V. Venkateswara Rao

1

BEFORE THE MOTOR ACCIDENTS CLAIMS TRIBUNAL CUM IX

ADDITIONAL DISTRICT JUDGE'S COURT : WEST GODAVARI 

AT KOVVUR

Present : Sri V.Venkateswara Rao, Chairman cum IX Additional District Judge,

Friday on this the 3 rd day of May, 2019

M.V.O.P. No.76 of 2017

Between 

Boppe Veera Venkata Satish ­­­ Petitioner

AND

1. Shaik Saleem @ Mohammad Saleem

2. Chilaka Venkatareddy

3. The New India Assurance Company Ltd., rep., by its Divisional Manager, Divisional Office, Rajahmundry, E.G.Dt. ­­­ Respondents

This petition came on 26.3.2019 for final hearing before this Tribunal in the presence of Sri. K. Narasimha Rao, advocate, counsel for petitioners, and Sri P.V.N.Muneswara Rao, advocate, counsel for R1 and R2 remained ex parte, and Sri S.V.Ramana, advocate, counsel for R3, and upon perusing the entire material available on record and the matter having stood over for consideration till this day and today this tribunal passes the following

A W A R D

1.This claim petition is filed under Sec.166 of M.V.Act read with

Rule 455 of A.P. M.V. Rules claiming compensation of Rs.2,00,000/­ by the petitioner viz., Boppe Veera Venkata Satish for the injuries suffered by him in a motor vehicle accident.

2. The brief facts of the petition are as follows:

The petitioner, who is a Weaver and who is aged about 20 years by the date of the accident used to earn Rs.10,000/­ p.m. On 20.5.2017 2 early morning the petitioner and his relative viz., Pallamraju as pillion riders and the son of the said Pallamraju as rider started at Nalluru to go to Gowripatnam on motor cycle. While on the journey, the son of the said Pallamraju was driving the motor cycle on the left side of the road in normal speed and at about 8.15 a.m., when they reached at

Gowripatnam on Kovvur to Eluru road, at the same time, R1 being the driver of Van bearing No.TS 05 UC 1599 drove the same in a rash and negligent manner with high speed and dashed the motor cycle in opposite direction, as a result, they all three members fell on the road and received grievous injuries and the son of the said Pallamraju died on the spot. The petitioner spent huge amount for his treatment. R2 was the owner and R3 was the insurer of the crime vehicle involved in the accident and so, they are also vicariously liable for the rash and negligent driving of R1. Hence, all the respondents are jointly and severally liable to pay compensation to the petitioners.

3.R1 filed his written statement denying all the material allegations in the petition and also denying his rash and negligence. It is further averred that the petitioner has to prove each and every allegation mentioned in the petition. It is further averred that the petitioner filed this petition for getting wrongful gain. It is further averred that in any view, the petitioner is entitled to claim interest at 6% p.a. only from the date of Award. It is further averred that if any compensation is payable to the petitioner, that may be payable by R3­insurance company, since the vehicle was insured with R3 and this respondent is having valid and effective driving licence to drive the crime vehicle at the time of the accident. Hence, it is prayed that this petition is liable to be dismissed 3 with costs against this respondent.

4.R3 filed its written statement denying all the material allegations in the petition and also denying the rash and negligence of R1 and also denying its liability claiming that there are violations of terms and conditions of policy. It is further averred that the accident was occurred due to the negligence on the part of motor cycle driver, who died in the accident. It is further averred that the petitioner has to prove each and every allegation mentioned in the petition, more particularly, his earning capacity etc. It is also averred that the petitioner is not entitled to claim the said amount, even otherwise, his claim is too excessive. It is further averred that it is not true that the said crime vehicle is validly insured with this respondent at the time of the accident and this respondent denied that R1 is having a valid and effective driving licence to drive the crime vehicle. It is further averred that this respondent is not liable to pay any compensation to the petitioner for his injuries in the said motor accident, as the driver of the motor cycle while driving the vehicle came above the road margin along with the pillion riders and they have not followed the road safety precautionary measures. It is further averred that the R2 is not having a valid policy which covers all the third party risks at the time of the accident and hence this respondent is not liable to pay any compensation to the petitioner.

Hence, the petition is liable to be dismissed with costs against this respondent.

5.On the basis of the above pleadings, the following issues were settled for trial:

4

1.Whether the accident that occurred on 20.5.2017 at 8.15 a.m., at Gowripatnam in which the petitioner sustained injuries is due to rash and negligent driving of van bearing No.TS 05 UC 1599 by R1?

2.Whether the petitioner is entitled for compensation? If so, how much and from whom ?

3.To what relief ?

6.To prove the case of the petitioner, PW.1 was examined besides

P.W.2 doctor and Exs.A1 to A7 were marked. On behalf of the respondents, R.Ws.1 and 2 were examined and Ex.B1 insurance policy was marked. Exs.X1 to X3 were marked through witness.

7. R3 filed a petition under Sec.170 of M.V.Act and it was allowed. 

8.Arguments were heard.

9. ISSUE No.1: 

(i)To prove the case of the petitioner, petitioner­B.V.V.Satish was examined as PW.1. He marked Exs.A1 to A4 viz., attested true copies of

F.I.R., wound certificate, M.V.I’s. report and charge sheet obtained from the criminal case filed against R1 by police. Ex.A5 is discharge summary. Ex.A6 is bunch of medical bills and Ex.A7 is X­ray films.

(ii) PW.1 deposed in the similar lines of the petition averments stating that on 20.5.2017 he along with another person as pillion riders and the son of another person i.e., the deceased in the accident as rider started at Nalluru on motor cycle to go to Gowripatnam Church and while on the journey, at about 8.15 a.m., when they reached near the outskirts of Gowripatnam village, the driver of Eicher van bearing No.TS 05 UC 1599 i.e., R1 drove his van in a rash and negligent manner with 5 high speed and came in wrong direction and dashed their motor cycle in opposite direction, as a result, they all fell on the road and received injuries and the son of the another person died on the spot. He was cross­examined at length, but nothing was elicited to impeach his evidence in any manner except suggesting that the accident was occurred due to the rash and negligent driving of the son of the another person i.e., the deceased and not due to the negligence of R1, which was categorically denied by P.W.1. Suggestion denied is no evidence. It is elicited in his cross­examination that the motor cycle belongs to him, who also sustained injuries in the accident and it was insured. Non­ joinder of insurance company of the motor cycle is not fatal to the case of the petitioner, as there was no negligence on the part of the deceased, who drove the motor cycle in the accident, as seen from the evidence on record and the accident was occurred due to the rash and negligent driving of R1, who was the driver of Van bearing No.TS 05 UC 1599.

The investigation conducted by police after the accident also goes to show that the accident was occurred due to the rash and negligent driving of R1­van driver. The best witness to challenge the evidence of

P.W.1 is R1­driver of the van, but he was not examined by the respondents, and it is fatal to the case of the respondents. For the above reasons, I find that the accident was occurred due to the rash and negligent driving of R1­van driver causing death of the deceased, who drove the motor cycle and injuries to him and another person, but not due to the negligence of the deceased or due to triple riding. This issue is answered accordingly.

10. ISSUE No.2:

6

(i) Admittedly R1 is the driver and R2 is the owner of the crime van bearing No.TS 05 UC 1599 which was insured with R3 insurance company under Ex.B1 copy of policy by the date of accident. It covers third party risk of the injured.

ii) It is the case of R3 insurance company that R1 has no valid driving licence to drive the van and so, it is not liable to pay any compensation due to violations of terms and conditions of policy. To prove their case, they examined R.W.1­P.Sunil Rajiv Kumar,

Administrative Officer of R3 insurance company, but, his evidence is not much helpful to prove the case of R3. He admitted that the vehicle was insured as per Ex.B1 policy with their Company covering third party risk. He also admitted that there was no mention of violation of M.V.Act in the charge sheet filed against R1. The evidence of R.W.2­R.Ramu,

Junior Assistant working in R.T.O’s. Office, Miriyalaguda is important in this case. 

iii) R.W.2­ R.Ramu, Junior Assistant summoned by R3­insurance company marked Ex.X2 authorization letter to give evidence and Ex.X3 driving licence of R1­Md.Saleem. As per Ex.X3, R1 was authorized to drive auto rickshaw for transport, L.M.V. non­transport and he also got heavy driving licence which was issued on 5.7.2013 which was valid by the date of the accident i.e., 20.5.2017. His evidence clearly reveals that

R1 was having heavy driving licence even by the date of the accident and there are no violations of terms and conditions of policy as alleged by

R3­insurance company in this case and so, R3 is liable to pay the 7 compensation as per terms of Ex.B1 policy, though all the respondents are jointly and severally liable.

iv) The petitioner claimed Rs.2,00,000/­ for the injuries suffered by him. To prove his injuries, P.W.2­Dr.P.Gandarva, Orthopedic

Surgeon examined. Ex.A5 is discharge summary and Ex.A6 is bunch

of medical bills worth Rs.4,309/­ marked and he is entitled for

reimbursement of the same, but it was round figured to Rs.4,300/­.

