B.Papi Reddy

CA.No.25/2015 1/15 Dt:17.4.2017

IN THE COURT OF III ADDITIONAL DISTRICT & SESSIONS JUDGE :: NELLORE

Dated, this the 17th day of April, 2017

Present: Sri B.PAPI REDDY,

III ADDL. DIST. & SESSIONS JUDGE ,

NELLORE.

***

CRIMINAL APPEAL No.25 OF 2015

1.Judgment in Crl.Appeal C.A.NO.25/2015 No.

2.From what Court the Additional Judicial Magistrate of I Class, Kavali, appeal is preferredS.P.S.R. Nellore.

3. No. of the case in that C.C.No.87/2009 Court

4.No. of the appealC.A.No.25/2015

5.Name of the complainantState: Represented by Sub Inspector of Police, Kavali Rural P.S., S.P.S.R. Nellore District.

6.Names and description of Bethireddy Narasimharao, S/o Prasad, aged the appellant/Accusedabout 32 years, Nagisettyvari street, Kavali Town S.P.S.R. Nellore District.

7.The sentence and law The Appellant convicted for the offence under under which it was Sections 304 A IPC and sentenced to undergo imposed in the lower simple imprisonment for a period of one year, Court the appellant also convicted for the offence under section 337 IPC and to pay a fine amount of Rs.500/­, in default of payment of fine to suffer simple imprisonment for a period of 15 days.

8.Whether confirmed or Reversed modified or reversed. If modified the modification.

9.Date of presentation30.1.2015

10.Date of filing 30.1.2015

11.Date of notice issued by 30.1.2015 the Court to appear

12.Date of bail bond if ­ appellant has been let out on bail.

CA.No.25/2015 2/15 Dt:17.4.2017

13.Appellants ordered to 27.2.2015 appear

14.Date of hearing28.3.2017

15.Date of Judgment7.4.2017

This criminal appeal coming on 28.3.2017 before me for final hearing in the presence of Sri G. Bala Subramanyam, advocate for the Appellant/Accused and of Sri E. Bhaskaraiah, the learned Additional Public Prosecutor for the Respondent and this matter having stood over for consideration till this day this Court made the following:­

J U D G M E N T

This is an appeal filed by the Appellant/accused under Sec.374 (3) Cr.P.C.

against the judgment passed in C.C.No.87/2009, dated 12.1.2015 on the file of

Additional Judicial Magistrate of I Class, Kavali, wherein the learned Magistrate

convicted the appellant for an offence punishable under Sec.304 A IPC and sentenced to suffer simple imprisonment for a period of one year and to pay a fine amount of

Rs.500/­ for the offence under section 337 IPC, in default of payment of fine to suffer simple imprisonment for a period of 15 days. 

2. The Sub Inspector of Police, Kavali Rural Circle, Police Station laid charge sheet as under :

The accused is the driver of the lorry bearing NO.AP 16 U 8521 at the time of accident, that on 18.10.2008 the deceased Pallapu Giri babu PW1 to 6, LW3 Pullaiah,

LW6 Sankaramma along with some other persons boarded the lorry of the accused to go to Nellore to attend marriage of their relative Gunji Sreenu, when the lorry reached near Indira Milk Dairy after passing Gowravaram village the accused lorry driver drove the same in a rash and negligent manner and hit on the back side of the lorry bearing

NO.AP 16 W 5769 which was proceeding ahead, again the lorry climbed over the divider and fell down on the western side of NH 5 road, as a result the deceased and

LW1 to 8 including other persons who are travelling in the lorry sustained multiple bleeding injuries, the deceased went into unconscious state, after the accident the

CA.No.25/2015 3/15 Dt:17.4.2017 accused driver was absconded by leaving the lorry, after the accident all the injured persons shifted to Government hospital, Kavali through 108 ambulance, that on the receipt of hospital intimation PW10 visited the Government hospital, Kavali, recorded the statement of PW1, basing on the same he registered a case in crime No.148/2008 for the offence under section 337 IPC on 18.10.2008. 

3.The deceased was shifted to Narayana hospital, Nellore, later brought back to his house at Budamgunta on 19.10.2008 and on the same day he died, the dead body was buried due to ignorance, that on the advise of elders PW7 father­in­law of the deceased gave report with regard to the death of the deceased at Kavali Rural PS, on 21.10.2008

PW13 altered the FIR to Section 304 A IPC, that on the requisition PW16 Thahsildar got exhumed the dead body of the deceased with the help of LW10 Ramanaiah,PW8 and conducted inquest over the dead body of the deceased on 23.10.2008 in the presence of mediators PW9, LW13 Sudhakar, LW14 Malaydri and prepared the inquest report, thereafter the dead body was sent to Government hospital, Kavali where PW11 doctor conducted autopsy over the dead body of the deceased, he opined that the cause of death of the deceased is due to shock and hemorrhage due to head injury, PW14

Motor vehicle Inspector inspected the crime vehicle and certified that the accident was not occurred due to any mechanical defects, PW15 after completion of entire investigation laid charge sheet against the accused for the offence under section 304 A, 338 and 337 IPC, hence the charge.

4. The learned Additional Judicial Magistrate of I Class, Kavali took cognizance for the offence under section 304 A, 338 and 337 IPC, that on appearance of the accused, the learned Magistrate furnished copies of case documents by complying Sec.207

Cr.P.C. the accused was examined under Sec.251 Cr.P.C. by explaining the substance of the accusation made against him for the offence under section 304 A, 338 and 337 IPC,

CA.No.25/2015 4/15 Dt:17.4.2017 read over and explained to him in Telugu language for which the accused pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried.

5. The prosecution to prove its case examined PW1 to 16 and got marked Ex.P1 to

P18, not exhibited any MO s, after completion of the prosecution evidence the accused was examined under section 313 Cr.P.C by explaining the incriminating material appearing against the accused in the evidence of prosecution witnesses but the accused denied the same and reported no oral and documentary evidence on his behalf.

6. The trial court after hearing both parties convicted the accused for the offence under section 304 A, 337 IPC and sentenced as stated above. Being aggrieved by the same, the appellant/Accused filed this appeal on various grounds.

7.Heard both sides, gone through the entire evidence on record, that in view of grounds of appeal raised by the appellant, the point that arises for determination in this appeal is :

1) Whether the prosecution proved its case for the offence under section 304 A, 337 IPC against the appellant beyond all reasonable doubt and whether the trial court judgment in CC.No.87/2009 on the file of AJMFC, Kavali requires any interference by this court or not?

8.POINT NO.1 :­

The learned Counsel for the appellant argued by reiterating the grounds of the appeal and stated that all the witnesses who are examined by the prosecution to the main occurrence are the persons who are sitting on the body of the lorry who had no occasion or opportunity to see or to depose about the manner of accident, there are serious discrepancies and contradictions in the evidence of witnesses but the trial court failed to appreciate the evidence in right perspective, the negligence under section 304

A IPC must be a criminal and high degree of negligence and mere negligence can not

CA.No.25/2015 5/15 Dt:17.4.2017 be termed as negligence. The learned counsel for the appellant also argued that the alleged accident occurred on 18.10.2008 but the appellant was arrested on 29.10.2008 and thereafter the police not shown the accused to any of the witness to confirm that it is the appellant who drove the lorry at the time of accident and first time identification

before the court by the strange witnesses can not be relied upon to convict the

appellant either for the offence under section 304 A IPC or under section 337 IPC, hence he prayed to set aside the trial court judgment by allowing this appeal.

9.The learned Additional Public Prosecutor argued that all the material witnesses clearly deposed about the accident, the rash and negligent act of the appellant is clearly proved by the prosecution but the minor variations or discrepancies in the prosecution witnesses evidence can not taken away the entire case. Moreover, the appellant himself was surrendered before the investigating officer and produced all the relevant documents of the crime vehicle including his driving license as such there can not be any doubt about the identity of the accused by the witnesses hence the learned Public

Prosecutor supported the trial court judgment. In view of rival contentions of both parties, it has to be seen whether the prosecution proved its case beyond all reasonable doubt against the accused or not and whether the prosecution established the identity of the appellant and proved the rash and negligent act of the accused,

10.The prosecution to prove its case examined PW1 to 16 but the case of the accused is total denial of the prosecution version, PW1 to 6 are the main eye witnesses who also suffered injuries in the accident, PW7 is the father­in­law of the deceased in this case, PW8 and 9 are the mediators for the inquest over the dead body of the deceased, PW10 Sub Inspector of Police registered the FIR basing on the hospital intimation, PW11 is the doctor who conducted the autopsy over the dead body of the deceased, PW12 is the owner of the other lorry involved in the accident, PW13 altered

CA.No.25/2015 6/15 Dt:17.4.2017 the FIR to section 304 A IPC basing on the report lodged by PW7, PW14 is the Motor

Vehicle Inspector, PW16 is the Thahsildar who conducted inquest over the dead body of the deceased, that in this case the evidence of PW1 to 6 is essential to come to a conclusion whether the prosecution proved its case or not. 

11.That PW10 Sub Inspector of police deposed that on 18.10.2008 he received hospital intimation and rushed to the Government Hospital, Kavali where he recorded the statement of PW1, basing on which he registered a case in crime No.48/2008 for the offence under section 337 IPC, Ex.P4 is the hospital intimation, Ex.P5 is the original

FIR and there is no dispute about the same and it was elicited in his cross examination that he did not examined any neighbors of the scene of offence and not photographed the scene of offence, that one Puli Bujjaiah the driver of the other lorry was also present at the scene of offence but he has not examined him and he did not seized any documents like trip sheet relating to the crime vehicle, according to this investigating officer the accident occurred when the crime vehicle hit on the back portion of the other lorry, that the FIR registered basing on the statement of PW1 but except the offending vehicle no as AP 16 U 8521 nothing is mentioned about the accused either his name or descriptive particulars.

12.PW1 deposed that at about 5 ½ years back on one day he went to Budamgunta village of Kavali to attend the marriage of one Gunji Srinivasulu, from there he along with other relatives around 25 members started in a mini lorry at 8 am in order to go to

Nellore where the marriage said to have been taken place, this witness not able to say about the registration number of the lorry in which they were traveled but identified the accused in the court by stating that he was the driver of the lorry but according to this witness when the vehicle reached milk diary near Bitrangunta village their lorry turned turtle on the other side of the road and accident occurred, he sustained injury

CA.No.25/2015 7/15 Dt:17.4.2017 on his left knee and left side of the face and one person died in the accident, thereafter they were shifted to government area hospital, Kavali in 108 ambulance, he admitted his signature in Ex.P1 report, but this witness except stating that the lorry turned turtle nothing is deposed as to how the accident occurred whether the driver of the offending lorry drove the vehicle in a rash and negligent manner or not, hence this witness declared as hostile to the prosecution case, the learned Public prosecutor also cross examined this witness but his evidence is not helpful to the prosecution case, it is not the evidence of this witness that he had any acquaintance with the accused to identify him 1st time before the court, he had not stated anything except identifying the accused before the court first time.

13.PW2 deposed that at about 5 years back on one day he went to Budamgunta on the eve of marriage of one Srinivasulu, the marriage was at Nellore hence he along with 50 persons started in a mini lorry and the accused is the driver of the lorry, this witness also failed to say about the registration number of the offending vehicle but he deposed that when the lorry reached near Indira Milk diary on the high way the accused tried to over take the sand lorry proceeding in front of them, while so he failed to control over the vehicle and hit the other lorry as a result their lorry turned turtle towards other side of the road and he also sustained injury on his head and all the injured were shifted to Government Area hospital, Kavali, as stated above while narrating the incident this witness not attributed any negligence on the lorry driver but lastly this witness stated that the above said accident occurred due to the negligence of the accused, as per this witness the offending lorry dashed the ongoing lorry, moreover with regard to identity of the accused lorry driver it is not his case that he know the accused prior to the accident or he had ever seen the accused after the accident, he

CA.No.25/2015 8/15 Dt:17.4.2017 clearly admitted in his cross examination that except on the date of incident and on the date of his examination before the court he did not seen the accused.

