Sri V.v.seshu Babu

IN THE COURT OF VIII ADDITIONAL DISTRICT AND SESSIONS JUDGE-CUM- ADDITIONAL MOTOR

ACCIDENTS CLAIMS TRIBUNAL (FAST TRACK COURT ) VISAKHAPATNAM AT GAJUWAKA.

PRESENT: SRI V. V. SESHU BABU, B.COM., B.L.,

IX ADDL. DISTRICT AND SESSIONS JUDGE, (FTC)

FAC of VIII ADDL. DISTRICT AND SESSIONS JUDGE,

VISAKHAPATNAM AT GAJUWAKA.

Wednesday the 10 th day of April, 2013.

M.O.P.N0.115/2011

Between : 1.Vadapalli Lakshmi, W/o. Chinna Rao, Hindu, Age: 39 years, R/at. P,ot No.383, Dibbapalaem RH Colony, Srinagar, Pedagantyada, Visakhapatnam District 2.Vadapalli Chinna Rao, S/o. Late Narasinga Rao, Hindu, Age: 49 years, Rest do 3.Smt Gadam Bhanu Kumari, W/o. Govinda Raju, Hindu, Age: 25 years, R/at. Plot No.390, Dibbapalem, RH Colony, Srinagar, Pedagantyada, Visakhapatnam District.

.... Petitioners

And :

1.M/s. G.S. Transport Pvt. Ltd., 16 R.N. Mukherjee Road, 2nd Floor, Kolkata – 700 001, having its local office at Plot No.23, E Block, Autonagar, Gajuwaka Visakhpatnam 2.M/s. IFFCO – TOKIO General Insurance Company Limited, Reptd. By its Manager ( Claims) Dwarakanagar, Visakhapatnam.

..... Respondents

This petition coming on 15.03.2013 for hearing before me in the presence of Sri R.Ganeswara Rao, Advocates for Petitioner, and Sri R.Laxmana Rao, Advocate for R2 and R1 set exparte, and having stood over for consideration, till this day, the court delivered the following :

O R D E R

01.The claim application is filed U/s.166 of MV Act R/w Rule 455 of A.P. Motor Vehicle

Rules by the petitioner claiming compensation of Rs.4,50,000/- for the death of Mr. Vadapalli

Venkatesh in the motor accident that took place on 28.02.2010 at about 5.30am at Autonagar

Junction inside Gangvaram Port at Rock Loading Lane No.1, Visakhapatnam within the jurisdictional limits of New Port Traffic PS, Visakhapatnam.

02.The brief averments of the petition are that that the petitioner No.1 is mother, Petitioner No.2 is father and Petitioner No.3 is sister of the deceased Vadapalli Venkatesh who was working as Talley

Clerk (supervisor) in Pinnacle Marine Services Pvt., Ltd., Inside Gangavaram Port, Visakhapatnam and used to draw salary of Rs.5,500/- per month. On 27.2.2010 at about 9.00 pm, the deceased attended 'C' shift duty inside the Gangarvaram Port at Rock Loading Lane No.1 and on 28.2.2010 morning at about 5.30 am, while the deceased was doing work, a loader bearing No. AP 31 BD 8863 which was operated by its driver cum operator in a rash and negligent manner without observing surroundings dashed the deceased and ran over his body and caused instantaneous death. Immediately the deceased was shifted to King George Hospital and Post Mortem was conducted. The New Port

Traffic Police registered a case in Cr. No.5/2010 U/s.304-A of IPC against the driver/operator of the loader. The deceased was aged 23 years, hale and healthy by the time of accident and he was the sole bread winner of the entire family and on account of his death petitioners have lost their livelihood ; that petitioners have spent Rs.20,000/- towards funeral expenses and Rs.2,000/- towards transportation ; that R1 being the owner of the offending vehicle and R2 being its insurer are jointly and severally liable to pay the compensation; hence, the claim petition.

03.R1, set exparte.

04.The brief averments of the counter filed by R2 are that the petitioners are put to strict proof of the age, employment, income of the deceased and their entitlement for the claimed amount. The petitioners shall prove that the driver of loader was holding valid and effective

Driving License at the time of accident. As the driver of the Loader was not holding valid Driving

License, R2 is not liable to pay the compensation for the violations of conditions of the policy. The incident occurred due to the negligence of the deceased only but not due to the negligence of the driver of the loader. The amount claimed by the petitioner and interest are excessive. With these pleas prayed for dismissal of petition with costs.

05.Basing on the pleadings, the following issues are settled for trial:

1.Whether the deceased Vadapalli Venkatesh died in a motor accident occurred on 28.2.2010 due to the rash and negligent driving of Loader bearing registration No. AP-31-BD-8863 by its driver?

2.Whether the petitioners are entitled to compensation? If so, to what amount and from which of the respondents?

3. To what relief?

06. To prove the version of the petitioners, PW1 to P.W.3 are examined and Ex. A1 to A9 got marked. Nobody is examined and no documents are marked for R2. Petitioner counsel filed written arguments. Though R2 counsel received copy of written arguments, not representation; hence, arguments of R2 treated are as heard. Basing on the pleadings, evidence, documents and arguments, the above points are answered like hereunder.

07. ISSUE NO.1:PW.2 is the eye witness to the accident. He deposed that on 28/02/2010, he was working in Gangavaram port and on that day about 5-30 am when the deceased

Venkatesh was working there, the driver-Cum-operator of loader bearing No. AP-31-BD- 8863 in a rash and negligent manner drove the same without observing the surroundings and dashed the deceased and ran over him, thereby resulted in the instantaneous death. In the Cross examination,

PW.2 admitted that he had not given any Complaint to police nor deposed in the Criminal Court. PW.2 is Cited in the memo of evidence as list of witness No.6 in the Ex. A5 Charge sheet as eye witness.

Nothing worth while is elicited in the Cross examination of PW.2 to impeach his evidence. As per MVI report under Ex.A4, the accident not occurred due to any mechanical defects in the offending vehicle.

Therefore, I am of the view that the accident occurred solely due to the rash and negligent driving of driver-Cum-operator of offending vehicle; hence, the issue is answered in favour of petitioners.

