1

IN THE COURT OF THE MOTOR ACCIDENT CLAIMS TRIBUNAL-CUM-

VI ADDITIONAL DISTRICT JUDGE, GOOTY.

Present : Sri G. KABARDHI,

Chairman-cum-Vi Addl. District Judge.

Wednesday, the 20th day of July, 2022

M.V.O.P. No.12/2019
Between :

1) Chutta Chinna S/o. C. Pedda Pullana, aged about 50 years, Hindu (Died)
2) Chutta Gangamma W/o. C. Chinnanna, aged about 48 years, Hindu
3) Chutta Jayalakshmi D/o. C. Chinnanna, aged about 26 years, Hindu
Physically disabled, unmarried.
4) Chutta Nagaraju S/o. C. Chinnanna, aged about 19 years, Hindu.

All are residing at Puppala Village, Yadiki Mandal,

Ananthapuramu District. … Petitioners.

And

1) G. Narayana Reddy S/o. G. Konda Reddy, Major, Hindu,

R.C owner of Trailer bearing No.AP-15-Y-5043, R/o. D.No.3-94,
Thimma Reddy Gudem, Thummala Palli Village, Chandur Mandal,
Nalgonda District (Owner of the offending vehicle).

2) The Manager, Legal Cell, Shriram Gen. Ins. Co. Ltd.,

O/o. E-8, EPIP, RIICO, Sitapura Industrial Area,
Jaipur – Rajasthan State. (Insurer of the Offending Vehicle).

3) G. Ram Reddy S/o. Thimma Reddy, aged about 36 years,

Hindu, Driver, R/o. D.No.1-1, Thimma Reddy Gudem,
Chandur Village and Mandal, Nalgonda District.
(Driver of the offending Vehicle). … Respondents.

This petition coming on 17.06.2022 for final hearing before me in the

presence of Sri P. Chenna Reddy, Advocate for Petitioner and of Sri T. Rama
Krishna, Advocate for the Respondent No.2 and Respondent Nos.1 and 3
remained exparte and upon hearing both sides and on perusing the record
and this matter having stood over for consideration till this day, this Court
made the following :
AWARD

1. The petitioners being legal heirs of deceased Chutta Ganga Siva filed

this petition under sections 140 and 166 of A.P. Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 and

Rule 455 of A.P.M.V. Rules claiming compensation of Rs.8,00,000/- from the

respondents.
 2

2. The brief averments of the petition is that, the deceased by name C.

Ganga Siva was quite hale and healthy on the date of accident and he is the

son of the Petitioner Nos.1 and 2, brother of Petitioner Nos.3 and 4. The 1 st

respondent is the owner of the Vehicle bearing No.AP-15-Y-5043 and

Respondent No.2 is its Insurer and Respondent No.3 is the driver. On

10.09.2018 on the evening hours the deceased along with the villager by

name Narendra were loaded their tomato baskets in the vehicle bearing

No.AP-02-TA-0990 from their Village to Ananthapuramu Vegetable market for

selling and both were sat in the Cabin of the said vehicle. Then on the same

day, at about 8:20 PM the said vehicle to reach near the ESSAR Petrol Bunk,

Kallur Village on Hyderabad to Bangalore N.H.44 road, in the mean time, the

said vehicle was punctured and its driver drove it slow manner for stopping,

while at the same time the Trailer and Tanker bearing No.AP-15-Y-5403

came from back side in a rash and negligent manner and dashed against

the said vehicle. As a result of which both were fell down from the said

vehicle cabin, but the deceased Ganga Siva fell down under the tyre of

offending vehicle and the said vehicle dragged to some distance on the road.

As a result of which, the deceased received grievous injuries on his head,

legs and body and another person Narendra also received simple injuries.

Then immediately the deceased was shifted to PHC, Pamidi for medical

treatment in another vehicle. Where the deceased died while under going

treatment. Then on the intimation given by the said hospital authorities, the

Garladinne Police went there and shifted the dead body to the Government

General Hospital, Ananthapuramu, where the said police held inquest and

duty doctor conducted autopsy of the deceased dead body. Due to the

sudden demise of the deceased, the petitioners has lost their love and

affection and also only son. Now the petitioners are suffering a lot day to day

life. Hence the petition.

