1
Fair
In the Court of MACT-cum-X Addl. Dist. & Sessions Judge,
(Fast Track Court) Visakhapatnam at Anakapalle.
Present :- Sri Y. SOMESWARA RAO, M.A., B.L.,
Chairman-MACT-X Addl. Dist. & Sessions
Judge (FTC), Visakhapatnam at Anakapalle.
Monday, the 1 st day of April, 2013
MVOP 134/2012
Between : Smt. Pyla Satyavathi, W/o. Ramarao, … Petitioner. And : 1.M/s. Crystal Phosphates Ltd., rep. by K. Amarnath Reddy, 2.I.C.I.C.I. Lombard General Insurance Co., Ltd., rep. by its Divisional Manager, Dwarakanagar, Visakhapatnam. …… Respondents.
This petition coming on this 12-3-2013 before me for final hearing in the presence of Sri B. Jagadeeswara Rao, Advocate for Petitioner and Sri S.P. Naidu, Advocate for 1st respondent and Sri K.P. Naidu, Advocate for 2nd respondent and heard both side counsels and having stood over for consideration till this day, this Tribunal delivered the following:
O R D E R
1. This petition is filed by the petitioner against the respondents 1 & 2 under Sec.166 of M.V. Act r/w Rule 455 of A.P. Motor Vehicle Rules, praying to award compensation of Rs.1,50,000/- for the injuries sustained to the petitioner in a motor accident with the offending vehicle i.e., Hero Honda
Splendor Motor Cycle bearing T/R. No. AP 09 TY 6964 and Permanent Regn.
No. AP 09 CA 4203 occurred on 1-10-2010 at 10-30 AM at Thallapalem
Santhabayalu, Kasimkota Mandal, Visakhapatnam District and also with costs and interest @ 18% p.a. from the date of the petition till realization.
2.The brief facts of the petition are that the petitioner is resident of Varalakshminagar, Vepagunta Junction, Visakhapatnam and she is a housewife and she is hale and healthy by the time of accident. On 1-10-2010 the petitioner traveled as a pillion rider of the motor cycle bearing No. AP 31
AV 5561 along with her sister’s husband by name G. Rambabu, who is the rider of the motor cycle, from their house to Avanthi Engineering College,
Makavarapalem and when they reached near Santhabayalu, Thallapalem
Junction at 10-30 AM by that time the Hero Honda Motor Cycle bearing T/R.
No. AP 09 TY 6964 and Permanent Regn. No. AP 09 CA 4203 driven by its driver in a rash and negligent manner with high speed without blowing any horn dashed against the motor cycle of the petitioner, as a result of which the petitioner fell on the road and sustained injuries on her abdomen and also all over the body. The accident occurred due to rash and negligent 2 driving of the driver of the offending motor cycle. Immediately after the accident, the petitioner was shifted to Government Hospital, Thallapalem, where the first aid was given and again from there she was shifted to Area
Hospital, Anakapalle. Subsequently again the petitioner was shifted to Indus
Hospital, Visakhapatnam for better treatment. The petitioner was treated as inpatient from 1-10-2010 to 14-10-2010 and a surgery also conducted in her abdomen and a laparatomy was done and even till today also the petitioner has been taking treatment as outpatient. The petitioner was also advised by the Doctors to take bed rest. The petitioner spent huge amount towards treatment. Even now also the petitioner is unable to walk long distance and cannot lift weights and that she is unable to do her normal duties and also getting pain in stomach. The life of the petitioner is completely spoiled due to the injuries in the said accident. The S.H.O., Kasimkota P.S. registered a case in Cr.No.198/2010 u/sec.338 IPC , Sec.134 r/w 187 of MV Act against the driver of the offending motor cycle. As such the petitioner filed the present petition against the respondents 1 & 2 who are no other than the driver cum owner and also the insurer of the offending vehicle respectively.
