VACANT FAC Sri Putta Mrali Mohana Reddy, III ADJ

1

IN THE COURT OF THE MOTOR ACCIDENTS CLAIMS TRIBUNAL

ANANTAPURAMU

PRESENT: SRI PUTTA MRALI MOHANA REDDY

III ADDL. DIST. JUDGE, FAC: IV ADDL. DIST. JUDGE

FRIDAY, THE 11 TH DAY OF MAY, 2018

ORIGINAL PETITION NO.99/2016

Between:- Kappala Kuruba Muddanna … Petitioner

And

1)Chinna Jutur Ashmit Reddy

2)The Divisional Manager, United India Ins. Co. Ltd., Ananthapuramu.

3)V. Sudhakar … Respondents

This petition coming on 10.05.2018 for final hearing before me in the presence of Sri P. Chenna Reddy, advocate for the petitioner and of Sri B.Satyanarayana Reddy, advocate for the second respondent, the first and third respondents are being called absent and set exparteand the matter stood over for consideration till this day, the court made the following:-

O R D E R

1.This is aclaimpetition filed by the claimant Under Section 140 and 166 of

Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 and Rule 455 of AP Motor Vehicles Rules 1989, claiming total compensation of Rs.2,50,000/- against the respondents due to injuries received by the claimant in a motor vehicle accident that occurred on 28.09.2015 at about 11.30 am, near Potti Narasimhulu Garden at Atmakur Village.

2.The brief avernments mentioned in petition are as follows :

3.On 28.09.2015 at about 11.30 am the claimant was boarded the Eicher Van bearing No.AP-02-U-9289 at Atmkaur Village with an intention to go to Mannela

Village through Ananthapuramu Town. When the said vehicle reached at Potti

Narasimhulu Garden in the mean time one private bus bearing No.AP-02-TB-7569

2

came from opposite side in a rash and negligent manner and dashed against the claimant’s vehicle on its back side edge. As a result of which the claimant sustained grievous and multiple injuries.

4.On information Atmakur Police registered a case in Cr. No.88/2015 U/S 337

IPC against the driver of bus bearing No.AP-02-TB-7569.

5.It is further averred in the petition that after the accident the claimant was shifted to Govt. General Hospital, Ananthapuramu for treatment. He was stayed as in-patient for a period of one month. Wherein his right hand was operated and inserted steel rods by the doctor. He spent Rs.30,000/- towards medical expenses.

6.The claimant was hale and healthy and he was aged 56 years at the time of accident. He was working as a coolie and earning Rs.5,000/- per month. On account of fractures received in the accident he could not able to attend any work and became permanent disabled person. The claimant claimed total compensation of Rs.2,50,000/- as shown in para 25 of the petition indetail.

7.R1 is the owner of the bus bearing No.AP-02-TB-7569 and R2 is the insurer of the bus and R3 is the driver of the said vehicle. All the respondents are jointly and severally are liable to pay compensation. Hence this petition.

8.R1 and R3 remained set exparte.

9.R2 filed a counter, denying all the allegations mentioned in the petition. This respondent submits that on the date of accident the Eicher Van bearing No.AP-02-

U-9289 proceeding with over crowded passengers with a rash and negligent manner without taking any precautionary measures and the claimant kept his hand outside of the vehicle and thereby contributed the accident. The driver of the bus bearing No.AP-02-TB-7569 drove the vehicle in a slow manner with taking all precautionary measures. Hence there is no rash and negligent driving on the part of the driver of the bus bearing No.AP-02-TB-7569.

3

10.This respondent denied the age, avocation and income of the claimant at the time of accident. The compensation claimed in this case is highly excessive. Hence prays to dismiss the petition with costs.

11. Basing on the averments, following issues were settled for trail;

1)Whether petitioner Kuruba Muddanna received injuries in motor vehicle accident on 28.09.2015 at about 11.30 am, near Potti Narasimhulu garden at Atmakur Village on SH-30 Road, Ananthapuramu, due to rash and negligent driving of driver of bus bearing No.AP-02-TB-7569?

2)Whether the petitioner is entitled to receive compensation, If so to what extent and from whom?

3)To what relief?

12. During the course of trial the claimant himself is examined as Pw1 and Pw2 is examined and got marked Ex.A1 to A5. Ex.X1 is marked through Pw2. On behalf of

R2, Rw1 is examined and got marked Ex.B1 to B3.

13.Heard arguments of the learned counsel for the claimant and learned counsel for R2.

Issue No.1 :

14.It is the case of the claimant that on the date of accident the the claimant was boarded Eicher Van bearing No.AP-02-U-9289 at Atmkaur Village with an intention to go to Mannela Village through Ananthapuramu Town. When the said vehicle reached at Potti Narasimhulu Garden ,at that time R3 being the driver of the private bus bearing No.AP-02-TB-7569 came from opposite side in a rash and negligent manner and dashed against the claimant’s vehicle on its back side edge and caused the accident.

15.To prove the manner of accident the claimant K. Muddanna is examined as

Pw1. He clearly and categorically deposed the manner of the accident in his chief

4

affidavit that the driver of the crime bus bearing No.AP-02-TB-7569 was responsible for the accident.

16.This witness was cross examined by R2 at length, but nothing is elicited.

17.The First Information Report was registered by Atmakur police as a case in

Cr.No.88/2015 U/S 337 IPC against the driver of the bus bearing No.AP-02-TB-7569 basing on the report given by Pw1 as per Ex.A1. Ex.A2 is the Wound Certificate of

Pw1 which goes to show that he sustained two injuries in the accident. After completion of investigation the police filed charge sheet against the driver of the crime bus bearing No.AP-02-TB-7569 alleging that the bus driver was responsible for the accident as per Ex.A3. The name of Pw1 is referred in charge sheet as Lw1- cum-injured eye witness.

18.The learned counsel for the 2nd respondent contended that the accident occurred due to over load of the Eicher Van and also contributory negligence of the claimant. He further contended that there was no negligence on the part of the driver of the bus in causing the accident.

19.In support of his contention R2 examined Rw1 G. Shiva Kumar Sharma, who is working as Administrative Officer in R2 company. He deposed the manner of the accident, but he is not an eye witness.

