1
IN THE COURT OF THE CHAIRMAN, MOTOR ACCIDENTS CLAIMS
TRIBUNAL
(BEFORE THE IV ADDL. DISTRICT JUDGE, ANANTHAPURAMU)
Present:- Smt P.Kamala Devi, Chairman-cum-VIII Addl. District Judge, Ananthapuramu FAC IV Addl. District Judge, Ananthapuramu
Friday, the 1st day of February, 2019
M.V.O.P. No.572/2015
Between :
1.Chennampalli Narasaiah
2.Chennampalli Nagalakshmamma … Petitioners
and
1.Kummara Ajaya Kumar
2.ICICI Lombard General Insurance Co. Ltd., Mumbai
3.K.Murali… Respondents
This petition coming on 3.1.2019 for final hearing before me in the presence of Sri K.Nagi Reddy, Advocate for the petitioners and of
Sri G.Seetharama Rao, Advocate for 2nd respondent, the respondents 1 and 3 having been called absent and set exparte, this matter having stood over till this day for consideration, this Court delivered the following:-
O R D E R
This claim petition has been filed u/s 140 and 166 of M.V.
Act 1988 and Rule 455 of A.P. Motor Vehicles Rules 1989 on behalf of legal representatives of Late C.Rayal Babu (hereinafter referred to as ‘deceased’) with a prayer to pass a decree in favour of petitioners and against respondents for payment of compensation of Rs.10,00,000/- together with interest from the date of accident till the date of payment and for costs of the petition.
2
2.THE MATERIAL AVERMENTS OF THE CLAIM PETITION IN
BRIEF ARE AS FOLLOWS:-
Petitioner No.1 is the father and 2nd petitioner is the mother of
Late C.Rayal Babu (hereinafter referred to as ‘deceased’). The deceased who was 24 years old was hale and healthy at the time of accident. He was a bright and intelligent man and completed his graduation in Commerce and later completed professional course in
Chartered Accounts and was working as Chartered Account privately and was earning Rs.20,000/- per month. On 23.6.2015 at about 7.45 p.m., the deceased was started in his village Chinnamatla Gondi in his motorcycle bearing No. AP-02-AT-5134 and one Jogi Narayanaswamy and Nagalingeswaraiah of his village in another motorcycle in order to go to Ananthapuramu. At about 8.45 p.m. when the said two motorcycles of the deceased and Jogi Narayanaswamy reached near
Shirdi Saibaba Kalyanamantapam at Bukkarayasamudram on Tadipatri – Ananthapuramu road, the motorcycle of the deceased was going ahead of the motorcycle of Jogi Narayanaswamy and
Nagalingeswaraiah, the deceased was going slowly, carefully by following all traffic rules and by applying signal lights, at that time an auto bearing No. AP-02-TB-9978 came into opposite direction i.e., from
Ananthapuramu side, driven by its driver i.e., the 3rd respondent herein in a rash, negligent, in high speed, in zig zag manner, without following traffic rules and without applying dim and dip lights to the opposite vehicles and dashed the motorcycle of the deceased. As a result the deceased received grievous bleeding head injuries and fell down at the spot and lost his unconscious. Immediately the deceased was shifted to Government Hospital, Ananthapuramu where the doctors examined and declared as brought dead. The petitioners 3 spent an amount of Rs.50,000/- towards transportation and funeral expenses. The accident occurred only due to the rash and negligent driving of the driver of the auto bearing No. AP-02-TB-9978 i.e., the 3rd respondent.
A case has been registered in Cr.No.104/2015 of
Bukkarayasamudram PS u/s.337 and 304-A IPC was registered against the driver of the said auto. Due to the accident, the petitioners have lost their only son and suffered lot of mental agony and pain and shock. The 1st respondent is the owner, 2nd respondent is the insurer and the 3rd respondent is the driver of auto bearing No. AP-02-TB-9978.
Hence all the respondents are jointly and severally liable to pay the compensation. Hence, the petition.