08. ISSUE NO. 2 & 3:As per the Claim application, the deceased was aged 23 years and working Tally Clerk (supervisor) in Pinnacle Marine Services Pvt. Ltd and getting a salary of

Rs.5,500/- per month. No document is filed except police record to prove the age of deceased. As per Inquest report and Post Mortem report, age of the deceased is mentioned as 23 years. Petitioners 1 & 2 are mother and father and 3rd petitioner is sister of the deceased. The age of first petitioner is shown as 39 years and 2nd petitioner as 49 years. If the same is Correct, the deceased might have born to her at her age of 16 years. The age of third petitioner is shown as 25 years; so, she is elder to deceased. In such Case first petitioner might have given birth to the third petitioner while she was 14 years old. It is some what difficult to believe. As the deceased was said to have been working as supervisor, he Can be Considered as the educated person. Therefore, I am of the view that the petitioners not approached the Tribunal with their true ages including that of deceased. Pw1 stated that deceased completed ITI and computers in hardware. So, record is very mu h available with the petitioners to prove the age of the deceased. Only for the purpose of getting more compensation and to place the tribunal in dark, the age of deceased is not proved. I am of the view that the deceased might have been in the age group of 26 to 30 years. For a person in the said age group the multiplier of 17 is applicable, as per the Sarla Varmas Judgment reported in 2009 (2) MAC 9 (SC)

09.Ex.A9 is the original salary certificate dt. 15.02.2010 given by Pinnacle Marine Services

Pvt Ltd and as per the same by working as Tally Clerk, he was earning Rs. 5,500/- per month. PW3 stated that he is working as Manager in the said Company for the last 4 years and the deceased was a contract employee in the company and he used to draw Rs. 5,500 per month; that now the same employee of that cadre is being paid Rs. 6,500/- p.m and he issued Ex. A9. No record is filed before the court to show that the company used to pay salary to the deceased at Rs. 5,500/- p.m. In the year 2010, a coolie was earning about Rs. 150/- per day. Therefore I am of the view that the salary of deceased can be taken as Rs. 5,000/- p.m even otherwise.

10.When the age of second petitioner is 49 years, the age of first petitioner will be around 45 or 46 years more so, when the Tribunal found that the deceased might have been in the age group of 26 to 30 years. The deceased is an unmarried person. Therefore, his contribution to the family can be taken as 50% out of his income. When the salary is found to be at Rs. 5,000 p.m, it is

Rs. 60,000/- p.a and out of which contribution to the family can be taken as Rs. 30,000/- pa. The petitioners counsel relied upon a citation reported in

2012 SAR (civil) 708.

In view of the same the multiplier of 17 is to be applied depending upon the age of the deceased but not the multiplier depending upon the age of parents more so that of mother. So, the petitioners are entitled for a compensation of Rs. 30,000 x 17 = Rs. 5,10,000 p.a. A sum of Rs. 8,000/- can be awarded towards funeral expenses. So, all together petitioners are entitled for Rs. 5,18,000/-.

11.The petitioners counsel relied upon citation reported in 2006 ACJ 414.

In view of the above citation the petitioners are entitled for the above said compensation even though the claim amount is only Rs. 4,50,000/-. However, the petitioners are directed to pay the deficit court on the balance amount of Rs.68,000/-. The third petitioner is the unmarried sister of deceased. In the presence of father she cannot be considered as dependent on the brother. However, there is moral obligation on the part of brother to perform the marriage of the sister and to look after welfare.

Therefore I am of the view that all the petitioners are entitled for compensation.

12.Ex. A6 is the Policy and it goes to show that the offending vehicle was insured by R1 and the policy was in force as on the date of accident. Ex. A8 is the driving license of the driver of offending vehicle against whom charge sheet was filed. No evidence is placed by R2 that there are any violations of conditions of policy. Therefore, R1 and R2 are jointly and severally liable to pay the compensation. Out of the awarded compensation, 1st and 2nd petitioners are entitled to receive Rs.

2,00,000/- each and permitted to receive Rs. 1,00,000/- each and balance shall be kept in FDR for a period of 1 year in a Nationalized Bank and 3rd petitioner is entitled to receive Rs. 1,18,000/- and permitted to receive Rs. 50,000/- and the balance shall be kept in FDR for a period of 1 year in a

Nationalized Bank. The office is directed to draft the decree for the petitioners after payment of

Deficit Court Fee or the petitioners restrict their claim to Rs. 4,50,000/- shall file memo to that effect.

13.In the result, the petition is allowed awarding a compensation of Rs. 5,18,000/- to the petitioners against R1 and R2 with joint and several liability with interest at the rate of 7.5% per annum with proportionate costs from the date of petition till the date of deposit; that time for deposit is 2 months; that petitioners 1 and 2 are entitled to receive Rs. 2,00,000/- each and 3rd petitioner is entitled to receive Rs. 1,18,000/- with interests and costs on their respective shares; that petitioners 1 and 2 are permitted to receive Rs. 1,00,000/- each and 3rd petitioner is entitled to receive Rs. 50,000/- and the balance shall be kept in FDR for a period of 1 year; that advocate fee is fixed at Rs. 1,500/-.

Dictated to the Bench Clerk directly on computer, corrected and pronounced by

me in the open Court on this the 10 th day of April, 2013.

IX Addl. District Judge, FAC of VIII ADDL.DIST. JUDGE Cum Chairman Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal (FTC) Visakhapatnam, Gajuwaka.

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

WITNESS EXAMINED

FOR PETITIONER FOR RESPONDENTS: nil

P.W.1: Smt V. Lakshmi P.W.2: Sri D. Rama Mohan Rao @ Ram Mohan P.W.3 : Sri K. Viswanath

EXHIBITS MARKED

FOR PETITIONER:

Ex. A1 is the CC FIR in Cr. No. 5/2010 U/s.304-A of IPC of New Port Traffic PS Ex.A2 is the CC Inquest Report Ex.A3 is the CC PM report Ex.A4 is the CC of MVI report Ex.A5 is the CC of the charge sheet Ex.A6 is the Photocopy of the Policy Certificate Ex.a7 is the Photocopy of the Registration Certificate Ex.A8 is the Photocopy of the Driving license of Driver of offending Vehicle Ex.a9 is the Original Salary Certificate of the deceased.

FOR RESPONDENT No.2 : nil

IX ADJ (FTC)

FAC: VIII ADJ (FTC)

CUM MACT,

VSKP

IN THE COURT OF VIII ADDITIONAL DISTRICT AND SESSIONS JUDGE-CUM- ADDITIONAL MOTOR

ACCIDENTS CLAIMS TRIBUNAL (FAST TRACK COURT ) VISAKHAPATNAM AT GAJUWAKA.

PRESENT: SRI V. V. SESHU BABU, B.COM., B.L.,

IX ADDL. DISTRICT AND SESSIONS JUDGE, (FTC)

FAC of VIII ADDL. DISTRICT AND SESSIONS JUDGE,

VISAKHAPATNAM AT GAJUWAKA.

Wednesday the 10 th day of April, 2013.

