deceased was proceeding on his Hero

Activa motorcycle bearing registration No. AP 39 BB 7430 from Tallarevu towards Kotha Manjeru, on NH 216 road near Coringa bridge, Tallarevu

Mandal, at 9-30 p.m. APSRTC Bus bearing registration No.AP 05 Z 5024 belonging to R-2 and while coming from Kakinada towards Amalapuram being driven by R-1 in a rash and negligent manner, gave hit to the motorcycle of the deceased, due to the said hit the deceased fell on the road along with the motorcycle and sustained severe bleeding head injury and died instantaneously, to that effect police Coringa PS registered case in Cr.No.209/2022 against R1 for the offence punishable under Section 304-A IPC, the police got conducted inquest and post-mortem on the dead body of the deceased and after thorough investigation of the case, the police filed charge-sheet against R-1 for the offence punishable under

Section 304-A IPC by identifying him to be driver of the crime vehicle bus at the time of the incident and he was responsible for the death of the deceased.

(ii)Because of the untimely death of the deceased, his wife the 1st petitioner, his father the 2nd Petitioner and his mother the 3rd petitioner sustained severe loss of love and affection and though the said loss 3 cannot be compensated in terms of money, the petitioners are claiming an amount of Rs.15,00,000/- towards compensation for the death of the deceased.

(iii) The 1st respondent has valid driving license for driving the crime vehicle belonging to respondent No.2 APSRTC and as such the respondents 1 and 2 are jointly and severally liable for paying the claimed compensation amount to the petitioners.

(iv)With the said averments, the petitioners requested the Court to grant them an amount of Rs.15,00,000/- (Rs.25,000/- towards transport to hospital and medical expenses, Rs.25,000/- towards funeral expenses,

Rs.75,000/- towards pain and suffering Rs.75,000/- towards compensation for loss of consortium and Rs.13,00,000/- towards loss of life and loss of support) with interest at the rate of 12% per annum apart from awarding costs of proceedings to the petitioners.

3.R1, with the following averments, filed his written statement.

(i) Most of the averments of the petition are absolutely false.

(ii) R-1 disputes age, avocation and earning capacity of the deceased by the date of the incident.

(iii) R-1 is having valid driving license, the vehicle belonged to R-2 and it has valid permit and registration and if the Court awards compensation, it is required to be paid by R-2 alone.

4

(iv) The incident took place because of rash and negligent driving of motorcycle by the deceased but not due to rash or negligent driving of

RTC Bus by R-1.

(v) The deceased was not having valid driving license by the date of the incident.

(vi) Filing of the petition is bad on the score of non-joinder of necessary parties for want of impleadment of owner, insured and insurer of the motorcycle.

vii) The sought compensation is excessive and exorbitant.

(viii) With the above averments, R-1 requested the Court to dismiss the petition with costs.

4.R2, with the following averments, filed its written statement.

(I) Most of the averments of the petition are absolutely false.

(ii) There was no rash or negligent act on the part of R-1 in driving the RTC Bus, the road in which the accident occasioned is sufficiently wide, R-1 was driving the bus at moderate speed, on noticing driving of motorcycle by the deceased at high speed and in rash and negligent manner, R-1 slowed down the bus, blew horn and applied brakes for averting the incident, however, the deceased continued his rash and negligent driving, gave hit to the bus, fell down on the road, sustained injuries and died because of his rash and negligent driving, but not due to the acts of R-1.

5

(iii) The claimed compensation is highly arbitrary and excessive and the petitioners are not entitled for claiming interest from the date of filing of the petition but they are entitled to claim interest at the 6% per annum from the date of award only, if at all they are entitled for compensation.

(iv) With the above averments, R2 requested the Court to dismiss the petition with costs.

5.Basing on the above pleadings, the following issues are settled for trial on 29.5.2024:

1. Whether the incident occasioned as claimed in the petition ?

2. Whether the deceased contributed negligence for happening of the incident ?

3. Whether the petition mentioned claim is excessive and exorbitant?

4. Whether claimed rate of interest is excessive and exorbitant ?

5. Whether the petitioners are entitled to award as sought in the petition ? And

6. To what relief?

6.For substantiating their version, the petitioners, apart from getting examined P.W.2, got examined the 1st petitioner as PW1 and got marked

Ex.P1 to P5.

7.For substantiating its version, no oral or documentary evidence was let in by both the respondents.

8.Arguments of both counsel are heard and perused the record in detail.

6 Issue No.1:

9.The undisputed Ex.P3 postmortem report reveals death of deceased to have occasioned due to shock and hemmorhage because of head injury.

10. Similarly the undisputed Ex.P2 inquest report reveals death of deceased Manikanta to have occasioned due to severe bleeding injuries to head.

11.R1 the admitted driver of the RTC bus simply claimed as if the incident took place because of negligent driving of motorcycle by the deceased and there was no rash or negligence on his part in driving the

RTC Bus. However, though burden of proof of the same is upon him and him alone, R-1 did not adduce any sort of evidence nor assigned any justification for non-adducing of evidence though there was every chance and possibility for him to prove his advanced contention by way of examining one of the passengers of the bus or atleast conductor of the bus as witness.

12.Beyond the contention of R-1, R-2 claimed as if the deceased with his rash and negligent driving act gave hit with his motorcycle to the bus and in proof of the said contention, R-2 did not evince any interest though burden of proof of the same is upon it and it alone and though it was able to simply adduce evidence by way of examining R-1 the driver of the RTC

Bus or its conductor at the relevant point of time.

7

13.R-1 and R-2, while admitting occasioning of the incident, driving of crime vehicle RTC Bus by R-1 at the time of the incident, sustaining of injuries of the deceased and his consequential death thereof, both R-1 and R-2 or one among them did not evince any interest in proving their contention that the incident occasioned because of rash and negligent driving of motorcycle by the deceased but not due to rash or negligent act of R1 in driving the RTC Bus.

14.PW1 who is wife of the deceased is not direct witness to the incident whereas. PW2 the alleged direct witness of the incident deposed as if he directly witnessed the incident, on 11-7-2022 at about 9-30 p.m.

while the deceased was going on his motorcycle from Tallarevu towards

Kakinada near Coringa bridge, crime vehicle RTC Bus, while coming from

Kakinada towards Amalapuram in a rash and negligent manner and without blowing horn, gave a dash to the motorcycle of the deceased in opposite direction and by coming in wrong route, due to the said hit the deceased, along with the motorcycle, fell on the road, sustained severe injuries particularly head and died on the spot.

15.Though, P.W.2 the direct witness deposed as narrated supra, the learned counsel for R-2 could not break open the natural, mighty and trustworthy testimony of P.W.2 and as a consequence thereof the petitioners adduced evidence that the deceased died because of rash 8 and negligent driving of RTC bus by R-1 remained undisturbed on the record.

16.Ex.P5 charge-sheet that was filed against 1st respondent prima- facie establishes rash and negligent act of 1st respondent in driving crime vehicle RTC bus bearing registration No.AP 05 Z 5024, as has been held in the case of “The New India Assurance Co. Ltd vs Pazhaniammal and others 2012 ACJ 1370” .

17.It is neither proved nor at-least contended by the contesting R2 that death of the deceased occasioned otherwise than in the incident claimed by the petitioners which implies that human conduct of the 1st respondent being driver of the crime vehicle alone, becomes responsible for the incident till it is proved by the contesting respondents that the incident occasioned because of vis major /act of God.

18.Admittedly it is neither proved nor at-least contended by the contesting R2 that the incident occasioned because of Act of God.

19.While either undisputing or admitting the 1st respondent to be driver of the crime vehicle at the time of the incident, the contesting 2nd respondent neither proved nor contended that the 1st respondent, being driver of the crime vehicle, took proper care and caution as an ordinary prudent man and despite taking proper care and caution, the incident 9 occasioned because of negligence or such other similar act of the deceased.

20.In view of the afore reasons, this Court holds that death of the deceased occasioned because of the rash and negligent driving of crime vehicle RTC bus by R1 at 9.30 P.M. on 11.07.2022 near Coringa bridge,

Thallarevu Mandal.