14.PW3 deposed that he also proceeding in the offending lorry at about 5 years back, when offending mini lorry crossed Gowravarm village near the milk diary the accused driver tried to over take the lorry which was proceeding ahead and hit the lorry, thereafter their lorry went in further and hit the road divider and turned turtle on the other side of the road, he also sustained injuries on his waist and below right shoulder and he came to know that one Thirupalu injured in the accident died at

Narayana hospital, Nellore. That according to this witness also all the injured shifted to

Government Area hospital, Kavali, this witness also narrated the entire incident but failed to show the manner of rashness or negligence played by the accused lorry driver but lastly stated that the accident occurred due to the negligence of the driver of their lorry but in his cross examination he clearly stated that he does not know the name of the accused, at the time of accident he was standing on the body of the lorry and he did not observe the speed of the lorry, a suggestion was also denied by this witness as “ it is not true to suggest that at the instance of the police I identified the accused”.

15.PW4 also deposed that on 18.10.2008 he along with his relatives boarded a lorry bearing NO. AP 16 U 8521 being driven by the accused to go to Nellore, when the lorry crossed Gowravaram village near Indira Milk diary the accused tried to over take another lorry proceeding in front of them and dashed the lorry on its back as a result their lorry hit the divider and turned turtle on the other side of the road, that he also sustained injuries on his face and all the inmates sustained injuries, this witness also lastly states that the accident occurred due to negligent driving of the accused but in his cross examination he stated that he was standing in the body of the lorry and he did

CA.No.25/2015 9/15 Dt:17.4.2017 not observe the speed of the vehicle and this witness also denied a suggestion as “it is not true to suggest that I identified the accused at the instance of the police”.

16.PW5 deposed that the accused was the driver of the crime lorry, that on the date of accident when the accused tried to over take a lorry which was proceeding in front of them on the same direction their lorry hit the other lorry and fell on the other side of the road and turned turtle and he also sustained injuries on his head and on his right forearm, according to this witness also all the passengers sustained injuries in the said accident and they were shifted to Government Hospital Kavali and this witness also narrated the entire incident but not chosen to attribute any negligence on their lorry driver but lastly deposed that the accident occurred due to the negligent driving of the accused, this witness also stated that at the time of accident he was standing on the body of the lorry.

17.PW6 deposed contrary to the evidence of PW1 to 5, he stated that at about 5 ½ years ago they boarded one lorry, when it was reached near Indira diary after

Gowravaram village one lorry came back side at high speed and hit the lorry as a result their lorry fell down on its right side by crossing the divider and he also sustained injury on his head, all the passengers sustained injuries but this witness stated that he can not say on whose negligence the accident occurred, even though this witness identified the accused before the court he clearly stated that he cannot say on whose negligence the accident occurred, eventhough subsequently this witness stated that due to confusion he stated in his chief examination that other lorry hit their lorry but with regard to main manner of accident he had not deposed any serious rashness or negligence act on the part of the offending lorry driver in which they were proceeding.

CA.No.25/2015 10/15 Dt:17.4.2017

The proof required in section 304A IPC cases are dealt in various decisions, In the case between State of Kerala v. Ramakrishna Nadar Damodaran,1970 madLJ(Cri) 854, it was held as follows:

"rashness or negligence contemplated by the two Sections is criminal rashness or negligence. The definition between negligence simplicitor or criminal negligence is that in the former, their simple lack of care, which may constitute a civil liability but by itself without mens rea, it may not constitute criminal one. "

18.Therefore, before a conviction can be had under Section 304­A IPC, a very high degree of negligence must be found, the negligence, which amounts to recklessness or utter interference (sic indifference) to consequences and not mere negligence, which was referred in Syad Akbar v. State of karnataka, 1979 AIR(SC) 1848

19.PW7 is the father­in­ law of the deceased Thirupalu, he deposed that at about 5 ½ years ago he informed by the villagers that the deceased died in a road accident, immediately he came to Budamgunta where his daughter stated that the deceased died in the road accident and they buried the dead body, then he informed the matter to the police in order to receive the death benefits to his family members as the deceased died in a road accident, basing on his report Ex.P2 only the dead body of the deceased in this case was exhumed and conducted inquest and PME, even though the suggestions made to the witnesses that to claim the compensation this case was filed against the appellant was denied but this Pw7 evidence clearly shows that to claim the death benefits the dead body was exhumed and conducted inquest and post mortem examination, there is no medical record of the deceased whether he admitted in the hospital after the accident or not.

20.PW8 and 9 are the mediators for the inquest over the dead body of the deceased and they deposed that at about 5 years back MRO conducted inquest over the dead

CA.No.25/2015 11/15 Dt:17.4.2017 body of the deceased and doctor conducted autopsy over the dead body of the deceased and recorded the same under Ex.P3 inquest report, this mediators opined that the deceased died in a lorry accident but not deposed any injuries which lead to the death, there is no serious dispute about the accident and for the death of the deceased but as per the accused he was not the driver of the offending lorry.

21.PW16 Thahsildar also deposed that on 23.10.2008 near Burial ground of Budam gunta village he got exhumed the dead body of the deceased Thirupalu in the presence of mediators and with the assistance of Panchayatdars he conducted inquest over the dead body of the deceased, as per request he prepared inquest report, this Thasildar also deposed that the panchayathdars opined that the deceased died in a lorry accident.

22.PW11 doctor deposed that on 18.10.2008 he examined PW1,3, LW3

Pullaiah,PW4, LW6, PW5, PW6 and found the different injuries on those persons and recorded the same under wound certificates Ex.P7 to P14, according to this doctor all the persons sustained simple injuries only except PW6, that as per expert opinion given by Narayana medical college, the injury no.1 on PW6 is only grievous in nature, there is no dispute about the accident and injuries on this PW1 to 6 but admittedly no medical record filed to show that the deceased sustained injuries in such accident which lead him to take treatment except filing inquest and post mortem evidence which were conducted after death of 4 or 5 days.

23.That according to this doctor PW11 he conducted autopsy over the dead body of the deceased on 23.10.2008 and the approximate time of death was 4 to 5 days prior to

PME and cause of death to the best of his knowledge is shock and hemorrhage due to head injury as mentioned in Ex.P15 Post mortem certificate and nothing is elicited in the cross examination of this doctor, the other lorry alleged to be involved in the

CA.No.25/2015 12/15 Dt:17.4.2017 accident is AP 05 TU 4458 which belongs to PW12 but he did not support the prosecution case, except marking his statement recorded by the police under Ex.P16 nothing is elicited in his cross examination, that as seen from the above evidence there is no dispute about the accident or injuries on the PW1 to 6 and the death of the deceased but the learned counsel for the appellant argued that no witness deposed about any grave rashness or negligence on the part of the offending vehicle, moreover the accident occurred in this case was on 8.12.2008 but witnesses were examined after 6 years in 2014, admittedly no witness stated about the presence of the accused after the accident, no Test Identification parade was conducted by the police in this case, that it is not the evidence of any witness that they know the accused person and they have acquaintance to identify him after 6 years of the accident first time before the court, that even on considering the evidence of PW1 to 6, that PW1 except stating that lorry turned turtled on the other side of the road not deposed anything by saying that that the said accident was occurred on the negligence of the offending vehicle driver.

24.PW2 to 4 deposed that the accused tried to over take another ongoing lorry in front of them thereby dashed the lorry on its back as a result their lorry hit the divider and turned turtled and all this witnesses narrated the incident but at last deposed that the above said accident occurred due to negligence of the accused, admittedly all these witnesses standing on the body of the lorry hence witnessing the dashing of their lorry to the front going lorry is not possible and not believable, the investigating officer also clearly admitted that he had not examined any neighbors who were at the accident place and who witnessed the accident, PW2 clearly stated he did not seen the accused except on the date of accident and when he was examined before the court, PW3 also stated that he do not know the accused, that even though all these witnesses denied the suggestions that they identified the accused at the instance of the police but in view of

CA.No.25/2015 13/15 Dt:17.4.2017 the time gap between the date of accident and examination of the witnesses before the court after six years the identification by the witnesses first time before the court in absence of any test identification creates any amount of doubt on the prosecution case, that in this case the accident occurred on 18.10.2008 and the FIR also registered on the same day where in the offending vehicle number mentioned but accused name not mentioned, if the witnesses knows the accused person they would have mentioned the same moreover the said FIR received by the concerned court after 2 days on 20.10.2008, that as seen from the remand report the accused was remanded on 29.10.2008 and admittedly no test identification parade was conducted by the police to establish the identity of the appellant, moreover even if the entire evidence of PW1 to 6 is taken to be true there is no such grave rash and negligent act on the part of the offending lorry driver,

25.That according to PW14 Motor vehicle Inspector he inspected the offending vehicle on 24.10.2008 after 6 days of the accident at the premises of the rural PS Kavali and found damages on front wind screen, front bumper on centre portion, left signal light damaged, front left corner portion and rear door holding chases bracket, rear door light bend on the left side and this witness stated that there is no mechanical defects but in his cross examination he admitted that he conducted inspection only on one vehicle moreover he clearly admitted that he can not say the condition of the crime vehicle at the time of accident and he did not mentioned about the offending vehicle break system in his report Ex.P18.

26.That as seen from the evidence of PW1 to 6 they were standing on the body of the lorry and they narrated the entire incident without attributing any negligence on their lorry driver but lastly stated that the above accident occurred on the negligence of the lorry driver, these witnesses stated that their lorry dashed on the ongoing lorry

CA.No.25/2015 14/15 Dt:17.4.2017 which cannot be possible to see by the persons who are sitting on the body of the lorry, no witness had acquaintance with the accused to identify him, the learned counsel for the appellant rightly argued that the prosecution has to prove its case beyond all reasonable doubt including identity of the accused, when the witnesses are strangers to the accused the investigating agency should have conducted the test identification parade to fix the identity of the accused.

27.The learned counsel for the appellant placed reliance on a decision reported in 2009 (2) ALT (Crl.) 128 (A.P.) and stated that no witness gave descriptive particulars of the accused while they were examined by police and accused was not shown to them after he arrested much credence cannot be given to their evidence for the first time identification before the court.

28.He further argued that test identification parade of the accused was not conducted. So it is fatal to the case of prosecution and cited decisions reported in 2010(2) ALD (Crl.) 376 (A.P.) (K.Rajaiah V. State of Andhra Pradesh), 2009(1) ALD (Crl.) 971 (A.P.) (Piginaraji Ranga Rao V. State of Andhra Pradesh).

29.The learned counsel for the appellant relied on a decision reported in 2009 (2)

ALT (Crl.) 128 (A.P.) where under it was held as under:

"It was held that identity of accused not established, failure of holding Test Identification Parade. In this case it was held that the object of holding Test Identification Parade enable witnesses to identity persons involved in the offence who were not previously known to them".

30.In this case also it is not the case of the prosecution that the accused known to any of the witnesses PW1 to 6, and police not made any efforts to hold test identification parade and there is no occasion to see the accused by PW1 to 6, the accident occurred on 18­10­2008, PW1, PW2 deposed before the court first time on 24­

CA.No.25/2015 15/15 Dt:17.4.2017 06­2014, PW3 to PW5 deposed on 15­09­2014 and there is no evidence that any of the witness ever seen the accused at any point of time, it is true in each and every case the test identification parade is not necessary, but in the present case facts as no witness deposed about the rash and negligent act accused while narrating the main incident, moreover there is no possibility for witnessing the incident by PW1 to 6 who were standing on the body of the lorry and admittedly no other witnesses examined by the prosecution who had seen the accident hence the above decisions are clearly applicable to the present case.

