Sri V.V. Srinivasa Murthy

1

IN THE COURT OF THE II ADDL. DISTRICT JUDGE, KADAPA AT 

PRODDATUR.

Present: Sri V.V. Srinivasa Murthy,

Judge, Family Court­ Cum­ VI Additional District Judge, Kadapa.

FAC II Addl. District Judge, Kadapa at Proddatur.

Dated this the 22nd day of February, 2017

Appeal Suit No. 21/2010

(O.S.No.54/2006 on the file of the Senior Civil Judge's Court,

Proddatur)

Sri Bhima Lingeswara Swami Temple, Kamanur village of Proddatur mandal, Kadapa District, Represented by its

Manager, Group Temple II, Group Temple, Proddatur ..Appellant/Plaintiff 

Vs. 

Peddi Rama Krishna Reddy, S/o Machi Reddy, Hindu, aged 60 years, cultivation, Ex­Chairman of Sri Bhima Lingeswara Swami Temple, residing at Kamanur village

and Post, Proddatur Mandal, Kadapa District. ... Respondent/Defendant

On Appeal against the Decree and Judgment, dated: 24.8.2009 in O.S.No.54/2006 on the file of the Senior Civil Judge's Court, Proddatur. 

Between: Sri Bhima Lingeswara Swami Temple, Kamanur village of Proddatur mandal, Kadapa District, Represented by its Manager, Group Temple II, Group Temple, Proddatur … Plaintiff 

and

Peddi Rama Krishna Reddy, S/o Machi Reddy, Hindu, aged 60 years, cultivation, Ex­Chairman of Sri Bhima Lingeswara Swami Temple, residing at Kamanur village

and Post, Proddatur Mandal, Kadapa District. ... Defendant

This appeal is coming on this day for final hearing before me in the presence of Sri G. Srinivasulu, Appellant/Plaintiff and of Sri N.V. 

Vara Prasad, Advocate for Respondent/Defendant, after having stood over for consideration, till this day, this Court delivered the following : 

:: J U D G M E N T ::

The Appellant is the plaintiff in the proceedings of suit 

O.S.54/2006 before the Senior Civil Judge's Court, Proddatur. The 

2 appellant filed the suit for recovery of Rs.2,55,759/­ from the defendant, 

Ex­Chairman of plaintiff temple. The defendant made a counter claim of 

Rs.1,35,006/­ against the plaintiff temple. The trial court dismissed the suit of the plaintiff temple. The counter claim of the defendant was partly decreed with proportionate costs, directing the plaintiff to pay a sum of 

Rs.50,000/­ to the defendant with interest at 6% per annum from the date of filing of the counter claim. The plaintiff temple preferred appeal for recovery of suit amount and also for dismissal of the counter claim. Parties are described as stated by the trial court. 

2. The brief facts of the case:

Sri Bhima Lingeswara Swamy Temple of Kamanur village is the plaintiff. It is represented by its Manager, Group of temples Endowment 

Department. The defendant was the Ex­Chairman earlier of the trust board committee of the plaintiff temple. His period of office was from 31.6.1970 to 30.8.2004. The defendant was also in­charge of the activities of the temple including construction works. The Endowment Department has decided to renovate the plaintiff temple for the spiritual benefit of devotees. The defendant entered into contract with the plaintiff temple for the construction work of the same and the contract was an oral contract. The Commissioner, Endowments Department, Hyderabad granted 

Rs.2,06,000/­ to the defendant in the proceedings Rc. No.54/25928/92, 

dated 21.1.1997. The plaintiff temple has also paid Rs.54,000/­ to the 

defendant from its funds. The construction was under­taken for an amount of Rs.2,70,000/­. On the request of the defendant, the 

Commissioner, Endowments, released Rs.4,76,000/­ in Rc. 

NO.51/25928/92, dated 17.4.1997. A bill for Rs.3,92,811/­ was sanctioned. Rs.1,25,450/­ has to be paid to the defendant. The plaintiff 3 temple is owning Ac.27.00 acres of land at Kamanur village. It was getting rents of Rs.67,600/­ per annum from the tenant. The defendant as chairman of the plaintiff temple collected Rs.4,79,810/­ from the tenants from the year 1990­91 and till 18.9.2004. He has collected Rs.13,000/­ for the year 2005­06 for construction of plaintiff temple. The amount of rents collected by the defendant was Rs.4,92,810/­. Rs.2,16,000/­ was paid to the defendant from the common benefit fund. Thus the defendant is answerable for Rs.7,08,810/­. Construction work was completed by 30.8.2004. The defendant has spent Rs.4,88,261/­ towards construction work of the temple. The defendant has spent Rs.68,252/­ towards 

Kumbabhisekham. He has received machinery grant of Rs.54,000/­. In all the defendant has to pay Rs.2,06,297/­. He has to pay the same along with interest at 18% per annum from 1.9.2004. In all he has to pay 

Rs.2,55,755/­. Legal notices were also issued to the defendant on 25.6.2005, 8.8.2005 and on 3.12.2005. Defendant has kept quite and hence, the suit. 

3. Brief averments of the written­statement are as follows:

One P. Bhagya Lakshmi was the chairman for the period from 15.5.1988 to 29.5.1991. The defendant has received rent of Rs.4,79,810/­ only from the tenants. He has deposited Rs.54,000/­ out of the rent amount as machinery contribution. The balance is Rs.4,25,810/­. The defendant has received Rs.2,06,000/­ towards common benefit fund. He has received Rs.54,000/­ as machinery contribution. Thus he has received 

Rs.6,85,810/­. He has spent Rs.68,252/­ towards Kumbabhishekam. 

Rs.4,88,261/­ was expensed for construction of temple. The balance was 

Rs.1,29,297/­. The defendant has expensed Rs.48,687/­ towards Nitya 

Nivedyam, festivals expenses, and cloth for idols etc. he has spent 4

Rs.80,610/­. He has spent Rs.30,116/­ towards idols, Rs.40,000/­ for 

Dhwajasthambham, Rs.22,000/­ for erection and supporting wall, 

Rs.8,000/­ for painting iron grill, Rs.22,500/­ for construction of eastern compound wall and Rs.23,000/­ towards construction of southern compound wall. The plaintiff has to return the above said amount a total of Rs.2,15,616/­ with interest at 18% per annum. Even if, Rs.80,610/­ is deducted, the plaintiff is liable to refund Rs.1,35,006/­ to the defendant. 

Due to political ill­feelings, the suit is filed. It is not maintainable. 

4. Basing on the above pleadings, the following issues were framed for trial:

1. Whether the plaintiff is entitled to recover the suit amount?

2. Whether the defendant is entitled for recovery of amount of 

Rs.1,35,006/­ being his counter claim?

3. To what relief?

5. Before the trial court, PW.1 was examined and Ex.A1 to 

A16 were marked on the side of plaintiff. The defendant got him examined as DW.1. DW.1 was examined and Ex.B1 to B4 were marked on the side of defendant.

6. After hearing and after considering the evidence brought on record, the trial court dismissed the suit of the plaintiff and decreed the counter claim for Rs.50,000/­. Hence, the plaintiff temple preferred appeal on the ground that, the trial court has not correctly interpreted the admission of Pw.1 Sreenivasulu, Manager of plaintiff temple in respect of the expenditure incurred by the defendant; and such sum was already accounted; and the trial court has not given opportunity to the plaintiff temple for submission of additional pleadings, when the defendant has claimed counter claim; and the personal account of the defendant was 5 added in the calculation and such amounts were repeated; and the case of the defendant was not discussed; and the trial court has not observed that the burden of proof in proving the amount was of the defendant. 

7. The learned co0unsel of the plaintiff has submitted that, the defendant was proper person and responsible person to render the accounts for the entire income; and he was collecting in the capacity of trust board member of the plaintiff temple. The learned counsel has also submitted that, PW.1 Srinivasulu was acting under the defendant during his tenure as trustee of the plaintiff temple; and Pw.1 Sreenivasulu has not made correct entries in the account of the plaintiff temple; and he has orally stated about the expenses made by the defendant. The learned counsel has also submitted that the defendant has admitted that he has not shown proper attention in stating the accounts of the temple; and the defendant cannot rely upon the weaknesses of the plaintiff case; and the defendant has to prove his own case. The learned counsel has concluded that, the defendant has totally failed to account for the income and expenditure of the plaintiff temple, that was to be accounted during is tenure.

8. The learned counsel of the defendant has submitted that, 

PW.1 Sreenivasulu has filed Ex.A2 accounts of the plaintiff temple; and in his evidence, he has admitted about the amounts spent by the defendant during the function of Kumbabhishekam of the temple; and the defendant is also trustee of trust board of plaintiff temple and has spent money for renovation of the temple and accordingly the trial court dismissed the suit of the plaintiff and allowed the counter claim of the defendant partly and it requires no interference.

9. Basing upon the respective pleadings, the following points would arise for consideration in this appeal:

6

1. Whether the plaintiff temple has paid Rs.7,08,810/­ towards development work of the temple and whether the defendant is due to the temple Rs.2,06,297/­ to the temple by 30.8.2004 after spending expenses for renovation of the temple?