As per the evidence of P.W.2, the petitioner suffered five injuries, out of which, one is grievous injury of fracture. Some of the wounds were also sutured. There was fracture of right wrist. The petitioner claimed that he was earning Rs.10,000/­ p.m., which is not proved, as it is not supported by any cogent evidence. He may be earning Rs.6,000/­ p.m. He is awarded Rs.40,000/­ for grievous injury, Rs.40,000/­ for

four simple injuries @ Rs.10,000/­ for each injury, Rs.35,000/­

towards pain and suffering, Rs.15,000/­ towards transportation and

attendant charges and Rs.30,000/­ towards loss of earnings for five

months. He has to undergo another surgery for removal of iron plates

for which he is awarded Rs.25,000/­. Thus, total compensation

payable to the petitioner is Rs.1,89,300/­ payable by R3, though all the respondents are jointly and severally liable. Rest of the claim is dismissed. This issue is answered accordingly.

11 ISSUE No.3:  In the result, petition is allowed partly with proportionate costs awarding compensation of Rs.1,89,300/­ with future interest at 9 % p.a., from the date of petition till the date of realization payable by R3, though all the respondents are jointly and 8 severally liable to be deposited within two months. Rest of the claim is dismissed. Petitioner is permitted to withdraw the entire amount.

Advocate’s fee fixed at Rs.2,000/­.

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

corrected and pronounced by me in open Court, on this the 3 rd day of May, 2019.

Chairman, Motor Vehicles Accidents claims

Tribunal cum IX Addl. District Judge

West Godavari at Kovvur 

APPENDIX

WITNESSES EXAMINED

On behalf of Petitioners:

P.W.1­ B.V.V.Satish P.W.2­ Dr.Pradeep Gandarva

On behalf of respondents:

R.W.1 ­ P.Sunil Rajiv Kumar, A.O. R.W.2 ­ R.Ramu, Jr. Asst. in R.T.O’s. Office. 

DOCUMENTS MARKED

On behalf of Petitioners:

Ex.A1 ­ Attested true copy of FIR in Cr.No.107 of 17 of Devarapalli Police Station.

Ex.A2 ­ Attested true copy of wound certificate.

Ex.A3 ­ Attested copy of MVI's report. 

Ex.A4 ­Attested true copy of Charge Sheet filed in Cr.No.107 of 17 of Devarapalli Police Station.

Ex.A5 ­Discharge Summary.

Ex.A6 ­Bunch of medical bills worth Rs.4,309/­.

Ex.A7 ­X­ray films. 

On behalf of respondents:

9

Ex.B1 ­Attested copy of policy copy with terms and conditions.

Marked through witness:

Ex.X1 ­Case sheet.

Ex.X2 ­Authorization letter. 

Ex.A3 ­True extract of driving licence of R1. 

Chairman, Motor Vehicles Accidents claims

Tribunal cum IX Addl. District Judge

West Godavari at Kovvur 10

Note: Total decree to be prepared

Petition presented on 26.12.2016

Petition filed on 11.1.2017

BEFORE THE MOTOR ACCIDENTS CLAIMS TRIBUNAL CUM IX

ADDITIONAL DISTRICT JUDGE'S COURT: WEST GODAVARI

AT KOVVUR

Present : Sri V.Venkateswara Rao, Chairman cum IX Additional District Judge,

Wednesday on this the 9 th day of January 2019

M.V.O.P. No.15 of 2017

Between

1. Borra Aparna Devi, W/o.Late Paparao, Aged 26 years, Female, Hindu, R/o.D.No.6-79, Patapeta, Decherla, I.Pangidi village, Kovvur Mandal, W.G.Dt., Kovvur PJCJC.

2. Borra Vyshnavi Naga Reshma, D/o. Late Paparao, Aged 8 years, Female, Hindu, R/o.D.No.6-79, Patapeta, Decherla, I.Pangidi village, Kovvur Mandal, W.G.Dt., Kovvur PJCJC.

3. Borra Venkata Ajay Reddy, S/o. Late Paparao, Aged 6 years, Male, Hindu R/o.D.No.6-79, Patapeta, Decherla, I.Pangidi village, Kovvur Mandal, W.G.Dt., Kovvur PJCJC.

4. Borra Reddiyya, S/o. Late Papanna, Aged 58 years, Male, Hindu R/o.D.No.6-79, Patapeta, Decherla, I.Pangidi village, Kovvur Mandal, W.G.Dt., Kovvur PJCJC.

5. Borra Nagamani, W/o.Reddiyya, Aged 55 years, Female, Hindu R/o.D.No.6-79, Patapeta, Decherla, I.Pangidi village, Kovvur Mandal, W.G.Dt., Kovvur PJCJC.

(2 nd and 3 rd petitioners being minors, rep. by their next friend

and natural guardian Mother i.e., 1 st petitioner herein).

--- Petitioners

AND

1. P.Rama Rao, S/o.Veerraju, Aged 65 years, Male, Hindu, Driver of lorry bearing No.AP 07 TA 7222, R/o.Devarapalli village and Mandal, W.G.Dt., 11

Kovvur PJCJC.

2. Isakapati Srinivasarao, S/o.Sanjeevarao, Aged 40 years, Male, Hindu, Owner of lorry bearing No.AP 07 TA 7222, R/o.D.No.3-158, Ambedkar street, Gowripatnam village, Devarapalli Mandal, W.G.Dt., Kovvur PJCJC.

3. United India Insurance Company Ltd., rep., by its Divisional Manager, Divisional Office, Eluru, WG.Dt., Eluru PJCJC.

--- Respondents

This claim petition is filed under Sec.166 of M.V.Act read with Rule 455 of A.P. M.V. Rules claimingcompensation of Rs.18,00,000/- for the death of deceased Papa Rao in a motor vehicle accident.

Cause of action for the petition arose on 30.11.2016 at about 4 p.m., when the accident was occurred near Decherla Center at Kondagudem village in Devarapalli P.S. limits due to the rash and negligent driving of R1 and the petitioners filed this petition before this Tribunal as the place of accident and the petitioners’ residence are within the jurisdiction of this Tribunal.

Value of the petition: Petition filed under Section 166 of M.V.Act r/w Rule 455 of A.P.M.V.Rules for an amount of Rs.18,00,000/- A Court fee of Rs.17,360/- is paid under Rule 475 of A.P.Motor vehicles Act.

This petition came on this day for disposal before this court in the presence of Sri. K. Narasimha Rao, advocate, counsel for petitioners, and Sri M.D.V.Prasad, advocate, counsel for R1 and R2, and Sri P.Sudhakara Rao, advocate, counsel for R3, and upon perusing the entire material available on record and the matter having stood over for consideration till this day and today this Tribunal DOTH ORDER AND DECREE as follows:

1. that the petition be and is hereby allowed partly with proportionate costs awarding compensation of Rs.13,55,200/- with future interest at 9 % p.a., from the date of petition i.e., 26.12.2016 till the date of realization payable by R3, though all the respondents are jointly and severally liable to be deposited within two months;

2. that rest of the claim be and is hereby dismissed,

3. that out of the compensation amount of Rs.13,55,200/-, Rs.8,55,200/- be and is awarded to the 1st petitioner- wife, and the petitioners 2 and 3 (minors) be and are awarded Rs.1,50,000/- each and the amount of minors shall be deposited in F.D.R., in Nationalized Bank till 12 they attain majority, and the 4th and 5th petitioners being parents of the deceased, they be entitled to Rs.1,00,000/- each and the petitioners 1, 4 and 5 be permitted to withdraw their respective amounts in case of such deposit,

4. that advocate fee be fixed at Rs.13,500/-; and

5. that 3rd respondent do pay to the petitioners a sum of Rs.31,325/- towards proportionate costs of the petition.

Given under my hand and the seal of this Court, this the

9 th day of January, 2019.

Chairman, Motor Vehicles Accidents claims Tribunal cum IX Addl. District

Judge,

West Godavari at Kovvur.

MEMO OF COSTS

FOR PETITIONERS:- Rs. FOR R1 & R2

FOR R3

1. Stamps on vakalat 2-002-00 2-00

2. Court fee 17,360-00------ -----

3. Stamps on process 195-00------ -----

4. Stamps on petitions 5-00------ -----

5. Writing & typing charges 200-00------ -----

6. Advocate’s fee 13,500-00------ -----

7. Court fee affixed on documents 15-00------ -----

8. Witness batta 200-00------ -----

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

31,477-00 2-00 2-00 (taxed)(taxed)

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

---------- 13

Note:- Proportionate costs of Rs.31,325/- is allowed.

IX A.D.J.,

Kovvur.