 3

3. The 1st and 3rd respondents were remained exparte. Whereas the 2 nd

respondent Insurance Company filed the counter denying all the allegations

mentioned in the petition and further averred that Respondent No.3 did not

possess any requisite driving skills and requisite driving license to drive the

said vehicle, as the said vehicle requires Hazardous License to be possessed

by the concerned driver as the vehicle is a tanker which comes under special

and hazardous category. As such Respondent No.2 company is not liable to

pay any compensation to the petitioners. There was no rash and negligent

driving on the part of the R-3 in causing the accident. As such the 2 nd

respondent is not liable to pay any compensation. As seen from the records

and also basing on the facts, the entire rash and negligence was on the part

of the driver of another vehicle Mahindra Max bearing No.Ap-02-TA-0990 in

which the deceased was travelling at the time of accident and due to the

rash and negligence driving of the driver of the said Mahindra Max, the

deceased fell down from the said vehicle and died in the accident and as

such there is no rash and negligent driving on the part of the driver of the

above said tanker. As such R-2 is not liable to pay any compensation. It is

also further averred in the counter that the petitioners with the active

connivance and collusion with the 1 st respondent had implicated the

involvement of the Tanker stated above as crime vehicle in the accident by

managing the concerned police officials and as such R-2 is not liable to pay

any compensation and all the legal plea which are available to the Insurance

Company i.e., R-2 were also taken in the counter filed by R-2. The petition is

bad for non-joinder of all necessary parties i.e., owner, driver and the Insurer

of the other vehicle involved in the accident i.e., Mahindra Max and finally

prayed for dismissal of the petition.

4. Basing on the above pleadings, the following issues are settled for

trial :
 4

(1) Whether the rash and negligence is on the part of

Respondent No.3 or the driver of the Vehicle bearing
No.AP-02-TA-0990?
(2) Whether the petition is bad for non-joinder of
Mahindra Max Vehicle bearing No.AP-02-TA-0990?
(3) Whether the compensation claimed by the
petitioners is excessive or not?

(4) To what relief?

5. On behalf of the Petitioners, PWs.1 and 2 are examined and Exs.A.1 to

A.5 are marked. On behalf of respondents, RW.1 is examined and Exs.B-1 is

marked.

6. Heard arguments on both sides.

7. Issue Nos.1 and 2 :-

The 1st petitioner C. Gangamma, who is the mother of the deceased is

examined as PW.1 and filed her affidavit in chief reiterating the petition

averments, through her Exs.A-1 to A-5 documents are marked. While coming

to the cross-examination she deposed that she is not the eye witness to the

accident. She did not file any income proof of the deceased. She deposed

that she did not implead the owner, insurer and the driver of the van bearing

No.AP-02-TA-0990 as parties to the petition. She denied the suggestion that

the negligence is on the part of the driver of van, but not on Respondent

No.3. The rest of the cross-examination is with full of denial of suggestions.

8. PW.2 G. Raghu, who is said to be the eye witness filed his affidavit in

which he stated that on the date of accident he was working as a driver to

the Van bearing No.AP-02-TA-0990. On 10.09.2018 in the evening hours he

loaded tomato baskets in the said Van of his villagers by name C. Ganga Siva

and Narendra with intention to go to tomato market Ananthapuramu for

unloading. After loaded their tomato baskets, the said two persons were sat

in the cabin of the van by his side. While on the same day while they were

proceeding on the mid way at about 8:20 PM the said vehicle near to reach
 5

at ESSAR Petrol Baunk, Kallur Village on Hyderabad to Bangalore, NH.44 high

way road, in the mean time his van was punctured and he was driving the

vehicle in a slow manner, at that time one Trailer vehicle bearing No.AP-15-

Y-5043 came from back side in a rash and negligent manner without dim and

dip lights and dashed against his van on its back side. As a result of which

his van side door opened and turtle. Due to the said two persons were fell

down on the road from the cabin. Due to that the Ganga Siva fell down under

the tyre of trailer and the said vehicle dragged him to some distance. Due to

that impact C. Ganga Siva had received grievous injuries on his head, legs

and all over the body and another person has received simple injuries. While

coming to the cross-examination he deposed that the deceased belongs to

his village. He did not gave any report to the police. The father of the

deceased gave complaint to the police, but he was not present at the time of

accident. The father of the deceased was not present at the time of

accident. His owner is one Ramesh and he is belongs to his village. At the

time of accident he is driving the Van. He is working as a driver for the last

13 to 14 years. He is having driving license and he also brought the driving

license on the day when he gave evidence. He denied the suggestion that

without giving any signals and indicators suddenly he turned into left side,

thereby it is his negligence. The crime vehicle dashed on the back side of his

vehicle. The crime vehicle came on his back side. At the time of accident, the

deceased was in the Cabin. He denied the suggestion that as because the

deceased did not sit properly in the cabin, and when he suddenly turned the

van, he fallen on the road, thereby the injuries are occurred because of his

negligence only. The rest of the cross-examination is with full of denial of

suggestions.