2. Whether the defendant has to get Rs.50,000/­ from the plaintiff temple and he was not due of any amount as claimed by the plaintiff temple?

3. Whether there are valid grounds to intervene with the judgment and decree passed by the trial court in O.S.54/2006?

10. POINTS 1 AND 2 : The case of the plaintiff temple is that, the defendant was the Chairman of the trust board of plaintiff temple over a long period from 31.6.1970 to 30.8.2004. The contention of the defendant is that, one P. Bhagya Lakshmi was the Chairman of the trust board of plaintiff temple for some period between 15.5.1988 to 28.9.1991. 

Even if such period of three years is excluded, the defendant was the 

Chairman of the Trust board of plaintiff temple over a period of 31 years. 

Under his supervision, the Executive officer of the temple working under 

Endowments Department has to account for the amounts received by the temple and the amounts expensed on behalf of the temple and also for renovation of the old temple.

11. The contention of the plaintiff is that, Rs.7,08,810/­ was paid to the defendant towards development work of the temple and for renovation including reconstruction of the temple. It has also stated that 

Rs.54,000/­ was received by the defendant towards machinery contribution. Thus total sum received by the defendant was Rs.7,62,810/­. 

The contention of the defendant is that, he has received Rs.4,79,810/­ towards rents from the tenants; and he has deposited Rs.54,000/­ out of the rent amount to the Government and he had balance of Rs.4,25,810/­; and he received Rs.2,06,000/­ towards common benefit fund. Thus the 7 contention of the defendant shows that,he was possessing Rs.6,31,810/­. 

He has further admitted that, he has received Rs.54,000/­ towards machinery contribution. Thus he has admitted that, he has received 

Rs.6,85,810/­. The contention of the plaintiff is that, the defendant has received Rs.7,62,810/­. There is difference of Rs.77,000/­ which is not admitted by the defendant.

12. The defendant has admitted that, he has spent 

Rs.4,88,261/­ towards construction of the temple. He has also admitted about spending of Rs.68,252/­ towards Kumbabhishekam expenses. These two sums were accepted by the plaintiff. Thus the accepted sum on the side of plaintiff temple is Rs.5,56,513/­. According to the defendant, there was balance of Rs.1,29,297/­. He has claimed that, he has spent 

Rs.2,15,616/­ towards preparation of idols, Dhwajasthambam, iron grill and for construction of eastern and southern walls. The defendant has to explain whether there was sanction from the Endowments Commissioner for making such expenditure. According to him, he has spent Rs.48,687/­ towards festival expenses. Even according to him, if such sum is to be deducted, he has to pay Rs.80,610/­ to the plaintiff temple. The evidence of PW.1 Sreenivasulu, Manager of the Group of Temples, Endowments 

Department is that, the defendant has received Rs.4,79,810/­ towards rents amount on behalf of the plaintiff temple. According to him, the defendant was liable to pay Rs.4,25,810/­ after deducting Rs.54,000/­ towards machinery fund. He has further admitted that Rs.48,687/­ was paid by the defendant towards land revenue payable by the plaintiff temple. The defendant has also admitted the same in his written­statement. His further evidence is that, Rs.54,000/­ paid by the defendant towards machinery funds on behalf of the plaintiff was not returned by him. But however, the 8 evidence of plaintiff Manager PW.1 Sreenivasulu is showing that, he cannot say about such amount of Rs.54,000/­ which stated in receipt column instead of stating it in expenditure column of Ex.A2. He has expressed doubt about such mistake stated in Ex.A2. As clerk, he has prepared Ex.A2. 

It is further admitted by Pw.1 Sreenivasulu that, the entries mentioned in 

Ex.A10 were revealing that the defendant was spending his personal amounts in advance; and later the amounts were deposited. He has answered for the Endowments Department as not paid Rs.50,000/­ as claimed by the defendant in Ex.A16 notice. He has not acknowledged that, the defendant has spent Rs.1,35,000/­ amounts received by him. As it is the evidence of plaintiff, manager PW.1 Sreenivasulu is revealing that, the defendant has to pay the any admitted sum of Rs.77,000/­ and Rs.26,610/­ 

In all the defendant has to pay Rs.1,03,610/­. The said sum of Rs.26,610/­ is the amount shown after deducting Rs.54,000/­ paid by the defendant towards machinery grant from the admitted sum of Rs.80,610/­.

13. As per the admissions made in the written­statement by the defendant and the evidence of Pw.1 Manager of plaintiff temple reveal that, the defendant has paid said sum of Rs.1,03,610/­. But the contention of the defendant is that, he has spent such amount of Rs.2,15,616/­; and the plaintiff has to refund Rs.1,35,006/­, it is for the defendant to prove that, the plaintiff temple was due of said sum of Rs.1,35,006/­. 

14. The contention of the defendant is that, he has received 

Rs.6,85,810/­; and he has expensed Rs.4,88,261/­ towards construction of temple; and he has spent Rs.68,252/­ towards Kumbabhishekam and 

Rs.48,687/­ towards festival expenses; Rs.80,610/­. H has also claimed that, he has spent Rs.30,116/­­ towards idols; Rs.40,000/­ for 

Dhwajasthambam; Rs.22,000/­ for supporting wall; Rs.8,000/­ for painting 9 iron grill; Rs.22,500/­ for construction of eastern wall and Rs.23,000/­ for construction of southern wall of the temple. Thus he has claimed 

Rs.2,15,616/­ towards expenses and he has prayed for refund of 

Rs.1,35,006/­ after deducting Rs.80,610/­ towards expenditure.

15. But his evidence is that, he cannot give details of yearly income of plaintiff temple that earned during his tenure; and he has not kept the temple funds in any bank account. He has further admitted that, he used to receive the collections directly and meet the expenses. Thus he has done in such manner till the year 2004. His evidence shows that, he has never accounted for the annual profits of the temple and about the expenses met by him. He has admitted about the cash book collections of 

Rs.4,79,810/­ under Ex.A2. He has admitted that, there are vouchers maintained by him for the expenditure that made on behalf of the plaintiff temple. But those vouchers are not produced and he has simply deposed that, he has handed over the account books of the temple to one Venkata 

Subbaiah, the then Executive Officer of the plaintiff temple during the year 2004. There is no proof about the handing over of such account books. 

According to the defendant, there are departmental auditors and he has not asked the auditors to furnish certificates regarding the audits done during his tenure as chairman of plaintiff temple. It is admitted by PW.1 

Sreenivasulu, Manager of the temple that the defendant used to spend his amounts for the expenses of the temple; and he used to take the same from the income of the temple. But as chairman of the trust board, the defendant ought to have maintained the records correctly. It is a public temple and he has to account for the same to the public. There are no receipts and record to show and to prove that the defendant has expensed 10 so much of amounts for construction of walls of the temple also for grill etc. The walls of the temple or the grill made to the temple shall be expensed from the total renovation expenses sanctioned by the government. The defendant cannot take all the funds of the temple and including the rents and profits from the lands of the temple and spent them on his own. He failed to account for and as to how he is entitled to 

Rs.1,35,006/­.

16. The defendant has received Ex.A7 notice from the plaintiff and issued reply notice Ex.A8. But he has not issued any notice to the plaintiff temple stating about his counter claim. The defendant filed Ex.B1 and B2 receipt books. He has admitted about details of his counter claim mentioned in Ex.B1 and B2. He is suggested that, the signature of Venkata 

Subbaiah, appearing on Ex.B1 is a forged one. After filing of the suit, the defendant has come forward with the counter claim. He has no proof for the same.

17. It was argued before the trial court and the trial court is of the opinion that the defendant was able to establish that he has spent 

Rs.50,000/­ and more, and he is entitled to claim it from the plaintiff temple. It is stated in Ex.A8. It shows that there was excess amount of 

Rs.50,000/­ spent by him. Ex.A8 is reply notice, where­under the defendant claimed Rs.50,000/­. Considering it and the evidence of plaintiff, the trial court has concluded that the defendant has substantiated his counter claim expenditure of Rs.50,000/­. In fact, as per the admissions, the defendant has to pay Rs.1,03,610/­. Even if the amount of 

Rs.50,000/­ as claimed by the defendant has to be excluded, the defendant has to pay balance of Rs.53,610/­ to the plaintiff temple. The defendant 11 was chairman of the plaintiff temple for a period of 30 years. It is submitted by the learned counsel that presently the defendant became chairman of the plaintiff temple. He has to maintain temple funds systematically and audit them before the auditors of Endowments 

Department. As he has not shown properly, the plaintiff temple claimed the suit claim. But from the admitted facts and the documents filed on behalf of both the parties, it can be concluded that the defendant is liable to pay Rs.53,610/­ to the plaintiff temple. These points are decided accordingly. Defendant has failed to prove the counter claim and the suit of counter claim of the defendant is dismissed with costs. 