31. As discussed above In the facts and circumstances of the case, the prosecution failed to prove for the offences under Secs.304 A, 337 IPC beyond all reasonable doubts but the trial court not considered any of the above lapses on the prosecution but convicted the appellant as such the accused is entitled for benefit of doubt. The judgment of the lower court is not correct and the same is liable to be set aside, hence this point is answered accordingly in favour of the appellant.

In the result, the appeal is allowed by setting aside the judgment of the lower court passed in C.C.No.87/2009, dated 12.01.2015 on the file of Additional Judicial

Magistrate of I Class, Kavali. The appellant/accused is acquitted for the offences under

Sec.304 A and 337 IPC. His bail bonds shall stands cancelled. The fine amount, if any, paid by the appellant/accused shall be return to him, after the Revision time is over

Directly typed on my dictation by the steno, corrected and pronounced by me in Open Court, this the 17th day of January, 2017. Sd/­ B. Papi Reddy 

III ADDITIONAL DISTRICT & SESSIONS JUDGE,

NELLORE.

Copy to : The AJMFC, Kavali. 

Enclosures : Entire Record in CC No.87/2009 on the file of AJMFC, Kavali along with copy of judgment in CA.No25/2015 on the file of this Court.

//TRUE COPY//

CA.No.25/2015 16/15 Dt:17.4.2017

O.S.No.38/20101/13Dt.17.4.2017

BEFORE THE III ADDITIONAL DISTRICT & SESSIONS JUDGE, NELLORE

Dated, this the 17th day of April, 2017

Present:­Sri B. PAPI REDDY.,

 III ADDL DISTRICT JUDGE, NELLORE

O.S.No.38/2010

M/s C Well Lasik (P) Ltd., rep by its authorised signatory/Director

Dr. B. Siva Prathap Reddy ...Plaintiff

Vs

1. M/s United India Insurance Company Ltd., Divisional Office, Brundavanam, Nellore rep by its Divisional Manager,

2. M/s United India Insurance Company Ltd., Branch Office, Subedarpet, Nellore rep by its Branch Manager,…Defendants

This suit was coming on 21.2.2017 before me for final hearing in the presence of Sri P. Gangadhara Reddy, advocate for the Plaintiff and of Sri N. Srinivasulu Reddy, advocate for the Defendants and this matter having stood over till this day for consideration, this Court delivered the following:

JUDGMENT

This suit filed by the plaintiff with a prayer to direct the defendants to pay an amount of Rs.25,00,000/­ along with subsequent interest at the rate of 24% p.a from the date of break down of the machinery till the date of realization.

2.That as per the plaint the case of the plaintiff is as under:

The suit filed for recovery of damages/expenses occurred for reconditioning of

Laser head to the ESIRIS EXCIMER LASER SYSTEM (for short herein after called as machine) during the period of subsistence of insurance policy with the defendants, the plaintiff purchased the machine from M/s Schwind Eye Tech Solutions, Germany for a valuable consideration of Rs.410,000.00 Euros and insured the same with the 2nd defendant Branch by paying a sum of Rs.1,46,015/­ towards premium vide electronic equipment insurance policy bearing No.151201/44/05/30015 for the period of insurance from 3.11.2005 to 2.11.2006, renewed the same from 3.11.2006 to

O.S.No.38/20102/13Dt.17.4.2017

2.11.2007 vide policy number 151201/44/06/25/300000025, subsequently renewed thesamefrom3.11.2007to2.11.2008videpolicybearing

No.151201/44/07/58/300000028.

3.The plaintiff entered into annual service agreement on 30.11.2007 with M/s

Intra Ocular Care Pvt Ltd., for the process of annual maintenance for a period of one year from 14.5.2007 and the maintenance charges were paid as under :

­DD bearing No.002602 dt.16.7.2008 drawn on Andhra Bank for a sum of

Rs.1,00,000/­, DD bearing No.002864 dt.18.7.2008 drawn on Andhra Bank for a sum of Rs.1,00,000/­, DD bearing No.392806 dt.26.9.2008 drawn on Andhra Bank for a sum of Rs.1,37,080/­ in total Rs.3,37,080/­.

4.The said service agreement constitutes the entire agreement between the parties in respect of the maintenance, service and repairs of the machine (Laser system), that on 6.5.2008 the plaintiff attended two laser cases, the laser machine worked for the 1st case but trouble occurred for the 2nd case and it did not work, immediately the plaintiff called up for service Engineer who attended for the service on 7.1.2008, after making thorough check up of the machine he advised that the laser cavity needs to be replaced, subsequently on 18.1.2008 a senior Engineer also attended and confirmed the replacement/reconditioning and finally informed the complaint for reconditioning of machine to Schwind Eye Tech Solutions with estimated costs of reconditioning is of

Rs.25,00,000/­, the same was informed to the 2nd defendant vide letter dt 25.1.2008 to do the necessary as early as possible, the plaintiff got repaired/reconditioned the machine and paid the costs of Rs.25,00,000/­ in installments as under :

O.S.No.38/20103/13Dt.17.4.2017

1.Andhra Bank DD bearing No.403911 dt.31.1.2008 Rs.2,50,000/­

2.Andhra Bank cheque bearing

No.440057 dt.28.2.2008 Rs.2,25,403/­

3.Andhra Bank cheque bearing

No.440058 dt.30.3.2008 Rs.3,00,000/­

4.Andhra Bank DD bearing

No.472591 dt.12.5.2008 Rs.3,00,000/­ 

5.Andhra Bank cheque bearing

No.440061 dt.30.5.2008 Rs.3,00,000/­, 

6.Andhra Bank DD bearing

No.473722 dt.10.6.2008 Rs.1,02,960/­, 

7.Andhra Bank DD bearing

No.002603 dt.16.7.2008 Rs.1,00,000/­, 

8.Andhra bank DD bearing

No.004187 dt.29.7.2008 Rs.1,25,000/­, 

9.Andhra bank DD bearing

No.393211 dt.8.10.2008Rs.51,480/­, 

10.Andhra bank DD bearing

No.395462 dt.1.1.2009Rs.1,54,440/­ 

11.Andhra bank DD bearing

No.54420, dt.7.3.2009 Rs.15,080/­

12.Andhra bank DD bearing

No.545234, dt.15.4.2009 Rs.1,96,875/­

O.S.No.38/20104/13Dt.17.4.2017

13.Final payment through

Andhra bank DD bearing no.545748, dt.8.5.2009 Rs.7,21,152/­ ­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­

Total Rs.28,42,390/­ ­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­

5.That as per the plaintiff they incurred the above amounts during the policy period hence the defendants are liable to pay the same to the plaintiff however the plaintiff confined the claim amount to Rs.25,00,000/­.

6.The Plaintiff further stated that 2nd defendant issued a letter dt.31.3.2009 to the plaintiff with false allegations by repudiating the claim of the plaintiff towards costs of repairs occurred to the laser machine stating that the said machine given problems since August 2007 and the efficiency of the machinery got reduced by 50%, the machinery was being used with pre­existing chronic problem totally unattended from

August 2007 and aggravated over a period of time and it was broke down completely in January 2008, the plaintiff further stated that M/s Intra Ocular Private Ltd., issued a detailed report with regard to service attended by them and observation made by them keeping in view of the queries and questions raised and stated that:

1. The doctors of the plaintiff who are using machine are highly experienced.

2. The machine was under warranty initially and subsequently under AMC without any break by personal check and calculations and 3. The machine was totally and perfectly in working condition prior to the failure of the machine and also the damage which has occurred is purely accidental in nature and not due to any neglect or aging of the machine, that according to the plaintiff it is well evidenced by the authorized and

O.S.No.38/20105/13Dt.17.4.2017

competent service engineers of the machine that the damage occurred purely accidental in nature and not due to any neglect or aging of the machine but the plaintiff claim was repudiated with false allegations and baseless reasons hence they prayed to grant decree and judgment by directing the defendants to pay a sum of

Rs.25,00,000/­ with interest @ 24% p.a from the date of break down of the machinery till the date of realization.

7.The defendants filed written statement by denying the averments of the plaint, defendants admitted that the plaintiff insured Eximer laser with the 2nd defendant under insurance policy valid from 3.11.2007 to 2.11.2008 but stated that the plaintiff is put to strict proof that the said equipment was under annual maintenance as averred in the plaint, the plaintiff sent a letter dt.25.8.2008 to the 2nd defendant stating that their machine did not work and the service engineer confirmed that the laser cavity needs to be replaced or re conditioned and requested to do the needful, one S. Anantha

Padmanabam Surveyor and loss adjustor inspected the machine and submitted his report dt.18.5.2008, he informed that the trouble to the machine started in August 2007 itself and the equipment was not delivering the requisite pulse, the said laser equipment was used with the said chronic problem unresolved, considering the material on record including the reports of the service engineers of plaintiff this defendant repudiated the claim of the plaintiff for the reason of the loss is wear and tear and as per clause (c) and (g) of general exclusions and clauses mentioned under the special exclusions mentioned in the policy and communicated the same to the plaintiff vide letter dt.31.3.2009 with the following reasons.

O.S.No.38/20106/13Dt.17.4.2017

8.As per the report of service engineers of plaintiff, the trouble started in the machine from the month of August 2007 itself wherein the problem was identified and the equipment was put to use with reduced output during the October 2007, when the equipment started giving problems/troubles the plaintiff should have attended by service engineers of plaintiff but without fully resolving the existing problem raised in

August 2007 equipment was being used appears to have further aggravated the problem ultimately on January 2008 the machinery came to a halt with no scope of proceeding further and this loss occurred, at that stage the efficiency of the machinery got reduced by 50% and the same was being used with pre­existing chronic problem totally unattended from August 2007 hence the loss if any occurred only due to the negligence of the plaintiff and its service engineer hence the insurance company is not liable to pay damages. The defendant also denied the expenses of Rs.25,00,000/­ as stated by the plaintiff for the repairs of the machine, that according to the defendant the problem in the machine occurred only on the negligence or aging of the machine but not accidental as such they repudiated the claim hence prayed to dismiss the suit.

9.Basing on the pleadings of both parties, this court framed the following issues for trial:­

1. Whether the problem alleged by plaintiff to excimer laser and damage occurred purely accidental in nature and not due to any negligence or aging of the machine?

2. Whether the plaintiff is entitled for the relief as prayed by them?from whom?

3. To what relief?

10.During the course of trial the plaintiff examined PW1 to 3 and got marked Ex.A1 to A10, during the course of cross examination of PW1 Ex.B1 to B6 marked, the defendant examined DW1 and 2 and marked Ex.B7, B8.

O.S.No.38/20107/13Dt.17.4.2017

11. Heard both sides, perused the entire evidence on record and thoughtful consideration given to the submissions of both the counsels. 

12.ISSUE NO.1 and 2:

That as seen from the pleadings there is no dispute that the plaintiff purchased

Excimer laster system from M/s Schwind Eye Tech Solutions, Germany for a valuable consideration of Rs.4,10,000.00 uros and the same was insured with the defendants, there is also no dispute that the machine was totally broke down in the month of

January 2008 and as on that date the policy issued by the defendants to the plaintiff machine was in force but according to the plaintiff the break down of the machine occurred as accidental but not on their negligence or for any unattended problems, the plaintiff to prove its case examined its authorized signatory/director as PW1, he reiterated the contents of the plaint in his chief affidavit, he got marked Ex.A1 memo and articles of association of plaintiff company, Ex.A2 is the Extract of minutes of

Board of directors, Ex.A3 is the offer for supply of Schwind Esiris Excimer Laser by

Wipro dt.1.10.2005, Ex.A4 is the copy of insurance policy dt.3.11.2005, Ex.A5 insurance policy with receipt for the period from 3.11.2006 to 2.11.2007, Ex.A6 policy for the relevant period from 3.11.2007 to 2.11.2008, Ex.A7 is the installation cum service report dt.7.1.2008, Ex.A8 is the letter dt.5.3.2008 issued by M/s Intra Ocular care pvt. Ltd., Ex.A9 is the invoice dt.26.4.2008, Ex.A10 is the report issued by the

Intra Ocular Care Private Ltd., there is no dispute about any of these documents but it is the specific contention of the defendants that the problem occurred in the plaintiff machine in August 2007 itself but the plaintiff negligently continued to run the machine without rectifying the problem which resulted break down of the machine.