14

1

BEFORE THE MOTOR ACCIDENTS CLAIMS TRIBUNAL CUM

IX

ADDITIONAL DISTRICT JUDGE'S COURT: WEST GODAVARI

AT KOVVUR

Present : Sri V.Venkateswara Rao, Chairman cum IX Additional District Judge,

Wednesday on this the 1 st day of May, 2019

M.V.O.P. No.34 of 2017

Between 

Uppalapati Gangadhara Rao ­­­ Petitioner

AND

1. Vipparla Anandh Kumar

2. Katta Srinivasa Rao

3. The Oriental Insurance Company Limited, rep., by its Divisional Manager, Divisional Office No.2, D.No.40­16­ 8/1, 1st floor, Siddardha Women’s College lane, MG.Road, Labbiupeta, Vijayawada, Krishna District. ­­­ Respondents

This petition came on 5.3.2019 for final hearing before this Tribunal in the presence of Sarvasri. K.Srinivasa Rao and K.V.S.Ram Prasad, advocates, counsels for petitioner, and Sri D.Sambasiva Rao, advocate, counsel for R3, and R1 and R2 remained ex parte, and upon perusing the entire material available on record and the matter having stood over for consideration till this day and today this tribunal passes the following

A W A R D

1.This claim petition is filed under Sec.166 of M.V.Act read with Rule 455 of A.P. M.V. Rules claiming compensation of

Rs.16,00,000/­by the petitioner viz.,Uppalapati 2

Gangadhara Rao for the injuries suffered by him in a motor vehicle accident.

2. The brief facts of the petition are as follows:

The petitioner is residing at Devarapalli village of

W.G.District. He is aged about 63 years. He is an agriculturist having own land of Ac.17.00 and he was also cultivating Ac.14.00 of his daughter, and in total he was cultivating Ac.31.00 and earn more than Rs.5,00,000/­ p.a.

On 23.10.2016 he along with his wife went to Dommeru on their motor cycle. While on their journey, at about 2.30 p.m., when they reached near Devarapalli police station in

Devarapalli village on Kovvur to Gundugolanu road, at the same time R1 being the driver of lorry bearing No.AP 31 TU 1278 which was proceeding in the same direction, drove the same in a rash and negligent manner with high speed and without blowing horn and dashed their motor cycle indiscriminately from behind, as a result, he along with the motor cycle fell down on the road and the wheels of the lorry ran over on his right hand which was completely crushed. He also sustained multiple grievous injuries on all over his body.

His wife was escaped with simple injuries. Immediately he was shifted to Ayush NRI Hospital, Vijayawada and got first­ 3 aid over there and then shifted to Apollo Hospital, Hyderabad for better treatment. He spent huge amounts for his treatment. R2 being the owner of the crime vehicle and R3 being the insurer of the crime vehicle, they are also vicariously liable for the rash and negligent act of R1. Hence, the petition.

3. R1 and R2 remained ex parte. 

4. R3 filed its written statement denying all the material averments of the petition, denying the rash and negligence on the part of R1 and also denying its liability and there are violations of terms and conditions of policy and so, it is not liable to pay any compensation to the petitioner and the petitioner has to prove each and every allegation mentioned in the petition. It is further averred that the petitioner has to prove that R1 is having a valid and effective driving licence to drive the lorry which holds valid R.C., permit and F.C., etc., and the same are in force at the time of the accident. It is also averred that the petitioner has also to prove that he spent huge amounts for his treatment. The said allegations are concocted to get more compensation from this respondent. It is also averred that it is a case of head on collusion between those two above vehicles and that the 4 owner and insurer of the said motor cycle are the proper and necessary parties to the present proceedings and as the present case is non­joinder of parties, the O.P. is liable to be dismissed in limine. It is also averred that the petitioner has also to prove particularly regarding his age, occupation and cultivation of lands and income on those lands and expenditure incurred for his treatment etc., by producing documentary evidence. In any view, the compensation amount claimed by the petitioner is avaricious, arbitrary, untenable and excessive and he is entitled to claim interest @ 6% only from the date of Award. For all the above reasons, it is prayed that the petition is liable to be dismissed against this respondent with costs.

5.On the basis of the above pleadings, the following issues were settled for trial:

1.Whether the accident that occurred on 23.10.2016 at 2.30 p.m., near Devarapalli police station in which the petitioner sustained injuries is due to rash and negligent driving of lorry bearing No.AP 31 TU 1278 by R1?

2.Whether the petitioner is entitled for compensation? If so, how much and from whom ?

3.To what relief ?

5

6.To prove the case of the petitioner, P.Ws.1 to 6 were examined and Exs.A1 to A15 were marked. On behalf of the respondents, R.Ws.1 to 3 were examined and Exs.B1 to B3 were marked. Ex.X1 was marked through witness.

7.R3 filed a petition under Sec.170 of M.V.Act and it was allowed. 

8.Arguments were heard. Written arguments of the petitioner was also filed. 

9. ISSUE No.1:

Petitioner viz., U.Gangadhar Rao examined as P.W.1.

Besides P.Ws.2 to 6 doctors to prove his claim. P.W.1 deposed in the similar lines of petition averments. He deposed that on 23.10.2016 he along with his wife went to

Dommeru on their motor cycle. While on their journey, at about 2.30 p.m., when they reached near Devarapalli police station in Devarapalli village on Kovvur to Gundugolanu road, at the same time R1 being the driver of lorry bearing No.AP 31

TU 1278 which was proceeding in the same direction, drove the same in a rash and negligent manner with high speed and without blowing horn and dashed their motor cycle 6 indiscriminately from behind, as a result, he along with the motor cycle fell down on the road and the wheels of the lorry ran over on his right hand which was completely crushed. He also sustained multiple grievous injuries all over his body.

Immediately he was shifted to Ayush NRI Hospital,

Vijayawada and got first­aid over there and then shifted to

Apollo Hospital, Hyderabad for better treatment. He spent huge amounts for his treatment. He marked Exs.A1 to A3 viz., attested true copies of F.I.R., wound certificate and charge sheet obtained from the criminal case filed against R1 by police. Exs.A4 to A15 are marked to prove the treatment and expenditure incurred by him etc. Though he was cross­ examined at length, nothing was elicited to impeach his evidence in any manner to prove that there was no negligence on the part of R1. His evidence is consistent and reliable and well corroborated by Exs.A1 to A3 which clearly establish that the accident was occurred due to the rash and negligent driving of R1 causing injuries to the petitioner. This issue is answered accordingly.

10. ISSUE No.2:

i) Admittedly R1 is the driver, R2 is the owner of the crime lorry bearing No.AP 31 TU 1278 which was insured 7 with R3 under Ex.B1 package policy. 

ii) It is the case of R3 insurance company that there are violations of terms and conditions of policy and R1 has no driving licence and R2 entrusted the vehicle to R1, who is not competent to drive the lorry and so, it is not liable to pay compensation to the petitioner. To prove their case, R3 examined R.Ws.1 to 3. R.W.1 is Administrative Officer of R3 insurance company. He marked Exs.B1 to B3. Ex.B1 is not in dispute. Ex.B2 is copy of notice issued to the other respondents under Ex.B3 postal acknowledgment, but there was no reply from them. R.W.2­V.Ramakrishna, Sub­

Inspector of Police, Devarapalli P.S. He stated that the vehicle was not sent for Motor Vehicles’ Inspector’s inspection, as crime was registered under Sec.337 IPC., though charge sheet was filed subsequently under Sec.338 IPC. Driving licence of

R1 was not produced during investigation. His evidence reveals that the driver not produced the driving licence during investigation.

iii) The evidence of R.W.3 is important. R.W.3­K.Suresh,

Sr. Assistant in R.T.Os. Office, Markapuram, who marked

Ex.X1­authorization letter to give evidence categorically stated that as per their computer records, R1 was not issued any 8 driving licence and his evidence clinchingly establish that R1 has no driving licence as on the date of the accident, as rightly claimed by R3 insurance company. R1 and R2 remained ex parte and did not choose to produce driving licence of R1 to disprove the evidence of R.Ws.1 to 3.

Therefore, it clearly amounts to violation of terms and conditions of policy and hence, R3 is not liable to pay compensation to the petitioner. 

iv) The learned advocate for the petitioner submitted that it is a fit case to order pay and recovery against R3, as the vehicle was insured and the petitioner suffered serious injuries leading to his disability, though R1 has no driving licence. He relied on a decision of our Hon’ble High Court

in Smt. Susheela V.Pawar vs. Smt. Chintapalli Sarojini

reported in 2018(1) L.S.216, wherein it was held as hereunder:

“Held­Driver had driving licence to drive light motor vehicle and he was driving a heavy goods vehicle –

Not a case where insurer can be made absolutely liable – But it is a case where insurer can be directed to pay and recover compensation from insured –Appeal is allowed in part 9 and Compensation amount awarded by Court below shall be paid by second respondent and then recover from first respondent”. 

