Sri. B. Raveendra Babu

IN THE COURT OF V ADDITIONAL SESSIONS JUDGE:: 

TIRUPATI.

Present: Sri B. Raveendra Babu, B.Sc., B.L,

III Additional District and Sessions Judge, Tirupati.

FAC V Additional District and Sessions Judge, Tirupati. 

Monday, the Twenty Seventh (27th ) day of February, Two Thousand Twelve.

Criminal Appeal No. 27 of 2010

In S.T.C No. 170 of 2005

(On the file of III Addl. Judicial Magistrate of I Class, Tirupati)

Between:

1. P. Munisekhar.Appellants/A­1 to A­3

2. P. Muni Ramachandra.

3. M/s Lavanya Minera @ Beverages rep. by A­2.

And: The State the Food Inspector, Division – II, Chittoor District.

.. Respondent/Complainant.

Judgment in Criminal Appeal No.27 of 2010

From which court the appeal is III Addl. Judl. Magistrate of I Class, preferred Tirupati.

Number of the case in that Court S.T.C No.170 of 2005

Number of the appeal before this C.A. No.27 of 2010 court

Name and description of the 1. P. Munisekhar. appellants. 2. P. Muni Ramachandra.

3. M/s Lavanya Minera @ Beverages rep. by A­2.

The offence under which Convicted U/Sec. 7(ii) and 2 (ix) (e) appellant/accused was convicted of Prevention of Food Adulteration and sentence imposed. Act, 1954, Sub Rule 28 of Rule 49 of Prevention of Food Adulteration 2

Rules, 1955 punishable with U/Sec. 16 (1) (a) (i) of Prevention of Food Adulteration Act, 1954, and sentenced to undergo SI for a period of 6 months each and to pay a fine of Rs.1000/­ each in default of payment, accused 1 to 3 further sentenced to undergo SI for a period of one month each with a benefit of set of off remand period U/Sec.428 Cr P C.

Whether the appeal confirmed, In the result, appeal is dismissed modified or reversed, if confirming the Judgment, conviction modified, the modification. and sentence imposed on the appellants by the trial court in its Judgment, dt.20­02­2010 passed by learned III Addl. Judl. Magistrate of I Class,Tirupati in STC No.170 of 2005.

Date of presentation :02­03­2010

Date of admission :02­03­2010

Date of hearing :21­02­2012

Date of sentence or order : 27­02­2012

This appeal coming on 19­01­2012 for final hearing before me in the presence of Sri K. C. Chennakesavulu Reddy, Advocate for the 

Appellants/A­1 to A­3 and Sri K. V. Ramana Reddy, Learned Additional 

Public Prosecutor for State and having stood over for consideration till this day, this court delivered the following:­

J U D G M E N T

1.A­1 to A­3 in STC No.170 of 2005 filed this appeal against 

Judgment, conviction and sentence dt.20­02­2010 passed by learned III 

Addl. Judl. Magistrate of I Class, Tirupati wherein appellants are found guilty for the offences U/Sec. 7(ii) and 2 (ix) (e) of Prevention of Food 3

Adulteration Act, 1954, Sub Rule 28 of Rule 49 of Prevention of Food 

Adulteration Rules, 1955 punishable U/Sec. 16 (1) (a) (i) of Prevention of 

Food Adulteration Act, 1954 and sentenced to undergo S.I for a period of 6 moths each and to pay a fine of Rs.1,000/­ in default of payment of fine, S.I for a period of one month each with a benefit of set off of remand period 

U/Sec.438 Cr P C.

2.The case of the Food Inspector – PW1 is as follows :­

A­1 is vendor of M/s Lavanya Mineral @ Beverages. A­2 is 

Managing partner of M/s Lavanya Mineral @ Beverages water. A­3 is M/s 

Lavanya Mineral @ Beverages. 

PW1 along with his Attender PW3 visited the shop of A­1 on 02­06­2003 at about 12.15 PM and found A­1 transacting the business. 

PW1 examined Lavanya Pure drinking water kept in 5 cans, each can containing 12 liters and 250 ml packets kept in 20bags, each bag contained 100 packets for sale of human consumption. PW1suspected 250 ml packets of water to be adulterated. PW1 purchased 36 packets of Lavanya Pure drinking water, each containing 250 ml for Rs.10­80 Ps and paid cash to 

A­1. PW1 served Form VI notice to A­1 stating that he purchased water packets in order to send them to Public Analyst. PW1 divided 36water packets purchased by him in to 3 equal parts ie., 12 packets each and placed them in to three clean, dry and empty plastic jars and the caps were closed with caps and tied with strong twine sealed by affixing with relevant particulars on each sample jar and wrapped in fairly strong thick cover paper and the ends were folded in and affixed with gum. PW1 also affixed the label of Local Health Authority to each sample jar. When questioned A­1 disclosed that A­2 is managing partner of Lavanya Mineral @ Beverages. 

A­1 also stated that they have got license for the year, 2002­2003. A­1 also stated that they have not obtained BIS certification mark. PW2 and PW3 were present when PW1 lifted the sample. PW1 forwarded one part of the 4 sample to Public Analyst and deposited two samples with Local Health 

Authority, Kadapa. Public Analyst opined that the sample does not have 

BIS Certification and therefore, misbranded. Director of Institute of 

Preventive Medicine & Food (Health) Authority, AP., Hyderabad gave written consent for institution of prosecution against A­1 to A­3 for the offences U/Sec. 7(ii) and 2 (ix) (e) of Prevention of Food Adulteration Act, 1954, Sub Rule 28 of Rule 49 of Prevention of Food Adulteration Rules, 1955 punishable U/Sec. 16 (1) (a) (i) of Prevention of Food Adulteration 

Act, 1954,

PW1 filed complaint before the learned Magistrate on 09­08­ 2004. Learned Magistrate took cognizance for the offence U/Sec. 7(ii) and 2 

(ix) (e) of Prevention of Food Adulteration Act, 1954, Sub Rule 28 of Rule 49 of Prevention of Food Adulteration Rules, 1955 punishable with U/Sec. 

16 (1) (a) (i) of Prevention of Food Adulteration Act, 1954 on 17­10­2005. 

3.Appellants denied the offence when examined U/Sec.251 CrPC. 

4.To prove the offences U/Sec. 7(ii) and 2 (ix) (e) of Prevention of Food Adulteration Act, 1954, Sub Rule 28 of Rule 49 of Prevention of 

Food Adulteration Rules, 1955 punishable U/Sec. 16 (1) (a) (i) of Prevention of Food Adulteration Act, 1954, prosecution placed the evidence of PW1 to 

PW3 and got marked Ex.P­1 to Ex.P­22.

5.In 313 Cr P C examination also, appellants denied the offences. 

No defence evidence was adduced. 

6.Learned Magistrate after considering the evidence on record, gave finding that the complaint is filed within time inview of Section 470(3) 

Cr P C. Learned Magistrate also gave finding that A­1 sold water packets manufactured by A­2 without BIS Certification mark and therefore found the accused guilty of the offences U/Sec. 7(ii) and 2 (ix) (e) of Prevention of 

Food Adulteration Act, 1954, Sub Rule 28 of Rule 49 of Prevention of Food 5

Adulteration Rules, 1955 punishable U/Sec. 16 (1) (a) (i) of Prevention of 

Food Adulteration Act, 1954 and sentenced them as stated supra.

7.Point for consideration in this appeal is 

Whether the conviction of appellants for the offences U/Sec. 

7(ii) and 2 (ix) (e) of Prevention of Food Adulteration Act, 1954, Sub Rule 28 of Rule 49 of Prevention of Food Adulteration Rules, 1955 punishable 

U/Sec. 16 (1) (a) (i) of Prevention of Food Adulteration Act, 1954 is valid and sustainable under law?

8.The main contention of the learned counsel appearing for appellants is that the offences alleged is only violation of Sub Rule 28 of 

Rule 49 of Prevention of Food Adulteration Rules, 1955 and it is punishable 

U/Sec. 16 (1) (a) (ii) of Prevention of Food Adulteration Act, 1954 but not 

U/Sec.16 (1)(a)(i) of Prevention of Food Adulteration Act, 1954. He further contended that non obtaining of BIS Certification mark is only a violation of 

Sub Rule 28 of Rule 49 of Prevention of Food Adulteration Rules, 1955 and for which penalty provided is U/Sec.16 (1)(a)(ii) of the PFA Rules. He further contended that when Sub Section (a) (ii) of Rule 16 (1) is invoked, punishment provided as per the proviso is only up to 3 months and that fine may extend to Rs.500/­, if there are special and adequate reasons and in the absence of special and adequate reasons, punishment provided is not less than 3 months but which may extend to 2 years. He further contended that if 

Sub Section (a)(i) of Rule 16(1) is invoked also, minimum punishment provided is 6 months which may extend to 3 years and that fine shall not be less than Rs.1,000/­. But for special reasons has to be recorded the sentence of Imprisonment is for a term of not less than 3 months but which may extend to 2 years and fine not less than Rs.500/­

9.Learned Additional Public Prosecutor appearing for the state contended that violation of Sub Rule 28 of Rule 49 also comes within the meaning of misbranded as defined in sub Section 2 (ix) of PFA Act and 6 therefore, punishment is provided only U/Sec.16 (1)(a)(i) but not 

U/Sec.16(1)(a)(ii) of PFA Act. 

10.Now I will answer the first contention of learned counsel for accused/appellants.

It is specifically stated in the complaint filed by PW1 that the violation is in respect of Sub Rule 28 of Rule 49 of PFA Rules.

Sub­Rule 28 of Rule 49 of PFA Rules reads as follows :­ “No person shall manufacture, sell or exhibit for sale packaged drinking water except under the Bureau of Indian Standards Certification 

Mark”.

This Sub Rule 28 was introduced with effect from 29­03­2001. 

Sample was lifted by PW1 in this case on 02­06­2003. Therefore, Sub­Rule 28 of Rule 49 applies to the facts of this case. 

The evidence of PW1 to PW3 coupled with Panchanama and the samples seized and the Analyst report clearly goes to show that there is no BIS Certification mark on the water packets of M/s Lavanya Mineral @ 

Beverages sold by A­1 manufactured by A­2 and A­3.

Therefore, the violation of Sub­Rule 48 of Rule 49 is established by the prosecution. 

11.Now it has to be seen whether the violation of Sub Rule 28 of 

Rule 49 of PFA Rules comes within the meaning of misbranded as defined in Clause ix of Section 2 of PFA Act.

In the case on hand, in the complaint petition, it is stated that the offence Sub­Clause (e) of Clause (ix) of Section 2 of PFA Act. 

It is pertinent to refer to Sub Clause (e) of Clause (ix) of 

Section 2 of PFA Act which defines misbranded. In Clause (ix) there are sub­Clauses from (a) to (k). The sub­Clause that was referred to in the complaint petition as well as evidence of PW1 to PW3 is Sub­Clause (e) of 

Clause (ix) of Section 2 of PFA Act. 

7

Sub­Clause (e) of Clause (ix) of Section 2 of PFA Act reads as follows :­ “If false claims are made for it upon the label or otherwise”.

The material available on record goes to show that it is not a case where a false claim was made by Appellants 1 to 3 upon the label. But the word otherwise implies non mentioning of certification mark also. But it is the positive case of prosecution that M/s Lavanya Mineral @ Beverages water packets are being sold without the BIS Certification mark. Therefore the offence i.e., committed by appellants in this case is selling of water packets without BIS Certification mark which amounts to violation of Sub­

Rule 48 of Rule 49 of PFA Rules.

12.Now it has to be seen whether the violation of Sub­Rule 48 of 

Rule 49 of PFA Rules amounts to misbranded.

As already said, there are Sub­Clauses (a) to (k) in Clause (ix) of Section 2 of PFA Act. If we taken Sub­Clause (k) of Clause (ix) of 

Section 2 of PFA Act, it reads as follows :­ “If it is not labelled in accordance with the requirements of this 

Act or rules made thereunder”;

In the case on hand, sample taken by PW1 is not labelled in accordance with the rules i.e., Sub Rule 28 of Rule 49 of PFA Rules. 

Therefore, this case comes Under Sub Clause (k) of Clause (ix) of Section 2 of PFA Act. 

Section 2 of PFA Act says that any of the acts or omissions in 

Sub­Clause (a) to (k) amounts to misbranded.

The facts of the case attracts Sub­Clause (k) of Clause (ix) of 

Section 2 of PFA Act. Therefore, violation of Sub Rule 28 of Rule 49 also amounts to violation of mis branded within the meaning of Sub Clause (k) of 

Clause (ix) of Section 2 of PFA Act.

8

Section 16 of PFA Act provides penalties for violations , contraventions provisions of PFA Act and Rules. 

Section 16 (1)(a)(i) of PFA Act provides penalty for the manufactures for sales of any article of food which is misbranded within the meaning of Clause (ix) of Section 2 of PFA Act.

The case on hand although doesnot come under Sub­Clause (e) of Clause (ix) of Section 2 , it comes Under Sub­Clause (k) of Clause (ix) of 

Section 2 and therefore it provides penalty U/Sec.16(1)(a)(i) of the PFA Act. 