Accordingly, issue No.1 is answered.

Issue No.2

21.In view of the answering given in Issue No.1 that the incident occasioned because of total rash and negligent driving of RTC bus by R1, the question of probing and deciding the negligence or contributory negligence of the deceased in driving the motorcycle in a rash and negligent manner does not arise and accordingly, issue No.2 is answered by holding that the deceased is no way responsible for happening of the incident.

Issues 3 to 5:

22.The petitioners claimed as if the deceased was earning Rs.15,000/- per month by the date of his death by working as Electrician and for substantiating the said version, the petitioners did not place on record acceptable either documentary or oral evidence to substantiate the said version consequently this Court disbelieves the said version of the petitioners.

10

23. Since the petitioners could not prove their advanced version that the deceased, by doing private electrical works, was earning Rs.15,000/- per month by the date of the incident, the next course available to the Court is to assess and conclude compensation based on other alternative mode.

24.As seen from the undisputed Ex.P1 FIR, Ex.P3 inquest report,

Ex.P2 Postmortem certificate and Ex.P5 charge-sheet, age of the deceased by the date of his death to be 29 / 30 years and as such this

Court, by considering age of the deceased to be 30 years by the date of incident, concludes applicable multiplier to be 17.

25.The multiplier for the age of the deceased by the date of his death was 17 and monthly income of the deceased by the date of his death was concluded to be Rs.10,500/- since by the date of death of year 2022 because of hike condition of cost of living, even an ordinary cooli worker used to get not less than Rs.500/- to Rs.700/- per day even for attending unskilled work, however, as per the 2nd limb of judgment held in National

Insurance Company Limited Vs. Pranay Sethi and Ors (2017 ACT

2700), future prospects have to be arrived at 40% of the earning capacity which comes to Rs.4,200/- which makes the total to be Rs.14,700/- per month.

26.Therefore, the compensation amount has to be computed as

Rs.14,700/- x 17 x 12 = Rs.29,98,800/-.

11

27.However, as per Sarala Verma’s case required deduction has to be made from the above arrived figure.

28.The petition was filed by wife, father and mother respectively of the deceased Manikanta, consequently the 1st petitioner being wife, petitioners 2 and 3 being parents of the deceased are required and held to be three legal heirs cum dependents of the deceased and as such deduction has to be made at 1/3rd from the above arrived compensation amount and consequently the payable compensation amount is

Rs.19,99,200/- being 1/3rd of Rs.29,98,800/-.

29. The petitioners are also entitled for compensation for funeral expenses at Rs.25,000/-, compensation for loss of love and affection at

Rs.1,00,000/-, compensation for loss consortium at Rs.1,00,000/- and compensation for transport expenses at Rs.10,000/-.

30.Therefore, the petitioners are entitled for the total compensation as follows : (1) Compensation for loss of ...Rs. 19,99,200-00 dependency (2) Compensation for loss of love and affection …Rs. 1,00,000-00 (3)Compensation for loss of consortium: Rs. 1,00,000-00 (3) Funeral expenses ...Rs. 25,000-00 (4) Transport expenses ...Rs. 10,000-00 ---------------------------

Total ...Rs. 22,34,200-00

--------------------------- 12

31.In view of the afore discussions, this Court holds that the petitioners 1 to 3 are entitled to recover an amount of Rs.22,34,200-00 towards compensation for the death of deceased.

32.The above finding leaves another question for consideration which is as to from whom the payable compensation amount can be recovered.

33.Admittedly, the crime vehicle bus was owned by R-2 RTC company and driven by R-1 at the time of the incident and as such both R-1 and R- 2 are jointly and severally liable for payment of the above arrived compensation.

34.Admittedly, petitioners 1 to 3 are wife and parents respectively of the deceased and consequently this Court distributes the awarded amount as follows.

1st petitioner : Rs. 12,50,000/- 2nd petitioner: Rs. 3,64,200/- 3rd petitioner : Rs. 7,20,000/-

Accordingly, issue Nos.3 to 5 are answered.

Issue No.6:

35.In the result, the petition is allowed with costs by awarding compensation to the petitioners an amount of Rs.22,34,200-00 (Rupees

Twenty two lakhs thirty four thousand and two hundred only) with interest at 7.5% per annum reckonable from the date of filing of the petition till the date of deposit. The respondents 1 and 2 are jointly and severally liable to pay the said amount. The respondent No.2 is directed to deposit the 13 awarded compensation amount with interest within one month from the date of this order.

On such deposit,

(i)the 1st petitioner is entitled to Rs. 12,50,000/- (Rupees Twelve lakhs fifty thousand only), the 2nd petitioner is entitled to Rs.3,64,200/- (Rupees three lakhs sixty four thousand and two hundred only) and 3rd petitioner is entitled to Rs.7,20,000/- (Rupees Seven lakhs twenty thousand only) and all the petitioners are entitled to withdraw their awarded compensation amounts with accrued interest thereon.

(ii)Advocate fee is fixed at Rs.2,000/-

(iii)Office is directed to prepare decree, after payment of deficit

Court fee by the petitioners.

Typed to my dictation, transcribed by him, corrected and pronounced by

me in open court on this the 15 th day of April, 2025.

Sd/- Sri Velamala Naresh

II ADDITIONAL DISTRICT JUDGE,

AMALAPURAM.

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

Witnesses examined

For Petitioners:

PW1 : Sarikonda Siva Nooka Ratnam PW2 : Pinapothu Veerababu

For Respondents: None

Documents marked

For Petitioners:

Ex.P1 : Attested copy of F.I.R. in Crime No.209/2022 of Coringa P.S. Ex.P2 : Attested copy of inquest report Ex.P3 : Attested copy of Postmortem report Ex.P4 : Attested copy of M.V.I report Ex.P5 : Attested copy of charge-sheet in Cr.No.209/2022 of Coringa P.S.

For Respondents : Nil

Sd/- Sri Velamala Naresh

II. A.D.J.

14

BEFORE THE MOTOR ACCIDENTS CLAIMS TRIBUNAL-CUM- II

ADDITIONAL DISTRICT COURT (MACT) :: AMALAPURAM:

Present: Sri Velamala Naresh II Additional District Judge, Amalapuram

Tuesday, the 15th day of April, 2025

MVOP No.112 of 2022

Between: 1.Sarikonda Siva Nookaratnam @ Thalabattula Siva Nookaratnam, W/o.late Manikanta, Age 23 years, D.No.2-74, Munipalli village, Uppalaguptam Mandal.

2.Sarikonda Babji, S/o.Venkatarao, Age 51 years, D.No.3-4, Near Vinayaka Temple, Kotha Manjeru village, Thallarevu Mandal.

3.Sarikonda Suryabhanu, W/o.Babji, Age 46 years, D.No.3-4, Near Vinayaka Temple, Kotha Manjeru village, Thallarevu Mandal.

...PETITIONERS

AND 1.Sheik Mastan Valli, S/o.Meera Saheb, Hindu, Age 24 years, D.No.2-528, MSN Colony, Kamanagaruvu village, Amalapuram.

2.The Chairman and Managing Director, APSRTC, 1st floor, Jawaharlal Bus complex, Vijayawada, Krishna District.

...RESPONDENTS

This petition is presented on 20.10.2022 and taken on file on 21.10.2022. The present order/decree arises as a consequence of filing of original petition, by the petitioners under Rule 455 of AP Motor Vehicle Rules and Section 166(c) of Motor Vehicles Act seeking compensation for the death of Sarikonda Manikanta (hereinafter he would be referred to as “the deceased”), in the road traffic incident. Value of the petition is Rs.15,00,000/-, on which a court fee of Rs.14,360/- is paid as per Rule 475 of APMV Rules. Cause of action for the petition arose on 11.07.2022, at NH-216 near Coringa Bridge, Thallarevu Mandal, E.G. District at about 9.30 P.M. when the deceased met with an accident and died due to the rash and negligent driving of R1 in driving his APSRTC Bus bearing registration No.AP05Z5024 where the motor accident was taken place about but the 1st petitioner residing Door No.2-74, Munipalli Village, Uppalaguptam Mandal, E.G. District which is within the jurisdiction of this Hon'ble Court.

