1

IN THE COURT OF THE JUDGE; IV ADDL.MOTOR

ACCIDENTS CLAIMS TRIBUNAL :NELLORE AT SRI POTTI
SRIRAMULU NELLORE DISTRICT

Present: SRI CH.RAMACHANDRA MURTHY,B.Com.,M.L.,

Chairman of IV Addl. Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal,
Nellore
Monday, this the 1 day of December 2014
st

M.V.O.P.No.106 OF 2010
Between:
Penubaka Srinivasulu
Son of Venkaiah, Hindu,
Aged 35 years, clerk in Brandy Shop
And residing at Mypadu village,
Indukurpet Mandal, Nellore
District. … Claimant

AND

1. K.Krishnaiah Naidu
Son of Pitchaiah Naidu, Hindu,
Aged not known, Auto owner,
Residing at Gudapallipadu village,
Nellore Rural Mandal.

2. United India Insurance Company Limited,

having its Divisional Office at Brindavanam,
Nellore and the same is being represented by
its Divisional Manager (Vide cover Note No.8560418
valid from 8.3.2001 to 7.3.2002) ... Respondents

This petition is coming before me on for final hearing before me on

21-10-2014 in the presence of Sri Tenali Srinivasulu advocate for the
claimant, and of Sri M.Ramachandra Reddy advocate for the 2nd
respondent and 1st respondent has been called absent and set exparte and
upon perusing the material papers on record and upon hearing both sides,
this Court made the following:

ORDER

1. This claimant/Penubaka Srinivasulu filed claim petition under Section

166 of Motor Vehicles Act, for claiming compensation of Rs.3,50,000/- with

the following averments.

(i) The claimant aged 35 years working in a brandy shop as clerk and

earning Rs.4,000/- per month. On 18.3.2001 while he was proceeding from

Mypadu to Nellore on his motor cycle and at about 1.30 P.M., when he

reached near Weigh Bridge on Nellore-Mypadu road, meanwhile the driver

of the Goods Auto bearing No.AP 26 U 4315 came in opposite direction in

rash and negligent manner with high speed and dashed the Motor Cycle,
 2
resulting the claimant fell down and received simple and grievous injuries.

He was shifted to Bollineni Super Specialty Hospital, Nellore where he

underwent surgery by incurring medical expenses and that he got

treatment as inpatient for a period of three months and that his right leg

was shortened and there is limping in his movement. He lost his earnings.

Both the respondents are jointly and severally liable to pay compensation.

Hence, the petition.

2. The first respondent who is said to be owner of the Goods Auto

bearing No.AP 26 U 4315, remained exparte.

3. The second respondent insurance company filed counter denying the

averments in the petition and further contends that the driver of the Auto

was not negligent and the driver of the Auto did not possess valid driving

licence and that the petition is not maintainable since the insurer and

insured of Hero Honda Motor Cycle are not impleaded as parties and also

denies the age and income of the claimant and further contends that the

claim is excessive and that the offending vehicle was not insured with the

respondent and therefore, respondent requests to dismiss the petition.

4. On the Strength of above pleadings, the following issues are framed

for trial:

1.Whether the claimant is entitled to compensation? If so, what

amount?

2. Whether the accident occurred due to the rash and negligent

driving of the driver of the Goods Auto bearing No.AP 26 U 4315 or
due to the rash and negligent driving of the rider of the Hero Honda
Motor Cycle?

3. Whether the petition is bad for non-joinder of the owner and the
insurer of the Hero Honda Motor Cycle as necessary parties?

4. To what relief?

5. On behalf of the petitioner, he himself examined as PW-1 and got

marked Exs.A-1 to A-6 were marked.

 3
FOR CLAIMANT
PW-1 :- Penubaka Srinivasulu
( petitioner)
DOCUMENTS MARKED ON BEHALF OF THE
CLAIMANT
Ex.A-1 :- Attested Xerox copy of First
Information Report in Crime
No.10/2001 of P.S. North Traffic
Ex.A-2 :- Attested Xerox copy of charge
sheet
Ex.A-3 :- Attested Xerox copy of wound
certificate
Ex.A-4 :- Bunch of medical bills
Ex.A-5 :- Two discharge summaries
Ex.A-6 :- Attested Xerox copy of physically
handicapped certificate stands in
the name of petitioner.