3.Respondents 1 & 2 filed their written statements by denying all the allegations as averred in the petition. The brief facts of the counter of the 1st respondent are as follows: The respondent denied all the allegations as averred in the petition and that the petitioner has to prove the same. This respondent is not aware about the allegations as mentioned in the petition. The driver of the respondent is an expert driver and working under them since long time and also he is an efficient and having a valid and effective driving licence which is in force as on the date of the alleged accident. The respondent denied the mode and manner of the accident narrated in the petition. The respondent also denied the allegation of the petitioner with regard to age, occupation and income of the petitioner and that the petitioner has to prove the same.
On the date of the alleged accident, the driver of the offending vehicle has not driven the same in a rash and negligent manner and that he is not responsible for the accident, but the petitioner took the aid of the local police and false case is foisted against this respondent with a view to get wrongful 3 gain and cause wrongful loss to this respondent. The respondent further submitted that the offending vehicle is duly covered with insurance policy with the 2nd respondent and the same is in force by the date of accident and that the 2nd respondent has to indemnify the liability of this respondent. As such this respondent is not liable for any compensation to the petitioner. The claim of compensation of the petitioner under different heads is highly excessive and that the petitioner is not entitled for the same. From the above submission the respondent pray to dismiss the petition with costs, in the interest of justice.
4.The brief facts of the counter of the 2nd respondent are as follows: The respondent denied the allegation of the petitioner with regard to age, occupation and earnings of the petitioner and that the petitioner has to prove the same. The respondent also denied the allegation of the petitioner that on 1-10-2010 the petitioner traveled as a pillion rider of the motor cycle bearing No. AP 31 AV 5561 along with her sister’s husband by name G.
Rambabu, who is the rider of the motor cycle, from their house to Avanthi
Engineering College, Makavarapalem and when they reached near
Santhabayalu, Thallapalem Junction at 10-30 AM by that time the Hero
Honda Motor Cycle bearing T/R. No. AP 09 TY 6964 and Permanent Regn. No.
AP 09 CA 4203 driven by its driver in a rash and negligent manner with high speed without blowing any horn dashed against the motor cycle of the petitioner, as a result of which the petitioner fell on the road and sustained injuries on her abdomen and also all over the body. The respondent also denied that the accident occurred due to rash and negligent driving of the driver of the offending motor cycle. This respondent is not aware about the registration of the case by Kasimkota Police against the driver of the offending vehicle and that the petitioner has to prove the same. The framing of the petition is not in accordance with the provisions of Sec.166 of M.V. Act and Rule 455 of AP MV Rules and basing on that ground the petition is liable to be dismissed in limini.
5.The respondent submitted that the petitioner has to prove that the driver of the offending motor cycle was having valid, effective and subsis- 4 ting driving licence to drive a specified class of motor cycle on the date of the alleged accident, otherwise this respondent is not liable for any compensation. The offending vehicle had no valid permit to ply on the road and that 1st respondent violated the terms and conditions of the Policy. As per Sec.134© of MV Act, it is mandatory duty of the owner of the 1st respondent to furnish particulars of injured, the name of the driver and particulars of the driving licence, but the 1st respondent has not complied such a statutory demand. Further as per Sec.158(6) of MV Act, it is mandatory duty of the concerned police station to forward all the relevant documents to the concerned insurer within 30 days from the date of information, but the Kasimkota P.S. failed to forward the same and not complied the statutory demand and that the respondent is not liable for any compensation. The claim of petition is highly excessive under different heads.
6. The respondent further submitted that as per criminal case records, there is an abnormal delay of 41 days in filing complaint and registration of
F.I.R. by Kasimkota P.S. As per the allegation of the petitioner though the alleged accident occurred on 1-10-2010, but the police complaint was lodged on 11-11-2010 with a delay of 41 days, but no explanation is given for such abnormal delay. Further submitted that in case of a motor accident, it is duty of the concerned Medical Officer, where the injured was admitted, immediately after the accident to intimate the same to the concerned police under a Medico Legal Case, but in this case no such MLC intimation was given by the hospital where the petitioner alleged to have undergone treatment. This clearly reveals that there was no motor accident at all. The case of the petitioner is stage managed and for the purpose of getting compensation a false case is foisted and the offending motor cycle was also planted in collusion with the 1st respondent and also foisted a false case for the purpose of getting compensation from this respondent. Further submitted that as seen from the records, there is an involvement of another vehicle AP 31 AV 5561 driven by one G. Rambabu and that the accident occurred due to rash and negligent driving of the said Rambabu and that the driver, owner and insurer of the motor cycle bearing No. AP 31 AV 5561 are necessary 5 parties in the proceedings, but intentionally they were not added by the petitioner. As such the petition is bad for non-joinder of necessary parties.