20.As seen from the record the claimant is injured and direct eye witness to the accident and his evidence has to be relied on. Admittedly Rw1 is not an eye witness to the accident and his evidence is no way relevant.

21.Thus the evidence of Pw1 coupled with Ex.A1 to A3, I have no hesitation to come to a conclusion that the accident occurred due to rash and negligent act of the driver of the crime bus bearing No.AP-02-TB-7569. This issue is answered accordingly and in favour of the claimant.

5

Issue No.2 :

22.The claimant received fracture injuries and also multiple grievous injures in the accident. After the accident he was shifted to Govt. General Hospital,

Ananthapuramu for treatment. He was stayed as in-patient for a period of one month and underwent an operation. He spent Rs.30,000/- towards medical expenses. Pw1 clearly and categorically deposed that due to fractures he could not able to attend any work and became disabled person.

23.The claimant examined Pw2 Dr. B. Jayachandra Reddy to prove treatment and also disability certificate. He is working as Orthopedic Professor in Government

Medical College, Ananthapuramu and also a member of District Medical Board,

Ananthapuramu. According to this witness on 28.09.2015 the patient was treated with a team of doctors. He had a fracture both bones right fore arm. Fracture medial condyle of right humerous and dislocation of head and radious. He was treated surgically for the above injuries. He was discharged on 06.11.2015. He opined that the above injuries are grievous in nature.

24.From the medical evidence of Pw2 it is clear that the claimant sustained two fractures in the accident. Pw2 treated the patient. The patient was stayed in the hospital for a period of one month and 7 days and taken treatment. Ex.A4 is the discharge summary issued by Government General Hospital, Ananthapuramu also proves that the patient was stayed in the hospital from 05.10.2015 to 06.11.2015 and taken treatment. Ex.X1 is the case sheet maintained by Government General

Hospital, Ananthapuramu also proves that the patient was stayed as in-patient in the hospital and taken treatment. The injuries as spoken by Pw2 also noted in the case sheet and the same was tallied.

25.Coming to disability, Pw1 clearly and categorically stated that he suffered disability due to fractures. To prove the disability the claimant examined Pw2.

According to Pw2, he examined the patient along with other members of the

6

medical board on 12.10.2017 and issued Disability Certificate under Ex.A5. The disability is assessed at 40% permanent in nature. On account of this disability the patient got difficulty in lifting weights with right hand with upper limb and activity which involves pronation and supination of right fore arm is necessary. He could not able to work heavy labour with right hand.

26.There is a difference between medical disability and functional disability. On the other hand there is no evidence on record due to this disability the work of the patient will be totally hampered. Therefore the disability is fixed at 30%.

27.It is the version of the claimant that he was 51 years at the time of accident.

It is was mentioned in Ex.A2 wound certificate he was 70 years at the time of accident. It was mentioned in the charge sheet he was 50 years. In Ex.A5 he was 60 years. The documents produced by the claimant clearly goes to show that the claimant was 58 years. Therefore the age of the claimant is fixed 58 years at the time of accident.

28.It is the contention of the claimant that he was working as coolie and earning Rs.5,000/- per month. It was elicited in the cross examination of Pw1 by R2 counsel that he did not file any document to show that he was earning Rs.5,000/- per month on his coolie work. So the income of the claimant is fixed Rs.4,000/- per month.

29.The monthly income of the claimant is Rs.4,000/-. The annual income of the claimant is Rs.4,000 x 12 = 48,000/-. The suitable multiplier in this case is 8. The above multiplier is applied the loss of earnings of the claimant is assessed

Rs.48,000 x 8 = 3,84,000/- out of that 30% of disability of claimant is calculated at

Rs.1,15,200/-.

30.The claimant claimed total compensation of Rs.2,50,000/- in this case which is highly excessive. Towards transport to the hospital Rs.1,000/- is awarded.

7

Towards medical expenses Rs.5,000/- is awarded. Towards pain and suffering

Rs.10,000/- awarded. Towards mental agony Rs.10,000/- awarded. Towards extra nourishment Rs.8,000/- awarded. Towards medical attendant Rs.8,000/- awarded.

Towards loss of earnings during the stay in the hospital Rs.4,000/- awarded. Thus the claimant is entitled total compensation of Rs.1,15,200 + Rs.46,000 =

Rs.1,61,200/-

31.The learned counsel for R2 argued that the policy was not in force at the time of accident and their company is not liable to pay any compensation.

32.In support of his contention R2 relied the evidence of Rw1. He stated that the alleged accident occurred on 28.09.2015 at about 11.30 am, but the insured suppressed the same and taken policy on the same day at about 00:00 hours.

Hence as on the alleged time of accident i.e. on 28.09.2015 the policy was not in force.

33.In support of his contention he relied a decision reported in 2010 AIR (SCW) 2297 in between New India Assurance Co. Ltd., Vs. Rajesh Talwar.

34.On the other hand the learned counsel for the claimant contended that the policy is in force at the time of accident. He further contended that in the absence of any specific time mentioned in the policy, the insurance company is liable to pay compensation and the contract would be operative from the midnight of the day.

35.In support of his contention he relied a decision reported in 2011 ACJ 2394 between Saroj Gupta and others Vs. Ram Akbal and others.

In this case the accident occurred on 20.05.1985 at 7.45 pm. Insurance policy valid from 20.05.1985 till 19.05.1986, but no specific time of commencement of risk is mentioned in the policy. The insurance company disputed its liability on the ground that policy was taken on 20.05.1985 after the accident. The Tribunal exonerated insurance company from liability. On appeal filed by the appellants his

8

Lordship held that when the policy is silent about the time of its start it has to be taken that insurance policy covers entire day i.e. 20.05.1985 starting from midnight and it ends at 24:00 hours on 19.05.1986.

36.He also relied another decision reported in 2001 ACJ 1709 between Oriental

Insurance Co. Ltd., Vs. Naravath Najiram and others.

It was held that no specific time was fixed for commencement of the insurance contract, but only date was mentioned, the policy becomes operative from the previous day midnight.

