Bandela Abraham

1 MVOP. No.68/2017 (Draft )

BEFORE THE MOTOR ACCIDENTS CLAIMS TRIBUNAL – CUM –

COURT OF THESECOND ADDITIONAL DISTRICT JUDGE:

MADANAPALLE

Present :: Sri Bandela Abraham, Chairman, Motor Accidents ClaimsTribunal -cum-II Additional District Judge,

Madanapalle.

Monday, the Seventh (07 th ) day of April, 2025

M.V.O.P. No. 68 of 2017

Between:

1) Desavari Saraswathi, W/o late Desavari Venkatesh, aged about 30 years, Hindu, House-wife.

2) Desavari Meghana, D/o Late Desavari Venkatesh, aged about 10 years, Minor represented by her natural guardian / Mother 1st petitioner Desavari Saraswathi.

3) Desavari Uttamma, W/o Desavari Narayana, aged about 60 years, Hindu, House wife.

4) Desavari Narayana, S/o Late Desavari Venkatramanna, aged about 65 years, Hindu, Cultivation

All are residing at Pedda Thippasamudram Village and Post, Chittoor District.

.. Petitioners / Claimants.

And:

1) G.Suri, S/o G.Sreenivasulu Naidu, aged about 45 years, Hindu, Driver of Eicher Van No. AP-02-Y- 3340, residing at D.No.1/950, Chelimibavi Street, Mudigubba Village, Anantapur District.

2) R.Janullah, S/o late R.Rajasaheb, aged about 60 years, Driver of Lorry No. TN 04 6673, residing near Tea Stall, Kavipuram Village, Metturu Taluq, Salem District, Tamilnadu State.

3) R.Lakshminarayana, S/o Siddappa, Hindu, Owner of Eicher AP 02-Y-3340, residing at D.No.1-618-C, Near R & B Bungalaw, Mudigubba Village and Post, Ananthapur District.

4) M/s Shriram General Insurance Company Ltd., represented by its Branch Manager, Ananthapur (Policy No.10003/31/12/198726 valid from 11-08- 2012 to 10-08-2013) 2 MVOP. No.68/2017 (Draft )

5) Mrs.K.Mani, D/o Kullappan Gounder, residing at D.No.7/7/27, Mayana Street, Desai Nagar, Metturu, Salem District, Tamilnadu State.

6) National Insurance Company Ltd., represented by its Branch Manager, Mettur, (Policy No.656401/31/12/6765583896 valid from 01-03- 2013 to 28-02-2014)

.. Respondents.

This petition coming on 17-03-2025 before me for final hearing in the presence of Sri M.Chaitanya Kumar, Advocate for petitioners; and of

Sri C,Vijayadeva Reddy, Advocate for the 3rd respondent; Sri J.Janardhana

Reddy, Advocate for the 4th respondent and Sri K.Sridhar, Advocate for the 6th Respondent; the Respondents 1, 2 and 5 having remained exparte; upon hearing their arguments, perusing the relevant material available on record and having stood over for consideration till this day, this court delivered the following :-

O R D E R

1. This is a claim petition filed by the petitioners 1 to 4 under

Section 166 (1) (c) of A.P.M.V. Act, 1988, claiming compensation of

Rs.12,00,000/- with interest at 12% p.a., for the death of Desavari

Venkatesh, who is the husband of 1st petitioner, father of the 2nd petitioner and son of the petitioners 3 and 4, in a road traffic accident on 06-08-2013 at about 08-00 P.M., near Micro Wave Station, on Mudigubba to Anantapur road, Mudigubba village, Anantapur district. The said Desavari Venkatesh loaded his tomotas at Madanapalle in the Eicher Vehicle bearing Van No.

AP-02-Y-3340 belonging to the 3rd Respondent to sell the same at

Hyderabad Market and the said vehicle was driven by the 1st respondent and while they were proceedings towards Hyderabad on N.H.205, they reached Mudigubba village at about 07-30 P.M., near Micro wave station , 3 MVOP. No.68/2017 (Draft ) at that time, a Lorry bearing its registration No. TN-04-6673 driven by the 2nd respondent came in high speed, rash and negligent manner and hit the

Eicher vehicle, due to which the vehicle in which the deceased was travelling turned towards left, went out of gear dashed to a road side tree and fell down by the side of the road and Desavai Venkatesh fell down by the side of the road from the vehicle and sustained severe injuries and died on the spot and the cleaner of the Eicher vehicle crushed in the cabin of Eicher and died on the spot. A case was registered in respect of the accident, a case in Crime No.107 of 2013 was registered under sections 337 and 304-A of I.P.C. by Mudigubba Police Station.

2. It is further averred in the claim petition that the Desavai

Venkatesh was hale and healthy prior to the accident and he was earning

Rs.5,00,000/- per annum from the business and he was aged about 27 years at the time of accident. He was only the bread winner of their family and was spending the total income towards the welfare of his family. The accident occurred due to the rash and negligent driving of the respondents 1 and 2, who are employed under the Respondents 3 and 5. 4th

Respondent is the insurer of the Eicher Vehicle bearing its registration No.

AP-02-Y-3340 owned by the 3rd respondent. The 6th Respondent is the insurer of the lorry bearing its registration No.TN-04-6673 owned by the 5th

Respondent. The respective insurance policies were in force as on the date of the accident. Hence, all the respondents are jointly and severally liable to pay the compensation to the petitioners along with future interest and costs.

3. The 3rd respondent, who is the owner of the vehicle bearing

No. AP-02-Y-3340, insured with the 4th respondent insurance company and driven by the 1st respondent at the relevant time of accident, has filed 4 MVOP. No.68/2017 (Draft ) his counter, denying all the material averments of the petition in respect of manner in which the accident occurred, age, occupation, income and the alleged incurred expenditure of the deceased. It is further contended that the driver of the lorry bearing No. TN-04-6673 who drove the said vehicle in a rash and negligent manner and dashed against Eicher vehicle and the deceased fall down and died on the spot. The 2nd respondent is only responsible for the alleged accident and due to rash and negligent driving of lorry bearing No. TA-04-6673 only and the said vehicle was owned by the 5th respondent and insured with the 6th respondent / insurance company and the polity was in force as on the date of accident. The compensation claimed is expensive. The petitioners are not entitled to claim any compensation against 3rd respondent. Hence, prayed to dismiss the petition with costs.

4. The 4th respondent filed his counter, denying all the material averments of the petition in respect of manner in which the accident occurred, age, occupation, income and the alleged expenditure incurred by the deceased. It is further contended that the information furnished in the petition and claim and the interest claimed thereon is excessive and are not correct. However, it is admitted the Eicher vehicle bearing No. AP-02-

Y-3340 is covered the policy issued by 4th respondent Insurance company in the name of third respondent and the said policy is issued subject the terms and conditions, exceptions and limitations thereof and the confirmation of the compliance of section 64 VB of the Insurance Act, 1938 and further seeks protection under sections 147, 149 and 170 of M.V. Act, and that the policy is with the insured. The driver of the Eicher vehicle was not having valid driving license at the time of accident. The 3rd respondent willfully and knowingly handed over the possession of the vehicle to his 5 MVOP. No.68/2017 (Draft ) driver on the date of accident without having valid and effective driving license and hence the 1st respondent alone is liable to pay the compensation, but not the 4th respondent company. The petitioners have to prove that there was not breach of terms and conditions of the policy.