The rate of interest claimed by the petitioner @18% p.a. is highly excessive and that the same has to be scale down to 7.5% p.a. as per recent judgment of the Apex Court and also the recent guidelines of the Reserve Bank of
India. This respondent seeks protection under Sec.147, 149 & 170 of MV Act.
From the above submission, this respondent pray to dismiss the petition with costs, in the interest of justice.
7.Basing on the above pleadings the following issues are settled for trial:
1.Whether the petitioner sustained injuries in a motor accident
occurred on 1-10-2010 due to rash and negligent driving of vehicle
bearing T/R. No. AP 09 TY 6964 and Permanent Regn. No. AP 09 CA
4203 by it’s driver as pleaded by petitioner?
2.Whether the petitioner is entitled for compensation? If so, to what
amount and from which of the respondents? 3.To what relief?
8. During the course of the trial of the petition, on behalf of the petitioner, P.Ws.1 & 2 are examined. Exs.A.1 to A.7 are marked. On the other hand, on behalf of the respondents, R.W.1 is examined. Ex.B.1 to B.4 are marked. Heard both side counsels. Counsel for R.2 also filed written arguments.
9.Issue No.1:-
P.W.1 stated in her evidence that on 1-10-2010 while she was travelling as a pillion rider of the motor cycle bearing No. AP 31 AV 5561 along with her sister’s husband by name G. Rambabu, who is the rider of the motor cycle, from their house to Avanthi Engineering College,
Makavarapalem and when they reached near Santhabayalu, Thallapalem
Junction at 10-30 AM by that time the Hero Honda Motor Cycle bearing T/R.
No. AP 09 TY 6964 and Permanent Regn. No. AP 09 CA 4203 driven by its driver in a rash and negligent manner with high speed without blowing any horn dashed against the motor cycle of the petitioner, as a result of which the petitioner fell on the road and sustained injuries on her abdomen and also all over the body. Such an accident occurred due to rash and negligent driving of the driver of the offending motor cycle. It is pertinent to note that the present petition is filed by the petitioner against the respondents 1 & 2 who are no other than the owner and the insurer of the offending vehicle respectively. Though the 1st respondent who is the owner of the offending vehicle did not contest the petition, but remained exparte the 2nd respondent 6 who is insurer alone contested the petition. As can be seen from the contention of 2nd respondent who is the sole contesting party, it is their case that the offending motor cycle was not at all involved in the accident, but to get a false claim of compensation in collusion with the 1st respondent, the present petition is field by the petitioner. It is further the case of the respondent that such an accident occurred due to rash and negligent driving of the driver of the motor cycle in which the petitioner was traveling, but not due to rash and negligent driving of the driver of the offending vehicle. In view of plea taken by the respondent that such an accident occurred due to negligence of the driver of the petitioner’s motor cycle, but not due to rash and negligent driving of the driver of the offending motor cycle and more so the offending motor cycle is not involved in the said accident, the initial burden lies on the respondent to establish that such an accident occurred due to negligence of the driver of the petitioner’s motor cycle. In order to prove the case of the respondent in this regard, they ought to have examined the driver of the offending motor cycle at least by way of summoning him from the court on their behalf. Unfortunately the respondent failed to examine the driver of the offending motor cycle. No steps have been taken by the respondent to examine the driver of the offending motor cycle.
It is pertinent to note that though the petitioner filed the present petition against respondents 1 & 2 who are no other than the owner as well as insurer of the offending vehicle, but the owner of the offending vehicle is remained exparte and did not contest the petition. Therefore, since the owner of the offending motor cycle remained exparte and did not contest the petition, one cannot be expected that the driver of the 1st respondent will speak true facts against his owner, even though the respondent has taken steps to examine the driver of the offending vehicle by way of summoning him from the court. Due to that reason the respondent could not have taken any steps to examine the driver of the offending vehicle.