37.In this case as per FIR the accident occurred on 28.09.2015 at about 11.30 am. Ex.B1 policy commenced from 00:00 hours of 28.09.2015 to midnight of 27.09.2016.

39.In view of the legal position insurance company has to pay compensation.

40.It is not in dispute that the accident occurred due to negligence of the driver of the bus bearing No.AP-02-TB-7569 i.e. R3. R3 is working under the employment of R1. R1 being the owner of the bus is vicariously liable to pay compensation. R1 insured his vehicle with R2 under valid policy. So R1 to R3 are jointly and severally liable to pay compensation along with interest accrued thereon. This issue is answered accordingly.

Issue No.3 :

41.In the result this petition is allowed partly by awarding total compensation of

Rs.1,61,200/- against claim of Rs.2,50,000/- along with interest @ 7.5% per annum from the date of petition till the date of realization with proportionate costs.

R1 to R3 are jointly and severally held liable for payment of compensation and they are directed to deposit the said amount into court within one month from the date of this order. After deposit of the said amount the claimant is permitted to withdraw

Rs.50,000/- at once, his balance amount costs and interest shall kept in FDR in any

9

nationalized bank for a period of one year. The rest of the claim of the claimant is hereby dismissed. Advocate fee is fixed Rs.1,000/-.The amount if any awarded U/S.

140 of MV. Act shall be deducted from this amount.

Dictated to Stenographer transcribed by him, corrected and pronounced by

me in the open court, on this the 11th day of May, 2018.

III Addl. District Judge, FAC: IV Addl. Dist. Judge, F.T.C, Ananthapuramu.

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

WITNESSES EXAMINED FOR

Petitioner:- Respondents:- PW.1 : K. MuddannaRW.1 : G. Siva Kumara Sharma PW.2 : Dr. B. Jaya Chandra Reddy

Exhibits marked for Petitioner

Ex.A1 :Attested xerox copy of FIR in Cr. No.88/2015 of Atmakur P.S. Ex.A2 : Attested xerox copy of Wound Certificate Ex.A3 : Attested xerox copy of Charge Sheet Ex.A4 : Discharge Summary Ex.A5 : Disability Certificate issued by District Medical Board, Ananthapuramu.

Ex.X1 : Case sheet maintained by Govt. General Hospital, Ananthapuramu.

Exhibits marked for Respondents

Ex.B1 :Xerox copy of Aadhar Card of the petitioner Ex.B2 :Certified copy of Insurance Policy relating to the vehicle bearing No.AP-02-TB-7569. Ex.B3 :Office copy of the letter addressed by R2 to the owner of the vehicle.

FAC: IV A.D.J.

1

IN THE COURT OF THE MOTOR ACCIDENTS CLAIMS TRIBUNAL

ANANTAPURAMU

PRESENT: SRI PUTTA MRALI MOHANA REDDY

III ADDL. DIST. JUDGE, FAC: IV ADDL. DIST. JUDGE

TUESDAY, THE 8 TH DAY OF MAY, 2018

ORIGINAL PETITION NO.140/2014

Between:- Daruru Lakshminarayana … Petitioner

And

1)Andhra Pradesh State Road Transport Corporation, Rep. by its Regional Manager, Anantapuramu.

2)K. Raja (R2 added as per orders in IA No.104/2016 dt.21.03.2016) … Respondents

This petition coming on 04.05.2018 for final hearing before me in the presence of Sri B. Vijaya Kumar, Sri B. Sri Hari and Sri D. Shafiulla, advocates for the petitioner and of Sri V. Ramanjineyulu Chowdary, advocate for the first respondent and the second respondent being called absent and set exparteand the matter stood over for consideration till this day, the court made the following:-

O R D E R

1.This is aclaimpetition filed by the claimant Under Section 140 and 166 of

Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 and Rule 455 of AP Motor Vehicles Rules 1989, claiming total compensation of Rs.3,00,000/- against the respondents due to injuries received by the claimant in a motor vehicle accident that occurred on 13.10.2013 at about 5.00 pm, near Kattakindapalli Bus Stop, Ananthapuramu – Kadiri Road.

2.The brief avernments mentioned in petition are as follows :

3.On 13.10.2013 at about 5.00 pm when the claimant and his son were going from his village D.Cherlopalli to Dampetla Village i.e. from Kadiri towards

Ananthapuramu on his motor cycle bearing No.AP-02-AC-0857 on the left side of

2

the road and when they reached Kattakindapalli Bus Stop, at that time one Bus bearing No.AP-02-Z-107 came from behind the claimant and hit the motor cycle of the claimant and his son. As a result of which the claimant and his son were fell down from the motor cycle and sustained injuries.

4.On information Bathalapalli Police registered a case in Cr. No.114/2013 U/S 337 IPC against the driver of Bus bearing No.AP-02-Z-107.

5.It is further averred in the petition that after the accident the claimant was shifted to RDT Hospital, Bathalapalli for treatment. Subsequently he was shifted to

YSR Hospital, Ananthapuramu for treatment. He was stayed as in-patient. He spent

Rs.50,000/- towards medical expenses. Even now he is taking treatment. The claimant underwent two surgeries and iron rods were inserted at his right tibia and right knee.

6.It is further averred in the petition that the claimant was hale and healthy and he was aged 39 years at the time of accident. The claimant owns 200 sheep and 12 cows. He was grazing sheep and also running a dairy form and thereby earning Rs.25,000/- per month. On account of grievous injuries received in the accident he could not able to attend any work and became disabled person. The claimant claimed total compensation of Rs.3,00,000/- as shown in para 25 of the petition indetail.

7.R1 is the Regional Manager, APSRTC, Ananthapuramu who is the owner of the Bus bearing No.AP-02-Z-107 and R2 is the driver of the bus. Both the respondents are jointly and severally liable to pay compensation. Hence this petition.

8.R1 filed a counter, denying all the allegations mentioned in the petition. This respondent submits that on the date of accident the rider of the motor cycle drove his motor cycle at high speed and inebriated condition and lost control over the

3

same and dashed against the bus footpath on the left side of the bus and fell down on the road and caused the accident. There is no negligence on the part of the driver of the APSRTC Bus bearing No.AP-02-Z-107.

