Sri V.Srinivasa Anjaneya Murthy

BEFORE THE MOTOR ACCIDENT CLAIMS TRIBUNAL-CUM-

PRINCIPAL DISTRICT JUDGE, KADAPA

Present: V. SRINIVASA ANJANEYA MURTHY,

CHAIRMAN, MOTOR ACCIDENT CLAIMS TRIBUNAL-CUM-

PRINCIPAL DISTRICT JUDGE, KADAPA.

Friday, this the 30 th day of June, 2023

M.V.O.P.No. 277 of 20 19

Between:

Jaladanki Rajesh, S/o Chandra Sekhar Achari, aged 22 years, Hindu, Painter now residing at D.No.2/305, Maruthi Nagar, Kadapa Town and City. Previously residing at 6/92, Girija Street, Railway Kodur Mandal, Kadapa District. … Petitioner And:

1. J.Sai, S/o Chandra Sekhar Achari, Hindu, age not known but Major, residing at D.No.8/163-3, Ram Near, Railway Kodur Town and Mandal, Kadapa District. (Owner of the Yamaha Motorcycle bearing No. AP 04-BX-1556).

2. The Reliance General Insurance Co. Ltd, rep. by its Branch Manager, Legal Branch Office, D.No.13-2-275, R.S.Road, Kadapa. (Insurer of the Yamaha Motorcycle bearing No. AP 04-BX-1556). … Respondents

This petition coming on 23.06.2023 before me for final hearing in the presence of Sri U.Subramanyam, Advocate for petitioner, Respondent No.1 remained exparte and Sri D.Raja Sekhar Reddy, Advocate for Respondent No.2 and upon perusing the material available on record and the matter having stood over for consideration till this day, this Court made the following :

O R D E R

01.This petition is filed under Section.166 of Motor Vehicles Act r/w Rule 455 of A.P.M.V. Rules claiming compensation of Rs.35,00,000/- for the injuries sustained by the petitioner/injured in the accident that was taken place on 18.10.2018 at about 10.15 PM near Chadalawada Ramanamma Engineering

College on Renigunta – Tirupati Main Road.

2

02.The material averments of the petition in brief are as follows:-

(i) The Petitioner is the injured. The 1st Respondent is the Owner, 2nd respondent is the Insurer of the crime vehicle Yamaha Motor cycle bearing

No.AP04-BX-1556.

(ii) The injured was the pillion rider of the motor cycle of respondent No.1 which was driven by its driver who also died in the accident.

(iii) The injured was hale and healthy and was aged about 22 years and was working as painter and getting monthly income of Rs.18,000/-.

(iv) On 18.10.2018 at about 8.30 PM, the petitioner with his friend Hari

Varma went to Tirupati to attend marriage function on the motor cycle of respondent No.1. Hari Varma was the rider and the petitoner was pillion rider of their motor cycle. When their motor cycle reached near Chadalawada

Ramanamma Engineering College at about 10.15 PM, the rider of the motor cycle

Hari Varma drove the vehicle so rashly and negligently and while in the course of taking over the front going unknown lorry, hit the left side rear portion of the lorry and unable to control the motor cycle and hence, the rider and pillion rider of the motor cycle fell down and sustained injuries. The petitioner sustained grievous injuries over his right leg, right eye and the rider of the motor cycle Hari Varma sustained grievous injury on his head. Both injured were shifted to SVRR

Government Hospital, Tirupati and from there the petitioner was shifted to Purnas

Remedy Hospital on 19.10.2018 and the rider of the motor cycle was shifted to

DBR Hospital where he succumbed to injuries. The accident occurred due to rash and negligent riding of the motor cycle by its rider Hari Varma.

(v) Thiruchanur Police registered FIR in Crime No.226/2018 for the offences U/Sec.304(A) and 338 IPC, but later they filed Final Report closing the case since the case was abated on the death of Hari Varma/rider of the motor cycle.

3

(vi) The petitioner sustained injuries 1) Compound Grade-II Supra

Condylar with Intracondylar Fracture Right Distal Femur, 2) Joint Effusion and surrounding Soft Tissue Edema seen, 3) Mild Surgical Emphysema, 4) D11,

D12space ribs posterior ends show Fractures, 5) Right Lower Lobe Posterior

Basal Segment shows Mild Subpleural Contusion, 6) Hairline Fracture of Fontal on Right Side extended to the Roof of Orbit, 7) Right Zygomatic Arch Fracture seen, 8) Right Maxillary Sinus Anterior and Lateral Walls shown Comminuted

Fracture with Hemosinus and 9) Right Frontal, Parietal and Periorbital Soft Tissue

Swelling seen and all the said injuries are grievous in nature. The petitioner underwent surgery on 19.10.2018 and he incurred medical expenses of

Rs.2,00,000/- and took treatment as inpatient for 9 days. The petitioner was bed ridden and was sick for 9 months and he is suffering with right leg shortening.

Due to imbalance the petitioner is permanently disabled and he is unable to walk as prior to the accident.

(vii) The Respondent Nos.1 and 2 since the owner and insurer of the motor cycle are jointly and severally liable to pay compensation of Rs.35,00,000/- with interest at 12% per annum to the petitioner.

03.The Respondent No.1 remained exparte. Respondent No.2 filed counter denying the material allegations of the petition. The Respondent No.2 submit that the petitioner being pillion rider of the motorcycle is not a third party to the policy and hence, the petitioner is not entitled to any compensation. It further submit that the petitioner is no other than the brother of the respondent No.1 and he borrowed the motor cycle from his brother and hence, he stepped into the shoes of the owner of the motor cycle and as such the petitioner is not a 3rd party to the policy. In fact, the petitioner was riding his motorcycle at the time of accident and due to his rash and negligent riding of the motor cycle only the accident occurred. Since the 4 accident occurred due to the own fault of the petitioner, the petitioner is not entitled to compensation. The petitioner has to establish the treatment taken by him and so also the medical expenses incurred by him.

04.The following issues are framed for trial :

1.Whether the petitioner sustained injuries in a motor vehicle accident which occurred on 18.10.2018 due to rash and negligent driving of driver of Yamaha FZ bearing No.AP 04- BX-1556?

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

3.To what relief?

05. On behalf of the petitioner Pws.1 to 4 were examined and Exs.A1 to A14 are marked. RW1 was examined and Ex.B1 was marked for Respondent No.2

06. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and respondent No.2.

Besides addressing oral arguments, memo of arguments are filed for Respondent

No.2.

07. ISSUE No.1 :P.W.1/injured deposes that on 18.10.2018 himself and his friend Hari Varma went to Tirupathi to attend a marriage function on the motorcycle of the respondent No.1, that his friend Hari Varma was the rider of the motorcycle and he/PW1 was the pillion rider and when their motorcycle reached near Sadalavada Ramanamma Engineering College at about 10.15 pm, Hari

Varma/rider of the motorcycle drove the vehicle so rashly and negligently and tried to take over front ongoing unknown lorry and during that course the motorcycle hit the left side rear portion of the lorry and hence Hari Varma was unable to control the motorcycle and hence the said Hari Varma and P.W.1 fell on the road and sustained injuries. P.W.1 deposes that the accident occurred due to rash and negligent driving of the motorcycle by its rider Hari Varma only, that Hari 5

Varma succumbed to injuries and that he/P.W.1 sustained grievous injuries and

Tiruchanoor police registered F.I.R in Cr.No.226/2018 for the offences

U/Secs.304(A) and 338 IPC and subsequently final report was filed closing the case since abated on the death of Hari Varma/rider of the motorcycle. Ex.A1/F.I.R,

Ex.A3/final report support the evidence of P.W.1 that the accident occurred only due to the rash and negligent driving of deceased rider of the motorcycle belongs to respondent No.1. The respondent No.1/owner of the motorcycle remained exparte and did not dispute riding of his motorcycle by the deceased at the time of accident. Though respondent No.2 contested the matter, it also did not dispute the factum of the accident due to the rash and negligent riding of the motorcycle by the deceased rider Hari Varma. Hence, this Tribunal has no hesitation to hold that the accident occurred due to the rash and negligent riding of the crime vehicle by the deceased rider Hari Varma in which the petitioner while traveling as pillion rider of the motorcycle, sustained injuries. Accordingly, this issue is answered.

08. ISSUE Nos. 2 and 3: Now, it is to be decided what will be the quantum of compensation to be awarded to the petitioner.

(i)According to PW1, he sustained fractures as stated in his evidence and spent medical expenses of Rs.2,00,000/-, that he underwent surgeries and took bed rest for 09 months and to prove his injuries, he examined the doctors who treated him.

(ii)PW4 is the Consultant, Orthopedic Surgeon in Elite Hospital,

Tirupathi and he deposes that he examined PW1 who presented with pain right knee deformity and shortening of right lower limb two years back in a road accident and he underwent multiple surgeries, developed deformity and shortening and PW1 underwent surgery implant removal of deformity corrections with ortho fix right femur with corticotomy and PW1 was discharged from their hospital vide 6

Ex.A9 discharge summary and they have issued Ex.A10 bills. In his cross- examination, PW4 has stated that PW1 underwent surgery elsewhere prior to admission in their hospital on 11.12.2020 and the injury was corrected by way of surgery with regard to deformity and shortening.

(iii) PW3 is a professor of Department of Orthopedics, GMC, Kadapa and he deposes that Ex.A11 disability certificate was issued by District Medical Board and that he was one among the members of the Medical Board and that the

Medical Board issued Ex.A11 disability certificate of PW1 on 16.03.2020 certifying the percentage of disability to PW1 at 55% to the right lower limb. He further deposes that PW1 has been suffering from post traumatic sequel type II supra condylar fracture right side femur bone, operated implant in the bone in multiple scars deformed angulated varusole of formation of shortening right femoral component in 3 inches compart to left side and with extensor leg painful difficulty in walking without stick not able to sit, squat and climb and that they have verified X-rays and discharge summary of Purna’s Remedy Hospital,

Tirupathi and on clinical examination, they have issued Ex.A11. However he denied the suggestion that the fracture was united and that there was no deformity shortening of right femur 3 inches and extensor leg. From the evidence of PW3 coupled with Ex.A11/disability certificate, this Tribunal has no hesitation to hold that the petitoner is able to establish that he sustained fracture injury to his right femur and shortening of 3 inches of right femur and extensor leg and the percentage of his disability assessed at 55%.

(iv)PW4 is the Consultant Orthopedic Surgeon Elite Hospital, Tirupathi deposes that their hospital issued Ex.A10 bills for Rs.1,76,226/- for the treatment given to P.W.1 and hence PW1 is entitled to the said medical expenses of

Rs.1,76,226/- .

7 ( v) P.W.1 produced Ex.A7 medical bills for the treatment taken by him in

Purna’s Remedy Hospital, Tirupathi and MIOT Hospitals, Chennai for a total sum of Rs.40,593/- to which P.W.1 is entitled.

09.According to Ex.A2/Wound Certificate of PW1/injured, he was 22 years of age as on the date of accident. Hence, I assessed the age of the injured/PW1 as on the date of accident at 22 years.

10.P.W.1 in his evidence deposes that he is working as painter in Royal Play

Design in special wall and was earning Rs.18,000/- per month. To prove his earnings, PW1 examined PW2. P.W.2 deposes that he is the President of Paint

Workers Association, Railway Kodur town and that PW1 is a member of their association and he used to get Rs.18,000/- per month as net income and that he issued Ex.A14 certificate certifying the monthly income of PW1. In his cross- examination, PW2 admitted that the Labour Department will issue identification cards to all the workers who are members in the association for building construction workers in which the painters, plumbers and other construction related workers will be members and once the worker is registered in the said association, in case of any injury caused to the member worker, the Government would pay compensation to them. However, he denied the suggestion that there was no paint workers association in Railway Kodur town. On considering the evidence of PW2, this Tribunal is of the opinion that PW1 if really a member in the alleged paint workers association of Railway Kodur town, certainly he should have been a member in the Association for building construction workers and he should have been issued with an identification card but no such card was produced by PW1. Under these circumstance, I am unable to place reliance upon the evidence of PW2 and Ex.A14. When the evidence of PW2 and Ex.A14 are not considered, there is no other evidence to prove the monthly earnings of PW1 as 8 claimed by him. Hence, PW1 is treated as non earning member. Considering the age of the petitoner, his annual earnings are notionally assessed at Rs.1,00,000/-.

11. Since the petitioner was aged 22 years, the multiplier applicable to his case is ‘18’ (vide Sarala verma and others Vs. Delhi Transport Corporation and another (2009)6 SCC 121). Since the petitioner is suffering from 55% disability, the loss of his annual income will be Rs.55,000/- (55% on Rs.1,00,000/-). Hence, the loss of income of P.W.1 is estimated at Rs.9,90,000/- (Rs.55,000/- x 18).

12.The petitioner is further entitled to medical expenses incurred by him for his treatment which are shown in the table below:

S.No. Vide Exhibit No. Amount (Rs.)