M.O.P.N0.115/2011

Between : 1.Vadapalli Lakshmi, W/o. Chinna Rao, Hindu, Age: 39 years, R/at. P,ot No.383, Dibbapalaem RH Colony, Srinagar, Pedagantyada, Visakhapatnam District 2.Vadapalli Chinna Rao, S/o. Late Narasinga Rao, Hindu, Age: 49 years, Rest do 3.Smt Gadam Bhanu Kumari, W/o. Govinda Raju, Hindu, Age: 25 years, R/at. Plot No.390, Dibbapalem, RH Colony, Srinagar, Pedagantyada, Visakhapatnam District.

.... Petitioners

And :

1.M/s. G.S. Transport Pvt. Ltd., 16 R.N. Mukherjee Road, 2nd Floor, Kolkata – 700 001, having its local office at Plot No.23, E Block, Autonagar, Gajuwaka Visakhpatnam 2.M/s. IFFCO – TOKIO General Insurance Company Limited, Reptd. By its Manager ( Claims) Dwarakanagar, Visakhapatnam.

..... Respondents

This petition coming on 15.03.2013 for hearing before me in the presence of Sri R.Ganeswara Rao, Advocates for Petitioner, and Sri R.Laxmana Rao, Advocate for R2 and R1 set exparte, and having stood over for consideration, till this day, the court delivered the following :

O R D E R

01.The claim application is filed U/s.166 of MV Act R/w Rule 455 of A.P. Motor Vehicle

Rules by the petitioner claiming compensation of Rs.4,50,000/- for the death of Mr. Vadapalli

Venkatesh in the motor accident that took place on 28.02.2010 at about 5.30am at Autonagar

Junction inside Gangvaram Port at Rock Loading Lane No.1, Visakhapatnam within the jurisdictional limits of New Port Traffic PS, Visakhapatnam.

02.The brief averments of the petition are that that the petitioner No.1 is mother, Petitioner No.2 is father and Petitioner No.3 is sister of the deceased Vadapalli Venkatesh who was working as Talley

Clerk (supervisor) in Pinnacle Marine Services Pvt., Ltd., Inside Gangavaram Port, Visakhapatnam and used to draw salary of Rs.5,500/- per month. On 27.2.2010 at about 9.00 pm, the deceased attended 'C' shift duty inside the Gangarvaram Port at Rock Loading Lane No.1 and on 28.2.2010 morning at about 5.30 am, while the deceased was doing work, a loader bearing No. AP 31 BD 8863 which was operated by its driver cum operator in a rash and negligent manner without observing surroundings dashed the deceased and ran over his body and caused instantaneous death. Immediately the deceased was shifted to King George Hospital and Post Mortem was conducted. The New Port

Traffic Police registered a case in Cr. No.5/2010 U/s.304-A of IPC against the driver/operator of the loader. The deceased was aged 23 years, hale and healthy by the time of accident and he was the sole bread winner of the entire family and on account of his death petitioners have lost their livelihood ; that petitioners have spent Rs.20,000/- towards funeral expenses and Rs.2,000/- towards transportation ; that R1 being the owner of the offending vehicle and R2 being its insurer are jointly and severally liable to pay the compensation; hence, the claim petition.

03.R1, set exparte.

04.The brief averments of the counter filed by R2 are that the petitioners are put to strict proof of the age, employment, income of the deceased and their entitlement for the claimed amount. The petitioners shall prove that the driver of loader was holding valid and effective

Driving License at the time of accident. As the driver of the Loader was not holding valid Driving

License, R2 is not liable to pay the compensation for the violations of conditions of the policy. The incident occurred due to the negligence of the deceased only but not due to the negligence of the driver of the loader. The amount claimed by the petitioner and interest are excessive. With these pleas prayed for dismissal of petition with costs.

05.Basing on the pleadings, the following issues are settled for trial:

1.Whether the deceased Vadapalli Venkatesh died in a motor accident occurred on 28.2.2010 due to the rash and negligent driving of Loader bearing registration No. AP-31-BD-8863 by its driver?

2.Whether the petitioners are entitled to compensation? If so, to what amount and from which of the respondents?

3. To what relief?

06. To prove the version of the petitioners, PW1 to P.W.3 are examined and Ex. A1 to A9 got marked. Nobody is examined and no documents are marked for R2. Petitioner counsel filed written arguments. Though R2 counsel received copy of written arguments, not representation; hence, arguments of R2 treated are as heard. Basing on the pleadings, evidence, documents and arguments, the above points are answered like hereunder.

07. ISSUE NO.1:PW.2 is the eye witness to the accident. He deposed that on 28/02/2010, he was working in Gangavaram port and on that day about 5-30 am when the deceased

Venkatesh was working there, the driver-Cum-operator of loader bearing No. AP-31-BD- 8863 in a rash and negligent manner drove the same without observing the surroundings and dashed the deceased and ran over him, thereby resulted in the instantaneous death. In the Cross examination,

PW.2 admitted that he had not given any Complaint to police nor deposed in the Criminal Court. PW.2 is Cited in the memo of evidence as list of witness No.6 in the Ex. A5 Charge sheet as eye witness.

Nothing worth while is elicited in the Cross examination of PW.2 to impeach his evidence. As per MVI report under Ex.A4, the accident not occurred due to any mechanical defects in the offending vehicle.

Therefore, I am of the view that the accident occurred solely due to the rash and negligent driving of driver-Cum-operator of offending vehicle; hence, the issue is answered in favour of petitioners.

08. ISSUE NO. 2 & 3:As per the Claim application, the deceased was aged 23 years and working Tally Clerk (supervisor) in Pinnacle Marine Services Pvt. Ltd and getting a salary of

Rs.5,500/- per month. No document is filed except police record to prove the age of deceased. As per Inquest report and Post Mortem report, age of the deceased is mentioned as 23 years. Petitioners 1 & 2 are mother and father and 3rd petitioner is sister of the deceased. The age of first petitioner is shown as 39 years and 2nd petitioner as 49 years. If the same is Correct, the deceased might have born to her at her age of 16 years. The age of third petitioner is shown as 25 years; so, she is elder to deceased. In such Case first petitioner might have given birth to the third petitioner while she was 14 years old. It is some what difficult to believe. As the deceased was said to have been working as supervisor, he Can be Considered as the educated person. Therefore, I am of the view that the petitioners not approached the Tribunal with their true ages including that of deceased. Pw1 stated that deceased completed ITI and computers in hardware. So, record is very mu h available with the petitioners to prove the age of the deceased. Only for the purpose of getting more compensation and to place the tribunal in dark, the age of deceased is not proved. I am of the view that the deceased might have been in the age group of 26 to 30 years. For a person in the said age group the multiplier of 17 is applicable, as per the Sarla Varmas Judgment reported in 2009 (2) MAC 9 (SC)

09.Ex.A9 is the original salary certificate dt. 15.02.2010 given by Pinnacle Marine Services

Pvt Ltd and as per the same by working as Tally Clerk, he was earning Rs. 5,500/- per month. PW3 stated that he is working as Manager in the said Company for the last 4 years and the deceased was a contract employee in the company and he used to draw Rs. 5,500 per month; that now the same employee of that cadre is being paid Rs. 6,500/- p.m and he issued Ex. A9. No record is filed before the court to show that the company used to pay salary to the deceased at Rs. 5,500/- p.m. In the year 2010, a coolie was earning about Rs. 150/- per day. Therefore I am of the view that the salary of deceased can be taken as Rs. 5,000/- p.m even otherwise.