In view of the above decision, I am of the considered view that it is a fit case to order pay and recovery against R3 to safeguard the interest of third party petitioner and recover the same from the owner of the vehicle by filing execution petition.

v) The petitioner claimed compensation of

Rs.16,00,000/­ for the injuries suffered by him. To prove his claim, he examined P.Ws.2 to 6 doctors viz., Tharun

Chowdary, M.Shridharan, M.Hari Sharma, Jest Sushma and

B.Parama Geetha respectively besides himself, and marked various medical bills issued by them i.e., for total amount of

Rs.11,91,289/­ covered by Exs.A5 to A11 and A13. The petitioner is entitled for total reimbursement of medical bills.

However, it was round figured to Rs.11,91,000/­. P.W.2­

Dr.T.Chowdary stated that the injured suffered crush injury to the right hand and he was treated by him. P.W.3­Dr.

M.Shridharan performed surgery of plastic surgery and other treatment. He deposed that the whole skin and muscles of 10 the right forearm and hand was totally separated from the body and were seriously contaminated and crushed due to road traffic accident. Petitioner had dislocation of right wrist joint and the fracture of the forearm bones. The blood circulation to the right hand was severally affected. Petitioner was taken for surgery and all contaminated tissues of the right forearm and hand removed and Micro Vascular

Procedure was done to improve circulation of right hand.

Subsequently petitioner last right thumb finger because of accident and unable to move right wrist joint and right hand joints. Functionally P.W.3 could save his right hand but could not restore the functional capacity of right hand. His evidence clearly reveals that with a great difficulty, the petitioner’s right hand was saved without amputation, though they could not restore the total functionality of the right hand leading to deformity. Their evidence is also corroborated by

P.W.4­Dr.M.Hari Sharma, who stated that the petitioner suffered disability of 40%, but it is applicable to the particular limb. P.W.5­Jest Sushma is the doctor, who performed the dressing of the injury till it was healed by visiting the house of the patient. P.W.6­B.Parama Geetha is physiotherapist.

Their evidence corroborates the case of the petitioner. Their evidence clearly reveals that the petitioner suffered grievous 11

crush injury to his right hand, for which he is awarded

Rs.50,000/­. He is awarded Rs.20,000/­ for two simple

injuries, Rs.35,000/­ towards pain and suffering and

Rs.15,000/­ towards transportation and attendant

charges. The petitioner may be earning Rs.10,000/­ p.m.,

though his claim that he was earning Rs.5,00,000/­ p.a.,

is not supported by any evidence as agriculturist. Hence,

he is awarded Rs.40,000/­ towards loss of earnings for

four months. He is aged 62 years. The appropriate multiplier applicable to the petitioner as per the decision of

Hon’ble Supreme Court in Sarala Verma’s case is7. As per

the decision of Hon’ble High Court in A.Chalapati v.

Sathyanarayana N.Nuwal and others reported in 2010(5)

ALT 543 wherein it was held that …“ No basis for rejecting the evidence of

Doctor as regards permanent disability –

Doctor is a qualified Orthopaedic surgeon who treated the appellant­ injured – He categorically deposed that appellant suffered permanent disability to the extent of 20% on account of shortening of leg – Strangely Tribunal rejected the said evidence stating that appellant has not obtained a certificate 12 from Medical Board for obtaining which there is no statutory provision – No reasons given by Tribunal to discredit the evidence of qualified surgeon who conducted the surgery and treated the appellant – Held that appellant is entitled.” ….. 

In view of the above decision, the functional disability of the petitioner arrived at 10%. He is entitled for

compensation of disability and future inconvenience i.e.,

Rs.1,20,000/­ X 7 X 10/100 = Rs.84,000/­. In view of my above finding, the other decisions relied on by the learned advocate for the petitioner raised in the written arguments need not be discussed at length in detail. Ex.A14 photographs reveal that the petitioner left with deformity and right thumb was amputated. He is awarded Rs.1,00,000/­

for loss of future amenities and amputation of thumb.

Thus, the total compensation payable is Rs.15,35,000/­.

Rest of the claim is dismissed. 

11. ISSUE No.3:

In the result, petition is allowed partly with proportionatecostsawardingcompensationof

Rs.15,35,000/­ with future interest at 9 % p.a., from the 13 date of petition till the date of realization payable by R1 and

R2 jointly and severally liable to be deposited within two months. Petition against R3 is dismissed without costs.

However, R3 is directed to pay the compensation at first instance and then recover the same from the owner of the vehicle without filing any suit by filing execution petition.

Petitioner is permitted to withdraw the entire amount, in case of such deposit. Advocate’s fee is fixed at Rs.15,500/­. 

Dictated to the Stenographer Grade­I, transcribed by him, corrected

and pronounced by me in open Court, on this the 1 st day of May, 2019. 

Chairman, Motor Vehicles Accidents claims

Tribunal cum IX Addl. District Judge, 

W.G., at Kovvur. 

APPENDIX

WITNESSES EXAMINED

On behalf of Petitioner:

P.W.1­ U.Gangadhar Rao P.W.2­ Dr.Tharun Chowdary P.W.3­ Dr.M.Shridharan P.W.4­ Dr.M.Hari Sharma P.W.5­ Dr.Jest Sushma P.W.6­ Dr.B.Parama Geetha

On behalf of respondents:

R.W.1­ M.V.Raghavulu R.W.2­ V.Ramakrishna, S.I. of Police. R.W.3­ K.Suresh, Sr. Asst. in R.T.O’s. Office.

DOCUMENTS MARKED

On behalf of Petitioners:

14

Ex.A1 ­ Attested true copy of FIR in Cr.No.257/2016 of Devarapalli P.S. 

Ex.A2 ­ Attested true copy of wound certificate.

Ex.A3 ­ Attested copy charge sheet in Cr.No.257/2016 of Devarapalli P.S. 

Ex.A4 ­ Hospital bills including all services worth Rs.7,85,000/­ for the first admission from 24.10.2016 to 7.11.2016 issued by Apollo Hospital, Hyderabad.

Ex.A5 ­Hospital bills including all services worth Rs.82,847/­ for the second admission from 23.11.2016 to 3.12.2016 issued by Apollo Hospital, Hyderabad.

Ex.A6 ­Hospital bills including all services worth Rs.33,534/­ for the third admission from 3.12.2016 to 3.12.2016 issued by Apollo Hospital, Hyderabad.

Ex.A7 ­Medical bills for dressing, procedure, X­rays and investigation etc., during the follow up worth Rs.8,730/­ issued by Apollo Hospital, Hyderabad 19 in number.

Ex.A8 ­Bills of Pharmacy, OP visit, Oxygen worth Rs.96,967/­.

Ex.A9 ­Hospital bills worth Rs.20,311/­ issued by Aayush NRI Hospital, Vijayawada 4 in number.

Ex.A10­Physiotherapy bills worth Rs.1,09,900/­ issued by Satyam physiotherapy and Pain relief centre, Nidadavole. 

Ex.A11­Dressing charges bills worth Rs.54,000/­ issued by Bulls Hospital, Gopalapuram.

Ex.A12­Discharge summaries three in number issued by Apollo Hospital, Hyderabad.

Ex.A13­Hospital deposited receipts for the first admission. 

15

Ex.A14­Two photographs of the right hand of petitioner­ P.W.1 before and after accident.

Ex.A15­Corresponding C.D. of the photos.

On behalf of respondents:

Ex.B1Copy of package policy.

Ex.B2Office copy of Notice. 

Ex.B3Postal acknowledgment. 

Marked through witness:

Ex.X1Authorization letter.

Chairman, Motor Vehicles Accidents claims

Tribunal cum IX Addl. District Judge

West Godavari at Kovvur  16

1

BEFORE THE MOTOR ACCIDENTS CLAIMS TRIBUNAL CUM IX

ADDITIONAL DISTRICT JUDGE'S COURT : WEST GODAVARI 

AT KOVVUR

Present : Sri V.Venkateswara Rao, Chairman cum IX Additional District Judge,

Friday on this the 3 rd day of May, 2019

M.V.O.P. No.74 of 2017

Between 

1. Tamma Veera Venkata Satya Dhana Pallamraju

2. Tamma Satya Lakshmi Kumari ­­­ Petitioners

AND

1. Shaik Saleem @ Mohammad Saleem

2. Chilaka Venkatareddy

3. The New India Assurance Company Ltd., rep., by its Divisional Manager, Divisional Office, Rajahmundry, E.G.Dt. ­­­ Respondents

This petition came on 26.3.2019 for final hearing before this Tribunal in the presence of Sri. K. Narasimha Rao, advocate, counsel for petitioners, and Sri P.V.N.Muneswara Rao, advocate, counsel for R1 and R2 remained ex parte, and Sri S.V.Ramana, advocate, counsel for R3, and upon perusing the entire material available on record and the matter having stood over for consideration till this day and today this tribunal passes the following

A W A R D

1.This claim petition is filed under Sec.166 of M.V.Act read with

Rule 455 of A.P. M.V. Rules claiming compensation of Rs.10,00,000/­ for the death of deceased Tamma Bapanna, who died in a motor vehicle accident.