9.This respondent denied the age, avocation and income of the claimant at the time of accident. The compensation claimed in this case is highly excessive. Hence prays to dismiss the petition with costs.

10.R2 remained set exparte.

11. Basing on the averments, following issues were settled for trail;

1)Whether the accident occurred on 13.10.2013 due to rash and negligent driving of the driver of the crime vehicle i.e. RTC Bus bearing No.AP-02-Z-107?

2)Whether the petitioner is sustained injuries in the above said accident, if so whether he is entitled for compensation from respondent, if so what amount from respondent?

3)To what relief?

12. During the course of trial on behalf of the claimant himself is examined as

Pw1 and the doctors Pw2 and Pw3 are examined and got marked Ex.A1 to A5.

Ex.X1 is marked through Pw2. On behalf of R1, Rw1 is got examined and no documents are marked.

13.Heard arguments of the learned counsel for the claimant and learned counsel for R1.

Issue No.1 :

14.It is the case of the claimant that on the date of accident the claimant and his son were going from his village D.Cherlopalli to Dampetla Village on his motor cycle bearing No.AP-02-AC-0857 on the left side of the road and when they reached

Kattakindapalli Bus Stop, at that time R2 being the driver of APSRTC Bus bearing

No.AP-02-Z-107 came from behind the claimant and hit the motor cycle of the claimant and caused the accident.

4

15.To prove the manner of accident the claimant D. Lakshmi Narayana is examined as Pw1. He clearly and categorically deposed the manner of the accident in his chief affidavit that the driver of the crime APSRTC Bus bearing No.AP-02-Z- 107 was responsible for the accident.

16.This witness was cross examined by R1 at length, but nothing is elicited.

17.The First Information Report was registered by Bathalapalli police as a case in Cr.No.114/2013 U/S 337 IPC against the driver of the APSRTC Bus bearing

No.AP-02-Z-107 basing on the report given by Pw1 as per Ex.A1. Ex.A2 is the

Wound Certificate of Pw1 which goes to show that he sustained grievous injuries in the accident. After completion of investigation the police filed charge sheet against the driver of the APSRTC Bus bearing No.AP-02-Z-107 alleging that the bus driver was responsible for the accident as per Ex.A3. The name of Pw1 is referred in the charge sheet as Lw1.

18.The learned counsel for the 1st respondent contended that there is no negligence on the part of the driver of the APSRTC Bus bearing No.AP-02-Z-107 and the accident occurred due to negligence of the rider of the motor cycle bearing

No.AP-02-AC-0857.

19.In support of his contention R1 got examined Rw1 K. Raja who is the driver of APSRTC, Kadiri Depot. He deposed the manner of the accident that the accident occurred due to negligence of the rider of the motor cycle as he could not able to control over the vehicle and dashed against his bus. In his cross examination he admitted that the police registered a case in Cr.No.114/2013 U/S 337 IPC against him and also filed charge sheet.

20.As seen from the evidence on record Pw1 is the direct eye witness to the accident. So his evidence has to be relied. On the other hand Rw1 clearly and categorically admitted about the manner of the accident. Therefore his evidence is no relevant.

5

21.Thus the evidence of Pw1 coupled with Ex.A1 to A3, I have no hesitation to come to a conclusion that the accident occurred due to rash and negligent act of the driver of the APSRTC Bus bearing No.AP-02-Z-107. This issue is answered accordingly and in favour of the claimant.

Issue No.2 :

22.The claimant sustained fracture at his right tibia, right knee and also other multiple injuries. After the accident he was shifted to RDT Hospital, Bathalapalli for treatment. Subsequently he was shifted to YSR Hospital, Ananthapuramu for better treatment. He was stayed as in-patient and underwent two surgeries and the doctor inserted iron rods at his right tibia and right knee. He spent Rs.50,000/- towards medical expenses. Pw1 clearly and categorically deposed that due to fractures he could not able to attend any work and became disabled person.

23.The claimant examined Pw2 Dr. K.V. Mohan Reddy who is working as consultant orthopedic surgeon at Dr. YSR Memorial Hospital, Ananthapuramu. He examined the patient on 14.10.2013 and found the following injuries.

1) Fracture lateral condyl right tibia

2) Avulsion fracture ulna styloid process right wrist for which surgery was done.

He opined that the above injuries are grievous in nature. Surgery was done on 15.10.2013. Plating of tibia was done. K-wire fixation of ulna was done. Patient was discharged on 19.10.2013.

24.From medical evidence of Pw2, it is clear the claimant sustained two grievous injuries. The claimant was stayed in the hospital for a period of 5 days as in-patient and underwent an operation. Pw2 did surgery to the fractures and applied plates and K-wire fixation.

25.Ex.A4 are the bunch of medical bills for Rs.2,761/-. Ex.X1 is the Case Sheet maintained by Dr. YSR Memorial Hospital, Ananthapuramu also proves that the

6

patient was stayed in the hospital from 14.10.2013 to 19.10.2013 and taken treatment. The injuries as spoken by Pw2 also noted in the case sheet and tallied the same.

26.Coming to disability Pw1 clearly and categorically deposed that due to grievous injuries he could not able to attend any work and became disabled person.

27.To prove the disability the claimant examined Pw3 Dr. A. Jagannath who is working as Civil Surgeon in Orthopedic, Govt. General Hospital, Ananthapuramu. He is also one of the member of medical board, Govt. General Hospital,

Ananthapuramu. He examined the patient on 24.08.2015 along with other members of the medical board and issued disability certificate under Ex.A4. The disability was estimated as 25% permanent in nature.

28.According to this witness due to this disability the patient got difficulty for sitting in squatting, cross legging, walking for long distances, standing for prolonged periods and running.

29.Pw3 does not say functional disability of the patient. On the other hand the evidence of Pw3 does not discloses that due to the disability the work of the patient will be totally hampered. Therefore the disability is fixed 20%.

30.It is the version of claimant that he was 39 years at the time of accident. It was mentioned in Ex.A2 wound certificate he was 34 years at the time of accident.

So the age of the claimant is fixed 34 years at the time of accident.