1.Ex.A10 Medical Bill issued by Elite1,76,226-00 Hospitals, Tirupathi

2.Ex.A7 Medical bills issued by different40,593-00 hospitals

Total Medical Expenses incurred by PW1 2,16,819-00

13.Admittedly, as the petitioner is suffering with 55% disability, he has to visit hospital frequently in future for follow up treatment and as such in my considered opinion, he is entitled for Rs.50,000/- towards transportation charges. The petitioner is also entitled for a sum of Rs.50,000/- towards permanent disability (vide Subulaxmi Versus M.D.Tamilnadu State Transport Corporation and

Another (2013) 1 ALD 68 SC).

14.Since the petitioner needs medical treatment in future also for his injuries, I am of the opinion that Rs.1,00,000/- is to be granted towards future medical expenses in addition to the compensation granted supra.

15.I further opinion that a sum of Rs.1,00,000/- is also to be awarded as

additional compensation towards damages for pain, suffering and trauma as

consequence of injuries of the petitioner in view of the medical evidence (vide

Afnees (unconscious) Represented through Mother V/S Oriental Insurance

Co Ltd Vadakara and Others (2017) ACJ 2622 SC) 9

16.From the aforesaid discussion, I have no hesitation to hold that the petitioner is entitled for compensation under various heads as shown below:

S.No. Head Compensation

awarded Rs.

1.Towards loss of future income due to 9,90,000-00 permanent disability

2.Towards past medical expenses2,16,819-00

3.Towards transport charges50,000-00

4.Towards permanent disability50,000-00

5.Towards future medical expenses1,00,000-00

6.Towards pain, suffering and trauma as1,00,000-00 consequences of injuries

7.Total Compensation15,06,819-00

17.Admittedly, the respondent No.1 is the owner and respondent No.2 is the insurance company which issued insurance policy to the crime vehicle.

Admittedly, the insurance policy issued by respondent No.2 was in force on the date of the accident.

18.However, the respondent No.2 is denying its liability on the ground that the petitioner borrowed the motorcycle from the owner/respondent No.1 and stepped into the shoes of owner and as such he is not entitled to compensation against it. In his cross-examination, P.W.1 admitted that respondent No.1/owner of the motorcycle involved in the accident, is no other than his elder brother. Ex.A1 F.I.R was registered on the statement of P.W.1 recorded by the police in which P.W.1 has stated that himself and his friend deceased Hari Varma on his (P.W.1) motorcycle driven by Hari Varma while proceeding to Tirupathi, the accident occurred due to the rash and negligent driving of the motorcycle by the deceased Hari Varma.

19.The learned counsel for respondent No.2 submit that since P.W.1 borrowed the vehicle from his brother, he stepped into the shoes of the registered owner of 10 the vehicle and as such he is not entitled to compensation, as he is not a third party to the policy. In support of his argument the learned counsel for respondent No.2 relied on the following judgments: (A) ICICI Lombard General Insurance Com.

Ltd Vs Puri and others (2015 3 ACC 796) (Punjab and Haryana High Court) in which it was held that when the deceased was borrower of the motorcycle, he stepped into the shoes of the owner and he cannot be treated as third party and hence the claimants are not entitled to compensation. In that case also, the rider of a motorcycle died in the accident and the claim of his legal heirs was rejected on the ground that the motorcycle was owned by the son of the deceased therein and as such it was held that the deceased was not a third party to the policy as he being borrowed the vehicle from its owner, he stepped into the shoes of the owner. (B)

The Divisional Manager, United India Insurance Com. Ltd Vs T. Sangeetha

and others) (2021 2 TNMAC 344) (Madras High Court). In this case the deceased met with an accident while riding a motorcycle and the Hon’ble Madras

High Court held that the rider of the motorcycle who borrowed the motorcycle from the owner of the vehicle stepped into the shoes of the owner. (C) New India

Assurance Co.Ltd Vs Rama Vishram Gavas and Others 2022 ACJ 2723

(Bombay High Court) in which the Hon’ble Bombay High Court held that since the borrower of motorcycle who sustained fatal injuries when he lost control of the vehicle and fell down, since he is not a third party, claim for compensation is not maintainable. (D) Oriental Insurance Co.Ltd Vs Kanta Rani (2018) 4 ACC 811 (Punjab & Haryana High Court) in which the Hon’ble Punjab & Haryana High

Court held that the compulsory personal accident is for the benefit of only registered owner-driver and it cannot be interpreted to mean owner or driver and further held that the borrower could not get the benefit of the personal accident claim as it was restricted to the registered owner-driver.

11

20.On the other hand, the learned counsel for the petitioner relied on the judgment of the Hon’ble Bombay High Court, Nagpur Bench in United India

Insurance Co.Ltd., Vs Shindutai Wasudeorao Thakare and others 2021 ACJ

1090 in which the Hon’ble High Court held that in case of comprehensive policy, the pillion rider when met with accident due to negligence of motorcyclist, is entitled to compensation and the risk of the pillion rider is covered under comprehensive policy and the insurance company is liable to pay compensation.

21.I have verified Ex.B1 copy of the Insurance Policy. Ex.B1 is a two wheeler package policy and not comprehensive policy. In view of the judgments relied on the respondent No.2/insurance company cited supra, this Tribunal has no hesitation to hold that PW1 borrowed the motorcycle of his brother/respondent

No.1 and hence as rightly pointed out by the respondent No.2, P.W.1 stepped into the shoes of the owner and as such he is not entitled to claim compensation from respondent No.2/insurance company as he is not a third party to the accident.

Hence, this Tribunal has no hesitation to hold that PW1 is entitled to compensation from respondent No.1/owner of the motorcycle only and his claim against respondent No.2/insurance company is not maintainable under law.

22.The learned counsel for petitioner requested to apply the principle of pay and recover. To which the learned counsel for respondent No.2 vehemently opposed. In Shivraj Vs Rajendra (2018 ACJ 2755 (SC) ) the Hon’ble Supreme

Court while considering of the facts in that case that the injured/claimant therein travelled in a tractor and met with the accident which occurred due to the rash and negligent driving of the driver of the tractor and claims Tribunal allowed the claim of the injured against the owner and insurer of the crime vehicle, that the insurer preferred appeal before the Hon’ble High Court, that the Hon’ble High Court in the appeal observed that no additional insurance was taken in respect of the trailer 12 and there was no evidence to demonstrate that the tractor was attached to a trailer, that the tractor could accommodate only one person namely the driver of the tractor and none else and as such the Hon’ble High Court observed that the injured/claimant travelled in the tractor in breach of the terms and conditions of the policy and held that the insurance company is not liable to compensate the owner or the claimant and under those circumstances in the appeal preferred by the injured/claimant against the order of the Hon’ble High Court before the

Hon’ble Supreme Court, in its Judgment, the Hon’ble Supreme Court in para

Nos.9 and 10 observed as under:

09. The High Court, however, found in favour of respondent

No.2 (insurer) that the appellant travelled in the tractor as a

passenger which was in breach of the policy condition, for

the tractor was insured for agriculture purposes and not for

carrying goods. The evidence on record unambiguously

pointed out that neither was any trailer insured nor was any

trailer attached to the tractor. Thus, it would follow that the

appellant travelled in the tractor as a passenger, even though

the tractor could accommodate only one person namely the

driver. As a result, the Insurance Company (respondent No.2)

was not liable for the loss or injuries suffered by the appellant

or to indemnify the owner of the tractor. That conclusion

reached by the High Court, in our opinion, is

unexceptionable in the fact situation of the present case.

10. At the same time, however, in the facts of the present case,

the High Court ought to have directed the Insurance

Company to pay the compensation amount to the claimant

(appellant) with liberty to recover the same from the tractor

owner, in view of the consistent view taken in that regard by

this Court in (1) National Insurance Co. Ltd. Vs. Swarna

Singh & Ors., (2) Mangla Ram Vs. Oriental Insurance Co.

Ltd., (3) Rani & Ors. Vs. National Insurance Co. Ltd. & Ors.,

13

and (4) Manuara Khatun and Others Vs. Rajesh Kumar

Singh And Others. In other words, the High Court should

have partly allowed the appeal preferred by the respondent

No.2. The appellant may, therefore, succeed in getting relief

of direction to respondent No.2 Insurance Company to pay

the compensation amount to the appellant with liberty to

recover the same from the tractor owner (respondent No.1).

23.In the case on hand also, though the insurance company is not liable to pay compensation to the petitioner, as Ex.B1/package policy was in force on the date of the accident, since the legislation on Motor Vehicles Act is a beneficial legislation, this Tribunal by following the cited judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme

Court, treating this as a fit case where the principle of pay and recover can be applied directing the respondent No.2/insurance company to pay the compensation to the petitioner in the first place with a liberty to recover the same from respondent No.1/owner of the motorcycle.

24.From the aforesaid discussion, this Tribunal has no hesitation to hold that the petitioner is entitled to a total compensation of Rs.15,06,819/- with proportionate costs and interest @ 7.5% p.a. thereon from the date of claim petition till the date of realization towards compensation for his injuries as against respondent No. 1 and respondent No.2/insurance company is not liable to pay compensation to the petitioner and the petition is liable to be dismissed against respondent No.2/insurance company. However, the respondent No.2 insurance company can be directed to pay the above said compensation amount to the claimant in the first place with a liberty to recover the same from the respondent

No. 1 by executing the award. Accordingly, these issues are answered.

14

25. In the result,the petition is allowed in part with proportionate costs.

A A total compensation of Rs.15,06,819/- (Rupees fifteen lakhs six thousand eight hundred and nineteen only) with proportionate costs and interest thereon at 7.5% p.a., from the date of the petition till the date of realization is awarded to the petitioner. The rest of the claim of petitioner is rejected.

B The respondent No. 1 is liable to pay the awarded compensation with interest and proportionate costs thereon as stated supra to the petitioner. The petition against respondent No.2/insurance company is dismissed.

However, respondent No.2/insurance company is directed to deposit the said compensation amount with interest and proportionate costs into Court within one month from the date of this Award in the first place and with liberty to recover the same from the respondent No. 1 by executing the award without initiating separate legal proceedings.

C On such deposit, the petitioner is permitted to withdraw a sum of

Rs.5,06,819/- along with costs and interest on the total compensation amount and the remaining amount of Rs.10,00,000/- shall be kept in F.D.R in any nationalized bank for a period of three years.

D The Advocate fee is fixed at Rs.3,000/-.

E The office is directed to collect the Court Fee, if any, from the petitioner and then to prepare decree.

Typed to my dictation by the Stenographer, corrected and pronounced by me in open court on this the 30th day of June, 2023.

Sd/-V.S.A.MURTHY,

CHAIRMAN, MACT – CUM-

PRINCIPAL DISTRICT JUDGE,

KADAPA.

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

Witnesses Examined:

For the petitioner: For respondent No.2:

P.W.1 : J.Rajesh.R.W.1 : Y.V.M.Saran Kumar. P.W.2 : T.Siva Prasad. P.W.3 : Dr.J.Nagesh. P.W.4 : Dr.C.Murahari.

15

Documents marked for the petitioner: Ex.A1: Attested copy of FIR Ex.A2: Attested copy of Wound Certificate Ex.A3: Attested copy of Final Report. Ex.A4: Discharge Summary issued by Purnas Remedy Hospital, Tirupati, dt.23.10.2018. Ex.A5: Discharge Summary issued by Purnas Remedy Hospital, Tirupati, dt.08.07.2019. Ex.A6: Medical Prescriptions (17 in number) issued by Purnas Remedy Hospital, Tirupati, dt.23.10.2018. Ex.A7: Bunch of Medical Bills (18 in number) for Rs.40,593/-. Ex.A8: CT Scan Reports issued by Krishna Scan Center, Tirupati (3 in number) Ex.A9: Discharge Summary issued by Elite Hospital, Tirupati, dt.21.12.2020. Ex.A10: Bill for Rs.1,76,226/- along with I.T., Final Bill for Rs.1,45,000/- issued by Elite Hospital, Tirupati. Ex.A11: Disability Certificate issued by Medical Board, RIMS Hospital, Kadapa, dt.16.03.2020. Ex.A12: CT Scan Report along with OPD Initial Assessment issued by MIOT Hospital, Chennai, dt.03.09.2020. Ex.A13: Bunch of X-Ray Bills and MRI Bills (27 in number). Ex.A14: Certificate issued by Paint Work Association, Railway Kodur, dt.15.07.2021.

Documents marked for respondent No. 2:

Ex.B1: True Copy of Policy.