10.However, though the respondent failed to examine the driver of the offending vehicle and even though it is assumed for a moment that from the evidence of R.W.1, the respondent failed to establish their case, but 7 basing on that ground it cannot be said that the petitioner is able to prove their case and also cannot be said that the petition is entitled to get compensation unless and until the petitioner could able to establish their case by placing cogent evidence.
11.In order to prove the case of the petitioner, she mainly relied on the oral evidence of P.Ws.1 & 2 besides the documentary evidence. Though the petitioners relied upon oral evidence of P.ws.1 & 2. Out of them, the
P.w.2 is no other than the Medical Officer. Though the P.W.2 has stated some thing with regard to alleged treatment given to the petitioner, but the P.w.2 has not stated anything with regard to cause of accident. As such the evidence of P.W.2 is no way helpful to establish the case of the petitioner that such an accident occurred due to rash and negligent driving of the driver of the offending vehicle. No doubt, undisputedly the P.W.1 is no other than injured in this case. As can be seen from the contention of the respondent from the cross examination as well as the counter averments, it is not the case of the respondent that no accident occurred on that particular day nor petitioner received any injuries. However the respondent not disputed that the P.w.1 received injuries nor the accident, but the respondent claimed that such an accident occurred due to rash and negligent driving of the driver of the petitioner’s motor cycle, but not the driver of the offending motor cycle.
Since the petitioner is injured and also eye witness to the incident, P.W.1 is also an appropriate person to speak about the facts and circumstances of the accident. In evidence, no doubt P.w.1 clearly stated that such an accident occurred with the offending vehicle and also such an accident occurred due to rash and negligent driving of the driver of the offending vehicle. But, in view of the plea taken by the respondent that the offending motor cycle is not at all involved in the accident and that the respondent has denied the claim of the petitioner with regard to rash and negligent driving of the driver of the offending motor cycle in occurring such an accident, the evidence of P.w.1 has to corroborate with any other evidence. Unfortunately, except the sole testimony of P.w.1, but no other corroborating or supporting evidence is also available to the evidence of P.W.1.
8
12.In the present issue, we have to see whether the petitioner sustained injuries in a motor accident on 1-10-2010 and if so such an accident occurred due to rash and negligent driving of the driver of the offending vehicle bearing T/R. No. AP 9 TY 6964 and Permanent Regn. No.
AP 9 CA 4203 as pleaded by the petitioner. No doubt, in view of earlier discussion and also from the evidence of P.Ws.1 & 2 coupled with Ex.A.2,
A.4, A.5 & A.7 it is established that the petitioner sustained injuries in an accident occurred on 1-10-10. But at the same time the petitioner has to establish that such an accident occurred due to rash and negligent driving of the driver of the offending vehicle by placing cogent and convincing evidence. It is the case of the respondent that the offending vehicle is not at all involved in the accident on that particular date. In order to get compensation leisurely the petitioner created the offending vehicle and that filed a false case against the respondents. In view of the plea taken by the respondent, the petitioner has to establish their case that the offending vehicle is also involved in the accident and the said accident occurred with the offending vehicle and accordingly she sustained injuries. In order to establish their case, though the petitioner mainly relied on the oral evidence of P.Ws.1 & 2 besides documentary evidence, admittedly P.w.2 is no other than the Medical Officer, who simply stated that the petitioner was given treatment for the injury received by her in abdomen. P.W.2 has not stated that the injuries said to have been received by the petitioner in a motor accident. More over, though the petitioner mainly relied on the documentary evidence of Exs.A.2, A.4, A.5 & A.6, but none of the documents discloses that the injuries are received by the petitioner in a motor accident. Thus the documentary evidence as well as oral evidence of P.w.2 does not establish in any way the version of the petitioner that the petitioner received such injuries in a motor accident.
13.It is clear case of the petitioner that while she was going on a motor cycle by that time she was pillion rider and her brother-in-law by name G. Rambabu was the rider of the motor cycle, such an accident occurred. As such along with the petitioner, the so called rider of the motor 9 cycle G. Rambabu as well as the driver of the offending motor cycle are also the best persons to speak about the facts and circumstances of the accident.