There is no dispute that as per policy conditions in general exclusion at clause ( C ) it is

O.S.No.38/20108/13Dt.17.4.2017

clearly mentioned that the company will not indemnify the insurer in respect of loss or damage or liability directly caused by or arising out of aggravated by will full act or will full negligence of insurer. During the course of cross examination it was admitted by this PW1 that Ex.B1 sent to him by the 2nd defendant on 25.8.2008 by stating that machinery is spoiled and it is not in working condition and D2 company has sent one surveyor who is DW2 S. Anantha Padmanabham to inspect the machinery, that he inspected the machinery, this witness clearly admitted that as per their instructor report machinery started troubling in the month of August 2007 but he stated that they rectified the defects by the service engineer, but as admitted by this witness he did not file any document to show that they rectified the problem occurred in August 2007, further this witness stated as “it is true from August 2007 laser equipment gave out put of 50% only and we run the equipment till January 2008 and due to over load the equipment stopped working”.

13.That being the director of the plaintiff company he clearly admitted that the problem in the machine occurred in the month of August 2007 itself and the machine is giving outputs of 50% only hence it is clear that the problem occurred in the machine in the month of August 2007 itself but it is not a sudden failure of the machine in the month of January 2008 but it has to be seen whether the plaintiff attended/rectified the problem before it was put into use.

14.During the course of cross examination of PW1 Ex.B2 to B5 service reports issued by the Infra ocular care Ltd, were marked which are dated 16.6.2007, 30.8.2007 and 23.8.2007 and 7.1.2008, the plaintiff also examined its service engineer from Infra ocular care Ltd as PW2, he deposed that he was engineer for the Schwind excimer laser system and he was trained in Germany as such he was looking after the laser machines

O.S.No.38/20109/13Dt.17.4.2017

and whenever he used to visit the plaintiff for checking the laser systems he issued reports to the plaintiff, he admitted Ex.A7 to A10 are issued by him.

15.During the cross examination also he clearly admitted that Ex.B2 to B5 were issued by him, that even though he denied the suggestion that the problem not occurred from August 2007, but even PW1 himself admitted that the problem in the machine occurred in the month of August 2007 itself, the service reports Ex.B2 to B5 are also clearly shows the problem not occurred suddenly in the month of January 2008, there is no dispute about Ex.B2 to B5, that Ex.B2 discloses that the machine is working fine in the month of June 2007, Ex.B3 dated 1.9.2007 clearly goes to show that fuel does not pass, that as per Ex.B4 also the problem in the machine is recorded but as admitted by PW1 they have not filed any proof that they have rectified the defects of the equipment by the service engineer.

16.The plaintiff also examined one expert of the machine as PW3, he deposed that he is an expert for the machine excimer laser and he taken advanced training for both the machines and he also taken training in the excimer machine in the Germany, he also stated that in this case it is not an accidental stop of the machine but it was suddenly stopped during the 2nd surgery but in his cross examination he clearly stated that he has no proof for giving any maintenance service to the plaintiff machine and he has not inspected this particular machine after its failure and nobody came from Wipro for inspecting this machine and he did not come to Nellore, this witness clearly stated that he has not given any opinion for the failure of the machine in this case and admittedly he has not filed any of his experience certificates to show the knowledge about the laser machines but admittedly he had not attended the plaintiff machine hence his evidence is not helpful to the plaintiff.

O.S.No.38/201010/13Dt.17.4.2017

17.The defendant also examined its Administrative officer as DW1, he reiterated the contents of written statement in his chief affidavit, he got marked Ex.B7 policy including the terms and conditions, Ex.B8 Surveyor report dt.18.5.2008, this witness also admitted that the plaintiff has taken policy to get the compensation in the event of unexpected break down of the machine but he clearly admitted that he does not have personal knowledge about the machine and when the break down of the machinery occurred in this case but the policy was in force from 3.11.2007 to 2.11.2008, that according to this witness basing on the report of the surveyor DW2 they repudiated the claim of the plaintiff, he even do not know whether the said machine works on the computer application or not hence this witness evidence is not helpful to either of the parties except admitting the policy issued by them was in force as on the date of failure of the machine which is not at all in dispute.

18.The loss assessor of the defendants was examined as DW2, he deposed that he has been working as loss adjustor/insurance surveyor, according to him he surveyed

M/s Schwind laser machine installed in the plaintiff company at the instance of D1 insurance company, he carried out survey on 8.2.2008, 9.5.2008, thereafter he submitted his report Ex.B8 on 19.5.2008, that as per this witness also the problem started in the machine from August 2007 and the required pulse was not delivered by the machinery but the plaintiff used the machine without resolving the pre­ existing problem of the reduced out puts, as per his report the loss attributed as the machinery being continuously used without resolving the defects. According to this witness his reports also confirmed by the AMC of the plaintiff attended agency under Ex.B4, that as per Ex.B2 high voltage is 40%, that problem was rectified but other defects were continued without rectifying and during the cross examination he clearly admitted that

O.S.No.38/201011/13Dt.17.4.2017

he has not taken any certificate of expert training in this laser machine and he has not working in the insurance company but they deputed him for the assigning loss.

19.That according to this witness basing on the service reports of PW2 he prepared the survey reports and he is also confirmed that in the service report it is mentioned there is pre­existing problem in the machinery but he also stated that he do not have complete knowledge of the machinery hence this witness evidence also not helpful in deciding the issue whether the problem occurred in the machine is accidental or it was only due to the negligence of the plaintiff but in view of admissions of PW1 that since

August 2007 the machine given only 50% out put and they run the machinery till

January 2008 and due to over load the equipment was stopped, it is for the plaintiff to prove that the problems mentioned in Ex.B3, B4, B5, were rectified before January 2008 itself when the machine was stopped working, there is no dispute about purchasing of the machine by the plaintiff, there is no dispute about the policy issued by the defendant to the plaintiff machine was in force during the period but the plaintiff has failed to adduce any evidence that they rectified the defects or problems occurred in the machine since August 2007, PW1 also admitted that there is no proof for the repairs carried out by them to the laser machine for a tune of Rs.25,00,000/­ and they did not file any document to show that they incurred Rs.25,00,000/­ to carry out the repairs hence in view of admissions of PW1 it is clear that the machine started giving problem in the month of August 2007 itself and there is no evidence of rectifying any defects in the machine and there is no evidence of incurring any expenses by the plaintiff after January 2008 except one invoice, that according to the plaintiff M/s Infra ocular care private Ltd issued Ex.A8 estimation dt.5.3.2008 but there is no proof for the expenditure, that according to the plaintiff their service engineer Infra ocular private

O.S.No.38/201012/13Dt.17.4.2017

limited also issued a letter Ex.A10 stating that the machine was totally and perfectly in working condition on his last visit and failure of the machine was occurred accidental in nature but Ex.A10 did not even contain the date when it was issued, admittedly the machine is in working and fine condition in June 2007 but the problem occurred since

August 2007, the above evidence clearly goes to show that the problem in the machine not occurred suddenly in the month of January 2008 but as stated by the defendants the problem occurred in the machine prior to January 2008, that plaintiff even though stated that their machine was under maintenance and filed reports but admittedly the plaintiff not chosen to adduce any evidence that the problems in the machine was rectified prior to January 2008, further the plaintiff stated that they paid amount for the repairs under different demand drafts on different dates but admittedly there is no proof that they incurred any expenditure and PW1 also clearly admitted the same in his evidence hence the defendants rightly repudiated the claim of the plaintiff, Ex.B8 service report which was issued by DW2 basing on the service reports of PW2 also clearly goes to show that the laser equipment was used with pre­existing problem unresolved as such the plaintiff failed to prove that the problem in the machine was accidental as such in absence of any proof of expenditure the plaintiff is not entitled for any damages, hence both these issues are answered against the plaintiff.

In the result the suit filed by the plaintiff dismissed, in the facts and circumstances there is no order as to costs.

Typed on my dictation directly by the Stenographer, corrected and pronounced by me in the open court, this the 17 th day of April, 2017.

III ADDITIONAL DISTRICT & SESSIONS JUDGE,

NELLORE 

O.S.No.38/201013/13Dt.17.4.2017

 APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

Witnesses examined

For Plaintiff: For Respondent:

1. PW1: B. Siva Prathap Reddy DW1: Sri kalyan S

2. PW2:K. SaravananDW2:S Anantha Padmanabham

3. PW3: K. Senthi Kumar

Documents Marked

For Petitioners:

Ex.A1: Original registered mortgage deed dated 07­09­1995; Ex.A2: Original transfer mortgage deed dated 17­06­1996; Ex.A3: Notice dated 14­05­2001; Ex.A4: Original postal acknowledgement; Ex.A5: Original postal acknowledgement; Ex.A6: Original postal acknowledgement; Ex.A7: Original postal acknowledgement; Ex.A8: Original registered sale deed dated 24­09­1964 in favour of M.Padmavathamma; Ex.A9: Original registered sale deed dated 11­06­1971 in favour of N.Radha Krishna Murthy; Ex.A10: Original receipt issued by Institute of Naturopathy and Yogic Sciences, Bangalore.

For Defendant: NIL 

III ADDITIONAL DISTRICT & SESSIONS JUDGE, 

NELLORE 

O.S.No.38/201014/13Dt.17.4.2017

1

BEFORE THE III ADDITIONAL MOTOR ACCIDENTS CLAIMS TRIBUNAL,

S.P.S.R.NELLORE DISTRICT.

Tuesday, this the 4th day of March, 2014

Present:Sri B. Papi Reddy,

CHAIRMAN, III M.A.C.T.,

NELLORE

M.V.O.P.NO.629/2009

Chinthalapudi Rajasekhar … Claimant

Vs.

1) T. Jeevan Babu

2) Bajaj Allianz General Insurance Co. Ltd., rep. by it's Branch Manager, 1st floor, Opp. Hotel Chinni International, Indira Bhavan Road, Nellore. … Respondents

This petition coming on 25.2.14 before me for final hearing in the presence of Sri T.V. Kalyan Kumar, advocate for the petitioner and of Sri U. Srinivasulu Reddy, advocate for the 1st respondent and Sri E.V. Rami Reddy, advocate for the 2nd respondent and having stood over till this day for consideration, this Court made the following:-

ORDER

This is a claim petition filed by the claimant Under Sec.166 of the Motor

Vehicles Act claiming compensation of Rs.4,00,000/-along with interest at 18% P.A from the date of petition till the date of realization against the respondents due to injuries suffered by him in a Motor Vehicle Accident that occurred on 05.06.2007 at about 9.40 p.m. on Bombay Road near Damaramadugu , Buchireddypalem Mandal,

SPSR Nellore District.

2.The brief averments mentioned in the petition are as follows:-

On 05.06.2007 the claimant was proceeding on his Motor cycle bearing

Registration No AP26-J-T/R-1140 towards Nellore from Buchireddypalem and at about 9.40 p.m. when he reached on Bombay Road near Damaramadugu, another Splender

Motor cycle bearing Registration No AP26-P-8120 being driven by it s rider cum owner in a rash and negligent manner at high speed without blowing any horn came in the opposite direction and hit the motor cycle of the claimant, as a result of which the claimant fell down on the road and sustained injuries as under:

1.Type-II compound fracture of both bones left leg middle 3rd 2.Fracture femur right upper 3rd 2 3.Symphysis public diastasis 4.Multiple injuries all over the body.