13.The contention of learned counsel for appellants that Section 16 (1)(a)(ii) of the Act that applies for contravention of rules is not applicable to the facts of this case because violation of Sub Rule 28 of Rule 49 of PFA 

Rules comes within the meaning of misbranded in view of Sub­Clause (k) of 

Clause (ix) of Section 2. Therefore, invoking of Section 16 (1)(a)(i) of PFA 

Act is according to law.

14.Section 16 (1)(a)(ii) of PFA Act can be invoked over where there is any violation of provisions of Act or rules in respect of article of food other than an article of food that has been referred to in Sub Clause (i).

Moreover, Section 16 (1)(a)(ii) of PFA Act applies only where there is violation of provisions of Act or Rules without being attracted by 

Sub­Clause (m) of Clause (i) (a) of Section 2 or misbranded within the meaning of Sub clause (ix) of Section 2. The violation of Sub Rule 28 of 

Rule 49 of PFA Rules in this case attract Sub Clause (k) of Clause (ix) of 

Section 2 and therefore, it attracts the definition of misbranded and therefore, correct section of law that can be invoked is Section 16 (1)(a)(i) of 

PFA Act but not 16 (1)(a)(ii) of PFA Act.

15.Next argument of the learned counsel for accused is consent given by Director of Institute of Preventive Medicine & Food (Health ) 

Authority Act dt. 17­06­2004 which is marked as Ex.P­15 is not valid consent and issued without application of mind. The contention that consent 9 is invalid is mainly based on the point that prosecution sanctioned only 

U/Sec.16 (1)(a)(i) of PFA Act but not U/Sec.16 (1)(a)(ii) of PFA Act. A

A perusal of Ex.P­15 show that Director of Institute of 

Preventive Medicine & Food (Health) Authority, AP., Hyderabad gave consent of prosecution of appellants for the offences U/Sec.16 (1) (a)(i) and 7 (ii) and 2 (ix) (e) of PFA Act r/w Sub Rule 28 of Rule 49 of the PFA 

Rules. 

The finding of this court is that Penal section applies is 

U/Sec.16 (1)(a)(i) of PFA Act. No doubt in the complaint, in the evidence of PW1 and as well as in the Ex.P­15, Consent Order, Sub Clause (e) of 

Clause (ix) of Section 2 is mentioned instead of Sub Clause (k) of Clause 

(ix) of Section 2. Whether Sub­Clause (k) of Clause (ix) of Section 2 or 

Sub­Clause (e) of Clause (ix) of Section 2 of the Act is mentioned, it comes only within the meaning of misbranded which is Under Clause 2(ix). 

Moreover, in the complaint, in the evidence of PW1, in Ex.P­15, it is clearly mentioned that there is violation of Sub­Rule 28 of Rule 49 of the 

PFA Rules. The violation of Sub­Rule 28 of Rule 49 amounts to misbranding in view of Sub­Clause (k) of Clause (ix) of Section 2. 

Therefore the written consent by the Director of Institute of Preventive 

Medicine & Food (Health) Authority, A.P., Hyderabad marked as Ex.P­15 cannot be said to be not a valid consent and issued without application of mind. 

On this aspect, learned counsel appearing for the appellants relied upon the decision in 

State of Maharashtra, Petitioner

Vs

Hirji Dhanji Shah, Respondent, reported in 1998 Crl.L.J.1828, 10

In that decision, it is held that consent Order not stating what way article was adulterated within meaning of Section 2 (ia) of Act.

Another decision relied upon by the learned counsel for appellants is in

Maya Prakash, petitioner

Vs

State of U.P., and another, Opposite parties, reported in 1998 Crl.L.J., 2876,

In that case, there was no material in Consent order saying that what was adulterated as per the report of analyst and what material was perused for granting sanction. 

But in the case on hand, in the analysis report it is clearly mentioned that sample of water is misbranded because of non obtaining of 

BIS Certification mark. In the Consent order, Ex.P­15 also it is clearly mentioned that consent is given for misbranding of Lavanya Mineral Pure 

Drinking water. The facts of the case comes Under Sub Clause (k) of 

Clause (ix) of Section 2 of PFA Act. Therefore, it cannot be said that the consent for prosecution was given without mentioning the basis or without applying mind.

In that view of the matter, the above said decision relied upon by the learned counsel for appellants is not applicable to the facts of the case. 

16.Another contention of learned counsel for appellants/accused is sample was lifted on 02­06­2003. The complaint was taken cognizance on 17­10­2005 ie., 2 years 4 months 15 days after lifting of sample and therefore, complaint is barred by limitation. Section 468 Cr P C bars taking cognizance of offences after lapse of period of limitation. Section 468 (2) of 

Cr P C says, period of limitation shall be 6 months if the offence is punishable with fine only, period of limitation shall be one year if the 11 offence is punishable with Imprisonment for a term not exceeding one year. 

The period of limitation shall be 3 years if the punishment with imprisonment for a term exceeding one year but not exceeding three years. 

In the case on hand, punishment provided U/Sec.16 (1)(a)(i) of PFA Act is for a term which shall not be less than 6 moths but which may extend to 3 years and fine which may imposed not exceeding Rs.1,000/­. Therefore, period of limitation is 3 years. If the provisio of Sec.16 (1)(a)(i) of PFA Act is invoked by recording special reasons punishment provided is 

Imprisonment for a term which shall not be less than 3 months but which may extent to 2 years and fine which cannot extend Rs.500/­. Therefore, the period of limitation that is provided in this case is 3 years since sentence can extend to 3 years. 

17.In the decision reported in

Japani Sahoo

Vs

Chandrasekhar Mohanty, reported in 2007 (7) SCC 394,

It is held that computation of period of limitation of complaint is from the date of filing of complaint but not from the date of taking cognizance by the Court. 

In the case on hand, sample was taken on 02­06­2003. 

Complaint was filed on 09­08­2004. Therefore, complaint is filed 13 months 23 days after the date of offence. Period of limitation provided for the offence is 3 years. Therefore complaint is filed within time.

Even assuming that the punishment provided is less than one year. The time taken for obtaining consent is exempted U/Sec.470(3) CrPC.

In the case on hand, application was filed by PW1 for consent on 07­01­2004 and consent was obtained on17­06­2004. Therefore, 5 months time has been taken for giving consent. If 5 months time is excluded 12 from 09­08­2004, date on which complaint was filed, the complaint is within one year from the date of sample. Therefore, in any view of the matter complaint is filed within time and taking cognizance of offence is not at all barred by Section 468 of Cr P C in this case. 

18.Learned counsel for appellant further contended that the evidence of PW2 cannot be taken in to consideration on the ground that signature of the panchayatdar on mahazar is of different ink. There is no rule that panchayatdar shall sign on the mahazar with the same ink in which mahazar was prepared. 

19.The evidence of PW1 to PW3 clearly goes to show that PW1 visited the shop of A­1, lifted water packet samples, took them for analysis following the procedure laid down under the Act and Rules. The evidence on record also goes to s how that PW1 forwarded the samples to the Public 

Analyst and the Public Analyst opined that the sample is mis branded because of non obtaining of BIS Certification mark.

20.No other violation of provisions or Rules by PW1 in lifting the samples, packing the sample, in forwarding the samples, in analyzing the samples, has been pointed out in this case by the appellants either before this court or before the Trial Court. Sec. 13(2) notices was also sent to A­1 to 

A­3. Accused also gave Ex.P­12 letter that they have not obtained BIS 

Certification mark. A­1 although described as vendor, he did not take the defence U/Sec.19 (2) of the Act by producing the bill to show that he purchased the Water packets from the licensed manufacturer or by showing written warranty in the prescribed form. Therefore,Sec.19(2) of the Act is not availed by appellant/A­1 in this case.

21.In view of the above discussion, I see no merits in this appeal. 

22.Therefore the violation of Sub Rule 28 of Rule 49 of Prevention of Food Adulteration Rules is confirmed and it comes U/Section 7 (ii), 2 13

(ix)(k) of Prevention of Food Adulteration Act punishable U/Sec.16(1)(a)(i) of Prevention of Food Adulteration Act.

Sd/­ B. Raveendra Babu,

III Additional District &Sessions Judge, Tirupati. FAC V Additional District &Sessions Judge, Tirupati.

23.Appellants are heard about quantum of sentence. Appellants pleaded mercy of the Court. They submitted that their family members are depending upon them. 

Considering the facts of the case, there are no special reasons to be recorded inorder to invoke provision to Section 16(1)(a)(i) of Prevention of Food Adulteration Act. Therefore, Sentence of Imprisonment and fine imposed by the Trial Court upon the appellants is confirmed without any modification. 

In the result, appeal is dismissed confirming the Judgment, conviction and sentence imposed on the appellants by the trial court in its 

Judgment, dt.20­02­2010 passed by learned III Addl. Judl. Magistrate of I 

Class,Tirupati in STC No.170 of 2005.

Dictated to the Personal Assistant, transcribed by him, corrected and 

pronounced by me in open court, this the 27th day of February, 2012.

Sd/­ B. Raveendra Babu, III Additional District &Sessions Judge, Tirupati. FAC V Additional District &Sessions Judge, Tirupati. Appendix of evidence NIL.

Id/­ B. R.B., FAC V Addl. D & S.J. Tirupati. 

Copy to: The Registrar (Judl), High Court of A.P., Hyderabad. The District Judge, Chittoor. The III Addl. Judicial Magistrate of I Class, Tirupati.

14

BEFORE THE CHAIRMAN, MOTOR ACCIDENTS CLAIMS TRIBUNAL CUM 

III ADDITIONAL DISTRICT AND SESSIONS JUDGE :: TIRUPATI

PRESENT: SRI B. RAVEENDRA BABU ,  Chairman, Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Tirupati ­Cum­III Additional District Judge, Tirupati.

Friday, the Fifteenth(15th) day of May, Two Thousand Fifteen

M.V.O.P.No. 251 of 2010

Between

A.Siva Sankar...Petitioner 

And

1. A.Raghu Naidu,

2. M/S. ICICI Lombard General Insurance Company Ltd., Rep., by its Divisional Manager, Tirupati.

3. Smt P.Baghyamma (3rd respondent is added as per orders in

I.A.No.1150 of 2011, dt. 27­06­2012.).. Respondents 

This petition coming up before me on 21­04­2015 for final hearing in the presence of Sri T.Gopi Chand, Advocate for petitioner and of Sri G.Gajendra, Advocate for 1st respondent and of Sri S.Niranjan Bapuji,, Advocate for 2nd respondent and of 3rd respondent remained exparteupon hearing both ssides and having stood over for consideration, till this day, this court made the following :­

O R D E R

1.This is a claim made by the injured U/Sec.166 (1) (a) of MV 

Act claiming compensation of Rs.3,00,000­00 for the injuries sustained by her in the Motor vehicle accident that took place on 22­04­2009 at about 3­30 p.m, on Tirupati – Tirumala Ghat road. 

2. The manner of accident according to the petitioner is as follows :

 On 22­04­2009 at about 3­30 p.m, petitioner was going on motor cycle bearing reg. No.AP­03­AG­8764 as pillion rider. While motor cycle was going at 12 km from Tirupati – Tirumala ghat road one Sundar 

Raj, who is driver of commander Jeep bearing Reg. No.AP­20­T­2468, 2 which belongs to respondents 1 and 3, drove the same in a rash and negligent manner without taking due care and caution came in opposite direction and dashed against motor cycle, on which petitioner was travelling. At that time motor cycle was going in a slow and study manner on left side of road. Driver of commander Jeep bearing Reg. No.AP­20­T­ 2468 came in wrong route i.e., one way. Tirupati – Tirumala second ghat road only for vehicles going towards Tirumala. But offending commander Jeep bearing Reg. No.AP­20­T­2468 came in wrong direction opposite to motor cycle and dashed by motor cycle. As a result, petitioner and owner of motor cycle bearing reg. No.AP­03­AG­8764 fell down and sustained grievous injuries. Petitioner sustained fracture of right leg.

On the basis of report given by petitioner, a case in Cr.No.22 of 2009 U/Secs. 337 IPC was registered against the driver of the commander Jeep bearing Reg. No.ASP­20­T­2468 by Traffic Police, 

Tirumala and investigated into. Traffic Police, Tirumala after due investigation filed charge sheet against the driver commander Jeep bearing 

Reg. No.AP­20­T­2468 for the offences punishable Under Secs. 338 IPC and Under Sec. 134(a) and (b) r/w 187 of Motor Vehicles Act. 

Immediately after the accident petitioner was shifted to 

Aswini Hospital, Tirumala for treatment. From there he was shifted to 

S.V.R.R.G.G. Hospital, Tirupati. Later petitioner was shifted to Prasanth 

Hospital, Tirupati. Petitioner underwent surgery for his right leg by fixing plates and screws. Petitioner spent nearly Rs.50,000­00 towards medical and other expenses. Due to the injuries sustained in the accident, he was 3 forced to walk with a pronounced limp and is unable to walk even for short distance without prosthesis. 

Further according to petitioner, he was aged 27 years by the date of accident. He was hale and healthy prior to the date of accident. 

According to petitioner he is working as AMD paramedic in 108 Sanjeevani 

Ambulance and getting Rs.3,150­00 per month and will contribute the same to his family members. Due to the injuries sustained in the accident, petitioner suffered lot of pain and mental agony.