31.It is the contention of the claimant that he owns 200 sheep and 12 cows. He was grazing sheep and running dairy form. He was also looking after his agriculture and thereby earning Rs.25,000/- per month. It was elicited in the cross examination of Pw1 by R1 counsel that he has not filed any document to show that he owns 200 sheep and 12 cows and thereby earning Rs.25,000/- per month. It was also elicited in the cross examination of Pw1 by R1 that he has not filed any

7

document to show that he used to run milk dairy. In the absence of any positive evidence on record the income of the claimant is fixed Rs.4,000/- per month.

32.The monthly income of the claimant is Rs.4,000/-. The annual income of the claimant is Rs.4,000 x 12 = 48,000/-. The suitable multiplier in this case is 15. The above multiplier is applied, the loss of earnings of the claimant is assessed

Rs.48,000 x 15 = 7,20,000/- out of that 20% of disability of the claimant is calculated at Rs.1,44,000/-

33.The claimant claimed total compensation of Rs.3,00,000/- in this case which is highly excessive. Towards transport to the hospital Rs.1,000/- is awarded.

Towards medical expenses Rs.5,000/- is awarded. Towards pain and suffering

Rs.10,000/- awarded. Towards mental agony Rs.10,000/- awarded. Towards extra nourishment Rs.8,000/- awarded. Towards medical attendant Rs.6,000/- awarded.

Towards loss of earnings during the stay of hospital Rs.4,000/- awarded. Thus the claimant is entitled total compensation of Rs.1,44,000 + Rs.44,000 =

Rs.1,88,000/-.

34.It is not in dispute that the accident occurred due to negligence of driver of

APSRTC Bus bearing No.AP-02-Z-107 i.e. R2. R2 being the driver of the APSRTC

Bus is working under the employment of R1. R1 is the Regional Manager, APSRTC,

Ananthapuramu and owner of the APSRTC Bus bearing No.AP-02-Z-107. So R1 and

R2 are jointly and severally liable to pay compensation along with interest accrued thereon. This issue is answered accordingly and in favour of the claimant.

Issue No.3 :

35.In the result this petition is allowed partly by awarding total compensation of

Rs.1,88,000/- against claim of Rs.3,00,000/- along with interest @ 7.5% per annum from the date of petition till the date of realization with proportionate costs.

R1 and R2 are jointly and severally held liable for payment of compensation and they are directed to deposit the said amount into court within one month from the

8

date of this order. After deposit of the said amount the claimant is permitted to withdraw Rs.50,000/- at once, his balance amount costs and interest shall be kept in FDR in any nationalized bank for a period of one year. The rest of the claim of the claimant is hereby dismissed. Advocate fee is fixed Rs.1,200/-.The amount if any awarded U/S. 140 of MV. Act shall be deducted from this amount.

Dictated to Typist transcribed by him, corrected and pronounced by me in the

open court, on this the 8th day of May, 2018.

III Addl. District Judge, FAC: IV Addl. Dist. Judge, F.T.C, Ananthapuramu.

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

WITNESSES EXAMINED FOR

Petitioner:- Respondents:- PW.1 : D. Lakshmi Narayana RW.1 : K. Raja PW.2 : Dr. K.V. Mohan Reddy PW.3 : Dr. A. Jagannath

Exhibits marked for Petitioner

Ex.A1 :Attested copy of FIR in Cr. No.114/2013 of Bathalapalli P.S. Ex.A2 : Attested copy of Wound Certificate Ex.A3 : Attested copy of Charge Sheet Ex.A4 : Original Disability Certificate Ex.A5 : Medical Bills for Rs.2,761/-

Ex.X1 : Case Sheet maintained by Dr. YSR Memorial Hospital, Anantapuramu.

Exhibits marked for Respondents

- Nil -

FAC: IV A.D.J.

1

IN THE COURT OF THE MOTOR ACCIDENTS CLAIMS TRIBUNAL

ANANTAPURAMU

PRESENT: SRI PUTTA MRALI MOHANA REDDY

III ADDL. DIST. JUDGE, FAC: IV ADDL. DIST. JUDGE

MONDAY, THE 7 TH DAY OF MAY, 2018

ORIGINAL PETITION NO.107/2013

Between:- Katlapodi Rajesh, minor by guardian N.F. his father K. Chandrayudu … Petitioner

And

1)P. Yerri Swamy

2)The Manager, Shriram General Insurance Co. Ltd., Sithapur, Jaipur, Rajasthan.

3)H. Iqbal … Respondents (R3 added as per orders in IA No.191/15, dt.15.12.2015)

This petition coming on 04.05.2018 for final hearing before me in the presence of Sri P. Venkatrami Reddy, advocate for the petitioner, Sri G.Nagaraj Babu and Sri M. Sudheendra, advocates for the first respondent and Sri G. Seetharama Rao, advocate for the second respondent and the third respondent being called absent and set exparteand the matter stood over for consideration till this day, the court made the following:-

O R D E R

1.This is aclaimpetition filed by the guardian by name K. Rajesh on behalf of minor claimant Under Section 140 and 166 of Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 and Rule 455 of AP Motor Vehicles Rules 1989, claiming total compensation of Rs.2,50,000/- against the respondents due to injuries received by the minor claimant in a motor vehicle accident that occurred on 19.07.2011 at about 7.00 am, at outskirts of

Katiganikaluva Village of Ananthapuramu Mandal.

2.The brief avernments mentioned in petition are as follows :

3.On 19.07.2011 at about 7.00 am the claimant was proceeding on cycle on the extreme left side of the road at outskirts of Katiganikaluva Village of

2

Ananthapuramu Rural Mandal, at that time the crime tractor bearing No.AP-02-U- 8234 which was driven by its driver in a rash and negligent manner and dashed behind the claimant. As a result of which he fell down on the road and sustained grievous injuries.

4.On information Ananthapuramu Rural Police registered a case in

Cr.No.71/2011 U/S 337 IPC against the driver of tractor bearing No.AP-02-U-8234.

5.It is further averred in the petition that immediately after the accident the claimant was shifted to Govt. General Hospital, Ananthapuramu for treatment.

Subsequently he was shifted to RDT Hospital at Bathalapalli. He was stayed as in-patient and taken treatment. He spent Rs.50,000/- towards medical expenses.