3.That immediately after the accident the claimant was shifted to Jayabarath

Hospital, Nellore for treatment. He was treated one day in the said hospital and shifted to Chennai for better treatment, thereafter the claimant shifted to Bird

Hospital, Tirupathi for expert treatment, operation were conducted on his both legs and steel plates and iron rods were inserted in his both legs to set right the fractures, he was treated as inpatient and spent Rs 1,00,000/- for medical expenses he suffered lot of pain and now he is unable to work freely as before the accident, he could not attend his regular duties for a period of 7 months thus he lost his earnings. He cannot squat on the floor by bending his both legs and the injuries were not healed till the date of filing claim petition.

4.The matter was reported to SHO P.S. Buchi, initially the same was registered as a case in Crime No.86/07 for an offence under Secs.337 IPC against the owner-cum- driver of the crime motor cycle, subsequently the defence was altered one under section 338 IPC. So, the accident occurred due to rash and negligent act of the rider of the Splender two wheeler Motor Cycle.

5.Prior to the accident he was hale and healthy and aged about 40 years at the time of accident. He was working as computer operator cum job worker in Vijaya

Graphics Nellore and earning Rs.7,000/- per month. On account of this accident, he is unable to attend any work and became permanently disabled person. The claimant claimed total compensation of Rs.4,00,000/- as shown in Para 25 of the petition in detail.

6.Respondent No 1 is the owner cum driver of the Motor cycle AP-26-P-8120 and his vehicle was insured with the 2nd Respondent under valid insurance Policy as on the date of accident, The 2nd Respondent has to indemnify the 1st Respondent to pay the compensation since the offending vehicle was insured with it and both the

Respondents are jointly and severally liable to pay compensation. Hence his petition.

3

7.Respondent No 1 and 2 filed separate counters denying all the allegations mentioned in the petition. This respondent No 2 submitted that there was no fault on the part of the motor cycle bearing No AP26P-8120 in causing the accident and there was a negligence and fault of the claimant in driving the motor cycle bearing No

AP26J-T/R 1140 and contributed the negligence and as such this respondent is not liable to pay any compensation to the claimant.

8.The Respondent No 2 stated that the owner cum driver of the motor cycle bearing No AP26P-8120 which is involved in the accident which is insured with the

Respondent No2 have no valid driving license and violated the policy terms hence the

Respondent No 2 is not liable to pay any compensation. This Respondent further stated that as per Section 134© of M.V.Act it is mandatory duty of the insured to furnish the particulars regarding accident and as per section 158(6) of the M.V.Act it is a mandatory duty on the concerned police station to forward all the relevant documents to the concerned insurer but they have not complied with the above provisions.

9.This respondent further denied the age, avocation and income of the claimant at the time of accident. The compensation claimed in this case is highly excessive.

Hence prays to dismiss the petition with costs.

10.Basing on the pleadings of both parties, the tribunal settled the following issues:-

1) Whether the accident was occurred at 9.40 P.M on 05-06-2007 on Bombay road near Damaramadugu was due to rash and negligent driving of the rider of the Splender motor cycle bearing Reg. No.AP-26P-8120 and whether the petitioner had suffered injuries as alleged by him in the said accident?

2) Whether the petitioner contributed his negligence for the above accident while he was riding the motor cycle bearing Registration No AP26-J-1140.

3) Whether the claimant is entitled to compensation, and if so, to what amount and from which of the respondent?

4) To what relief?

4

11.During the course of trial, the claimant is examined as PW1, one eye witness to the accident examined as PW2, and the doctor PW3 examined through an advocate commissioner, and got marked Exs.A1 to A4. Exs.C1 and C2 are marked through

PW3. On behalf of Respondent, RW1 examined marked Ex-B1 to B4.

12. Heard the arguments on both sides.

13.ISSUE NO.1:-

It is the case of the claimant that on 05.06.2007 the claimant was proceeding on his Motor cycle bearing Registration No AP26-J-T/R-1140 towards

Nellore from Buchireddypalem and at about 9.40 p.m. when he reached on Bombay

Road near Damaramadugu another Splender Motor cycle bearing Registration No

AP26-P-8120 being driven by it s rider cum owner in a rash and negligent manner at high speed without blowing any horn came in the opposite direction and hit the motor cycle of the claimant, as a result of which the claimant fell down on the road and sustained injuries as mentioned in the Col.No 11 of the claim petition. Thus, this accident occurred and he sustained injuries

14.In order to prove the rash and negligent act of the rider of the Motor cycle bearing Registration No AP26-P-8120, the claimant Chintalapudi Rajasekhar is examined as PW1. He clearly and categorically stated the manner of the accident in his chief affidavit that the rider of the offending Motor cycle bearing Registration

No AP26-P-8120 is responsible for the accident.

15.In his cross examination, he denied a suggestion that there was no rash and negligence act in driving of Motor cycle bearing Registration No AP26-P-8120 and further denied that due to the negligence of the claimant the accident took place.

16.PW2 V.Vidya Sagar is the independent eye witness to the accident and supported the claimant version with regard to manner of accident and the injuries sustained by the claimant on his both legs, in his cross examination he denied a 5 suggestion that he was not a eye witness to the accident and further denied that an unknown vehicle dashed the claimant vehicle

17.It is not in dispute that the First Information Report was registered by Buchi

Police as a case in Crime No.86/2007 under Sec.337 IPC against the rider of the offending vehicle Splender two wheeler motor cycle but name of the rider was not mentioned, but the police after investigation filed charge sheet EX-A3 for an offence under Section 338 IPC against the owner cum driver Thalari Jeevan Babu the

Respondent No 1, the charge sheet clearly reveals that the accident occurred due to rash and negligent driving of the rider of the Motor cycle bearing Registration No

AP26-P-8120 and there is no contributory negligence on the part of the claimant, Ex.A2 is the wound certificate of PW1 which goes to show that the claimant sustained 3 grievous injuries and multiple injuries on the body in the accident.

18.It is the contention of the respondent that the accident occurred with some unknown vehicle and the accident occurred due to negligence of the claimant in the

FIR there is no mention of the offending vehicle Number but the claimant in collusion with the police got filed the charge sheet by mentioning the offending vehicle No

AP26-P-8120 and there is no negligence of the rider of vehicle bearing No AP26-P- 8120. In support of his contention, the respondent examined its legal Executive

G.Chandra Sekhar and marked Ex.B1 to B4 and stated that they have written a letter under Ex-B2 to the Superintendent of Police, Nellore for re investigating the case as the police in collusion have filed charge sheet wrongly mentioning the offending vehicle No as AP26-P-8120, admittedly the letter addressed by the Respondent No 2 received by the Superintendent office, Nellore on 25-10-2012 but it seems that till date the charge sheet filed by the police by mentioning the offending vehicle no as

AP26-P-8120 is unchallenged or rebutted.

19.In this regards in a decision reported in AIR 2011 SC 1234 in between

Kusum Latha Vs Satbir and others, their lordship held as:- 6

20.M.V. Act, Claim for compensation proof as to involvement of vehicle rashly driven vehicle hit the victim from behind and sped away-victim being seriously injured and needed immediate medical aid, it was natural for brother of victim not to note number of offending vehicle under mental strain, if brother of victim forget to take down number of offending vehicle, number of offending vehicle not found mention in

FIR, involvement of offending vehicle in accident cannot be doubted.

21.The learned counsel for the respondent No 2 argued that the eye witness PW2 was not examined by the police as such his evidence is not reliable, it is clarified that the police may not examine all the eye witness to the crime it is not a defect for the examining PW2 in this claim petition.

22.So, the evidence of PW1 and PW2 is unchallenged as being an eye witnesses.

Thus, the oral evidence of PW1 and PW2 coupled with Exs.A1 and A3, it is clear that the accident occurred due to rash and negligent act of the rider of Motor cycle bearing Registration No AP26-P-8120 belongs to respondent No 1 which is insured with Respondent No 2 and there is no contributory negligence on the part of the claimant. The wound certificate EX-A2 clearly proved that the claimant sustained injuries in the said accident; This issues is answered accordingly and in favour of the claimant as against the respondents.

23.ISSUE NO.2:-

The evidence of PW1 and PW2 coupled with Ex.A1, A2 clearly proves the negligence of offending vehicle, the respondent to prove the contributory negligence examined RW1. Basing on his evidence without any documentary evidence. The claimant cannot be attributed to the contributory negligence as admittedly the RW1 is not the eye witness to the accident and respondent not chosen to examine any eye witness to the accident and respondent not proved that the driver of the offending vehicle does not possess valid driving licence.

7

24. As regards to the contributory negligence in a decision reported in 2001 (6)

ALD 844 DB in between Karri Nagapadma Sridevi and another Vs. Oriental Fire and

General Insurance Co. Ltd., Kakinada, their lordships held that contributory negligence is a matter of proof and not of assumption as discussed above the contributory negligence cannot be attributable to the claimant in absence of any evidence, hence this issue is answered in favour of claimant as against the respondents.

25.ISSUE NO.3:-

According to the claimant, he received the following injuries 1.Type-II compound fracture of both bones left leg middle 3rd 2.Fracture femur right upper 3rd 3.Symphysis public diastasis 4.Multiple injuries all over the body.

Immediately after the accident the claimant was shifted to Jayabarath

Hospital, Nellore for treatment. He was treated one day in the said hospital and shifted to Chennai for better treatment, thereafter the claimant shifted to Bird

Hospital, Tirupathi for expert treatment, operation were conducted on his both legs and steel plates and iron rods were inserted in his both legs to set right the fractures, he was treated as inpatient and spent Rs 1,00,000/- for medical expenses he suffered lot of pain and now he is unable to work freely as before the accident, he could not attend his regular duties for a period of 7 months thus he lost his earnings. He cannot squat on the floor by bending his both legs and the injuries were not healed till the date of filing claim petition. He further stated that on account of grievous injuries, he is unable to attend any work and became permanently disabled person.

26.The claimant examined the doctor, who treated him i.e. PW3 Dr. G. Jagadeesh through an advocate commissioner. He was working as Orthopedic Surgeon and

Director of H.O.D in Bird Hospital, Tirupathi. On 07-06-2007 PW1 was first admitted in 8 the hospital with the history of RTA following taken treatment in Nellore later on in

Chennai with following injuries:-

1)Fracture of left tibia right femur.

2)Left clavical and fracture pelvis

27.According to this witness PW1 was operated on 23-06-2007 for fracture femur right and fracture of left tibia and he was discharged on 30-07-2007 and stated that the injuries sustained by PW1 are gravious in nature, the injuries require follow up for every two months as outpatient, as such taken X ray at every follow up and it was found that the NAIL in the right femur was broken, as per case sheet on the advise of doctors the claimant re admitted in hospital on 09-03-2009 and discharged on 04-04- 2009 as fracture femur was united, due to above mentioned injuries he is suffering from painful limping gait, difficulty in sitting in cross leg and difficulty in doing daily living activities, PW1 is having 60% disability.

28.He further stated that in future he required surgical intervention in the form of plastic surgery to the left leg for removal of NAIL right femur and lengthening of right femur to correct the limp length discrepancy.

29.In his cross examination he admitted that as per case sheet the claimant age was 38 years and admitted that the total treatment given on free of cost but stated that the claimant he purchased the medicines and some of the screws further he denied all the suggestions made by the counsel for the Respondent.

30.According to this witness, as stated above due to injuries there was a permanent disability of 60% and due to that he is feeling discomfort in sitting and squatting.

31.From the medical evidence of PW3, it is clear that the claimant sustained 2 fractures in the accident. The evidence of PW3 further goes to show that the claimant has taken treatment on free of cost in Bird Hospital, Tirupathi. He underwent 9 operation but a decision in Managing Director, APSRTC Vs. Kathavath Gopal and another reported in 2003(5) ALD 198.

Wherein our Hon'ble High Court held that the compensation towards expenditure incurred on extra nourishment and transport cannot be denied even though treatment was given in Government Hospital and one cannot expect positive evidence proving actual expenditure and hence some reasonable hypothesis cannot be relued out.