There is no relationship of employer and employee between the 2nd respondent and the driver of the insured vehicle. Hence, prayed to dismiss case against the 4th respondent with costs in the interest of justice.

5. A separate counter has been filed on behalf of the 6th respondent / Insurance Company by denying all the material averments of the petition in respect of manner in which the accident occurred, age, occupation, income and the alleged expenditure of the deceased. The relationship between the petitioners and their dependency on the deceased was questioned. It is further contended that the excessive claim is made and the interest claimed thereon is exorbitant. It does not know the other contents of the petitioner. There is no relationship between the 2nd respondent and the 5th respondent as driver and owner of the Lorry bearing its registration No. TN-04-6673 and the said vehicle was not carrying valid permits and fitness certificate. The respondents 1 and 3 got managed the police and registered the case against the 2nd respondent also. The 6th respondent’s insurance company had issued the policy in the name of K.Mani for the period from 01-03-2013 to 28-02-2014, but the same has to be confirmed by the 6th respondent and if the policy is in force and the policy is strictly governed by the terms and conditions stipulated therein. The terms and conditions of the policy were violated as the petitioners failed to prove that both the drivers have possessed valid driving license to drive their respective vehicles involved in the accident.

The petitioners may be directed to submit their pan card details as TDS 6 MVOP. No.68/2017 (Draft ) provision could apply on the interest in the award amount that may be passed in favour of the petitioners, if they are entitled to, as per section 194(A)(3)(ix-a) of Income Tax Act, 1961 as amended that the TDS is to be deducted on the interest payable on compensation, which exceeds

Rs.50,000/- with effect from 01-06-2013. and further seeks protection under sections 147, 149 and 170 of M.V. Act. Viewed from any angle this respondent Is not liable to pay any compensation to the petitioners.

Hence, prayed to dismiss the petition with costs.

6. Basing on the pleadings, the tribunal settled the following issues for the purpose of enquiry :

(1) Whether the accident occurred due to rash and negligent manner of driving of the driver of the Vehicle bearing No. A.P-02-Y-3340, results death is caused to one D.Venkatesh ?

(2) Whether the petitioners are entitled for compensation? For what amount and from whom ?

(3) To what relief ?

7. During the course of trial, on behalf of the petitioners P.W. 1 the first petitioner was examined and Exs.A1 to A5 were marked through

PW1. On behalf of the respondents RW1 was examined and Ex.R1 is marked through him.

8. Heard the learned counsels for the petitioners and the

Respondents. 3, 4 and 6.

9. P O I N T S ::

The evidence of PW1 evidence adduced on behalf of the petitioners coupled with the Exs.A1 to A5 reveals the happening of accident, involvement of two crime vehicles i.e., Eicher bearing its registration No.

7 MVOP. No.68/2017 (Draft )

AP-02-Y-3340 owned by the 3rd respondent driven by the 1st Respondent and the Lorry bearing No. TN-04-6673 owned by the 5th Respondent and driven by the 2nd Respondent. The second vehicle involved in the accident is a lorry bearing its registration No. TN-04-6673, which was owned by the 5th respondent and driven by the 2nd respondent at the time of accident.

Both the offending vehicles were insured with their respective insurers i.e.,

Respondent Nos.4 and 6. However, it is relevant to discuss the evidence available on record for arriving just conclusion.

10. PW1 the wife of the deceased and mother of the 2nd petitioner is was examined as PW1. She reiterated the contents of the petition in her chief examination. Admittedly, she is not an eye witness to the occurrence and she also admitted the same in his cross examination. She further deposed that her husband was travelling in Eicher vehicle. It is elicited from PW1 by the learned counsel for the 4th respondent that police registered a case against the driver of lorry bearing No. TN-04-6673, whereas her husband was travelling in Eicher vehicle bearing registration

No. AP-02-Y-3340. But it is not the case, where the F.I.R was registered against the driver of Lorry by name Suri and also against the driver of the

Lorry bearing its registration No. TN-04-6673, by name, Janulla.

Therefore, the learned counsel appearing for the 4th respondent attempted to prove that there is no negligence or rash act on the part of the driver of the Eicher van in which the deceased was travelling along with his tomato load and proceedings towards Hyderabad.

11. RW1, P.Raghuram, who is working as Senior Legal Executive was examined and he has reiterated the contents of written statement in his chief examination. During the cross examination, the learned counsel

for the Petitioners elicited that the third respondent is the owner of the

8 MVOP. No.68/2017 (Draft )

Eicher vehicle; that charge sheet was filed against both the vehicles i.e., against Accused Nos. 1 and 2 who are the Respondents 1 and 2 respectively in this claim petition. RW1 also admitted that the deceased was doing tomato business and while he was transporting tomatoes to

Hyderabad, the accident was occurred when the Eicher reached

Mudigubba. RW1 admitted that he has no personal knowledge about the income of the deceased. Ex.B1 is marked through RW1 which is a commercial vehicle package policy. During the cross examination conducted by the learned counsel for the 6th respondent, RW1 denied the suggestion that Ex.B1 covers the owner of the goods vehicle also and that no separate premium is required to cover the driver.

12. It is clear from the evidence of P.W. 1 and RW.1 coupled with the documentary evidence under Exs.A1 to A5, which are the certified copies of Postmortem certificate, Inquest Report, Charge sheet,

M.V.I. Report and F.I.R., that the place of occurrence and the manner in which the accident was occurred and the death of Desavari Venkatesh due to the fatal injuries sustained in the accident caused by both the offending vehicles while R-1 driving the Eicher and R2 was driving the Lorry and there is negligence on the part of both the drivers and the same are undisputed and proved with cogent evidence. As per the decision reported in 2012 ACJ 1370 in a case between New India Assurance Company

Ltd. Vs. Pahaniammal and Others, it was held that “Production of the charge sheet is prima facie sufficient evidence of negligence for purpose of claim U/Sec. 166 of M.V. Act”. In view of the settled principle law in the cited decision, the petitioners have successfully proved that the husband of 1st petitioner Desavari Venkatesh sustained fatal injuries in the accident and died on the spot.

9 MVOP. No.68/2017 (Draft )

13. Though the contesting respondents i.e., 3, 4 and 6 have raised number of contentions, in respect of breach of terms and conditions of the policies issued in favour of the owners of both offending vehicles, no such breach is proved by the respondents. Therefore, the contentions that the Respondents 1 to 6 are liable to pay the compensation to the petitioners as the respective policies covering the insurance of the offending vehicles were in force as on the date of the accident. Nothing is elicited from the cross examination of PW1 to prove that the respondents are not liable to pay compensation to the petitioners. Though the

Respondents 4 and 6 have contended that the Respondents 1 and 2 have not having valid and effective driving license, no cogent and convincing evidence is placed before this court in support of the said contentions.

However, RW1 has admitted that Ex.B1 commercial vehicle package policy and no evidence available on record to conclude that the

Respondents are not liable to pay compensation to the petitioners. The learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that as per decision reported in 2002 (6) ALD 137 (D.B) and as per Judgment reported in 2018 ACJ 1300 the offending vehicle alone has to pay compensation. The offending and Charge sheeted vehicles are liable to pay compensation to the petitioners and both the offending vehicles were charge sheeted, as such all the respondents are jointly and severally are liable to pay the compensation to the petitioners.