 Further, according to petitioner, respondents 1and 3 being the owners of the offending commander Jeep bearing Reg. No.AP­20­T­ 2468 and 2nd respondent being the insurer of the said offending commander Jeep jointly and severally liable to pay compensation to the petitioner. 

3In this petition 1st respondent filed counter stating that he is the owner of vehicle bearing Reg. No.AP­26­W­3632 and the said vehicle was insured with 2nd respondent company at Nellore branch under policy 

No.432901/31/2009/826 valid from 4­11­2008 to 3­11­2009. It is the case of 1st respondent that his vehicle bearing Reg. No.AP­26­W­3632 was not involved in any accident and he is un­necessarily added as party to this claim petition. There is no relationship insured and insurer between him and 2nd respondent. 

4.2nd Respondent filed counter denying the age of petitioner, income of the petitioner, manner of accident, nature of injuries said to have been sustained by petitioner, treatment said to have been taken by petitioner, medical expenses said to have been incurred by petitioner and permanent disability said to have been sustained by the petitioner. 

4 2nd respondent pleaded that there is no contract of insurance between 1st respondent and 2nd respondent . 2nd respondent pleaded that fracture injury caused to petitioner did not result any permanent disability as contemplated U/S. 142 of Motor Vehicles Act. 2nd respondent pleaded that there is no loss of income to petitioner due to injuries caused to him. 

2nd respondent pleaded that alleged policy/cover note risk from 10­02­ 2009 to 10­02­2010 was issued in the name of Bhagyamma. 2nd respondent pleaded that in the said cover note it is specifically noted that the said cover note is not valid if it is issued after 30­06­2005. So, it is a fake cover note issued in the name of Smt. Bhagyamma. 2nd respondent pleaded that respondents 1 and 3 did not inform the alleged accident and did not submit claim form with 2nd respondent. 2nd respondent pleaded that claim is excessive and the rate of interest claimed is excessive. 

5.Basing on the above said pleadings, this Tribunal framed the following issues :­

1. Whether the accident occurred due to negligence of the driver of commander Jeep bearing Reg. No.AP­20­T­2468 and that resulted in causing injuries to the petitioner?

2. Whether the petitioner is entitled to compensation and if so, to what amount, from whom?

3. To what relief?

6.Basing on the above said issues on behalf of petitioner, Pws­1 to 4 were examined and Exs.A­1 to A­7 and Exs.X­1 to X­3 were marked.

PW­1 is the petitioner himself. He deposed as per claim petition averments. Exs.A­1 to A­7 were marked through him. 

PW­2 deposed that on 22­04­2009 he examined the petitioner and found the following injuries.

1. Tenderness and fracture of right tibia, 5

2. Abrasion over collar bone,

3. X­ray of right thigh revealed commuted fracture of lower shaft and condilis of femur with plates screw fixation. 

He further deposed that injuries are grievous in nature. Ex.A­3 is the wound certificate issued by him. 

PW­3 deposed that she took X­ray of right thigh of petitioner. 

He deposed that x­ray reveal that fracture of lower shaft and condoles of femur. Ex.X­1 is the x­ray film. Ex.X­2 is the opinion. 

PW­4 is the orthopedic surgeon, Prasanth Hospital, Tirupati. 

He deposed that petitioner was admitted in Prasanth Hospital, Tirupati on 22­04­2009 and was discharged on 1­5­2009. At the time of admission 

PW­1 is having condilor fracture of right femur. Petitioner underwent surgery on 23­04­2009. Plate was fixed to the fracture. Case of petitioner is Ex.X­2( Ex.X­2 was already marked through PW­3. Therefore, Ex.X­2 i.e., case sheet of petitioner is treated as Ex.X­3) Ex.A­7 bills pertaining to the treatment of petitioner is given by Prasanth Hospital. Petitioner is having 15% of permanent disability. Ex.A­6 is the disability certificate. He deposed that petitioner require surgery for removal of plate. Approximate expenditure for removal of plate is around 35,000­00 to Rs.40,000­00. He deposed that petitioner is having difficulty to sit cross leg and squat. 

7On behalf of 1st respondent, he himself examined as RW­1. He deposed that that he is the owner of vehicle bearing Reg. No.AP­26­W­ 3632 and the said vehicle was insured with 2nd respondent company at 

Nellore branch under policy No.432901/31/2009/826 valid from 4­11­2008 to 3­11­2009. It is the case of 1st respondent that his vehicle 6 bearing Reg. No.AP­26­W­3632 was not involved in any accident and he is un­necessarily added as party to this claim petition. He filed Registration certificate, form­38, receipt for payment of green tax, pollution control certificate, tax receipt and copy of policy for the vehicle bearing Reg. 

No.AP­26­W­3632. 

8RW­2 is the legal retainer of 2nd respondent's company. He deposed that neither 1st respondent nor 2nd respondent insured commander Jeep bearing Reg. No.AP­20­T­2468 with 2nd respondent by the date of accident. Since there is no contract of insurance between 2nd respondent on one hand and respondents 1 and 3 on the other hand, questioning indemnifying the liability does not arise. Respondents 1 and 3 did not submit any claim form with 2nd respondent. 

9.ISSUE No.1 :­

The burden is on the petitioner to establish that accident occurred due to rash and and negligent driving of the offending commander Jeep bearing Reg. No.AP­20­T­2468 by its driver and it resulted in causing injuries. On this aspect, we have got the evidence of 

PW­1 and Exs.A­1 and A­2. PW­1 in his evidence clearly deposed that while he was going on motor cycle as pillion rider at 12 km in Tirupati – 

Tirumala ghat road No.2, commander Jeep bearing Reg. No.AP­20­T­2468 driven by one Sundar Raj came in opposite direction in wrong way and dashed against the motor cycle. There is nothing in the cross examination of PW­1 to discredit his evidence. Contents of Exs.A­1 and A­2 are corroborated with the evidence of PW­1. RW­1 deposed he is the owner of vehicle bearing Reg. No.AP­26­W­3632 and he is not the owner of commander Jeep bearing Reg. No.AP­20­T­2468. RW­1 further deposed 7 that his vehicle was not involved in any accident. RW­2 is the Manager of 2nd respondent company. Rws­1 and 2 are not eye witnesses for the accident. Therefore, relying upon the evidence of PW­1 and the contents of Exs.A­1 and A­2, it can be safely concluded that vehicle involved in the accident is commander Jeep bearing Reg. No.AP­20­T­2468, it was driven in a rash and negligent manner in wrong route and dashed against motor cycle, in which petitioner was travelling as pillion rider. 

Further the evidence of Pws­1 and 2 coupled with Ex.A­3 wound certificate and Ex.A­4 discharge sheet, clearly show that petitioner sustained injuries in the accident in this case. 

Accordingly, Issue No.1 is answered in favour of petitioner and against the respondents.

10.ISSUE No.2 :­

In view of my finding on Issue No.1, petitioner is entitled for just and reasonable compensation Under Section 166(1)(a) of Motor 

Vehicles Act. 

In order to determine just and reasonable compensation, it is necessary to determine the age of petitioner, income of petitioner, compensation for pain and suffering, loss of income, permanent disability, loss of future income, medical and other expenses,

AGE OF PETITIONER :

It is stated in the petition that petitioner was aged 29 years in the year 2013. Accident occurred in the year 2009. Ex.A­2 show the age of petitioner as 28 years. Ex.A­3 show age of the petitioner as 28 years. 

Therefore, it can be safely concluded that petitioner was aged 28 years by the date of accident.

8 INCOME OF THE PETITIONER :

PW1 deposed that he is working as AMD paramedic in 108 

Sanjeevani Ambulance and getting Rs.3,150­00 per month. Considering the age of petitioner and considering the occupation of the petitioner, his annual income is arrived at Rs.36,000­00. 

COMPENSATION FOR PAIN AND SUFFERING :

PW1 deposed that he sustained fracture of both bones of right leg and sustained bleeding injury over collar bone. Ex.A­3 wound certificate show the following injuries. 

1Tenderness and fracture of right tibia. 

2Abrasion over collar bone. 

3X­ray of right thigh show commuted fracture lower shaft and condilis or femur with plate screw abrasion 

It is mentioned in Ex.A­3 that the above injury is grievous in nature. PW­2 is the Doctor, who issued Ex.A­3 wound certificate. He deposed that on 22­04­2009 he examined the petitioner and found the following injuries.

1. Tenderness and fracture of right tibia,

2. Abrasion over collar bone,

3. X­ray of right thigh revealed commuted fracture of lower shaft and condilis of femur with plates screw fixation. Injuries are grievous in nature. PW­3 is the Doctor, who took X­ray of right thigh of petitioner. He deposed that x­ray reveal that fracture of lower shaft and condoles of femur. PW­4 is the orthopedic surgeon, who conducted surgery to petitioner. He deposed basing on Ex.X­3 case sheet of petitioner. He deposed that petitioner was admitted in Prasanth 

Hospital, Tirupati on 22­04­2009 and was discharged on 1­5­2009. At the time of admission PW­1 is having condilor fracture of right femur. 

9 Petitioner underwent surgery on 23­04­2009. Plate was fixed to the fracture of petitioner. Considering the evidence of Pws­1 to 4, Exs.A­3, A­4 and Ex.X­3, petitioner is entitled for a sum of Rs.25,000­00 towards pain and suffering. 

PERMANENT DISABILITY AND LOSS OF FUTURE INCOME :­

PW­1 deposed that due to the fracture injuries sustained in the accident, he is unable to do any work and lost his income. PW­4 deposed that petitioner is having 15% of permanent disability. He deposed that petitioner is facing difficulty to sit cross leg and squat. PW­4 issued 

Ex.A­6 permanent disability certificate stating that petitioner is suffering with permanent disability of 15%. Considering the evidence of PW­1, 

PW­4 and Ex.A­6 it can be safely concluded that petitioner is having permanent at least to the extent of 10%, which resulted loss income. The annual income of petitioner is taken as Rs.36,000­00. Out of which, 10% would comes to Rs.3,600­00.

The age of petitioner is taken as 28 years. Therefore, the appropriate multiplier applicable is “17”. Hence, the petitioner is entitled for Rs.3,600­00 x 17= Rs.61,200­00 towards permanent disability and loss of future income. 

MEDICAL AND OTHER EXPENSES :­

PW­1 deposed that he spent Rs.50,000­00 towards medical and other expenses. Petitioner filed Ex.A­7 bunch of medical bills. PW­4 referred to Ex.A­7 that were issued by Prasanth Diagnostics an Pharmacy and hospital. PW­4 also deposed that there is need surgery to petitioner for removal of plate, which costs about Rs.35,000­00 to 40,000­00. 

Therefore, considering the evidence of PW­1, PW­4 and Ex.A­6 medical 10 bills and considering the fact of removal of plates, petitioner is entitled at least for a sum of Rs.50,000­00 towards medical expenses and future medical expenses. 

11.In all petitioner is entitled for the compensation under the following heads :­

1.Compensation for pain and suffering : Rs. 25,000­00

2. Compensation for permanent disability and loss of future earnings.:Rs. 61,200­00

3. Medical and other expenses: Rs. 50,000­00 Total : Rs.1,36,200­00

12.Coming to the liability aspect, 1st respondent who was examined as RW­1 clearly deposed that he is owner of vehicle bearing 

Reg. No.AP­26­W­3632 and he is not the owner of commander Jeep bearing Reg. No.AP­20­T­2468, which was involved in the accident. To prove that he is the registered owner of vehicle bearing Reg. No.AP­26­W­ 3632, he filed Exs.B­1 to B­6. As can be seen from the evidence of RW­1 and Ex.B­6, vehicle bearing Reg. No.AP­26­W­3632, for which 1st respondent is insured was insured with 2nd respondent. But according to claimant, commander Jeep bearing Reg. No.AP­20­T­2468 was involved in the accident. 1st respondent is not the registered owner of commander 

Jeep bearing Reg. No.AP­20­T­2468. Petitioner failed to place any evidence on record to show that 1st respondent was the registered owner of commander Jeep bearing Reg. No.AP­20­T­2468 by the date of accident. Therefore, 1st respondent is not liable to pay compensation to claimant on the ground that he is not the registered owner of commander 

Jeep bearing Reg. No.AP­20­T­2468, which involved in the accident. 

13According to petitioner, 3rd respondent is one Bhagyamma. 

She is the owner of commander Jeep bearing Reg. No.AP­20­T­2468. 

11 PW­1 deposed on those lines. But no document is filed to show that 3rd respondent is the registered owner of commander Jeep bearing Reg. 

No.AP­20­T­2468. However, 3rd respondent, having impleaded in this claim petition remained exparte. Therefore, it can be said that 3rd respondent is the owner of commander Jeep bearing Reg. No.AP­20­T­ 2468. 