32.So, the medical evidence of PW3 and case sheets C-1 and C-2 clearly disclosed that the claimant admitted in the hospital at 1st instance 53 days and on 2nd occasion 26 days at Bird Hospital, Tirupathi. Later he followed the treatment from PW3, who is the orthopedic surgeon clearly and categorically stated that the claimant suffered disability of 60%, but they did not issue any disability certificate.

33.There is a difference between medical disability and functional disability. The medical evidence is silent with regard to functional disability. The claimant did not file any disability certificate before the court. Therefore, the disability as stated by Pw3 cannot be considered.

34.Medical expenses Rs.1,00,000/- claimed. transport expenses Rs 10,000/- claimed, Compensation for loss of earnings(for 7 months) Rs.50,000/- claimed stating that he was working as Computer Operator and earning Rs.7,000/- per month but not proved the same. Compensation for pain and suffering Rs.40,000/- claimed.

Compensation for loss of earning power and permanent disability and loss of disfiguration Rs.2,00,000/- claimed which are highly excessive.

35.Towards transport charges Rs.5,000/- is awarded. Towards medical expenses

Rs.1,00,000/- is highly excessive and Rs.40,000/- reasonable amount and the same is awarded. Towards extra nourishment Rs.4,000/- is awarded. Attendant charges

Rs.4,000/- is awarded. Compensation for pain and suffering Rs.20,000/- awarded.

Compensation for mental agony Rs.5,000/- awarded. Compensation for three 10 grievous injury Rs.60,000/- is awarded. Loss of earnings Rs.26,000/- is awarded.

Future medical expenses Rs.10,000/- awarded. So, the claimant is entitled total compensation of Rs.1,74,000/-.

36.The evidence on record clearly disclosed that the driver cum owner of the offending motor cycle bearing Reg. No. AP26-P-8120 the Respondent No 1 drove the vehicle in a rash and negligent manner and caused this accident. The said driver cum owner is liable to pay compensation along with interest accrued thereon as the offending vehicle was insured with the Respondent No 2 hence the Respondent No 1 who is the driver cum owner of the offending vehicle and the Respondent No 2 with whom the vehicle was insured are liable to pay compensation to the claimant jointly and severally . This issue is answered accordingly and in favour of the claimant.

37. ISSUE NO.4:-

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

Rs.1,74,000/- (Rupees One Lakh and Seventy Four Thousand Only) against the claim of Rs.4,00,000/- along with interest at the rate of 7.5% per annum from the date of petition till the date of realization with proportionate costs. Respondent Nos.1 and 2 are jointly and severally liable to pay compensation and they are directed to deposit the said amount into the court within one month from the date of this award. After deposit of such amount, the claimant is permitted to withdraw Rs.1,00,000/- (Rupees

One Lakh Only) at once. His balance amount, costs and interest shall be kept in FDR in any Nationalized Bank for a period of one year. The rest of the claim of the claimant is hereby dismissed. The advocate fee is fixed at Rs.1,500/- (Rupees Fifteen

Hundred Only).

Directly on my dictation typed by the Personal Assistant, corrected and pronounced by me in the open court, this the 4th day of March, 2014.

III ADDL.MOTOR ACCIDENTS CLAIMS TRIBUNAL,

NELLORE.

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

Witnesses examined

For Petitioner:For Respondent:

PW1: Chintalapudi RajasekharRW1:G.Chandra Sekhar PW2: V. Vidya Sagar 11

PW3: Dr. G. Jagadeesh

Documents Marked

For Petitioner:

Ex.A1: Attested Xerox copy of FIR in Crime No.86/2007 of Buchi P.S.;

Ex.A2: Attested Xerox copy of Wound Certificate issued by Bird Hospital, Tirupathi;

Ex.A3: Attested Xerox copy of Charge Sheet in Crime No.86/2007 of Buchi P.S.;

Ex.A4: The X-rays films(9 in number).

Ex.C1: Case Sheet;

Ex.C2: Case Sheet.

For Respondent:

Ex.B1: Attested copy of Insurance policy and its particulars

Ex.B2:Office copy the notice dated 18-10-2012 issued by R2 to S.P., Nellore;

Ex.B3: Postal Acknowledgment;

Ex.B4: Authorization letter.

III M.A.C.T./III A.D.J.

CA.No.441/2016 1/8Dt.13.4.2017

 IN THE COURT OF III ADDITIONAL DISTRICT & SESSIONS JUDGE :: NELLORE

Dated, this the 13th day of April, 2017

Present: Sri B. PAPI REDDY

III ADDL. DIST. & SESSIONS JUDGE NELLORE.

***

CRIMINAL APPEAL No.441/2016

1.Judgment in Crl.Appeal Nos.C.A.No.441/2016

2.From what Court the appeal Add. Judicial Magistrate of I Class, Kavali is preferred

3. No. of the case in that CourtC.C.No.40/2009

4.No. of the appealC.A.No.441/2016

5.Name of the Rajanikanth Reddy, S/o MR Sekhar Reddy, aged about 56 appellant/accusedyears, W/o Additional SP, Hyderabad, R/o Hyderabad.

6.Names and description of theChakka Narasimham, S/o Sathyanarayana Guptha, aged respondent / complainantabout 64 years, R/o Gurramvari Veedhi, Kavali Town, S.P.S.R. Nellore District. 

7.The sentence and law under Appellant convicted for the offence under section 352 IPC which it was imposed in the and sentenced to pay a fine amount of Rs.500/­, in default of lower Court payment of fine to undergo simple imprisonment for a period of one month, the appellant also convicted for the offence under section 506 IPC and sentenced to pay a fine amount of Rs.5,000/­, in default of payment of fine to undergo simple imprisonment for a period of three months. 

Whether confirmed or 

8.modified or reversed. If Reversed modified the modification.

9.Date of presentation23.12.2016 

10.Date of filing 23.12.2016

11.Date of notice issued by the 23.12.2016 Court to appear

12.Date of bail bond if appellant 22.12.2016 has been let out on bail.

13.Appellants ordered to appear27.1.2017

14.Date of hearing7.4.2017

15.Date of Judgment13.4.2017

This criminal appeal was coming on 7­4­2017 before me for final hearing in the presence of Sri P. Umamaheswar, advocate for the Appellant/Accused and of Sri M.Subramanyam, Advocate for the defacto complainant and this matter having stood over for consideration till this day this Court made the following:­

CA.No.441/2016 2/8Dt.13.4.2017

JUDGMENT

This criminal appeal filed on behalf of the Appellant/Accused under Sec.374 Cr.P.C.

against the judgment in C.C.No.40/2009 on the file of Addl. Judicial Magistrate of I Class,

Kavali, wherein the Appellant/Accused was convicted for the offence under section 352 IPC and sentenced to pay a fine amount of Rs.500/­, in default of payment of fine to suffer simple imprisonment for one month, appellant also convicted for the offence under section 506 IPC and sentenced to pay a fine amount of Rs.5,000/­, in default of payment of fine he shall suffer simple imprisonment for three months.

2. The parties herein after referred to as arrayed in the trial court, the private complaint filed by the complainant before the trial court with the following averments:

The complainant lodged a report in crime no.76/2007 on 1.6.2007 in Kavali I Town PS for the offence under section 457, 380 IPC for the theft committed in his house, police filed final report before the court in PR.No.586/2008 dt.30.10.2008 stating that the case is undetectable, as against the same the complainant filed a protest petition before the court and the same was referred to Kavali I Town Police station for further investigation. That as per the complainant after filing of protest petition on 13.12.2008 around 10 am the accused being the

Circle Inspector of I Town PS called him to the police station where he abused in filthy language, he also challenged and insisted to sign on statement and tried to assault him by caught hold of his shirt, accused detained him in the police station for 3 hours and he also threatened him with dire consequences, the complainant stated that he has good reputation in the society as a councilor for Municipality and his father also freedom fighter, the trial court after recording the sworn statement of the complainant and two other witnesses having found prima facie case against the accused for the offences under section 342, 352 and 506 IPC issued summon to the accused, that on appearance of the accused before the court the copies of case documents furnished to the accused under section 207 Cr.P.C, he was examined under section 251 Cr.P.C, the substance of the accusation for the offence under section 342, 352, 506

IPC read over, explained to him in Telugu language for which he denied the same and pleaded not guilty, claimed to be tried.

CA.No.441/2016 3/8Dt.13.4.2017

3.During the course of trial, the complainant has examined PW1 to 5 and no documents are marked, that on closure of the complainant evidence the accused was examined under

Sec.313 Cr.P.C. by explaining the material appearing against him in the evidence of prosecution witnesses but he denied the same but as seen from the record the accused submitted that he called PW1 to the police station for enquiry and asked for the suspects names but he did not assault, he does not know the other witnesses also but the trial court after considering the evidence of PW1 to 5 held that the appellant is guilty for the offences under section 352 and 506 IPC and sentenced accordingly, being aggrieved by the same the present appeal is filed on various grounds :

4.Heard both sides, gone through the entire record of evidence, now the point that arises for determination is :

1) Whether the complainant has proved his case for the offence under section 352, 506 IPC against the accused beyond all reasonable doubt and whether the trial court judgment in CC.NO.40/2009 on the file of Additional Judicial Magistrate of I Class, Kavali requires any interference by this court or not?.

5. POINT NO.1:­

The learned counsel for the appellant argued that the defacto complainant being a political leader grew wild against this appellant official for the reason that the appellant has not traced out the culprits who committed the theft in his house, the bare perusal of the complainant and sworn statement itself it is sufficient to say that no offence was committed by the appellant, PW1 to 5 evidence suffers from infirmities and inconsistencies, the defacto complainant initially stated that the appellant detained him for 10 minutes but when he deposed before the court he stated that the appellant detained him for 3 hours in the police station for which no other witness stated about the detention of the PW1, the complainant has to prove the criminal case beyond all reasonable doubt but the present complaint is filed only with ill motive, there is no necessity for the accused to abuse the complainant in filthy language or for threatening him, no witness name is cited in the complaint and not referred any witness name for the alleged incident except one Krishna but admittedly he was not

CA.No.441/2016 4/8Dt.13.4.2017 examined but during the pendency of the complaint he examined PW2 to 5 as such the complainant evidence is unbelievable hence prayed to allow this appeal by setting aside the trial court judgment. 

6.On the other hand, the learned counsel for the respondent argued that the appellant being the official and public servant committed illegal acts and all the witnesses deposed in one voice about the main occurrence and there is no inconsistency in the evidence of PW1 to 5, the trial court considered the entire evidence on record and came to opinion that the appellant committed the offence but imposed meager sentence of fine, hence he prayed to dismiss the appeal by confirming the trial court judgment, that in view of rival contentions the complainant evidence has to be scrutinized carefully, the evidence of the complainant is as under.