15 This petition is coming on 03.04.2025 for final hearing before me in the presence of Sri N.Raja Sekhar, Advocate for petitioners, Sri N.Prabhakar, Advocate for the 1st respondent and Sri N.S.N. Murthy, Advocate for 2nd respondent and the matter having stood over for consideration till this day, this court doth order and decree: (1)That the petition be and the same is hereby allowed with costs by awarding compensation to the petitioners an amount of Rs.22,34,200- 00 (Rupees Twenty two lakhs thirty four thousand and two hundred only) with interest at 7.5% per annum reckonable from the date of filing of the petition till the date of deposit, (2)That the respondents 1 and 2 are jointly and severally liable to pay the said compensation amount, (3)that the respondent No.2 do deposit the awarded compensation amount, as per clause (1) above, with interest within one month from the date of this order, (4)that on such deposit, the 1st petitioner is entitled to Rs.12,50,000/- (Rupees Twelve lakhs fifty thousand only), the 2nd petitioner is entitled to Rs.3,64,200/-(Rupees three lakhs sixty four thousand and two hundred only) and 3rd petitioner is entitled to Rs.7,20,000/- (Rupees Seven lakhs twenty thousand only) and all the petitioners are entitled to withdraw their awarded compensation amounts with accrued interest thereon, (5)That the respondent No.2 do also deposit a sum of Rs.14,362/- towards costs of the petition. Given under my hand and the seal of this court, this the 15 th day of April, 2025.

Sd/- Sri Velamala Naresh

II ADDITIONAL DISTRICT JUDGE,

AMALAPURAM.

PARTICULARS OF COSTS

For petitioners: For respondents: Nil

Stamp on vakalath: Rs. 2-00 Stamp on petition: Rs.14,360-00 ------------------ Rs.14,362-00 -------------------

Sd/- Sri Velamala Naresh

II ADDITIONAL DISTRICT JUDGE,

AMALAPURAM.

BEFORE THE MOTOR ACCIDENTS CLAIMS TRIBUNAL­CUM­ II

ADDITIONAL DISTRICT COURT (MACT) :: AMALAPURAM:

Present: Sri Velamala Naresh II Additional District Judge, Amalapuram

Wednesday, the 16th day of April, 2025

MVOP No.76 of 2017

Between: 1.Gollapalli Krishnaveni 2.Gollapalli Ramakrishna 3.Gollapalli Lakshmi Priya 4.Gollapalli Akhil 5.Gollapalli Verriyya

6.Gollapalli Lakshmi Kantam ...PETITIONERS

AND 1.Ambati Dhanaraju, S/o.Ramudu, Hindu, age 42 years, Peda Peta, Vadapalem Village, Kothapeta Mandal, E.G. District. Pin: 533 223 (Rider cum owner of TVS XL Moped Motorcycle bearing registration No.AP05DH6050) 2.New India Assurance Company Limited, represented by its Divisional Manager, Regional Office, 3rd floor, Subhadra Arkead, Banugudi Junction, Kakinada, E.G. District 

...RESPONDENTS

This petition is coming on 15.04.2025 for final hearing before me in the presence of Sri N.Raja Sekhar, Advocate for petitioners, the 1st respondent remained exparte and Sri G.V.V.S.N. Gupta, Advocate for 2nd respondent and the matter having stood over for consideration till this day, this court made the following:

J U D G M E N T

The present order arises as a consequence of filing of original petition by the petitioner under Rule 455 of AP Motor Vehicle Rules and

Section 166(c)of Motor Vehicles Act seeking compensation for the death of Gollapalli Srinivasarao, in the road traffic incident.

2.The 1st petitioner is wife, 2nd and 3rd petitioners are minor daughters, 4th petitioner is minor son, 5th petitioner is father and 6th petitioner is mother respectively of the deceased Gollapalli Srinivasarao (hereinafter he would be referred to as “the deceased”). The deceased was aged about 38 years, he was hale and healthy and earning Rs.12,000/­ per month by doing coconut plucking. 

(i)On 14.09.2016 at about 8 P.M., while the deceased was trying to cross the road cautiously and carefully near Janakamma Ravi, Kothapeta road, Ravulapalem, R1 by rashly and negligently driving his TVS XL

Moped bearing registration No.AP05DH6050 gave hit to the deceased, due to the said hit, the deceased fell on the road, sustained grievous injuries and died instantaneously and to that effect the police Ravulapalem registered a case in Crime No.210/2016 against R1 for the offence punishable under Section 304­A of I.P.C., the police got conducted inquest and postmortemon the dead body of the deceased and later the police filed charge sheet against R1 by identifying him to be driver of the crime vehicle T.V.S. moped and by concluding R1 to be responsible for the death of the deceased.

(ii)Because of the untimely death of the deceased, his wife the 1st petitioner, minor children the petitioners 2 to 4 and parents the petitioners 5 and 6 sustained severe loss of love and affection and though the said loss cannot be compensated in terms of money, the petitioners are claiming an amount of Rs.10,00,000/­ towards compensation for the death of the deceased.

(iii) The 1st respondent who is owner cum rider of the crime vehicle has valid driving license for driving the crime vehicle a and R2 with whom

R1 insured the crime vehicle are jointly and severally liable for paying the claimed compensation amount to the petitioners.

(iv)With the said averments, the petitioners requested the Court to grant themher an amount of Rs.10,00,000/­ (Rs.10,000/­ towards transport to hospital and medical expenses, Rs.25,000/­ towards funeral expenses, Rs.1,00,000/­ towards compensation for mental agony,

Rs.1,00,000/­ towards compensation for loss of consortium, Rs.1,00,000/­ towards compensation for loss of love and affection and Rs.6,65,000/­ towards loss of life and loss of support) with interest at the rate of 12% per annum apart from awarding costs of proceedings to the petitioners.

3.The 1st respondent remained exparte.

4.R2, with the following averments, filed it’s written statement and the petition is maintainable under neither law nor facts.

(i)Most of the averments of the petition are absolutely false.

(ii) R­1 was not having valid driving licence for driving the mopes at the time of the incident and as such R2 is not liable for for making indemnification.

(iii)The incident took place because of negligence on the part of the deceased but not due to rash or negligent act of R1 in driving the motorcycle and as such R2 is not liable for payment of compensation.

(iv)R2 disputes age, avocation and earning capacity of the deceased at the time of the incident.

(v)Under the provisions of Motor Vehicles Act and terms and conditions of the insurance policy the owner of the crime vehicle and the police are bound to furnish information about the incident and documents pertaining to the vehicle to insurance company and despite the said mandate, both of them failed and as such the said failure exonerates liability of R2.

(vi)The claimed compensation is highly arbitrary and excessive and the petitioner is not entitled for claiming interest.

(vii) With the above averments, R2 requested the Court to dismiss the petition with costs.

5.Basing on the above pleadings, the following issues are settled for trial on 12.03.2020:

1. Whether the deceased Gollapalli Srinivasa Rao died due to a motor accident on 14.09.2016 at about 8 P.M. near Janakamma Ravi, Kothapeta road, Ravulapalem due to rash and negligent driving of TVS XL Moped motorcycle bearing Regd. No.AP05DH6050 driven by the 1st respondent?

2. Whether the petitioners are entitled for compensation as prayed for, from all the respondents jointly and severally?

3. To what relief?

6.For substantiating their version the petitioners apart from getting examined P.W.2, got examined 1st petitioner as PW1 and got marked

Ex.P1 to P5.

7.For substantiating it’s version, R2 examined RWs.1 and 2 and got marked Exs.R1 and R2 and Exs.X1 and X2.

8.Arguments of both counsel are heard and perused the record in detail.

Issue No.1:

9.The undisputed Ex.P3 postmortem report reveals death of deceased to have occasioned due to shock due to head injury and haemmarage.

10. Similarly the undisputed Ex.P2 inquest report reveals death of deceased to have occasioned due to the injuries occasioned to him in the road traffic accident.