2. The brief facts of the petition are as follows:

The 1st petitioner is the father and the 2nd petitioner is the mother of the deceased, who was unmarried. The deceased, who was aged 2 about 18 years completed Intermediate and attended EAMCET examination and waiting for results. On 20.5.2017 early morning the deceased, his father and his relative viz., Satish started at Nalluru to go to Gowripatnam on motor cycle. While on the journey, the deceased was driving the motor cycle on the left side of the road in normal speed and at about 8.15 a.m., when they reached at Gowripatnam on Kovvur to

Eluru road, at the same time, R1 being the driver of Van bearing No.TS 05 UC 1599 drove the same in a rash and negligent manner with high speed and dashed the motor cycle in opposite direction, as a result, they all three members fell on the road and received grievous injuries and the deceased died on the spot. R2 was the owner and R3 was the insurer of the crime vehicle involved in the accident and so, they are also vicariously liable for the rash and negligent driving of R1. Hence, all the respondents are jointly and severally liable to pay compensation to the petitioners.

3.R1 filed his written statement denying all the material allegations in the petition and also denying his rash and negligence. It is further averred that the petitioners have to prove the age of the deceased and studies etc. It is further averred that the deceased and other persons were travelling more than capacity of the two wheeler and so, they violated the rules and regulations and the accident was occurred due to the imbalance of the deceased. It is further averred that the petitioners filed this petition for getting wrongful gain. It is further averred that the claim amount and the subsequent rate of interest at 12% is very excessive and it is not maintainable under law. In any view, the petitioners are entitled to claim interest at 6% p.a. only from the date of 3

Award. It is further averred that if any compensation is payable to the petitioners, that may be payable by R3­insurance company, since the vehicle was insured with R3 and this respondent is having valid and effective driving licence to drive the crime vehicle at the time of the accident. Hence, it is prayed that this petition is liable to be dismissed with costs against this respondent.

4.R3 filed its written statement denying all the material allegations in the petition and also denying the rash and negligence of R1 and also denying its liability claiming that there are violations of terms and conditions of policy. It is further averred that the accident was occurred due to the negligence on the part of motor cycle driver, who died in the accident. It is further averred that the petitioners have to prove strictly the age and studies of the deceased and the petitioners are not entitled to claim the said amount, even otherwise, their claim is too excessive.

It is further averred that it is not true that the said crime vehicle is validly insured with this respondent at the time of the accident and this respondent denied that R1 is having a valid and effective driving licence to drive the crime vehicle. It is further averred that this respondent is not liable to pay any compensation to the petitioners for the death of the deceased in the said motor accident, as the driver of the motor cycle while driving the vehicle came above the road margin along with the pillion rider and they have not followed the road safety precautionary measures. It is further averred that R2 is not having a valid policy which covers all the third party risks at the time of the accident and hence this respondent is not liable to pay any compensation to the petitioners. It is further averred that the petitioners are not entitled to claim interest on non­pecuniary damages. Hence, the petition is liable 4 to be dismissed with costs against this respondent.

5.On the basis of the above pleadings, the following issues were settled for trial:

1.Whether the accident that occurred on 20.5.2017 in which the deceased Tamma Bapanna died due to rash and negligent driving of van bearing No.TS 05 UC 1599 by R1?

2.Whether the petitioners are entitled for compensation? If so, how much and from whom ?

3.To what relief ?

6.To prove the case of the petitioners, PW.1 was examined and

Exs.A1 to A6 were marked. On behalf of the respondents, R.Ws.1 and 2 were examined and Ex.B1 insurance policy was marked. Exs.X1 and X2 were marked through witness.

7. R3 filed a petition under Sec.170 of M.V.Act and it was allowed. 

8.Arguments were heard.

9. ISSUE No.1:

(i) To prove the case of the petitioners, 1st petitioner­T.Veera

Venkata Satya Dhana Pallamraju was examined as PW.1, who is the father of the deceased and injured. He marked Exs.A1 to A5 viz., attested true copies of F.I.R., inquest report, post­mortem report,

M.V.I’s. report and charge sheet obtained from the criminal case filed against R1 by police. Ex.A6 is Intermediate marks­list of the deceased.

(ii) PW.1 deposed in the similar lines of the petition averments 5 stating that on 20.5.2017 he along with another person as pillion riders and his son i.e., the deceased as rider started at Nalluru on motor cycle to go to Gowripatnam Church and while on the journey, at about 8.15 a.m., when they reached near the outskirts of Gowripatnam village, the driver of Eicher van bearing No.TS 05 UC 1599 i.e., R1 drove his van in a rash and negligent manner with high speed and came in wrong direction and dashed their motor cycle in opposite direction, as a result, they all fell on the road and received injuries and his son died on the spot. He was cross­examined at length, but nothing was elicited to impeach his evidence in any manner except suggesting that the accident was occurred due to the rash and negligent driving of the deceased and not due to the negligence of R1, which was categorically denied by

P.W.1. Suggestion denied is no evidence. It is elicited in his cross­ examination that the motor cycle belongs to his nephew, who also sustained injuries in the accident and it was insured. Non­joinder of insurance company of the motor cycle is not fatal to the case of the petitioners, as there was no negligence on the part of the deceased in the accident, as seen from the evidence on record and the accident was occurred due to the rash and negligent driving of R1, who was the driver of Van bearing No.TS 05 UC 1599. The investigation conducted by police after the accident also goes to show that the accident was occurred due to the rash and negligent driving of R1­van driver. The best witness to challenge the evidence of P.W.1 is R1­driver of the van, but he was not examined by the respondents, and it is fatal to the case of the respondents. For the above reasons, I find that the accident was occurred due to the rash and negligent driving of R1­van driver causing 6 death of the deceased, but not due to the negligence of the deceased or due to triple riding. This issue is answered accordingly.

10. ISSUE No.2:

(i) Admittedly R1 is the driver and R2 is the owner of the crime van bearing No.TS 05 UC 1599 which was insured with R3 insurance company under Ex.B1 copy of policy by the date of accident. It covers third party risk of the deceased.

ii) It is the case of R3 insurance company that R1 has no valid driving licence to drive the van and so, it is not liable to pay any compensation due to violations of terms and conditions of policy. To prove their case, they examined R.W.1­P.Sunil Rajiv Kumar,

Administrative Officer of R3 insurance company, but, his evidence is not much helpful to prove the case of R3. He admitted that the vehicle was insured as per Ex.B1 policy with their Company covering third party risk. He also admitted that there was no mention of violation of M.V.Act in the charge sheet filed against R1. The evidence of R.W.2­R.Ramu,

Junior Assistant working in R.T.O’s. Office, Miriyalaguda is important in this case. 

iii) R.W.2­ R.Ramu, Junior Assistant summoned by R3­insurance company marked Ex.X1 authorization letter to give evidence and Ex.X2 driving licence of R1­Md.Saleem. As per Ex.X2, R1 was authorized to drive auto rickshaw for transport, L.M.V. non­transport and he also got heavy driving licence which was issued on 5.7.2013 which was valid by the date of the accident i.e., 20.5.2017. His evidence clearly reveals that 7

R1 was having heavy driving licence even by the date of the accident and there are no violations of terms and conditions of policy as alleged by

R3­insurance company in this case and so, R3 is liable to pay the compensation as per terms of Ex.B1 policy, though all the respondents are jointly and severally liable.

iv) The petitioners are the parents of the deceased, who was aged 18 years by the date of the accident and studied Intermediate, as seen from Ex.A6. The appropriate multiplier applicable to his case as per the decision of Hon’ble Supreme Court in Sarala Verma's case is 18.

Since the deceased completed Intermediate, at least he was capable of earning Rs.5,000/­ p.m., by the date of the accident, equivalent to

Rs.60,000/­ per annum. As per the decision of Hon’ble Supreme Court in National Insurance Company Ltd., v. Pranay Sethi and Others wherein it was held that…

(iii) “While determining the income, and addition of 50% of actual salary to the income of the deceased towards future prospects, where the deceased has a permanent job and was below the age of 40 years, should be made. The addition should be 30%, if the age of the deceased was between 40 to 50 years. In case the deceased was between the age of 50 to 60 years, the addition should be 15%. Actual salary should be read as actual salary less tax. 

(iv) In case the deceased was self­

employed or on a fixed salary, an

addition of 40% of the established

income should be the warrant where the

deceased was below the age of 40 years.

An addition of 25% where the deceased was between the age of 40 to 50 years and 10% where the deceased was between the age of 50 to 60 years should be regarded as the necessary method of computation. The 8 established income means the income minus the tax component”. 

Since the deceased was below the age of 40 years, future prospects of 40% has to be added to arrive at his earnings and then his actual earnings comes to Rs.60,000/­ + Rs.24,000/­ = Rs.84,000/­.

Since the deceased was unmarried, ½ of the amount has to be deducted towards personal expenditure and then his family contribution comes to

Rs.42,000/­. The compensation payable is Rs.42000/­ X 18 =

Rs.7,56,000/­. Besides that, the petitioners are also entitled to

Rs.15,000/­ towards funeral expenses and Rs.15,000/­ towards loss

of estate. The total compensation payable to the petitioners is

Rs.7,86,000/­ payable by R3, though all the respondents are jointly and severally liable. Rest of the claim is dismissed. This issue is answered accordingly.