14Now, the crucial question is whether 2nd respondent is the insurer of commander Jeep bearing Reg. No.AP­20­T­2468. 2nd respondent is denying the contract of insurance between it and 3rd respondent. In this case both sides did not file either cover note or copy of policy. 2nd respondent in its counter referred to cover note, which is in the name of Bhagyamma, valid from 10­02­2009 to 10­02­2010. 2nd respondent further pleaded in the counter that in the said cover note it is specifically noted that the said cover note is not valid, if it is issued after 30­06­2005 and therefore, it is a fake cover note issued in the name of 

Bhagyamma. RW­2 in the cross examination for petitioner denied the issuance of cover note bearing No.274177, dated 26­02­2009. RW­2 also denied copy of policy shown to him. RW­2 admitted in the cross examination that there is a practice of their company agents to issue cover note immediately after collecting money and the policy issued later by the company depending upon the cover note. 

15In the case on hand, claimant initially filed claim against 1st respondent Raghu Naidu styling him as owner of commander Jeep bearing Reg. No.AP­20­T­2468. During the pendency of claim petition, claimant impleaded 3rd respondent as owner of commander Jeep bearing 

Reg. No.AP­20­T­2468. But the claimant did not file any piece of paper to 12 show that 2nd respondent is insurer of commander Jeep bearing Reg. 

No.AP­20­T­2468, that involved in the accident. Claimant is relying upon form No.54 vide Ex.A­4. Even in Ex.A­4 in Col. No.10 policy number is not mentioned. It did not even disclose cover note number. What is mentioned in Col.No.10 is dated 10­02­2010, obviously indicating date of policy or date till such time policy was in force. As against this back ground, insurer took a plea that neither 1st respondent nor 3rd respondent insured their vehicle with it. Basing on the material placed on record by 1st respondent, it is clear that he insured his vehicle bearing Reg. No.AP­ 26­W­3632 with 2nd respondent. RW­2 in his evidence deposed that commander Jeep bearing Reg. No.AP­20­T­2468 never been insure with it and no policy was issued in respect of commander Jeep bearing Reg. 

No.AP­20­T­2468. Therefore, there is no material on record to establish that there is contract of insurer and insured between Respondents 2 and 3. 

In the absence of contract of insurance 2nd respondent can not be made liable to indemnify the liability of claim amount. However, petitioner is entitled for compensation amount from 3rd respondent alone,who is the owner of commander Jeep bearing Reg. No.AP­20­T­2468. 

16.In view of above discussion, petitioner is entitled for compensation of Rs.1,36,200­00 from the 3rd respondent alone.

Accordingly Issue No.2 is answered.

13.ISSUE No.3 :­

In view of my findings on Issue Nos.1 and 2, petitioner is entitled for compensation of Rs.1,36,200­00 (Rupees one lakh, thirty six thousands and two hundred only) from the 3rd respondent alone.

13 In the result, this petition is partly allowed granting compensation of Rs.1,36,200­00 (Rupees one lakh, thirty six thousands and two hundred only) with proportionate costs and interest @7.5% p.a, from the date of petition till the date of deposit to the petitioner from the 3rd respondent alone. 

Petition is dismissed as against respondents 1 and 2, but without costs.

3rd Respondent is directed to deposit entire compensation amount with proportionate costs and interest @ 7.5% p.a., within one month from the date of this award. 

Petitioner is permitted to withdraw Rs.60,000­00 and total costs. The balance compensation amount shall be deposited in any 

Nationalised Bank for a period of two years. 

Advocate fee is fixed at Rs.1,000­00. 

Dictated to the Personal Assistant, transcribed by him, corrected and 

pronounced by me in open court, this the 15th day of May, 2015.

Chairman, Motor Accident Claims Tribunal­Cum­ III Additional District

Judge,Tirupati.

Appendix of Evidence

Witnesses examined on behalf of 

Petitioner :­ Respondents:­ PW­1 : A.Siva SankarRW­1: A.Raghu Naidu. PW­2 : Dr.V.B.MohanRW­2: K.Srikanth. PW­3 : Dr. Ramasree PW­4 : Dr.V.Sunanda Kumar Reddy. Exhibits marked on behalf of Petitioner :­ Sl.No.Exhibit Date of Description of documentRemarks markeddocument 1Ex.A­124­02­2009 CC of FIR in Cr.No.21/2009 of Traffic ­­ Police station , Tirumala.

2Ex.A­2­­CC of charge sheet in CC.No.289 of 2009 ­­ on the file of II Addl. Judl. Magistrate of 14

First Class, Tirumala.

3Ex.A­304­05­2009 CC of Wound certificate­­ 4Ex.A­407­05­2009 CC of discharge slip.­­ 5Ex.A­5­­I.D.Card of petitioner.

6Ex.A­627­04­2010 Disability certificate of petitioner issued by ­­ PW­4 7Ex.A­7­­Bunch of medical bills ­­

For Respondents :­

Sl.No.Exhibit Date of Description of documentRemarks markeddocument 1Ex.B­124­06­2004 Certificate of registration for the vehicle ­­ bearing Reg. No.AP­26­W­3632 2Ex.B­203­02­2012 Fitness certificate for the vehicle bearing ­­ Reg. No.AP­26­W­3632 3Ex.B­303­02­2012 Receipt of payment of green tax.­­ 4Ex.B­4­­ComputerizedpollutionPollution ­­ certificate for the vehicle bearing Reg. No.AP­26­W­3632.

5Ex.B­509­01­2013 Tax receipt.­­ 6Ex.B­6­­Copy of policy­­ Marked through witnesses :­ Sl.No.Exhibit Date of Description of documentRemarks markeddocument 1Ex.X­1­­X­ray film­­ 2Ex.X­2­­X­ray report,­­ 3Ex.X­3­­Case sheet of petitionerEx.X­2 was already markedthrough PW­3.Therefore, Ex.X­2 i.e., case sheet of petitioner markedthrough PW­4 is treated as Ex.X­3.

Chairman, MACT­cum­ III A.D.J., Tirupati. Read by

Compared by

Fair Order in M.V.O.P.No. 251 of 2010

Dt. 15-05-2015

BEFORE THE CHAIRMAN, MOTOR ACCIDENTS CLAIMS TRIBUNAL CUM 

III ADDITIONAL DISTRICT AND SESSIONS JUDGE :: TIRUPATI

PRESENT: SRI B. RAVEENDRA BABU, Chairman, Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Tirupati ­Cum­III Additional District Judge, Tirupati.

Friday, the Fifteenth (15th ) day of May, Two thousand Fourteen

M.V.O.P.No. 136 of 2011 

1. K.Sarojamma,

2. K.Hariprasad Reddy.

... Petitioners.

Vs

Andhra Pradesh State Road Transport Corporation, rep., by its Managing Director, Musheerabad,

Hyderabad. .. Respondent 

This petition coming up before me on 07­05­2015 for final hearing in the presence of Sri D.Prabhakar, Advocate for petitioner and of Smt C.Sreedevi, Advocate for respondent upon hearing both sides and having stood over for consideration, till this day, this court made the following : 

O R D E R ::

 :: 

 1.This is a claim made by wife and son of deceased K.Siva 

Sankar Reddy, who died in the motor vehicle accident that took place on 07­10­2010 at 9­30 a.m., near Totanampalli cross on Devalampeta – 

Vedurukuppam road, claiming compensation of Rs.5,00,000­00 U/Sec.166 (1) (c) of MV Act 

2. The manner of accident according to the petitioners is as follows :

Deceased K.Siva Sankar Reddy was travelling in the auto bearing Reg.No.AP­03­Y­5108 from Rentalachenu to Muluru on 07­10­2010 at about 9­30 a.m. Auto bearing Reg.No.AP­03­Y­5108 was driven in slow and study manner on the left side of the road. Driver of 

A.P.S.R.T.C bus bearing Reg.No.AP­11­Z­2054 of Chittoor Depot­II came 2 with high speed in a rash and negligent manner. On seeing the same, driver of auto bearing Reg.No.AP­03­Y­5108 turned the auto towards east all of a sudden to avoid the accident. In that process K.Siva Sankar Reddy slipped and fell down on the road from the auto and the A.P.S.R.T.C bus bearing Reg.No.AP­11­Z­2054 ran over the deceased K.Siva Sankar Reddy. 

K.Siva Sankar Reddy sustained injuries and died on the spot. The accident occurred only due to rash and negligent driving of A.P.S.R.T.C bus bearing 

Reg.No.AP­11­Z­2054 by its driver. 

Immediately on the basis of report given by Hari Prasad 

Reddy, a case in Crime No.77/2010 Under Section 304A IPC was registered by Vedurukuppam police against driver of A.P.S.R.T.C bus bearing Reg.No.AP­11­Z­2054 and investigated into. After due investigation, Vedurukuppam police filed charge sheet against driver of 

A.P.S.R.T.C bus bearing Reg.No.AP­11­Z­2054 and against the driver and owner of auto bearing Reg.No.AP­03­Y­5108 for the offences punishable 

U/S.304A IPC and U/S. 3 r/w 181 and U/S. 5 r/w 180 of Motor Vehicles 

Act.

Further according to petitioners deceased K.Siva Sankar Reddy was aged 60 years by the date of accident. He was hale and healthy prior to the accident. He was working as coolie and used to earn Rs.200­00 per day and he used to contribute his income to the petitioners. Due to the sudden death of deceased, petitioners lost their bread winner and dependency. 2nd petitioner lost her consortium. 2nd petitioner lost fatherly affection. Because of accident life span of deceased K.Siva Sankar Reddy was drastically cut short to 60 years.

3 According to the petitioners, entire negligence is only on the part of A.P.S.R.T.C bus bearing Reg.No.AP­11­Z­2054. According to petitioners, respondent being the owner of A.P.S.R.T.C bus bearing 

Reg.No.AP­11­Z­2054 is liable to pay compensation to the petitioners.

3. Respondent filed counter denying the age of deceased, income of the deceased, manner of accident.

According to respondent A.P.S.R.T.C bus bearing Reg.No.AP­11­

Z­2054 was driven by its driver with care and caution. When the bus reached near Thotavaripalli cross, the driver of bus observed one auto bearing Reg.No.AP­03­Y­5108 which was over loaded with passengers, driven in a rash and negligent manner with high speed and coming in opposite direction to the bus. Driver of A.P.S.R.T.C bus bearing 

Reg.No.AP­11­Z­2054 after observing the said auto took the bus to complete left side of road. But the driver of auto drove the same in a rash and negligent manner with high speed and took turn. Due to that three passengers in the auto lost their hold on the auto and fell down on the road. One among them fell under right back wheel of bus and died. The remaining persons sustained simple injuries. According to respondent, there is no rashness or negligence on the part of driver of bus.

4.Basing on the above said pleadings, this Tribunal framed the following issues:­

1. Whether the accident took place due to rash and negligent driving of driver of APSRTC bus bearing Reg. No.AP­11­Z­2054 of respondent on 07­10­2010 and whether K.Siva Sankar Reddy died as a result of injuries sustained in the accident?

2. What was the age income of the deceased on the date of his death?

4

3. Whether the petitioners are entitled for compensation? If so, to what amount?

4. To what relief?

5.On the above said issues on behalf of petitioners, Pws­1 to 3 were examined and Exs.A­1 to A­5 are marked.

PW­1 is the 1st petitioner. She deposed as per claim petition averments. Exs.A­1 to A­5 were marked through her. 

PW­2 deposed that Siva Sankar Reddy was hale and healthy prior to the accident. Siva Sankar Reddy was aged 60 years by the date of accident. He deposed that Siva Sankar Reddy used to earn Rs.200­00 per day. He deposed that 1st petitioner is the wife and 2nd petitioner is the son of deceased Siva Sankar Reddy. He deposed that petitioners are dependents on the income of deceased Siva Sankar Reddy. 

PW­3 deposed that he is an eye witness for the accident. He deposed that on 07­10­2010 at 9­30 p.m near Totanampalli cross on 

Devalampeta – Vedurukuppam road, while he was repairing his two wheeler, he saw Siva Sankar Reddy travelling in the auto bearing 

Reg.No.AP­03­Y­5108. He deposed that auto was being driven slowly and cautiously on the left side of road. He deposed that driver of A.P.S.R.T.C bus bearing Reg.No.AP­11­Z­2054 of Chittoor Depot­II drove the same in a rash and negligent manner with high speed without taking due care and caution. He further deposed that on seeing the bus, driver of auto turned the auto towards east all of a sudden to avoid accident. As a result, Siva 

Sankar Reddy slipped and fell on the road from auto and A.P.S.R.T.C bus bearing Reg.No.AP­11­Z­2054 ran over the deceased. Deceased Siva 

Sankar Reddy sustained severe injuries and died on the spot. He deposed 5 that accident occurred only due to rash and negligent driving of 

A.P.S.R.T.C bus bearing Reg.No.AP­11­Z­2054 by its driver.

6. On behalf of the respondent, RW­1 was examined, but no documents were marked. 

RW­1 is the driver of A.P.S.R.T.C bus bearing Reg.No.AP­11­Z­ 2054. He deposed that he drove the bus bearing Reg.No.AP­11­Z­2054 with care and caution. He deposed that when the bus reached near 

Thotavaripalli cross at about 9­30 a.m, on 07­10­2010, he observed one auto bearing Reg.No.AP­03­Y­5108, which was over loaded with passengers was coming in a rash and negligent manner with high speed came in opposite direction to the bus. He deposed that after observing the said auto he took the bus to complete left side of road. He deposed that there is turning on that spot. He deposed that the driver of auto took turning in a rash and negligent manner with high speed. In that process three passengers in the auto fell down on the road from the auto. He deposed that due to high speed of auto, Siva Sankar Reddy, who is travelling in heavy loaded auto with the support of right side rod of auto, fell down from the auto and died on the spot. Dead body hit to back rear wheels of the bus. He deposed that driver of auto not stopped the auto and escaped from the place of occurrence. He deposed that police registered crime against him, auto driver and owner, even though he did not hit Siva 

Sankar Reddy. He deposed that there is no rashness or negligence on his part and the entire rashness and negligence is only on the part of driver of auto. 