14. It is pertinent to say that Exs.A3 to A5 certainly indicate the occurrence of accident and involvement of crime vehicles in the accident due to contributory negligence in causing the accident and both the vehicles were charge sheeted and involvement of the Respondents 1 and 2 in causing the accident and thereby fatal injuries to D.Venkatesh caused.

10 MVOP. No.68/2017 (Draft )

The deceased D.Venkatesh was travelling in the Eicher vehicle along with the load of tomatoes and the same was not disputed by any respondent.

So there is nothing to exonerate the respondents from the liability and there are no circumstances to consider the contributory negligence of the deceased in occurrence of accident. Therefore, there is nothing to exempt the respondents 1 to 6 either wholly or in part from their liability to pay compensation to the petitioners. Therefore, the respondents 1 to 6 are found liable to pay the compensation to the petitioners.

15. Therefore, the petitioners, having lost the deceased

D.Venkatesh, have suffered loss of amenities and enjoyment of life and particularly, the 1st petitioner being wife of the deceased and the 2nd petitioner being the daughter and petitioenrs 3 and 4 being the parents, they are unable to lead a normal life for rest of their life as there is a serious threat to their future.

16. In view of the evidence available on record, it can be safely concluded that there is no dispute in respect of the accident that occurred as stated by the petitioners and the death of D.Venkatesh in the said accident, who was the earning person of the family. In respect of income of the deceased, there is clear and convincing evidence available on record in the shape of PW. 1 that he was earning Rs.5,00,000/- p.a.

through agriculture. The deceased D.Venkatesh being able bodied person was looking after the family affairs by attending agricultural operations by taking the crops on lease basis.

17. Though the evidence of PW. 1 reveals that the deceased was earning Rs.5,00,000/- per annum from the agriculture, the petitioners have not filed income tax returns of the deceased nor they filed any 11 MVOP. No.68/2017 (Draft ) documentary proof in respect of the income of the deceased. The learned counsels for the Respondents have denied the income of the deceased, however, it cannot be said that he is not an earning person as he was hale and healthy and able bodied person. The evidence of PW. 1 reveals that the deceased was hale and healthy prior to the accident. The deceased must be a capable of earning amounts from agriculture and hence it is pertinent to decide the notional income of the deceased.

18. The 1st and 2nd Respondents, being the drivers of the offending vehicles and the 3rd and 5th respondents being the owners and 4th and 6th respondents being the insurance company who insured the offending vehicles, are jointly and severally liable to pay compensation to the petitioners. The learned counsel for the petitioners submitted during the course of arguments that in addition to the above, the petitioners are entitled get transport charges and funeral expenses etc.,

19. Considering the age of the deceased Deceased shown in his inquest report and post mortem certificates, as 27 years as on the date of accident, and he is hale and healthy as on the date of accident. Upon considering the evidence of PW. 1, it can be said that the deceased would have earning a reasonable income. As per the judgment of Honourable

APEX Court reported in 2023 (1) ALT page No.14 SC in a case between

Smt.Anjali versus Lokendra Rathod, wherein it was observed that, “The just and fair compensation – The provisions of M.V. Act given paramount to the concept of just and fair compensation. It is beneficial legislation which has been framed with the objective of providing relief to the victims or their family members.” 12 MVOP. No.68/2017 (Draft )

20. The respondents have not attributed any contra evidence on their behalf except mere suggestions denying the age and occupation of the deceased D.Venkatesh. The learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that the petitioners have made out their case and requested the court to grant just compensation in favour of the petitioners as they have lost the deceased who was the person looking after their welfare through her earnings.

21. While deciding the claim petitions filed under Motor Vehicles

Act, which is a beneficial legislation, this tribunal has to keep in mind that the petitioners 1 to 4 being the dependents of the deceased D.Venkatesh, they have to come out from the hardships being faced by them due to sudden demise of their mother and who was looking after their welfare.

Hence, the deceased and his wife were looking after the welfare of the petitioners 2 to 4. As per the provisions of minimum wages Act, a daily labour will get Rs.500/- per day by doing labour work. In view of the circumstances of the case and by considering the age, occupation business, and dependents of the deceased, the notional income of the deceased at Rs.18,000/- per month is taken into consideration for the purpose of awarding compensation to the petitioners. Future progression is taken as Rs.2,000/- p.m. Hence, the total income of the deceased can be considered as Rs.20,000/- P.M. In the decision reported in 2009 ACJ 1298 Hon’ble Apex Court in a case between Sarla Verma and others and

Delhi Transport Corporation and another it is observed that “having considered several subsequent decisions of this Court, we are of the view that where the deceased was married, the deduction towards personal and living expenses of the deceased should be one-third (1/3rd) where the number of dependents family members is 2 to 3; one-fourth (1/4th) where 13 MVOP. No.68/2017 (Draft ) the number of dependent family members is 4 to 6; and one-fifty (1/5th) where the number of the dependent family members exceed six”. There is no convincing evidence to prove that by the time of accident, the deceased and the petitioners are not living together.

22. Therefore, towards his personal expenditure taken as

Rs.5,000/- i.e., 1/4th as per settled law. Then the contribution of the income of the deceased to the petitioners can be considered as

Rs.15,000/- per month. Rs.15,000 X 12 = i.e., Rs.1,80,008 /- per annum.

23. In a case between Sarla Verma and others and Delhi

Transport Corporation and another reported in 2009 ACJ 1298 Hon’ble

Apex Court in paragraph No. 9 of the Judgment mentioned about the method of calculation of compensation. As per the observation of the

Hon’ble Apex Court in the said authority and the settled practice under first

step the court shall ascertain the multiplicand by adverting to the occupation and income of the injured and then select the appropriate multiplier by referring to the age of the injured and by referring to paragraph No. 19 Column No. 4 of the authority. In the third step the tribunal shall make calculation of loss of income by applying the multiplier to the multiplicand ascertained. The age of the deceased is considered as 27 years. Therefore, operative multiplier of 17 is taken for consideration in this case. Hence, Rs. 1,80,000 X 17 = 30,60,000/- and accordingly, the loss of dependency comes to Rs. 30,60,000/-. In addition to the said amount, the petitioners are also entitled for funeral expenses and transporting charges of Rs.10,000/-. However, this court is of the humble opinion that the petitioners are entitled for the compensation as claimed in the claim petition. The compensation amount to be paid to the petitioner is

Rs.15,00,000/- as claimed by the petitioners.

14 MVOP. No.68/2017 (Draft )

24. Thus, petitioners 1 to 4 are entitled for the compensation of

Rs.12,00,000/- payable by the respondents 1 to 6. Accordingly, Issue Nos.

1 and 2 are answered.

25. ISSUE NO.3 :- However, the final liability is fixed on the 4th and 6th Respondents insurance Corporations, to pay half of the awarded amount each to the petitioners together with interest and costs.

In the result, the petition is allowed with costs by awarding

compensation of Rs.12,00,000/- (Rupees Twelve lakhs only) to the

petitioners 1 to 4 along with interest at 9% per annum from the date of

petition till the date of realization.

Respondent Nos. 1 to 6 are jointly and severally liable to pay

the compensation to the petitioners. However, final liability is fixed

on Respondents. 4 and 6, being insurance companies of the

offending vehicles respectively who issued respective policies in

favour of the 3 rd and 5 th Respondent who are the owner of the

Offending Vehicles.