11 ISSUE No.3:  In the result, petition is allowed partly with proportionate costs awarding compensation of Rs.7,86,000/­ with future interest at 9 % p.a., from the date of petition till the date of realization payable by R3, though all the respondents are jointly and severally liable to be deposited within two months. Rest of the claim is dismissed. Out of such amount, the 1st petitioner­father, is entitled to

Rs.3,00,000/­ and the 2nd petitioner­mother is entitled to Rs.4,86,000/­

Petitioners are permitted to withdraw their amounts. Advocate’s fee fixed at Rs.8,000/­.

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

corrected and pronounced by me in open Court, on this the 3 rd day of May, 2019.

9

Chairman, Motor Vehicles Accidents claims

Tribunal cum IX Addl. District Judge

West Godavari at Kovvur 

APPENDIX

WITNESSES EXAMINED

On behalf of Petitioners:

P.W.1­ T.V.V.S.Dhana Pallamraju

On behalf of respondents:

R.W.1 ­ P.Sunil Rajiv Kumar, A.O. R.W.2 ­ R.Ramu, Jr. Asst. in R.T.O’s. Office. 

DOCUMENTS MARKED

On behalf of Petitioners:

Ex.A1 ­ Attested true copy of FIR in Cr.No.107 of 17 of Devarapalli Police Station.

Ex.A2 ­ Attested true copy of Inquest report. Ex.A3 ­ Attested copy of PME certificate.

Ex.A4 ­ Attested true copy of MVI's report. 

Ex.A5 ­Attested true copy of Charge Sheet filed in Cr.No.107 of 17 of Devarapalli Police Station.

Ex.A6 ­Intermediate marks list of deceased.

On behalf of respondents:

Ex.B1 ­Policy copy along with terms and conditions.

Marked through witness:

Ex.X1 ­Authorization Letter. 

Ex.X2 ­True extract of driving licence of R1. 

Chairman, Motor Vehicles Accidents claims

Tribunal cum IX Addl. District Judge

West Godavari at Kovvur  10 11 12

1

BEFORE THE MOTOR ACCIDENTS CLAIMS TRIBUNAL

CUM IX

ADDITIONAL DISTRICT JUDGE'S COURT : 

WEST GODAVARI AT KOVVUR

Present : Sri V.Venkateswara Rao, Chairman cum IX Additional District Judge,

Thursday on this the 2 nd day of May, 2019

M.V.O.P. No.171 of 2017

Between 

1. Bandili Kumari

2. Bandili Tarun

3. Bandili Madhulatha

(2 nd and 3 rd petitioners being minors, represented by

their mother & natural guardian i.e., 1 st petitioner

herein) ­­­ Petitioners

AND

1. Abdul Raheem

2. Dhanekula Sirisha

3. The Managing Director, A.P.S.R.T.C., Vijayawada, Krishna District. 

4. The National Insurance Company Ltd., Vijayawada, Krishna District. ­­­ Respondents

This petition came on 20.3.2019 for final hearing before this Tribunal in the presence of Sri. M.D.V.Prasad, advocate, counsel for petitioners, and Sri B.Suvarna Raju, advocate, counsel for R1 and R2, Sri A.Pavan Kumar, advocate, counsel for R3, and Sri U.Krishna Rao, advocate, counsel for R4, and upon perusing the entire material available on record and the matter having stood over for consideration till this day and today this Tribunal passes the following 2

A W A R D

1.This claim petition is filed under Sec.166 of M.V.Act read with Rule 455 of A.P. M.V. Rules claiming compensation of

Rs.15,00,000/­ for the death of deceased Bandili Yesu in a motor vehicle accident.

2. The brief facts of the petition are as follows:

The petitioners are the dependants and legal heirs of the deceased. 1st petitioner is the wife. 2nd petitioner is the minor son and 3rd petitioner is minor daughter of the deceased Yesu aged about 44 years. He was a Painter earning Rs.15,000/­ p.m. On 24.9.2017 at about 3.30 p.m., the deceased was walking by the side of the road towards Yernagudem from

Devarapalli and when he reached near Chaitanya Techno

School at the outskirts of Devarapalli village, R1, who is the driver of A.P.S.R.T.C. Hire Bus bearing No.AP 16 TH 1710 proceeding towards Eluru side drove the same in a rash and negligent manner without following the traffic rules and without blowing the horn and dashed the deceased from his back side, as a result, the deceased sustained severe fracture and bleeding injuries on his forehead and other injuries to his entire body. On witnessing the same, the passers viz., 3

Galam Ramalakshmi, Pattem Kasi Viswanadham and others rushed there and got shifted him to the Government hospital,

Rajamahendravaram through 108 ambulance for treatment, where he succumbed to the injuries at about 6.30 p.m., on the same day while undergoing treatment. R1 being the driver, R2 being the owner, R3 who took the crime vehicle on hire and R4 being the insurer of the crime vehicle, they are all jointly and severally liable to pay compensation to the petitioners. Hence, the petition. 

3.R1 filed his counter, which was adopted by R2, denying all the material averments of the petition, denying the rash and negligence on the part of R1 and the accident was occurred due to the negligence of the deceased. It is also alleged in the counter that R1 never drove his vehicle in a rash and negligent manner as alleged by the petitioners and he never dashed the deceased. It is also alleged that the deceased without following the road rules and suddenly fell

before the bus of R1 and hence, R1 is not liable to pay even

single pie to the petitioners towards compensation. It is also alleged that the petitioners did not file any documentary evidence with regard to the earnings of the deceased. It is also alleged that the petitioners claimed the compensation of

Rs.15,00,000/­ which is not fair and excessive, for which the 4 petitioners are not entitled. Hence, it is prayed that the petition may be dismissed with costs.

4. R3 filed his written statement denying all the material averments of the petition, denying the rash and negligence on the part of R1 and the accident was occurred due to the negligence of the deceased. It is also alleged that the petitioners have to prove each and every allegation mentioned in the petition. It is also alleged that this respondent does not admit the age and health condition of the injured at the time of the alleged accident and the petitioners have to prove the same. It is also alleged that it is also clearly mentioned in the

Hire agreement that the owner shall be responsible for all the claims that may arise due to statutory violations out of the operations like claim due to accidents payable under the provisions of M.V.Act, 1988 Rules and APSRTC shall under no circumstances be made liable or responsible to pay compensation that may be awarded by Motor accidents claims tribunal or Tribunals in respect of accidents. It is also alleged that in the event of payment of compensation by APSRTC to the injured persons/dependants of the deceased persons,

APSRTC shall have right to recover the said compensation from the hire bus owner. It is also alleged that it is a hired bus under hire agreement and the owner of the vehicle has to 5 pay emoluments to the driver engaged by him. It is also alleged that the compensation amount claimed by the petitioners to a tune of Rs.15,00,000/­ is highly excessive and exaggerated as there is no proof of income of the deceased. It is also alleged that the interest claimed by the petitioners is highly excessive and the petitioners are not entitled to claim any interest. Hence, it is prayed that the petition is liable to be dismissed.

5.R4 filed its written statement denying all the material averments of the petition, denying the rash and negligence on the part of R1 and the accident was occurred due to the negligence of the deceased. It is also averred that the petitioners have to prove the each and every allegation mentioned in the petition against this respondent. It is also alleged that the deceased was hale and healthy and he is aged about 44 years and earning Rs.15,000/­ p.m., by doing painting work at the time of the accident. It is also alleged that R1 was not having any driving licence at the time of the accident to drive the said hire bus and hence, there is violation of terms and conditions of policy and also the provisions of the M.V.Act and the rules framed there under and hence this respondent is not liable to pay any compensation to the petitioners. It is also alleged that the 6 interest claimed is excessive and usurious and hence it is liable to be dismissed with costs.

6.On the basis of the above pleadings, the following issues were settled for trial:

1.Whether the accident occurred due to rash and negligent driving of R1 driver of APSRTC Hire Bus bearing No.AP 16 TH 1710 causing death of Bandili Yesu?

2.Whether the petitioners are entitled for compensation? If so, how much and from whom ?

3.To what relief ?

7.To prove the case of the petitioners, PWs.1 and 2 were examined and Exs.A1 to A8 were marked. No oral evidence was adduced on behalf of the respondents. On behalf of the respondents, Exs.B1 and B.2 were marked. 

8. R4 filed a petition under Sec.170 of M.V.Act and it was allowed. 

9.Arguments were heard.