18. POINT 3  : Basing on the submissions made before the trial court and considering the case of the defendant with all grace and as he was chairman of the plaintiff temple for 30 years, the trial court allowed the counter claim of the defendant for Rs.50,000/­. But the defendant has failed to prove and he is not entitled to any counter claim. From the admitted facts, the defendant is liable to pay Rs.53,610/­ to the plaintiff temple. The judgment and decree passed by the trial, requires intervention. 

It is set aside. The suit of the plaintiff is decreed for Rs.53,610/­ with costs. The counter claim of the defendant is dismissed with costs with future interest at 6% per annum. Appeal is allowed accordingly. 

19. In the result, appeal is partly allowed and decree passed by the trial court in O.S.54/2006 before the Senior civil Judge's Court, 

Proddatur is set aside and the suit of the plaintiff is decreed for Rs.53,610/­ with costs. Counter claim of the defendant is dismissed with costs. Future interest at 6% per annum is allowed on such sum of rs.53,610/­ from the date of suit till the date of realization. 

12

Dictated to the Personal Assistant, transcribed by him, 

corrected and pronounced by me in the open Court, on this the 22nd day of February, 2017. Sd/­ V.V. Srinivasa Murthy

Judge, 

Family Court ­cum­ VI Addl.Dist. Judge, Kadapa FAC II Addl. District Judge, Kadapa at Proddatur. 

1

BEFORE THE MOTOR ACCIDENTS CLAIMS TRIBUNAL JUDGE-CUM- II

ADDL. DISTRICT JUDGE OF KADAPA AT PRODDATUR.

Present: Sri V.V. Srinivasa Murthy, Chairman, Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal- Cum- II Addl. District Judge, Kadapa at Proddatur, Judge, Family Court- Cum- VI

Additional District Judge, Kadapa.

Friday, this the 12th day of August, 2016

M.V.O.P.No. 122 / 2008

1. Bukkasamudram Rama Subbamma W/o Venkata Subba Reddy age 42 years, Hindu, House-wife.

2. Bukkasamudram Ravi Sankar Reddy S/o Venkata Subba Reddy, age 21 years, Hindu, Student.

3. Bukkasamudram Rama Lakshumma W/o Pedda Subba Reddy age 60 years, Hindu, House wife.

All are residents of Hanumanguthi village,

Yerraguntla mandal, Kadapa District. ... Petitioners/Claimants

Vs.

1. Kamalagalla Mahaboob Basha S/o Abdul Khader, age not known, but major, Muslim, owner of Auto Rickshaw bearing AP04-W-0471, resident of Pedda Putha village, Vallur mandal, Kadapa Dist.

2. ICICI Lombard General Insurance Company Limited, Rep. By its Manager, Osman Plaza, 6-3-352/1, Road No.1, Banjara Hills, Hyderabad. Policy Proposal Ref. No.1016462363

Valid from 16.5.2007 to 15.5.2008) ... Respondents

This petition coming on 12-8-2016 for final hearing before me in the presence of Sri E.V. Sudhakar Reddy, Advocate for the Petitioners/Claimants and of Sri D. Rajasekhar Reddy, Advocate

for Respondent No.2, Respondent 1 having been set exparte,

after having stood over for consideration till this day, this Court delivered the following:

O R D E R

The Petitioners/Claimants filed this claim petition u/s 166 of

Motor Vehicle Act, 1988 R/w Rule 455 of A.P. Motor Vehicles Rules, 1989 (in short the Act) claiming compensation of Rs.3,50,000/-.

2. The brief facts of the case:- 2

First claimant is the wife, 2nd claimant is the son and 3rd claimant is the mother of Bukkasamudram Venkata Subba Reddy. He was an agriculturist and aged 46 years as on the date of accident occurred on 7.2.2008. On 7.2.2008 around 12.30 P.M. said Venkata

Subba Reddy and one Naga Subba Reddy boarded an auto AP04-W- 0471 belonged to first respondent to reach Proddatur. It was driven in rash and negligent manner near Komativani Chenu located at

Hanumanguthi when a buffaloe came across. The driver of the auto lost control and it turned turtle on a red soil heep. The auto fell on

Subba Reddy. He received grievous injuries. He was shifted to the

Government Hospital, Proddatur where he succumbed to injuries.

Naga Subba Reddy gave report to police, Yerraguntla. Crime 23/2008 was registered for the offence under section 304-A IPC against the driver of the auto. The deceased Subba Reddy was owning Ac.17.00 of wet land and he was raising commercial crops and his income was

Rs.2,00,000/-. Due to his demise, the claimants sustained heavy loss.

The auto of the first respondent was insured with 2nd respondent.

Claimants claimed Rs.3,00,000/- for loss of future dependency and loss to the estate; Claimants 2 and 3 claimed Rs.10,000/- for loss of love and affection. First claimant claimed Rs.15,000/- for loss of consortium. They claimed Rs.5,000/- for funeral expenses; and

Rs.5,000/- towards transport charges.

3. First respondent set him exparte.

4. 2nd respondent filed written-statement stating that the claimants have to prove about the rash and negligent driving of the driver of the auto 0471 belonged to first respondent. The liability of the 2nd respondent is subject to the terms and conditions of the policy.

2nd respondent is not liable to indemnify the liability of first 3 respondent.

5. Brief averments of the additional written-statement filed by 2nd respondent are, police registered the case against an un-known auto driver; and it reveals that the auto of first respondent was planted to claim compensation. The investigator of 2nd respondent submitted his report stating that the auto 0471 was not involved in the accident and the vehicle 7301 was involved. Auto 0471 is passenger carrying commercial vehicle. The driver of the auto was holding licence to drive the auto non-transport and he did not possess valid and effective driving license. First respondent willfully allowed and handed over the auto the driver.

6. Basing on the above pleadings, the following issues were framed for trial:

1. Whether the deceased by name Bukkasamudram Venkatasubba Reddy S/o Pedda Venkatasubba Reddy died in a vehicular accident that took place on 7.2.2008 at 12.30 P.M. near Komativani Chenu in between Bismillabad – Hanumanagutti villages due to the rash and negligent driving of the driver of Autu AP04-W-0471 belonging to Respondent 1 and insured with Respondent 2?

2. Whether the petitioners as legal heirs of the deceased Bukkasamudram Venkatasubba Reddy S/o Pedda Venkata Subba Reddy are entitled to receive compensation amount from the Respondents 1 and 2 for the death of the said deceased, as prayed for?

3. To what relief?

7. Pws.1 and 2 were examined and Ex.A1 to A5 were marked on the side of the claimants. RW.1 and 2 were examined and

Ex.B1 to B6 and Ex.X1 to X5 were marked on the side of 2nd respondent.

8. Arguments were submitted by the learned counsels on record.

9. Issue 1 :- The case of the claimants is that Subba 4

Reddy died in the motor accident, when the auto 0471 turned turtle near Komativanichenu around 12.30 P.M. on 7.2.2008. The contention of the 2nd respondent is that, some other auto AP04-V-7301 was involved in the accident. But the evidence of the claimants is otherwise. Ex.A1 is copy of first information report in crime 23/2008 registered by Yerraguntla police station for the offence under section 304-A IPC. It reveals that Venkata Subba Reddy died, when he fell down from the auto due to rash and negligent act of the driver of the auto. But the name of the drier and number of auto were not reported immediately after the accident on 7.2.2008. But subsequently inquest was conducted on 7.2.2008 around 3-00 P.M. over the dead body of

Subba Reddy. It is also not showing number of auto that involved in the accident. Ex.A4 is the charge sheet filed before the Judicial

Magistrate of I Class Court, Kamalapuram by the Inspector of Police,

Yerraguntla in C.C. 36/2008 for the offence under section 304-A IPC and Section 134(a)(b) r/w 187 of the Act. The charge sheet allegations reveal that the auto 0471 was involved and due to rash and negligent act of the driver of the said auto Venkata Subba Reddy died. The driver of the said auto was arrested on 19.2.2008 within 12 days after the accident. Police could investigate and detected the auto that involved in the accident. These documents and the evidence of the claimants reveal that Venkata Subba Reddy died due to rash and negligent act on the part of the driver of the auto 0471 belonged to first respondent. Hence, this issue is decided in favour of the claimants.

12. Issue 2 :- The contention of the claimants is that

Venkata Subba Reddy was aged 46 years; and he was having agricultural income of more than Rs.16,500/- per month and earns 5

Rs.2,00,000/- per annum. But there is no proof for the same. So also the 2nd claimant was aged 21 years and he could attend the cultivation of lands. So also by the year 2008 value of the land was more.

Considering it, the income of Subba Reddy is notionally fixed at

Rs.30,000/- per annum. As per SARLA VERMA AND OTHERS vs. DELHI TRANSPORT CORPORATON AND ANOTHER, 2009 ACJ 1298. 1/3rd of the income of the deceased had to be deducted towards his personal expenses. When the claimants are three. Loss of dependency and loss to the estate would be Rs.20,000/- per annum.

The deceased Subba Reddy was aged 46 years by the date of accident. The inquest report Ex.A2 and postmortem certificate Ex.A3 also show the age of the deceased as 46 years by the date of accident.