The 4 th Respondent / Insurance company is directed to deposit

the half of the awarded compensation amount i.e., Rs.6,00,000/- along

with interest and costs accrued thereon within Two months from the

date of this award.

The 6 th Respondent / Insurance company is directed to deposit

the half of the awarded compensation amount i.e., Rs.6,00,000/- along

with interest and costs accrued thereon within Two months from the

date of this award.

The awarded compensation amount is apportioned amongst the

petitioners as under.

15 MVOP. No.68/2017 (Draft )

On such deposit, the 1 st petitioner entitled for the amount of

Rs.4,00,000/- together with accrued interest thereon, and she is

permitted to withdraw a sum of Rs. 2,00,000/- (together with accrued

interest on Rs.4,00,000/- with costs) and the remaining Rs.2,00,000/-

is ordered to be kept in Fixed Deposit in her name in any

Nationalized Bank for three years.

The 2 nd petitioners is entitled for Rs.4,00,000/- together with

accrued interest thereon, and the same is ordered to be kept in Fixed

Deposit in her name in any Nationalized Bank till she attains majority.

The 3 rd petitioner is entitled for the amount of Rs.2,00,000/-

along with the accrued interest thereon and she is permitted to

withdraw the amount immediately after the deposit.

The 4 th petitioner is entitled for the amount of Rs.2,00,000/-

along with the accrued interest thereon and he is permitted to

withdraw the amount immediately after the deposit.

The petitioners are not entitled to claim any interest during the

period of dismissal till the date of restoration, if any.

Rs.2,000/- is fixed as advocate fee as per Rule 15 of Advocate

Fee Rules, 2010.

Typed directly on computer to my dictation. Corrected, signed and

pronounced by me in the open court, this the 07th day of April, 2025.

Chairman, Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal-cum- II Additional District Judge, Madanapalle.

Appendix of Evidence

Witnesses examined

For the petitioners For the Respondents

P.W.1 : D.Saraswathi RW.1. P.Raghuram 16 MVOP. No.68/2017 (Draft )

Exhibits marked on behalf of the petitioners

Ex.A1 Certified Copy of Postmortem certificate of deceased Venkatesh.

Ex.A2 Certified copy of Inquest Report in Crime No.107 of 2013.

Ex.A3 Certified copy Charge Sheet in C.C.No.179 of 2014 on the file of JMFC., Kadiri.

Ex.A4 Certified copy of M.V.I. Report

Ex.A5 Certified copy of F.I.R No.107 of 2013 of Mudigubba P.S.

Exhibits marked on behalf of the respondents

Ex.R1 : Certified copy of Package policy No.10003/31/13/198726

issued by the 4 th respondent in the name of 3 rd respondent

for the Lorry bearing registration No. AP-02-Y-3340.

Chairman, Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal-cum- II Additional District Judge, Madanapalle.

1 MVOP. No.68/2017 (Draft )

BEFORE THE MOTOR ACCIDENTS CLAIMS TRIBUNAL – CUM –

COURT OF THESECOND ADDITIONAL DISTRICT JUDGE:

MADANAPALLE

Present :: Sri Bandela Abraham, Chairman, Motor Accidents ClaimsTribunal -cum-II Additional District Judge,

Madanapalle.

Monday, the Seventh (07 th ) day of April, 2025

M.V.O.P. No. 68 of 2017

Between:

1) Desavari Saraswathi, W/o late Desavari Venkatesh, aged about 30 years, Hindu, House-wife.

2) Desavari Meghana, D/o Late Desavari Venkatesh, aged about 10 years, Minor represented by her natural guardian / Mother 1st petitioner Desavari Saraswathi.

3) Desavari Uttamma, W/o Desavari Narayana, aged about 60 years, Hindu, House wife.

4) Desavari Narayana, S/o Late Desavari Venkatramanna, aged about 65 years, Hindu, Cultivation

All are residing at Pedda Thippasamudram Village and Post, Chittoor District.

.. Petitioners / Claimants.

And:

1) G.Suri, S/o G.Sreenivasulu Naidu, aged about 45 years, Hindu, Driver of Eicher Van No. AP-02-Y- 3340, residing at D.No.1/950, Chelimibavi Street, Mudigubba Village, Anantapur District.

2) R.Janullah, S/o late R.Rajasaheb, aged about 60 years, Driver of Lorry No. TN 04 6673, residing near Tea Stall, Kavipuram Village, Metturu Taluq, Salem District, Tamilnadu State.

3) R.Lakshminarayana, S/o Siddappa, Hindu, Owner of Eicher AP 02-Y-3340, residing at D.No.1-618-C, Near R & B Bungalaw, Mudigubba Village and Post, Ananthapur District.

4) M/s Shriram General Insurance Company Ltd., represented by its Branch Manager, Ananthapur (Policy No.10003/31/12/198726 valid from 11-08- 2012 to 10-08-2013) 2 MVOP. No.68/2017 (Draft )

5) Mrs.K.Mani, D/o Kullappan Gounder, residing at D.No.7/7/27, Mayana Street, Desai Nagar, Metturu, Salem District, Tamilnadu State.

6) National Insurance Company Ltd., represented by its Branch Manager, Mettur, (Policy No.656401/31/12/6765583896 valid from 01-03- 2013 to 28-02-2014)

.. Respondents.

This petition coming on 17-03-2025 before me for final hearing in the presence of Sri M.Chaitanya Kumar, Advocate for petitioners; and of

Sri C,Vijayadeva Reddy, Advocate for the 3rd respondent; Sri J.Janardhana

Reddy, Advocate for the 4th respondent and Sri K.Sridhar, Advocate for the 6th Respondent; the Respondents 1, 2 and 5 having remained exparte; upon hearing their arguments, perusing the relevant material available on record and having stood over for consideration till this day, this court delivered the following :-

O R D E R

1. This is a claim petition filed by the petitioners 1 to 4 under

Section 166 (1) (c) of A.P.M.V. Act, 1988, claiming compensation of

Rs.12,00,000/- with interest at 12% p.a., for the death of Desavari

Venkatesh, who is the husband of 1st petitioner, father of the 2nd petitioner and son of the petitioners 3 and 4, in a road traffic accident on 06-08-2013 at about 08-00 P.M., near Micro Wave Station, on Mudigubba to Anantapur road, Mudigubba village, Anantapur district. The said Desavari Venkatesh loaded his tomotas at Madanapalle in the Eicher Vehicle bearing Van No.

AP-02-Y-3340 belonging to the 3rd Respondent to sell the same at

Hyderabad Market and the said vehicle was driven by the 1st respondent and while they were proceedings towards Hyderabad on N.H.205, they reached Mudigubba village at about 07-30 P.M., near Micro wave station , 3 MVOP. No.68/2017 (Draft ) at that time, a Lorry bearing its registration No. TN-04-6673 driven by the 2nd respondent came in high speed, rash and negligent manner and hit the

Eicher vehicle, due to which the vehicle in which the deceased was travelling turned towards left, went out of gear dashed to a road side tree and fell down by the side of the road and Desavai Venkatesh fell down by the side of the road from the vehicle and sustained severe injuries and died on the spot and the cleaner of the Eicher vehicle crushed in the cabin of Eicher and died on the spot. A case was registered in respect of the accident, a case in Crime No.107 of 2013 was registered under sections 337 and 304-A of I.P.C. by Mudigubba Police Station.