3.2nd respondent filed counter denying most of the allegations mentioned in the petition and submitted as follows,
The alleged accident occurred due to sheer rash and negligent driving of the deceased who was riding the motorcycle without holding valid and subsisting driving license to drive the same, but not by the driver of the offending auto bearing No. AP-02-TB-9978, but the petitioner did not add the insured and insurer of the motorcycle. Hence this petition is bad for non-joinder of parties. The driver of the auto was driving the same in a slow and meticulous manner by following the rules of the road. Hence the mishap was occurred due to sheer rash and negligent driving of the deceased only.
The offending auto is a passenger carrying commercial vehicle and hence the 3rd respondent should hold AR (T) license with badge at the material time of the alleged accident, he was driving the auto with invalid driving license. Hence the insurance company is not liable and 4 the 1st respondent is alone liable to pay the compensation. The owner of the crime vehicle should hold valid and subsisting permit at the time of the accident as per section 66 of Motor Vehicles Act, . Section 134 of Motor Vehicles Act mandates the driver and the owner of the crime vehicle to furnish the vehicular particulars of the vehicle, driving license of the driver, date, time and place of accident and particulars of the person injured or killed, to the insurer of the vehicle, but neither the driver nor the insured has complied the said provisions. Hence the petition is liable to be dismissed for non-compliance of the said section. As per section 158(6), the police officer concerned shall forward all the criminal case records concerned within 30 days from the date of information, but the police did not comply the said demand. The claim of the petitioner is highly excessive, exorbitant and exaggerated. The petitioners are not entitled to claim interest for non-pecuniary damages. The interest claimed is excessive and contrary to the section 2(b) and 3 of Interest Act and it has to be paid in accordance with the directions issued by RBI under Banking
Regulations Act. Hence he prays to dismiss the petition.
4.Considering the above said pleadings the following issues are settled for trial.
1.Whether the deceased Chennampalli Rayal Babu received injuries in motor vehicle accident on 23.6.2015 at about 8.45 p.m. near Shirdi Saibaba
Kalyanamantapam, Bukkarayasamudram village on
Ananthapuramu – Tadipatri road due to rash and negligent driving of driver of crime auto bearing
No. AP-02-TB-9978 ?
2. Whether the petitioners are entitled to receive compensation, if so to what extent and from whom ?
5
3. To what relief?
5.During the course of trial 1st petitioner himself was examined as P.W.1 and he examined one person who is said to be eye witness to the accident as PW.2 besides marking Exs.A.1 to A.10.
Manager (Legal) in R2 company is examined as R.W.1 and he examined Record Assistant in DTC Office, Ananthapuramu as R.W.2, besides marking Ex.B1 and Ex.X1 and X2.
6.Heard both sides and perused the record.
7.ISSUE No.1:-The case of petitioners in brief is as follows,
On 23.6.2015 at about 7.45 p.m., the deceased C.Rayal Babu started in his village Chinnamatla Gondi in his motorcycle bearing No. AP-02-
AT-5134 and one Jogi Narayanaswamy and Nagalingeswaraiah of their village in another motorcycle in order to go to Ananthapuramu and at about 8.45 p.m. when the said two motorcycles reached near Shirdi
Saibaba Kalyanamantapam at Bukkarayasamudram on Tadipatri –
Ananthapuramu road, the motorcycle of the deceased was going ahead of the motorcycle of Jogi Narayanaswamy and
Nagalingeswaraiah, the deceased was going slowly, carefully by following all traffic rules and by applying signal lights, at that time an auto bearing No. AP-02-TB-9978 came into opposite direction i.e., from
Ananthapuramu side, driven by its driver i.e., the 3rd respondent herein in a rash, negligent, in high speed, in zig zag manner, without following traffic rules and without applying dim and dip lights to the opposite vehicles and dashed the motorcycle of the deceased. As a result the deceased received grievous bleeding head injuries and fell down at the spot and lost his conscious. Then the deceased was 6 shifted to Government Hospital, Ananthapuramu where the doctors examined and declared as he was brought dead. The accident was occurred only due to the rash and negligent driving of the driver of the auto.
