State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission
Smt Akella Vishala W/O Sri Avs Bhavani ... vs 1. Sri Sirigineedi Venkata Ramesh @ ... on 15 May, 2014
BEFORE THE A.P.STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION:HYDERABAD. C.C.No.103 OF 2010 Between: 1. Smt Akella Vishala W/o Sri AVS Bhavani Prasad Aged 45 years, Housewife, R/o 1-2-5, Gandhinagaram Anakapalli, Visakhapatnam Dist. 2. Sri Akella Venkata Subbaraya Bhavani Prasad S/o late Someswara Rao garu, aged 52 yrs, Advocate R/o Gandhinagaram, Anakapalli, Visakhapatnam Dist. Complainants AND 1. Sri Sirigineedi Venkata Ramesh @ Geddam Ramesh S/o Suryanarayana, aged 36 yrs with D.L.No.DLC AP0162408/2003 valid upto 14.08.2011 R/o 4th Floor Gopi Deluxe Apartment, Opp: to Hotel Mahalakshmi, Seshayya Metta, Rajahmundry Working as Placement Coorinator GIET College, Rajanagaram East Godavari District 2. Koundinya Education Society, Owners of the Vehicle Chaitanya Nagar, NH-5 Road, Rajahmundry East Godavari Dist. 3. Godavari Institute of Engineering and Technology Chaitanya Nagar, NH-5 Road, Rajahmundry, East Godavari Dist. Opposite parties Counsel for the complainant M/s K.Sarvabhouma Rao Counsel for the opposite parties M/s D.S. Sai Subramanyam (Ops 2&3) Served(OP1) QUORUM: SRI THOTA ASHOK KUMAR, HONBLE MEMBER
AND SRI S.BHUJANGA RAO, HONBLE MEMBER THURSDAY THE FIFTEENTH DAYOF MAY TWO THOUSAND FOURTEEN Oral Order:(Per Sri Thota Ashok Kumar, Honble Member.) ***
1. The complaint is filed by the first and second complainants seeking compensation to the tune of `50 lakhs on account of death of their son that occurred in a motor vehicle accident dated 2.3.2008 involving the bus belonging to the second opposite party-engineering college.
2. Briefly the averments of the complaint are that the complainants son viz., Someshwera Hemanth was studying B.Tech III year in the second opposite party-college at Rajahmundry. Certain Companies such as Satyam Computers, Bank of America, TCS Intel Limited and Wipro proposed to conduct campus interviews at Kakinada for the third year students of Chaitanya College of Engineering and Technology and those of the second opposite party-engineering college for which purpose the second opposite party-engineering college had taken its third year students including the complainants son in its bus bearing number AP 5W 3621 with capacity of 42 passengers, met with an accident when the driver stopped it by the side of road in order to make request for arrangement of another bus by which time the first opposite party sat on the drivers seat behind the steering without the knowledge of the driver and drove it at high speed and in rash and negligent manner. As a result of which the first opposite party lost control over the steering of the bus and the bus hit from behind a stationed lorry at the outskirts of Rajahmundry.
The complainants son Hemanth and one Kollipara Venakata Jayalakshmi died on the spot, 15 other students sustained severe injuries of whom Boina Divya succumbed to injuries while undergoing treatment at Swatantra hospital, Rajahmundry and the bus was also severely damaged. The Police, Bommuru registered case in crime number 53 of 2008 against the first opposite party for the offences u/s 304A IPC etc. The complainants lost their only son who was 19 years old and he would have completed the engineering course and could have earned `50,000/- per month. Conducting campus interviews by various companies to induct the students is done for the purpose of assuring employment to their students on completion of their academic pursuit is a part of imparting education and rendering service by the second and third opposite parties and the complainants lost their son due to deficiency in service on the part of the opposite parties and the present complaint is filed without prejudice to the rights of the complainants to file claim before the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal. Hence, the complaint.