2. It is further averred in the claim petition that the Desavai

Venkatesh was hale and healthy prior to the accident and he was earning

Rs.5,00,000/- per annum from the business and he was aged about 27 years at the time of accident. He was only the bread winner of their family and was spending the total income towards the welfare of his family. The accident occurred due to the rash and negligent driving of the respondents 1 and 2, who are employed under the Respondents 3 and 5. 4th

Respondent is the insurer of the Eicher Vehicle bearing its registration No.

AP-02-Y-3340 owned by the 3rd respondent. The 6th Respondent is the insurer of the lorry bearing its registration No.TN-04-6673 owned by the 5th

Respondent. The respective insurance policies were in force as on the date of the accident. Hence, all the respondents are jointly and severally liable to pay the compensation to the petitioners along with future interest and costs.

3. The 3rd respondent, who is the owner of the vehicle bearing

No. AP-02-Y-3340, insured with the 4th respondent insurance company and driven by the 1st respondent at the relevant time of accident, has filed 4 MVOP. No.68/2017 (Draft ) his counter, denying all the material averments of the petition in respect of manner in which the accident occurred, age, occupation, income and the alleged incurred expenditure of the deceased. It is further contended that the driver of the lorry bearing No. TN-04-6673 who drove the said vehicle in a rash and negligent manner and dashed against Eicher vehicle and the deceased fall down and died on the spot. The 2nd respondent is only responsible for the alleged accident and due to rash and negligent driving of lorry bearing No. TA-04-6673 only and the said vehicle was owned by the 5th respondent and insured with the 6th respondent / insurance company and the polity was in force as on the date of accident. The compensation claimed is expensive. The petitioners are not entitled to claim any compensation against 3rd respondent. Hence, prayed to dismiss the petition with costs.

4. The 4th respondent filed his counter, denying all the material averments of the petition in respect of manner in which the accident occurred, age, occupation, income and the alleged expenditure incurred by the deceased. It is further contended that the information furnished in the petition and claim and the interest claimed thereon is excessive and are not correct. However, it is admitted the Eicher vehicle bearing No. AP-02-

Y-3340 is covered the policy issued by 4th respondent Insurance company in the name of third respondent and the said policy is issued subject the terms and conditions, exceptions and limitations thereof and the confirmation of the compliance of section 64 VB of the Insurance Act, 1938 and further seeks protection under sections 147, 149 and 170 of M.V. Act, and that the policy is with the insured. The driver of the Eicher vehicle was not having valid driving license at the time of accident. The 3rd respondent willfully and knowingly handed over the possession of the vehicle to his 5 MVOP. No.68/2017 (Draft ) driver on the date of accident without having valid and effective driving license and hence the 1st respondent alone is liable to pay the compensation, but not the 4th respondent company. The petitioners have to prove that there was not breach of terms and conditions of the policy.

There is no relationship of employer and employee between the 2nd respondent and the driver of the insured vehicle. Hence, prayed to dismiss case against the 4th respondent with costs in the interest of justice.

5. A separate counter has been filed on behalf of the 6th respondent / Insurance Company by denying all the material averments of the petition in respect of manner in which the accident occurred, age, occupation, income and the alleged expenditure of the deceased. The relationship between the petitioners and their dependency on the deceased was questioned. It is further contended that the excessive claim is made and the interest claimed thereon is exorbitant. It does not know the other contents of the petitioner. There is no relationship between the 2nd respondent and the 5th respondent as driver and owner of the Lorry bearing its registration No. TN-04-6673 and the said vehicle was not carrying valid permits and fitness certificate. The respondents 1 and 3 got managed the police and registered the case against the 2nd respondent also. The 6th respondent’s insurance company had issued the policy in the name of K.Mani for the period from 01-03-2013 to 28-02-2014, but the same has to be confirmed by the 6th respondent and if the policy is in force and the policy is strictly governed by the terms and conditions stipulated therein. The terms and conditions of the policy were violated as the petitioners failed to prove that both the drivers have possessed valid driving license to drive their respective vehicles involved in the accident.

The petitioners may be directed to submit their pan card details as TDS 6 MVOP. No.68/2017 (Draft ) provision could apply on the interest in the award amount that may be passed in favour of the petitioners, if they are entitled to, as per section 194(A)(3)(ix-a) of Income Tax Act, 1961 as amended that the TDS is to be deducted on the interest payable on compensation, which exceeds

Rs.50,000/- with effect from 01-06-2013. and further seeks protection under sections 147, 149 and 170 of M.V. Act. Viewed from any angle this respondent Is not liable to pay any compensation to the petitioners.

Hence, prayed to dismiss the petition with costs.

6. Basing on the pleadings, the tribunal settled the following issues for the purpose of enquiry :

(1) Whether the accident occurred due to rash and negligent manner of driving of the driver of the Vehicle bearing No. A.P-02-Y-3340, results death is caused to one D.Venkatesh ?

(2) Whether the petitioners are entitled for compensation? For what amount and from whom ?

(3) To what relief ?

7. During the course of trial, on behalf of the petitioners P.W. 1 the first petitioner was examined and Exs.A1 to A5 were marked through

PW1. On behalf of the respondents RW1 was examined and Ex.R1 is marked through him.

8. Heard the learned counsels for the petitioners and the

Respondents. 3, 4 and 6.

9. P O I N T S ::

The evidence of PW1 evidence adduced on behalf of the petitioners coupled with the Exs.A1 to A5 reveals the happening of accident, involvement of two crime vehicles i.e., Eicher bearing its registration No.

7 MVOP. No.68/2017 (Draft )

AP-02-Y-3340 owned by the 3rd respondent driven by the 1st Respondent and the Lorry bearing No. TN-04-6673 owned by the 5th Respondent and driven by the 2nd Respondent. The second vehicle involved in the accident is a lorry bearing its registration No. TN-04-6673, which was owned by the 5th respondent and driven by the 2nd respondent at the time of accident.

Both the offending vehicles were insured with their respective insurers i.e.,

Respondent Nos.4 and 6. However, it is relevant to discuss the evidence available on record for arriving just conclusion.

10. PW1 the wife of the deceased and mother of the 2nd petitioner is was examined as PW1. She reiterated the contents of the petition in her chief examination. Admittedly, she is not an eye witness to the occurrence and she also admitted the same in his cross examination. She further deposed that her husband was travelling in Eicher vehicle. It is elicited from PW1 by the learned counsel for the 4th respondent that police registered a case against the driver of lorry bearing No. TN-04-6673, whereas her husband was travelling in Eicher vehicle bearing registration

No. AP-02-Y-3340. But it is not the case, where the F.I.R was registered against the driver of Lorry by name Suri and also against the driver of the

Lorry bearing its registration No. TN-04-6673, by name, Janulla.

Therefore, the learned counsel appearing for the 4th respondent attempted to prove that there is no negligence or rash act on the part of the driver of the Eicher van in which the deceased was travelling along with his tomato load and proceedings towards Hyderabad.