8.The case of contesting 2nd respondent is as follows:-
The alleged accident occurred due to sheer rash and negligent driving of the deceased who was riding the motorcycle without holding valid and subsisting driving license to drive the same, but not by the driver of the offending auto bearing No. AP-02-TB-9978, but the petitioner did not add the insured and insurer of the motorcycle.
Hence this petition is bad for non-joinder of parties.
9.In order to prove the case of petitioners, 1st petitioner herself was examined as P.W.1 and examined one other witness who is said to be eye witness as PW.2 and marked Exs.P1 to P10.
10.P.W.1 swore in his chief affidavit in the same lines of petition averments. P.W.2 swore in his chief affidavit in the same lines of petition averments. Coming to cross-examination of PW.1, there was no cross-examination to PW.1 by the counsel for the 2nd respondent challenging the contents mentioned in Exs.A1 to A5. He denied the suggestions put to him by the counsel for the 2nd respondent that there was negligence on the part of the deceased and that there was no negligence on the part of the driver of the crime vehicle in causing the accident. Nothing was elicited from the cross- examination of PW.2 to challenge the manner of the accident or to prove that the accident was caused due to negligence on the part of the deceased, but not on the part of the driver of the crime vehicle.
7
The documents under Exs.A1 to A4 remains unchallenged. So the contents therein can safely be relied upon. The oral evidence of PWs.1 and 2 coupled with Exs.A1 to A4 clearly proves that the accident was caused due to the negligence on the part of the crime vehicle. As seen from Ex.A1, it shows that the manner of the accident is mentioned as spoken by PWs.1 and 2. The oral evidence of PWs.1 and 2 and Exs.A1 to A4 proves that the accident was caused due to the rash and negligent driving of the crime vehicle and that due to the accident the deceased sustained injuries and died. Hence I hold that the deceased Chennampalli Rayal Babu received injuries in motor vehicle accident on 23.6.2015 at about 8.45 p.m. near Shirdi Saibaba
Kalyanamantapam, Bukkarayasamudram village on Ananthapuramu –
Tadipatri road due to rash and negligent driving of driver of crime auto bearing No. AP-02-TB-9978. Accordingly this issue is answered.
11.ISSUE No.2:-It is the case of the petitioners that the deceased C.Rayal Babu was hale and healthy and aged 24 years at the time of accident. He was a bachelor. He was a bright and intelligent man and completed his graduation in Commerce and later completed professional course in Chartered Accounts and was working as
Chartered Accountant privately and was earning Rs.20,000/- per month. They are the parents of the deceased. The deceased was only earning member and contributing his income for the welfare of his family. Due to sudden demise of the deceased, they lost their earning member, love and affection and there are none to look after them and they were completely thrown into streets. Thus they are entitled to claim compensation of Rs.10,00,000/- and all the respondents are liable to pay the said compensation.
8
12.In order to prove the case of the petitioners, the 1st petitioner himself was examined as PW.1 and he filed Exs.A6 to A10.
PW.1 swore in his chief affidavit in the same lines of the petition averments. As seen from Ex.A8, Provisional certificate cum consolidated marks Memorandum, it shows that the deceased completed B.Com course in April 2012. As seen from Ex.A9 appointment letter issued by Bartronics India Limited, Hyderabad, it shows that the deceased was appointed as Accounts Executive for annual salary of Rs.1,31,300/-. As seen from Ex.A10 it shows that the deceased passed proficiency test in the month of Dec-2009. So, as seen from Ex.A6 to A9, it appears that the deceased completed B-Com
Degree and was studying Chartered Accountant course during the time he died in the accident. Considering the deceased C.Royal Babu was a meritorious student, after completing CA course, he would have got job in any government or public sector undertaking, even if he failed to complete CA course, he would certainly get a job either in private sector or public sector as an accountant or Assistant Accountant and he would get salary of Rs.10,000/- per month in view of findings in 2014 ACJ 2543, the Hon’ble High Court of Delhi also considered that the deceased was a meritorious student and after completing his graduation he would get a job either in Government or in Public sector and she would get Rs.10,000/- per month. In view of the observations in the above decision, I considered the salary of the deceased as
Rs.10,000/- per month as the deceased in the present case is also a meritorious student as per the evidence on record. If the loss of dependency on the basis of the potential income of Rs.10,000/- converts into the annual income, it comes to Rs.1,20,000/- . 50% of income should be deducted towards his personal and living expenses 9 as per the decision reported in 2009(3) ALD 83 SC., as the deceased is a bachelor. Then it comes to Rs.60,000/- (1,20,000 – 60,000). There is no dispute regarding the age of the deceased is 24 years.