Sd/-V.S.A.MURTHY,

CHAIRMAN, MACT – CUM-

PRINCIPAL DISTRICT JUDGE,

KADAPA

BEFORE THE MOTOR ACCIDENT CLAIMS TRIBUNAL-CUM-

PRINCIPAL DISTRICT JUDGE, KADAPA

Present: V. SRINIVASA ANJANEYA MURTHY,

CHAIRMAN, MOTOR ACCIDENT CLAIMS TRIBUNAL-CUM-

PRINCIPAL DISTRICT JUDGE,

KADAPA. TUESDAY, THIS THE 27th DAY OF JUNE, 2023

M.V.O.P.No.396 of 2019

Between:

Mucchu Kunta Venkata Chalama Reddy, S/o late Obul Reddy, Age: 51 years, Agriculture-Cooly, Unconscious represented by his wife Smt.M.Ramanjulamma, Age: 47 years, as a defacto guardian, residing at Velpula Village and Post, Vemula Mandal, Kadapa District. … Petitioner

And:

1. M.Praveen Kumar, s/o M.Ramakishore, Age: 24 years, Residing at D.No.7/56, Sri Venkateswarapuram, Vemula Village, Kadapa District (Owner-cum-rider of the motorcycle bearing No.AP-04-B-7860)

2. Reliance General Insurance Company Limited, Rep. by its Manager, Door No.13-2-275, Sri Sai Jewellers, 2nd Floor, R.F.Road, Anatapuram City and District. (Insurer of the motorcycle bearing No.AP-04-B- 7860) … Respondents

This petition coming on 16.06.2023 before me for final hearing in the presence of

Sri M.Ramanjaneya Reddy, Advocate for petitioner, Respondent No.1 remained

Exparte and of Sri D.Raja Sekhar Reddy, Standing counsel for Respondent No.2 and upon perusing the material available on record and the matter having stood over for consideration till this day, this Court made the following :

O R D E R

01.ThePetition is filed under Sec.166 of Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 and Rule.475 of

A.P.M.V.Rules, 1989 claiming compensation of Rs.42,30,000/- for the injuries sustained by petitioner in a motor vehicle accident occurred on 01.02.2019 at 5.30 PM near

Church in Velpula village, situated on Kadapa to Pulivendula main road.

02.The material averments of the petition in brief are as follows:

(i)Petitioner is the injured. Respondent Nos.1 and 2 are the owner-cum-- rider, and insurer of the motorcycle bearing No.AP 04-B-7860 (hereinafter referred as crime vehicle).

2

(ii) The petitioner was hale and healthy and was aged about 51 years and was working as Cooly and was earning Rs.300/- per day prior to the accident.

(iii)On 01.02.2019 while the petitioner and his wife were returning to their village Velpula after attending to their agricultural lands at about 05.30 p.m. when they reached near a Church situated on road side running from Kadapa to Pulivendula, respondent No.1/owner-cum-rider of crime vehicle drove it so rashly and negligently, came behind them and hit the petitioner and as a result, the petitioner fell on the road and sustained bleeding injuries to his head and other parts of the body. The petitioner was shifted to RIMS Hospital, Kadapa and from there to Tirumala Hospital, Kadapa and from there to Sunrise Hospital, Kadapa where he underwent treatment from 02.02.2019 to 13.02.2019. The petitioner sustained the injuries of (1) multiple hemorrhagic contusions with peri lisional edema are seen in bilateral frontal, basi frontal lobes, bilateral anterior temporal lobes and right postero media portion of temporal lobe, (2) Milk acute sub arachnoid hemorrhage seen along the sulcal spaces of bilateral frontal, parietal lobes and in amblent cistern, (3) Thin acute sub dural hematoma seen along the flax cerebri and cerebelli, (4) Peri cranial soft tissue swelling seen in bilateral fronto parietal regions, (5) Mid diffuse effacement of bilateral cerebral sulcal spaces –

S/o diffuse cerebral edema and (6) Linear undisplaced fractures of parietal bone in mid line along with sagittal suture anteriorly extending in to the frontal bone. The petitioner underwent surgery of B1 frontal craniotomy evacuation of S.D.H and bone flap placed over the abdominal cavity. Thereafter also number of times the petitioner took treatment in the hospital. The petitioner incurred nearly Rs.5,00,000/- towards medical expenses.

(iv)Vemula policeregistered F.I.R in Cr.No.12/2019 for the offence U/Sec.338

I.P.C against the respondent No.1 and also laid charge sheet alleging that due to his rash and negligent driving of the crime vehicle only the accident occurred. The respondent

Nos. 1 and 2 being the owner-cum-rider and insurer of the crime vehicle are jointly and severally liable to pay compensation of Rs.42,30,000/- with interest @ 9% per annum.

3

03.Respondent Nos.1 remained exparte. Respondent No.2/insurance company filed written statement denying the material allegations of the petition. Respondent No.2 submit that the petitioner has to prove the factum of accident, involvement of the crime vehicle, negligence of the driver of the crime vehicle as cause of the accident, valid and effective driving licence of the respondent No.1, injuries sustained by the petitioner in the accident and justification for his claim under this petition. It is further submitted that there was delay in lodging the F.I.R and as such there is false implication of the crime vehicle. The petitioner has to prove his taking treatment in the hospitals and so also the medical expenses and other expenses alleged to have been paid by him. The claim of the petitioner is too excessive. Thus, the respondent No.2 prayed for dismissal of the petition.

04.Basing on the above pleadings, the following issues were settled for trial:

1.Whether the accident is caused due to rash and negligent driving by the driver/respondent NO.1 while driving the motorcycle bearing No.AP 04 B 7860?

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

3.To what relief?

05. On behalf of the petitioner P.Ws. 1 to 4 were examined and Exs.A1 to A30 were marked. On behalf of respondent No.2, R.W.1 was examined and Ex.B1 was marked.Ex.C1 was marked through P.W.4.

06. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and respondent No.2.

07. ISSUE No.1 :Petitioner/injured/P.W.1 deposes that on 01.02.2019 while himself and his wife were returning to their village after attending agricultural works in their lands, at about 05.30 p.m, when they reached near a Church situated on the road side running from Kadapa to Pulivendula, the crime vehicle driven by respondent No.1 so rashly and negligently came behind them and hit him and as a result he fell on the 4 road and sustained bleeding and swelling injuries to his head and other parts of the body.

Immediately he was shifted to RIMS Hospital, Kadapa and from there to Tirumala

Hospital, Kadapa and then to Sunrise Hospital, Kadapa where he took treatment from 02.02.2019 to 13.02.2019 as inpatient. In his cross-examination, P.W.1 has stated that the accident occurred on 01.02.2019 but his wife lodged report on 06.02.2019 on which

F.I.R was registered and charge sheet was filed by Vemula police. However, P.W.1 in his cross-examination has stated that all his family members were under shock so that they could not lodge report immediately. He further denied a suggestion put to him that he went to his fields on his two wheeler on the date of the accident and while he was returning, since the motorcycle was skid, he fell down from the two wheeler and sustained the injuries.

08.The employee of respondent No.2/insurance company was examined as R.W.1 and he categorically stated that there was delay in lodging Ex.A1/F.I.R. which raises any amount of doubt with regard to occurrence of the accident. Admittedly, the accident occurred on 01.02.2019 and Ex.A1 F.I.R was registered on 06.02.2019 and there is a delay of 05 days in lodging Ex.A1. Hence, the petitioner has to properly explain the delay of 05 days of the report. I have gone through the contents of Ex.A1/F.I.R. The report was given by the wife of P.W.1 and she categorically stated that the accident occurred on 01.02.2019 at about 05.30 p.m in which her husband sustained grievous injuries and as such immediately he was admitted in RIMS Hospital, Kadapa and for better treatment he was again shifted to Sunrise Hospital and as P.W.1 was unconscious, she could not lodge the report till 06.02.2019.

09.The learned counsel for respondent No.2 relied on the judgment of the Hon’ble

A.P.High Court in The Bajaj Allianz General Insurance Co., Ltd. Rep by its Divisional

manager Vs Bhumireddy Venkata Satya Rama Rao and Anr. in M.A.C.MA.No. 5299

of 2008 dated 19.06.2009 in which the Hon’ble A.P. High Court held that “when there is abnormal delay in lodging the F.I.R, the petitioner is not entitled to compensation.” 5

This Tribunal is of the opinion that the facts of the cited case are not identical to that of the case on hand. Because in the cited case, there was delay of 53 days in registration of the F.I.R and that too the F.I.R was registered on the private complaint therein forwarded by the Magistrate concerned to the police. Here, in the case on hand the delay in lodging

Ex.A1 was only 05 days and in Ex.A1 a satisfactory reason that since P.W.1 was unconscious, his wife could not lodge the report immediately, was given.

10.The learned counsel for respondent No.2 further relied on the judgment of the

Hon’ble Karnataka High Court at Bangalore in New India Assurance Company Limited

Vs G.N.Gopalagowda and another (2006 ACJ 2771)in which the Hon’ble High Court held that there it appears to be a case of fraud on the Court and misuse of official position by the petitioner/injured who was a police constable with the connivance of investigating officer in concocting a false case to make unlawful gain and to cause unlawful loss to the public money. Here in the case on hand, the petitioner is an innocent ordinary cooly, illiterate and a common man and as such the question of playing fraud to make unlawful gain does not arise and as the entire family was under shock due to the severe injuries sustained by P.W.1 in the accident, there is every possibility for occurrence of the delay in lodging Ex.A1/F.I.R. The learned counsel for respondent No.2 further relied on the judgments of the Hon’ble Karnataka High Court in Bajaj Allianz

General Insurance Vs Javarappa in M.F.A.No.154/2011 (MV) dated 18.09.2013 and the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Anil and Ors Vs New India Assurance

Com. Ltd and Ors in Civil Appeal Nos.3291 – 3292 of 2011, dated 19.01.2018. I have gone through the cited judgments and I am of the opinion that the facts of the cited judgments are not identical to that of the case on hand.

11.The learned counsel for the petitioner relied on the judgment of the Hon’ble

Supreme Court in Ravi Vs Badrinarayan and Others (2011 ACJ 911) in support of his argument that the delay in lodging Ex.A1 in the case on hand was satisfactorily explained. I have gone through the cited judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in 6 which it was held that “though there was delay in lodging the F.I.R, it cannot be a ground to doubt the claimant’s case.” In that case the father of the injured and another person witnessed the accident and took the injured to the hospital but no F.I.R was recorded as father of injured was under mental agony and stress and he was more concerned to get medical treatment for his son and the F.I.R was lodged after three months of the accident explaining the reasons that the son of the complainant was seriously injured and his treatment was more important. The Hon’ble Supreme Court in para Nos.20 and 21 of its judgments held as under:

20. It is well settled that delay in lodging F.I.R cannot be a

ground to doubt the claimants case. Knowing the Indian

conditions as they are, we cannot expect a common man to first

rush to the police station immediately after an accident. Human

nature and family responsibilities occupy the mind of kith and kin

to such an extent that they give more importance to get the victim

treated rather than to rush to the police station. Under such

circumstances, they are not expected to act mechanically with

promptitude in lodging the F.I.R with the police. Delay in lodging

the F.I.R thus, cannot be the ground to deny justice to the victim.

In cases of delay, the Courts are required to examine the evidence

with a closure scrutiny and in doing so the contents of the F.I.R

should also be scrutinized more carefully. If Court finds that there

is no indication of fabrication or it has not been concocted or

engineered to implicate innocent persons then, even if there is

delay in lodging the F.I.R, the claim cannot be dismissed merely

on that ground.

21. The purpose of lodging the F.I.R in such type of cases is

primarily to intimate the police to initiate investigation of criminal

offences. Lodging of FIR certainly proves factum of accident so

that the victim is able to lodge a case for compensation but delay in

doing so cannot be the main ground for rejecting the claim

petition. In other words, although lodging of FIR is vital in

deciding motor accident claim cases, delay in lodging the same

should not be treated as fatal for such proceedings, if claimant has

7

been able to demonstrate satisfactory and cogent reasons for it.

There could be variety of reasons in genuine cases for delayed

lodgment of F.I.R. Unless kith and kin of the victim are able to

regain a certain level of tranquility of mind and or composed to

lodge it, even if, there is delay, the same deserves to be condoned.

In such circumstances, the authenticity of FIR assumes much

more significance than the delay in lodging thereof supported by

cogent reasons.

12.In the light of the above observations of the Hon’ble Supreme court regarding the delay in lodging of F.I.R, I have examined the facts of the case on hand. Here also in

Ex.A1/F.I.R the wife of P.W.1 specifically mentioned that though the accident occurred on 01.02.2019 since her husband/P.W.1 was in unconscious state of mind till 06.02.2019, she could not lodge the report. Further, immediately after the accident P.W.1 was shifted to RIMS Hospital, Kadapa and the doctor who examined P.W1 issued Ex.A2/wound certificate stating that P.W.1 on 01.02.2019 at about 11.13 p.m was examined by him and

P.W.1 was with injuries due to RTA and this Ex.A2 wound certificate is supporting the version of P.W.1 about occurrence of accident in which he sustained injuries. Ex.A3 charge sheet was filed by the police concerned after completion of their investigation on

Ex.A1 FIR and their investigation disclosed that P.W.1 sustained injuries in the accident occurred on 01.02.2019 as narrated by P.W.1 and that the said accident occurred due to rash and negligent driving of the crime vehicle by respondent No.1 herein only. The respondent No.1/owner-cum-rider of the crime vehicle remained exparte and did not enter into witness box to speak that he was falsely implicated by the petitioner or there was no rash or negligence on his part, or the crime vehicle was not involved in the accident. The respondent No.2/insurance company did not take any steps to prove that

P.W.1 made a false report and that the police colluded with P.W.1 and falsely registered the F.I.R. If really respondent No.1’s crime vehicle was not involved in the accident, he would have deposed denying the allegations made by P.W.1. Neither respondent No.1 nor respondent No.2 challenged Ex.A1 F.I.R and Ex.A3 charge sheet. Hence, this 8

Tribunal has no hesitation to that the delay in lodging F.I.R was satisfactorily explained by the petitioner. The petitioenr is further able to prove that the accident occurred due to the rash and negligent driving of crime vehicle by respondent No.1 in which he sustained injuries. Accordingly, this issue is answered.