The multiplier for the age group persons 46 – 50 years is “13”. If so, as per Sarla Verma case stated supra, the loss of dependency and loss to the estate due to the death of Venkata Subba Reddy would be

Rs.20,000/- X 13 = Rs.2,60,000/-. 2nd claimant is major and 3rd claimant being his grand-mother can be looked after by the 2nd claimant. They are not entitled to loss of love and affection. First claimant lost her husband. She can claim compensation of Rs.5,000/- for the loss of consortium. Claimants can also claim Rs.5,000/- for funeral expenses. In all the claimants can claim compensation of

Rs.2,60,000- + Rs.5,000/- + Rs.5,000/- = Rs.2,70,000/-.

13. The learned counsel of 2nd respondent has submitted that the driving license Ex.B2 shows that the driver of the subject auto was having driving license non-transport; but the driver was driving a transport vehicle. Ex.B3 is the report of the Investigator of 2nd respondent. He has opined that the villagers informed him that the auto 7301 met with accident. But the police investigation is otherwise.

6

Ex.B4 and B5 were notices issued by the 2nd respondent to owner and driver of the subject auto 0471. Ex.B6 is the copy of the judgment passed in C.C. 37/2008 before the Judicial Magistrate of I Class Court,

Kamalapuram. Accused was not found guilty of the offence under section 304-A IPC. The view of the learned Magistrate was that the case could not be proved beyond reasonable doubt. Basing on such conclusion, 2nd respondent cannot deny making payment of compensation under th provisions of Motor Vehicles Act.

14. 2nd respondent has examined RW.2 Rama Mohan, Junior

Assistant office personnel of Road Transport Office, Proddatur. He has deposed that the holder of Ex.X2 driving license was not authorized to drive the vehicle covered under Ex.X3. The extract of Ex.X3 registration certificate pertains to subject vehicle AP04-0471. The learned counsel intended to submit that th driver was not having valid driving license. But Ex.B1 policy reveals about driving licence clause.

It shows any person including the insured: provided that a person driving holds an effective driving license at the time of the accident and is not disqualified from holding or obtaining such a license in driving the vehicle. If so, when the driver of the first respondent of subject auto got driving license to drive non-transport vehicles on 17.11.2003; he was eligible to get a driving license transport after one year. It is also admitted by RW.2 Rama Mohan. After 17.11.2004 the driver of the auto could apply for driving license transport. As such the driver of the auto was eligible to drive the subject auto by getting the driving license as on the date of accident. As such 2nd respondent is liable to indemnify the liability of first respondent.

The learned counsel of the 2nd respondent has submitted the case New India Assurance Company Limited Vs. Roshanben 7

Rahemansha Fakir and another, 2008 ACJ 2161. The driver of the offending vehicle had license to drive three wheeler which was not meant to the use to drive transport vehicle. But he was driving the c=goods carrying carrier auto rickshaw delivery van. The definition of

Light Motor Vehicle would not include a light transport vehicle.

Considering the change in the provisions of the Act, the insurance company was directed to recover the same from the owner. So also, in

Oriental Insurance Company Limited Vs. Angad Kol and others, Civil Appeal 1102/2009, judgment dated 18.2.2009, the insurance company was directed to recover.

The learned counsel has also submitted the case United

India Insurance Company Limited Vs. G. Mallaiah and others, 2010(2) An.W.R. 974 (A.P.); it was a case where a tractor and trailer were involved in the accident, owner of the tractor produced the driver 20 days after the accident. The Tribunal did not appreciate the evidence on record. Considering such facts, appeal filed by the insurance company was allowed.

But in this case, involvement of the vehicle is confirmed by the investigating officer in criminal proceeding. There is deviation of possessing the effective driving licence. As such 2nd respondent can recover the amount from the first respondent after making payment of the compensation. This issue is decided accordingly.

15. ISSUE 3:- The petition is allowed for Rs.2,70,000/- with proportionate costs and with future interest is at 7.5% P.A. from the date of petition till realisation against the respondents. Advocate fee is Rs.3,000/-. 2nd respondent can recover the amount from the first respondent after making payment of the compensation by filing execution petition.

8

16. In the result, claim petition is allowed for Rs.2,70,000/- (Rupees Two lakhs, seventy thousands only) with proportionate costs.

Future interest is at 7.5% P.A. from the date of petition, till the date of realization against respondents. Respondents are directed to deposit the adjudged sum within one month. On such deposit, first claimant can withdraw Rs.1,70,000/- (Rupees one lakh, seventy thousands only) along with interest. Claimants 2 and 3 can withdraw Rs.50,000/- (Rupees fifty thousands only) each along with interest. 2nd respondent can recover the awarded amount from the first respondent by filing execution petition.

Advocate Fee is fixed at Rs.3,000/- (Rupees three thousands only).

Dictated to the Stenographer Grade-I, transcribed by him,

corrected and pronounced by me in the open court this the 12th day of August, 2016.

Sd/- V.V.Srinivasa Murthy

Judge,

Family Court-Cum-VI Additional

District Judge, Kadapa.

FAC CHAIRMAN,

Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal – Cum- II Addl. District Judge, Kadapa at Proddatur

Appendix of evidence.

Witness examined for

Petitioner. Respondents.

PW.1: P. Rama Subbamma RW.1: Md. Babu RW.2: N. Rama Mohan, PW.2: P. Naga Subba Reddy Junior Assistant.

Exhibits marked for Petitioners/Claimants:

Ex.A1: Attested copy of F.I.R. in Crime 23/2008 of Yerraguntla Police

Station.

Ex.A2: Attested copy of Inquest Report.

Ex.A3: Attested copy of Postmortem Certificate.

Ex.A4: Attested copy of charge sheet.

9

Ex.A5: Xerox copy of Pattadar pass book of PW.1.

Exhibits marked for Respondents:

Ex.B1: True Copy of Insurance Policy.

Ex.B2: Driving license extract issued by Additional Licensing Authority,

Kadapa.

Ex.B3: Report of the Investigator of 2nd respondent.

Ex.B4: Office copy of the Notice along with postal receipt with served acknowledgment card of 1st respondent.

Ex.B5: Office copy of Notice along with postal receipt an served acknowledgment card of driver of first respondent.

Ex.B6: Certified Copy of Judgment in C.C. 37/2008 before the Judicial

Magistrate of I Class Court, Kamalapuram.

EXHIBITS “X” SERIES:

Ex.X1: Authorization letter.

Ex.X2: Extract of driving license bearing DLFAP004185042003 of

S. Sharpaddin.

Ex.X3: Registration Certificate pertaining to the subject vehicle

AP04-0471.

Ex.X4: Permit of the vehicle

Ex.X5: Fitness certificate of the vehicle.

Id/- V.V.S.M.,

Judge,

Family Court-Cum-VI Additional

District Judge, Kadapa.

FAC CHAIRMAN,

Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal – Cum- II Addl. District Judge, Kadapa at Proddatur

1

Before the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal­Cum­First Additional District 

Judge, Kadapa

Present:­ Sri V.V. Srinivasa Murthy

Chairman, Motor Accident Claims Tribunal­Cum­

First Additional District Judge, Kadapa

Monday this the 9th day of April, 2018

M.V.O.P.No.282 of 2016

1. Jyothi Eswaramma

2. Jyothi Muneeswari, Minor,

3. Jyothi Muneendra ,Minor Petitioner Nos. 2 and 3 are minors, represented by their mother first 

petitioner as natural guardian. ...Petitioners/Claimants…

Vs.

1. A. Venkata Rajendra

2. United India Insurance Company Limited, represented by its Divisional 

Manager, Kadapa. ...Respondents/Respondents…

This petition has come up for hearing before me in the presence of Sri M. Sai Niranjan Babu and Sri S. Srinivasulu, Advocates for 

Petitioners/ Claimants and of Sri P. Goutham Kumar, Advocate for R.2 and 

R.1 set exparte and after perusing the records on file and hearing arguments on both sides and having stood over till this day for consideration, this court delivered the following:­

O r d e r

Claimants filed the claim petition under section 166 of Motor 

Vehicles Act (for short “Act”) claiming compensation of Rs.6,00,000/­.

2.Brief facts of the case:­ First claimant is the wife; second claimant is the daughter; and the third claimant is the son of Jyothi Munaiah. 

2

Munaiah was aged 41 years; and was working bore mechanic; and was earning Rs.400/­ per day prior to November, 2010. On 2.11.2010 Munaiah and his friend were proceedings towards his house from Machupalli by pass road. Krishna dropped his journey. Munaiah was alone passing towards 

Machupalli by pass road in his motor cycle. At 7.30 p.m., the auto AP 04W 4945 came in rash and negligent manner and it dashed the motorcycle of 

Munaiah. First respondent had driven the auto. The motorcycle of Munaiah fell down and he sustained severe injuries and died on the spot. Police 

Chinna Chowk registered crime 194 of 2010 under section 174 of Cr.P.C. 