3. Despite service of notice, the first opposite party has not chosen to contest the claim.
4. The second opposite party and the third opposite party resisted the claim on the premise that the deceased was a gratuitous passenger and as such the complaint is not maintainable. It is averred that the second and third opposite parties had not permitted the first opposite party to drive the bus at the time of the accident and that as a good will gesture the second opposite party college had taken its students to Kakinada to enable them to attend H.R Summit at Kakinada. The second opposite party and the third opposite party entrusted the bus to their driver, namely, G.Sudarshan Rao who is authorized to drive heavy passenger vehicle and the first opposite party without the consent and knowledge of the second opposite party and the third opposite party, drove the vehicle and caused the accident.
5. The complainants son, a hostler left the hostel with prior permission and boarded the bus on the date of the accident at Hi-Tech Bus Station. The complainants filed claim petition, O.P.No. 369 of 2009 before the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal and they cannot claim benefit in both the fora and they have to restrict their claim to one Forum. The complainants are not entitled to claim relief under Consumer Protection Act without foregoing their right to make claim under the provisions of the Motor Vehicles Act. The second opposite party entrusted the bus to duly licensed driver and there was no deficiency in service on the part of the second opposite party and the third opposite party and thus prayed for dismissal of the complaint.
6. PW1, the second complainant has filed his affidavit reiterating the case set out in the complaint and Exs.A1 to A32 were marked on behalf of the complainants. PWs No.2 to 5 namely, G.Tirumal Rao, Aravilli VVLN Srinivasa Kunrty, Lanka Keerthi and Lanka Preethi filed affifdavits supporting the case of the complainants and the gist of their evidence is as under:
a) Mr.G.Tirumala Rao S/o.Syamala rao, Photographer gave his affidavit as P.W.2 deposing that on the request of Bommuru Police Station he went to the scene of road accident to take Photographs and also to the mortuary to take photographs of the three dead bodies which were marked as Exs.A6 to A14 on the file of VII Additional Judicial First Class Magistrate Court at Rajahmundry.
b) Mr.Aravilli V.V.L.N.Srinivasa Kunrty presently working as Design Engineer in PERFINT HEALTH CARE (P) Ltd., No.16 South West Boag Road T.Nagar Chennai gave his affidavit stating that he studied B.Tech (Mech.) in GIET College, Rajahmundry along with the deceased Akella Venkata Someswara Hemanth and Ramalakshmi who are his classmates and that since 20th May, 2010 on initial salary of `25000/- CTC + bonus of `2500/- per month and now his salary is `29000/- CTC + Bonus of `7000/- per month as PW3.
c) Ms.Lanka Keerthi D/o.Jagannadham, aged 26 years working as Systems Engineer at Tata consultancy Services (TCS), Synergy Park, Gachibowli, Hyderabad filed her affidavit as P.W.4 and stated that she joined TCS in the year 2008 and was trained for 30 days and later posted at Kalkata for pursuing ahead my career as Assistant Systems Engineer with a pay packet of `3.15 lakhs per annum and after working for 2 years at Kolkata transferred to Hyderabad in May, 2011 and her present pay packet is Rs.4.15 lakhs per annum and also filed pay slips from April, 2012 to Nov 2012 showing her monthly income and that she knew the deceased Hemanth, who is a bright student and died in the accident due to the negligence of the college authorities in allowing placement officer who does not have valid driving license to drive the bus.
d) Ms.Lanka Preethi D/o. Jagannadham also filed her affidavit as PW5 deposing that she joined Infosys in 2012 and drawing pay packet of Rs.3.15 lakhs per annum and filed pay slips from August, 2012 to Nov.2012 to show her monthly income and also filed the letter of offer from Wipro offering employment and that she knew the deceased Hemanth, who is a bright student and died in the accident due to the negligence of the college authorities in allowing placement officer who does not have valid driving license to drive the bus.