13. ISSUE Nos.2 and 3 :

(i)According to PW1, he sustained fracture injuries in the accident and to prove his injuries, he examined the doctors who treated him.

(ii)PW3 is the Consultant Neuro Surgeon in Sunrise Hospital and he deposes that on 02.02.2019 P.W.1 was brought with history of RTA dated 01.02.2019, that P.W.1 was initially taken to RIMS, Kadapa where MLC was done and taken to Tirumala

Hospital and later brought to Sunrise Hospital and P.W.1 underwent emergency surgery in their hospital on 02.02.2019 and was discharged on 13.02.2019 and later P.W.1 underwent another surgery on 10.05.2019 and in between he was admitted in Jagadeesh

Neuro Care Hospital, Kadapa on 13.03.2019 and was discharged on 15.03.2019 for hypolatremia. He further deposes that P.W.1 was seen by him in the OPD on 20.03.2019, 01.04.2019, 16.04.2019, 09.05.2019, 22.05.2019, 27.05.2019, 04.072019, 18.09.2019, 06.01.2020 and 01.10.2021 and by the time of last consultation on 01.10.2021 P.W.1 has complaints of decreased memory and giddiness and he issued Ex.A29 certificate stating that P.W.1 was not able to perform agricultural works. He further identified Exs.A25 and

A27 discharge summaries issued by him and Exs.A9 and A11 medical bills prescribed by him. In his cross-examination, P.W.3 has stated that on 02.02.2019 for the first time he saw P.W.1 at Tirumala Hospital and initially treated him at Tirumala Hospital. He further stated that he conducted surgery to P.W.1 for craniotomy to remove the skull bone and blood clots in the brain. He further stated that P.W.1 again was admitted in their hospital on 16.03.2019 for correction salt imbalance and platelets and the same was rectified and he was discharged on 15.03.2019. He further stated that P.W1 was readmitted in Sunrise

Hospital on 09.05.2019 and underwent replacement of scull bone on 10.05.2019.

9

(iii)P.W.2 is a Neuro Surgeon in SVRRGG Hospital, Tirupathi and he issued

Ex.A30 permanent disability certificate certifying that the percentage of disability of

P.W.1 is 65% . P.W.2 categorically deposes that on clinical and neurological examination of P.W.1 and his past medical record, he assessed the percentage of disability of P.W.1 as 65%. According to P.W.2, he found the following permanent disabilities: (1) Post traumatic headache (2) vertigo (3) defective memory (4) irritable behavior and anger (5) lack of intention to do any work (6) disfiguration and unable to do coolie work. Ex.A5 photos filed by P.W.1 shows that P.W.5 was completely bed ridden due to the injuries. Ex.A5 photos shown that a pipe was also inserted to his urinary track which indicates that P.W.1 is not in a position to even attend natural calls. Hence, this Tribunal is of the opinion that the evidence of P.W.s 2 and 3 coupled with the discharge summaries and other medical records produced by P.W.1, it is established that P.W.1 sustained severe injuries in the accident and he is suffering with permanent disability and percentage of the disability is 65% as rightly assessed by P.W.2.

Though Ex.A30 disability certificate was not issued by a competent medical board, it was issued by a competent Neuro Surgeon, and he also deposes the reasons for assessment of percentage of disability under Ex.A30 and hence, this Tribunal is of the opinion that this is a fit case where Ex.A30 can be accepted. Hence, the permanent disability of P.W.1 is fixed at 65%.

14.According to Ex.A2/Wound Certificate of PW1/injured, he was 55 years of age as on the date of accident. Hence, I assessed the age of the injured/PW1 as on the date of accident at 55 years.

15.Though P.W.1 claims that as on the date of accident he was doing agricultural cooli works and was earning Rs.300/- per day, he did not produce any evidence to prove his earnings. Hence, PW1 is treated as non earning member. Taking into consideration of the age of the petitioner and other circumstances, his annual earnings are notionally assessed at Rs.1,00,000/-. Since the petitioner was aged 55 years, the multiplier 10 applicable to his case is ‘11’ (vide Sarala verma and others Vs. Delhi Transport

Corporation and another (2009)6 SCC 121). Since the petitioner is suffering from 65% disability, the loss of his annual earnings will be Rs.65,000/- (65% on Rs.1,00,000/-).

Hence, loss of annual earnings of P.W.1 is estimated at Rs.7,15,000/- (Rs.65,000/- x 11).

16. P.W.4 is the Chief Administrative Officer of Sunrise Hospital and he deposes that

P.W.1 took treatment from 02.02.2019 to 13.02.2019 in their hospital and paid treatment charges of Rs.66,024/- under Ex.A6, again P.W.1 was admitted in their hospital on 09.05.2013 and was discharged on 17.05.2013 and paid Rs.1,29,991/- towards treatment charges under Ex.C1. In his cross-examination P.W.4 admitted that in all two admissions

P.W.1 paid a total sum of Rs.2,10,737/-. In view of the evidence of P.W.4, this Tribunal is of the opinion that the petitioner is entitled to past medical expenses incurred by him for his treatment in Sunrise Hospital of Rs.2,10,737/-.

17.From the medical bills produced by P.W.1, he is entitled to the amounts paid under those bills which are shown hereunder:

Sl.No.Description vide ExhibitAmount Rs.

1.As per the evidence of P.W4 the medical2,10,737-00 expenses incurred by P.W.1 vide Ex.A6 and Ex.C1

2.Ex.A10 8,000-00

3.Ex.A 11 41,116-00

4.Ex.A126,700-00

5.Ex.A131,250-00

6.Ex.A140,800-00

7.Ex.A1547,805-00

8.Ex.A165,970-00

9.Ex.A172,350-00

10. Ex.A21533-00

11. Ex.A231,145-00

12. Ex.A2410,469-00 Total 3,36,875-00

Thus, the petitioner is entitled to a total sum of Rs.3,36,875/- towards past medical expenses incurred by him for his treatment in various hospitals.

11

18.Admittedly, as the petitioner is suffering with 65% disability, he has to visit hospital frequently in future for follow up treatment and as such in my considered opinion, he is entitled for Rs.1,00,000/- towards transportation charges. The petitioner is also entitled for a sum of Rs.1,00,000/- towards permanent disability (vide Subulaxmi

Vs.M.D.Tamilnadu State Transport Corporation and Another (2013) 1 ALD 68 SC).

19.Since the petitioner needs medical treatment in future also for his injuries, I am of the opinion that Rs.1,00,000/- is to be granted towards future medical expenses in addition to the compensation granted supra.

20.I further opinion that a sum of Rs.1,00,000/- is also to be awarded as additional compensation towards damages for pain, suffering and trauma as consequence of injuries of the petitioner in view of the medical evidence (vide Afnees (unconscious)

Represented through Mother V/S Oriental Insurance Co Ltd Vadakara and Others

(2017) ACJ 2622 SC)

21.The petitioner is further entitled to a sum of Rs.48,125/-towards extra nourishment and food.

22.From the aforesaid discussion, I have no hesitation to hold that the petitioner is entitled for compensation under various heads as shown below:

S.No. Head Compensation

awarded Rs.

1.Towards loss of future income due to 07,15,000-00 permanent disability

2.Towards past medical expenses03,36,875-00

3.Towards transport charges01,00,000-00

4.Towards permanent disability01,00,000-00

5.Towards future medical expenses01,00,000-00

6.Towards pain, suffering and trauma as01,00,000-00 consequences of injuries

7.Towards extra nourishment and food48,125-00

8.Total Compensation15,00,000-00 12

23.Admittedly, the respondent Nos.1 and 2 are the owner-cum-rider and insurer of the crime vehicle. Admittedly, the insurance policy issued by respondent No.2 was in force on the date of the accident. There were no violations of the terms and conditions of the policy. Hence, I hold that respondent Nos.1 and 2/the owner-cum-rider and insurer of the crime vehicle are jointly and severally liable to pay the compensation of

Rs.15,00,000-00 under all the heads stated supra to PW1 with interest @ 7.5% p.a., thereon from the date of claim petition till the date of realization. Accordingly, these issues are answered.

24. In the result, the petition is partly allowed

A. Awarding a total compensation amount of Rs.15,00,000/- (Rupees fifteen lakhs only) with proportionate costs and interest thereon at 7.5% per annum from the date of petition till the date of realization.

B.The respondent Nos. 1 and 2 are jointly and severally liable to pay the above said compensation to the petitioner and they are directed to deposit the said compensation amount within one month from the date of this Order with interest and costs.

C.On such deposit by the respondents, the petitioner is permitted to withdraw Rs.05,00,000/- along with interest and costs on the entire compensation amount. The balance amount of Rs.10,00,000/- shall be kept in FDR in any Nationalized Bank for a period of Two Years.

D. The Advocate fee is fixed at Rs.3,000/-.

E.The office is directed to prepare decree on payment of court fee, if any.

Typed to my dictation by the Stenographer, corrected and pronounced by me in open court on this the 27th day of June, 2023.

Sd/-V.S.A.MURTHY,

CHAIRMAN, MACT – CUM-

PRINCIPAL DISTRICT JUDGE,

KADAPA

Appendix of Evidence

Witnesses Examined:

For the petitioner : For respondent No.2

P.W.1 : M.Venkata Chalama ReddyR.W.1: Y.V.M.Saran Kumar P.W.2 : Dr.A.Sudhakar Reddy P.W.3 : Dr.Jagadeeswar Reddy P.W.4 : G.Ajay Kumar 13

Documents marked for the petitioner: Ex.A1: Attested copy of FIR. Ex.A2: Attested copy of wound certificate Ex.A3: Attested copy of charge sheet Ex.A4: Original C.T.Scan of brain report dt.02.02.2019 issued by S.R.S.Diagnostics Ex.A5: Color photos of the petitioner showing his present condition Ex.A6: Final bill issued by Sunrise Hospital, Kadapa from 02.02.2019 to 13.02.2019 for Rs.66,024/- Ex.A7: Five original payment receipts for Rs.1,00,000/-issued by Sunrise Hospital, Kadapa from 09.05.2019 to 17.05.2019 Ex.A8: Original medicine bill dt.05.01.2019 for Rs.8,060/- issued by Sunrise Hospital Ex.A9: 107 original bills worth of Rs.37,329/- issued by Sunrise Hospital Ex.A10: Original payment receipt for Rs.8,000/- issued by Dr. Jagadeshwara Reddy, dt.18.02.2019 Ex.A11: 34 Original Bills worth of Rs.41,116/ issued by Annaya Medicals, Kadapa Ex.A12: Original bill for Rs.6,700/- dated 2-2-2019 Ex.A13: Original bill for Rs.1,250/- dated 15-3-2019, issued by Lucid Labs, Kadapa Ex.A14: Original user charges bill for Rs.800/- issued by RIMS Hospital, Kadapa dt.2.2.2019 Ex.A15: Original final bill for Rs.47,805/- including one medical bill issued by Aster CME Hospital, Bangalore Ex.A16: 2 Original CT scan bill for Rs.5,970/- issued by S.R.S.Diagnostics, Kadapa

dated 9-5-2019 to 11-5-2019

Ex.A17: 2 Original blood bank receipts for Rs.2,350/-issued by Bruhala Blood Bank, Kadapa Ex.A18: Attested copy of RC of motor cycle Ex.A19: Attested copy of insurance policy issued by insurance company Ex.A20: Attested copy of Driving Licence of the Respondent No. 1 Ex.A21: Two Original medical bills worth of Rs.533/- issued by National Pharma, Kadapa Ex.A22: Original hospital bill of 20,000/- issued by Jagadeesh Neuro Care, Kadapa Ex.A23: 3 Medical bills, total worth of Rs.1,145/- issued by Dinesh Medical Centre, Pulivendula Ex.A24: 12 Medical bills, total worth of Rs.10,469/- issued by Thirumala Pharmacy, Kadapa Ex.A25: Original Discharge summary dated 15.03.2019, issued by Jagadeesh Neuro Care, Kadapa Ex.A26: Original estimation certificate issued by Jagadeesh Neuro Care, dt.18.09.2019, probable expenses per month towards medication, physiotherapy and additional expenses approximately Rs.20,000/- Ex.A27: Original Discharge summary dated 10.05.2019 issued by Sunrise Hospital, Kadapa Ex.A28: Original outpatient treatment record 5 in number issued by Jagadeesh Neuro Care, Kadapa Ex.A29: Original unfit for Agriculture work certificate issued by Dr.Jagadeeswar Reddy, dt.01.10.2021 14

Ex.A30: Original permanent physical disability certificate dated 06.10.2021 issued by Dr.A.Sudhakar Reddy, Neuro Surgeon, S.V.R.G Hospital, Tirupathi.

Documents marked for respondent No.2:

Ex.B1: Attested copy Policy Documents marked through third party:- Ex.C1: Final bill for Rs.1,29,991/- for the treatment from 09.05.2019 to 17.05.2019 in Sunrise Hospital, Kadapa

Sd/-V.S.A.MURTHY,

CHAIRMAN, MACT – CUM-

PRINCIPAL DISTRICT JUDGE,

KADAPA

IN THE COURT OF THE PRINCIPAL DISTRICT JUDGE: KADAPA.