9. RW.1 J.L. Siva Narayana, who is working as Legal Officer for the 2 nd

respondent company filed his affidavit in chief through him Ex.B-1 copy of
 6

Insurance Policy. While coming to the cross-examination he deposed that

they obtained all the vehicle records through their investigator. But he did

not file the investigator report before this Court. He admitted that the injured

is a third party to the offending vehicle. Ex.B1 policy is in force and it is a

packaged policy which covers third party risk also. He denied the suggestion

that the driver of the offending vehicle had valid driving licence. He denied

the suggestion that as there are no violations in Ex.B-1 policy, thereby the

2nd respondent is liable to pay the compensation. He admitted that the

charge sheet is filed against the 3 rd respondent being the offending vehicle.

The charge sheet is marked as Ex.A-5.

10. The counsel for the 2nd respondent submitted that there is no caution

indication given by the front vehicle i.e, Mahindra Max bearing No.AP-02-TA-

0990, which is negligence on the part of the said driver and he without giving

any indication suddenly slow the vehicle, on that this accident took place.

The counsel for the 2nd respondent submitted that the charge sheet filed by

the police is not a gospel of truth and he submitted a Judgment reported in

2004 (3) ALD (NOC) 312 in between APSRTC, Hyderabad Vs. N.

Krishna Reddy and others and also another Judgment reported in

2004 (3) ALD (NOC) 313 in between APSRTC Vs. D. Sasikala and

others. In both the Judgments it is observed by the Hon’ble High Court of

A.P at Hyderabad that “merely because the police filed charge sheeted

against as particular person it cannot be presumed that allegations in the

charge sheet are true. It is also observed by their lordships that in all the

motor accident cases, panchanama and sketch of the scene of accident are

very important as they would show where actually the accident occurred and

would assist the Court in coming to a correct conclusion .” The learned

counsel for the 2nd respondent submitted that in this case except filing of

charge sheet, there is no rough sketch, scene of offence observation

 7

mahazar and photos are not filed by the petitioner and they were not

prepared by the police. He argued that the above two Judgments are

applicable to the facts of the present case.

11. It is also submitted by the counsel for the 2 nd respondent that the

allegations in the complaint has to be looked into. He submitted several

aspects, I will discuss at the relevant point of time. I have gone through Ex.

A-1, in which it is clear that while they are going on suddenly the Mahindra

Max bearing No.AP-02-TA-0990 in which the deceased and others are

travelling were punctured while the driver of the said Mahindra Max bearing

No.AP-02-TA-0990 going slowly, suddenly the trailer and tanker bearing

No.AP-15-Y.5043 came in a rash and negligent manner with high speed and

dashed the Mahindra Max bearing No.AP-02-TA-0990, on that the accident

took place. The counsel for the 2nd respondent submitted a Judgment in

between Sushila Bai and others Vs. Kunwar Singh and others

reported in 2006 ACJ 1435 Madhya Pradesh High Court, hitting from

behind was discussed in the said Judgment. In that case the deceased was

proceeding on his Scooter Registration bearing No.MP4-Q-504 when he

reached near the water-head tank, his scooter was overtaken by a dumper

bearing the registration No. MP 20-C-9012 driven by R-1, in a rash and

negligent manner, after overtaking it at some distance without any

indication of the brake lights or any other signs suddenly it was stopped in

the middle of the road. Due to this negligent act of the driver of truck, who

was riding scooter behind the dumper truck rammed into the truck from

back side, thereby the accident took place . In our case also Mahindra Max

bearing No.AP-02-TA-0990 suddenly stopped in the middle of the road

without giving any indications. So the facts which are in the above Judgment

are quietly applicable to the facts of the present case on hand. There is a
 8

contributory negligence on the part of the driver of Mahindra Max bearing

No.AP-02-TA-0990 also.