6

7.ISSUE Nos.1 to 3 :­

This claim initially filed U/S.163­A of Motor Vehicles Act claiming compensation of Rs.3,00,000­00. After entire enquiry is completed and after the matter is reopened by this court to hear on the maintainability of claim petition U/S.163­A of Motor Vehicles Act, when the annual income of deceased Siva Sankar Reddy is more than 

Rs.40,000­00 as per pleadings, claimants filed I.A.No.1094/2014 Under 

Order­VI Rule­17 C.P.C to amend Section of Law from U/S.163­A of Motor 

Vehicles Act to U/S.166(1)(c) of Motor Vehicles Act and to enhance claim amount from Rs.3,00,000­00 to 5,00,000­00. 

8The plea of claimants in the claim petition is that entire rashness and negligence is there only on the part of A.P.S.R.T.C bus bearing Reg.No.AP­11­Z­2054 and there was no rashness and negligence on the part of driver of auto bearing Reg.No.AP­03­Y­5108. 

9PW­1 is the 1st petitioner. She is not an eye witness for the accident. She deposed as per claim petition averments. If we take the averments in the claim petition, deceased Siva Sankar Reddy was travelling in auto bearing Reg.No.AP­03­Y­5108. As per the averments in the claim petition Siva Sankar Reddy fell down from the auto when it turned towards east all of a sudden to avoid hit to A.P.S.R.T.C bus, which was coming in opposite direction. Therefore, fact remain that driver of auto all of a sudden turned auto towards East. What is in dispute is that whether A.P.S.R.T.C bus bearing Reg.No.AP­11­Z­2054 came in a rash and negligent manner and in order to avoid hit to A.P.S.R.T.C bus, driver of auto bearing Reg.No.AP­03­Y­5108 turned the auto suddenly towards east. 

7 10It is pertinent to refer to Ex.P­1 issued on the basis of report given by one Hari Prasad Reddy, who is son of deceased Siva Sankar 

Reddy. No doubt Hari Prasad Reddy, who gave report to police, is not an eye witness for the accident, even according to him. But the first version mentioned in Ex.P­1 by Hari Prasad Reddy is that driver of A.P.S.R.T.C bus bearing Reg.No.AP­11­Z­2054 came with speed in a rash and negligent manner and dashed Siva Sankar Reddy and as a result Siva 

Sankar Reddy died. There is no mention in Ex.P­1 that Siva Sankar Reddy was travelling in auto and Siva Sankar Reddy fell down from the auto, when the auto suddenly turned towards East in order to avoid hit to 

A.P.S.R.T.C bus bearing Reg.No.AP­11­Z­2054. Therefore, the contents of 

Ex.A­1 are inconsistent with the averments in claim petition and evidence of PW­1. PW­1 admitted that she is not an eye witness for the accident. 

11It is pertinent to mention here that initially this claim application is filed U/S.163­A of Motor Vehicles Act and without examining eye witness, claimants closed their evidence. After reopening the matter and after amendment of claim petition from U/S.163­A of 

Motor Vehicles Act to U/S.166(1)( c) of Motor Vehicles Act, claimants thought of examining PW­3 styling him as eye witness for the accident. 

12Here it is pertinent to refer to the evidence of PW­3. The version of PW­3 is consistent with the version pleaded in the claim petition, but inconsistent with Ex.A­1. It is also pertinent to refer Ex.A­2 charge sheet filed by police. Police after due investigation filed charge sheet against driver of A.P.S.R.T.C bus bearing Reg.No.AP­11­Z­2054 and as well as driver and owner of auto bearing Reg.No.AP­03­Y­5108. In the charge sheet it is stated that auto was driven in a rash and negligent 8 manner and the bus also came in a rash and negligent manner and on seeing the bus, driver of auto turned the auto towards East all of a sudden, due to which passenger in auto by name Siva Sankar Reddy slipped and fell on the road from the auto and R.T.C bus ran over him causing crush injuries. This version in the charge sheet is not there in 

Ex.P­1. Version mentioned in Ex.A­2 charge sheet is not consistent with the version of PW­3 or claim petition averments. If the version contained in the charge sheet is taken into consideration, it must be held that there is rashness and negligence on the part of driver of auto and as well as driver of A.P.S.R.T.C bus and then it can be treated as composite negligence. But the plea of claimants is that it is not the case of composite negligence and it is a case of rash and negligent is only on the part of driver of 

A.P.S.R.T.C bus bearing Reg.No.AP­11­Z­2054 alone. In that direction PW­ 3 was examined. 

13There is no dispute about the proposition of law referred to by learned counsel appearing for petitioners as laid down by Hon'ble Supreme 

Court in its decisions in 

1. Kusum & Ors...Appellants

Vs.

Satbir & Ors...Respondents

Reported in 2011 SAR (Civil) 319

 2. Bimla Devi and others

Vs.

Himachal Road Transport Corporation and others Reported in 2009(13) SCC 530 9 In the above decisions Hon'ble Supreme Court held that strict proof of accident is not necessary in the claims filed under Motor Vehicles Act. It is further held that claimants were merely to establish their case on touchstone of preponderance of probabilities. It is further held that the standard of proof beyond reasonable doubt can not be applied in deciding manner of accident in claim applications filed under Motor Vehicles Act. 

There is no dispute about the proposition of law. It is suffice if the claimants are able to prove preponderance of probabilities that it is a case of rash and negligent driving by driver of A.P.S.R.T.C bus bearing Reg. 

No.AP­11­Z­2054 as pleaded by them. 

14On this aspect, claimants relied upon the evidence of PW­3. 

PW­3 claims that he was attending repairs of his two wheeler at the time of accident and while doing so he witnessed the accident. Name of PW­3 is not there in Ex.A­1 First Information Report or in Ex.A­2 charge sheet as eye witness. PW­3 was not examined by police during the course of investigation. PW­3 is not named as eye witness in the claim petition. 

Name of PW­3 was not referred by PW­1 in her evidence. PW­3 was not examined in the first instance when the enquiry was held in this petition 

U/S. 163­A of Motor Vehicles Act. It is a fact that PW­3 was examined after claim petition was amended as one U/S. 166(1)( c) of Motor Vehicles Act. 

Moreover, version of PW­3 is inconsistent with the version contained in 

Ex.A­1 and the version in Ex.A­2. Possibility of presence of PW­3 at the place of accident by the date of accident is highly impossible. Even assuming that PW­3 was present at the accident spot, it is highly impossible for PW­3 to see accident while attending repair of his two 10 wheeler. If really PW­3 witnessed the accident, nothing prevented him to report about the manner of accident to police. 

15In this context it is pertinent to refer the decision of learned counsel appearing for petitioners in 

Kusum & Ors...Appellants

Vs.

Satbir & Ors...Respondents

Reported in 2011 SAR (Civil) 319

In that decision it is held that on the ground that name of the eye witness is not there in the First Information Report, his evidence can not be discorded and it is not proper assessment on facts and situations. 

16In a claim petition filed under Motor Vehicles Act on the ground that name of eye witness is not there in the First Information 

Report, his evidence can not be discorded, because claimant was asked only to establish accident by preponderance of probabilities, but not by applying rule of beyond reasonable doubt. 

17But in the case on hand, name of PW­3 is not there even in charge sheet, which is filed against driver of auto bearing Reg.No.AP­03­Y­ 5108 and as well as driver of A.P.S.R.T.C bus bearing Reg.No.AP­11­Z­ 2054. PW­3 was brought into picture only after claim petition was amended. No­mention of name of PW­3 as eye witness in Ex.A­2 charge sheet and examination of PW­3 only after claim petition was amended, goes to show that PW­3 is not at all eye witness for the accident.

18This is not a case where there is no rebuttal evidence. In the case on hand, driver of A.P.S.R.T.C bus bearing Reg.No.AP­11­Z­2054 was examined as RW­1. RW­1 on oath categorically deposed that he was driving the bus in care and caution and on seeing the auto coming with 11 high speed, he took the bus to left side and when the auto was turned suddenly, passengers who are over loaded in auto fell down on the road from auto and one among them touched rear wheel of the bus and that person died. This evidence of RW­1 is not at all shattered in the cross examination. As against the evidence of PW­3, the evidence of RW­1 is there. There is no reason to believe the presence of RW­1. There is every doubt about the presence of PW­3. Therefore, the evidence of PW­3 is not even sufficient to establish the manner of accident, even by way of preponderance of probabilities.

19Moreover, in this case as already held that there are three versions regarding the manner of accident. Version contained in Ex.A­1 

First Information Report is different from the version contained in Ex.A­2 charge sheet. Version contained in claim petition and version of PW­3 is inconsistent with the contents of Exs.A­1 and A­2. Therefore, the plea of claimants that entire rashness and negligence is there only on the part of driver of A.P.S.R.T.C bus bearing Reg.No.AP­11­Z­2054 can not be relied upon. 

20It is not plea of claimant that this is a case of composite negligence. Had it been plea of claimants that this is a case of composite negligence, there may not be any difficulty to give such finding basing on the evidence of PW­3 and the contents of Ex.A­2. When that is not the case of claimant, this court can not given finding that this is a case of composite negligence. 

21Learned counsel appearing for petitioners relying upon a decisions in 12

1. Thummala Raji Reddy and others...Appellants

And

T.Panduranga Rao and another...Respondents

Reported in 2014 ACJ 2786

2. Sombathina Ramu...Appellant

Vs.

T.Srinivasulu and another...Respondents

Reported in 2009 ACJ 187 contended that in case of composite negligence the claimants are entitled to claim compensation against any one of tortfeasor and the liability of tortfeasor is jointly and severally.

22There is no dispute about the proposition of law that when two vehicles are involved and when there is rashness and negligence on the part of both vehicles and the claimant is not the driver in any of the vehicle, principle of composite negligence can be invoked, provided, if it is case of claimants. But in the case on hand, it is not the case of claimants that this is a case of composite negligence. On the other hand, it is a case of claimants that the entire negligence is there on the part of driver of bus. 

But claimants failed to establish the same even by way of preponderance of probabilities.

23Therefore, this tribunal can not invoke the principal of composite negligence and fasten the liability on respondent/A.P.S.R.T.C, invoking principal of liability of tortfeasor is joint and several, in case of composite negligence.

24There is no dispute about the proposition of law that in case of composite negligence, claimants need not implead owner and insurer of both vehicles. In case of composite negligence, claimants are at liberty to 13 claim compensation from any of tortfeasor. Problem herein is that claimants choose come to court with a plea that it is a case of rash and negligent driving on the part of driver of A.P.S.R.T.C bus bearing 

Reg.No.AP­11­Z­2054 only. But the claimants failed to establish the same by preponderance of probabilities. This tribunal can not substitute the 

principal of composite negligence and the liability of tortfeasor is joint and 

several and pass award against respondent. 

25In view of the above discussion, petitioners are not entitled to claim compensation from respondent, in view of the fact that they failed to prove their plea that entire rashness and negligence is there only on the part of A.P.S.R.T.C bus bearing Reg.No.AP­11­Z­2054 by its driver. 

26In view of the above said finding, there is no need to assess just and reasonable compensation payable to petitioners in this petition. 

Issues 1 to 3 are answered accordingly.

27.ISSUE No.4:­

In view of my findings on Issue Nos.1 to 3, petitioners are not entitled for just and reasonable compensation. 

In the result, petition is dismissed. But in the circumstances of case, without costs. 

Dictated to the Personal Assistant, transcribed by him, corrected and 

pronounced by me in open court, this the 15th day of May, 2016.

Chairman, Motor Accident Claims Tribunal­Cum­ III Additional District 

Judge,Tirupati.

14

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

Witnesses examined on behalf of 

Petitioner :­ Respondent:­ PW­1 : K.Sarojamma,RW­1: A.D.Neelakantam PW­2 : K. Chiranjeevi Reddy. PW­3 : S.Nowshad.

Exhibits marked on behalf of 

Petitioners :­

Sl.No.Exhibit Date of Description of documentRemarks markeddocument 1Ex.A­107­10­2010 CC of FIR in Cr.No.77/2010 of ­ Vedurukuppam P.S 2Ex.A­2 ­­CC of Charge sheet in CC No.347/2010 on ­ the file of Magistrate of First Class, Puttur 3Ex.A­307­10­2010 CC of inquest report,­ 4Ex.A­410­10­2010 CC of postmortem certificate,­ 5Ex.A­512­10­2010 CC of M.V. Inspector's report.­

For Respondent :­ NIL

Chairman, MACT­cum­ III A.D.J., Tirupati.