As pointed out earlier the petitioner failed to examine the driver of the offending motor cycle at least by way of summoning him from the court.
however, at least the petitioner ought to have examine the rider of the motor cycle by name G. Rambabu who is no other than the own brother-in-law of the petitioner. As can be seen from the petition averments, wherein it is clearly mentioned that the rider of the motor cycle also received bleeding injuries on his left leg. As such the rider of the motor cycle is also injured and that an eye witness. Unfortunately the petitioner failed to examine the rider of the motor cycle by name Rambabu. The petitioner failed to give any explanation for non-examination of the so called Rambabu. When it is the case of the petitioner in Ex.A.1 report that the rider of the motor cycle G.
Rambabu also received injuries in the said accident, certainly he would have taken treatment for his injury. At least the petitioner ought to have placed wound certificate of the so called Rambabu before the court in supporting to the case of the petitioner. Unfortunately the petitioner neither failed to examine the said Rambabu nor filed any wound certificate or any medical record to show that the said Rambabu also received injuries. The non- examination of the injured eye witness G. Rambabu is very much fatal to the case of the petitioner.
14.As pointed out earlier, it is the case of the petitioner that while the petitioner being a pillion rider of the motor cycle was going on motor cycle and by that time the brother-in-law of the petitioner by name G.
Rambabu was the rider of the motor cycle, the driver of the offending motor cycle driven the same in a rash and negligent manner and dashed the petitioner’s traveling motor cycle and consequently such an accident occurred. If really such an accident occurred and two vehicles are colluded, certainly damage is caused to both the vehicles and at least any one of the vehicle. In order to prove such a damage to the motor cycle of the petitioner or the offending motor cycle, the petitioner ought to have obtained Motor
Vehicle Inspector’s Report before the court. If really the accident occurred in 10 collision of two vehicles, certainly the concerned police ought to have examined both the vehicles or at least anyone of the vehicle through Motor
Vehicle Inspector and if so the Motor Vehicle Inspector would have issued a report. Unfortunately the petitioner failed to obtain any Motor Vehicle
Inspector’s Report from the concerned police and to place the same before the court.
15.Further more, if really such an accident occurred basing on the report, the police registered a case and consequent to the investigation, the police filed charge sheet, certainly the police ought to have visited the scene of offence and to draft rough sketch or prepared a panchanama. If so the petitioner ought to have obtained a copy of rough sketch as well as the panchanama report from the concerned police and to place the same before the court. Unfortunately the petitioner failed to obtain and place any rough sketch before the court. Perhaps the police might not have prepared a rough sketch nor visited the scene of offence and that is why the same are not available with the police and that the petitioner could not file the same before the court. All those clearly goes to show that the police have not conducted any proper investigation and that is why not prepared such a rough sketch or panchanama reports. Even though, the petitioner filed Ex.A.1 copy of FIR and
Ex.A.3 copy of charge sheet, it does not mean the petitioner could able to establish their case. Issue of F.I.R. and filing of charge sheet is not a conclusive proof unless the police could able to establish the charge sheet averments are true and correct by placing cogent evidence. The petitioner failed to place any material before the court that the police could able to establish the charge sheet averments by placing cogent and convincing evidence. Therefore, the documents of Exs.A.1 & A.3 are also no way helpful to establish the case of the petitioner and those are not a conclusive proof.
Except oral testimony of P.w.1, no supporting evidence is available on record to establish the case of the petitioner or to corroborate the evidence of P.W.1 that the offending vehicle was involved in the accident.