Present: V.S.ANJANEYA MURTHY

Principal District Judge, Kadapa.

Tuesday on this the 27 th day of June, 2023

Original Suit No. 45 of 2019

Between

Rajula Ramanjaneya Reddy, S/o late Subba Reddy, aged about 46 years, Hindu, Business, resident of D.No.266-B, Cheemalapenta Village and Post, Pendlimarri Mandal, Kadapa District. ….Plaintiff

And

Shaik Abdul Razak, S/o late Ibrahim Sab, aged about 52 years, Muslim, Business, resident of D.No.66/97, Nayabsab street,

Rayachoty Town, Kadapa District.....Defendant

This suit is coming on 13.06.2023for final hearing before me in the presence of Sri.M.Nagi Reddy, Advocate for the Plaintiff and of Sri. K.Shabuddin, Advocate for Defendant, and after hearing arguments on both sides, upon perusing records, and having stood over for consideration, till this day, this court delivered the following:

: J U D G M E N T :

01.The suit is filed by the plaintiff for recovery of amount due under the suit promissory note.

02.It is the claim of the plaintiff that on 05.05.2016 the defendant borrowed a sum of Rs.50,00,000/- from him to meet his legal necessities and executed the suit promissory note agreeing to repay the same with interest @ 24% per annum and later failed to discharge the debt amount. On repeated demands by the plaintiff, the defendant issued 09 cheques in favour of the plaintiff towards part payments to the debt and when the said cheques were presented for encashment, they were dishonoured. Since the defendant failed to repay the debt inspite of repeated demands by the plaintiff, the suit is filed.

2

03.The defendant filed written statement denying the material allegations of the plaint. The defendant submit that the plaintiff got issued a legal notice dated 03.05.2019 calling him to pay the amount due under the suit promissory note to which he issued reply notice stating that he never borrowed Rs.50,00,000/- on 05.05.2016 and did not execute the suit promissory note. He further submit that as per notice dated 03.05.2019 issued by the plaintiff, he did not mention issuance of the alleged post dated cheques by the defendant. It is further submitted that the defendant obtained blank cheques and failed to return the same to him in spite of receiving the debt amount from him and the suit promissory note is not supported by consideration. He further submit that plaintiff filed another suit in O.S.No.154 of 2019 on the file of this Court through his well wisher Panga Chandra Sekhar which is pending for trial and the plaintiff herein is the second attestor on the suit promissory note of that suit. The said Panga Chandra Sekhar who is the plaintiff in

O.S.No.154 of 2018 is the first attestor of the suit promissory note herein which

shows that the suit promissory note is a crated one. Defendant further submit that he paid all amounts on different dates as shown in his written statement to the satisfaction of the debt borrowed by him from the plaintiff through bank account but to make wrongful gain, plaintiff filed the suit by fabricating the suit promissory note. Thus, the defendant prayed for dismissal of the suit.

04. Considering the pleadings of both the parties, my learned predecessor framed the following issues for trial:

1. Whether the suit promissory note is true, valid, genuine and supported by consideration?

2. Whether the plaintiff is entitled for recovery of the suit amount against the defendant.

3. To what relief?

05.P.W.s 1 and 2 are examined and Exs.A1 to A3 are marked for the plaintiff.

D.W.1 was examined and Exs.B1 to B5 are marked for defendant.

3

06.Heard both the learned counsel.

07. ISSUE Nos.1 to 3 : The plaintiff is examined as P.W.1. He categorically deposes in his chief examination that on 05.05.2016 the defendant borrowed

Rs.50,00,000/- from him to meet his legal necessities and executed Ex.A1 suit promissory note agreeing to repay the same with interest @ 24% per annum but later failed to discharge the same and on his repeated demands, the defendant issued 09 cheques in his favour towards part payment of the suit debt and he presented the said cheques for encashment but, they were dishonoured and he is taking steps for prosecution of the defendant under Negotiable Instruments Act and since he suspected the bonafides of the defendant, he filed the present suit for recovery of debt covered under Ex.A1.

08.The learned counsel for the plaintiff submit that as the defendant is admitting his signature on Ex.A1 suit promissory note and pleading that he signed on a blank promissory note, the plaintiff is able to establish the due execution of

Ex.A1 suit promissory note and he is entitled the statutory presumption U/Sec.118 of Negotiable Instruments Act.

09.I have gone through the evidence of D.W.1. D.W.1 admitted his signature on Ex.A1 suit promissory note in his evidence. Hence, as rightly claimed by the plaintiff, the plaintiff is entitled to the statutory presumption U/Sec.118 of

Negotiable Instruments Act that the defendant has executed Ex.A1 suit promissory note. However, the presumption in favour of the plaintiff is a rebuttable presumption. The defendant can rebut the said presumption by showing preponderance of probabilities by adducing direct evidence or indirect evidence or circumstantial evidence. In other words, the defendant need not adduce any direct evidence to rebut the presumption in favour of the plaintiff, but he can rebut the 4 same by showing the preponderance of probabilities by pointing out the circumstances under which he signed on Ex. A1 suit promissory note though no consideration was passed under it. This my opinion is fortified by the Hon’ble full bench judgment of Andhra Pradesh High Court in G.Vasu Vs Syed Yaseen

Sifuddin Quadri (AIR 1987 AP 139). In that case also the facts are that in a suit filed by the plaintiff pleading that the defendant therein borrowed some amounts under the suit promissory notes therein, the defendant therein pleaded that he has not borrowed any amounts from the plaintiff and that the plaintiff was a pauper and had no means to lend the amounts and that they were close friends having joint business and that the plaintiff obtained the suit promissory notes therein from the defendant in course of their business transactions and that the suit promissory notes are not supported by consideration. Basing on the said facts, full bench of

Hon’ble A.P. High Court observed that “the defendant can rely on the facts and

also on the circumstances and he can adduce direct or circumstantial evidence

to rebut the presumption U/Sec.118 of Negotiable Instruments Act. It is further

held that “For the purpose of rebutting the initial evidential burden, the

defendant can rely on direct evidence or circumstantial evidence or on

presumptions of law or fact. Once such convincing rebuttal evidence is adduced

and accepted by the Court, having regard to all the circumstances of the case

and the preponderance of probabilities, the evidential burden shifts back to the

plaintiff who has also the legal burden. Thereafter, the presumption under

Sec.118 does not again come to the plaintiff's rescue. Once both parties have

adduced evidence, the Court has to consider the same and the burden of proof

loses all its importance.”

10.In the light of the observations of the Hon’ble full bench of A.P.High Court in the cited case, I have examined the facts of the case on hand. Here, in the case 5 on hand also the defendant is contending that he has some business transactions with the plaintiff and in that connection certain amounts are due from him to the plaintiff and in that connection the plaintiff obtained two blank promissory notes from him and later he has cleared off all the dues by making payments into the bank account of the plaintiff and that the plaintiff instead of returning the Ex.A1 suit promissory note and the other promissory note, fabricated the same one in his name as Ex.A1 and filed this suit and the other in the name of his friend/first attestor of this promissory note who filed the other suit.

11.The defendant has shown the following circumstances to support his plea that Ex.A1 is a fabricated document and not supported by consideration.

(a) plaintiff has no financial capacity to lend such huge amount of

Rs.50,00,000/-.

(b) Though the plaintiff got issued Ex.B1 demand notice prior to filing of the suit to which he got issued Ex.B2 reply notice, the plaintiff suppressed the said notice and reply and did not even refer the same in the plaint and so also in his chief examination.

(c) The plaintiff in his Ex.B1 notice has stated that the defendant has issued 09 cheques on different dates from 28.02.2019 to 12.04.2019 for different amounts towards part payment of the debt covered by Ex.A1, but the said particulars of the cheques which were mentioned by the plaintiff in his Ex.B1 notice were not mentioned in the plaint or in his chief examination.

(d) If really the defendant has issued 09 cheques on different dates as claimed by the plaintiff towards part payment of the debt covered by Ex.A1, the same would have been endorsed on the back of Ex.A1 suit promissory note, but no endorsements were made on the back of Ex.A1.

12.The defendant by showing the aforesaid circumstances, claims that Ex.A1 is a fabricated document and not supported by consideration. I have examined the oral and documentary evidence produced by both the parties in the light of their 6 contentions. A suggestion was put to P.W.1 during his cross-examination that he has no financial capacity to lent Rs.50,00,000/- under Ex.A1 and plaintiff denied the said suggestion. When the defendant specifically pleads that the plaintiff has no financial capacity to lent such huge amount of Rs.50,00,000/- under Ex.A1 and when according to plaintiff the consideration under Ex.A1 was paid in cash, the burden lies on the plaintiff to establish his financial capacity to lent such huge amount of Rs.50,00,000/- under Ex.A1. In his cross-examination, P.W.1 has stated that he does not have idea how much bank balance he was having as on the date of

Ex.A1 i.e., 05.05.2016. The plaintiff also did not take any steps to summon or to produce a copy of his bank account statement in order to prove that he was having balance in his bank account equivalent to the amount of Rs.50,00,000/- lent under

Ex.A1.

13.P.W.1 in his cross-examination has stated that he is an income tax assessee and he has shown the suit transaction under Ex.A1 in his income tax returns.

However, the plaintiff did not produce his income tax returns in order to prove the suit transaction under Ex.A1. If really the suit transaction under Ex.A1 is true and correct, since the transaction involves lending of Rs.50,00,000/- in cash, certainly it should have been shown in the income tax returns of the plaintiff. If really the plaintiff has shown the transaction under Ex.A1 in his income tax returns during the relevant period, certainly he would have produced the copies of his income tax returns into the Court to prove Ex.A1 transaction. Since the income tax returns of the plaintiff were not produced, this Court is of the opinion that he has not shown the transaction under Ex.A1 in his income tax returns and as such he did not produce the income tax returns. Hence, an adverse inference can be taken against the plaintiff with regard to non filing of the income tax returns by him. In my considered opinion, when such huge amount of Rs.50,00,000/- was lent under 7

Ex.A1, it should have been through by way of cheque or draft or any other mode of payment through bank, but when it was in the kind of cash, heavy burden lies on the plaintiff to prove that he was having cash of Rs.50,00,000/- as on the date of Ex.A1 and he lent the same to the defendant.

14.Here, in the case on hand, this Court is of the opinion that the plaintiff miserably failed to establish that he lent Rs.50,00,000/- under Ex.A1 because he failed to produce to a copy of his bank statement and income tax returns to prove that he was having more than the amount covered under Ex.A1 as on the date of suit transaction. This circumstance clearly rebuts the presumption in favour of the plaintiff.

15.Another circumstance is that according to P.W1, the defendant has issued 09 cheques as mentioned in Ex.B1 notice got issued by him on 03.05.2019 and the cheques were dated 28.02.2019 for Rs.2,20,000/-, dt.02.03.2019 for Rs.2,20,000/-, dt.03.03.2019 for Rs.2,20,000/-, dt.05.03.2019 for Rs.5,00,000/-, dt.08.03.2019 for Rs.5,00,000/-, dt.10.03.2019 for Rs.5,00,000/-, dt.05.04.2019 for

Rs.10,00,000/-, dt.08.04.2019 for Rs.10,00,000/- and dt.12.04.2019 for

Rs.10,00,000/-. According to the plaintiff, he has presented all the cheques on one day i.e., on 26.04.2019 but they were dishonoured for the reason “account closed”.

According to the plaintiff, these cheques were issued by the defendant towards part payment of the debt covered by Ex.A1. If really the defendant issued all the above referred 09 cheques towards part payment covered by Ex.A1, there should be relevant entries recorded on the back of the Ex.A1 suit promissory note. In other words, as and when cheque is issued by defendant from 28.02.2019 to 12.04.2019 towards part payment of the debt covered by Ex.A1, immediately on that day the relevant part payment endorsement should be made on the back of the 8

Ex.A1 suit promissory note but surprisingly the details of these cheques were not given in the plaint by the plaintiff and another interesting aspect is that Ex.A1 contains only one page. Generally, the form of promissory note contains two pages but here Ex.A1 contains only one page, it raises any amounts of doubt that the second page was removed by the plaintiff to suppress the real facts. The plaintiff also did not give any explanation why the second page of Ex.A1 was removed and why there was no endorsements on the back of Ex.A1 promissory note with regard to part payments alleged to have been made by the defendant through the alleged 09 cheques issued by him as mentioned in Ex.B1 notice. This is another circumstance which leads to rebuttable of statutory presumption in favour of the plaintiff.

16.Another circumstance is that admittedly the plaintiff got issued Ex.B1 legal notice demanding the defendant for repayment of amount covered by alleged 09 cheques and in Ex.B1 it was also mentioned that the defendant borrowed

Rs.50,00,000/- under Ex.A1 suit promissory note and failed to repay the same, however, the plaintiff suppressed Exs.B1 and B2 and he has not even referred the same in the plaint and did not produce the same along with the plaint and even in his chief examination also P.W.1 did not refer Exs.B1 and B2 inspite of referring the same by the defendant in his written statement. The plaintiff even did not try to explain about Exs.B1 and B2. The plaintiff did not explain why he has not referred

Exs.B1 and B2 in the plaint which raises a doubt with regard to the genuineness of the transaction under Ex.A1 suit promissory note.