11. RW1, P.Raghuram, who is working as Senior Legal Executive was examined and he has reiterated the contents of written statement in his chief examination. During the cross examination, the learned counsel

for the Petitioners elicited that the third respondent is the owner of the

8 MVOP. No.68/2017 (Draft )

Eicher vehicle; that charge sheet was filed against both the vehicles i.e., against Accused Nos. 1 and 2 who are the Respondents 1 and 2 respectively in this claim petition. RW1 also admitted that the deceased was doing tomato business and while he was transporting tomatoes to

Hyderabad, the accident was occurred when the Eicher reached

Mudigubba. RW1 admitted that he has no personal knowledge about the income of the deceased. Ex.B1 is marked through RW1 which is a commercial vehicle package policy. During the cross examination conducted by the learned counsel for the 6th respondent, RW1 denied the suggestion that Ex.B1 covers the owner of the goods vehicle also and that no separate premium is required to cover the driver.

12. It is clear from the evidence of P.W. 1 and RW.1 coupled with the documentary evidence under Exs.A1 to A5, which are the certified copies of Postmortem certificate, Inquest Report, Charge sheet,

M.V.I. Report and F.I.R., that the place of occurrence and the manner in which the accident was occurred and the death of Desavari Venkatesh due to the fatal injuries sustained in the accident caused by both the offending vehicles while R-1 driving the Eicher and R2 was driving the Lorry and there is negligence on the part of both the drivers and the same are undisputed and proved with cogent evidence. As per the decision reported in 2012 ACJ 1370 in a case between New India Assurance Company

Ltd. Vs. Pahaniammal and Others, it was held that “Production of the charge sheet is prima facie sufficient evidence of negligence for purpose of claim U/Sec. 166 of M.V. Act”. In view of the settled principle law in the cited decision, the petitioners have successfully proved that the husband of 1st petitioner Desavari Venkatesh sustained fatal injuries in the accident and died on the spot.

9 MVOP. No.68/2017 (Draft )

13. Though the contesting respondents i.e., 3, 4 and 6 have raised number of contentions, in respect of breach of terms and conditions of the policies issued in favour of the owners of both offending vehicles, no such breach is proved by the respondents. Therefore, the contentions that the Respondents 1 to 6 are liable to pay the compensation to the petitioners as the respective policies covering the insurance of the offending vehicles were in force as on the date of the accident. Nothing is elicited from the cross examination of PW1 to prove that the respondents are not liable to pay compensation to the petitioners. Though the

Respondents 4 and 6 have contended that the Respondents 1 and 2 have not having valid and effective driving license, no cogent and convincing evidence is placed before this court in support of the said contentions.

However, RW1 has admitted that Ex.B1 commercial vehicle package policy and no evidence available on record to conclude that the

Respondents are not liable to pay compensation to the petitioners. The learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that as per decision reported in 2002 (6) ALD 137 (D.B) and as per Judgment reported in 2018 ACJ 1300 the offending vehicle alone has to pay compensation. The offending and Charge sheeted vehicles are liable to pay compensation to the petitioners and both the offending vehicles were charge sheeted, as such all the respondents are jointly and severally are liable to pay the compensation to the petitioners.

14. It is pertinent to say that Exs.A3 to A5 certainly indicate the occurrence of accident and involvement of crime vehicles in the accident due to contributory negligence in causing the accident and both the vehicles were charge sheeted and involvement of the Respondents 1 and 2 in causing the accident and thereby fatal injuries to D.Venkatesh caused.

10 MVOP. No.68/2017 (Draft )

The deceased D.Venkatesh was travelling in the Eicher vehicle along with the load of tomatoes and the same was not disputed by any respondent.

So there is nothing to exonerate the respondents from the liability and there are no circumstances to consider the contributory negligence of the deceased in occurrence of accident. Therefore, there is nothing to exempt the respondents 1 to 6 either wholly or in part from their liability to pay compensation to the petitioners. Therefore, the respondents 1 to 6 are found liable to pay the compensation to the petitioners.

15. Therefore, the petitioners, having lost the deceased

D.Venkatesh, have suffered loss of amenities and enjoyment of life and particularly, the 1st petitioner being wife of the deceased and the 2nd petitioner being the daughter and petitioenrs 3 and 4 being the parents, they are unable to lead a normal life for rest of their life as there is a serious threat to their future.

16. In view of the evidence available on record, it can be safely concluded that there is no dispute in respect of the accident that occurred as stated by the petitioners and the death of D.Venkatesh in the said accident, who was the earning person of the family. In respect of income of the deceased, there is clear and convincing evidence available on record in the shape of PW. 1 that he was earning Rs.5,00,000/- p.a.

through agriculture. The deceased D.Venkatesh being able bodied person was looking after the family affairs by attending agricultural operations by taking the crops on lease basis.

17. Though the evidence of PW. 1 reveals that the deceased was earning Rs.5,00,000/- per annum from the agriculture, the petitioners have not filed income tax returns of the deceased nor they filed any 11 MVOP. No.68/2017 (Draft ) documentary proof in respect of the income of the deceased. The learned counsels for the Respondents have denied the income of the deceased, however, it cannot be said that he is not an earning person as he was hale and healthy and able bodied person. The evidence of PW. 1 reveals that the deceased was hale and healthy prior to the accident. The deceased must be a capable of earning amounts from agriculture and hence it is pertinent to decide the notional income of the deceased.

18. The 1st and 2nd Respondents, being the drivers of the offending vehicles and the 3rd and 5th respondents being the owners and 4th and 6th respondents being the insurance company who insured the offending vehicles, are jointly and severally liable to pay compensation to the petitioners. The learned counsel for the petitioners submitted during the course of arguments that in addition to the above, the petitioners are entitled get transport charges and funeral expenses etc.,

19. Considering the age of the deceased Deceased shown in his inquest report and post mortem certificates, as 27 years as on the date of accident, and he is hale and healthy as on the date of accident. Upon considering the evidence of PW. 1, it can be said that the deceased would have earning a reasonable income. As per the judgment of Honourable

APEX Court reported in 2023 (1) ALT page No.14 SC in a case between

Smt.Anjali versus Lokendra Rathod, wherein it was observed that, “The just and fair compensation – The provisions of M.V. Act given paramount to the concept of just and fair compensation. It is beneficial legislation which has been framed with the objective of providing relief to the victims or their family members.” 12 MVOP. No.68/2017 (Draft )

20. The respondents have not attributed any contra evidence on their behalf except mere suggestions denying the age and occupation of the deceased D.Venkatesh. The learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that the petitioners have made out their case and requested the court to grant just compensation in favour of the petitioners as they have lost the deceased who was the person looking after their welfare through her earnings.

21. While deciding the claim petitions filed under Motor Vehicles

Act, which is a beneficial legislation, this tribunal has to keep in mind that the petitioners 1 to 4 being the dependents of the deceased D.Venkatesh, they have to come out from the hardships being faced by them due to sudden demise of their mother and who was looking after their welfare.