10.When the age of second petitioner is 49 years, the age of first petitioner will be around 45 or 46 years more so, when the Tribunal found that the deceased might have been in the age group of 26 to 30 years. The deceased is an unmarried person. Therefore, his contribution to the family can be taken as 50% out of his income. When the salary is found to be at Rs. 5,000 p.m, it is

Rs. 60,000/- p.a and out of which contribution to the family can be taken as Rs. 30,000/- pa. The petitioners counsel relied upon a citation reported in

2012 SAR (civil) 708.

In view of the same the multiplier of 17 is to be applied depending upon the age of the deceased but not the multiplier depending upon the age of parents more so that of mother. So, the petitioners are entitled for a compensation of Rs. 30,000 x 17 = Rs. 5,10,000 p.a. A sum of Rs. 8,000/- can be awarded towards funeral expenses. So, all together petitioners are entitled for Rs. 5,18,000/-.

11.The petitioners counsel relied upon citation reported in 2006 ACJ 414.

In view of the above citation the petitioners are entitled for the above said compensation even though the claim amount is only Rs. 4,50,000/-. However, the petitioners are directed to pay the deficit court on the balance amount of Rs.68,000/-. The third petitioner is the unmarried sister of deceased. In the presence of father she cannot be considered as dependent on the brother. However, there is moral obligation on the part of brother to perform the marriage of the sister and to look after welfare.

Therefore I am of the view that all the petitioners are entitled for compensation.

12.Ex. A6 is the Policy and it goes to show that the offending vehicle was insured by R1 and the policy was in force as on the date of accident. Ex. A8 is the driving license of the driver of offending vehicle against whom charge sheet was filed. No evidence is placed by R2 that there are any violations of conditions of policy. Therefore, R1 and R2 are jointly and severally liable to pay the compensation. Out of the awarded compensation, 1st and 2nd petitioners are entitled to receive Rs.

2,00,000/- each and permitted to receive Rs. 1,00,000/- each and balance shall be kept in FDR for a period of 1 year in a Nationalized Bank and 3rd petitioner is entitled to receive Rs. 1,18,000/- and permitted to receive Rs. 50,000/- and the balance shall be kept in FDR for a period of 1 year in a

Nationalized Bank. The office is directed to draft the decree for the petitioners after payment of

Deficit Court Fee or the petitioners restrict their claim to Rs. 4,50,000/- shall file memo to that effect.

13.In the result, the petition is allowed awarding a compensation of Rs. 5,18,000/- to the petitioners against R1 and R2 with joint and several liability with interest at the rate of 7.5% per annum with proportionate costs from the date of petition till the date of deposit; that time for deposit is 2 months; that petitioners 1 and 2 are entitled to receive Rs. 2,00,000/- each and 3rd petitioner is entitled to receive Rs. 1,18,000/- with interests and costs on their respective shares; that petitioners 1 and 2 are permitted to receive Rs. 1,00,000/- each and 3rd petitioner is entitled to receive Rs. 50,000/- and the balance shall be kept in FDR for a period of 1 year; that advocate fee is fixed at Rs. 1,500/-.

Dictated to the Bench Clerk directly on computer, corrected and pronounced by

me in the open Court on this the 10 th day of April, 2013.

IX Addl. District Judge, FAC of VIII ADDL.DIST. JUDGE Cum Chairman Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal (FTC) Visakhapatnam, Gajuwaka.

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

WITNESS EXAMINED

FOR PETITIONER FOR RESPONDENTS: nil

P.W.1: Smt V. Lakshmi P.W.2: Sri D. Rama Mohan Rao @ Ram Mohan P.W.3 : Sri K. Viswanath

EXHIBITS MARKED

FOR PETITIONER:

Ex. A1 is the CC FIR in Cr. No. 5/2010 U/s.304-A of IPC of New Port Traffic PS Ex.A2 is the CC Inquest Report Ex.A3 is the CC PM report Ex.A4 is the CC of MVI report Ex.A5 is the CC of the charge sheet Ex.A6 is the Photocopy of the Policy Certificate Ex.a7 is the Photocopy of the Registration Certificate Ex.A8 is the Photocopy of the Driving license of Driver of offending Vehicle Ex.a9 is the Original Salary Certificate of the deceased.

FOR RESPONDENT No.2 : nil

IX ADJ (FTC)

FAC: VIII ADJ (FTC)

CUM MACT,

VSKP

1 MOP.1303/2011

IN THE COURT OF IX ADDITIONAL DISTRICT AND SESSIONS JUDGE-CUM-

ADDITIONAL MOTOR ACCIDENTS CLAIMS TRIBUNAL (FAST TRACK COURT )

VISAKHAPATNAM

PRESENT: SRI V. V. SESHU BABU, B.COM., B.L.,

IX ADDL. DISTRICT AND SESSIONS JUDGE, (FTC)

VISAKHAPATNAM.

Thursday, the day 18th of April, 2013.

M.O.P.N0.1303/2011

Between :

01.Smt. Onimi Kondamma, W/o. Apparao, Hindu, Age: 34 years, R/o. D.No.11-98-8/1, Simhagiri colony, Kanithi Raod, Old Gajuwaka, Visakhapatnam.

02.Mr.Onimi Apparao,S/o. Tata Rao, Hindu, Age: 42 years, R/o. R/o. D.No.11-98-8/1, Simhagiri colony, Kanithi Raod, Old Gajuwaka, Visakhapatnam.

03.Master Onimi Rajesh, S/o. Appa Rao, Hindu, Age: 17 years, R/o. D.No.11-98-8/1, Simhagiri colony, Kanithi Road, Old Gajuwaka, Visakhapatnam.