17.Another important aspect is that admittedly the 09 cheques alleged to have been issued by the defendant were on different dates from 28.02.2019 to 12.04.2019. Admittedly, first cheque alleged to have been issued was on 9 28.02.2019 and the last cheque alleged to have been was issued on 12.04.2019.

Admittedly, the plaintiff presented all these 09 cheques on one and the same day i.e., on 26.04.2019. I could not understand why the plaintiff did not present the first cheque dated 28.02.2019 immediately for realization and why he waited till 26.04.2019 and for this, there is no explanation from the plaintiff. It is not the case of the plaintiff as could be seen from the plaint or from his entire evidence that after issuing the first cheque on 28.02.2019, the defendant requested him not to present the cheque till 26.04.2019. When the defendant did not request the plaintiff for presentation of the cheque dated 28.02.2019 till 26.04.2019, what prevented the plaintiff to present the cheque dated 28.02.2019 soon after receipt of the same and for this no answer from the plaintiff. Further, it is not the case of the plaintiff that the defendant gave post dated cheques or all the 09 cheques on 26.04.2019 and in such a case he has to explain why he waited for not presenting the first cheque dated 28.02.2019 till 26.04.2019 which raises any amount of doubt regarding the story of plaintiff with regard to the alleged debt covered by

Ex.A1 and alleged part payments said to have been made by the defendant covered by 09 cheques.

18.The defendant has stated that he made several payments towards the amounts due to the plaintiff in the business transactions but the plaintiff claimed that those amounts were paid by the defendant not in connection with the suit transaction under Ex.A1. Even according to the plaintiff other money transactions between him and defendant are there but they are noway related to Ex.A1 suit promissory note. In such a case the plaintiff has to independently establish his financial capacity to lent huge amount of Rs.50,00,000/- under Ex.A1 and to explain why he has not referred Exs.B1 and B2 in his plaint and why he has not referred the details of the alleged 09 cheques said to have been issued by the 10 defendant either in the plaint or in his evidence. Simply because the defendant is admitting his signature on Ex.A1 suit promissory note, it does not mean that he is admitting passing of consideration under it. Here in the case on hand, when the defendant is specifically pleading that the plaintiff has no financial capacity to lent such huge amount of Rs.50,00,000/- under Ex.A1 and that Ex.A1 is not supported by consideration, it is the bounden duty of the plaintiff first to establish his financial capacity and then to prove passing of consideration. Here in this case, for the aforesaid discussion, this Court has no hesitation to hold that the defendant is able to show the preponderance of probabilities and circumstances in his favour in establishing that a blank promissory note was signed by him and the plaintiff has no financial capacity to lent such huge amount under Ex.A1 and no consideration was passed under Ex.A1. Hence by following the judgment of the Hon’ble full bench of the A.P.High Court in G.Vasu case cited supra, this Court has no hesitation to hold that the plaintiff miserably failed to establish the suit claim and hence he is not entitled to the suit claim and the suit is liable to be dismissed.

Accordingly, these issues are answered.

In the result, the suit is dismissed with costs.

19.

Dictated to the Stenographer, transcribed by him, corrected and pronounced

by me in the open court on this the 27th day of June, 2023.

Sd/-V.S.A.MURTHY,

Principal District Judge,

Kadapa.

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

WITNESS EXAMINED FOR PLAINTIFF :

P.W.1:Rajula Ramanjaneya Redy

P.W.2: Y.Rama Bhupal Reddy 11

WITNESS EXAMINED FOR DEFENDANT

D.W.1:Shaik Abdul Razack

DOCUMENTS MARKED FOR PLAINTIFF:-

Ex. A-1:Promissory note dated 05.05.2016 for Rs.50,00,000/-

Ex. A-2: Certified copies of Registration Certificate of Vehicle of Plaintiff

Ex. A-3: Certified copies of Transaction statement issued by Bharathi Cement Corporation

DOCUMENTS MARKED FOR DEFENDANT:-

Ex. B-1:Legal notice dated 03.05.2019

Ex. B-2: Reply legal notice dated 13.05.2019

Ex. B-3: Certified copy of bank statement of defendant from 21.01.2015 to 13.02.2017 (marked subject to objection on the ground of proof and admissibility)

Ex. B-4:Certified copy of Judgment in O.S.No.154 of 2018 passed by the

Principal District Judge, Kadapa dated 02.03.2020

Ex. B-5:Copies of bank statement of account from 01.01.2015 to 27.02.2017

Sd/-V.S.A.MURTHY,

Principal District Judge,

Kadapa.

BEFORE THE MOTOR ACCIDENT CLAIMS TRIBUNAL-CUM-

PRINCIPAL DISTRICT JUDGE, KADAPA

Present: V. SRINIVASA ANJANEYA MURTHY,

CHAIRMAN, MOTOR ACCIDENT CLAIMS TRIBUNAL-CUM-

PRINCIPAL DISTRICT JUDGE,

KADAPA. MONDAY, THIS THE 26th DAY OF JUNE, 2023

M.V.O.P.No. 312 of 20 20

Between:

Battaala Venkatesu, S/o Nadipi Venkatesu, aged 35 years, Hindu, Mason, resident of Tangedupalli Village of B.Kodur Mandal, Kadapa District. … Petitioner And:

1. S.D.Shabuddin, S/o Miya Saheb, aged not know but major, Muslim,, resident of Dasaripalli Village, Udayagiri Mandal, Nellore District. ( Owner of the Tata Sumo bearing No.AP 21-L-1786)

2. Tata AIG General Insurance Company Limited, represented by its Branch Manager, 4th Floor, Block A, My Home, Kundanbag, Begumpeta, Hyderabad, Telangana State. (Insurer of the Tata Sumo bearing No.AP 21-L-1786)

3. S.D.Mahaboob Basha, S/o Ramthullasa, aged about 44 years, Muslim, resident of Dasaripalli Village, Udayagiri Mandal, Nellore District. ( Driver of the Tata Sumo bearing No.AP 21-L-1786) … Respondents

This petition coming on 19.06.2023 before me for final hearing in the presence of Sri V.Adinarayana Reddy, Advocate for petitioner, Respondent Nos.1 and 3 remained Exparte and of Sri K.Rama Kondaiah, Advocate for Respondent No.2 and upon perusing the material available on record and the matter having stood over for consideration till this day, this Court made the following:-

O R D E R

01.This petition is filed under Section.166 of Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 and

Rule.455 of A.P.M.V. Rules, 1989 r/w Act 54 of 1994 claiming compensation of

Rs.10,00,000/- for the injuries sustained by the petitioner in a motor vehicle accident occurred on 21.07.2019 at 4.30 PM near T.Ramapuram Village, B.Mattam Mandal on

Mydukur – Badvel Main Road.

02.The material averments of the petition in brief are as follows:

(i)Petitioner is the injured. Respondent Nos.1 to 3 are the owner, insurer and driver of the Tata Sumo car bearing No. AP 21 L 1786 (hereinafter referred as crime vehicle).

2

(ii) The petitioner was hale and healthy and was mason by profession and was earning Rs.15,000/- per month prior to the accident.

(iii)On 21.07.2019 in the evening while the petitioner as rider along with his wife and son as pillion riders was proceeding on a motorcycle, when they reached near

T.Ramapuram village situated on Mydukur to Badvel main road, the crime vehicle Tata

Sumo driven by respondent No.3 proceeding from Mydukur side so rashly and negligently hit their motorcycle, as a result the petitioner and pillion riders sustained fracture injuries. The petitioner sustained fracture of right leg below the knee and fracture tibia and fibula of lower 1/3rd of right leg and injury over right little finger and other parts of the body. The petitioner was shifted to RIMS Hospital, Kadapa and from there shifted to Ramadevi Multi Specialty Hospital, Tirupathi where he underwent surgery to the right leg by inserting implants and he was treated there for 15 days as inpatient. After discharge, he was taken treatment for three times as outpatient. On 11.09.2019 the petitioner was admitted in SVRRGG Hospital, Tirupathi for compound defect of right leg and underwent surgery on 16.06.2019 as Flap Cover-SSG and was discharged on 27.09.2019. The petitioner also took treatment at Tirumala Hospital,

Kadapa. The petitioner spent Rs.30,000/- for his treatment, medicines and extra nourishment, Rs.10,000/- towards transport charges and Rs.10,000/- towards attendant charges.

(iv)B.Mattam police registered F.I.R in Cr.No.140/2019 and laid charge sheet against the respondent No.3 alleging that due to his rash and negligent driving of the crime vehicle only, the accident occurred. The respondent Nos. 1 to 3 being the owner, insurer and driver of the crime vehicle car are jointly and severally liable to pay compensation of Rs.10,00,000/- with interest @ 16% per annum to the petitioner.

03.Respondent Nos.1 and 3 remained exparte and Respondent No.2 filed written statement denying the material allegations of the petition. Respondent No.2 submit that the petitioner has to prove the factum of accident, involvement of the crime vehicle, 3 negligence of the driver of the crime vehicle as cause of the accident, injuries sustained by the petitioner in the accident and his claim under this petition. It is further submitted that the accident occurred only due to rash and negligent riding of the motorcycle by the petitioner and there was no rash and negligent act on the part of the driver of the crime vehicle. The petitioner has to prove his taking treatment in the hospitals and so also the medical expenses and other expenses alleged to have been paid by him. The petition is bad for non joinder of necessary parties as the owner, driver and insurer of the motor cycle of the petition are not impleaded as parties to the petition. The claim of the petitioner is too excessive. Thus, the respondent No.2 prayed for dismissal of the petition.

04.Basing on the above pleadings, the following issues were settled for trial:

1.Whether the accident is caused due to rash and negligent driving by the driver (R3) of Tata Sumo bearing No. AP 21 L 1786 causing injuries to the petitioner?

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

3.To what relief?

05. On behalf of the petitioner P.Ws. 1 and 2 were examined and Exs.A1 to A14 were marked. No oral or documentary evidence was adduced on behalf of respondents.

Ex.B1 was marked for respondent No.3 by consent.

06. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and respondent No.2.

07. ISSUE No.1 :Petitioner/injured/P.W.1 deposes that on 21.07.2019 while he was proceeding on his motorcycle along with his wife and son at about 04.30 p.m, when they reached near T.Ramapuram village situated on Mydukur to Badvel main road, the respondent No.3/driver of the crime vehicle drove it so rashly and negligently came in opposite direction and hit the motorcycle of the petitioner resulting in serious fracture injuries to the petitioner. The petitioner was shifted to RIMS Hospital, Kadapa for 4 treatment and from there to Sri Ramadevi Multi Specialty Hospital, Tirupathi. On the complaint of brother of petitioner, F.I.R in Cr.No.140/2019 was registered by B.Mattam police against respondent No.3 and later charge sheet was filed. P.W.1 further deposes that the accident occurred due to rash and negligent driving of the crime vehicle by respondent No.3 only. In his cross-examination, P.W.1 denied the suggestion that he does not possess valid driving licence to ride the motorcycle and that he does not wear helmet at the time of the accident. He further denied the suggestion that the accident occurred only due to his rash and negligent riding of his motorcycle. The evidence of P.W.1 is supported by Ex.A1/F.I.R, ExA2/wound certificate and Ex.A3/charge sheet.

08.Though the respondent No.2/insurance company vehemently contended that the accident occurred due to the negligent riding of the motorcycle by the petitioner and that respondent No.3 does not possess valid driving licence, it did not produce any evidence to substantiate its contention. Hence, this Tribunal has no hesitation to hold that the petitioner by producing Exs.A1 to A3/F.I.R, Wound Certificate and charge sheet, is able to establish that the accident occurred only due to the rash and negligent driving of the crime vehicle by respondent No.3. Accordingly, this issue is answered.

09. ISSUE Nos.2 and 3 :

(i) Admittedly, the respondent Nos.1 to 3 are the owner, insurer and driver of the crime vehicle at the time of accident and they failed to establish any contributory negligence on the part of petitioner for the accident. Hence, this Tribunal has no hesitation to hold that the respondent Nos. 1 to 3 are jointly and severally liable to pay compensation to the petitioner.

(ii)P.W.1 deposes that he sustained fracture of right leg below the knee, tibia, fibula of lower 1/3rd of right leg, fracture of femur over right thigh and injury over right little finger and other parts of the body and he took treatment in RIMS Hospital, Kadapa and later in Sri Ramadevi Multi specialty Hospital, Tirupathi for 15 days as inpatient and subsequently also on several occasions he took treatment in the hospital as inpatient, that 5 he incurred more than Rs.2,00,000/- towards medicines, extra nourishment, transport charges, attendant charges etc., that due to his injuries he is unable to walk freely even to a small distance, cannot sit on the ground and his movements are completely restricted and he is permanently disabled from attending any works. In support of his evidence,

P.W.1 examined P.W.2 who issued Ex.A11 disability certificate.