10. ISSUE No.1:

(i) P.W.1­B.Kumari is the 1st petitioner i.e., wife of the deceased and marked Exs.A1 to A5 viz., attested true copies 7 of F.I.R., post­mortem report, Motor Vehicles’ Inspector’s report, inquest report and charge sheet obtained from the criminal case filed against R1 by police. Exs.A6 to A8 are relating to the accident vehicle i.e., insurance policy, driving licence of R1 and permit of the bus. She is not an eye­witness to the accident. 

ii) P.W.2­P.Kasi Viswanadham deposed that on 24.9.2017 at about 3.30 p.m., the deceased took the Tayath at Kanaka Durgamma temple near Chaitanya Techno School at the outskirts of Devarapalli village and the deceased went back to his village on foot towards Eluru road, R1, who is the driver of A.P.S.R.T.C. Hire Bus bearing No.AP 16 TH 1710 drove the same in a rash and negligent manner without blowing horn and dashed against the deceased and the deceased sustained multiple and grievous injuries and then himself and one Galam Ramalakshmi and others rushed to the spot and immediately the deceased was shifted to

Government hospital, Rajahmundry by 108 ambulance and later he came to know that the deceased died in the hospital.

The above evidence of PW.2 is consistent and reliable to prove that the accident was occurred due to the rash and negligent driving of R.T.C. hired bus as nothing was elicited to impeach his evidence in any manner. The evidence of P.W.2 is amply 8 corroborated by Exs.A1 to A5, more particularly, Ex.A5 charge sheet filed against R1 under Sec.304A IPC. for causing death of the deceased. The investigation conducted by police after the accident also goes to show that the accident occurred due to the rash and negligent driving of R1­driver of

APSRT Bus bearing No.AP 16 TH 1710 which dashed the deceased from his back side. The best witness to challenge the evidence of P.W.2 is R1­driver of the crime vehicle, but he was not examined by the respondents, and it is fatal to the case of the respondents. Hence, the evidence of P.W.2 clearly establish that the accident was occurred due to the rash and negligent driving of R1­APSRTC bus driver and there was no negligence on the part of the deceased in the accident. This issue is answered accordingly.

11.  ISSUE No.2:

(i) Admittedly R1 is the driver and R2 is the owner of

A.P.S.R.T.C. bus bearing No.AP 16 TH 1710 insured with R4 under Ex.B1 policy and hired with R3­APSRTC. There are no violations of terms and conditions of policy as alleged by R3.

No oral evidence was adduced to prove any of the violations of terms of policy and so, R4 is liable to pay compensation, though the vehicle was hired by APSRTC as per the terms of 9

Ex.B1 policy. Ex.B2 is Hire purchase agreement of

A.P.S.R.T.C.­R3.

ii) The petitioners claimed compensation of Rs.15 lakhs for the death of the deceased Bandili Yesu, aged about 44 years. The claim of the petitioners that the deceased was earning Rs.15,000/­ p.m., as Painter is not supported by any cogent evidence. However, he may be earning Rs.8,000/­ p.m., as Painter equivalent to Rs.96,000/­. The deceased was aged 44 years. The appropriate multiplier applicable to the deceased as per the decision of Hon’ble Supreme Court in

Sarala Verma's case is 14. Since the deceased is below 50 years of age and self employed, future prospects of 25% has to be added to arrive at his earnings and then his earnings comes to Rs.1,20,000/­. Since the deceased is having three dependants i.e., wife and two minor children, 1/3 rd of his

earnings be deducted towards his personal expenditure.

Then his family contribution comes to Rs.80,000/­p.a.

So, the compensation payable is Rs.80,000/­ X 14 =

Rs.11,20,000/­. Besides that, the petitioners are also entitled toRs.15,000/­ towards funeral expenses,

Rs.15,000/­ towards loss of estate and Rs.40,000/­

10 towards loss of consortium to the first petitionerwife of the deceased. The total compensation payable to the petitioners is Rs.11,90,000/­ payable by R4, though all the respondents are jointly and severally liable. Rest of the claim is dismissed. This issue is answered accordingly.

12 ISSUE No.3: In the result, petition is allowed partly with proportionatecostsawardingcompensationof

Rs.11,90,000/­ with future interest at 9 % p.a., from the date of petition till the date of realization payable by R4, though all the respondents are jointly and severally liable to be deposited within two months. Rest of the claim is dismissed. Out of compensation amount of Rs.11,90,000/­,

Rs.7,90,000/­ is awarded to 1 st petitioner­wife, Rs.2 lakhs

to the 2 nd petitioner­minor son and Rs.2 lakhs to the 3 rd

petitioner­minor daughter.  The 1st petitioner is permitted to withdraw her entire amount, in case of such deposit. The amount of 2nd and 3rd petitioner minors shall be kept in fixed deposit receipt in any Nationalized bank till they attain majority. The 1st petitioner is permitted to withdraw the accrued interest on the fixed deposit receipt of both the minors every year to meet their maintenance expenditure.

Advocate’s fee fixed at Rs.12,000/­. The petitioners are 11 directed to pay the Court fee immediately. 

Dictated to the Stenographer Grade-I, transcribed by

him, corrected and pronounced by me in open Court, on this the 2 nd day of May, 2019.

Chairman, Motor Vehicles Accidents claims

Tribunal cum IX Addl. District Judge

West Godavari at Kovvur 

APPENDIX

WITNESSES EXAMINED

On behalf of Petitioners:

P.W.1­ B.Kumari P.W.2­ P.Kasi Viswanadham

On behalf of respondents: None 

DOCUMENTS MARKED

On behalf of Petitioners:

Ex.A1 ­ Attested true copy of FIR in Cr.No.199 of 17 of Devarapalli Police Station.

Ex.A2 ­ Attested true copy of Post­mortem report. Ex.A3 ­ Attested copy of MVI's report.

Ex.A4 ­ Attested true copy of inquest report. 

Ex.A5 ­Attested true copy of Charge Sheet filed in Cr.No.199/172 of 2017 of Devarapalli P.S.

Ex.A6 ­Insurance policy. 

Ex.A7 ­Driving licence of 1st respondent. 

Ex.A8 ­Permit of APSRTC hire bus bearing No.AP 16 TH 1710. 

On behalf of respondents:

12

Ex.B1 ­Attested cop of policy.(marked by consent).

Ex.B2 ­Hire purchase agreement of the bus bearing No.AP 16 TH 1710.

Chairman, Motor Vehicles Accidents claims

Tribunal cum IX Addl. District Judge

West Godavari at Kovvur 

1

BEFORE THE MOTOR ACCIDENTS CLAIMS TRIBUNAL CUM IX

ADDITIONAL DISTRICT JUDGE'S COURT : WEST GODAVARI 

AT KOVVUR

Present : Sri V.Venkateswara Rao, Chairman cum IX Additional District Judge,

Friday on this the 3 rd day of May, 2019

M.V.O.P. No.75 of 2017

Between 

Tamma Veera Venkata Satya Dhana Pallamraju ­­­ Petitioner

AND

1. Shaik Saleem @ Mohammad Saleem

2. Chilaka Venkatareddy

3. The New India Assurance Company Ltd., rep., by its Divisional Manager, Divisional Office, Rajahmundry, E.G.Dt. ­­­ Respondents

This petition came on 26.3.2019 for final hearing before this Tribunal in the presence of Sri. K. Narasimha Rao, advocate, counsel for petitioners, and Sri P.V.N.Muneswara Rao, advocate, counsel for R1 and R2 remained ex parte, and Sri S.V.Ramana, advocate, counsel for R3, and upon perusing the entire material available on record and the matter having stood over for consideration till this day and today this tribunal passes the following

A W A R D

1.This claim petition is filed under Sec.166 of M.V.Act read with

Rule 455 of A.P. M.V. Rules claiming compensation of Rs.1,00,000/­ by the petitioner viz., Tamma Veera Venkata Satya Dhana Pallamraju for the injuries suffered by him in a motor vehicle accident.

2. The brief facts of the petition are as follows:

The petitioner, who is a Weaver and who is aged about 50 years by the date of the accident used to earn Rs.10,000/­ p.m. On 20.5.2017 2 early morning the petitioner and his relative viz., Satish as pillion riders and his son as rider started at Nalluru to go to Gowripatnam on motor cycle. While on the journey, the son of the petitioner was driving the motor cycle on the left side of the road in normal speed and at about 8.15 a.m., when they reached at Gowripatnam on Kovvur to Eluru road, at the same time, R1 being the driver of Van bearing No.TS 05 UC 1599 drove the same in a rash and negligent manner with high speed and dashed the motor cycle in opposite direction, as a result, they all three members fell on the road and received grievous injuries and the son of the petitioner died on the spot. The petitioner spent huge amount for his treatment. R2 was the owner and R3 was the insurer of the crime vehicle involved in the accident and so, they are also vicariously liable for the rash and negligent driving of R1. Hence, all the respondents are jointly and severally liable to pay compensation to the petitioners.

3.R1 filed his written statement denying all the material allegations in the petition and also denying his rash and negligence. It is further averred that the petitioner has to prove each and every allegation mentioned in the petition. It is further averred that the petitioner filed this petition for getting wrongful gain. It is further averred that in any view, the petitioner is entitled to claim interest at 6% p.a. only from the date of Award. It is further averred that if any compensation is payable to the petitioner, that may be payable by R3­insurance company, since the vehicle was insured with R3 and this respondent is having valid and effective driving licence to drive the crime vehicle at the time of the accident. Hence, it is prayed that this petition is liable to be dismissed with costs against this respondent.