Hence, the deceased and his wife were looking after the welfare of the petitioners 2 to 4. As per the provisions of minimum wages Act, a daily labour will get Rs.500/- per day by doing labour work. In view of the circumstances of the case and by considering the age, occupation business, and dependents of the deceased, the notional income of the deceased at Rs.18,000/- per month is taken into consideration for the purpose of awarding compensation to the petitioners. Future progression is taken as Rs.2,000/- p.m. Hence, the total income of the deceased can be considered as Rs.20,000/- P.M. In the decision reported in 2009 ACJ 1298 Hon’ble Apex Court in a case between Sarla Verma and others and

Delhi Transport Corporation and another it is observed that “having considered several subsequent decisions of this Court, we are of the view that where the deceased was married, the deduction towards personal and living expenses of the deceased should be one-third (1/3rd) where the number of dependents family members is 2 to 3; one-fourth (1/4th) where 13 MVOP. No.68/2017 (Draft ) the number of dependent family members is 4 to 6; and one-fifty (1/5th) where the number of the dependent family members exceed six”. There is no convincing evidence to prove that by the time of accident, the deceased and the petitioners are not living together.

22. Therefore, towards his personal expenditure taken as

Rs.5,000/- i.e., 1/4th as per settled law. Then the contribution of the income of the deceased to the petitioners can be considered as

Rs.15,000/- per month. Rs.15,000 X 12 = i.e., Rs.1,80,008 /- per annum.

23. In a case between Sarla Verma and others and Delhi

Transport Corporation and another reported in 2009 ACJ 1298 Hon’ble

Apex Court in paragraph No. 9 of the Judgment mentioned about the method of calculation of compensation. As per the observation of the

Hon’ble Apex Court in the said authority and the settled practice under first

step the court shall ascertain the multiplicand by adverting to the occupation and income of the injured and then select the appropriate multiplier by referring to the age of the injured and by referring to paragraph No. 19 Column No. 4 of the authority. In the third step the tribunal shall make calculation of loss of income by applying the multiplier to the multiplicand ascertained. The age of the deceased is considered as 27 years. Therefore, operative multiplier of 17 is taken for consideration in this case. Hence, Rs. 1,80,000 X 17 = 30,60,000/- and accordingly, the loss of dependency comes to Rs. 30,60,000/-. In addition to the said amount, the petitioners are also entitled for funeral expenses and transporting charges of Rs.10,000/-. However, this court is of the humble opinion that the petitioners are entitled for the compensation as claimed in the claim petition. The compensation amount to be paid to the petitioner is

Rs.15,00,000/- as claimed by the petitioners.

14 MVOP. No.68/2017 (Draft )

24. Thus, petitioners 1 to 4 are entitled for the compensation of

Rs.12,00,000/- payable by the respondents 1 to 6. Accordingly, Issue Nos.

1 and 2 are answered.

25. ISSUE NO.3 :- However, the final liability is fixed on the 4th and 6th Respondents insurance Corporations, to pay half of the awarded amount each to the petitioners together with interest and costs.

In the result, the petition is allowed with costs by awarding

compensation of Rs.12,00,000/- (Rupees Twelve lakhs only) to the

petitioners 1 to 4 along with interest at 9% per annum from the date of

petition till the date of realization.

Respondent Nos. 1 to 6 are jointly and severally liable to pay

the compensation to the petitioners. However, final liability is fixed

on Respondents. 4 and 6, being insurance companies of the

offending vehicles respectively who issued respective policies in

favour of the 3 rd and 5 th Respondent who are the owner of the

Offending Vehicles.

The 4 th Respondent / Insurance company is directed to deposit

the half of the awarded compensation amount i.e., Rs.6,00,000/- along

with interest and costs accrued thereon within Two months from the

date of this award.

The 6 th Respondent / Insurance company is directed to deposit

the half of the awarded compensation amount i.e., Rs.6,00,000/- along

with interest and costs accrued thereon within Two months from the

date of this award.

The awarded compensation amount is apportioned amongst the

petitioners as under.

15 MVOP. No.68/2017 (Draft )

On such deposit, the 1 st petitioner entitled for the amount of

Rs.4,00,000/- together with accrued interest thereon, and she is

permitted to withdraw a sum of Rs. 2,00,000/- (together with accrued

interest on Rs.4,00,000/- with costs) and the remaining Rs.2,00,000/-

is ordered to be kept in Fixed Deposit in her name in any

Nationalized Bank for three years.

The 2 nd petitioners is entitled for Rs.4,00,000/- together with

accrued interest thereon, and the same is ordered to be kept in Fixed

Deposit in her name in any Nationalized Bank till she attains majority.

The 3 rd petitioner is entitled for the amount of Rs.2,00,000/-

along with the accrued interest thereon and she is permitted to

withdraw the amount immediately after the deposit.

The 4 th petitioner is entitled for the amount of Rs.2,00,000/-

along with the accrued interest thereon and he is permitted to

withdraw the amount immediately after the deposit.

The petitioners are not entitled to claim any interest during the

period of dismissal till the date of restoration, if any.

Rs.2,000/- is fixed as advocate fee as per Rule 15 of Advocate

Fee Rules, 2010.

Typed directly on computer to my dictation. Corrected, signed and

pronounced by me in the open court, this the 07th day of April, 2025.

Chairman, Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal-cum- II Additional District Judge, Madanapalle.

Appendix of Evidence

Witnesses examined

For the petitioners For the Respondents

P.W.1 : D.Saraswathi RW.1. P.Raghuram 16 MVOP. No.68/2017 (Draft )

Exhibits marked on behalf of the petitioners

Ex.A1 Certified Copy of Postmortem certificate of deceased Venkatesh.

Ex.A2 Certified copy of Inquest Report in Crime No.107 of 2013.

Ex.A3 Certified copy Charge Sheet in C.C.No.179 of 2014 on the file of JMFC., Kadiri.

Ex.A4 Certified copy of M.V.I. Report

Ex.A5 Certified copy of F.I.R No.107 of 2013 of Mudigubba P.S.

Exhibits marked on behalf of the respondents

Ex.R1 : Certified copy of Package policy No.10003/31/13/198726

issued by the 4 th respondent in the name of 3 rd respondent

for the Lorry bearing registration No. AP-02-Y-3340.

Chairman, Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal-cum- II Additional District Judge, Madanapalle.

1 | P a g e C . A . N o . 2 3 2 o f 2 0 1 8

IN THE COURT OF THE SECOND ADDITIONAL DISTRICT AND SESSIONS

JUDGE AT MADANAPALLE.

Present : Sri. Bandela Abraham, II Addl. District & Sessions Judge, Madanapalle.

Friday, the Fourth (04th) day of April, Two thousand and Twenty-Five. (2025).

CRIMINAL APPEAL No. 232 of 2018

( in )

C.C. No. 465 of 2017

( On the file of II Additional Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Madanapalle )

Name and descriptive : Yanamala Bhaskar Reddy, aged about particulars of the appellant / 44 years, S/o Bayya Reddy, Residing at Accused Kosuvaripalli Road, Mudivedu Village, Kurabalakota Mandal, Under suspension CEO of PACS, Angallu.

Name of the Respondent / : The State of Andhra Pradesh, Complainantrepresented by its Station House Officer, Mudivedu Police Station. Crime No. 29 of 2017 (U/Sections 353 of I.P.C.)

Conviction and sentence : Accused found guilty for the offence imposed on the appellant / punishable under section 353 of IPC, Accused by the trial court and he is convicted under section 255 (2) Cr.p.c., and sentenced to undergo Simple Imprisonment for a period of SIX Months and he also sentenced to pay fine of Rs.5,000/- in default to suffer Simple Imprisonment for a period of One month. The remand period of the accused, if any, shall be given set off under section 428 of Cr.p.c. The accused is appraised of his right of appeal.