6. On behalf of second respondent, RWs-1 to RW-3 were examined and

Exs.X-1 and Ex.X-2 were marked.

WITNESSES EXAMINED ON BEHALF OF 2ND

RESPONDENT
RW-1 :- Kilari Krishnam Naidu
RW-2 :- M.Koteswara Rao
(Administrative Officer in
Regional Road Transport
Authority, Nellore)

RW-3 :- Chenna Srikalyan

DOCUMENTS MARKED ON BEHALF OF
SECOND RESPONDENT
Ex.X-1 :- Authorization letter authorizing
RW-2 to depose evidence
Ex.X-2 :- Registration extract of Form 24
B register for vehicle bearing
No.AP 26 U 4315

7. Heard both sides and perused relevant records.

ISSUE No.2

2. Whether the accident occurred due to the rash and negligent

driving of the driver of the Goods Auto bearing No.AP 26 U 4315 or
due to the rash and negligent driving of the rider of the Hero Honda
Motor Cycle?

8. As per Ex.X-2, the offending vehicle bearing No.AP 26 U 4315 is

stands in the name of one P.Venkateswarlu Reddy, son of Bhagavan Doss

since 16.3.2001 onwards. The claimant did not choose to produce any

evidence that the offending vehicle stands in the name of first respondent.
 4
The first respondent examined as RW-1, who categorically deposed that he

is not the owner of the offending Auto. He never purchased the Auto and

insured with second respondent. His evidence was unchallenged in cross

examination on behalf of the petitioner. As per the evidence of RW-2

coupled with entries in Ex.X-2 vehicle registration extract, it can safely be

held that the offending vehicle is stands in the name of Venkateswarlu

Reddy.

9. It is not in dispute that the offending vehicle is involved in the

accident occurred o 18.3.2001 at 1.30 P.M., near weigh bridge on Nellore-

Mypadu road. It is evident from Ex.A-1 first information report and Ex.A-2

charge sheet filed before learned II Additional Judicial Magistrate of First

Class, Nellore. As per Ex.A-2 one Doneparthi Venkata Ramanaiah alias

Ramana son of Subba Rao drove the Auto on the material date of accident.

10. Learned advocate for the petitioner contends that the accident took

place due to rash and negligent driving of the dirver of offending Auto. On

the other hand second respondent contends that the petitioner was

negligent in riding the motor cycle. Second respondent did not choose to

examine any eyewitness to the accident to disprove the contention of

petitioner, though they are contesting the proceedings by taking

permission under Sectio 170 of Motor Vehicles Act. On the other hand, the

claimant who is injured examined as PW-1. He categorically deposed that

the Auto driver drove the Auto on wrong side and dashed his motor cycle.

Nothing has been elicited from his cross-examination to disprove rash and

negligent driving of the Auto driver.

11. In addition to the evidence of PW-1, as per Ex.A-2 charge sheet, it

can safely be held that the investigation officer after completion of

investigation come to the conclusion that the driver of the offending Auto

was negligent in causing the accident and injuries to PW-1. Contrary to

that the second respondent did not choose to examine any witnesses.

Taking into consideration of evidence referred to above, I hold that the

 5
driver of the Auto was negligent at the time of accident. Hence, I find the

issue accordingly.

Issue No.3

Whether the petition is bad for non-joinder of the owner and the
insurer of the Hero Honda Motor Cycle as necessary parties?

12. It is contended by the learned advocate for the second respondent

that the insured and insurer of Hero Honda Motor Cycle are proper and

necessary parties to the petition and in their absence the petition is not

maintainable. As stated above, as per oral and documenatary evidence, it

is the offending Auto driver who was responsible for the accident.

Therefore, the question of impleading insurer and insured of Hero Honda

Motor Cycle does not arise. Accordingly, I find the issue accordingly.