Later after conducting postmortem, section of law was altered to section 304­A of I.P.C. Kadapa traffic police, re­registered the case in crime 79 of 2010. Due to sudden demise of Munaiah, the claimants were put to loss. 

The claimants 2 and 3 lost their bright future. First respondent is owner – cum – driver of the auto 4945. It was insured with the second respondent. 

Hence both the respondents are liable.

3.First respondent set him exparte.

4.Brief averments of the written statement of second respondent:­ 

Claimants have to prove about the accident and rash and negligence of the driver of the auto. The accident occurred due to rash and negligence of 

Munaiah. The driver of the auto should possess valid and effective driving licence at the time of accident. Second respondent is not liable to pay any compensation. Claimants have to prove that first respondent used the vehicle 3 without any breach of permit and traffic rules. The contents of the petition are contrary to the contents of the charge sheet. The auto of the first respondent was not involved in the accident. The complaint was preferred one month after the accident. The vehicle of the first respondent was planted with the connivance of the police. The accident occurred due to rash and negligence of driving of the deceased. Claimants are not entitled to claim compensation. It is excessive. They have to prove earnings and age of 

Munaiah. Petition is liable to be dismissed.

5.Basing on the above pleadings the following issues were framed for trial:­ (1) Whether the deceased Jyothi Munaiah died due to the injuries sustained in a motor vehicle accident occurred on 2.11.2010 due to rash and negligent driving of the driver of auto bearing No.AP 04W 4945?

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

(3) To what relief?

6.P.W.1 and P.W.2 were examined and Ex.A.1 to Ex.A.5 were marked on the side of the claimants. R.W.1 and R.W.2 were examined and 4

Ex.B.1 and Ex.B.2 and Ex.X.1 and Ex.X.2 were marked on the side of second respondent.

7.Arguments were submitted by the learned counsels on record.

8.Issue 1:­ The case of the claimant is that after dropping his friend Krishna, Munaiah alone was driving his motorcycle and around 7.30 p.m., on 2.11.2010 near Machupalli by pass road, the auto AP 04W 4945 came in rash and negligent manner and dashed his motorcycle. The contention of the claimant is that due to rash and negligence of first respondent the accident occurred. The contention of the second respondent is that Munaiah was negligent in driving the motorcycle; and he had no valid driving licence; and he was the cause for the accident; and the criminal case is foisted a month after the accident.

9.In this case, the claimants examined P.W.2 Venkata Swamy. 

According to him, he and his friend Bala Samy engaged auto 4945 to go to 

Machupalli; and around 7.30 p.m., the auto reached Machupalli road, 

Kadapa; and the driver of the auto drove the same in rash and negligent manner and dashed the motorcycle.

10.The learned counsel of the second respondent has submitted that P.W.2 Venkata Swamy has not given report to the police; and he has no knowledge whether Munaiah was alive or dead after the accident; and he has 5 not signed in the inquest report; and traffic police Kadapa have not examined him. The learned counsel has submitted that Munaiah was in drunken state, at the time of accident; and due to his negligence, he fell down and sustained injuries and died.

11.P.W.1 Eswaramma, the spouse of the deceased Munaiah, has deposed that her husband had no driving licence to drive the motorcycle and he was a bore mechanic. However she has denied the suggestion that her husband was accustomed to consume liquor. The learned counsel has further submitted that the police registered the case under section 174 of 

Cr.P.C. at first instance and later they altered the section of law. The learned counsel has also submitted that Motor Vehicle Inspector has not stated about the damage of the auto and not inspected the motorcycle.

12.Ex.A.1 copy of the F.I.R., registered by police. Traffic, Kadapa in crime 79 of 2010 reveals that at first instance, the case was registered as hit and run case; and later on point of jurisdiction it was transferred to 

Traffic Police Station, Kadapa. Ex.A.3 charge sheet filed in C.C.183 of 2011 reveals that the accident occurred due to rash and negligence of Rajendra the driver of the auto 4945. The charge sheet averments further reveal that 

Munaiah went to a belt shop and consumed liquor; and he alone moved towards Machupalli by pass road on his motorcycle 2671. That shows that 

Munaiah was not in sound state of mind due to consumption of liquor and it might also be the cause of the accident. Ex.A.4 copy of the inquest report 6 reveals that the panchayatdrs have opined the Munaiah and another person bought liquor at a belt shop and on the way Krishna got down the motorcycle at BT Colony, and later when Munaiah was seen passing near by pass road around 7.30 p.m., and he was found dead around 8.00 p.m. They opined that the deceased might have died in a motor accident or some body might have killed him. Ex.A.5 motor vehicle inspector report reveals that Motor Vehicle 

Inspector has inspected the auto 4945 and observed that the accident occurred was not due to any mechanical defects of the vehicle.

13.The learned counsel of the insurance company has submitted that it was a hit and run case and Ex.B.2 F.I.R., reveals about the same. But however, police concluded the investigation and filed charge sheet opining that the accident occurred due to rash and negligence of Rajendar, the driver of the auto 4945. Second respondent has not examined the police personnel who filed the charge sheet nor showed any other evidence to rebutt the evidence adduced by the claimants. The learned counsel of second respondent has submitted the case, “Pawan Kumar and another, etc. v. M/s 

Harkishan Dass Mohan Lal and others”, judgement, dated 29.1.2014 in Civil 

Appeal 5906 of 2008, before the Honourable Supreme Court. The 

Honourable Supreme Court has considered about the contributory 

negligence and composite negligence. It is observed that the tribunal ought to have examined the extent of contributory negligence. It can be stated that there was contributory negligence from the side of Munaiah; as he had 7 driven the motorcycle after consuming liquor. His contributory negligence in committing the accident is considered at 30% and the accident occurred due to rash and negligence of the driver of the auto 4945. This issue is decided accordingly.

14.Issue 2:­ The present petition is filed by the claimants under section 166 of Motor Vehicle Act. It reveals – An application for compensation arising out of an accident of the nature specified in sub­ section (1) of Section 165 may be made,­­ (a) by the person who has sustained the injury. (c) where death has resulted, by all or any of the legal representatives of the deceased.

15.Guidelines for determining and awarding compensation in fatal accidents that arise due to motor vehicle accidents are covered by the cases, “Sarla Verma v. Delhi Transport Corporation and another”, 2009 ACJ 1298; and “National Insurance Company Limited v. Pranay Sethi and others”, 

judgement, dated 31.10.2017 of the Honourable Supreme Court in SLP.25590 

of 2014.

16.The charge sheet averments reveal that the age of Munaiah was 41 years. Ex.A.4 inquest report and Ex.A.2 postmortem certificate also reveals that Munaiah was aged 41 years. Hence, the multiplier is 14, as per the guidelines given in “Sarla Verma” case stated supra. The claimants are three in number. Hence 1/3rd of the income of the deceased Munaiah had to 8 be deducted towards his personal expenses. Munaiah was said to be working as bore mechanic and said to be earnings Rs.400/­ per day. If his income is considered at Rs.200/­ per day, his monthly income would be Rs.200/­ x 30 = Rs.6,000/­. The claimants would be getting 2/3rd of Rs.6,000/­ towards financial support. If so the claimants would get Rs.4,000/­ per month. The loss of future earnings will be Rs.4,000/­ x 12 x 14 = 6,72,000/­.

17.The learned counsel of second respondent has submitted that 

Munaiah had no licence to drive the motorcycle; and the postmortem report 

Ex.A.2 is sowing about the presence of 200 ML of fluid in the abdomen of the deceased Munaiah, which showed smell of alcohol. If the contributory negligence is considered at 30%, the claimants would be getting 70% of 

Rs.6,72,000/­ = Rs.4,70,400/­. The claimants are entitled for the same.

18.As per the guidelines given in Pranay Sethy case stated supra, the first claimant is entitled to Rs.40,000/­ towards loss of consortium; 

Rs.15,000/­ towards loss of estate; Rs.15,000/­ towards funeral expenses.

19.In all the claimants can claim Rs.4,70,400/­ towards loss of future earnings and dependency; Rs.40,000/­ towards loss of consortium; 

Rs.15,000/­ towards loss of estate; Rs.15,000/­ towards funeral expenses; totalling Rs.5,40,400/­, and the same is rounded off to Rs.5,40,000/­.

9

20.Second respondent has examined R.W.2 Mallikarjuna, the office personnel of Road Transport Office, Kadapa. He filed Ex.A.2 extract of driving licence of Aman Raju. He has driving licence auto non transport and LMV non transport and auto transport. The subject auto is passenger auto. Thus it is constested that the driver of the auto had no valid driving licence. But in the case, “Chakila Swaroopa and others v. Mahamad Ghouse and another”, 2016 ACJ 383, the driver possessed licence LMV non transport, but he was driven tractor and trailer transport. The proximate cause of the accident was not established. It was observed that owner and insurer are jointly liable.

21.First respondent is the owner – cum – driver of the auto 4945. 

He is liable to pay the compensation. Second respondent the insurer has to indemnify the liability. Hence, the respondents 1 and 2 are liable to pay the adjudged compensation amount to the claimants.