Fair Order in M.V.O P No. 136 of 2011, 

Dt. 15­05­2015 

BEFORE THE CHAIRMAN, MOTOR ACCIDENTS CLAIMS TRIBUNAL CUM 

III ADDITIONAL DISTRICT AND SESSIONS JUDGE :: TIRUPATI

PRESENT: SRI B. RAVEENDRA BABU ,  Chairman, Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Tirupati ­Cum­III Additional District Judge, Tirupati.

Friday, the Fifteenth (15th) day of May, Two Thousand Fifteen

M.V.O.P.No. 120 of 2011

Between

T.Lakshmi Kanth...Petitioner 

And

1. H.Karpagam

2. H.Jagan,

3. H.Nagesh,

2. ICICI Lambord Motor Insurance Company Ltd., rep., by its Branch Manager, Office at R.V.Towards,

Tilak Road, Tirupati. .. Respondents 

This petition coming up before me on 23­04­2015 for final hearing in the presence of Sri O.Rajamanikyam, Advocate for petitioner and of Respondents 1 to 3 remained exparte and of Sri S.Niranjan Bapuji, Advocate for 4th respondent and upon hearing both sides and having stood over for consideration, till this day, this court made the following :­

O R D E R

1.This is a claim made by the injured U/Sec.166 (1) (a) of MV 

Act claiming compensation of Rs.12,00,000­00 for the injuries sustained by him in the Motor vehicle accident that took place on 27­06­2009 at about 4­15 p.m., near Guruvaiah Naidu stone crusher on Puttur – Nagari main road.

2. The manner of accident according to the petitioner is as follows :

On 27­06­2009 at about 4­15 p.m, near Guruvaiah Naidu stone crusher on Puttur – Nagari main road the driver of Bolero Jeep bearing Reg. No.TN­04­Q­8095 drove the same in a rash and negligent 2 manner without taking due care and caution towards Nagari side on right side of road and dashed against the opposite coming motor cycle bearing Reg. No.TN­20­BO­4005 driven by N.Babu. Petitioner was the pillion rider of said motor cycle. Due to hit of Bolero Jeep bearing Reg. 

No.TN­04­Q­8095 the rider of motor cycle bearing Reg. No.TN­20­BO­ 4005 died on the spot. Petitioner sustained injuries all over both. Bolero 

Jeep bearing Reg. No.TN­04­Q­8095 also hit t the electrical pole and fell in the canal on the road side. Inmates of Bolero Jeep bearing Reg. No.TN­ 04­Q­8095 also sustained injuries and Bolero jeep also sustained damages. 

On the basis of report given by one N.Chiranjeevulu, a case in 

Cr.No.113 of 2009 U/Secs. 304A and 337 IPC was registered by Nagari 

Police against the driver of Bolero Jeep bearing Reg. No.TN­04­Q­8095 and investigated into. Nagari Police after due investigation filed charge sheet against the driver of the auto bearing registration No.AP­03­W­5738 for the offences punishable Under Sec. 304A and 338 IPC and U/S. 134(A) and (b) r/w 187 Motor Vehicles Act. 

In the accident petitioner sustained the following injuries. 

1. Head injury on frontal bone on right side 4 cm.,

2. Fracture of left hand,

3. Fracture of right thigh,

4. Fracture of skull frontal bone on left side.

5. Fracture of left leg tibia condyle fracture. 

According to petitioner immediately after the accident he was shifted to Community health center, Nagari for treatment. From there he was shifted to Apollo hospital, Chennai for better treatment. 

According to petitioner due to injuries sustained in the accident, he became permanently disabled and he is unable to walk. 

3 Petitioner using sticks for his movements. Petitioner is unable to stand even today. Petitioner needs support in attending day to day personal affairs. Petitioner suffered lot of pain and mental agony. Petitioner under went four surgeries. Internal fixation were implanted and he has to undergo surgery for removal of implants. Petitioner is unable to run, squat or sit cross legs. Petitioner unable to attend school. Petitioner unable to sit even for calls of nature. Petitioner underwent surgery to his left leg, right thigh, left hand and skin grafting was done. Petitioner took treatment in 

BOTH hospital, Tirupati and spent Rs.4,50,000­00 towards medical expenses. 

Further according to petitioner, he was aged 40 years by the date of accident. He was hale and healthy prior to the date of accident. 

According to petitioner he is working as Second Grade Teacher in 

M.P.P.School, Vadamalapeta and drawing salary of Es,18,233­00 per month and contributing the same to his family members. According to petitioner due to the injuries sustained in the accident, he is unable to do his normal work and he became permanently disabled

 Further, according to petitioner, respondents 1 to 3 being the owner of the offending Bolero Jeep bearing Reg. No.TN­04­Q­8095 and 4th respondent being the insurer of the said offending Belero, jointly and severally liable to pay compensation to the petitioner. 

3In this petition respondents 1 to 3 remained exparte. 

4.4th Respondent filed counter denying the age of petitioner, income of the petitioner, manner of accident, nature of injuries said to have been sustained by petitioner, treatment said to have been taken by 4 petitioner, medical expenses said to have been incurred by petitioner and permanent disability said to have been sustained by the petitioner. 

4th respondent pleaded that driver of Bolero Jeep bearing Reg. 

No.TN­04­Q­8095 was not having valid and effective driving licence as on the date of accident. 4th respondent pleaded that there was no rashness or negligence on the part of driver of Bolero Jeep bearing Reg. No.TN­04­Q­ 8095 and entire rashness and negligence is there on the part of rider of motor cycle TN­20­BO­4005. 4th respondent pleaded that claim excessive and the rate of interest claimed is excessive. 4th respondent pleaded that there is no permanent disability result in in loss of income to petitioner.

5.Basing on the above said pleadings, this Tribunal framed the following issues :­

1. Whether the accident took place due to rash and negligent of the driver of Bolero Jeep bearing Reg. No.TN­04­Q­ 8095 of respondents No.1 to 3 on 27­06­2009 and whether Lakshmikanth sustained injuries in the accident ?

2. Whether the petitioner is entitled to compensation and if so, to what amount and payable from whom?

3. To what relief?

6.Basing on the above said issues on behalf of petitioner, PWs­1 to 4 were examined and Exs.A­1 to A­12 were marked.

PW­1 deposed as per claim petition averments and Exs.A­1 to 

A­12 were marked through him.

PW­2 is the Billing Executive of Apollo Hospital, Chennai. He deposed that petitioner was admitted in their hospital on 27­06­2009 and he was discharged on 13­07­2009. He deposed that petitioner incurred medical expenses of Rs.3,59,492­00. Ex.A­7 are the bills. He deposed 5 that petitioner underwent surgeries two times. He deposed that Ex.A­5 was issued by their hospital.

PW­3 is the consultant Doctor in Apollo hospital, Chennai. He deposed that he treated the petitioner for fracture of right hip, right femur, right tibia and right humorous. He deposed that he conducted surgery for four fractures atApollow hospital, Chennai. Steel plates and screws were inserted in all four fractures. He deposed that Petitioner attending for for follow up treatment. He deposed that in Ex.A­5 Sl.No.10 to 12, 17 to 19 and 23 to 26 are pertaining to their hospital. He deposed that Ex.A­11 permanent disability certificate was issued by his Assistant Doctor by name 

Dr.Jose after physical examination. He deposed Ex.A­11 contain prescriptions issued by his Junior Doctor and issued by him. He deposed that when clinically and radiology examined petitioner, he found there is movement restrictions of right hip, right knee and left shoulder and also shortening of right lower limb. He assessed permanent disability at 20%. 

He deposed that for removal of implants the total costs will be Rs.50,000­ 00 to Rs.60,000­00 including stay and medicines. 

PW­4 deposed that petitioner was admitted in Prasanth 

Hospital, Tirupati on 14­07­2009. He deposed that by the time petitioner underwent surgeries in Apollo Hospital, Chennai for the following fractures. 

1.Right inter trocantric fracture femur,

2.Right femur shaft fracture,

3.Bailetal tibial condoles; and

4.Left Humerous 6 He deposed that petitioner was unable to move right foot dorsally. He deposed that petitioner was given electrical stimulation. He deposed that sutures removed on 14­07­2009. Petitioner was discharged on 03­08­2009. 

Ex.A­6 is the discharge summary of petitioner issued by BOTH Hospital, 

Tirupati. He deposed that Ex.A­10 are the prescriptions prescribed to petitioner by Doctors in BOTH hospital, Tirupati. He deposed that cash bill dated 3­8­2009 which is part of Ex.A­7 was issued by BOTH hospital, 

Tirupati for Rs.32,000­00. 

7.On behalf of respondents no oral evidence was adduced, but copy policy was marked as Ex.B­1. 

8.ISSUE No.1 :­

The burden is on the petitioner to establish that accident occurred due to rash and negligent driving of the offending Bolero Jeep bearing Reg. No.TN­04­Q­8095 by its driver, resulting injuries to petitioner. On this aspect, we have got the evidence of PW­1. PW­1 in his evidence clearly deposed that offending Bolero Jeep bearing Reg. No.TN­ 04­Q­8095 came in opposite direction in a rash and negligent manner and hit the motor cycle, in which he was proceeding as pillion rider. He further deposed that rider of motor cycle bearing Reg. No.TN­20­BO­4005 by name Babu died on the spot. He deposed that he fell down on the road and sustained injuries. PW­1 further deposed that after hitting the motor cycle, offending Bolero Jeep bearing Reg. No.TN­04­Q­8095 hit to electrical pole and fell in canal on road side. The version of PW­1 is fully corroborated the contents of Ex.A­1 First Information report. Ex.A­2 charge sheet fully supported the version of PW­1. There is no rebuttal evidence from the side of respondents. Therefore, relying upon evidence of PW­1 coupled with 7 contents of Exs.A­1 and A­2, it can be safely concluded that the accident occurred due to rash and negligent driving of offending Bolero Jeep bearing Reg. No.TN­04­Q­8095 by its driver. 

Further the evidence of Pws­1, 3 and 4 coupled with Ex.A­3 wound certificate and Ex.A­6 Discharge summary of petitioner issued by 

BOTH hospital, Tirupati clearly show that petitioner sustained injuries in the accident in this case. 

Accordingly, Issue No.1 is answered in favour of petitioner and against the respondents.

9.ISSUE No.2 :­

In view of my finding on Issue No.1, petitioner is entitled for just and reasonable compensation Under Section 166(1)(a) of Motor 

Vehicles Act. 

In order to determine just and reasonable compensation, it is necessary to determine the age of petitioner, income of petitioner, compensation for pain and suffering, loss of income, permanent disability, loss of future income, medical and other expenses.

AGE OF PETITIONER :

It is stated in the petition that petitioner was aged 40 years by the date of accident. PW­1 deposed on the same lines. A perusal of Ex.A­3 wound certificate show the age of petitioner as 39 years. Ex.A­6 discharge summary also show the age of petitioner as 39 years. Therefore, considering the evidence of PW­1 and Exs.A­3 and A­6, the age of petitioner can be taken as 40 years by the date of accident. 

8 INCOME OF THE PETITIONER :

PW­1 clearly deposed that he is working as Second Grade 

Teacher in M.P.P. School, Vadamalapeta and drawing salary of Es,18,233­ 00 per month. He filed Ex.A­9 salary certificate. In the cross examination of PW­1, it is not even disputed about the employment of PW­1 or his income. Therefore, basing on evidence of PW­1 and Ex.A­9 I can be safely concluded that petitioner being teacher earning Rs.18,233­00 per month. 

COMPENSATION FOR PAIN AND SUFFERING :

PW­1 deposed that he sustained fracture of Head injury on frontal bone on right side 4 cm., Fracture of left hand. Fracture of right thigh. Fracture of skull frontal bone on left side. Fracture of left leg tibia condyle. No doubt petitioner was referred to higher institution. X­ray reveal fracture of Right inter trocantric fracture femur, Right femur shaft fracture, Bailetal tibial condoles; and fracture of Left Humerous. It is mentioned that injuries are grievous in nature. 

PW­1 deposed that he took treatment in Apollo hospital, 

Chennai and thereafter in BOTH hospital, Chennai. PW­1 underwent surgeries in Apollo hospital, Chennai. PW­3 is the Doctor who treated petitioner. PW­3 deposed that PW­1 underwent four surgeries. Discharge summary discloses the following injuries.

1.(Right) ipsilateral shaft of femur fracture with trochanteric fracture (Grade­I open)

2.(Right) Lateral tibial condyle fracture (Grade­I open)

3.(left) Humerus shaft fracture

4.(Left ) lateral tibial condyle fracture,

5.Scalp laceration.

9 6Left radial nerve neuropraxia.

Discharge summary further discloses that petitioner was admitted in 

Apollo hospital on 27­06­2009 and discharged on 13­07­2008. Surgeries were conducted on 28­06­2009 and on 1­7­2009. Petitioner underwent surgeries. PW­3 deposed that four surgeries were conducted to petitioner and steel plates and screws were inserted in all four fractures. PW­4 deposed that petitioner underwent surgeries in Apollo hospital, Chennai. 

PW­4 deposed that petitioner was admitted in Prasanth Hospital, Tirupati on 14­07­2009. He deposed that sutures removed on 14­07­2009. PW­4 deposed that electrical stimulation was given to petitioner. Petitioner was discharged on 03­08­2009. Considering the evidence of PWs­1, 3 and 4 and Exs.A­5 and A­6 petitioner sustained as many as five fractures. 