7.The complainant/PW1 deposed before the court that in the year 2007 some unknown offenders committed theft in his house, they stolen 4.60 grams gold and 3 kg silver ornaments for which he lodged a report before the Kavali I Town PS and the same was registered as FIR, according to this witness police examined the inmates of the vicinity but they did not recovered the stolen property and referred the case as not traced, then the police issued referred memo to him, then he lodged a protest petition in the court hence the court issued notice to the police, that there is no dispute about the theft in the house of PW1 and registration of the crime and filing of the protest petition by this complainant but coming to the main occurrence this witness deposed that on one day I Town Police station ASI called him to their station by stating that CI by name Rajinikanth Reddy wants to talk with him, on that he went to I Town PS by 10 am, then the accused called him into the office room and asked to bring the offenders who have stolen the property in his house as he mentioned in the protest petition that some offenders of Kavali village were stolen the property, when he replied to the accused that he is helpless and stated that it is the duty of the police to trace the offenders, then the accused abused him in filthy language and he stated that police are not appointed

CA.No.441/2016 5/8Dt.13.4.2017 and paid to recover his stolen property, according to this witness the accused also abused by saying “NA KODAKA NEE ABBAKU CHEPPUKORA” by touching the accused, he also abused in filthy language against his mother and wife, that accused also stated in his section 313 Cr.P.C and there is no dispute for calling of PW1 to the police station but according to the appellant no such incident occurred hence the evidence has to weighed cautiously but on examining the sworn statement of PW1 he has not stated any specific words used by the accused except stating that he abused in filthy language, PW1 deposed before the court that the accused ordered him to sign on the statement scribed by the ASI, when he represented that without consulting his counsel he will not sign on the paper, then the accused caught hold his shirt, dragged him and beat with his leg and also beat him at his private parts and accused detained him in the police station for 3 hours, later he sent him away, the accused also threatened him to withdraw the protest petition but this part of main occurrence is quiet contrary to the sworn statement of the defacto complainant, that as seen from the sworn statement of this witness he stated that the appellant detained him for 10 minutes but when coming to the court he stated that the accused detained him for 3 hours, it is not the evidence of this witness that the police has taken his signature on the protest petition but the sworn statement clearly goes to show that when PW1 refused to sign he sent away, there is no reference of caught holding of the shirt of the PW1 by the accused or dragging him in the sworn statement of the complainant , there is no mentioning in the sworn statement that the accused beat with legs on his private parts which is clear discrepancy, that according to PW1 one G. Krishna accompanied him to the police station and admittedly except one G. Krishna no other witness name is mentioned in the private complaint also but examined PW2 to 5 hence their evidence has to be scrutinized carefully whether there evidence corroborating with the evidence of PW1 or not but admittedly G. Krishna was neither examined before the court nor his statement was recorded by the court, PW1 also clearly admitted that he alone went to the police station and he did not mention the names of other witnesses including PW2 to 5 in the complaint.

CA.No.441/2016 6/8Dt.13.4.2017

8.PW2 deposed that on 13.12.2008 at about 10 am when he was near vegetable market he had seen PW1 going towards I Town PS, he stopped him and talking in respect of their personal affairs then PW1 told him that the CI called him to I Town PS and he was going there along with one Krishna, according to this witness he also joined with him, then CI called PW1 and asked him to bring the offenders who committed theft in his house, on that the accused grew against PW1 and started abusing him in vulgar language and caught hold the collar of

PW1, as per this witness also CI also raised his leg and kicked PW1, on seeing the same constables sent away him along with Krishna out of the police station, 10 minutes later PW1 came out from the PS, that PW1 deposed that CI beat him with his leg on his private parts but contrary to the same PW2 stated that CI raised his leg to kick PW1 but not beat, moreover there is no reference in the evidence of PW1 about the presence of this PW2 or any other witness.

9.PW3 deposed that on one day while proceeding from Ryth bazar towards his house when he reached I Town PS he saw PW1 was taken by the ASI into the PS but even according to PW1 he was not accompanied with ASI but he went to the PS after information given by ASI with one Krishnsa and according to this witness he also went to the PS where he saw CI of

Kavali abused PW1 in filthy language, he also kicked him but as already stated as per the list of witnesses filed along with the complaint the eye witness is one G. Krishna but names of PW2 and 3 were not mentioned in the complaint, that on carefull examination of PW1 to 3 evidence

PW2 not spoken the presence of PW3, PW3 also not spoken about the presence of PW2 at the police station and coming to PW1 evidence there is no reference of presence of PW2 and 3 at the police station, it was elicited in the cross examination of PW4 that he had an acquaintance with PW1 and PW1 is a leader in Telugudesam party and PW3 is his close friend since their college days, hence there is every possibility of deposing in favour of PW1, it was elicited in his cross examination that he along with PW3 went to the PS 15 minutes after PW1 was taken but not went along with PW1 .

CA.No.441/2016 7/8Dt.13.4.2017

10.That coming to the evidence of PW5, he also deposed differently that on the date of incident at about 9.30 am while he was returning from vegetable market Kavali he saw PW1 was going into I Town PS, Kavali, he also went there and stood out side of the police station, the accused who was CI caught hold the shirt of PW1 and kicked on his testicles and abused him and threatened him not to reveal the same to anybody and accused also threatened PW1 with dire consequences if he reveals the incident to anybody and this part of evidence not found in any of the other witness evidence.

11.That when the complaint is made against a public servant that too when the matter pending before him it is necessary to examine the evidence carefully, the sworn statement recoded by the court which set the complaint in motion has to be examined carefully, that on perusal of the sworn statement except one G. Krishna not mentioned any other witnesses names in his complaint, admittedly that G.Krishna was not examined, the evidence of PW2 to 5 does not disclose the presence of other witnesses, there are clear contradictions and there are developed versions before the court, that according to the sworn statement of the complainant the accused called him to the PS, when he went the accused he asked PW1 to sit, when he sat in the chair he asked to bring the persons who committed theft in his house as he mentioned in the complaint that the theft committed by village people, then this PW1 stated that if he go to them they will not come hence to send somebody and call the culprits, then the accused replied and abused in filthy language for 10 minutes, when he asked to sign on the statement written by ASI he refused to sign without consulting the lawyer when he refused to sign they sent away PW1,except this nothing is stated in the sworn statement, but when coming to the evidence before the court PW1 deposed about accused caught holding his shirt and beating on his private parts which does not found place in the sworn statements hence there are several improvements and exaggerations in the evidence before the court and there is no corroboration in between the evidence of PW 2 to 5.

CA.No.441/2016 8/8Dt.13.4.2017

12.The learned counsel for the appellant argued that the case alleged to be committed by the accused was while discharging his duties hence as per section 197 Cr.P.C without the sanction the complaint is not maintainable but the Hon'ble High court in a quash petition filed by the appellant in this case in Crl.P.No 2603/2009 it is held that no sanction is required for the prosecution of the accused in this case under section 197 Cr.P.C but when examining the evidence adduced before the court there are clear contradictions and improved versions hence it cannot be held that the complainant proved his case beyond all reasonable doubt, That as per section 353 IPC it has to be proved that the accused made assault or used criminal force otherwise than on grave and sudden provocation, that as per section 503 IPC it has to be proved that the accused threatened with injury to his person, reputation or property but as seen from the sworn statement there are no such ingredients made out against the appellant, there are major discrepancies in the evidence of PW1 before the court when compared with his own sworn statement, that according to PW1 except one G. Krishna no other witness accompanied with him but he was not examined, that PW2 to 5 does not say about the presence of each other witness presence at the time of occurrence and their names also not mentioned in the complaint, even if they seen the occurrence their names would have definitely mentioned in the complaint as such the appellant is entitled for acquittal for more reasons but the trial court failed to weigh the evidence in correct perspective, hence this point is answered in favour of the appellant.

In the Result, this appeal is allowed by setting aside the trial court judgment of conviction and sentence in CC.No.40/2009 on the file of Addl. Judicial Magistrate of I Class,

Kavali, dt.2.12.2016. the accused is acquitted for the offences under section 352 and 506 IPC. 

Directly typed on my dictation by the Stenographer, corrected and pronounced by me in the Open Court, this the 13 th day of April, 2017. Sd/­ B. Papi Reddy 

III ADDITIONAL DISTRICT & SESSIONS JUDGE,

NELLORE. 

Copy to : The AJMFC, Kavali. Enclosures : Entire Record in CC No.40/2009 on the file of AJMFC, Kavali along with copy of judgment in CA.No.441/2016 on the file of this Court. //TRUE COPY//

1

BEFORE THE III ADDITIONAL MOTOR ACCIDENTS CLAIMS TRIBUNAL,

S.P.S.R.NELLORE DISTRICT.

Tuesday, this the 11th day of February, 2014

Present:Sri B. PAPI REDDY,

CHAIRMAN, III A.M.A.C.T., NELLORE

M.V.O.P.NO.598/2009

Malli Srinivasulu … Claimant

Vs.

1) S. Venkata Subrahmanyam

2) The New India Assurance Co. Ltd., rep. by its Branch Manager, Subedarpet, Nellore.… Respondents

This petition coming on 5.2.2014 before me for final hearing in the presence of Sri V.V. Durga Prasad, advocate for the petitioner and of Sri I.V. Rama Sastry, advocate for the 2nd respondent and the 1st respondent remained set exparte and having stood over till this day for consideration, this Court made the following:-

AWARD

This is a claim petition filed by the claimant Under Sec.166 of Motor Vehicles

Act claiming compensation of Rs.1,25,000/- against the respondents due to injuries sustained by him in a Motor Vehicle Accident that occurred on 03-10-2008 at 5.00 a.m. near Jonnawada Archi Centre on Mumbai Road, Buchireddypalem Village, SPSR

Nellore District.

2.The brief averments mentioned in the petition are as follows:-

3.On 03.10.2008 at 4.30 a.m. while the claimant started from his house on his cycle to move in the surrounding villages to sell onions and other provisions at about 5.00A.M while the claimant was crossing the Bombay Road at Buchi-Junnawada Arch

Centre from north to south one mini Lorry bearing Reg. No.AP04-U-8769 being driven by its driver in a rash and negligent manner at high speed came and hit the cycle of the claimant from his behind while proceeding from Nellore side to Buchi side as a result of which the claimant fell down on the road and sustained severe bleeding injuries and the claimant was shifted to Soujanya Orthopedic and Trauma Centre for medical treatment and treated him as inpatient.

2

4.The matter was reported to the SHO Buchireddypalem and the same was registered as a case in Crime No 127 of 2008 for an offence punishable under Section 338 I.P.C against the driver of the Mini Lorry bearing registration No AP 04-U-8769 as the accident occurred due to the rash and negligent driving of the driver of the MINI

Lorry bearing registration No AP 04-U8769.

5.The claimant further stated that he suffered lot of pain and now he is unable to work freely as before the accident in view of the injuries sustained to him in the above said accident and he was not able to attend his normal duties for three months and he lost his earnings and spent Rs 30,000/- towards medical expenses .the claimant states that he cannot carry any weight with his right hand and even now also he is getting pain due to not healing of the fracture and thus became permanently disabled.

6.It is further averred in the petition that the claimant was hale and healthy and aged about 45 years at the time of accident. He used to sell the onions and provisions by going on his cycle in surrounding villages and used to earn Rs 200/- per day and the same was contributing to his family. On account of fracture of his right leg, he cannot carry any weight with his right hand and even now also he is getting pain due to not healing of the fracture and thus became permanently disabled. The claimant claimed total compensation of Rs.1,25,000/- as shown in para 25 of the claim petition in detail from the Respondents. And as per the claim application the accident was occurred due to the rash and negligent driving of the Mini Lorry bearing

Reg. No. AP04-U-8769 which is insured with R2

7.R1 is the owner of Mini Lorry bearing Reg. No AP04-U-8769 and R2 is the insurer of the said vehicle and they are liable to pay compensation. Hence this petition.

8.R1 remained set exparte.

3

9.R2 filed counter denying all the allegations mentioned in the petition. This respondent submits that the accident was occurred due to the negligent riding of the cycle by the claimant by without observing on the either side of the road he crossed the road. There is no rash and negligent driving on the part of the driver of the Mini

Lorry bearing Reg.AP04-U-8769. This respondent denied the age, avocation and income of the claimant at the time of accident. The driver of the offending Mini Lorry bearing Reg. No. AP04-U-8769 does not possess valid driving license as on the material date of accident. The compensation claimed in this case is highly excessive.

Hence prays to dismiss the petition with costs.

10.R2 filed Additional counter stating that as per First Information Report, Charge sheet it reveals that the accident was occurred due to the rash and negligent driving of the driver of the vehicle bearing No AP04-U8679 but not with the vehicle bearing

No AP04-U-8769 as such if any compensation is liable to be payable it must be by the owner or insurer of the Vehicle bearing No AP04-U8679, Hence prays to dismiss the petition with costs.

11.Basing on the pleadings of both parties, the tribunal settled the following issues:-

1)Whether the accident occurred on account of rash and negligent act of the driver of mini lorry bearing Reg. No.AP04-U-8679 by its driver and caused injuries to the petitioner or not?