22.Issue 3:­ Petition is allowed with costs granting compensation of Rs.5,40,000/­ (Rupees five lakhs forty thousand only) with interest at 6% p.a., from the date of petition till the date of award and thereafter at 7.5% p.a., till the date of realisation. The respondents 1 and 2 are jointly and severally liable to pay the adjudged compensation amount to the claimants and they are directed to deposit the same within on month from the date of this order. Advocate fee is fixed at Rs.7,000/­.

10

23.In the result, petition is allowed with costs granting compensation of Rs.5,40,000/­ (Rupees five lakhs forty thousand only) with interest at 6% p.a., from the date of petition till the date of award and thereafter at 7.5% p.a., till the date of realisation. The respondents 1 and 2 are jointly and severally liable to pay the adjudged compensation amount to the claimants and they are directed to deposit the same within one month from the date of this order. Claimants 1 and 2 are each entitled to 

Rs.1,80,000/­ with proportionate costs and interest and they are permitted to with draw the said amount after one year of its deposit. Third claimant is entitled to Rs.1,80,000/­ with proportionate interest and costs and the same shall be deposited in fixed deposit in any nationalized bank till the third claimant attains majority and after third claimant attaining majority he is permitted to withdraw the same with accrued interest thereon. Advocate fee is fixed at Rs.7,000/­.

Dictated to the Personal Assistant, transcribed by him, corrected 

and pronounced by me in the open court this the 9th day of April, 2018.

(sd/­) V.V. Srinivasa Murthy

Chairman, Motor Accident Claims Tribunal­Cum­ First Additional District Judge, Kadapa.

Appendix of Evidence

Witnesses examined for petitioners / claimants

P.W.1:­ J. Eswaramma P.W.2:­ S. Venkata Swamy 11

Witnesses examined for respondents

R.W.1:­ R.J.S. Vishwaksen R.W.2:­ M. Mallikarjuna

Exhibits marked for petitioners / Claimants

Ex.A.1:­ Certified copy of F.I.R. Ex.A.2:­ Certified copy of postmortem certificate Ex.A.3:­ Certified copy of charge sheet Ex.A.4:­ Certified copy of inquest report Ex.A.5:­ Certified copy of Motor Vehicle Inspector report

Exhibits marked for respondents

Ex.B.1:­ Copy of insurance policy Ex.B.2:­ Copy of F.I.R., in crime 79 of 2010 of Kadapa traffic police.

Exhibits marked through third parties

Ex.X.1:­ Authorization letter. Ex.X.2:­ Extract of driving licence. (sd/­) V.V. Srinivasa Murthy

Chairman, MACT­Cum­ I Addl.D.J.

1

Before the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal­Cum­First Additional District 

Judge, Kadapa

Present:­ Sri V.V. Srinivasa Murthy

Chairman, Motor Accident Claims Tribunal­Cum­

First Additional District Judge, Kadapa

Tuesday this the 10th day of April, 2018

M.V.O.P.No.235 of 2014

Singamala Venkata Subbamma ...Petitioner/Claimant…

Vs.

1. C. Kishore Kumar

2. United India Insurance Co., Ltd., represented by its Divisional Manager, 

Kadapa. ...Respondents/Respondents…

This petition has come up for hearing before me in the presence of Sri G. Sivasankar Reddy, Advocate for Petitioner/ Claimant and of Sri K. 

Vijay Krishna, Advocate for R.1 and Sri G. Trivikram Singh, Advocate for 

R.2 and after perusing the records on file and hearing arguments on both sides and having stood over till this day for consideration, this court delivered the following:­

O r d e r

Claimant filed the claim petition under section 166 of Motor 

Vehicles Act (for short “Act’) and Rule 475 of A.P. Motor Vehicle Rules, claiming compensation of Rs.3,00,000/­.

2.Brief facts of the case:­ Claimant was aged 40 years; and was a coolly and was earning Rs.4500/­ per month prior to July, 2010. On 8.7.2010 

Venkata Subbamma (claimant), Chinna Subbarayudu and Dhanamma were 2 travelling in indica car AP 03P 7073 to Tirupati. Around 9.00 a.m., they reached the first turning of Bhakrapeta ghat situated on Tirupati – Piler road. 

The tatasumo AP 01TV 3065 came in opposite direction; it was driven in rash and negligent manner. It dashed the car 7073 in which the claimant and others were travelling. The claimant and two other persons sustained severe injuries. Immediately after the accident the claimant was shifted to SVRR 

Hospital, Tirupati. She was admitted in the hospital. Later the claimant got treatment as outpatient from Dr. J. Nagesh of Kadapa. Police, Chandragiri registered crime 93 of 2010 against the driver of the tatasumo 3065. 

Claimant has claimed Rs.50,000/­ towards medicines and transport charges; 

Rs.3,00,000/­ towards loss of income and future earnings; Rs.20,000/­ towards pain and suffering; Rs.40,000/­ towards loss of amenities of life; 

Rs.50,000/­ towards loss to the estate. The claimant restricted his claim to 

Rs.3,00,000/­. Tatasumo belonged to first respondent. It was insured with second respondent. Hence the claim is made against both the respondents.

3.Brief averments of the written statement of first respondent:­ 

First respondent has not violated the terms of the policy. The vehicle had valid documents. Second respondent has to indemnify the liability. The claim is excessive.

4.Brief averments of the written statement of second respondent:­ 

The claimant has to prove about the manner of accident and rash and negligence of the driver of the tatasumo car. The claimant has to prove 3 about the avocation and earnings. The version of the claimant is false. The claimant has not sustained any permanent disability. The driver of the first respondent had not possessed valid and effective driving licence at the time of accident. The claimant has taken treatment at the hospitals free of cost. 

The claimant has not spent any amount towards medical expenses and any amount towards transport charges. First respondent and claimant colluded together. The claim is excessive. Petition is liable to be dismissed.

5.Brief averments of the additional written statement of second respondent:­ Claimant has failed to add the owner and driver of the insurance company of the car 7073. The present petition is bad for non joinder of necessary parties, the owner and driver of the insurance company of the car AP 03P 7073.

6.Basing on the above pleadings the following issues were framed for trial:­ (1) Whether the petitioner received injuries in a motor vehicle accident occurred due to rash and negligent driving by the driver of the tata sumo bearing AP 01TV 3065 on 8.7.2010?

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

(3) To what relief?

4

7.Claimant got her examined as P.W.1. P.W.2 was examined and 

Ex.A.1 to Ex.A.4 were marked on the side of the claimant. R.W.1 and R.W.2 were examined and Ex.B.1 and Ex.X.1 to Ex.X.3 were marked on the side of second respondent.

8.Arguments were submitted by the learned counsels on record.

9.Issue 1:­ The case of the claimant is that the claimant and two others were travelling in the car AP 03P 7073; and near the first turning of 

Bhakarapeta ghat situated on Tirupati – Piler road, tatasumo AP 01TV 3065 came in rash and negligent manner and dashed the india car 7073 in which the claimant was travelling. The contention of the second respondent is that the accident occurred due to rash and negligence of the driver of the indica car and the case is foisted against the driver of the tatasumo.

10.The claimant has deposed that there was negligence on the part of the driver of the tatasumo and so only the accident occurred. The evidence of the claimant is that one Nithyapujaiah is the driver of their car; and tatasumo vehicle dashed their car.

11.The claimant has filed Ex.A.1 copy of the F.I.R., registered by police Chandragiri. It was registered against the driver of the tatasumo car. 

The statement of Nithyapujaiah Naik is annexed to F.I.R. Such statement reveals that india car was passing to Tirupati from Rayachoty; and one Balaji 5 was driving the car belonged to Nityapujaiah and at Bhakarapet ghat another tata sumo car 3065 came in rash and negligent manner and dashed their car. Later the police filed charge sheet in C.C.340 of 2010 before the 

Third Additional Judicial Magistrate of First Class Court, Tirupati. The charge sheet was filed against Kishore Kumar the driver of the tatasumo car 3065. The charge sheet averments also reveal about the rash and negligent act of the driver of the tata sumo.

12.The evidence of the claimant and the contents of the F.I.R., 

Ex.A.1 and the charge sheet Ex.A.2 prove that the accident occurred due to rash and negligent act of the driver of tatasumo belonged to first respondent. 

This issue is decided in favour of the claimant.

13.Issue 2:­ The present petition is filed by the claimants under section 166 of Motor Vehicle Act. It reveals – An application for compensation arising out of an accident of the nature specified in sub­ section (1) of Section 165 may be made,­­ (a) by the person who has sustained the injury.

14.In “Sanjay Kumar v. Ashok Kumar”, 2014 SAR (Civil) 308(SC), the guidelines for awarding compensation to the injured and method of calculating loss of future income are stated. In“Rama Chandrappa v. Rayal 

Sundram Allinaz Company Limited”, 2011(6) ALT 48 (SC), the income of a daily wage earner was considered at Rs.4500/­ per month.