11.R1 the admitted driver cum owner of crime vehicle TVX XL Moped bearing registration No.AP05DH6050 at the time of the incident, by remaining exparte, not only did not dispute but also impliedly admitted the petitioners’ contention that at the time of the incident the said Moped was being driven by R1, R1 drove it in a rash and negligent manner and when the deceased was trying to cross the road carefully and cautiously,

R1 gave a hit to the deceased, due to the said hit the deceased fell on the road, sustained severe injuries and died instantaneously.

12.R­2, while admitting occasioning of the incident, driving of crime vehicle TVX XL Moped by R1 at the time of the incident, death of the deceased to have occassioned due to his severe injuries sustained in the road traffic incident on hitting of crime vehicle Moped, claimed as if the incident occassioned because and rash and negligent crossing of the road by the deceased.

13.In view of the afore mentioned stand taken by R2, it is legally obligatory on the part of R2 for proving the said contention by way of adducing acceptable evidence to that effect and inspite of the said obligation R2, by failing in examining R1 by way of summoning him as a witness and by failing in adducing any other evidence of the person residing or moving in the vicinity of the incident, not only could not succeed but also failed in substantiating the said version, although burden of proof of the same is upon it and it alone and although there was every chance and possibility for R2 to easily get examined R1 or any other direct witness of the incident and thereby R­2 failed in substantiating its version which in turn establishes the incident to have occasioned because of the rash and negligent driving of Moped by R1 as this Court felt that had the advanced contention of R2 been true, R­2 would have dared enough in examining R1 or any other person who got knowledge of the incident as a witness by way of getting issued summons to them unlike in the instant case in which followed by no justification R2 deliberately did not examine them probably on the fear that on summoning the said witnesses, the contention of the petitioners would remain proved.

14.PW1 who is wife of the deceased is not direct witness to the incident whereas PW2 who was cited as LW6 in Ex.P5 charge­sheet who having lodged report with police who registered it as Ex.P1 FIR deposed as if he saw the motoraccident when the deceased was trying to cross the road very carefully and cautiously near Janakamma Ravi, Kothapeta road,

Ravulapalem at about 8 P.M., one TVS XL Moped was coming rashly and negligently with high speed without blowing horn and without observing road sense and thereby dashed the deceased, as a result, the deceased fell on the road and sustained grievous injuries on his person and immediately after the accident the deceased was shifted to Area Hospital, Kothapeta through 108 Ambullance. 

15.Though, P.W.2 the direct witness deposed as narrated supra, the learne counsel for R2 could not break open the natural, mighty and trustworthy testimony of P.W.2 and as a consequence thereof the petitioners adduced evidence that the deceased died because of rash and negligent driving of crime vehicle Moped by R­1 remained undisturbed on the record.

16.Ex.P5 charge­sheet that was filed against 1st respondent prima­facie establishes rash and negligent act of 1st respondent in driving crime vehicle RTC bus bearing registration No.AP 5 Z 0145, as has been held in the case of “The New India Assurance Co. Ltd vs Pazhaniammal and others 2012 ACJ 1370” .

17.It is neither proved nor at­least contended by the contesting R2 that death of the deceased occasioned otherwise than in the incident claimed by the petitioners which implies that human conduct of the 1st respondent being driver of the crime vehicle alone becomes responsible for the incident till it is proved by the contesting respondent that the incident occasioned because of vis major /act of God.

18.Admittedly it is neither proved nor at­least contended by the contesting R2 that the incident occasioned because of Act of God.

19.While either undisputing or admitting the 1st respondent to be driver of the crime vehicle at the time of the incident, the contesting 2nd respondent neither proved nor contended that the 1st respondent, being driver of the crime vehicle, took proper care and caution as an ordinary prudent man and despite taking proper care and caution, the incident occasioned because of negligence or such other similar act of the deceased.

20.In view of the afore reasons, this Court holds that death of the deceased occasioned because of the rash and negligent driving of crime vehicle TVS XL Moped by R1 at 8 P.M. on 14.09.2016 near Janakamma

Ravi, Kothapeta Road, Ravulapalem Village and Mandal.

Accordingly, issue No.1 is answered. 

Issue No.2 

21.The petitioners claimed as if the deceased was earning Rs.12,000/­ per month by the date of his death by working as coconut plucker and for substantiating the said version, the petitioners did not place on record acceptable either documentary or oral evidence to substantiate the said version consequently this Court disbelieves the said version of the petitioners.

22. Since the petitioners could not prove their advanced version that the deceased, by working as coconut plucker, was earning Rs.12,000/­ per month by the date of the incident, the next course available to the Court is to assess and conclude compensation based on other alternative mode.

23.As seen from the undisputed Ex.P1 FIR, Ex.P2 inquest report, Ex.P3

Postmortem certificate, Ex.P5 charge­sheet, age of the deceased by the date of his death to be 38 years and as such this Court by considering age of the deceased to be 38 years by the date of incident, concludes applicable multiplier to be ‘15’.

24.The multiplier for the age of the deceased by the date of his death was 15 and monthly income of the deceased by the date of his death was concluded to be Rs.9,000/­ per month since by the date of death of year 2016 because of hike condition of cost of living even an ordinary coolie worker used to get not less than Rs.400/­ to Rs.500/­ per day even for attending unskilled work, however, as per the 2nd limb of judgment held in

National Insurance Company Limited Vs. Pranay Sethi and Ors (2017 ACT

2700) , future prospects have to be arrived at 40% of the earning capacity which comes to Rs.3,600/­ which makes the total to be Rs.12,600/­ per month.

24.Therefore, the compensation amount has to be computed as

Rs.12,600/­ x 12 x 15 = Rs.22,68,000/­

25.However, as per Sarala Verma’s case required deduction has to be made from the above arrived figure.

26.The petition was filed by wife, two minor daughter, one minor son and parents respectively of the deceased, consequently all the petitioners who are 6 in number are legal heirs cum dependents of the deceased and as such deduction has to be made at ¼th from the above arrived compensation amount and consequently the payable compensation amount is Rs.17,01,000/­ being ¾th of Rs.22,68,000/­.

28. The petitioners are also entitled for compensation, funeral expenses at Rs.25,000/­, compensation for loss of love and affection is

Rs.1,00,000/­, compensation for loss consortium is Rs.1,00,000/­ and compensation for transport expenses is Rs.10,000/­. 

29.Therefore, the petitioners are entitled for the total compensation as follows : (1) Compensation for loss of ...Rs. 17,01,000­00 dependency (2) Compensation for loss of love and affection …Rs. 1,00,000­00 (3)Compensation for loss of consortium: Rs. 1,00,000­00 (3) Funeral expenses...Rs. 25,000­00 (4) Transport expenses ...Rs. 10,000­00 ­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­

Total ...Rs. 19,36,000­00

­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­

30.In view of the afore discussions this Court holds that the petitioners 1 to 6 are entitled to recover an amount of Rs.19,36,000­00 towards compensation for the death of deceased. 

31.The above finding leaves another question for consideration which is as to from whom the payable compensation amount can be recovered.

32.Admittedly, R1 was proved to be owner cum driver of the crime vehicle TVS XL Moped bearing registration No.AP05­DH­6050 and R1 was proved to have insured the said vehicle with R2 through Ex.R1 policy which was in subsistance by the date of the incident as admitted by R2’s witness RW1 who admitted in his cross examination that by the date of the incident R1 policy was in force and the deceased was third party to

Ex.R1 policy.

33.It is contended by the contesting R2 that though R1 got insured the crime vehicle with R2 under Ex.R1 policy and it was in subsistence by the date of the incident, yet R2 need not pay the compensation amount and the petitioners have to recover the compensation amount from R1 alone as he drove the crime vehicle moped and caused the incident at the time of its happening without possessing valid driving license and by contending so R2 by getting examined RW2 an official of Road Transport Office,

Ravulapalem and by getting marked Ex.X2 copy of driving licence details which do not reveal R1 to have driving licence at any point of time and by sending Ex.R2 notice to R1 by asking him to produce the documents pertaining to the vehicle including driving licence and by proving that R1 did not respond at Ex.R2 notice, could establish that R1 was not having valid and effective driving licence for driving the crime vehicle Moped at the time of the incident.