.... Petitioners

And :

01.M/s. Sri Krishna Engineering & Co,rep.by Y.V.V. Rayudu, Owner of Escor Crane bearing No. AP.-31-AP-5863, R/o. Plot No.9, Sector -II, Sagar Nagar, MVP colony, Visakhapatnam.

02.United India Insurance company Limited rep. By its Divisional Manager, Near Petrolbunk, Resapuvanipalem, Visakhapatnam.

..... Respondents

This petition coming on 18.03.2013 for hearing before me in the presence of

Sri R.Ganeswara Rao, Advocates for Petitioners, Sri M.S. Das, Advocate for R2, and

R1 having been called absent and set exparte, and having stood over for consideration, till this day, the court delivered the following :

O R D E R

01.The claim application is filed U/s.166 of MV Act R/W. Rule 455 of A.P.

Motor Vehicle Rules by the petitioners claiming compensation of Rs.5,00,000/-for the death of the deceased Onimi Ramesh in the motor accident that took place on 27.11.2010 at about 06.00 P.M., at Fly over bridge Entrance, Central Stores junction, 2 MOP.1303/2011

Inside Steel Plant, Visakhapatnam Dt., within the jurisdictional limits of Steel Plant

P.S.

02. The brief averments of the petition are that that the first petitioner is the mother, second petitioner is the father and third petitioner is the minor brother of the deceased who was aged 20 years and earning of Rs.6,500,/- pm by working as

Assistant Rigger in Satyam Constructions, Steel Plant Visakhapatnam at the time of accident. On 27.10.2010, the deceased was proceeding to his house on a bicycle and when he reached Fly Over Bridge entrance, Central Stores Junction, Inside

Steel Plant, around 06-00 pm, the driver of Crane bearing No. AP-31-AP-5863, drove the same in a rash and negligent manner and dashed the deceased from the back side. The Deceased sustained head injury and was immediately taken to Steel

General Hospital, but the Doctor declared that he was brought dead. The post- mortem was conducted on 29/10/2010, at K.G. Hospital, Visakhapatnam. Police

Steel Plant, registered a case in Cr.No. 299/10, U/s. 304-A I.P.C., against the driver of

Crane. All the petitioners are dependants on the deceased, who was the sole bread winner of the family;. R1 and R2 are the owner and insurer of the offending vehicle; hence, the claim petition. the dead body of the deceased on 29-04-2007 in the same hospital.

03.R1 was set exparte.

04.The brief averments of the counter filed by R2 are that the petitioners are put to strict proof to prove the age of the deceased and their relationship with the deceased and their entitlement for the claimed amount; that the deceased died in the accident only; that the accident occurred due to the rash and negligent driving of the driver of the offending vehicle only. The R2 submits that the petitioners shall also prove that the offending Crane bearing No. AP-31-AP-5863 was duly insured by R1 with R2 insurance Company on the date of accident; that 3 MOP.1303/2011 the petitioners shall also prove that the driver of the van was holding a valid and subsisting driving license and Badge number, and the owner is holding a proper route permit, fitness certificate, R.C. etc., at the time of accident besides that the vehicle owner not in violation of permit and the terms and conditions of the policy.

The claimed compensation is excessive. The accident took place in a private place, because the area exclusively belonged to the Steel Plant; as such the M.V.

Act not applies to the facts of the case. There was no negligence on the part of the driver of offending vehicle. With these pleas prayed for dismissal of the petition with costs.

05.Basing on the pleadings, the following issues are settled for trial:

1. Whether the pleaded accident occurred on account of the rash and negligent driving of the Vehicle(crane) bearing No. AP-31-AP-5863 driven by its driver and whether it resulted in the death of the deceased Onimi Ramesh S/o. Apparao?

2. Whether the petitioners are entitled for the compensation? If so, to what amount and from which of the respondents?

3. To what relief?

06.To prove the respective versions, P.W.1 to P.W.3 are examined and

Ex.A1 to Ex. A8 are got marked for the petitioners. RW1 is examined ano document is marked for the R2. Heard the arguments on both sides. Petitioner counsel filed written arguments. Basing on the pleadings, evidence, documents and arguments, the above issues are answered like hereunder.

07. ISSUE NO.1:PW.1 is the mother of deceased and the first petitioner, but she is not eye witness to the accident. PW.2 claimed himself as the eye witness to the accident deposed that previously he worked in the Satyam Constructions and knows the deceased; that on the fateful day he was proceeding on the bicycle and at the same time deceased was also going on his cycle; that when he reached Fly Over Bridge entrance, Central Stores Junction, Inside Steel Plant, 4 MOP.1303/2011 around 06-00 pm, the driver of Crane bearing No. AP-31-AP-5863, drove the same in a rash and negligent manner and dashed the deceased from the back side. The

Deceased sustained head injury and was immediately taken to Steel General

Hospital, but the Doctor declared that he was brought dead and that he witnessed the accident. In the cross examination, PW.2 stated that he has not given any complaint to the police, nor he was examined by the police. Ex.A5 the charge sheet, in which PW.2's name is not mentioned as a witness or eyewitness in the memo of evidence. So, it is argued for the R2 that PW.2 is a planted witness. PW.1 is the defacto complainant who gave Ex.A1 to the police, in which the tenor goes to show that she witnessed the accident; however, her evidence is otherwise. Ex.A4 is the MVI report and as per the same, the accident not occurred due to any mechanical defects of the crane. The driver of Crane is also not examined to prove that there was no negligence on his part or there was contributory negligence on the part of the deceased. The charge sheet is filed against the driver of crane. Considering all these aspects, I am of the view that accident occurred at the fault of the driver of crane only. So, the issue is answered in favour of the petitioner.

08. ISSUE NO.2 AND 3: PW.1 is the mother of the deceased. It is stated that the deceased was working in Satyam Constructions as Assistant Rigger and was getting salary of Rs.6,500/- per month. Ex.A8 is the salary certificate and to prove the same

PW.3, who issued Ex.A8 while working Satyam Constructions was examined. Now he is working as Supervisor in the Power Plant Power Make Project Limited. Nobody who is working in the Satyam Constructions at present was examined. No books of accounts or office registers are filed to support the Ex.A8. PW.3 also not filed any document to show that previously he worked in the Satyam constructions.

Therefore, I am of the view that no reliance can be placed on the Ex.A8 or on the evidence of PW.3. During the year, a cooli was earning Rs.150/- per day. As the deceased was able bodied person certainly he can earn Rs.150/- per day. Then 5 MOP.1303/2011 per month his income will be Rs.4,500/- Out of which half shall be deducted to his personal expenditure, as he was unmarried by the time accident and he was expected to contribute half of the income only to the parents and for the minor brother. So, his annual contribution to the family will be at Rs. 2,250/- X

Rs.12=Rs.27,000/-

09. In the police record, the age of the deceased is mentioned as 20 years. No other document is filed to prove the age of deceased as 20 years, at the time of accident including the ages of petitioners. PW.1 gave her age as 34 years and that of the deceased as 20 years in the claim petition. It means she has given birth to the deceased at her age of 14 years, which is some what difficult to believe.