7. RW1, Mr.Bandaru Suribabu, Vehicles In-charge of opposite party no.2 college filed his affidavit deposing various defences set out by the opposite parties no.2 and 3 and marked Exs.B1 to B6. His evidence is that he is working as Vehicles In-charge since the year 2005 and that the opposite party No.2 has got 18 buses for the purpose of bringing the students from various places to the college and again to drop them back in the evening and his job is to co-ordinate the movement of the vehicles with drivers and ensure that they are plied properly. He testified that on 02-3-2008 there was a H.R. Summit at Kakinada and the third year students intended to attend the Summit and as a gratuitous service, no fee was charged and hence the complaint is not maintainable and that he informed the senior drivers to keep the vehicles at Hi-tech bus stand, Kambalacheruvu Rajahmundry for the students to board the two buses and they acted on his instructions and at that time one Mr.G.V.Ramesh ( the first opposite party) working for training and Placement Cell all of a sudden forcibly took charge of the bus without the consent of the driver and drove the bus and caused the accident. After the accident, the allotted driver, Mr.G.Sudarsan went and gave statement to Bommuru Police and on 03-3-2008 the Management addressed a letter to S.H.O., Bommuru. He deposed that the bus is validly insured with Bajaj Alliance Insurance Company and the management never authorized opposite party No.1 to drive the vehicle and the vehicle was entrusted to Mr.G.Sudarsan who is authorized by second opposite party to drive as he is having valid driving license to drive the vehicle. He deposed that the opposite party No.2 did not violate any terms and conditions of the policy of insurance and insured the vehicle and handed over the vehicle to a driver having valid driving license and therefore there is no deficiency in service on the part of opposite parties 2 and 3. He further deposed that the complainants already filed M.V.O.P.No.369/09 before M.A.C.Tribunal and they cannot have double benefits and not entitled to claim the compensation.
8. RW2, Mr.Gangidesi Sudarsan Rao, Driver, Koundinya Educational society filed his affidavit and stated that he is having driving license number as DLRAP 10577272006 and has working as bus driver under opposite party no.2 since seven years prior to the date of accident. He deposed that on 02-3-2008 the vehicles in charge, Bandaru Suribabu informed our senior driver, Mr.M.Venkateswara Rao to bring two buses from the halt location near A.P.Paper Mills Ltd., Rajahmundry to Hi-Tech bus shelter, Kambalacheruvu and on his instructions he brought the bus bearing No.AP 05 W 3621 and another bus was driven by one Venu and both the buses were stationed at Hi-tech bus shelter at 7.30 a.m. He got down from the bus and was waiting for the students to get in and as more students were coming he discussed with the second driver about the feasibility of getting a third bus and at that time, the opposite party no.1 working for the training and placement cell of second opposite party came in a car to the bus shelter along with another person got into the bus and drove away the bus and they ran behind the bus for some time asking him to stop the bus but opposite party no.1 did not heed to their request and then he immediately telephoned to Mr.S.Sivakumar, Security officer and informed that the opposite party No.1 took away the bus without informing and without stopping inpsite of his shouting.
He also testified that they immediately followed the opposite party No.1 in the second bus and reached Gowthami Model school and found the bus in a damaged condition by hitting a stationed lorry and found that several students injured in the accident and immediately telephoned to 108 Ambulance and also gave a statement to S.I. of Police, Bommuru that he did not allow the opposite party No.1 to drive the vehicle and opposite party No.1 without informing him took the keys of the vehicle and drove the vehicle and the management gave him strict instructions not to entrust the vehicle to anyone.
9. Heard both side counsel with reference to their respective contentions and further counsel for the opposite parties no.2 and 3 filed his written arguments.
10. Now the points for consideration are:
i) Whether the complaint is maintainable under the provisions of the Consumer Protection Act?
ii) Whether there is deficiency in service on the part of the opposite parties?
iii) To what relief?
11. POINT NO.1: Almost all facts are not disputed except the deficiency in service on the part of the opposite parties. The son of the complainants, Someshwera Hemanth, a third year B.Tech student of the 2nd opposite party college was also a hostler and he was proceeding along with other students in the bus bearing registration number AP 05 W 3621 belonging to the second opposite party college on 2.03.2008 and as the bus was overloaded, its driver stopped it at the outskirts of Rajahmundry and at that time the first opposite party, Placement Coordinator drove the bus towards Kakinada. He lost control over the steering of the vehicle being driven by him and hit a stationed lorry bearing number AP 13 T 9641 from behind due to which the bus was severely damaged and the complainants son died on the spot while Boina Divya died while undergoing treatment at Swatnatra Hospital, Rajahmundry as also 15 other students sustained severe injuries in the accident. The Police, Bommuru registered a case in crime number 53 of 2006 on 2.03.2008 against the first opposite party.