34.The learned counsel for the petitioners, by relying on decision reported in 2021 ACJ 2165 held in between "Ayisa and others Vs.

Manager, New India Assurance Co. Ltd and another" contended that even in the absence of possessing valid driving license by the driver of the crime vehicle at the time of the incident, the insurance company with which the crime vehicle was insured cannot escape liability on that score.

However, this Court by conceding with the contention of the petitioners’ counsel and by throwing out the contention raised by R2 counsel, holds that despite non­possessing of valid and effective driving license by R1 on the date of incident, yet the Insurance Company is liable for payment of compensation but it can recover the same from R1 since R1 was proved to have driven the crime vehicle being owner of it at the time of incident without having valid and effective driving license.

35.In view of the afore discussions this Court holds that the petitioners are entitled to recover an amount of Rs.19,36,000/­ towards compensation for the death of the deceased from R1 and R2.

36.Admittedly, petitioners 1 to 6 being husband, three minor children and parents respectively of the deceased, consequently this Court distributes the awarded amount as follows.

1st petitioner : Rs. 6,00,000/­ 2nd petitioner: Rs. 3,00,000/­ 3rd petitioner : Rs. 3,00,000/­ 4th petitioner : Rs. 3,00,000/­ 5th petitioner: Rs. 1,61,000/­ 6th petitioner : Rs. 2,75,000/­ 

Accordingly, these issues are answered.

Issue No.5:

37.In the result, the petition is allowed with costs against the respondents 1 and 2 jointly and severally awarding the petitioner a compensation amount of Rs.19,36,000/­ (Rupees nineteen lakhs thirty­six thousand only) with interest at 7.5% per annum from the date of filing of the petition till the date of deposit excluding the period during which the petition remains un­restored after its dismissal for default if any.

(i)The respondent No.2 is directed to deposit the awarded amount with interest with this court within one month from the date of this order at the first instance and then it will be at liberty to recover the same from R1. 

(ii)On such deposit, the petitioners 1, 5 and 6 are at liberty to withdraw their respected awarded compensation amount with accrued interest,

(iii)The awarded compensation amount of the petitioners 2 to 4 shall be kept in Fixed Deposit in any Nationalized Bank till they attain majority and thereafter they would be at liberty to withdraw the same with accrued interest, 

(iv)Advocate is fixed at Rs.2,000/­.

(v)Office is directed to prepare decree after payment of deficit court fee by the petitioners. 

Typed to my dictation, transcribed by him, corrected and pronounced by me in open court on this the 16 th day of April, 2025. (Sd/­ V.NARESH)

II ADDITIONAL DISTRICT JUDGE,

AMALAPURAM.

Appendix of Evidence Witnesses examined

For Petitioners:

P.W.1 : Gollapalli Krishna Veni

P.W.2 : Chiluvuri Subbaraju

For Respondents:

RW1 : Kodali Leela Krishna RW2 : P.Vasavi Priyanka 

Documents marked

For Petitioners:

Ex.P1 : Attested copy of F.I.R. in Crime No.210/2016 of Ravulapalem P.S. Ex.P2 : Attested copy of inquest report Ex.P3 : Attested copy of Postmortem report Ex.P4 : Attested copy of M.V.I report Ex.P5 : Attested copy of charge sheet in Crime No.210/2016 of Ravulapalem P.S.

For Respondents:

Ex.R1: Attested copy of insurance policy Ex.R2: Office copy of notice issued to R1

Ex.X1: Authorization letter issued to RW2 Ex.X2: Copy of driving licence data (Sd/­ V.NARESH)

II. A.D.J. 

1

IN THE COURT OF II ADDITIONAL DISTRICT AND SESSIONS COURT,

AMALAPURAM

Present: Sri Velamala Naresh, II Additional District and Sessions Judge, Amalapuram

Tuesday, the 15th day of April, 2025

Crl.Appeal No. 1 of 2022

Between: 1.Rallapalli Venkata Ramana Murthy, S/o. Venugopala Rao, Age 40 years, Hindu,Flat No.1, Sri Devi Enclave, Akkayyapalem, Visakhapatnam.

2.Rallapalli Suryadevi, W/o. Venugopala Rao, Age 70 years, Hindu,Flat No.1, Sri Devi Enclave, Akkayyapalem, Visakhapatnam.

3.Rallapalli Venugopala Rao, S/o.late Venkata Ramana Murthy, Age 80 years, Hindu, Flat No.1, Sri Devi Enclave, Akkayyapalem, Visakhapatnam.

...Appellants

AND 1.The State rep. by Public Prosecutor, Visakhapatnam.

2.Smt. Nittala Venkata Durga Bhavani, W/o.Venkata Ramana Murthy, Age 34 years, Flat No.3/29, Amrutha Arcade, Opp: Chaitanya College, PM Palem, Visakhapatnam.

3.Rallapalli Satya, W/o.Bhargav Krishna, Age 38 years, Hindu, Flat No.1, Sri Devi Enclave, Akkayyapalem, Visakhapatnam. (3rd respondent is added as a proforma party and no relief is sought against her as the claim against her is not pressed in DVC 62/2019). …RESPONDENTS

This Crl. Appeal is coming on 15-04-2025 for consideration before me in the presence of Sri Kandala Srinivasa Rao, Advocate for the Appellants and Sri S.Srinivasa Murthy and N.V.K.Sharma, Advocates for respondent / petitioner having stood over till this day for consideration, this court made the following:

O R D E R

Consequent to filing of Crl. Appeal, with the following averments, by the

Appellants / Respondents against the respondents / petitioners under Section 29 of the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act 2005 (herein after it would be referred to as DVC Act) seeking setting aside the order dt.31-3- 2021 passed by the Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Visakhapatnam in 2

Crl.M.P.No.375/2020 in DVC No.62/2019 filed for the relief of providing

maintenance by dismissing the interim maintenance petition after allowing the appeal, the present order arises.

2.The order dt.31-3-2021 of the trial Court is contrary to law, weight of evidence and probabilities of the case.

3.The trial Court, by failing in properly appreciating the matter both legally and factually, erroneously allowed the petition instead of dismissing it.

4.The trial Court ought to have held that the respondent deserted her husband and as such she is not entitled for claiming maintenance.

5.The trial Court ought to have seen that without taking plea about demanding of dowry by the petitioner and giving of dowry by the parents of the respondent in her earlier legal correspondence, for the first time, the respondent made allegations of dowry in her petition.

6.The trial Court, by over-sighting the fact that the respondent and by declining to lead marital life with her husband the appellant, neglected and deserted him by voluntarily leaving for her parents’ house of Kesanakurru, wrongly allowed the petition.

7.The trial Court ought to have held that the 1st appellant has no income yielding properties or sources as such he cannot provide maintenance to his wife and the 1st appellant is under obligation to look after his old aged and sick parents.

3

8.The trial Court ought to have held that the 2nd respondent, being wife of the 1st appellant, is not entitled for claiming maintenance as she subjected the 1st appellant to both physical and mental cruelty.

9.The trial Court ought to have denied maintenance to the 2nd respondent on the score that to harass the 1st appellant and his family members she filed series of cases with false averments.

10.The trial Court ought to have rejected the petition of R-2 on the ground that she never resided in Visakhapatnam but resided in her native place of

Kesanakurru village of I.Polavaram Mandal, East Godavari District.

11. As per rulings of Superior courts, claiming maintenance is not as a matter of right but it is only an entitlement and inspite of the said fact, the trial

Court went wrong in granting maintenance to R-2 as a matter of right.

12.For these and other grounds that may be urged by the appellants at the time of hearing of the appeal, the appeal deserves allowing.

13.With the said averments, the appellants requested the Court to set aside the order order dt.31-3-2021 passed by the Chief Metropolitan Magistrate,

Visakhapatnam in Crl.M.P.No.375/2020 in DVC No.62/2019 by dismissing the interim maintenance petition after allowing the appeal.