Considering the age of the deceased as 24 years, multiplier ‘18’ is applicable to a person aged 24 years as per the decision in Smt.
Sarla Verma and others Vs. Delhi Transport Corporation and
another (2009 Acci.C.R.670 (S.C.). On multiplication of annual loss of dependency of Rs.60,000/- by multiplier 18, total loss of dependency comes to Rs.10,80,000/-.
13.Apart from said amount, the petitioners are entitled to
Rs.10,000/- towards funeral expenses and Rs.25,000/- towards loss of love and affection as per decision reported in 2014 ACJ 2543. Thus they are entitled to total compensation of Rs.11,15,000/-. Though the petitioners claimed compensation of Rs.10,00,000/-, this court is competent to award more compensation then the amount claimed in the petition in view of the finding in the decision reported in 2014 (3)
ALT 555 subject to payment of excess court fee for the compensation awarded more than the amount claimed by the petitioners.
14.Coming to the persons who are liable to pay the compensation, it is the case of the contesting 2nd respondent that the driver of the crime vehicle was not having valid driving license, hence it amounts to violation of policy conditions, thus the 2nd respondent is not liable to pay compensation and R1 and R3 are alone liable to pay compensation. In order to prove the case of the 2nd respondent, the
Manager of the 2nd respondent is examined as RW.1 and he examined the Record Assistant in DTC, Ananthapuramu as RW.2 and marked
Exs.B1 and X1 and X2. RW.2 categorically deposed in his chief 10 examination that Ex.X2 is the driving license extract of Kummara
Murali, s/o Pullanna (R3) and that as per Ex.X2, the 3rd respondent is authorized to drive Auto rickshaw non-transport and LMV non-transport and that R3 should possess auto rickshaw transport category license and badge to drive the passenger carrying commercial auto. In the cross-examination of RW.2, he deposed that to drive auto rickshaw transport no specific skills are required.
15.The learned counsel for contesting 2nd respondent argued that the evidence of R.W.1 coupled with Ex.X.2 clearly shows that the 3rd respondent driver was not having valid driving license at the time of the accident, thus the 2nd respondent is not liable to pay compensation.
16.On the other hand, the learned counsel for the petitioners submitted arguments that the driver having license to drive such transport vehicle on LMV class and there is no necessity to obtain separate endorsement, hence there is no violation of conditions of
Ex.B1 policy. Thus the 2nd respondent-company is liable to pay compensation. In 2018 SAR Civil 78, it was held that the holder of license for LMV can drive transport vehicle without any endorsement and in that case, the Hon’ble apex Court held that insurance company is also liable to pay compensation along with owner and driver of the crime vehicle. I am of view that the principles in the above decision are applicable to the present facts on hand as the facts and circumstances of case in both the cases are one and the same. In view of the findings in the above decision, I am of the view that the 3rd respondent driver is permitted to drive the crime Auto rickshaw with
Ex.X2 LMV driving license and that there is no violation of conditions of 11 policy. Therefore, I am of the view that the 2nd respondent-company is liable to pay compensation along with the respondents 1 and 3, who are owner and driver of the crime vehicle and that their liability is joint and several. Thus I hold that the petitioners are entitled to claim compensation of Rs.11,15,000/- from the respondents 1 to 3. Out of said compensation amount, each petitioner is entitled to a sum of
Rs.5,57,500/- together with accrued interest thereon at the rate of 7.5% per annum from the date of petition till date of deposit.