2) Whether the petitioner is entitled to claim any compensation, and if so, to what amount from Which of the respondent?

3) To what relief?

12.ADDITIONAL ISSUE:-

Whether there is valid insurance to crime vehicle bearing No AP04-

U8679 by the date of accident or not?

13.That, my learned predecessor while framing the additional issue mistakenly mentioned the vehicle no as AP04-U-8679 instead of AP04-U8769 as per Orders in

I.A.No 315 of 2012 already the claimant amended the vehicle No as AP04-U8769 in 4 the place of AP04-U-8679 hence it is clarified and the additional issue is settled in the interests of justice as “whether the accident occurred on account of rash and negligent act of the driver of mini lorry bearing Reg. No.AP04-U-8769 by its driver and caused injuries to the petitioner or not?

14.That During the course of trial, the claimant is examined as PW1, and got marked Exs.A1 to A7 and PW2 examined on summons issued to the witness. R2 examined as RW1 and got marked Exs.B1 and B2.

15.Heard the arguments of the learned counsel for the petitioner and learned counsel for 2nd respondent and Respondent No 1 was set exparte.

16.ISSUE NO.1 AND ADDITIONAL ISSUE NO.1:-

It is the case of the claimant that On 03.10.2008 at 4.30 a.m. while the claimant started from his house on his cycle to move in the surrounding villages to sell onions and other provisions at about 5.00A.M while the claimant was crossing the

Bombay Road at Buchi-Junnawada Arch Centre from north to south one mini Lorry bearing Reg. No.AP04-U-8769 being driven by its driver in a rash and negligent manner at high speed came and hit the cycle of the claimant from his back while proceeding from Nellore side to Buchi side as a result of which the claimant fell down on the road and sustained severe bleeding injuries. Thus, this accident occurred.

17.In order to prove the rash and negligent act of the driver of the crime lorry bearing Reg. AP04-U8769, the claimant M.Sreenivasulu is examined as PW1. He clearly and categorically stated the manner of the accident in his chief affidavit that the driver of the offending mini lorry is responsible for the accident and he stated in the further chief examination that he filed the claim petition and chief affidavit by mentioning the vehicle involved in the accident as AP04-U-8679 but subsequently he came to know that the said vehicle No is AP04U-8769 and he received injuries due to 5 the negligence of the driver of the mini lorry bearing No AP04U-8769 and he amended the claim petition accordingly.

18.R2 cross examined this witness at length but nothing is elicited except putting suggestions.

19.It is not in dispute that the First Information Report was registered by

Buchireddypalem Police as a case in Crime No.127/2008 under Sec.337 IPC against the driver of the lorry bearing Reg. No.AP-04-U-8679 basing on the report given by one Malli Venkataramanaiah. Ex.A2 is the wound certificate of PW1 which goes to show that he sustained one fracture which is a grievous injury in the accident and three simple injuries. After completion of investigation, the police filed charge sheet for the offence under Section 338 I.P.C against the driver of the Lorry Bearing Reg. No.

AP-04-U-8679 stating that he drove the vehicle in a rash and negligent manner and caused the accident as per Ex.A3.

20.that initially the claimant filed the claim petition by mentioning the offending vehicle No as AP-04-U-8679 subsequently when he came to know that the vehicle no wrongly mentioned in the F.I.R and charge sheet as AP-04-U-8679 instead of AP-04-U- 8769 the claimant amended the claim petition by rectifying the offending vehicle number as per the Orders of this Court.

21. PW2 the SI of PS Buchireddypalem deposed that the offending vehicle no mentioned in the F.I.R and charge sheet mistakenly as AP-04-U-8679 instead of AP-04-

U-8769 and it is only typographical mistake this evidence supports the version of the claim petitioner.

22.The learned counsel for the 2nd respondent contended that the Lorry bearing

Reg. AP-04-U-8769 never involved in the accident. He further contended that the

Lorry bearing Reg.No. AP-04-U-8679 was involved in the accident which is not insured with the Respondent No 1 therefore, R2 is not liable to pay any compensation.

6

23.In support of his contention, on behalf of R2, RW1 Ch. Rambabu, who is working as Senior Assistant in 2nd Respondent Company at Ongole is examined.

24.He deposed that the vehicle involved in the accident as per First Information

Report and charge sheet is AP-04-U-8679 and the owner name is

S.Venkatasubrahmanyam but as per the policy the vehicle No is AP-04-U-8769 and this vehicle not involved in any accident hence payment of compensation by the

Respondent No 2 does not arise.

25.RW2 produced two documents i.e. Ex.B1 - Attested true copy of Insurance

Policy. Ex.B2 – attested true copy of R.C issued by the Addl registering Authority,

Kadapa.

26.Ex.A1 First Information Report and charge sheet clearly goes to show that at 1st instance the police registered a case in Crime No.127/08 against driver of the mini

Lorry bearing Reg. No.AP-04-U-8679. But after filing of the claim petition the petitioner came to know that the vehicle number due to typographical mistake mentioned as AP-04-U-8679 instead of AP-04-U-8769 and as per the EX-B2 which is issued by the Addl.Registering Authority the owner name of the vehicle bearing No

AP-04-U-8769 is mentioned as Venkata Subrahmanyam which name is mentioned in the claim petition and both names are one and the same,

27.Further to that the evidence of PW2 the SI of police clearly proved that the vehicle no mentioned as AP-04-U-8679 instead of AP-04-U-8769 due to typographical mistake hence the police after completion of investigation filed charge sheet in the above crime against the driver by name Sk Riyaz Basha, S/o Ghouse Basha, Udayagiri town,Nellore,. Ex.B1 Policy issued by R2 clearly goes to show that the owner of the crime vehicle is S.Venkata Subrahmanyam, i.e. R1 herein and vehicle number was shown AP-04-U-8769. So by reading of the FIR, Charge sheet and the evidence of PW1 and PW2, It is the duty of the police even at the time of filing charge sheet they could have rectified the vehicle no, they have to correct the said mistake but not done so 7 far for the best reasons known to them. On the other hand, R2 did not produce any document except Exs.B1 and B2 stating that R1 vehicle does not involved in the accident further RW1 in his cross examination admitted that as per their verification they came to know that the said vehicle Number is AP04-U8769.

28.First Information Report can be relied to prove about the crime. However, after thorough investigation, the police filed charge sheet, but R2 does not dispute these documents. But only dispute is with regard to vehicle no, So, the oral evidence of

PW1 and PW2, cross examination of RW1 coupled with Exs.A1 to A3, it is clear that the accident occurred due to rash and negligent act of the driver of the offending mini lorry bearing Reg. No. AP-04-U-8769 further due to typographical mistake the vehicle

No mentioned as 8679 instead of 8769, This issue is answered accordingly and in favour of the claimant.

29.ISSUE NO.2:-

That the Respondent contended in the counter that the driver of the vehicle bearing Reg. AP04-U8769 do not have valid driving license as on the date of the accident but there is no such evidence before the court and there is no mention in the charge sheet also stating that the vehicle driver does not possessed the valid driving license and there was not even a suggestion made to the PW1 or PW2 in that regard as such for this reason the claimant cannot be denied for claiming compensation as if any violation is made with regard to policy by R1, that R1 only responsible.

30.According to the claimant, he sustained one grievous injury and four simple injuries in the accident. After the accident, he got admitted in Soujanya Orthopaedic and Trauma Centre on 03.10.2008. He was treated as inpatient but he has not stated how many days he was in the hospital. He spent Rs.30,000/- towards medical expenses but he filed bills only for an amount of Rs.7.107/-.

31.He further deposed that on account of fracture received in the accident, he is unable to attend any work and became permanent disabled person.

8

32.That the doctor who treated the claimant was not examined but a medical certicate is marked as EX-A2 as per this certificate the claimant found the following injuries:-

1)Fracture of left side ribs

2)Laceration on right eye-brow

3)Injuries to right side of head

4)Superficial laceration on right wrist

On examination the claimant suffered one grievous and three simple injuries

33.Admittedly the claimant has not filed any proof with regard to his earning of

Rs.200/- per day. Ex-A4 is the OP ticket issued by GGH, Nellore, Ex-A5 two X-ray films,

Ex.A6 bunch of medical bills issued by Soujanya Orthopaedic and Trauma Centre,

Nellore for Rs 7,107/-. Ex.A7 is prescription issued by Dr.S.Krishna Reddy. The claimant has not proved that he was treated as inpatient and it is also not mentioned how many days he was in hospital, there is no proof to show that the claimant was not able to attend his duties for three months because of the injuries sustained in the accident.

34.As per EX-A2 simply stated that one grievous and three simple injuries and the claimant admittedly not suffered any disability, there is no disability certificate

before the court that due to injuries PW1 became disabled as such the disability as

stated by PW2 cannot be considered.

35.Thus, the medical evidence as per EX-A2, I am of the clear opinion that the claimant sustained one grevious injury and three simple injury and therefore, he is entitled to receive just and reasonable compensation.

36.The claimant claimed total compensation of Rs.1,25,000/- which is highly excessive.

9

37.Towards transport to the hospital Rs.2,000/- is awarded. Towards medical expenses Rs.30,000/- is highly excessive in absence of proof and Rs.10,000/- is reasonable amount and the same is awarded. Towards costs of special diet Rs.1,500/- awarded. Towards pain and suffering Rs.5,000/- awarded. Compensation for one grievous injury Rs.12,000/- awarded. Compensation for other Simple injuries

Rs.3,000/- awarded. Loss of earnings Rs.9,000/- awarded.the claimant not entitled the compensation for permanent disability Thus, the claimant is entitled total compensation of Rs.42,500/-. This issue is answered accordingly.

So, the petitioner is entitled total compensation of Rs.42,500/- which is a just and reasonable compensation.

38.It is clearly established that the driver of the crime bearing Registration

No. AP-04-U-8769 drove the vehicle in a rash and negligent manner and caused this accident. The said driver is working under the employment of 1st respondent and 1st respondent being the owner of the crime vehicle is vicariously liable to pay compensation. 1st respondent insured his vehicle with 2nd respondent under valid policy. So, both 1st and 2nd respondents are jointly and severally liable to pay compensation along with interest awarded thereon.

This issue is answered accordingly.

39.ISSUE NO.3:-

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

Rs.42,500/- (Rupees Forty Two Thousand and Five Hundred Only) against the claim of

Rs.1,25,000/- along with interest at the rate of 7.5% per annum from the date of petition till the date of realization with proportionate costs. The 1st and 2nd respondents are jointly and severally liable to pay compensation and they are directed to deposit the said amount into the Court within one month from the date of this award. After deposit of such amount, the claimant is permitted to 10 withdraw his total amount of compensation Rs.42,500/- with accrued interest at once after appeal time is over. The rest of the claim of the claimant is hereby dismissed.

The advocate fee is fixed at Rs.1,000/- (Rupees One Thousand Only).

Dictated to the Personal Assistant, typed by her, corrected and pronounced by me in the open

court, this the 11th day of February, 2014.

III ADDL.MOTOR ACCIDENTS CLAIMS TRIBUNAL,

NELLORE.

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

Witnesses examined

For Petitioner:

PW1: Malli Srinivasulu; PW2: I. Dasaradharamaiah.

For Respondent:

RW1: Ch. Rambabu.

Documents Marked

For Petitioner:

Ex.A1: Attested xerox copy of FIR in Crime No.127/2008 of Buchireddypalem P.S.; Ex.A2: Attested xerox copy of Wound Certificate; Ex.A3: Attested xerox copy of Charge sheet; Ex.A4: OP ticket issued by GGH, Nellore; Ex.A5: Two X-ray films; Ex.A6: Bunch of medical bills; Ex.A7: One prescription issued by Dr. S. Krishna Reddy.

For Respondent:

Ex.B1: Attested true copy of Insurance Policy issued by R2; Ex.B2: Attested xerox copy of R.C. issued by Additional Registering Authority, Kadapa.

III M.A.C.T./III A.D.J.. Nellore.