12. The learned counsel for the complainant has submitted that the complainants have filed O.P.No.369 of 2008 against the opposite parties before the VI Additional District Judge, Visakhapatnam and the present complaint is filed as Section 3 of the Consumer Protection Act provided for additional remedy. The learned counsel for the second and third opposite parties has contended that the complaint is not maintainable in view of the M.V.O.P. filed on the same cause of action and pending before the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Vishakhapatnam. The learned counsel for the complainant has relied upon the following decisions:
I M.S.Grewal and another vs Deepchand Sood and others 2001 AIR SCW 3430
ii) B.Ramulamma and others vs B.Venkatesh Bus Union represented by A.M.Velu Modaliar and another.
13. In M.S.Grewals case, 14 school children who were taken on picnic were drowned dead due to negligence of the two school teachers who were convicted by criminal court for the rash and negligence and the Supreme Court held the school authority vicarious liable for the negligence of its teachers. The Apex Court considered the tender age of the students and the negligence of the teachers as follows:
Turning attention however on to the issue of vicarious liability, one redeeming feature ought to be noticed at this juncture that to escort the children was the duty assigned to the two teachers and till such time thus the period of escorting stands over, one cannot but ascribe it to be in the course of employment the two teachers were assigned to escort the students : the reason obviously being the children should otherwise be safe and secure and it is the act of utter negligence of the two teachers which has resulted in this unfortunate tragedy and thus it is no gain-said that the teachers were on their own frolic and the school had done all that was possible to be done in the matter safety of the children obviously were of prime concern so far as the school authorities are concerned and till such time the children return to school, safe and secure after the picnic, the course of employment, in our view continues and thus resultantly, the liability of the school. A profitable re-capitulation of facts depict that the criminal court has already found both the teachers guilty of utter negligence and convicted them under Section 304 A IPC (which provides that whoever causes the death of any person by doing any rash or negligence act not amounting to culpable homicide shall be punished with) We are not inclined to record anything contra, save what stands recorded by the District Court in the criminal proceeding but we are constrained to record our anguish over the conduct of the teachers escorting the students even a simple rule of discipline and safety would have prompted the teachers not only to go to the river where they went but no where near the river ought to have been the guiding factor children are children: fun and frolic stand ingrained in them and it is School/Teachers deputed for escorting ought to be reasonably careful since entrusted with the safety this entrustment ought to have infused a sense of duty which should have prompted them to act not in the manner as they have so acted.
In view of the above, we are unable to record our concurrence with the submissions of Mr. Bahuguna that the doctrine of vicarious liability cannot in any event be made applicable in the facts of the matter under consideration. Liability of the school, in our view, in the contextual facts cannot be shifted for any reason whatsoever by reason of the factum of teachers being within the course of employment of the school at the time of the tragedy.
14. Ramulammas is a case where the 16 students including both the deceased were proceeding on eight motor cycles who were on picnic and among them the deceased G.Prashanth Reddy and B.Ravi Kumar proceeding on a motor cycle reached Guddadapalyam gate the tourist bus came in a rash and negligent manner at high speed from opposite direction dashed against the motor cycle of the deceased as a result of which the deceased sustained serious injuries and the deceased Ravi Kumar died on the spot and the deceased Prashanth Reddy died on the way t the Hospital at Gubbi and the Honble High Court held that the object of the relevant provisions of the Act appears to be to give a sort of social security to the bereaved family. The life is precious and no amount of money can compensate the loss of life. Perhaps the only thing so far no scientist could do is reviving of a lost life. It is impossible to bring back the life. Therefore it has to be seen whether the tribunal or the court would keep the parents wife or children of the deceased in the same position in which they would have lived had the deceased not died in the accident and that should be their object.