6

15.The case of the claimant is that she sustained injuries in the motor vehicle accident. Ex.A.3 copy of wound certificate shows that the claimant was aged around 40 years and she sustained abrasion of right knee; and laceration and abrasion on right lower leg and swelling and deformity over left fore arm and a laceration on left side of head. Injury 3 stated above was grievous and the remaining injuries were simple in nature. The claimant sustained fracture of left wrist joint. The claimant has filed Ex.A.4 disability certificate issued by District Medical Board, Kadapa. It reveals that her functional disability is 35%. P.W.2 has deposed that the claimant was aged 52 years and she sustained malunited fracture of distal end of both bones of left fore arm with deformity of left wrist. Considering the same, the disability can be assessed at 25%. He is suggested that excessive percentage was given to help the claimant. He has admitted that the claimant has never undergone surgery for the injuries stated above. Considering it, the functional disability is considered at 25%. The age of the claimant is more than 40 years and she can be placed in the age group of persons having age 41 to 45 years. The multiplier is 14 as per the guide lines given in “Sarla 

Verma v. Delhi Transport Corporation and another”, 2009 ACJ 1298. The total loss of earnings of the claimant would be Rs.4500/­ x 12 x 14 = 

Rs.7,56,000/­. The functional disability is 25%. Hence the claimant can claim 25% of Rs.7,56,000/­ = Rs.1,89,000/­. The claimant has sustained one grievous injury and three simple injuries. She can claim Rs.20,000/­ towards pain and suffering. Claimant has not filed any medical record to prove the 7 medical expenses. But however, considering the guidelines given in the case,”Branch Manager, Oriental Insurance Company, Proddatur v. Durgam 

Hussainaiah and others”, 2013(1) An.W.R. 530, she can claim Rs.15,000/­ towards medical expenses.

16.In all the claimant can claim Rs.1,89,000/­ towards loss of future earnings; Rs.20,000/­ towards pain and suffering; Rs.15,000/­ towards medical expenses; totalling Rs.2,24,000/­.

17.The contention of the second respondent is that the vehicle tatasumo had no valid documents. R.W.1 Vishvaksen, Administrative 

Officer of second respondent has deposed that the offending vehicle had no valid fitness certificate. Second respondent got examined R.W.2 

Mallikarjuna, the office personnel of Road Transport Office, Kadapa. He has filed Ex.X.2 the extract of registration certificate of the motor vehicle 3065. The motor vehicle is having seating capacity of six. Ex.X.3 is the extract of fitness certificate. By the date of accident the vehicle had no fitness certificate. If the vehicle had no permit, first respondent has to bear the liability as per the guidelines given in “National Insurance Company Vs. 

Challa Barathamma” 2004 ACJ 2094. In the present case also, the vehicle had no fitness certificate. Without fitness certificate, the first respondent ran the vehicle. Hence, the first respondent has to bear the entire liability. The learned counsel of second respondent has submitted that the petition is not maintainable for nonjoinder of necessary parties namely, the driver and 8 owner and insurer of the indica car. The negligence was from the side of the driver of the tatasumo vehicle. The claimant can claim compensation from the owner and insurer of the tatasumo vehicle. But however, the second respondent has to pay the compensation amount and can recover the same from the first respondent owner of the vehicle by filing execution petition. 

This issue is decided accordingly.

18.Issue 3:­ Petition is allowed with costs granting compensation of Rs.2,24,000/­ (Rupees two lakhs twenty four thousand only) with interest at 6% p.a., from the date of petition till the date of award and thereafter at 7.5% p.a., till the date of realisation. The respondents 1 and 2 are jointly and severally liable to pay the adjudged compensation amount to the claimants and they are directed to deposit the same within one month from the date of this order. The second respondent is entitled to recover the adjudged 

compensation amount from the first respondent after its deposit by 

filing execution petition. Advocate fee is fixed at Rs.7,000/­.

19.In the result, petition is allowed with costs granting compensation of Rs.2,24,000/­ (Rupees two lakhs twenty four thousand only) with interest at 6% p.a., from the date of petition till the date of award and thereafter at 7.5% p.a., till the date of realisation. The respondents 1 and 2 are jointly and severally liable to pay the adjudged compensation amount to the claimants and they are directed to deposit the same within one month 9 from the date of this order. The second respondent is entitled to recover 

the adjudged compensation amount from the first respondent after its 

deposit by filing execution petition. On deposit of the same, the claimant is permitted to withdraw a sum of Rs.1,00,000/­ and the remaining balance of compensation amount shall be deposited in fixed deposits in any nationalized bank for a period of one year and after completion of one year period the claimant is permitted to withdraw the same with accrued interest thereon.Advocate fee is fixed at Rs.7,000/­.

Dictated to the Personal Assistant, transcribed by him, corrected 

and pronounced by me in the open court this the 10th day of April, 2018.

(Sd/-) V.V. Srinivasa Murthy

Chairman, Motor Accident Claims Tribunal­Cum­ First Additional District Judge, Kadapa.

Appendix of Evidence

Witnesses examined for petitioner / claimant

P.W.1:­ S. Venkata Subbamma. P.W.2:­ Dr. C. Sanjeevaiah

Witnesses examined for respondents

R.W.1:­ R.J.S. Vishwaksen R.W.2:­ M. Mallikarjuna

Exhibits marked for the petitioner / Claimant

Ex.A.1:­ Copy of the F.I.R., in crime 92 of 2010 of Chandragiri P.S. Ex.A.2:­ Copy of charge sheet Ex.A.3:­ Copy of wound certificate Ex.A.4:­ Disability certificate

Exhibits marked for respondents

10

Ex.B.1:­ Copy of policy.

Exhibits marked through third parties

Ex.X.1:­ Authorization letter. Ex.X.2:­ B.Register extract of the vehicle AP 01TV 3065. Ex.X.3:­ Extract of fitness certificate. (Sd/-) V.V. Srinivasa Murthy

Chairman, MACT­Cum­ I Addl.D.J.

1

Before the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal­Cum­First Additional District 

Judge, Kadapa

Present:­ Sri V.V. Srinivasa Murthy

Chairman, Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal­Cum­

First Additional District Judge, Kadapa

Tuesday this the 10th day of April, 2018

M.V.O.P.No.236 of 2014

D. Dhanama ...Petitioner/Claimant…

Vs.

1. C. Kishore Kumar

2. United India Insurance Co., Ltd., represented by its Divisional Manager, 

Kadapa. ...Respondents/Respondents…

This petition has come up for hearing before me in the presence of Sri G. Sivasankar Reddy, Advocate for Petitioner/ Claimant and of Sri K. 

Vijay Krishna, Advocate for R.1 and Sri G. Trivikram Singh, Advocate for 

R.2 and after perusing the records on file and hearing arguments on both sides and having stood over till this day for consideration, this court delivered the following:­

O r d e r

Claimant filed the claim petition under section 166 of Motor 

Vehicles Act (for short ‘Act’) and Rule 475 of A.P. Motor Vehicle Rules, claiming compensation of Rs.3,00,000/­.

2.Brief facts of the case:­ Claimant was aged 58 years and was a retired nursing officer and was earning Rs.6,000/­ per month prior to July, 2010. On 8.7.2010 Venkata Subbamma, Chinna Subbarayudu and 2

Dhanamma (claimant), were travelling in indica car AP 03P 7073 to 

Tirupati. Around 9.00 a.m., they reached the first turning of Bhakrapeta ghat situated on Tirupati – Piler road. The tatasumo AP 01TV 3065 came in opposite direction; it was driven in rash and negligent manner. It dashed the car 7073 in which the claimant and others were travelling. The claimant and two other persons sustained severe injuries. Immediately after the accident the claimant was shifted to SVRR Hospital, Tirupati. She was admitted in the hospital for 15 days. Later the claimant got treatment as outpatient from 

Dr. J. Nagesh of Kadapa. Police, Chandragiri registered crime 93 of 2010 against the driver of the tatasumo 3065. Claimant has claimed Rs.50,000/­ towards medicines and transport charges; Rs.3,00,000/­ towards loss of income and future earnings; Rs.10,000/­ towards pain and suffering; 

Rs.40,000/­ towards loss of amenities of life; Rs.40,000/­ towards loss to the estate. The claimant restricted his claim to Rs.3,00,000/­. Tatasumo belonged to first respondent. It was insured with second respondent. Hence the claim is made against both the respondents.

3.Brief averments of the written statement of first respondent:­ 

First respondent has not violated the terms of the policy. The vehicle had valid documents. Second respondent has to indemnify the liability. The claim is excessive.

4.Brief averments of the written statement of second respondent:­ 

The claimant has to prove about the manner of accident and rash and 3 negligence of the driver of the tatasumo car. The claimant has to prove about the avocation and earnings. The version of the claimant is false. The claimant has not sustained any permanent disability. The driver of the first respondent had not possessed valid and effective driving licence at the time of accident. The claimant has taken treatment at the hospitals free of cost. 

The claimant has not spent any amount towards medical expenses and any amount towards transport charges. First respondent and claimant colluded together. The claim is excessive. Petition is liable to be dismissed.