6.It is further averred in the petition that the claimant was hale and healthy and he was aged 13 years at the time of accident. He was a student. He was very brilliant boy. He was actively participating in sports and games and other cultural activities. The parents of the claimants have got high hopes on the claimant. On account of grievous injuries received in the accident, he could not able to attend any work. The claimant claimed total compensation of Rs.2,50,000/- as shown in para 25 of the petition indetail.

7.R1 is the owner of the tractor bearing No.AP-02-U-8234, R2 is the insurer and R3 is the driver. R1 to R3 are jointly and severally are liable to pay compensation. Hence this petition.

8.R1 filed a counter stating that there is no rash and negligence on the part of the driver of the tractor. This respondent submits that the petitioner being the cycle rider came outskirts of the village and lost control over the cycle and came across the tractor. This respondent had insured his vehicle with R2 under a valid policy.

Hence prays to dismiss the petition.

3

9.R2 filed a counter denying all the allegations mentioned in the petition. This respondent submits that the alleged accident had occurred due to negligent act of the petitioner who was proceeding on the cycle on the road ignoring the vehicular traffic at the time of accident and received injuries due to his self negligence, but not by the driver of the alleged offending tractor bearing No.AP-02-U-8234.

10.This respondent denied the age and health condition of the claimant at the time of accident. The driver of the crime vehicle was not holding valid and effective driving licence at the time of accident. The compensation claimed in this case is highly excessive. Hence prays to dismiss the petition with costs.

11. Basing on the averments, following issues were settled for trail;

1)Whether the accident occurred on 19.07.2011 by tractor bearing

No.AP-02-U-8234 due to rash and negligent driving of its driver.

2)Whether the petitioner is sustained injuries in the above said accident if so, whether he is entitled for compensation if so, what amount from which respondent?

3)To what relief?

12. During the course of trial on behalf of the claimant his father is examined as

Pw1 and Pw2 is examined and got marked Ex.A1 to A4. On behalf of R2, Rw1 and

Rw2 were examined and got marked Ex.B1 and Ex.B2. Ex.X1 and X2 marked through Rw2.

13.Heard arguments of the learned counsel for the claimant and learned counsel for R2.

Issue No.1 :

14.It is the case of the claimant that on the date of accident the claimant was proceeding on cycle on the extreme left side of the road at outskirts of

Katiganikaluva Village of Ananthapuramu Rural Mandal, at that time R3 being the

4

driver of the tractor bearing No.AP-02-U-8234 drove the vehicle in a rash and negligent manner and dashed behind the claimant and caused the accident.

15.To prove the manner of accident on behalf of the minor claimant his father

K.Chandrayudu is examined as Pw1. He clearly and categorically deposed the manner of the accident, but he is not an eye witness.

16.Pw2 K. Thirupalu is examined and he is one of the eye witness. According to this witness on the date of accident while the claimant was proceeding on his cycle and reached outskirts of his village, then the driver of the crime tractor bearing

No.AP-02-U-8234 came in a rash and negligent manner and dashed against the claimant on his back side. He was going to attend the agriculture works and saw the accident.

17.Pw1 and Pw2 were cross examined by R2, but nothing is elicited.

18.The First Information Report was registered by Anantapuramu Rural police as a case in Cr.No.71/2011 U/S 337 IPC against the driver of the tractor bearing

No.AP-02-U-8234 basing on the report given by minor claimant as per Ex.A1.

Ex.A2 is the Wound Certificate of minor claimant which goes to show that he sustained one grievous injury in the accident. After completion of investigation the police filed charge sheet against the driver of the crime tractor bearing No.AP-02-U- 8234 alleging that the driver of tractor was responsible for the accident as per

Ex.A3.

19.There is no contra evidence on record to disprove the testimony of Pw1 and

Pw2 about the manner of the accident. Pw1 is not an eye witness, but Pw2 is the direct eye witness. Therefore his evidence is unchallenged.

20.In view of my above discussion, I have no hesitation to come to a conclusion that the accident occurred due to rash and negligent act of the driver of the tractor bearing No.AP-02-U-8234. This issue is answered accordingly and in favour of the claimant.

5

Issue No.2 :

21.The claimant received grievous injuries in the accident. After the accident he was shifted to Govt. General Hospital, Ananthapuramu for treatment. Subsequently he was shifted to RDT Hospital, Bathalapalli for treatment and he was stayed as in-patient and taken treatment. Even now he is taking treatment. He spent

Rs.50,000/- towards medical expenses.

22.Pw1 is the father of the minor claimant clearly and categorically deposed that due to grievous injuries his son could not able to attend any work.

23.The claimant did not examine the doctor who treated him in different hospitals. He did not file any case sheet to show that how many days he was stayed as in-patient. Likewise he did not file any medical bills or X-Ray films to prove the treatment. There is no medical evidence on record to show that he was stayed as in-patient in the hospital and even now he is taking treatment.

24.Ex.A2 is the Wound Certificate issued by Govt. General Hospital,

Ananthapuramu which reads thus :

1) A small abrasion ankle joint over the right ankle

The doctor noted in the wound certificate that the above injury is grievous in nature.

25.Ex.A4 is the study certificate issued by Head Master, M.P.U.P. School,

Katiganikaluva which shows that the claimant was studying 7th class at the time of accident.

26.Though the claimant did not examine the doctor who issued wound certificate, but the same has to be taken into consideration to decide the nature of the injuries received by the claimant. So the evidence of Pw1 coupled with Ex.A2, I am of the clear opinion that the claimant sustained one grievous injury and he is entitle to receive just and reasonable compensation.

6

27.The claimant claimed total compensation of Rs.2,50,000/- which is highly excessive. Towards transport to the hospital Rs.1,000/- awarded. Towards medical expenses Rs.6,000/- awarded. Towards pain and suffering Rs.15,000/- awarded.

Towards mental agony Rs.15,000/- awarded. Towards compensation for one grievous injury Rs.15,000/- awarded. Towards future medical expenses Rs.5,000/- awarded. Thus the claimant is entitled total compensation of Rs.57,000/-

28.The learned counsel for R2 contended that the driver of the crime tractor was not holding valid driving licence at the time of accident and their company is not liable to pay any compensation.