Petitioner underwent surgeries and implants were inserted wherever there is a fracture. Considering the above facts, petitioner must have suffered lot of pain and suffering besides mental agony. Therefore, petitioner is entitled for a sum of Rs.80,000­00 towards pain and suffering and for injuries.

LOSS OF INCOME :­

Considering the fact that petitioner sustained as many as four fractures and he underwent surgeries. Therefore, it is not possible for petitioner to attend to his duties as Teacher at least for a period of three months. Considering the nature of injuries sustained by petitioner and considering the treatment taken by petitioner, petitioner must have bed ridden at least for a period of three months. Therefore, petitioner is entitled for a sum of Rs.54,000­00 towards compensation for loss of income. 

10 PERMANENT DISABILITY AND LOSS OF FUTURE INCOME :­

PW­1 deposed that he is permanently disabled due to injuries sustained by him. PW­1 also deposed that he is unable to walk. He is using sticks for his movements. He is unable to stand even today. PW­3 is the orthopedic surgeon in Apollo hospital deposed that percentage of permanent disability of petitioner is 20%. No doubt Ex.A­11 percentage of permanent disability is mentioned as 45%. 

Considering the evidence of PW­3, it can be said that there is physical disability to petitioner. But the petitioner must establish that due to permanent disability he lost earning capacity at least to some extent. It is not even case of petitioner that prior to the accident apart from his job as Teacher, he is doing some other works like undertaking tuitions in private institutions etc., PW­1 did not did not choose to depose that due to injuries he is unable to earn by giving tuitions in private institutions etc.,It is not the case of petitioner that he resigned his job due to injuries sustained in the accident. Petitioner is still working as Teacher in school. 

Therefore, there is no question of loss of income to petitioner on account of permanent disability. But it can be said that due to injuries sustained in accident, petitioner suffered lot of pain and suffering and inconvenience in attending his duties, though there may not be any loss of income. 

Therefore, on the ground of permanent disability, no loss was incurred by petitioner. Therefore, petitioner is not entitled for any compensation under the head permanent disability. But at the same time, considering the nature of injuries sustained by petitioner, considering the evidence of 

PWs­3 and 4, petitioner facing discomfort and inconvenience through out his life. Therefore, petitioner is entitled at least Rs.50,000­00 towards 11 discomfort and inconvenience that he is facing, because of fractures sustained by him. 

MEDICAL AND OTHER EXPENSES :­

PW­1 deposed that he spent Rs.4,50,0000­00 towards medical expenses. PW­1 admitted that he reimbursed medical bills for 

Rs.90,000­00. PW­2 deposed that total medical expenses incurred by petitioner is Rs.3,59,492­94 ps. PW­4 with reference to Ex.A­7 deposed that petitioner paid Rs.32,000­00. Therefore, considering the evidence of 

PWs­2 and 4 and Ex.A­7, petitioner is entitled Rs.3,91,492­94ps. It is rounded upto Rs.3,91,493­00. Petitioner also filed Ex.A­12 medical bills. 

Which comes to Rs.13,243­00. Therefore in all petitioner is entitled for a sum of Rs.4,04,736­00. Out of it, an amount of Rs.90,000­00, which was reimbursed by petitioner has to be deducted. Therefore, petitioner is entitled Rs.3,14,736­00.

Further the evidence of PW­3 show that petitioner need for removal of implants and its costs around Rs.50,000­00 to Rs.60,000­00. 

Therefore, petitioner is entitled at least for a sum of Rs.25,000­00 towards removal of implants. Therefore, petitioner is entitled Rs.3,39,736­00  towards medical expenses including future medical expenses.

TRANSPORTATION CHARGES:

Evidence on record clearly establish that petitioner took treatment in Apollo Hospital, Chennai and BOTH Hospital, Tirupati. 

Petitioner underwent several surgeries. PW­3, orthopedic surgeon, Apollo 

Hospital, Chennai deposed that petitioner came up for reviews. Petitioner filed transportation bills for Rs.12,500­00. Considering all these 12 circumstances, petitioner is entitled for a sum of Rs.10,000­00 towards transportation charges. 

10.In all petitioner is entitled for the compensation under the following heads :­

1.Compensation for pain and suffering : Rs. 80,000­00

2. Compensation for loss of income:Rs. 54,000­00

3. Compensation for discomfort and : Rs. 50,000­00 inconvenience

4. Medical expenses and future medical expenses: Rs.3,39,736­00

5. Transportation expenses : Rs. 10,000­00 Total : Rs.5,33,736­00 11Coming to the liability aspect, respondents 1 to 3, who are the legal heirs of Haridas, owner of Bolero Jeep bearing Reg. No.TN­04­

Q­8095. Respondents 1 to 3 remained exparte. Ex.B­1 policy show that insured is one Haridas. Therefore, respondents 1 to 3 being the legal heirs of Haridas, vicariously liable to pay compensation to petitioner. 

124th respondent is the insured of offending Bolero Jeep bearing 

Reg. No.TN­04­Q­8095 as on the date of accident. Ex.B­1 policy was issued by 4th respondent and it was in force as on the date of accident. It covers the risk of third parties. Although, 4th respondent pleaded that driver of Bolero Jeep bearing Reg. No.TN­04­Q­8095 was not having any driving licence, no evidence is placed on record by 4th respondent to establish the same. Therefore, 4th respondent is under obligation to indemnify the liability of respondents 1 to 3.

13.In view of above discussion, petitioner is entitled for compensation of Rs.5,33,736­00 from the respondents 1 to 4 jointly and severally.

Accordingly Issue No.2 is answered.

13

14.ISSUE No.3 :­

In view of my findings on Issue Nos.1 and 2, petitioner is entitled for compensation of Rs.5,33,736­00 (Rupees five lakhs, thirty three thousands, seven hundred and thirty six only) from the respondents 1 to 4 jointly and severally.

15In the result, this petition is partly allowed granting compensation of Rs.5,33,736­00 (Rupees five lakhs, thirty three thousands, seven hundred and thirty six only) with proportionate costs and interest @7.5% p.a, from the date of petition till the date of deposit to the petitioner from responds 1 to 4 jointly and severally.

4th Respondent is directed to deposit entire compensation amount with proportionate costs and interest @ 7.5% p.a., within one month from the date of this award. 

Petitioner is permitted to withdraw Rs.3,00,000­00 and total costs considering the medical expenses incurred by him. The balance compensation amount shall be kept in fixed deposit in any Nationalised 

Bank for a period of two years. 

Advocate fee is fixed at Rs.1,000­00.

Dictated to the Personal Assistant, transcribed by him, corrected and 

pronounced by me in open court, this the 15th day of May, 2015.

Chairman, Motor Accident Claims Tribunal­Cum­ III Additional District

Judge,Tirupati.

Appendix of Evidence

Witnesses examined on behalf of 

Petitioner :­ Respondents:­ PW­1 : T.Lakshmi Kanth ­NONE­ PW­2 : Dr.D.Sampath Kumar PW­3 : Dr.Mayil Vahanan Natarajan PW­4 : Dr.Pasupuleti Hari Prasad. 

14 Exhibits marked on behalf of Petitioner :­ Sl.No.Exhibit Date of Description of documentRemarks markeddocument 1Ex.A­127­06­2009 CC of FIR in Cr.No.113/2007 of Nagari ­ Police station 2Ex.A­213­08­2009 CC of charge sheet in No. 187/2009 on the ­ file of Judl.Magistrate of First Class, Nagari 3Ex.A­3­­CC of Wound certificate of petitioner. ­ 4Ex.A­412­08­2009 Accident information Report. ­ 5Ex.A­513­07­2009 Discharge summary of petitioner issued by Apollo Speciality Hospital, Chennai. 

6Ex.A­603­08­2009 Discharge summary of petitioner issued by BOTH Hospital, Tirupati. 

7Ex.A­7­­Bunch of Medical bills. 

8Ex.A­8­­Bunch of Transport bills. 

9Ex.A­923­08­2010 Salary certificate of petitioner for the month of August, 2010 issued by Mandal Educational Officer, Vadamalapet.

10Ex.A­10­­Bunch of prescriptions issued by BOTH Hospital, Tirupati. 

11Ex.A­11Prescriptions three in number issued by M.N. Orthopedic Hospital, Chennai. 

12Ex.A­12­­Bunch of medical bills. 

For Respondents :­

Sl.No.Exhibit Date of Description of documentRemarks markeddocument 1Ex.B­1 ­Copy of policy.­

Chairman, MACT­cum­ III A.D.J., Tirupati. Read by:

 Compared by:

Draft Order in M.V.O P No. 120 of 2011, Dt.15­05­2015 15

IN THE COURT OF V ADDITIONAL DISTRICT JUDGE :: TIRUPATI.

Present: Sri B. RAVEENDRA BABU, B.Sc.,B.L,

III Additional District Judge, Tirupati. FAC V Additional District Judge, Tirupati.

Tuesday, the Twenty Eighth (28th ) day of February, Two Thousand Twelve.

A.S.No.117 of 2009

B. Lokanadha Reddy. .. Appellant/Defendant.

Vs

P. Sankar Reddy. .. Respondent/Plaintiff.

On appeal against the Judgment and Decree,dt.10-08-2009 passed by the Learned Principal Junior Civil Judge, Tirupati, FAC I Additional Junior

Civil Judge, Tirupati made in

O.S.No. 1422 of 2004

P. Sankar Reddy...Plaintiff.

Vs

B. Lokanadha Reddy...Defendant.

This Appeal coming on 15-02-2012 before me for final hearing and upon perusing the grounds of appeal and other material papers on record and upon hearing the arguments of Sri G. Subramanyam, Advocate for the Appellant/Defendant and Sri K.Ramachandra Raju, Advocate for Respondent/Plaintiff and having stood over for consideration till this day, this court, delivered the following:

J U D G M E N T

1.Sole defendant in O.S.No.1422 of 2004 on the file of I Addl.

Junior Civil Judge, Tirupati filed this appeal against the Judgment and decree dt.10-08-2009 passed by learned Principal Junior Civil Judge,

Tirupati who is holding Full Additional Charge of I Additional Junior Civil

Judge, Tirupati.

2.The parties in this Judgment are referred as they are arrayed

before the trial court as plaintiff and defendant for the sake of convenience.

3.The case of the plaintiff is that on 28-07-2002, defendant borrowed an amount of Rs.40,000/- and executed Ex.A-1, Suit promissory note on the same day agreeing to repay the same with interest @ 24% p.a.,

It is also the case of plaintiff that inspite of repeated demands made by the plaintiff, defendant failed to repay the amount.

4.It is the case of defendant that P. Munaswamy Reddy(PW3-

DW4), D. Nagaraju Reddy (PW2) have been maintaining private chits in

Mundlapudi village. Defendant is one of the members of chit of value of

Rs.2,10,000/-. Defendant joined in the said chit in the month of January, 2000. The said chit is consisting of 21 members including PW3-DW4,

PW2, PW1, Ranga Reddy, B. Munaswamy Reddy, B. Gangulu Reddy, P.

2

Hemadri Reddy, Yerrabba Naidu, Nagulu Reddy, K. Subramanyam Reddy,

P.Ramalinga Reddy, B. Rosi Reddy, Tirupati Badraiah, Dwarakanadha

Reddy, Yasodamma, Kuntrapakam Nagaraju, Kathiraya Reddy, Porakapalli

Bhaskar Reddy. In the above said chits, members have to pay Rs.10,000/- each ie., on January, 20th and July, 20th .1st defendant became successful bidder on 20-01-2003 having agreed to forego an amount of Rs.94,000/- as dividend. 1st defendant received prize amount of Rs.1, 16,000/-.

It is the case of defendant that at the time of giving prize amount, P. Munaswamy Reddy (PW3-DW4), D.Nagaraju Reddy (PW2) have obtained the signature of defendant on three empty printed notes by affixing revenue stamp without filling up the blanks ie., without mentioning the amount, date or other particulars.

According to the defendant, he has paid the chit amount regularly. Further it is the case of defendant in the written statement that due to village politics, PW3-DW4, PW2 in collusion with other members of chit proclaimed that they would create pronotes against the defendant in the names of their kith and kin. In that connection, defendant gave notice to the

SHO, Tiruchanuru PS on 19-07-2004 marking copies to Higher officials and others.

S.I of Police, Tiruchanur PS having received the notice, dt.19- 07-2004 called PW3-DW4 and PW2 to the Tiruchanur PS. PW3-DW4 and

PW2 informed the Tiruchanur PS and they are going to file the suit for recovery of amount from the defendant by duly filling the pronotes which contains the signature of defendant.

5.In the trial court on the basis of pleadings, the following issues were settled :- 1Whether the suit promissory note is true, valid and binding on the defendant?

2Whether the suit pronote is not supported by consideration or not?

3To what relief?

6.On the above said issues, in the trial court on behalf of plaintiff,

PW1 to PW3 were examined and Ex.A-1 is marked.

But the evidence of PW3 is eschewed from consideration on a memo filed by the plaintiff's counsel on 19-11-2007.

3

But the same PW3 is examined as DW4 on behalf of defendant as per Orders in I.A.No.2297 of 2007,dt.20-06-2008 passed by learned I

Addl. Junior Civil Judge, Tirupati.