12. Issue No.3: What is the just compensation. According to the

petition averments the deceased is aged about 23 years and he is a coolie

and getting Rs.10,000/- per month, but no income proof is filed by the

petitioners. The counsel for the 2 nd respondent submitted a Judgment in

between Meena and others Vs. Rani Ammal and Another. He has

submitted a Judgment that in that case the bachelor died fixed sum of

Rs.5,00,000/- was granted as compensation by the Supreme Court. The

counsel for the 2nd respondent submitted that even if the Hon’ble Court come

to a conclusion that there is a negligence on the part of the driver of the van

also, only as per the Judgment the tribunal has to grant compensation up to

Rs.5,00,000/- only.

13. But the counsel for the petitioner submitted a Judgment reported in

2018 (4) T.A.C. 345 (S.C) in between Magma General Insurance Co.

Ltd., Vs. Nanu Ram Alias Chuhru Ram and others, it is held that it is a

Comprehensive Judgment. In that Judgment the deceased was a bachelor,

engaged in business of manufacturing namkeen, who is called as skilled

labour. But here in our case the deceased is not a skill labour. Thereby the

notional income is taken into Rs.5,000/- per month. The multiplier that can

be applied is ‘18’. 50 per cent of the future prospects have to be added to

the income of the deceased Rs.5,000 + Rs.2500 = 7,500/- (1/3 is deducted

being a bachelor towards personal expenses Rs.7,500 – 2,500 = 5000).

Therefore, Rs.5,000 x 12 x 18 = 10,80,000-00 + Rs.25,000-00 towards

funeral expenses.
 9

(1) Compensation towards Loss of earnings, Rs.10,80,000-00

future prospects, Loss of dependency
and loss to the estate.
(2) Compensation towards funeral Rs.25,000-00
expenses.
Total Rs.11,05,000-00

14. In view of the contributory negligence on the part of the driver of

Mahindra Max bearing No.AP-02-TA-0990. The petitioners are entitled for

compensation of 50 per cent only and 50 per cent of compensation is to be

attached to the driver and owner of the Mahindra Max bearing No.AP-02-TA-

0990, they were not added as parties in this petition, if they were added as

parties, the 50 per cent of the compensation might have been awarded

against them also. As they were not added as parties and in view of the

contributory negligence attached to them, the Respondent Nos.1 to 3 are

liable to pay the compensation as 50 per cent i.e., Rs.5,52,500/-. Thus the

petitioners are entitled to compensation of Rs.5,52,500/-.

15. Issue No.4 :-

In the result, the petition is allowed in part with proportionate costs by

granting the following reliefs:

1) The Respondent No.1 to 3 are jointly and severally liable to pay the
awarded amount of Rs.5,52,500/- to the petitioners.

2) The petitioners are entitled to interest at 7.5% p.a. on the amount

awarded from the date of petition till the date of this order.

3) The Respondents R.1 to R.3 are directed to deposit the amount

awarded within a period of three months from the date of this order,
failing which the respondents are liable to pay the penal interest at
9% p.a.

4) The Petitioner No.2, who is the mother of the deceased is entitled

for Rs.3,02,500/- in the Awarded compensation amount. On deposit
of the said amount, the petitioner No.2 is permitted to with draw
their entire share amount.
 10

5) The Petitioner Nos.3 and 4, who are elder sister and younger
brother of the deceased are entitled for Rs.1,25,000/- each in the
Awarded compensation amount. On deposit of the said amount, the
petitioners are permitted to with draw their entire share amount.

6) Advocate fee is fixed at Rs.2,000/-.

7) The petitioners are not entitled for any interest for a period where
the petition was dismissed for default and till it was restored, if any.

Dictated to the Stenographer, transcribed by him, corrected by me and

pronounced in Open Court, this the 20th day of July, 2022.

CHAIRMAN,
MACT-CUM-VI ADDL. DISTRICT0
GOOTY.

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE
WITNESSES EXAMINED FOR
Petitioners Respondents
PW.1 C. Gangamma. RW.1: J.L. Siva Narayana.
PW.2 C. Raghu.

EXHIBITS MARKED FOR PETITIONERS

Ex.A1 : Attested copy of FIR.

Ex.A2 : Attested copy of Inquest Report.
Ex.A3 : Attested copy of Post Mortem Report.
Ex.A4 : Attested true copy of MVI Report.
Ex.A5 : Attested true copy of Charge Sheet.

EXHIBITS MARKED FOR RESPONDENTS

Ex.B1 : Copy of Insurance Policy and with terms and conditions.

CHAIRMAN
MACT-cum-VI ADJ,
GOOTY.