29.In support of his contention he examined Rw1 D. Ramanjaneyulu, who is working as legal executive in R2 company. He stated that the driver of the tractor trailer bearing No.AP-02-U-8234 with having invalid driving licence at the time of accident. He was holding LMV non-transport with which he shall not drive the vehicle. R1 had knowingly and willfully allowed R3 to drive his vehicle that he had no valid driving licence to drive the same and there is a breach of terms and conditions of the policy. Hence prays to dismiss the petition.

30.In his cross examination he says that the driver of the tractor having LMV transport driving licence.

31.He also examined Rw2 P. Gowri Shankar who is working as Record Assistant in DTO Office, Ananthapuramu. He produced driving licence extract of driver by name Hazi Iqbal S/o H. Abu Bakar, resident of Old Town, Ananthapuramu which is marked as Ex.X2. The said driver having LMV non transport, LMV transport, transport vehicle endorsement heavy (TVEH) under Ex.X2. The said driver had no tractor trailer transport and non-transport driving licence. The said driver had no specific driving licence of tractor trailer transport and non-transport driving licence

7

and he is not authorize to drive the tractor and trailer non transport and transport category.

32.In his cross examination he says that the driving skill for transport and non transport is one and the same.

33.Ex.B1 is the true copy of insurance policy and the same is in force at the time of accident. Ex.B2 is the office copy of the notice dt.06.11.2016 issued by R2 company to the owner of the crime tractor. Ex.X1 is the authorization letter, Ex.X2 is the driving licence extract which shows that the driver of the crime vehicle got valid driving licence at the time of accident. So the contention of the 2nd respondent is hereby rejected.

34.It is not in dispute that the accident occurred due to negligence of the driver of the tractor bearing No.AP-02-U-8234 i.e. R3. R3 being the driver of the tractor is working under the employment of R1. R1 being the owner of the tractor is vicariously liable to pay compensation. R1 insured his vehicle with R2 under valid policy vide Ex.B1. So R1 to R3 are jointly and severally liable to pay compensation along with interest accrued thereon. This issue is answered accordingly.

Issue No.3 :

35.In the result this petition is allowed partly by awarding total compensation of

Rs.57,000/- against claim of Rs.2,50,000/- along with interest @ 7.5% per annum from the date of petition till the date of realization with proportionate costs. R1 to

R3 are jointly and severally held liable for payment of compensation and they are directed to deposit the said amount into court within one month from the date of this order. After deposit of the said amount shall be kept FDR in any nationalized bank till the claimant attains majority. The guardian of the minor claimant is permitted to withdraw interest half a yearly on the share of minor for his expenses.

The rest of the claim of the claimant is hereby dismissed. Advocate fee is fixed

8

Rs.800/-.The amount if any awarded U/S. 140 of MV. Act shall be deducted from this amount.

Dictated to Typist transcribed by him, corrected and pronounced by me in the

open court, on this the 7th day of May, 2018.

III Addl. District Judge, FAC: IV Addl. Dist. Judge, F.T.C, Ananthapuramu.

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

WITNESSES EXAMINED FOR

Petitioner:- Respondents:- PW.1 : K. ChandrayuduRW.1 : D. Ramanjaneyulu PW.2 : K. ThirupaluRW.2 : P. Gowri Shankar

Exhibits marked for Petitioner

Ex.A1 :Attested xerox copy of FIR in Cr. No.71/2011 of Anantapuramu Rural P.S. Ex.A2 : Attested xerox copy of Wound Certificate Ex.A3 : Attested xerox copy of Charge Sheet Ex.A4 : Study Certificate issued by Head Master, MPUP School, Katiganikaluva in favour of the petitioner.

Exhibits marked for Respondents

Ex.B1 :True copy of insurance policy relating to the vehicle bearing No.AP-02-U-8234. Ex.B2 :Office copy of the notice dt.16.11.2016.

Ex.X1 :Authorization Letter issued by RTO, Ananthapuramu. Ex.X2 :Driving licence extract of the driver by name Hazi Iqbal

FAC: IV A.D.J.

1

IN THE COURT OF THE MOTOR ACCIDENTS CLAIMS TRIBUNAL

ANANTHAPURAMU

PRESENT: SRI PUTTA MRALI MOHANA REDDY,

III ADDL. DIST. JUDGE, FAC IV ADDL. DIST.JUDGE

FRIDAY, THE 11 TH DAY OF MAY, 2018

ORIGINAL PETITION NO.99/2016

Between:- Kappala Kuruba Muddanna, S/o Late Bayappa, Aged 50 years, Hindu, Cooli, Residing at Mannela Village,

Ananthapuramu Rural Mandal. ...Petitioner

A n d

1)Chinna Jutur Ashmit Reddy S/o J.C. Prabhakar Reddy, major, Hindu, R.C. owner of bus bearing No.AP-02-TB-7569, R/o D.No.15-311, Sanjeeva Nagar, Tadipatri Town and Mandal, Ananthapuramu Dist.

2)The Divisional Manager, United India Insurance Co. Ltd., O/o Subash Road, Ananthapuramu Town. (Insurer of offending vehicle vide policy No. 0126023115p107390428, valid from 28.09.2015 to 27.08.2016)

3)V. Sudhakar S/o V. Hanumanna, major, Hindu, Duradakunta Village, Kalyandurg Mandal, Ananthapuramu Dist. (Driver of offending vehicle) …Respondents

Petition filed Under Section 140 and 166 of Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 and Rule 455 of AP Motor Vehicles Rules 1989 claiming compensation of Rs.2,50,000/- for the the injuries received by the petitioner in a motor vehicle accident that occurred on 28.09.2015 at about 11.30 am, near Potti Narasimhulu Garden, Atmakur Village.

Petition presented on 15.02.2016.

Petition filed on 17.02.2016.

Value for Court fee is Rs.2,50,000/- and a Court fee of Rs.1,860/- is paid under Rule 475 of A.P.M.V. Rules.