14.For effectual adjudication of the matter, this Court felt perusal of both parties pleadings advanced before the trial Court to be necessary which run thus.

4

15.For avoiding confusion and ambiguity the array of the parties mentioned in the petition and counter of the trial Court would hereinafter be referred to as arrayed in the petition and counter.

16.The petition of the petitioner in the trial Court contained as follows:

17.The petitioner is residing in Pothina Mallayyapalem, Visakhapatnam, her marriage with the 1st respondent was performed according to their caste custom and Hindu religious rites on 16-10-2016 at Hotel Rockdale, her marriage was not consummated, for her marriage her parents gave dowry of

Rs.6,00,000/-, adapaduchu lanchanam of Rs.50,000/-, 15 tulas of Gold ornaments, sari saman worth Rs.2,00,000/- to R-1 to R-3, her parents also gave 20 tulas of Gold ornaments and 100 tulas of silver articles to her while sending her to the matrimonial home, the given dowry and articles are under the custody of the respondents, her parents sustained expenses of

Rs.10,00,000/- for performing the marriage, she did not mention the said fact in her reply notice on a fond hope that R-1 would take her into his marital fold, she filed the original DVC for past and future maintenance and proceedings expenses.

18.R-1 is doing good job and he is getting monthly salary of Rs.60,000/-, R- 1 is having fixed deposit of Rs.20,00,000/- in his name, from the deposit he is getting interest regularly, the fixed deposit amount derived from joint and ancestral properties of R-1.

5

19.Despite legal obligation of maintaining the petitioner, R-1 willfully neglected her due to which she is leading miserable life whereas R-1 is leading luxurious life by not having any responsibilities since the father of R-1, by doing business of interior decoration, is earning huge amounts.

20.In the present cost of living, the petitioner requires Rs.40,000/- per month towards her maintenance and the petitioner is not having any source of income for her livelihood.

21.Pending disposal of the main DVC, the petitioner requires interim maintenance of Rs.25,000/- per month apart from an amount of Rs.50,000/- towards proceedings expenses.

22.With the said averments, the petitioner requested the Court to pass an order in her favour and against the respondents for directing the 1st respondent for payment of interim maintenance of Rs.25,000/- per month and proceedings costs of Rs.50,000/- to her pending disposal of the main DVC.

23.The counter of the 1st respondent contained the following :

24.All the petition averments, except relationship of the parties interse, are incorrect.

25.Marriage was not consummated due to adamant behaviour of the petitioner.

26.The averments of the petition that the parents of the petitioner gave dowry in the shape of cash, gold, silver and articles, R-1 is getting Rs.60,000/- per month by doing job and getting interest regularly on fixed deposit of 6

Rs.20,00,000/- derived from joint family, R-1 neglected and deserted the petitioner, the petitioner is leading miserable life and R-1 is leading luxurious life, R-1 has no dependents, R-1’s father is earning lot by doing interior decoration business, the petitioner requires interim maintenance of

Rs.25,000/- per month apart from Rs.50,000/- towards litigation expenses and

R-1 is legally bound to provide the sought maintenance are incorrect.

27.Earlier R-1 was employed in a private company which manufactures lifts, because of his marriage with the petitioner, he was forced to quit the said job as his employer refused to transfer him to Visakhapatnam from Vijayawada for which the 1st respondent requested as the petitioner refused to stay with R- 1’s parents in Visakhapatnam.

28.The petitioner always used to create unpleasant atmosphere in the home.

29.R-1 is unemployed now, he has no standard salary and on adhoc basis he is doing accountancy work by getting Rs.15,000/- per month which is hardly sufficient to take care of him and his old aged ailed parents.

30.The petitioner subjected the 1st respondent and his family members both physically and mentally and she herself deserted R-1 and left for her parents’ house.

31.The petitioner has no respect on matrimonial relationship and she often thinks for extracting money from R-1 by way of harassing him and his family members.

7

32.Initially, R-1 filed O.P.1221/2017 against the petitioner seeking relief of judicial separation and as a counter-blast to it, O.P.1579/2017 was filed by the petitioner seeking maintenance and the present case is filed by the petitioner for harassing the respondents.

33.The petitioner is not entitled to claim for any maintenance from R-1.

34.With the said averments, R-1 requested the Court to dismiss the petition with costs.

35.During the course of enquiry of the matter, before the trial Court, both the parties to the litigation did not adduce documentary and oral evidence.

36.After hearing both counsel, the trial Court of Chief Judicial Magistrate,

Visakhapatnam allowed the petition in part by passing the order as hereunder :

“In the result, the petition is partly allowed by granting interim maintenance @ Rs.5,000/- per month to the petitioner and against the 1st respondent from the date of Petition i.e. from 7-01-2020 till further orders. The 1st respondent shall deposit the interim maintenance in the bank account of petitioner on or before 10th every succeeding month and he is directed to deposited the arrears of maintenance also. The petitioner is hereby directed to furnish the bank account q details by way of filing memo before this Court and by giving notice to the order side.” 8

37.Having aggrieved at the said order, the appellant came up with the present appeal seeking setting aside the order of the trial Court by dismissing the interim maintenance petition after allowing the appeal.

38.Along with the principal Appeal No.74/2021, the appellants who are respondents in the interim maintenance petition filed stay petition

Crl.M.P.48/2021 in which the Appellate Court of Metropolitan Sessions Judge,

Visakhapatnam on 9-12-2021 passed the order as hereunder :

“Heard both sides. Petitioner Counsel seeks stay of all further proceedings of trial Court. The respondents are trying for execution of trial Court order. Respondent Counsel (lower Court) filed Vakalat and ready for arguments in main appeal and opposed to grant stay as the interim maintenance award is only Rs.5,000/- to decide the same LCR is yet to come but in the mean time the petitioner is directed to deposit 50% of the interim maintenance granted along with arrears on or before 27-12-2021 and upon such deposit, there shall be stay of the trial Court order in Crl.M.P.No.375/2020 dt.31-3-2021 in DVC.No.62/2019. For compliance call on 27-12-2021.”

On 27-12-2021 the Appellate Court passed the following order :

“Memo filed by the petitioner counsel that 50% of the arrears amount is deposited. Since conditional order complied, stay of trial Court order in Crl.M.P.375/2020 dated 31-3-2021 is granted. For hearing 9 objections if any call on 2-2-2022 from which date it was adjourned to 23-2-2022” on which date the following order was passed.

“Objections not filed, at request of appellant counsel and for objections on respondents side call on 4-4-2022 since interim stay is already granted on deposit of 50% of interim maintenance, no further extension of stay is necessary since conditions for stay is complied.”

39.Initially it is contended by the learned counsel for the respondent / wife that due to inadvertence or mistake the Appellate Court at Visakhapatnam wrongly held the Appellants to have complied the stay order dt.9-12-2021 though the Appellants did not deposit 50% of the accrued due amount and they paid much less amount than the due amount and during the course of hearing on that aspect the learned counsel for the appellants could not properly answer the query raised by the respondent’s counsel nor filed any kind of documentary proof such as bank or online deposit copies disclosing the appellants to have complied the direction of the Appellate Court at

Visakhapatnam.

40.The learned counsel for the appellants argued at length on the aspects touching the main DVC though the fact remains that law does not permit for probing and deciding such legal and factual aspects touching the main DVC since such aspects can only be probed and decided on full-pledged trial of the

DVC case but not at any point of time prior to it and as such the contentions 10 raised by the learned counsel for the appellants now do not fall for consideration as the said contentions would be probed and decided by competent Court having jurisdiction for trying main DVC.

41.Admittedly, the 1st appellant is the legally wedded husband of the 2nd respondent who was the petitioner in the interim maintenance petition, the marital tie of them is still in subsistence having not been so far annulled by acts of parties or operation of law and as such the 1st appellant has legal obligation to maintain his wife by way of providing interim maintenence pending disposal of main DVC case in which the 1st appellant’s elaborate versions would be probed and decided as per law.

42.Both the 1st appellant and 2nd respondent, being wife and husband, blamed each other for their separate living and at this stage the aspect as to who is at fault among them for such separate living cannot be probed and decided in as much as that aspect, being a pure question of fact, can only be probed and decided on full-pledged trial of main DVC.