3

4.R3 filed its written statement denying all the material allegations in the petition and also denying the rash and negligence of R1 and also denying its liability claiming that there are violations of terms and conditions of policy. It is further averred that the accident was occurred due to the negligence on the part of motor cycle driver, who died in the accident. It is further averred that the petitioner has to prove each and every allegation mentioned in the petition, more particularly, his earning capacity etc. It is also averred that the petitioner is not entitled to claim the said amount, even otherwise, his claim is too excessive. It is further averred that it is not true that the said crime vehicle is validly insured with this respondent at the time of the accident and this respondent denied that R1 is having a valid and effective driving licence to drive the crime vehicle. It is further averred that this respondent is not liable to pay any compensation to the petitioner for his injuries in the said motor accident, as the driver of the motor cycle while driving the vehicle came above the road margin along with the pillion riders and they have not followed the road safety precautionary measures. It is further averred that the R2 is not having a valid policy which covers all the third party risks at the time of the accident and hence this respondent is not liable to pay any compensation to the petitioner.

Hence, the petition is liable to be dismissed with costs against this respondent.

5.On the basis of the above pleadings, the following issues were settled for trial:

1.Whether the accident that occurred on 20.5.2017 at 4 about 8.15 a.m., near Gowripatnam village in which petitioner sustained injuries is due to rash and negligent driving of van bearingNo.TS 05 UC 1599 by R1?

2.Whether the petitioner is entitled for compensation? If so, how much and from whom ?

3.To what relief ?

6.To prove the case of the petitioner, PW.1 was examined besides

P.W.2 doctor and Exs.A1 to A6 were marked. On behalf of the respondents, R.Ws.1 and 2 were examined and Ex.B1 insurance policy was marked. Exs.X1 to X3 were marked through witness.

7. R3 filed a petition under Sec.170 of M.V.Act and it was allowed. 

8.Arguments were heard.

9. ISSUE No.1: 

(i)To prove the case of the petitioner, petitioner­T.Veera Venkata

Satya Dhana Pallamraju himself was examined as PW.1. He marked

Exs.A1 to A4 viz., attested true copies of F.I.R., wound certificate,

M.V.I’s. report and charge sheet obtained from the criminal case filed against R1 by police. Ex.A5 is bunch of medical bills and Ex.A6 is two scan films.

(ii) PW.1 deposed in the similar lines of the petition averments stating that on 20.5.2017 he along with another person as pillion riders and his son i.e., the deceased in the accident as rider started at Nalluru on motor cycle to go to Gowripatnam Church and while on the journey, at about 8.15 a.m., when they reached near the outskirts of

Gowripatnam village, the driver of Eicher van bearing No.TS 05 UC 1599 5 i.e., R1 drove his van in a rash and negligent manner with high speed and came in wrong direction and dashed their motor cycle in opposite direction, as a result, they all fell on the road and received injuries and his son died on the spot. He was cross­examined at length, but nothing was elicited to impeach his evidence in any manner except suggesting that the accident was occurred due to the rash and negligent driving of his deceased son and not due to the negligence of R1, which was categorically denied by P.W.1. Suggestion denied is no evidence. It is elicited in his cross­examination that the motor cycle belongs to his nephew, who also sustained injuries in the accident and it was insured.

Non­joinder of insurance company of the motor cycle is not fatal to the case of the petitioner, as there was no negligence on the part of his deceased son in the accident, as seen from the evidence on record and the accident was occurred due to the rash and negligent driving of R1, who was the driver of Van bearing No.TS 05 UC 1599. The investigation conducted by police after the accident also goes to show that the accident was occurred due to the rash and negligent driving of R1­van driver. The best witness to challenge the evidence of P.W.1 is R1­driver of the van, but he was not examined by the respondents, and it is fatal to the case of the respondents. For the above reasons, I find that the accident was occurred due to the rash and negligent driving of R1­van driver causing death of his deceased son and injuries to him and another person, but not due to the negligence of his deceased son or due to triple riding. This issue is answered accordingly.

10. ISSUE No.2:

(i) Admittedly R1 is the driver and R2 is the owner of the crime 6 van bearing No.TS 05 UC 1599 which was insured with R3 insurance company under Ex.B1 copy of policy by the date of accident. It covers third party risk of the injured.

ii) It is the case of R3 insurance company that R1 has no valid driving licence to drive the van and so, it is not liable to pay any compensation due to violations of terms and conditions of policy. To prove their case, they examined R.W.1­P.Sunil Rajiv Kumar,

Administrative Officer of R3 insurance company, but, his evidence is not much helpful to prove the case of R3. He admitted that the vehicle was insured as per Ex.B1 policy with their Company covering third party risk. He also admitted that there was no mention of violation of M.V.Act in the charge sheet filed against R1. The evidence of R.W.2­R.Ramu,

Junior Assistant working in R.T.O’s. Office, Miriyalaguda is important in this case. 

iii) R.W.2­ R.Ramu, Junior Assistant summoned by R3­insurance company marked Ex.X2 authorization letter to give evidence and Ex.X3 driving licence of R1­Md.Saleem. As per Ex.X3, R1 was authorized to drive auto rickshaw for transport, L.M.V. non­transport and he also got heavy driving licence which was issued on 5.7.2013 which was valid by the date of the accident i.e., 20.5.2017. His evidence clearly reveals that

R1 was having heavy driving licence even by the date of the accident and there are no violations of terms and conditions of policy as alleged by

R3­insurance company in this case and so, R3 is liable to pay the compensation as per terms of Ex.B1 policy, though all the respondents are jointly and severally liable.

7 iv) The petitioner claimed Rs.1,00,000/­ for the injuries suffered by him. To prove his injuries, P.W.2­Dr.R.V.Ravi, Neurosurgeon examined. He deposed that the petitioner suffered head injury and

Ex.A2 wound certificate was issued by their hospital. Ex.A5 are bunch of medical bills and Ex.A6 are two scan films related to the petitioner marked and the injury is simple in nature. The petitioner is entitled to total reimbursement of medical bills covered by Ex.A5 of Rs.17,516/­ and it was round figured to Rs.17,500/­. He was investigated with various tests due to head injury. Luckily, there were no fractures, though he suffered head injury which was sutured. He is awarded

Rs.15,000/­ for the sutured head injury, Rs.10,000/­ for pain and

suffering and Rs.2,500/­ towards transportation and attendant

charges. Thus, the total compensation payable to the petitioner is

Rs.45,000/­ by R3.  Though the injury said to be simple in nature, but he suffered critical head injury which was sutured and causing lot of mental tension to him and his family till investigation revealed that there was no internal damage due to head injury. Thus, the total compensation payable to the petitioner is Rs.45,000/­ payable by

R3, though all the respondents are jointly and severally liable. Rest of the claim is dismissed. This issue is answered accordingly.

11 ISSUE No.3:  In the result, petition is allowed partly with proportionate costs awarding compensation of Rs.45,000/­ with future interest at 9 % p.a., from the date of petition till the date of realization payable by R3, though all the respondents are jointly and severally liable to be deposited within two months. Rest of the claim is 8 dismissed. Petitioner is permitted to withdraw the entire amount.

Advocate’s fee fixed at Rs.1,500/­.

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

corrected and pronounced by me in open Court, on this the 3 rd day of May, 2019.

Chairman, Motor Vehicles Accidents claims

Tribunal cum IX Addl. District Judge

West Godavari at Kovvur 

APPENDIX

WITNESSES EXAMINED

On behalf of Petitioners:

P.W.1­ T.V.V.S.Dhana Pallamraju P.W.2­ Dr.R.V.Ravi

On behalf of respondents:

R.W.1 ­ P.Sunil Rajiv Kumar, A.O. R.W.2 ­ R.Ramu, Jr. Asst. in R.T.O’s. Office. 

DOCUMENTS MARKED

On behalf of Petitioners:

Ex.A1 ­ Attested true copy of FIR in Cr.No.107 of 17 of Devarapalli Police Station.

Ex.A2 ­ Attested true copy of wound certificate.

Ex.A3 ­ Attested copy of MVI's report. 

Ex.A4 ­Attested true copy of Charge Sheet filed in Cr.No.107 of 17 of Devarapalli Police Station.

Ex.A5 ­Bunch of medical bills worth Rs.17,516/­. 

Ex.A6 ­Two scan films. 

On behalf of respondents:

9

Ex.B1 ­Attested copy of policy.

Marked through witness:

Ex.X1 ­Case sheet.

Ex.X2 ­Authorization letter. 

Ex.X3 ­True extract of driving licence of R1. 

Chairman, Motor Vehicles Accidents claims

Tribunal cum IX Addl. District Judge

West Godavari at Kovvur  10