(iii)P.W.2 is an Orthopedic surgeon in Kalyani Orthopedic Hospital, Kadapa and he deposes that P.W.1 used to visit their hospital for treatment of his right thigh, right femur, right knee and right foot tibia and fibula, that on 18.07.2022 after taking X-Rays for the injuries of P.W.1 on examination he found (a) operated scar over right thigh (b) a mal united fracture of right femur, plastic surgery graft done on right leg and then he issued Ex.A11 disability certificate assessing the percentage of disability of P.W.1 at 60%. He further deposes that P.W.1 got equanous deformity of right foot, tibia and fibula of right leg were not united and P.W.1 is unable to walk without support and getting pain and the entire right leg of P.W.1 is not useful and any person like mason and coolie, he needs further treatment and always require an attendant. He further deposes that he considered Ex.A2/wound certificate, Exs.A4 and A5/discharge summaries issued by

SVRRGG Hospital, Tirupathi and the X-rays taken by him while issuing Ex.A11 disability certificate. P.W.2 in his cross-examination denied the suggestion that the disability assessed by him against the norms under the manual issue by the Central

Government of India.

(iv)Though it was suggested to P.W.2 that the disability certificate issued by him was against to the norms under the manual issued by the Central Government of

India, respondent No.2 did not produce the said manual issued by Central Government of

India in support of its plea. P.W.2 is an Orthopedic Surgeon and he issued Ex.A11 disability certificate not only basing upon the previous medical record of P.W.1 with regard to his treatment for his injuries taken in various hospitals, but also on clinical/physical examination of P.W.1. Hence, this Tribunal has no hesitation to hold 6 that P.W.1 is able to establish by producing the evidence of P.W.2 and Exs.A2, A4, A5,

A9, A10, A11, A13 and A14 medical record. Hence, this Tribunal has no hesitation to hold that the petitioner is suffering with disability at 60%.

(v) P.W.1 produced Ex.A6 inpatient final bill for Rs.11,732/-, Ex.A7 bunch of medical bills for Rs.9,196/- issued by Sri Ramadevi Multi Specialty Hospital, Tirupathi,

Ex.A8 bunch of medical bills for Rs.12,181/- issued by New Aditya Pharmacy, Tirupathi and other pharmacies and Ex.A10 C.T Scan bill for Rs.7000/- issued by Krishna Scans,

Tirupathi. Thus, the petitioner incurred a total sum of Rs.40,109/- towards medical expenses for his treatment to which he is entitled.

10.The age of P.W.1 was assessed at 40 years considering Exs.A4 and A5 discharge summaries. P.W.1 deposes that prior to the accident he was a mason and was earning

Rs.15,000/- per month, but he did not produce any evidence to prove his age and earnings. Hence, this Tribunal, treating P.W.1 as non earning member, considering his age and his profession as mason, his annual earnings are notionally assessed at

Rs.1,20,000/- and the multiplier applicable to his case is ‘15’ and he is entitled to future prospects at 25% of his earnings (vide Sarala verma and others Vs. Delhi Transport

Corporation and another (2009)6 SCC 121). Hence, the estimated annual income of the injured at the time of the accident will be at Rs.1,50,000/- (Rs.1,20,000/- + Rs.30,000/- (25% of 1,20,000/-)). Since the petitioner is suffering from 60% disability, the loss of his annual income will be Rs.90,000/- (60% on Rs.1,50,000/-). Hence, the total loss of income of P.W.1 is estimated atRs.13,50,000/- (Rs.90,000/- x 15).

11.Admittedly, as the petitioner is suffering with 60% disability, he has to visit hospital frequently for follow up treatment and as such, he is entitled for Rs.50,000/- towards past and future transportation charges. The petitioner is also entitled for a sum of

Rs.1,00,000/- towards permanent disability and discomfort (vide Subulaxmi Versus

M.D.Tamilnadu State Transport Corporation and Another (2013) 1 ALD 68 SC).

7

12.Since the petitioner needs treatment and medicines in future also for his injuries, I am of the opinion that Rs.1,00,000/- is to be granted towards future medical expenses in addition to the compensation granted supra.

13.I further opinion that a sum of Rs.1,00,000/- is also to be awarded as additional compensation towards damages for pain, suffering and trauma as consequence of injuries of the petitioner in view of the medical evidence (vide Afnees (unconscious)

Represented through Mother V/S Oriental Insurance Co Ltd Vadakara and Others

(2017) ACJ 2622 SC).

14.From the aforesaid discussion, I have no hesitation to hold that the petitioner is entitled for compensation under various heads as shown below:

S.No. Head Compensation awarded

Rs.

1.Towards loss of future income due to 13,50,000-00 permanent disability

2.Towards medical expenses incurred by 40,109-00 petitioner

3.Towards past and future transport charges50,000-00

4.Towards permanent disability and1,00,000-00 discomfort

5.Towards future medical expenses1,00,000-00

6.Towards pain, suffering and trauma as1,00,000-00 consequences of injuries Total Compensation 17,40,109-00

15.The petitioner in his petition claimed compensation of Rs.10,00,000/-, whereas on considering the entire material produced by him, this Tribunal find that he is entitled to a sum of Rs.17,40,109/-.

16.The Hn’ble Supreme Court in Ramla and Others Vs National Insurance

Company Limited and others (2019 ACJ 559) held that “Motor Vehicles Act is a

beneficial and welfare legislation and Tribunals are duty bound to award just

compensation and there is no restriction that Tribunal cannot award compensation exceeding the claim.” In the light of the above judgment of Hon’ble Supreme Court, I have considered the facts of the case on hand. Here in the case on hand, P.W.2/the 8

Orthopedic Surgeon who issued the Ex.A11 disability certificate firmly stated that the right leg of P.W.1 is of no use due to the injuries and P.W.1 has to depend on attendants and he cannot attend his professional masonary works and he also cannot attend his daily works also. Hence, considering the facts of this particular case, this Tribunal is of the opinion that this is a fit case where just compensation can be awarded. Hence, the petitioner is entitled for total compensation of Rs.17,40,109/- under all the heads and the respondent Nos. 1 to 3 are jointly and severally liable to pay the above mentioned compensation amount to the petitioner with interest @ 7.5% p.a., thereon from the date of claim petition till the date of realization. Accordingly, these issues are answered.

17. In the result, the petition is allowed with costs.

A. Awarding a total compensation amount of Rs.17,40,109/- (Rupees

Seventeen lakhs forty thousand one hundred and nine only) with costs and interest thereon at 7.5% per annum from the date of petition till the date of realization.

B.The respondent Nos. 1 to 3 are jointly and severally liable to pay the said compensation amount and they are directed to deposit the said compensation amount within one month from the date of this order with interest and costs.

C.On such deposit by the respondents, the petitioner is permitted to withdraw a sum of Rs.7,40,109/- along with costs and interest on the entire compensation amount. The balance amount of Rs.10,00,000/- shall be kept in F.D.R in any nationalized bank for a period of three years.

D. The Advocate fee is fixed at Rs.3,000/-.

E.The office is directed to prepare decree on payment of court fee, if any, on the original claim of the petitioners along with Deficit Court Fee by the petitioners on the excess amount awarded.

Typed to my dictation by the Stenographer, corrected and pronounced by me in open court on this the 26th day of June, 2023.

Sd/-V.S.A.MURTHY,

CHAIRMAN, MACT – CUM-

PRINCIPAL DISTRICT JUDGE,

KADAPA 9

Appendix of Evidence

Witnesses Examined:

For the petitioners : For respondents

P.W.1 : B.Venkatesu.-Nil- P.W.2 : Dr. B.Narendra Dev. Documents marked for the petitioner: Ex.A1: Certified copy of FIR. Ex.A2: Certified copy of Wound Certificate. Ex.A3: Certified copy of Charge Sheet. Ex.A4: Discharge Summaries 4 in number issued by SVRRGG Hospital, Tirupathi. Ex.A5: Discharge Summary issued by Department of Plastic Surgery, Tirupathi. Ex.A6: Inpatient Final Bill issued by Sri Ramadevi Multi Specialty Hospital, Tirupathi for Rs.11,732/- Ex.A7: Bunch of Medical Bills (12) issued by Sri Ramadevi Multi Specialty Hospital, Tirupathi for Rs.9,196/- Ex.A8: Bunch of Medical Bills (20) issued by New Adithya Pharmacy, Tirupathi and other Pharmacies for Rs.12,181/-. Ex.A9: CT Scan Bill issued by Krishna Advance MRI & CT Scan Centre, Tirupathi. Ex.A10: CT Scan Bill issued by Krishna Scans, Tirupathi, for Rs.7,000/-. Ex.A11: Disability Certificate issued by Dr.B.Narendra Dev, M.S.(Ortho), Kalyani Ortho Clinic, Kadapa. Ex.A12: Two Medical Prescriptions issued by Kalyani Ortho Clinic, Kadapa. Ex.A13: X-Ray. Ex.A14: CT Peripheral Angiogram and Report of both Lower Limbs of the petitioner issued by SR Diagnostics Pvt. Ltd, Tirupathi.

Documents marked for respondent s:

Ex.B1: Policy Copy.

Sd/-V.S.A.MURTHY,

CHAIRMAN, MACT – CUM-

PRINCIPAL DISTRICT JUDGE,

KADAPA

BEFORE THE MOTOR ACCIDENT CLAIMS TRIBUNAL-CUM-

I ADDITIONAL DISTRICT JUDGE, KADAPA

Present: V. SRINIVASA ANJANEYA MURTHY,

CHAIRMAN, MOTOR ACCIDENT CLAIMS TRIBUNAL-CUM-

PRINCIPAL DISTRICT JUDGE, KADAPA.

FAC I ADDL.DISTRICT JUDGE, KADAPA

FRIDAY, THIS THE 23rd DAY OF JUNE, 2023

M.V.O.P.No.400 OF 2018

Between:

1.Polathala Pradeep Kumari, W/o late P. Ramachandraiah @ Ramachandra, Age: 29 years, Hindu, Housewife.

2.Polathala Amrutha, D/o late P.Ramachandraiah @ Ramachandra, Age: 12 years, Hindu, student, minor.

3.Polathala Yaswanth, S/o late P.Ramachandraiah @ Ramachandra, Age: 05 years, Hindu, student, minor.

4.Polathala Mokshitha, D/o late P.Ramachandraiah @ Ramachandra, Age: 04 years, Hindu, student, minor.

5.Polathala Chinna Ramaiah, S/o late P.Ganganna, Age: 67 years, Hindu, dependent.

6.Polathala Subbamma, W/o P.Chinna Ramaiah, Age: 60 years, Hindu, Housewife,

Petitioner Nos. 2 to 4 are minors, represented by their natural guardian next friend mother who is the 1st petitioner herein. All are residing at New Apparaopalli, Yellaredypalli Post, Kamalapuram

Mandal, Kadapa District. ..Petitioners

And:

1.V. Reddy Kumar, S/o V.Reddappa, Age: Not know, but major, Hindu, resident of 6 Kothavaddepalli, Thettu, Kurabalakota,Chittoor District – 517

350. (permit holder of the car bearing No.AP-11-AF-7784,)

2.Shaik Subhan Saheb, father’s name not know, Age: not know, but major, Muslim, resident of Chittamur Village and Mandal, Yella Siri, Andhra Pradesh (Policy Holder of the car bearing No.AP-11-AF-7784,) (Died)

3.Renati Venkat Sahil, S/o Bala Subbaiah, Age: 29 years, Hindu, resident of H.No. E-162/1(4), Plot No.12, Navelkar Valley, Old Goa Baingunim, Velha Goa, North Goa – 403 402 (Driver of the car bearing No.AP-11-AF-7784,)

4.The New India Assurance Company Limited, Macmillian House, 2nd Floor, ‘B’ Block 21, Patullos Road, Chennai, having its Divisional Office, Kadapa

2

represented by its Divisional Manager, Divisional Office, 7 Roads Circle, Kadapa (Insurer of the of the car bearing No.AP-11-AF-7784,).

5.Shaik Muntaj Begum, W/o late Shaik Subhan Saheb, Age: 45 years, Muslim, resident of Chittamur Village, Yellasri, Nellore District, Andhra Pradesh (Added as per orders in I.A.No.1175/2019, dated 18.11.2019( legal heir of the respondent No.2/ policy holder of car bearing No.AP-11-AF-7784) … Respondents

This petition coming on 16.06.2023 before me for final hearing in the presence of Sri S.Chandrasekhar Rao, Advocate for petitioner; respondent

Nos.1,3 and 5 remained Exparte and respondent No.3 reported died, and Sri

D.Rajasekhar Reddy, Advocate for respondent No.4 and upon hearing both the learned counsel and upon perusing the material available on record and the matter having stood over for consideration till this day, this Court made the following:

O R D E R

01.This petition is filed under Section.166 of Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 R.W.

Rule.475 of A.P.M.V. Rules, 1989 claiming compensation of Rs.50,00,000/- for the death of deceased Sri Polathala Ramachandraiah @ Ramachandra in a motor vehicle accident that occurred on 22.07.2018 at about 10.50 am near Central Jail,

Kadapa City on Kadapa – Rajampet main road.