Therefore, PW3 and DW4 are one and the same witness.

7.On behalf of defendant, DW1 to DW4 are examined. DW1 is defendant himself.

DW2 is son of one of the members of the chit. He deposed about the chit transaction and about obtaining signature of defendant on stamped pronotes.

DW3 also deposed on the same lines about the chit transaction.

He also deposed about Ex.B-7.

DW4 is the attestor on Ex.A-1. He stated that signature on

Ex.B-7 is not his signature but he admitted signature on Ex.A-1 as an attestor. Ex.B-8 is marked in the cross examination of DW4. Ex.B-9 is the extract of deposition of DW4 in O.S.No.814 of 2004.

Ex.B-1 is notice given by defendant to Tiruchanur PS. Ex.B-2 to Ex.B-6 are the postal acknowledgments for Ex.B-1, notices to various officials.

8.Learned Trial Judge, relied upon the evidence of PW1 and PW2 and came to conclusion that Ex.A-1, Pronote was executed by defendant.

Learned Trial Judge, further held that Ex.A-1 is supported by consideration inview of presumption U/Sec.118 of N.I.Act. Learned Trial Judge, further held that the evidence of DW2 and DW3 is not sufficient to rebut the presumption U/Sec.118 of N.I.Act. Learned Trial Judge, with reference to evidence of DW4 and Ex.B-7 held that there was no such plea in the written statement and therefore, it cannot be taken into consideration.

In that view of the matter, learned Trial Judge, decreed the suit for Rs. 59,200/- with further interest at 6% p.a., on Rs.40,000/- from the date of filing of the suit till the date of decree, and thereafter at 6% p.a., till realization.

9.Aggrieved by the said Judgment and decree, defendant preferred this appeal.

10.The main ground urged in this appeal is that the evidence of

DW2 to DW4 and Ex.B-7 and Ex.B-8 clearly goes to show that one of the three empty pronotes taken by DW4 and PW2 from the defendant were 4 made use and created Ex.A-1, and filed suit through plaintiff. He further contended that the above said evidence is sufficient to rebut the presumption

U/Sec.118 of N.I.At.

Learned counsel appearing for the appellant/defendant also filed I.A.No.1338 of 2011 Under Order 41, Rule 27 r/w Sec.151 CPC requesting to received the served copy of Judgment and decree in

O.S.No.814 of 2005 on the file of V Additional Junior Civil Judge, Tirupati

and the ground of appeal in A.S.No.163 of 2010 on the file of V Additional

District Court, Tirupati which is filed by the plaintiff in O.S.No.814 of 2005 as additional evidence.

11.On the other hand, learned counsel appearing for the respondent/plaintiff contended that there is no plea in the written statement filed by the defendant that there is money transaction between defendant and

DW4 and in connection with the said borrowing an agreement of sale was obtained and while cancelling the said agreement of sale an endorsementwas made by DW4 to the effect that he is having 3 blank pronotes executed by the defendant with him. In the absence of such plea in the written statement, evidence of PW3- DW4 and Ex.B-7 cannot be looked into. He further contended that there is no suggestion to PW1 that DW4 and PW2 filed suit through PW1. He also contended that even assuming that there is chit transaction and even assuming that DW4 and PW2 obtained three blank pronotes from the defendant they have nothing to do with the plaintiff. He further contended that the transaction between plaintiff and defendant is a separate transaction. He also contended that there is no link between the alleged obtaining of blank pronotes by PW2 and DW4 from the defenant and Ex.A-1, pronote. He also contended that the Judgment in

O.S.No.814 of 2005 on the file of V Additional Junior Civil Judge, Tirupati

is not at all relevant to the decision in this appeal.

12.Point for consideration is

Whether presumption U/Sec.118 of N.I.Act that Ex.A-1 is supported by consideration is rebutted by defendant or not and the burden is shifted to plaintiff to prove that Ex.A-1 is supported by consideration?

13.POINT :- 5

Admittedly, defendant admitted his signature on Ex.A-1,

Pronote. Moreover, evidence of PW1 and PW2 clearly establish that Ex.A-1, pronote was executed by the defendant.

It is the specific case of defendant in the written statement that three blank pronotes were obtained from him by PW2 and DW4 when he became successful bidder for the chit value of Rs..2,10,000/-. Therefore, the burden is on the defendant to prove that three blank pronotes were obtained from him by PW2 and DW4 and one of such pronotes is Ex.A-1. PW1 and

PW2 in their evidence denied the suggestion that there was a chit transaction in the village. PW1 denied any knowledge about the chit transaction. PW2 denied the suggestion that blank pronotes were obtained from the defendant.

DW2 and DW3, no doubt in their evidence deposed that there was chit transaction in the village and that PW2 and DW4 obtained three blank pronotes from the defendant when the prize amount was paid to the defendant.

Further to rebut presumption there is evidence of DW4, Ex.B-7 and Ex.B-8. Ex.B-7 is marked through DW3. DW3 says that he scribed

Ex.B-7. Ex.B-7 is endorsement on agreement of sale said to have been executed by defendant in favour of DW4 in connection with a loan transaction between defendant and DW4.

14.First of all it must be seen whether there is any such plea by the defendant in the written statement.

The agreement of sale said to have been executed by defendant in favour of DW4 dt.05-08-2000. Ex.B-7, endorsement said to have been made by DW4 on the last page of agreement of sale is dt.21-05-2003. So, both these documents came in to existence even prior to filing of written statement by the defendant in the suit. Defendant filed written statement in the suit on 08-02-2005. But in the entire written statement filed by the defendant, there is no whisper about the loan transaction between the defendant and DW4 and inconnection of the said loan transaction DW4 entered in to agreement of sale dt. 05-08-2000 and when he paid loan amount, DW4 made endorsement on the reverse of the said agreement of sale stating that he obtained three blank pronotes from the defendant in connection of the chit transaction. Therefore, although so called agreement of sale and the endorsement on the agreement of sale, vide Ex.B-7 is within 6 the knowledge of the defendant, he did not choose to plead the same in the written statement. It cannot be said that loan transaction between defendant and DW4, the execution of sale agreement in evidence of loan transaction by defendant in favour of DW4, the endorsement of DW4 on the reliance of agreement of sale are matters of evidence. These things are certainly amounts to pleas but not evidence. As far as evidence, there is no need to mention it in written statement as held by our Hon`ble High Court in the decision in

D.V.Muralikrishna Rao

Vs

Ch. Gopala Rao, reported in 2006 (2) L.S.87, relied upon by the counsel for appellant/defendant.

15.But when the defendant took a plea that three blank pronotes were taken and those blank pronotes were taken by DW4 and PW2 and in that connection with those blank pronotes an endorsement was made by

DW4 on the reverse of agreement of sale,amounts to pleas and such is permissible pleas must be mentioned in the written statement.

16.On the other hand, plea in the written statement is that defendant approached Tiruchanur Police by giving Ex.B-1, notice and police called PW2 and DW4 to the police station and PW2 and DW4 stated that they are going to file suit on the basis of pronotes signed by the defendant.

No where in the written statement, defendant stated that alleged borrowing between him and DW4 and the agreement of sale and the endorsement therein. Therefore as an after thought only, agreement of sale and the endorsement on Ex.B-7 were brought into existence to show that DW4 agreed that he obtained blank pronotes.

17.In fact, defendant filed I.A.No.39 of 2007 before the trial court seeking permission to file additional written statement with the above said plea regarding agreement of sale, endorsement of defendant on agreement of sale, about blank pronotes. But the said I.A., was dismissed by the learned trial Judge. As can be seen from the record, defendant preferred CRP No.

1063 of 2007 before the Hon`ble High Court of A.P., The Hon`ble High

Court of A.P., also dismissed the Revision stating that the stand taken by the defendant in the additional written statement would substantially effect the 7 stand taken by the defendant in the original written statement. Therefore, the defendant wanted to introduce the new plea by way of filing additional written statement. Defendant shall not be successful in making such attempt. But some how, defendant is able to bring on record, Ex.B-7 through DW3. In fact, petition to receive written undertaking given by DW4 in favour of defendant on21-05-2003 on the agreement of sale, dt.05-08- 2000, Vide I.A.No.2181 of 2006 was also dismissed by the Trial Court. But some how it was received in evidence and marked as Ex.B-7 through DW3 who claims to be the scribe of Ex.B-7. DW4 stated that his signature is not there in Ex.B-7. Therefore, by taking in to consideration the evidence of

Dw3 it cannot be said that Ex.B-7 is proved.

18.As already said there is no plea by the defendant in the written statement that there was a loan transaction between defendant and DW4 and in that connection with the the loan transaction an agreement of sale dt.05- 08-2000 was executed and on the reverse of agreement of sale an undertaking was given by defendant about blank pronotes. When there is no plea the evidence of DW3 that he scribed Ex.B-7 does not carry any weight. Therefore, the evidence of DW3 and Ex.B-7 cannot rebut the presumption attached to Ex.A-1, Pronote.

19.The evidence of DW4, as can be seen from Ex.B-8, which is an extract from the deposition of DW4 in O.S.No.814 of 2005 show that he filed O.S.No.1422 of 2004 on the file of I Addl. Junior Civil Judge, Tirupati against defendant for recovery of Rs.40,000/- but the same witness immediately and again stated that PW1 filed the suit and he stood as witness in the suit.Therefore, the stray admission of DW4 in O.S.No.814 of 2005 on the file of Additional Junior Civil Judge, Tirupati cannot be taken into consideration to come to a conclusion that O.S.No.1422 of 2004 was also filed by DW4 or to come to conclusion that DW4 got filed O.S.No.1422 of 2004 through PW1. The oral evidence of DW2 and DW3 regarding chit transaction in the absence of any documentary evidence cannot be taken as sufficient evidence to rebut the presumption. No doubt, in order to rebut the presumption, standard of proof required is less when compared to proof required to prove the fact. But in the case on hand, oral evidence of DW2 and DW3 is not sufficient to rebut the presumption. Ex.B-7 cannot be taken into consideration in the absence of a plea taken by the defendant in 8 the written statement. If really, DW4 and PW2 obtained blank pronotes, from the defendant (DW1), it is not known what prevented the defendant (DW1) to give a notice to DW4 and PW2. Defendant inspite of giving notices to DW4 and PW2 sent a report to police marking copies to superior

Police officers and political heads in the Government. Even in that notice,

Ex.B-1, it is not mentioned that he borrowed Rs.50,000/- from the plaintiff or DW4 and in that connection agreement of sale was executed. Ex.B-1, notice was after agreement of sale, dt.05-08-2000. Ex.B-1 notice also after

Ex.B-7, endorsement dt.21-05-2003. There is no reference to Ex.B-7 also in

Ex.B-1. Therefore, the agreement of sale and Ex.B-7 endorsement are nothing but created by the defendant as an after thought with the help of

DW3. Such evidence cannot be taken as sufficient evidence to rebut the presumption attached to Ex.A-1.

20.Defendant also failed to establish any nexus between plaintiff (PW1) and DW4. Therefore, defendant failed to rebut the presumption attached to Ex.A-1 U/Sec.118 of N.I.Act. When once, defendant failed to rebut the presumption, the burden does not shift to the plaintiff.

21.Learned counsel appearing for the appellant/defendant relied upon decision in

Putta Lakshmi Narayana Reddy

Vs

Putta Mysura Reddy, reported in 1996 (3) ALT 222, on the aspect of presumption of burden. In that decision, plaintiff took different stands with regard to consideration under pronotes.

In that case, plaintiff failed to state regarding consideration.

Consideration pleaded by plaintiff is one and the consideration stated in the pronote is another one. In that case, it is also held that once both sides adduce evidence, presumption U/Sec.118 N.I.Act does not come to plaintiffs rescue and burden of proof lies on its own.

But in the case on hand, although defendant adduced evidence, the evidence is not sufficient to rebut the presumption. When defendant failed to rebut the presumption, the burden would not shift to the plaintiff.

On facts, the said decision is not applicable to the case.

9

22.Appellant filed I.A.No.1338 of 2011 Under Order 41, Rule 27 r/w 151 CPC requesting the court to receive copy of Judgment and decree in

O.S.No.814 of 2005 dt. 20-09-2010 on the file of V Additional Junior Civil

Judge, Tirupati and the appeal grounds in A.S.No.163 of 2010 on the file of

V Additional District Court, Tirupati as additional evidence . The said application is dismissed by this Court by way of separate Order since those documents have nothing to do with the point involved in this appeal. 23.

In view of the above discussion, I see no merits in the appeal.

In the result, appeal is dismissed with costs confirming the Judgment and decree, dt.10-08-2009 passed by the learned I Addl. Junior Civil

Judge,Tirupati in O.S.No.1422 of 2004.

Dictated to the Personal Assistant, transcribed by him, corrected by

me and pronounced in open court this the 28th day of February, 2012.

Sd/- B. Raveendra Babu,

III Additional District Judge, Tirupati. FAC V Additional District Judge, Tirupati. Appendix of Evidence N I L Id/- B.R.B., FAC V Addl.D.J. Tirupati.

Copy to:

The I Additional Junior Civil Judge, Tirupati.