16.It is the case of the respondent and also the evidence of R.W.1 that the offending vehicle was not at all involved in the accident and that is 11 why in order to secure an injured motor vehicle, the petitioners have waited 40 days and then only leisurely implicated the offending vehicle in a false case in a delay of 41 days, more over the petitioner has not properly explained such an abnormal delay in filing complaint. As can be seen from the evidence of P.w.1 as well as the petition averments, the alleged incident occurred on 1-10-2010. It is the bounden duty of the petitioner that immediately after the accident, the petitioner ought to have submitted a report to the police, but the petitioner has not reported the matter to the police after the accident. The record shows that the petitioner submitted
Ex.A.1 report to the Police on 11-11-2010 i.e., with a delay of 41 days. As can be seen from the contents of Ex.A.1, the petitioner tried to explain the delay by stating that due to innocence and having no knowledge, they could not submit report before the police and more over as she hospitalized, after discharge from the hospital then only she submitted a report to the police. It is also pertinent to note that even though it is assumed for a moment that immediately after the accident she was admitted in the hospital, due to which she could not submit any report, but the Ex.A.4 discharge summary clearly speaks that the petitioner was admitted in the hospital on 1-10-2010 and discharged on 14-10-2010. It can be expected that at least the petitioner ought to have submitted a report to the police on 15-10-10 or on the next day, but the Ex.A.1 clearly shows that Ex.A.1 was not given to the police either on 15-10-10 or 16-10-10, but the Ex.A.1 was given on 11-10-10.
Further more, the innocence of law is not excuse; as such the explanation given by the petitioner for such an abnormal delay of 41 days cannot be appears to be a genuine one. Therefore, in such circumstances, it can be said that the petitioner failed to give any proper explanation for such an abnormal delay.
17.In supporting to the case of the petitioner, they submitted citations reported in,
1.II (2011) ACC 84 Punjab and Haryana High Court in a case of New India
Assurance Co., Ltd., Vs. Anchal Sood & others, and
2.I(2011) ACC 704 Supreme Court of India in a case of Ravi Vs.
Badrinarayan & others, wherein it is clearly held that, 12 “delay in lodging F.I.R. should not be treated as fatal for such proceedings, if claimant has been able to demonstrate satisfactory and cogent reasons for it.”
18.On perusal of the above citations, it was clearly held that if claimant has been able to explain satisfactory for a delay in filing F.I.R., it cannot be treated as fatal. However, as pointed out and discussed earlier, the petitioner failed to give any proper explanation for such abnormal delay.
Therefore, in such circumstances, it cannot be said that the above citations are applicable to the instant case.
19.On the other hand, the learned counsel for the respondent submitted citations reported in; 1.2012 (2) Andhra Weekly Reporter, page 126 S.C., 2.2004(3) ALD (NOC), page 312, 3.2009(5) ALT, page 405.
20. On perusal of the above citations, wherein it is clearly held that, “the petitioner has to prove the rash and negligent driving of the driver of the offending vehicle and also to prove the involvement of the vehicle in the accident.” 21As pointed out and discussed earlier the petitioner failed to establish by placing cogent evidence about the involvement of the offending vehicle and also about the rash and negligent driving of the driver of the offending vehicle by placing cogent and convincing evidence. As such the citations are applicable to the present case.
22.In view of foregoing discussion, since the petitioner failed to explain proper reasons for such an abnormal delay in filing the report before the police about the accident, it can be doubted with regard to such accident.
More over as pointed out earlier the petitioner also failed to establish the involvement of the offending vehicle in the said accident as well as due to rash and negligent driving of the driver of the offending vehicle such an accident occurred. Therefore, in the above set of circumstances, since the petitioner failed to establish their case, it cannot be believed that such an accident occurred due to rash and negligent driving of the driver of the offending vehicle.
13
Hence the issue is answered accordingly in favour of petitioner and against the respondents.
23.Issue No.2:-
In view of findings on Issue No.1, since the petitioner could able to establish that she received injuries in an accident and accordingly she was admitted in the hospital and has taken treatment and spent some amount towards medical treatment, but at the same time the petitioner failed to establish that such an accident occurred due to rash and negligent driving of the driver of the offending vehicle. As such the petitioner is not entitled for compensation.
Hence the issue is answered accordingly against the petitioner and in favour of respondents.
24.Issue No.3:-
In view of findings on Issue Nos.1 & 2, the petition is liable to be dismissed and is dismissed.
In the result, the petition is dismissed. But in the circumstances, no costs.
Dictated to Personal Assistant, transcribed by him, corrected and
pronounced by me in the open court, this the 1 st day of April 2013.
C HAIRMAN -MACT- CUM -
X A DDL . D IST . & S ESSIONS J UDGE , (FTC),
V ISAKHAPATNAM AT A NAKAPALLE .
APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE
Witnesses Examined
For Petitioner: For Respondents:
P.W.1 : Pyla Satyavathi.R.W.1 : P.V. Siva Kumar P.W.2 : Dr. S. Sridhar.
No of Documents marked
For Petitioner:-
Ex.A.1 : Copy of First Information Report dt.11-11-2010 Ex.A.2 : Copy of Wound Certificate dt.13-12-2010 Ex.A.3 : Copy of Charge Sheet. Ex.A.4 : Discharge summary issued by Indus Hospital, Visakhapatnam. Ex.A.5 : Scan Report. Ex.A.6 : Disability Certificate dt.15-9-2012 issued by Dr. S. Sridhar Ex.A.7 : Bunch of Medical Bills for an amount of Rs.12,516/- 14
For Respondents:-
Ex.B.1 : Copy of Insurance Policy, Ex.B.2 : Office copy of Legal Notice dt.5-12-2012 Ex.B.3 : Postal Receipts (2 in number) Ex.B.4 : Returned unserved cover of R.1 (marked by consent of other side)
C HAIRMAN -MACT- CUM -
X A DDL . D IST . & S ESSIONS J UDGE (FTC),
V ISAKHAPATNAM AT A NAKAPALLE .
15
Date of Presentation : 16-9-2011 Date of Filing : 6-1-2012
In the Court of MACT-cum-X Addl. Dist. & Sessions Judge,
(Fast Track Court) Visakhapatnam at Anakapalle.
Present :- Sri Y. SOMESWARA RAO, M.A., B.L.,
Chairman-MACT-X Addl. Dist. & Sessions
Judge (FTC), Visakhapatnam at Anakapalle.
Monday, the 1 st day of April, 2013
MVOP 134/2012
Between : Smt. Pyla Satyavathi, W/o. Ramarao, Hindu, aged 40 years, House wife, r/of D.No.7-23, Varalakshminagar, Vepagunta Junction, Visakhapatnam. … Petitioner. And : 1.M/s. Crystal Phosphates Ltd., rep. by K. Amarnath Reddy, A-303, Renuka Shakti Apartments, Opp. Bharathiya Vidya Bhavan, King Koti, Hyderabad. 2.I.C.I.C.I. Lombard General Insurance Co., Ltd., rep. by its Divisional Manager, Dwarakanagar, Visakhapatnam. …… Respondents.
This petition is filed by the petitioner against the respondents 1 & 2 under Sec.166 of M.V. Act r/w Rule 455 of A.P. Motor Vehicle Rules, praying to award compensation of Rs.1,50,000/- for the injuries sustained to the petitioner in a motor accident with the offending vehicle i.e., Hero Honda Splendor Motor Cycle bearing T/R. No. AP 09 TY 6964 and Permanent Regn. No. AP 09 CA 4203 occurred on 1-10-2010 at 10-30 AM at Thallapalem Santhabayalu, Kasimkota Mandal, Visakhapatnam District and also with costs and interest @ 18% p.a. from the date of the petition till realization. The value of the petition is Rs.1,50,000/- and a court fee of Rs.860-00 is paid thereon under Rule 475 (1) of A.P. Motor Vehicles Rules.
This petition coming on this 12-3-2013 before me for final hearing in the presence of Sri B. Jagadeeswara Rao, Advocate for Petitioner and Sri S.P. Naidu, Advocate for 1st respondent and Sri K.P. Naidu, Advocate for 2nd respondent and heard both side counsels and having stood over for consideration till this day, this Tribunal doth order and;
D E C R E E
1.that the petition be and the same is hereby dismissed, 2.that in the circumstances, no costs.
Given under my hand and the seal of this Tribunal, this the 1 st
day of April 2013.
C HAIRMAN -MACT- CUM -
X A DDL . D IST . & S ESSIONS J UDGE , (FTC),
V ISAKHAPATNAM AT A NAKAPALLE .
NO COST MEMO FILED ON EITHER SIDE
C HAIRMAN -MACT- CUM -
X A DDL . D IST . & S ESSIONS J UDGE , (FTC),
V ISAKHAPATNAM AT A NAKAPALLE .