15. The learned counsel for the second opposite party and third opposite party has placed reliance upon the decision in Chairman, Thiruvallavur Transport Corporation vs Consumer Protection Council AIR 1995 SC 1384. The claim petition was filed by Consumer Protection Council on behalf of the wife of deceased passenger of the bus belonging to the Corporation before the National Commission which allowed the complaint awarded compensation of Rs.5.10 lakh with interest thereon and costs.
16. The Transport Corporation filed appeal before the Supreme Court questioning locus standi of the Consumer Council and jurisdiction of the National Commission to entertain the petition since exclusive jurisdiction was conferred by the Motor Vehicles Accident Claims Act on Tribunal constituted thereunder. Honble Supreme Court considered relevant provisions of the Motor Vehicles Accident Claims Act and Consumer Protection Act and laid the principle relating to the jurisdiction of both Tribunals. The Supreme Court held that:
The question which then arises for consideration is whether the National Commission had jurisdiction to entertain the claim application and award compensation in respect of an accident involving the death of Shri K. Kumar caused by the use of a motor vehicle. Clearly the Claims Tribunal constituted for the area in question, had jurisdiction to entertain any claim for compensation arising out of the fatal accident since such a claim application would clearly fall within the ambit of section 165 of the 1988 Act. The 1988 Act can be said to be a special Act in relation to the claims of compensation arising out of the use of a motor vehicle. The 1986 Act being a law dealing with the question of extending protection to consumers in general, could, therefore, be said to be a general law in relation to the specific provisions concerning accidents arising out of the use of motor vehicles found in Chapter XII of the 1988 Act. Ordinarily the general law must yield to the special law.
17. The Supreme Court has observed that the accident occurred has no nexus with the service provided or offered to be provided to the deceased. Their lordship observed ;
Besides, the complaint in question cannot be said to be in relation to any goods sold or delivered or agreed to be sold or delivered or any service provided or agreed to be provided to the deceased. The expression "
service" as defined by the 1986 Act means service of any description which is made available to potential users and includes the provision of facilities inter alia in connection with transport. The accident that occurred had nothing to do with service provided to the deceased. This becomes obvious when one reads the provision along with the definition of complaint in section 2(c) and service in section 2(o) of the 1986 Act. Complaint according to section 2(c) means any application in writing in relation to an unfair trade practice or as a restrictive trade practice adopted by any trader or in relation to goods bought by him or agreed to be bought by him. Both these clauses have no application whatsoever. The third clause relates to the services hired or availed of or agreed to be hired or availed of by a consumer. Therefore, at best it can be said the complaint in question related to the service hired or availed of by the deceased. The complaint in the instant case cannot be said to be in relation to any service hired or availed of by the consumer because the injury sustained by the consumer had nothing to do with the service provided or availed of by him but the fatal injury was the direct result of the accident on account of which he was thrown out of his seat and dashed against the iron handle of the seat in front of him. We, have,, therefore, no manner of doubt that this case squarely fell within the ambit of section 165 of the 1988 Act and the Claims Tribunal constituted thereunder for the area in question had jurisdiction to entertain the same. As pointed out earlier, the 1988 Act and, in particular, the provisions in Chapter XII thereof creates a Forum before which the claim can be laid if it arises out of an accident caused by the use of a motor ve- hicle. That being a special law would prevail over the relevant general law such as the 1986 Act but in the instant case even that question does not arise for the simple reason that the dispute in question did not attract the jurisdiction of the National Commission, whatsoever, and the National Commission has not shown how it had jurisdiction. The issue was pointedly raised and for reasons best known to the National Commission it failed to come to grip with it. Surprisingly, there is no discussion whatsoever in the order of the National Commission in this behalf We are, therefore, of the opinion that the National Commission did not have jurisdiction and as counsel for the appellant put it this was a case of unwarranted exercise of jurisdiction.
18. We do not accept the contention of the learned counsel for the opposite parties no.2 and 3 that the deceased was a gratuitous passenger. They have got conducted campus interviews by various companies to induct the students for the purpose of assuring employment to their students on completion of their academic pursuit is a part of imparting education and rendered service to the complainants and their son. The complainants as such are the consumers within the meaning of consumer and the complainants lost their son due to deficiency in service on the part of the opposite parties. Pendency of claim under sections 165 and 166 of Motor Vehicle Act is not a bar for claim under Consumer Protection Act on account of deficiency in service on the part of the opposite parties.