I am of the view that the deceased might have been in the age group of 26 to 30 years. For the persons in the said age group multiplier of 17 is applicable as per the judgment in Sarala Varma's case. As per the Judgment in 2012 SAR (Civil) 708

between Amrit Bhanu Shali & others Vs. National Insurance Co.Ltd., age of the

deceased is the criteria to consider the appropriate multiplier but not that of his parents. Therefore, this Tribunal wants to take the multiplier of 17 into consideration.

If the said multiplier is applied, the petitioners are entitled for a compensation of

Rs.27,000/- X 17= Rs.4,59,000/- Another sum of Rs.8,000/- can be awarded for funeral expenses. So, in total petitioners entitled for a compensation of Rs.

4,67,000/-. Out of which petitioners 1 & 2 are awarded with Rs.2 lakhs each and the 3rd petitioner with Rs.67,000/-. The petitioners are permitted to receive

Rs.1,25,000/- each with interest and costs on their share of amount. The balance amount i.e., Rs.75,000/- each shall be kept in FDR for a period of two years in any nationalised Bank. The amount payable to 3rd petitioner along with his share of costs and interest shall be kept in FDR till he attains majority.

10.As on the date of accident policy was in force. As per Ex.A7 the driver of offending vehicle was holding valid and effective licence to drive the offending 6 MOP.1303/2011 vehicle i.e. crane. So, the R2 is jointly and severally liable to pay the amount along with R1.

11.In the result, the claim application is partly allowed with proportionate costs by awarding compensation in favour of Petitioners at Rs.4,67,000- (Rupees

Four lakhs Sixty seven Thousand only) against R1 & R2 with interest at 7.5% per annum from the date of petition till the date of deposit; that the time for deposit of compensation, interest and costs is two months from today; that the Petitioners 1 & 2 are awarded with Rs. 2 lakhs each and 3rd petitioner with Rs.67,000/-; that the petitioners 1 & 2 permitted to receive Rs.1,25,000/- each with interest and costs on their share of amount and the balance amount shall be kept in FDR for Two years; that the amount of 3rd petitioner i.e., Rs.67,000/- along with his share of costs and interest shall be kept in FDR till he attains majority; and that Advocate fee is fixed at

Rs. 1,500/-.

Typed, corrected and pronounced by me in the open Court on this the 18th day of April, 2013.

IX Addl. District Judge,

FAC VIII Additional District Judge; Gajuwaka

Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal (FTC) Visakhapatnam,

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

WITNESS EXAMINED

FOR PETITIONER FOR RESPONDENT NO.2:

P.W.1: Smt O.Kondamma Nil P.W.2: Sri T.Chokka Rao P.W.3 : G.Ramu Naidu

EXHIBITS MARKED

FOR PETITIONER: FOR RESPONDENTS: NIL

Ex. A1 is the FIR in Cr. No.299/2010 Dt. 27.11.2010 of Steel Plant PS U/s.304-A IPC

Ex. A2 is the Inquest

Ex. A3 is the A/c of the P.M. Report 7 MOP.1303/2011

Ex. A4 is the A/c of the MVI report

Ex. A5 is the A/c of the Charge sheet

Ex. A6 is the P/c of the Policy for Vehicle No.AP 31 AP 5863

Ex.A7 is the P/c of the driving license in favour of Sanni Babu

Ex.A8 is the Original Salary Certificate issued by Satyam construction dt: 10.11.10

IX ADJ (FTC)

CUM MACT,

FAC: VIII ADJ (FTC) VSKP at GWK 8 MOP 1303/2011

IN THE COURT OF JUDGE, ADDL. FAMILY COURT,

VISAKHAPATNAM

PRESENT:- SRI V.V.SESHU BABU B.Com., B.L.,

ADDL. FAMILY COURT,

VISAKHAPATNAM.

THURSDAY, THE 18TH DAY OF JULY 2013

F.C.OP.1267/2012

Between:

1. Kusuma Neelima, W/o.K.Raja Venkat Rammohan, Indian, Christian, aged 36 years, working as Asst.Executive Engineer, Rural Water supply, Hukumpeta section, Pedabayalu Division, Visakhapatnam District, residing at D.No.39-3-6/1, Muralinagar, Visakhapatnam.. ……Petitioner And:

1. Kusuma Raja Venkat Rammohan, S/o.late K.Anjaneya VaraPrasad, Indian, Christian, aged 37 years, working as Manager in Relmix Pvt.Ltd., D.No.31-27-48, Private Enclave, main road, Kurmannapalem, Vadlapudi road,Visakhapatnam – 46, residing at D.No.5-112, Beside NTR Statue, Maruthi nagar, Chodavaram, Visakhapatnam District.

2. MorampudiGauthami,W/o.M.Ravi Kumar,D/o.P.Ramana Rao, Hindu, aged 27 years,residing at Nawabpeta, 4th division, Eluru -1, West Godavari District.

3. Mymunissia, W/o.Simhachalam, Indian Muslim,aged 30 years, household duties, residing at D.No.11-1-3, Kusuma Bhavan, Nawabeta,Eluru, W.G.District.

4. Sarepalli Madhavi, fathers name and husbands name not known to the petitioner, Hindu, aged 27 years, householdduties,residingat c/o.K.R.V.Rammohan, D.No.5-112, beside NTR Statue, Maruthinagar, Chodavaram, Visakhapatnam District.

…….Respondents

This petition is coming for final hearing before me in the presence of Sri N.H.Akbar, Advocate for Petitioners and of

Sri G.Laxman Kumar, Advocate for R1 and R2 to R4 having been remained exparte and the same having been stood over for consideration till this day, the Court made the following:-

O R D E R

1.This petition is filed by wife under sec.10(i) and (x) of the

Divorce Act for the dissolution of the marriage dt.4.5.2003 between the petitioner and R1 on the ground of adulterous life of

R1 with R2 to R4.