Accordingly this issue is answered.
17.ISSUE No.3:- In view of finding on Issue Nos.1 and 2 as mentioned above, this petition shall be allowed with costs awarding compensation of Rs.11,15,000/- out of which each petitioner is entitled to a sum of Rs.5,57,500/-, payable by respondents 1 to 3 together with accrued interest thereon at the rate of 7.5% per annum from the date of petition till the date of deposit with joint and several liability.
Respondents 1 to 3 are directed to deposit said compensation amount together with accrued interest thereon and costs of petition within 30 days from this day. On deposit of said compensation amount petitioners 1 and 2 are entitled to withdraw 50% of the compensation amount and accrued interest thereon and the entire costs of petition payable to them. The remaining balance compensation amount and accrued interest thereon payable to them shall be deposited in any nationalized bank for a period of 2 years.
18.In the result, this petition is allowed with costs awarding compensation of Rs.11,15,000/- out of which each petitioner is entitled to a sum of Rs.5,57,500/- payable by respondents 1 to 3 together with 12 accrued interest thereon at the rate of 7.5% per annum from the date of petition till the date of deposit with joint and several liability.
Respondents 1 to 3 are directed to deposit said compensation amount together with accrued interest thereon and costs of petition within 30 days from this day. On deposit of said compensation amount petitioners 1 and 2 are entitled to withdraw 50% of the compensation amount and accrued interest thereon and the entire costs of petition payable to them. The remaining balance compensation amount and accrued interest thereon payable to them shall be deposited in any nationalized bank for a period of 2 years. Advocate fee is fixed at
Rs.10,000/-.
The petitioners are directed to pay excess Court fee on
Rs.1,15,000/-. On such payment, the office, is directed to draw the decree.
Dictated to the Stenographer and transcribed by him, corrected
and pronounced by me in open Court this the 1st day of February, 2019.
CHAIRMAN,
MOTOR ACCIDENTS CLAIMS TRIBUNAL,
(VIII ADDL. DISTRICT JUDGE), ANANTHAPURAMU.
FAC IV ADDL. DIST & SESSIONS JUDGE,
ANANTHAPURAMU.
Appendix of evidence Witnesses examined for
PETITIONERS RESPONDENTS
PW.1 : Chennampalli Narasaiah.RW.1: Md. Babu
PW.2 :Jogi Narayana Swamy.RW.2: B.Gowri Sankar 13
EXHIBITS MARKED FOR PETITIONERS
Ex.A.1 : Attested copy of FIR in Cr.No.104/2015 of Bukkarayasamudram PS
Ex.A.2 : Attested copy of inquest report of the deceased.
Ex.A.3 : Attested copy of post mortem certificate of the deceased.
Ex.A.4 : Attested copy of MVI report in Cr.No.104/2015 of Bukkarayasamudram PS
Ex.A.5 : Attested copy of charge sheet in Cr.No.104/2015 of Bukkarayasamudram PS.
Ex.A.6 : Attested copy of SSC certificate of the deceased.
Ex.A.7: Attested copy of Intermediate Pass Certificate-cum- Memorandum of Marks of the deceased.
Ex.A.8: Attested copy of B.Com degree Provisional Pass Certificate- cum-Consolidated Marks Memorandum of the deceased.
Ex.A.9: Attested copy of Office letter as “Accounts Executive” of the deceased.
Ex.A.10: Online copy of the Institute of Chartered Accountants of India Examination Results, December 2009.
EXHIBITS MARKED FOR RESPONDENTS
Ex.B.1: Attested copy of Insurance policy.
X-Series:
Ex.X1: Authorisation letter, dt.5.12.2018.
Ex.X2: Driving license extract of Kummara Murali, s/o Pullanna.
CHAIRMAN/IV ADJ,
MOTOR ACCIDENTS CLAIMS TRIBUNAL.