02.The material averments of the petition, in brief are as follows:

(i)The Petitioner Nos.1 to 6 are the wife, minor children and parents of the deceased Polathala Ramachandraiah @ Ramachandra who died in the motor vehicle accident occurred on 22.07.2018.

(ii)The respondent No.1 is the permit holder, respondent No.2 is the policy holder, respondent No.3 is the driver and respondent No.4 is the insurer of the car bearing No. AP-11-AF-7784 (hereinafter referred as crime vehicle). Since respondent No.2 died, respondent No.5 being his legal heir, is impleaded as party to the petition.

3

(iii)The deceased was hale and healthy and was aged 30 years and was working as Manager in Punyabhoomi Charitable Trust, Ramapuram village of

Kamalapuram Mandal and was earning Rs.10,000/- per month. Apart from that the deceased own Ac.3.36 cents of land in his village and was earning Rs.15,000/- per month as on the date of the accident.

(iv)On 22.07.2018 at about 10.50 AM, the deceased P.Ramachandraiah @ Ramachandra and petitioner Nos.1 to 3 were proceeding on his motorcycle to

Madhavaram village, when they reached near Central Prison, Kadapa City on

Kadapa – Rajampet main road, the respondent No.3 drove the crime vehicle so rashly and negligently came in opposite direction and hit the motorcycle of the deceased resulting in injuries to the deceased and petitioner Nos. 1 to 3. The deceased was shifted to RIMS Hospital, Kadapa where he was declared as dead.

(v)On the complaint of petitioner No.1, RIMS U/G Police registered

F.I.R in Cr.No.215/2018. The accident occurred only due to the rash and negligent driving of the crime vehicle by respondent No.3. The respondent Nos. 1 and 3 to 5 being the owners, driver and insurer of the crime vehicle are jointly and severally liable to pay compensation of Rs.50,00,000/- with interest @ 16% p.a to the petitioners.

03.Respondent Nos.1, 3 and 5 remained exparte. Respondent No. 4 filed its written statement denying the material allegations of the petition. The Respondent

No.4 submit that the petitioners have to prove the the occurrence of the accident, involvement of the crime vehicle, death of the deceased in the accident, rash and negligent act of the respondent No.3 as cause of the accident, the age and income of the deceased at the time of the accident, that the respondent No.3 possessed valid and effective driving licence at the time of the accident. The respondent

No.4 further submit that the accident occurred only due to the rash and negligent

4

riding of the motorcycle by the deceased. The petition is bad for non joinder of necessary parties since the owner and insurer of the motorcycle of the deceased were not impleaded as parties to the petition. The deceased was not having valid and effective driving licence to drive the motorcycle as on the date of the accident. The claim of the petitioners is too excessive.

04.Basing on the above pleadings, the following issues were settled for trial:

1. Whether the deceased Polathala Ramachandraiah @ Ramachandra died due to the injuries sustained in a motor vehicle accident on 22.07.2018 at about 10.50 A.M. due to rash and negligent driving of the driver of car bearing No. AP-11-AF-7784 or not ?

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

3. To what relief?

05.P.Ws.1 to 3 were examined and Exs.A1 to A9 were marked for the petitioners. Ex.C1 was marked through P.W.3. No oral or documentary evidence adduced for respondent No.4.

06.Both the learned counsel addressed oral arguments.

07. ISSUE No.1 : P.W.1 is no other than the wife of the deceased and she is not an eye witness to the accident. P.W.1 deposes that on 20.07.2018 at about 10.50 am, while herself, the deceased and her children proceeding on their motorcycle to

Madhavaram village when they reached near Central Prison, Kadapa city on

Kadapa to Rajampet main road, the respondent No.3 drove the crime vehicle so rashly and negligently and came in opposite direction and hit their motorcycle resulting in injuries to herself and the deceased and that they shifted the deceased to RIMS Hospital, Kadapa where the doctor declared him as dead and then she lodged report in the police station on which F.I.R in Cr.No.215/2018 for the offence U/Sec.304(A) of I.P.C was registered by the RIMS U/G police.

5

08.In her cross-examination, P.W.1 denied the suggestion put to her that the accident occurred due to the negligent riding of the motorcycle by the deceased.

Ex.A1/F.I.R, Ex.A2/inquest report, Ex.A3/postmortem certificate, Ex.A4/charge sheet and Ex.A5/M.V.I report are corroborating the version of P.W.1 with regard to occurrence of the accident, involvement of the crime vehicle, rash and negligent driving of the crime vehicle at the time of the accident by the respondent No.3 and the death of the deceased due to the said accident. Since rash and negligent driving of the crime vehicle by respondent No.3 is proved as cause of the accident resulting in death of the deceased from the charge sheet filed by the police after conducting due investigation, this Tribunal has no hesitation to hold that there is no necessity to implead the owner and insurer of the motorcycle of the deceased since there was no negligent on the part of the deceased at the time of the accident.

Accordingly, this issue is answered.

09. ISSUE Nos. 2 AND 3 :Now it is to be decided what will be the reasonable amount of compensation to be awarded and from whom.

(i) As per Ex.A3 postmortem certificate age of the deceased as on the date of his death was 38 years. P.W.1/wife of the deceased deposes that the deceased was working as Manager in Punyabhoomi Charitable Trust and was earning Rs.10,000/- per month. To prove her contention she has examined P.W.3 the managing trustee of Punyabhoomi Charitable Trust who deposes that on the date of his death, the deceased was working as Manager in their trust office and was earning Rs.10,000/- per month vide Ex.C1 salary certificate issued by him.

P.W.1 further deposes that the deceased possessed land of an extent of Ac.3.36 cents and was getting Rs.15,000/- income per month on agriculture. In support of her contention, she examined P.W.2/V.R.O of Yellareddypalli village who deposes that the deceased possessed land of an extent of Ac.3-36 cents in survey numbers

6

173/10 with Khatha No.358 in Apparaopalli village and in survey number 855 with Khatha No.867 in Chinnacheppalli village vide Exs.A6 to A9 copies of

R.O.R and Adangals. Considering the evidence of P.Ws 2 and 3, Ex.C1 and

Exs.A6 to A9, this Tribunal fixed the annual income of the deceased at

Rs.1,50,000/-.

(ii)The petitioner No.1 is the wife, petitioner Nos. 2 to 4 are the minor children and petitioner Nos.5 and 6 are the parents of the deceased and are dependents on the deceased and, therefore, 1/4th of the income of the deceased is to be deducted towards his personal expenses. (vide Sarala verma and others Vs.

Delhi Transport Corporation and another (2009)6 SCC 121)

(iii)Since the deceased was aged 38 years on the date of his death, the multiplier ‘15’ is to be applied and the future prospects are to be calculated at 40% in terms of Judgments of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in (Sarala verma and

Pranay Sethi and Others ). Thus, the net annual income of the deceased is fixed at

Rs.2,10,000/- (Rs.1,50,000/- + Rs.60,000/-). The net annual earnings of the deceased after deducting 1/4th towards personal expenses are Rs.1,57,500/- (Rs.2,10,000/- – Rs.52,500/-). Taking the said net annual earnings of the deceased at Rs.1,57,500/- with the multiplier ‘15’ is applied, the loss of dependency is computed at Rs.23,62,500/- (Rs.1,57,500/- x 15).

(iv).The petitioner Nos. 1 to 6 each are entitled to loss of consortium under the heads of spousal, filial and parental consortium (vide Magma General

Insurance Company Ltd., Vs. Nanuram @ Chuhru Ram and others 2018 0 ACJ

2782 and N.Jayasree Vs. Cholamandalam MS Insurance Company in Civil

appeal No.6451/2021)) at Rs.44,000/-. Thus, the petitioner Nos. 1 to 6 are entitled to a total sum of Rs.2,64,000/- (Rs.44,000 x 6) under the head consortium.

7

(v).The petitioners are further entitled to Rs.16,500/- under each heads of loss of estate and funeral expenses ( vide Judgment in Pranay Sethi case and

N.Jayasree case ). Thus, a total sum of Rs.33,000/- (Rs.16,500/- x 2 ) is awarded towards loss of estate and funeral expenses to the petitioners.

(vi).So far, the rate of interest is concerned, the petitioners claimed interest @ 16% pa., from the date of accident. But, however, the petitioner Nos.1 to 4 are entitled to interest @ 7.5% p.a., only from the date of the filing of the petition (Vide the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India dated

23.04.2019 in Civil Appeal Nos.4079-4081 of 2019 between National Insurance

Co. Limited Vs. Munnat Johal and others etc.).

10.In the light of the above mentioned discussion, the petitioner Nos. 1 to 4 are entitled to compensation under the following heads.

S.No. Head Compensation

awarded Rs.

1.Loss of dependency23,62,500 -00

2.Total consortium under the heads of spousal, 2,64,000-00 filial and parental consortium (Rs.44,000/- x 6)

3.Funeral expenses16,500-00

4.Loss of estate16,500-00

Total Compensation 26,59,500-00

11.Hence, this Tribunal has no hesitation to hold that the petitioner Nos.1 to 6 are entitled to a total compensation of Rs.26,59,500/- under various heads as stated supra with interest @ 7.5% p.a., thereon from the date of claim petition till the date of realization.

12.Now it is to be decided that who are liable to pay the said compensation under this Award, to the petitioners;

13.Though the respondent No.4 contending that the respondent No.3/driver of the crime vehicle does not possess a valid driving licence to drive the crime vehicle, it did not produce any evidence to prove its contention. Admittedly, the

8

insurance policy issued by respondent No.4 to the crime vehicle was in force at the time of accident and there are no violations of the terms and conditions of the policy. Hence, this Tribunal has no hesitation to hold that the respondent Nos. 1, 3 and 4 are jointly and severally liable to pay the compensation to the petitioners.

Since the respondent No.5 is only legal heir of respondent No.2/ policy holder of the crime vehicle, the petition against respondent No.5 is liable to be dismissed.

14.From the aforesaid discussion, this Court has no hesitation to hold that the petitioners 1 to 6 are entitled to a total sum of Rs.26,59,500/- with proportionate costs and interest @ 7.5% p.a. thereon from the date of claim petition till the date of realization towards compensation on the death of the deceased as against respondent Nos. 1, 3 and 4 jointly and severally. The petition against respondent

No.5 is liable to be dismissed. Accordingly, these issues are answered.

15. In the result,the petition is partly allowed with proportionate costs.

A A total compensation of Rs.26,59,500/- with proportionate costs and interest thereon at 7.5% p.a., from the date of the petition till the date of realization is awarded to the petitioner Nos. 1 to 6 against the respondent Nos.1, 3 and 4.

The rest of the claim of the petitioners is rejected. B The respondent Nos. 1, 3 and 4 are jointly and severally liable to pay the compensation awarded. The petition against respondent No.5 is dismissed. C The respondent Nos.1, 3 and 4 are directed to deposit the compensation amount with proportionate costs and interest into Court within one month from the date of this Order D On such deposit,

(i) the petitioner No.1 being the wife of the deceased, is entitled to

Rs.5,00,000/- along with the total costs and interest on the total compensation amount. She is permitted to withdraw the entire compensation amount.

(ii) The petitioner Nos.2 to 4/the minor children of the deceased, each are entitled to Rs.5,00,000/-. They being minors, their share of compensation shall be kept in F.D.R in any nationalized bank until they attain majority.

9

(iii) The petitioner No.5 being the father of the deceased, is entitled to

Rs.3,00,000/-. He is permitted to withdraw his entire share of compensation amount.

(iv) The petitioner No.6 being the mother of the deceased, is entitled to

Rs.3,59,500/-. She is permitted to withdraw her entire share of compensation amount. E The Advocate fee is fixed at Rs.3,000/-.

F The office is directed to collect the Court Fee, if any, from the petitioners and then to prepare decree.

Dictated to the Stenographer, corrected and pronounced by me in open

court on this the 23rd day of June, 2023.

sd/-V. SRINIVASA ANJANEYA MURTHY, CHAIRMAN, MACT – CUM-

PRINCIPAL DISTRICT JUDGE, KADAPA

FAC I ADDL.DISTICT JUDGE, KADAPA

Appendix of Evidence Witnesses Examined:

For the petitioners: For respondent No.4

P.W.1 : P.Pradeep Kumari- NIL- P.W.2 : M.Lakshmi Obuleswaramma P.W.3: K.Sainath

Documents marked for the petitioner: Ex.A1: Certified copy of FIR Ex.A2: Certified copy of inquest report Ex.A3: Certified copy of postmortem certificate Ex.A4: Certified copy of charge sheet Ex.A5: Certified copy of M.V.I. Report Ex.A6: Mee-Seva copy of 1-B Namoona for Sy.No.855 in the name of deceased Ex.A7: Mee-Seva copy of Adangal for Sy.No.855 in the name of deceased Ex.A8: Mee-Seva copy of 1-B Namoona for Sy.No.173-10 in favour of deceased Ex.A9: Mee-Seva copy of Adangal for Sy.No.173-10 in the name of deceased Documents marked for respondent No. 4 :- NIL- Documents marked through third party: Ex.C1: Salary certificate

sd/- VSAM

CHAIRMAN, MACT – CUM-

PRINCIPAL DISTRICT JUDGE, KADAPA

FAC I ADDL.DISTICT JUDGE, KADAPA