2.The brief averments of the petition are that marriage of petitioner with Respondent was performed on 4.5.2003 at Christ

Fellowship Church, Santhinagar, Eluru, W.G.District as per

Christian customs and rites and the marriage was solemnised and a certificate was issued to that effect. Previously, the petitioner married one M.Kishore Kumar, S/o.Nagaiah on 7.3.2002 and the said marriage was dissolved as per the order in OP 540 / 2002 dt.29.4.2003 by the Family court, Visakhapatnam. The Petitioner and R1 started their matrimonial life at Eluru. The Respondent then temporarily working as Junior Lecturer on contract basis in government Junior college, Eluru. The Petitioner was getting meager income on the contract basis. Therefore, to maintain the family, the gold ornaments of the petitioner was sold away and the first respondent spent the amount for luxurious life. During the wedlock male child was born on 25.12.2006. At the time of marriage, the petitioner was the B.E.(CIVIL) student in the year 2010 and she got employment in Rural Water Supply at

Hukumpeta. At Eluru, the 1st petitioner saw the illegal intimacy of Respondent with Goutami who was studying degree at Eluru.

When the 1st Respondent was working at Nalgonda , R1 and R2 lived together in a separate room and they were redhandedly caught by the petitioner. 3rd respondent was a tenant and the 1st respondent at Eluru. R1 developed illegal intimacy with her also.

While R1 was residing at Chodavaram in Visakhapatnam District developed illicit intimacy with R4 who was a servant maid. It all goes to show the adulterous life of R1. Whenever the petitioner was absent, the 3rd respondent used to come out of the bedroom of the 1st respondent and abused the mother of the petitioner in a filthy language and threatened her with dire consequences. To get rid of the petitioner, the respondent removed the household articles belonging to the petitioner, and shifted them

Chodavaram to parental house of the petitioner at Muralinagar,

Visakhapatnam on 15.8.2012. In unavoidable circumstances, she has been living with her parents. Hence the petition.

3.The respondent filed counter along with the petition to set aside the exparte order. The said petition in I.A.No.309/13 was dismissed for not fulfilling the conditions. Therefore, the counter cannot be looked into.

4.Now the point for consideration is:

1.Whether R1 is leading an adulterous life? If so, is the

Petitioner entitled for dissolution of marriage?

2.Relief?

5.To prove the case, the petitioner filed the proof affidavit of PW.1.

6.Heard arguments of counsel for petitioner.

7.POINT:It is the contention of the petitioner that R1 is leading adulterous life and she personally observed the same, when he was in a compromising position with R2 to R4 respectively. The relationship of petitioner with R1 is an undisputed fact. The same can be observed in the averments of the I.A. filed by Respondent in 309 / 2013 under Order 9 R.7 CPC.,

8.For the reasons better known to the respondent he is not contesting the case. It amounts to accepting the averments of the petition. There is no reason to disbelieve the version of PW.1 who is an Engineering graduate. Taking into consideration of all aspects of the case, I am of the view that R1 is leading in adulterous life, as such the petitioner is entitled for divorce. So, the point is answered accordingly.

9.In the result, the petition is allowed dissolving the marriage between the petitioner and R1 dt.4.5.2003 with the decree of divorce on the ground of respondent leading adulterous life.

Dictated to Personal Assistant transcribed by her corrected and

pronounced by me in the open court on this the 18th day of July

2013.

JUDGE

Addl.Family Court Visakhapatnam.

Date of Presentation:11.10.2012 Date of Filing: 12.10.2012

IN THE COURT OF JUDGE, ADDL. FAMILY COURT, VISAKHAPATNAM

PRESENT:- SRI V.V.SESHU BABU B.Com., B.L.,

ADDL. FAMILY COURT,

VISAKHAPATNAM.

THURSDAY, THE 18TH DAY OF JULY 2013

F.C.OP.1267/2012

Between:

Kusuma Neelima, W/o.K.Raja Venkat Rammohan, Indian, Christian, aged 36 years, working as Asst.Executive Engineer, Rural Water supply, Hukumpetasection,Pedabayalu Division,Visakhapatnam District, residing at D.No.39-3-6/1, Muralinagar, Visakhapatnam.. ……Petitioner And:

1.Kusuma Raja Venkat Rammohan, S/o.late K.Anjaneya VaraPrasad, Indian, Christian, aged 37 years, working as Manager in Relmix Pvt.Ltd., D.No.31-27-48, Private Enclave, main road, Kurmannapalem,Vadlapudi road,Visakhapatnam – 46, residing at D.No.5-112,Beside NTR Statue, Maruthi nagar, Chodavaram, Visakhapatnam District.

2.Morampudi Gauthami, W/o.M.Ravi Kumar,D/o.P.Ramana Rao, Hindu, aged27years,residingat Nawabpeta, 4th division, Eluru -1, West Godavari District.

3.Mymunissia, W/o.Simhachalam, Indian Muslim,aged 30 years, household duties, residing at D.No.11-1-3, Kusuma Bhavan, Nawabeta,Eluru, W.G.District.

4.Sarepalli Madhavi, fathers name and husbands name not known to the petitioner, Hindu, aged 27 years, household duties, residing at c/o.K.R.V.Rammohan, D.No.5-112, beside NTR Statue, Maruthinagar, Chodavaram, Visakhapatnam District.

…….Respondents

1.This petition is filed by wife under sec.10(i) and (x) of the

Divorce Act for the dissolution of the marriage dt.4.5.2003 between the petitioner and R1 on the ground of adulterous life of

R1 with R2 to R4.

2.A fixed Court fee of Rs.30/- is paid under Article I Schedule II and Section 19 of A.P.C.F. and S.V.Act.

3.This petition is coming for final hearing before me in the presence of Sri G.Vijaya Kumar, Advocate for petitioner and

Respondent having been remained exparte and the same having been stood over for consideration till this day, this Court doth order; and

D E C R E E

i)that the petition be and the same is hereby allowed dissolving the marriage between the petitioner and R1 dt.4.5.2003 with the decree of divorce on the ground of respondent leading adulterous life; and ii)that there be no order as to costs.

Given under my hand and the seal of the Court, this the 18th day of JULY, 2013.

J U D G E

ADDL. FAMILY COURT,

VISAKHAPATNAM.

BEFORE THE LOK ADALAT AT VISAKHAPATNAM

( Constituted by district Legal Services Authority, Visakhapatnam Under Section 19 of Legal Services Authorities Act, 1987)

Friday, the 17th day of MAY, 2013

L.S.A. NO. _______/2013

IN

M.O.P. No. 845/2012

(In the Hon'ble court of VIII Addl. District Judge, Visakhapatnam at Gajuwaka)

Present : 1. Sri. V.V. Seshu Babu, B.Com, BL., Addl. Family Judge Presiding Judge, Lok Adalat Bench, Visakhapatnam

2. Sri O. Ratan Raju Advocate – Member

3. Sri P. Srinivas Social - Member Between : 1.Korukonda Satyavathi W/o Late Korukonda Atchibabu, Hindu, aged 48 years, House hold duties, r/of D.No. 3-6, Maredupudi Village, Anakapalli Mandal, Visakhapatnam District 2.Siyyadula Lakshmi W/o Apparao, Hindu, aged 30 years, house hold duties, r/of D.No. 3-8, Maredupudi Village, Anakapalli Mandal, Visakhapatnam District 3.Nagulapalli Ganga W/o Srinu, Hindu, aged 27 years, hould hold duties, r/of D.No. 1-30, Maredupudi Village, Anakapalli Mandal, Visakhapatnam District 4.Tota Demudamma W/o Raju, aged 20 years, house hold duties, r/of D.No. 1-1, Rajala Village, Yellamanchili Mandal, Visakhapatnam.