This petition coming on this day for disposal before me in the presence of Sri P. Chenna Reddy, advocate for the Petitioner, Sri B. Satyanarayana Reddy, advocate for the second respondent and the first and third respondents remained exparte, this tribunal DOTH ORDER AND DECREE:

1) That the petition be and is hereby partly allowed with proportionate costs.

2)That the petitioner be and is awarded a compensation of Rs.1,61,200/- (Rupees One lakh Sixty One thousand and Two hundred only).

3)That the respondents 1 to 3 jointly and severally do pay to the petitioner a compensation of Rs.1,61,200/- together with interest at 7.5% per annum from the date of petition i.e. 15.02.2016 till the date of realization;

4)That the respondents 1 to 3 do also pay to the petitioner a sum of Rs.2,478/- being proportionate costs of the petition and do bear their own costs.

2

5)That the respondents 1 to 3 be and are directed to deposit the said amount into court within one month from the date of this order.

6)That on such deposit, the petitioner be and is hereby permitted to withdraw a sum of Rs.50,000/- at once, his balance amount, costs and interest shall be kept FDR in any nationalized bank for a period of one year.

7)That the rest of the claim of the petitioner be and is hereby dismissed.

8) That the amount if any awarded U/S 140 of M.V. Act shall be deducted from this amount.

9) That the advocate fee is fixed at Rs.1,000/-.

Given under my hand and seal of the court this the 11th day of May, 2018.

CHAIRMAN,

MOTOR ACCIDENT CLAIMS TRIBUNAL,

(FAC: IV ADDL. DISTRICT JUDGE),

ANANTHAPURAMU.

TABLE OF COSTS FOR

Petitioner R1 to R3 Rs. Ps. Rs. Ps. Stamp on main petition1,860-00--- Stamp on vakalath.2-00.2-00 Stamp on process240-00--- Witness batta60-00--- Stamps on documents------ Stamps on petitions.4-00--- Writing Charges100-00--- Typing Charges100-00--- Publication Charges--- Advocate Commissioner Fee------ Advocate fee1,000-00--- Total 3,366-00 . 2-00

Proportionate costs allowed: Rs.2,478 /-

CHAIRMAN,

M.A.C.T. (FAC: IV ADDL. DIST. JUDGE), Ananthapuramu.

1

IN THE COURT OF THE MOTOR ACCIDENTS CLAIMS TRIBUNAL

ANANTHAPURAMU

PRESENT: SRI PUTTA MRALI MOHANA REDDY,

III ADDL. DIST. JUDGE, FAC IV ADDL. DIST.JUDGE

TUESDAY, THE 8 TH DAY OF MAY, 2018

ORIGINAL PETITION NO.140/2014

Between:- Daruru Lakshminarayana S/o Late Peddanna, Aged 39 years, Hindu, Sheep Form, Dairy & Agriculture, Residing at D.Cherlopalli Village, Bathalapalli Mandal,

Ananthapuramu District. ...Petitioner

A n d

1)Andhra Pradesh State Road Transport Corporation, Rep. by its Regional Manager, Ananthapuramu.

2)K. Raja S/o Late K. Gangulappa, D.No.1-1135-6K, Adapala Street, Kadiri Town, Ananthapuramu. (Driver of the crime vehicle bus bearing No.AP-02-Z-107) (R3 added as per orders in I.A. No.104/16, dt.21.03.2016) …Respondents

Petition filed Under Section 140 and 166 of Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 and Rule 455 of AP Motor Vehicles Rules 1989 claiming compensation of Rs.3,00,000/- for the the injuries received by petitioner in a motor vehicle accident that occurred on 13.10.2013 at about 5.00 pm, near Kattakindapalli Bus Stop, Ananthapuramu – Kadiri Road.

Petition presented on 19.03.2014.

Petition filed on 01.04.2014.

Value for Court fee is Rs.3,00,000/- and a Court fee of Rs.2,360/- is paid under Rule 475 of A.P.M.V. Rules.

This petition coming on this day for disposal before me in the presence of Sri B. Vijaya Kumar, Sri B. Sir Hari and Sri D. Shafiulla, advocates for the Petitioner and of Sri V. Ramanjineyulu Chowdary, advocate for the first respondent and the second respondent remained exparte, this tribunal DOTH ORDER AND DECREE:

1) That the petition be and is hereby partly allowed with proportionate costs.

2)That the petitioner be and is awarded a compensation of Rs.1,88,000/- (Rupees One lakh and Eighty Eight thousands only).

3)That the respondents 1 and 2 jointly and severally do pay to the petitioner a compensation of Rs.1,88,000/- together with interest at 7.5% per annum from the date of petition i.e. 19.03.2014 till the date of realization;

4)That the respondents 1 and 2 do also pay to the petitioner a sum of Rs.2,747/- being proportionate costs of the petition and do bear their own costs.

2

5)That the respondents 1 and 2 be and are directed to deposit the said amount into court within one month from the date of this order.

6)That on such deposit, the petitioner be and is hereby permitted to withdraw a sum of Rs.50,000/- at once, his balance amount, costs and interest shall be kept FDR in any nationalized bank for a period of one year.

7)That the rest of the claim of the petitioner be and is hereby dismissed.

8) That the amount if any awarded U/S 140 of M.V. Act shall be deducted from this amount.

9) That the advocate fee is fixed at Rs.1,200/-.

Given under my hand and seal of the court this the 8th day of May, 2018.

CHAIRMAN,

MOTOR ACCIDENT CLAIMS TRIBUNAL,

(FAC: IV ADDL. DISTRICT JUDGE),

ANANTHAPURAMU.

TABLE OF COSTS FOR

Petitioner R1 and R2 Rs. Ps. Rs. Ps. Stamp on main petition2,360-00--- Stamp on vakalath.2-00.2-00 Stamp on process100-00--- Witness batta------ Stamps on documents.------ Stamps on petitions.5-00--- Writing Charges100-00--- Typing Charges100-00--- Publication Charges------ Advocate fee1,200-00--- Total 3,867-00 . 2-00

Proportionate costs allowed: Rs.2,747 /-

CHAIRMAN,

M.A.C.T. (FAC: IV ADDL. DIST. JUDGE), Ananthapuramu.