43.In view of the afore mentioned observation, this Court is of the view that pending determination of that aspect, the 2nd respondent, being legitimate wife of the 1st appellant, has unfettered right of getting interim maintenance.

44.It is neither proved nor atleast contended by the appellants that the 2nd respondent has any kind of properties or income yielding sources for her survival while admitting the 2nd respondent to have been staying in her parents house of Kesanakurru village away from the appellants.

11

45.Even in his counter, the 1st appellant admitted to have been earning

Rs.15,000/- per month and as such even based on that admission the order of the trial Court which warrants the 1st appellant for payment of interim maintenance at the rate of Rs.5,000/- to the 2nd respondent is absolutely justifiable pending disposal of the main DVC.

46.In a stage like the instant one of a case granting of meager maintenance amount of after all Rs.5,000/- in these high cost of living rates to the petitioner towards interim maintenance cannot at any cost be found fault with and indeed the 2nd respondent / wife ought to have approached the Appellate Court seeking enhancement of the imposed interim maintenance amount keeping in view the present inflation rate.

47.For the foregoing reasons, this Court holds that appeal has no merits and as such it deserves dismissal.

48.In the result, the Criminal Appeal is dismissed by confirming the order

dated 31.03.2021 passed in Crl.M.P.No.375/2020 in D.V.C.No.62/2019 by the

Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Visakhapatnam.

Typed to dictation, corrected and pronounced by me in open Court on this the

15 th day of April, 2025.

Sd/- Sri Velamala Naresh

II Additional Sessions Judge Amalapuram

No additional oral or documentary evidence is adduced on either side.

Sd/- Sri Velamala Naresh

II A.D.J.

1

BEFORE THE MOTOR ACCIDENTS CLAIMS TRIBUNAL­CUM­ II ADDL. 

DISTRICT COURT (MACT) :: AMALAPURAM: Present: Sri Velamala Naresh II Addl. District Judge, Tuesday, the 16th day of April, 2025

MVOP NO.145/2018

Between: 1.Shaik Meera 2.Shaik Pathima 3.Shaik Mohammed Vali 4.Shaik Amin Bibi

5.Shaik Balaji..Petitioners.

(Petitioners 2 and 3 are minors being represented by their mother and guardian 1st petitioner)

AND 1.P.Prasada Rao 2.Devi Anusuri 2.United India Insurance Company Ltd., Rep. by Divisional Manager, 

Rajahmundry. ..Respondents.

This petition is coming on 03­1­2024 for consideration before me in the presence of Sri Md.Azam, Advocate for petitioners and respondents 1 to 3 remained exparte and having stood over for consideration till this day, this court made the following:

R E V I E W J U D G M E N T

Consequent to allowing of IA.469/2025, the following review Judgment is passed. 

Consequent to filing of the original petition by the petitioners, with the following averments, under Rules 455 and 190 of AP Motor Vehicle Rules and 2

Section 166 of Motor Vehicles Act seeking compensation for the death of deceased Shaik Mastan in the road traffic incident, the present order arises.

2.The 1st petitioner is wife, 2nd petitioners is minor daughter, 3rd petitioner is minor son, 4th petitioner is mother and 5th petitioner is father of the deceased

Shaik Mastan.

3.Shaik Mastan was aged about 30 years, he was hale and healthy and he was earning Rs.10,000/­ per month by working as skilled labour in the brick kiln by the date of incident and he used to contribute his entire earnings to his family till his death. On 28­5­2018 in the morning hours the deceased loaded bricks on the tractor cum trailer bearing Nos. AP37 AP 7254 and AP 05 TD 9112, went to Kakinada as unloading cooli, after unloading the bricks in

Kakinada, while they were returned, the 1st respondent drover the tractor cum trailer bearing Nos. AP37 AP 7254 and AP 05 TD 9112 in which the deceased was traveling as unloading cooli, in a rash and negligent manner with high speed and when the said vehicle crossed Pedaparti revu centre and proceeding towards Mandapeta, due to rash and negligent driving and high speed, the said tractor­and­trailer became uncontrolled thereby turned turtle as a result of it, the tractor along trailer fell into Mandapeta big canal and as the deceased was underneath the said vehicle, he received injuries and died on the spot.

Because of the untimely death of the deceased, the petitioners who are wife, children and parents of the deceased sustained severe loss of love and affection and earning support and though the said loss cannot be compensated in terms 3 of money, the petitioners are claiming an amount of Rs.14,00,000/­ towards compensation for the death of the deceased.

5.The 1st respondent, being driver of the crime vehicle Tractor­cum­trailer bearing Regn.No.AP37 AP 7254 and AP 05 TD 9112 has valid driving license, the 2nd petitioner being owner has valid permits and the insurance policies issued by the 3rd respondent in respect of the crime vehicle tractor and trailer belonging to the 2nd respondent were in subsistence by the date of the incident and as such the respondents 1 to 3 are jointly and severally liable for paying the claimed compensation amount to the petitioners.

6.With the said averments, the petitioners requested the Court to grant them an amount of Rs.14,00,000/­ (Rs.15,000/­ towards transport to hospital and medical expenses, Rs.500/­ towards damages to clothes, Rs.15,000/­ towards funeral expenses, Rs.1,00,000/­towards compensation for loss of love and affection, Rs.50,000/­ towards compensation for loss of consortium and

Rs.12,19,500/­ towards compensation for the loss of life and loss of earning power/support) with interest at the rate of 12% p.a. apart from awarding costs to the petitioners. 

7.The respondents 1 to 3 remained exparte.

8.For substantiating their version, apart from getting examined P.W.2, the petitioners got examined the 1st petitioner as P.W.1 and got marked Exs.P1 to

P4 .

9.Arguments of counsel for the petitioners are heard and perused the record in detail.

4

10.Hearing of counsel for the petitioners and perusal of record leave the following points for consideration: 

1. Whether the deceased Shaik Mastan died in a motor accident on 28­5­ 2018 in the accident occurred at Mandapata big canal, Mandapeta due to rash and negligent driving of Tractor­cum­trailer bearing Regn.No.AP37 AP 7254 and AP 05 TD 9112 driven by the 1st respondent?

2. Whether the petitioners are entitled for compensation as prayed for, from the respondent ?

3. To what relief?

Point No.1

11. The 1st respondent being driver, the 2nd respondent being owner of the crime vehicle Tractor­cum­trailer bearing Regn.No.AP37 AP 7254 and AP 05

TD 9112, by remaining exparte, did not dispute the petitioner’s contention that death of the deceased Shaik Mastan occasioned because of sustaining fracture injury to right upper 3rd portion of femur and drowning into water on falling of the crime vehicle tractor and trailer on its rash and negligent driving by R­1.

12.Even R­3 with which R­2 was alleged to have insured the crime vehicle

Tractor­cum­trailer bearing Regn.No.AP37 AP 7254 and AP 05 TD 9112, by remaining exparte, conceded with the petitioner’s contention that the deceased died because of rash and negligent driving of crime vehicle tractor and trailer by the 1st respondent.

13.P.W.2 the alleged eye witness of the incident deposed that on the date of the incident he, along with the deceased Shaik Mastan, was traveling on the crime vehicle Tractor­cum­trailer bearing Regn.No.AP37 AP 7254 and AP 05 5

TD 9112, when the crime vehicle reached near Mandapeta big canal, R­1 being driver of the crime vehicle drove it in a rash and negligent manner and due to which the crime vehicle fell into the nearby canal, he could escape from the incident whereas the deceased died as the crime vehicle fell on him in the canal and the said testimony of P.W.2 remained on the record proved in as much as

R­1 to R­3, by remaining exparte, did not challenge his testimony.

14.Added to the above Ex.P4 charge sheet that was filed against 1st respondent prima­facie establishes rash and negligent act of 1st respondent in driving crime vehicle Tractor­cum­trailer bearing Regn.No.AP37 AP 7254 and

AP 05 TD 9112 as has been held in the case of “The New India Assurance Co.