Issue No.1:-

1.Whether the claimant is entitled to compensation? If so,

what amount?

13. As per Ex.A-1 wound certificate, PW-1 received the

following injuries.

1. Lacerated wound over the lower 1/3rd of toe with

muscle and tender got exposed. Right femur lower shaft

fracture exposed out with bleeding.

2. A small abrasion over the right foot 2 X 2 C.M.

3. Right arm middle half swollen with tenderness.

Injury Nos.2 and 3 are simple in nature and injury No. 1 is

grievous in nature.

The petitioner did not choose to examine Medical Officer

to prove the injuries referred to in Ex.A-3.

14. Learned advocate for the second respondent argued that

there is no need to give finding on quantum of compensation

 6
payable to the petitioner, since the petition is not maintainable

against the respondents. As stated above, the petitioner did

not choose to produce any record to prove that offending

vehicle stands in the name of first respondent. The first

respondent as RW-1 denied his ownership over the offending

Auto. As per the evidence of RW-2 coupled with the contents

of Ex.X-2, it can safely be held that the offending vehicle

stands in the name of one Venkateswarlu and not stand in the

name of first respondent. There is no contrary evidence

adduced by the petitioner. Therefore, it can safely be held

that R-1 is nothing to do with offending vehicle and he is not

insured the vehicle with the second respondent.

15. As argued by the learned advocate for the second

respondent the insurance policy particulars are not mentioned

in the petition. It is simply noted against the column No.17 of

the petition the name of second respondent insurance

company. There is no reference as to the particulars of

insurance company that insured with second respondent in

respect of the offending vehicle. Learned advocate for the

second respondent argued that the vehicle is not insured with

the second respondent insurance company. RW-1 also

deposed that he never insured the offending vehicle with the

second respondent. There is no evidence produced on behalf

of the petitioner with reference to coverage of policy with the

second respondent on the material date of accident. In the

absence of any policy coverage, insured with second

 7
respondent, the question of directing the second respondent to

pay the compensation if any does not arise. Taking into

consideration of evidence of RW-1 and RW-2 coupled with

Ex.X-2, it can safely be held that the vehicle was not insured

with second respondent on the material date of accident.

Therefore, the petition is not maintiainable against the

respondents. Therefore, the petitioner is not entitled to claim

compensation against the respondents. Hence, the petition is

liable to be dismissed in the circumstances of the case without

costs.

16. In the result, this claim application is dismissed without

costs.

Typed on my direct dictation by the steno typist, corrected and

pronounced by me in the open Court on this the day 1st day of December
2014.

CHAIRMAN,
IV ADDL.MOTOR ACCIDENTS CLAIMANTS
TRIBUNAL, NELLORE

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE
WITNESSES EXAMINED FOR
FOR CLAIMANT
PW-1 :- Penubaka Srinivasulu
( petitioner)
DOCUMENTS MARKED ON BEHALF OF THE
CLAIMANT
Ex.A-1 :- Attested Xerox copy of First
Information Report in Crime
No.10/2001 of P.S. North Traffic
Ex.A-2 :- Attested Xerox copy of charge
sheet
Ex.A-3 :- Attested Xerox copy of wound
certificate
Ex.A-4 :- Bunch of medical bills
Ex.A-5 :- Two discharge summaries
Ex.A-6 :- Attested Xerox copy of physically
handicapped certificate stands in
the name of petitioner.
 8
WITNESSES EXAMINED ON BEHALF OF 2ND
RESPONDENT
RW-1 :- Kilari Krishnam Naidu
RW-2 :- M.Koteswara Rao
(Administrative Officer in
Regional Road Transport
Authority, Nellore)

RW-3 :- Chenna Srikalyan

DOCUMENTS MARKED ON BEHALF OF
SECOND RESPONDENT
Ex.X-1 :- Authorization letter authorizing
RW-2 to depose evidence
Ex.X-2 :- Registration extract of Form 24
B register for vehicle bearing
No.AP 26 U 4315

CHAIRMAN
IV ADDL.MOTOR ACCIDENTS CLAIMANTS
TRIBUNAL, NELLORE.