.... Petitioners

And : 1.Boddapalli Nookaraju S/o Sanyasi Rao, r/of D.No. 4-29, Near Govt. Elementary School, Talarivanipalem,Aganampudi,Gajuwaka Mandal, Visakhapatnam District. (driver of Bus No.

AP7U 9829) 2.Sri Arabindo High School, Rept. By Dr. V. Rama Rao, Managing Director, r/of Opp. Police Quarters, Ukkunagaram, Visakhapatnam Steel City, Visakhapatnam District (Owner of Bus No. AP7U 9829) 3.ICICI Lombard General Insurance Company Limited, rept. By its Divisional Manager, Dwarakanagar, Visakhapatnam.

4.Korukonda Lakshmi, 2nd Wife of Late Atchibabu, Hindu, aged 42 years, house hold duties, r/of D.No. 3-6, Maredupudi Village, Anakapalli Mandal, Visakhapatnam District.

.... Respondents

Brief Particulars of the Petition:

This petition is filed by the Petitioner against the respondents claiming compensation for the death of Korukonda Atchibabu S/o Ramulu due to the accident caused by the 1st respondent.

This petition was referred to the Lok Adalat at the request of both parties/on memo filed by the Advocate for the Petitioner by the Motor Accidents Claims

Tribunal -cum- VIII Addl. District Judge, Visakhapatnam at Gajuwaka.

This petition is coming on 17.05.2013 for final settlement in the presence of

Petitioner and Respondent No.3 and Smt. P. Katyayini, Advocate for the

Petitioners and Sri. D Siva Prasad, Advocate for the 3rd Respondent.

1st Petitioner is the wife of the deceased and 2nd petitioner is the daughter born to the 1st petitioner through the deceased K. Atchibabu. Petitioners 3 and 4 are the daughters of the deceased born through the Respondent No. 4, who is the second wife. No divorce is otained by the deceased from the 1st petitioner.

Therefore Respondent No. 4 is not entitled for any compensation. Petitioner No. 2 to 4 are the married daughters of the deceased.

Petitioners 1 to 4 and the Respondent No. 4 are present so also the officer representing the Respondent No. 3. The petitioners and Respondent No. 3 have compromised the case for a sum of Rs 2,70,000/- (Rupees Two Lakhs Seventy

Thousand only) towards full and final settlement of the claim aount as made in the

OP.

Hence, the following Award is passed as per the settlement arrived by the parties.

AWARD UNDER SEC.21 OF THE LEGAL SERVICES AUTHORITIES ACT, 1987.

After Negotiations and conciliation between the parties, the claim of the petitioners is settled at Rs. 2,70,000/- (Rupees Two Lakhs Seventy Thousand only) without interest and costs and is hereby awarded accordingly U/s. 21 of the Legal

Services Authorities Act, 1987 and the compensation amount to be deposited within one month.

Apportionment Out of the total amount of compensation of Rs. 2,70,000/-, the 1st petitioner is entitled for Rs. 1,20,000/- and the petitioners 2 to 4 are entitled for Rs.50,000/- each.

On such deposit, the first petitioner is permitted to withdrawn the entire amount of Rs. 1,20,000/- and the petitioners 2 to 4 are permitted to withdraw their respective share amounts of Rs. 50,000/- each.

If the respondent No.3 does not deposit the above amount within one month from today, the amount so awarded shall carry interest at 7.5% per annum from the date of this award.

The Court Fee paid shall be refunded under Sec.21(1) r/w. Section 25 of the

Legal Services Authorities Act, 1987.

Both parties have affixed their signatures in evidence of their consent for the

terms of Award.

P1: (LT of K. Satyavathi) (Korukonda Satyavathi)

P2:

(Siyyadula Lakshmi)

P3:

(Nagulapalli Ganga)

P4:

(Tota Demudamma)

Signature/T.I. Of the Petitioners Signature of Respondent No.3 (Insurance Company)

Advocate for the Petitioners Advocate for Respondent No.3

Given under our hands and the seal of Lok Adalat Bench on this the 15th day of May, 2013.

MEMBERS OF THE BENCH PRESIDING OFFICER OF THE BENCH

MOP No. 983/12

Dt. 05.01.2013

After Negotiations and conciliation between the parties, the claim of the petitioners is settled at Rs. 6,50,000/- (Rupees Six Lakhs Fifty thousand only) without interest and costs and is hereby awarded accordingly U/s. 21 of the Legal Services Authorities Act, 1987 and the compensation amount to be deposited within one month.

Apportionment

Out of the total amount of compensation of Rs. 6,50,000/-, the share of 1st petitioner is Rs. 2,50,000/- and the share of petitioners 2 and 3 is Rs. 2,00,000/- each.

On such deposit, the 1st petitioner is permitted to withdraw Rs. 2,00,000/- and the balance amount of Rs. 50,000/- shall be kept in FDR for a period of 2 years; that the share amount of petitioners 2 and 3 shall be kept in FDR until they attain majority.

If the respondent No.2 does not deposit the above amount within one month from today, the amount so awarded shall carry interest at 7.5% per annum from the date of this award.

The Petitioner not pressed the claim against the Respondent No. 1 in view of the compromise with the Respondent No.2.

MOP No. 773/09

Dt. 05.01.2013

After Negotiations and conciliation between the parties, the claim of the petitioner is settled at Rs. 65,000/- (Rupees Sixty Five thousand only) without interest and costs and is hereby awarded accordingly U/s. 21 of the Legal Services Authorities Act, 1987 and the compensation amount to be deposited within one month.

If the respondent No.2 does not deposit the above amount within one month from today, the amount so awarded shall carry interest at 7.5% per annum from the date of this award.

On deposit the petitioner is permitted to withdraw the total amount of Rs. 65,000/- (Rupees Sixty Five Thousand only).

The Petitioner not pressed the claim against the Respondent No. 1 in view of the compromise with the Respondent No.2.