Ltd vs Pazhaniammal and others" reported in 2012 ACJ 1370 .

15.In view of the afore reasons, this Court holds that death of the deceased

Shaik Mastan occasioned because of the rash and negligent act of 1st respondent the driver of Tractor­cum­trailer bearing Regn.No.AP37 AP 7254 and AP 05 TD 9112 on the unfateful day of 28­05­2018 near Mandapeta big canal, Mandapeta. Accordingly, this issue is answered.

Point No.2 :

16.Though the petitioners claimed as if Shaik Mastan was earning

Rs.10,000/­ per month by the date of his death by working as skilled labour in brick kiln, the petitioners did not place acceptable either documentary or oral evidence to substantiate the said version consequently this Court disbelieves the said version of the petitioners.

6

17.Since the petitioners could not prove their advanced version that Shaik

Mastan, by working as skilled labour in brick kiln, was earning Rs.10,000/­ per month by the date of the incident, the next course available to the Court is to assess and conclude compensation based on notional mode.

18.It was claimed by the petitioners that by the date of his death, Shaik

Mastan was 30 years old and the same fact can be perceived from Ex.P2 inquest report and Ex.P3 post­mortem report and as such this Court concludes age of the deceased Shaik Mastan to be 30 years by the date of his death on 28­5­ 2018.

19.The multiplier for the age of Shaik Mastan by the date of his death was 17 and monthly income reckonable for Pambala Venkateswa rao by 2018 was

Rs.7,500/­ , however, as per the 2nd limb of judgment held in  National

Insurance Company Limited Vs. Pranay Sethi and Ors (2017 ACT 2700),

future prospects have to be arrived on 40% of the earning capacity which comes to Rs.2,800/­ which makes the total to Rs.9,800/­.

20.Therefore, the compensation amount has to be computed as 9,800 x 17 x 12 = Rs.19,99,200/­ since the applicable multiplier is '17'.

21. However, as per Sarala Verma’s case required deduction has to be made from the above arrived figure. 

22.Wife, minor daughter, minor son and parents of the deceased Shaik

Mastan were shown as petitioners / claimants, therefore the number of claimants to be 5 which figure entitles for deduction of 1/4th amount from the 7 above mentioned arrived figure in concluding the payable compensation amount.

23.Therefore, 1/4th of Rs.19,99,920/­ is Rs.4,99,800 consequently payable loss of earning is Rs.14,99,400/­.

24.The petitioners are also entitled for compensation under heads funeral expenses at Rs.15,000/­, compensation for the loss of love and affection at

Rs.1,00,000/­ and loss of consortium at Rs.50,000/­ totaling to Rs.1,65,000/­.

25.In view of the afore discussion and in view of the observation given in issue No.1, this Court holds that the petitioners are entitled for the total compensation as follows : (1) Compensation for the loss of life ...Rs. 14,99,400­00 and loss of earning power / support (2) Compensation for loss of love and affection …Rs. 1,00,000­00 (3) Compensation for loss of consortium ...Rs. 50,000­00 (4) Funeral expenses ...Rs. 15,000­00 ­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­

Total ...Rs.16,64,400­00

­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­

26.The above finding leaves another question for consideration which is as to from whom the payable compensation amount can be recovered.

27.As observed in Point No.1 the 1st respondent was driver and 2nd respondent was owner of the crime vehicle tractor­and­trailer.

28.It is the specific contention of the petitioners that the crime vehicle’s owner R­2 insured both tractor and trailer bearing registration Nos. AP 37 AP 7254 and AP 05 TD 9112 with R­3 under policy Nos. 1511813117P112012515 8 and 1511813117P108187846 respectively. However, R­3 the alleged insurer of the crime vehicle tractor­cum­trailer, remained exparte whereas the petitioners did not file into Court even atleast attested or ordinary copies of the alleged insurance policies although the burden of proof of the same is upon them and them alone regardless of the fact of non­contesting of the matter by R­3.

29.As observed supra, this Court holds that, followed by no justification, the petitioners, by failing in securing and filing authenticated documentary proof to show that R­2 the owner of the tractor­and­trailer insured them with R­3, by the date of the incident the said insurance policies were in force, the said policies were of such a nature that R­3 being insurer of the crime vehicle has to indemnify R­2 from the consequence of payment of compensation amount in case of occasioning of any untoward incident and in furtherance of the said policies R­3 would step into the shoes of R­2 in payment of the sought compensation amount.

30.In view of the substance of the immediate preceding paragraph, this

Court holds that the petitioners cannot seek the payable compensation amount from R­3 who could not be proved by the petitioners to have any manner of concern over or nexus with the issue of compensation amount payable on the death of the deceased Mastan in the road traffic accident.

31.By getting filed and allowed, review petition IA.469/2025, the petitioners filed and marked the insurance policies as Exs.P1 and P2 in the 9

IA.469/2025 and they are taken as Ex.A5 and A6 in the main MVOP and could

prove the liability of R3.

32.In view of the afore discussions this Court holds that the petitioners 1 to 5 are entitled to recover an amount of Rs.16,64,400­00 towards compensation for the death of deceased Shaik Mastan from R­1 to R­3 jointly and severally with interest at the rate of 7.5% p.a. reckonable on the awarded amount from the date of filing of the petition excluding the period during which the petition remains un­restored after its dismissal for default if any. 

33.The 1st Petitioner who is wife, petitioners 2 and 3 who are minor daughter and son, petitioner No.4 who is mother and the petitioner No.5 who is father of the deceased Shaik Mastan are entitled for the awarded compensation under the following proportionation.

1.The 1st petitioner ­­ Rs.6,00,000­00 

2.The 2nd petitioner ­­ Rs.4,00,000­00

3.The 3rd petitioner ­­ Rs.3,50,000­00

4.The 4th petitioner ­­ Rs.2,14,400­00

5.The 5th petitioner ­­ Rs.1,00,000­00

Accordingly, this issue is answered.

Issue No.3:

34.In the result, the petition is allowed with costs against the respondents 1 to 3 by making them jointly and severally liable for paying the awarded amount of Rs.16,64,400­00 (Rupees Sixteen lakhs sixty four thousand four hundred only) with interest at 7.5 percent p.a. to the petitioners from the date of filing of the petition till the date of deposit excluding the period during which the 10 petition remains un­restored after its dismissal for default if any. The respondents 1 to 3 are jointly and severally are liable to pay the said amount within one month from the date of this order. R3 shall deposit the awarded compensation amount with this Court within one month from today i.e., 16.04.2025. The office is directed to prepare the decree on receipt of additional court fee payable on the additionally awarded compensation amount of Rs.2,64,400/­ which is over and the above the claimed amount of Rs.14,00,000/­.

 On such deposit ­ i. the 1st petitioner is entitled to Rs.6,00,000/­ with subsequent interest and costs and out of the said amount an amount of Rs.3,00,000/­ shall be kept in fixed deposit in any nationalized bank for a period of two years whereas she is entitled to withdraw Rs.5,05,188/­ with subsequent interest and costs.

ii. the petitioners 2 to 4 are entitled to Rs.1,00,000/­ each with subsequent interest and they are entitled to with draw the same.

iii. Advocate is fixed at Rs.2,000/­.

Typed to dictation, corrected and pronounced by me in open court on this 16th day of April, 2024.

(Sd/­ V.NARESH)

II ADDL.DISTRICT JUDGE,

AMALAPURAM.

Appendix of Evidence Witnesses examined

For Petitioners:For 2nd respondent :

P.W.1 : Pambala Susheela None P.W.2 : Katru Ramakrishna

Documents marked

For Petitioners:

Ex.A1 : Attested copy of F.I.R. in Cr.No.85/2017 of Amalapuram Taluk PS 11

Ex.A2 : Attested copy of Inquest report. Ex.A3 : Attested copy of Postmortem report. Ex.A4 : Attested copy of M.V.I. report Ex.A5 : Attested copy of charge­sheet in Cr.No.85/2017 of Amalapuram Taluk P.S.

For 2nd respondent : NIL (Sd/­ V.NARESH)

II. A.D.J.