5.Brief averments of the additional written statement of second respondent:­ Claimant has failed to add the owner and driver of the insurance company of the car 7073. The present petition is bad for non joinder of necessary parties, the owner and driver of the insurance company of the car AP 03P 7073.

6.Basing on the above pleadings the following issues were framed for trial:­ (1) Whether the petitioner received injuries in a motor vehicle accident occurred due to rash and negligent driving by the driver of the tata sumo bearing AP 01TV 3065 on 8.7.2010?

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

4 (3) To what relief?

7.Claimant got her examined as P.W.1. P.W.2 was examined and 

Ex.A.1 to Ex.A.5 were marked on the side of the claimant. R.W.1 and R.W.2 were examined and Ex.B.1 and Ex.X.1 to Ex.X.3 were marked on the side of second respondent.

8.Arguments were submitted by the learned counsels on record.

9.Issue 1:­ The case of the claimant is that the claimant and two others were travelling in the car AP 03P 7073; and near the first turning of 

Bhakarapeta ghat situated on Tirupati – Piler road, tatasumo AP 01TV 3065 came in rash and negligent manner and dashed the india car 7073 in which the claimant was travelling. The contention of the second respondent is that the accident occurred due to rash and negligence of the driver of the indica car; and the case is foisted against the driver of the tatasumo.

10.The claimant has deposed that there was negligence on the part of the driver of the tatasumo and so only the accident occurred. The evidence of the claimant is that one Nithyapujaiah is the driver of their car; and tatasumo vehicle dashed their car.

11.The claimant has filed Ex.A.1 copy of the F.I.R., registered by police Chandragiri. It was registered against the driver of the tatasumo car. 

The statement of Nithyapujaiah Naik is annexed to F.I.R. Such statement 5 reveals that india car was passing to Tirupati from Rayachoty; and one Balaji was driving the car at the instance of owner Nityapujaiah and at Bhakarapet ghat another tata sumo car 3065 came in rash and negligent manner and dashed their car. Later the police filed charge sheet in C.C.340 of 2010 

before the Third Additional Judicial Magistrate of First Class Court, 

Tirupati. The charge sheet was filed against Kishore Kumar the driver of the tatasumo car 3065. The charge sheet averments also reveal about the rash and negligent act of the driver of the tata sumo.

12.The evidence of the claimant and the contents of the F.I.R., 

Ex.A.1 and the charge sheet Ex.A.2 prove that the accident occurred due to rash and negligent act of the driver of tatasumo belonged to first respondent. 

This issue is decided in favour of the claimant.

13.Issue 2:­ The present petition is filed by the claimants under section 166 of Motor Vehicle Act. It reveals – An application for compensation arising out of an accident of the nature specified in sub­ section (1) of Section 165 may be made,­­ (a) by the person who has sustained the injury.

14.In “Sanjay Kumar v. Ashok Kumar”, 2014 SAR (Civil) 308(SC), the guidelines for awarding compensation to the injured and method of calculating loss of future income are stated. In“Rama Chandrappa v. Rayal 6

Sundram Allinaz Company Limited”, 2011(6) ALT 48 (SC), the income of a daily wage earner was considered at Rs.4500/­ per month.

15.Claimant filed Ex.A.3 copy of the wound certificate. It shows that the claimant P.w.1 Dhanamma has sustained swelling of right forearm, swelling of right knee, laceration on anterior aspect of right knee and swelling of thigh. The above injuries were grievous in nature. She can claim compensation of Rs.40,000/­ towards pain and suffering. The claimant was aged 60 years as on the date of accident. Her age was shown as 65 years in the charge sheet, filed in C.C.347 of 2010. Her age would be in the age group of persons having age between 61 and 65 years. The multiplier is 7 as per the guidelines given in “Sarla Verma v. Delhi Transport Corporation and another”, 2009 ACJ 1298. The claimant examined P.W.2 Dr. Sanjeevaiah and filed Ex.A.4 disability certificate. P.W.2 Dr. Sanjeevaiah has mentioned that the functional disability is 45%. Her income was Rs.6,000/­ per month. 

The annual income will be Rs.6,000/­ x 12 = Rs.72,000/­. The total loss of future earnings will be Rs.72,000/­ x 7 = Rs.5,04,000/­. She has sustained fractures of right fore aram, left thigh and right femur. Hence, the disability can be considered at 40%. If so, the loss of earning will be 40% of 

Rs.5,04,000/­ = Rs.2,01,600/­. But the claimant is a retired employee. She will go on getting pension and she will not sustain any financial loss. Hence she can only claim loss of amenities to life amounting to Rs.1,50,000/­. The claimant has not filed any proof of medical expenses, but she can claim 7

Rs.15,000/­ towards medical expenses as per the guidelines given in the case,”Branch Manager, Oriental Insurance Company, Proddatur v. Durgam 

Hussainaiah and others”, 2013(1) An.W.R. 530.

16.In all the claimant can claim Rs.1,50,000/­ towards loss of amenities to life; Rs.40,000/­ towards pain and suffering; Rs.15,000/­ towards medical expenses; totalling Rs.2,05,000/­.

17.The contention of the second respondent is that the vehicle tatasumo had no valid documents. R.W.1 Vishvaksen, Administrative 

Officer of second respondent has deposed that the offending vehicle had no valid fitness certificate. Second respondent got examined R.W.2 

Mallikarjuna, the office personnel of Road Transport Office, Kadapa. He has filed Ex.X.2 the extract of registration certificate of the motor vehicle 3065. The motor vehicle having seating capacity of six. Ex.X.3 is the extract of fitness certificate. By the date of accident the vehicle had no fitness certificate. If the vehicle had no permit, first respondent has to bear the liability as per the guidelines given in “National Insurance Company Vs. 

Challa Bharathamm,” 2004 ACJ 2094. In the present case also the vehicle had no fitness certificate. Without fitness certificate, the first respondent ran the vehicle. Hence, the first respondent has to bear the entire liability. The learned counsel of second respondent has submitted that the petition is not maintainable for nonjoinder of necessary parties namely, the driver and owner and insurer of the indica car. The negligence was from the side of the 8 driver of the tatasumo vehicle, and the claimant can claim compensation from the owner and insurer of the tatasumo vehicle. But however, the second respondent has to pay the compensation amount and can recover the same from the first respondent owner of the vehicle by filing execution petition. 

This issue is decided accordingly.

18.Issue 3:­ Petition is allowed with costs granting compensation of Rs.2,05,000/­ (Rupees two lakhs five thousand only) with interest at 6% p.a., from the date of petition till the date of award and thereafter at 7.5% p.a., till the date of realisation. The respondents 1 and 2 are jointly and severally liable to pay the adjudged compensation amount to the claimants and they are directed to deposit the same within one month from the date of this order. The second respondent is entitled to recover the adjudged 

compensation amount from the first respondent after its deposit by 

filing execution petition. Advocate fee is fixed at Rs.7,000/­.

19.In the result, petition is allowed with costs granting compensation of Rs.2,05,000/­ (Rupees two lakhs five thousand only) with interest at 6% p.a., from the date of petition till the date of award and thereafter at 7.5% p.a., till the date of realisation. The respondents 1 and 2 are jointly and severally liable to pay the adjudged compensation amount to the claimants and they are directed to deposit the same within one month from the date of this order. The second respondent is entitled to recover  9

the adjudged compensation amount from the first respondent after its 

deposit by filing execution petition. On deposit of the same the claimant is permitted to withdraw a sum of Rs.1,05,000/­ and the remaining balance of compensation amount shall be deposited in fixed deposits in any nationalized bank for a period of one year and after completion of one year period the claimant is permitted to withdraw the same with accrued interest thereon.Advocate fee is fixed at Rs.7,000/­.

Dictated to the Personal Assistant, transcribed by him, corrected 

and pronounced by me in the open court this the 10th day of April, 2018.

(Sd/-) V.V. Srinivasa Murthy

Chairman, Motor Accident Claims Tribunal­Cum­ First Additional District Judge, Kadapa.

Appendix of Evidence

Witnesses examined for petitioner / claimant

P.W.1:­ D. Dhanamma. P.W.2:­ Dr. C. Sanjeevaiah

Witnesses examined for respondents

R.W.1:­ R.J.S. Vishwaksen R.W.2:­ M. Mallikarjuna

Exhibits marked for the petitioner / Claimant

Ex.A.1:­ Copy of the F.I.R., in crime 92 of 2010 of Chandragiri P.S. Ex.A.2:­ Copy of charge sheet Ex.A.3:­ Copy of wound certificate Ex.A.4:­ Disability certificate Ex.A.5:­ Discharge summary issued by SVRR Hospital, Tirupati.

Exhibits marked for respondents

Ex.B.1:­ Copy of policy.

Exhibits marked through third parties

Ex.X.1:­ Authorization letter. Ex.X.2:­ B.Register extract of the vehicle AP 01TV 3065.

10

Ex.X.3:­ Extract of fitness certificate. (Sd/-) V.V. Srinivasa Murthy Chairman, MACT­Cum­ I Addl.D.J.