19. The settled law is that the master is vicariously liable for the tort or deficiency in service rendered by its employee during the course of employment. According to the contesting opposite parties on the ground that the bus was overcrowded and its driver stopped the bus in the outskirts of the Rajahmundry and that the first opposite party drove it caused accident resulting in death of the son of the complainants and it was so driven by the first opposite party without any consent of the concerned driver nor the first opposite party was assigned with such a duty.
When according to the concerned driver he stopped the bus on a such a ground of overload it was his bounden duty to lock the bus and retain its keys with him but he did not do so. There is no such specific evidence from the concerned driver in the said context and he vaguely deposed that without informing him the first opposite party took the keys of the vehicle and drove it. In such circumstances it has to be inferred that the said driver Sudershan either left the keys at the lock in the bus or had given it to the first opposite party. In both the situations he was negligent as he facilitated the first opposite party to drive the vehicle. Had he taken such a precaution of keeping the keys with him, there was no possibility for the first opposite party, placement coordinator to occupy the drivers seat and drove the vehicle and thus the authorized driver of the second opposite party institution majorly contributed for the accident and as such the master is vicariously liable for the acts of the said driver. When according to the second and third opposite parties themselves that they entrusted the bus to the driver who got down the bus on the premise that it was overloaded and consequently the said coordinator drove the vehicle caused the accident the opposite parties no.2 and 3 are jointly and severally liable for the negligence of their driver. IN such circumstances their contention that they did not authorize the said coordinator to drive the vehicle is no way helpful for them.
20. Since the complainants lost their son in the said accident naturally they are entitled for the compensation on account of the said accidental death. Multiplier method is the safest one to arrive at the conclusion with regard to compensation for which age of the mother of the deceased; avocation and income of the deceased are relevant. Since there is no definite evidence with regard to the age of the mother of the deceased that she is aged 45 years 13 multiplier is taken into account considering that she is above 45 years. It is true that the deceased was prosecuting B.Tech and thus he had no income during relevant time and he was depending on his parents but his future prospects cannot be ignored. Taking into consideration of the prevailing recession in software and hardware jobs etc., and his contribution to his wife and children had he been alive, the notional income of the deceased on some guess work is taken into account at `10,000/- per month for the purpose of this case which comes to `1,20,000/- per annum. In such circumstances, the affidavits of the deponents who testified about the probable income of the deceased are not helpful for the complainants. Possibility their trying to help the complainants in escalating the income etc., of the deceased cannot be ruled out. However, out of the said probable income of the deceased 1/3rd thereof has to be deducted towards personal expenditure of the deceased had he been alive thus net loss comes to `80,000/- per annum and if it is multiplied by 13 the total loss comes to `10,40,000/-.
Added to it a sum of `5,000/- towards funeral expenses and `5,000/- towards loss of estate has to be awarded. Thus the total compensation payable to the complainants comes to `10,50,000/- and also costs of `5,000/- and rest of the claims is dismissed. The said amount of compensation and costs are apportioned among the complainants no.1 and 2 as under:
`7,00,000/- to the first complainant/mother of the deceased `3,55,000/- to the second complainant/father of the deceased In the result the complaint is allowed in part directing the opposite parties no.1 to 3 jointly and severally to pay `7,00,000/- to the first complainant/mother and `3,55,000/- to the second complainant/father of the deceased respectively. Time for compliance four weeks from the date of receipt of the order.
MEMBER MEMBER Dt.15.05.2014 కె.ఎం.కె.* APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE WITNESSES EXAMINED For complainant For opposite parties Affidavits of PWs 1 to 5 Affidavits of RWs 1 and 2 EXHIBITS MARKED For complainant Ex.A1 Intimation by GSL General Hospital to Bommuru Police about MLC at 9.40 AM, date 02.03.2008 (PW1) Ex.A2 Intimation by GSL General Hosital to Bommuru Police about MLC at 9.45 AM, date 02.03.2008(PW1) Ex.A3 Intimation by GSL General Hosital to Bommuru Police about MLC at 10.00 AM, date 02.03.2008 (PW1) Ex.A4 First Information Report No. 53 of Bommuru Police station registered at 10.00 AM along with the statement of Daggamilli Rakesh Kumar alias Rakesh, Son of Yohan, IIIrd Year EC, GIAT College,date 02.03.2008 (PW1) Ex.A5 Inquest Report on the dead body of Akella Venkata Someswara Hemanth, date 02.03.2008 (PW1) Ex.A6 Report registered scene of offence, date 02.03.2008 (PW1) Ex.A7 Motor Vehicle Inspector Report by M. O. N.S Srinivas, MVI, Rajahmundry, date 07.03.2008 (PW1) Ex.A8 Post Mortem Certificate performed on the body of Akella Venkata Someswara Hemanth by P.B. Vishnu Vardhini, Civil Surgeon at District Head Quarters Hospital, Rajahmundry, date 02.03.2008 (PW1) Ex.A9 Charge Sheet along with Inspectors Letter, date 05.05.08 (PW1) Ex.A10 legal Notice, date 12.06.2008 (PW1) Ex.A11 Reply through Sri S.R.K Hanumatha Rao, Advocate Rajahmimdry, date 16.06.08 (PW1) Ex.A12 The court of the VI th Addl, District Judge Visakhapatnam, OP. No. 369 of 2008- 1st Respondent (PW1) Ex.A13 Adoption Memo filed on behalf of respondent No. 2, date 07.07.2009 (PW1) Ex.A14 The court of the VI th Addl, District Judge Visakhapatnam, OP. No. 369 of 2008-3rd Respondent (PW1) Ex.A15 The court of the VI th Addl, District Judge Visakhapatnam, OP. No. 369 of 2008-4th Respondent (PW1) Ex.A16 In the Honourable court of the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal cum District Judge at Visakhapatnam, MOP No.369 of 2009 (PW1) Ex.A17 Photos (PW1) Ex.A18 Photos (PW2) Ex.A19 CD (PW2) Ex.A20 Pay slip- perfint Healthcare Pvt Ltd (PW3) Ex.A21 Infosys Limited , Salary slip for the period 01.11.2012 30.11.2012 (PW4) Ex.A22 Infosys Limited , Salary slip for the period 01.11.2012 30.11.2012 (PW4) Ex.A23 Infosys Limited , Salary slip for the period 01.11.2012 30.11.2012 (PW4) Ex.A24 Infosys Limited , Salary slip for the period 01.11.2012 30.11.2012 (PW4) Ex.A25 Infosys Limited , Salary slip for the period 01.10.2012 30.10.2012 (PW4) Ex.A26 Infosys Limited , Salary slip for the period 01.10.2012 31.10.2012 (PW4) Ex.A27 Infosys Limited , Salary slip for the period 01.09.2012 30.09.2012 (PW4) Ex.A28 Infosys Limited , Salary slip for the period 01.09.2012 30.09.2012 Ex.A29 Infosys Limited , Salary slip for the period 01.09.2012 30.09.2012 Ex.A30A Pay slip November 2012- Tata Consultancy Services Ex.A30B Pay slip November 2012- Tata Consultancy Services Ex.A31 Pay slip November 2012- Tata Consultancy Services (PW5) Ex.A32 Infosys Limited, Salary slip for the period 01.08.2012 31.08.2012 (PW5) For the opposite parties Ex.B1: Copy of Bajaj Allianz General Insurance Company Ltd Certificate cum Policy schedule, dated 15.11.2007 Ex.B2: Letter from the Station House Officer, Rajahmundry, dated 03.03.2008 Ex.B3: Receipt, dated 05.03.2014 Ex.B4: Letter from Bajaj Allianz General Insurance Company Ltd, dated 05.03.2014.
Ex.B5: Copy of driving Licence, dated 16.11.2006 Ex.B6: Letter from sudarshan Rao, dated 02.03.2010 MEMBER MEMBER