Whether the trial court : MODIFIED. sentence is confirmed, or reversed or modified, if In the result, criminal appeal is modified, the modification:: partly allowed by confirming the conviction dated 28-09-2018 passed by the learned II Additional Judicial

Magistrate of First Class, Madanapalle,

in C.C. No. 465 of 2017 against the appellant / accused. The sentence imposed by the trial court to undergo Simple Imprisonment for a period of SIX months is set aside and the conviction is confined to imposing fine only. The payment of fine is enhanced from 2 | P a g e C . A . N o . 2 3 2 o f 2 0 1 8

Rs.5000/- to Rs.15,000/-. The appellant / accused is directed to pay enhanced fine amount of Rs.10,000/- for the offence punishable under section 353 of I.P.C. in default to undergo S.I. for a period of THREE months. The rest of the claim to set aside the conviction is dismissed. On payment of enhanced fine amount of Rs.2,000/- the appellant / accused shall be set at liberty if he is not required in any other crime / cases. The bail bonds of the appellant / Accused shall be in force for a period of Six months. Accordingly the appeal is disposed of.

Date of lower court judgment : 28-09-2018

Date of presentation of appeal : 08-10-2018

Date of admission : 08-10-2018

Date of notice to respondent : 22-10-2018

Date of final hearing : 26-03-2025

Date of Appeal judgment : 04-04-2025

This Criminal Appeal is coming on 26-03-2025, before me for final hearing in the presence of Sri G.Bayya Reddy, Advocate for appellant /

Accused and the Addl. Public Prosecutor for the State; upon haring their arguments, perusing the relevant material on record and having stood over for consideration till this day, this court delivered the following :

J U D G M E N T

(1) This Criminal Appeal is filed by the appellant / Accused under section 374 (3) Cr.P.C., praying to allow the appeal by setting aside the conviction and sentence dated 28-09-2018 passed by the learned II Additional

Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Madanapalle, in C.C. No.465 of 2017, and to

acquit the appellant / Accused in the interest of justice.

3 | P a g e C . A . N o . 2 3 2 o f 2 0 1 8 (2) The State of A.P., represented by the Inspector of Police,

Mudivedu Police Station, has laid a charge sheet against the accused in Crime

No.29 of 2017 of Mudivedu Police Station for the offence punishable under sections 353, 506 of I.P.C. alleging that Lw1 Beedam Rajana and Lw-2 Side

Ramesh are the clerk and attender in Primary Agriculture Cooperative Society (PACS), Angallu respectively. About 3 years back, the accused being the CEO of said PACS was suspended due to misuse of society funds to a tune of

Rs.32,00,000/- (Rupees Thirty Two Lakhs only) and now he was under suspension. On 24-04-2017 at about 2.50 P.M. when LW1 and Lw2 discharging their official duties in PACS Office, the accused came to the said office in intoxication state and behaved highhandedly and abused them in filthy language and thrown the office furniture and chairs then and there. When Lw1 and 2 tried to prevent his acts the accused abused them in unparliamentary language and try to beat with chappal and obstructed their legitimate duties and then he went away. LW1 lodged a report before LW6 G Venkateswarlu, SI of Police, Mudivedu police station who in turn registered a case in

Cr.No.29/2017 U/sec.353 and 506 of IPC and he took up further investigation, visited the scene of offence, examined the same, prepared rough sketch. He examined witnesses there and recorded their statements. On 05-05-2017 the

SI of Police served Sec.41-A Cr.P.C notice on the accused with a direction to appear before the court to answer the charge. Hence, the accused has committed the offence punishable under section 353 of IPC.

(3) The learned II Additional Judicial Magistrate of First Class,

Madanapalle took cognizance against the accused for the offence punishable under section 353 of I.P.C.. On appearance of the accused, necessary copies supplied to him as required under section 207 of Cr.P.C.

4 | P a g e C . A . N o . 2 3 2 o f 2 0 1 8 (4) The accused was examined under section 251 of Cr.P.C. and the contents of accusation for the offence under section 353 of I.P.C. was read over and explained to him in his known language Telugu, for which he denied the accusation, pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried.

(5) During the course of trial on behalf of the prosecution, PWs. 1 to 5 were examined and Ex.P-1 to P-4 got marked. After completion of prosecution evidence, the accused was examined under section 313 of Cr.P.C., by explaining the incriminating material available in the evidence of prosecution witnesses against him, for which he denied the same and reported no defence evidence.

(6) After full pledged trial the trial court held that the accused found guilty for the offence punishable under section 353 of IPC, he is convicted under section 255 (2) Cr.P.C., and sentenced to undergo Simple Imprisonment for a period of SIX Months and he also sentenced to pay fine of Rs.5,000/- in default to undergo suffer Simple Imprisonment for a period of one month for the offence punishable U/sec.353 IPC.

(7) Aggrieved by the same, the appellant / accused has preferred the present criminal appeal with the following grounds :-

That the order of the trial court is against the weight of evidence and probabilities of the case;

The trial court ought to have acquitted the accused on the ground that prosecution failed to prove its case beyond all reasonable doubt;

The trial court failed to act that the prosecution miserably failed to substantiate the charges levelled against the accused; 5 | P a g e C . A . N o . 2 3 2 o f 2 0 1 8

The trial court ought to have seen that the evidence as to scene of offence is highly inconsistent;

The trial court should have seen that the evidence of Pw1 to Pw5 is discrepant and such the same is not worthy of any evidence;

The trial court failed to see that the evidence of disinterested witnesses is not let in and non examination of such witnesses is a serious lacuna in the prosecution case;

The trial court has not considered the evidence let i by the prosecution in the proper perspective and the appreciation is faulty.;

The finding of the trial court are based on only presumptions, surmises and conjectures, which are not relevant to the circumstances of the case;

The trial court ought to have accepted the defence version that this case is foisted case against the accused at the behest of PW1 as there were disputes related to PACS, Angallu and the accused are pending;

The learned judge should have seen that the circumstances relied upo by the prosecution is not proved ad even if proved are wholly insufficient to base conviction.;

The prosecution has to establish is case and it cannot take advantage of the case of the accused, which fact has not been considered by the trial court;

Hence, the appeal to set aside the judgment in toto passed against the appellant / accused by the learned II Additional Judicial Magistrate of First

Class, Madanapalle in C.C. No.465 of 2017 on 28-09-2018 by allowing the appeal in the interest of justice.

(8) The point for consideration of this appeal is :

6 | P a g e C . A . N o . 2 3 2 o f 2 0 1 8

Whether the prosecution has even proved its case against the convicted accused for the offence u/sec.

353 of IPC beyond all reasonable doubt? If so, the impugned judgment and order of conviction of the trial court against the appellant / accused is tenable in law or to be set aside ?

(9) P O I N T :

The learned counsel for the appellant / accused would submit that there are developed versions of the prosecution case from stage to stage; that there is a delay of nearly 24 hours in lodging the report with the police; that the appellant / accused was remained as an employee though he was under suspension and therefore, the provisions of section 353 of IPC does not attract to the present case on hand; that the rupture or conflict between two employees generally does not automatically attract the provisions of section 353 IPC; that the alleged case of prosecution deals with assault or criminal force to deter a public servant from discharging their duty; that the case of prosecution is not that PWs. 1 and 2 were assaulted or threatened directly by the appellant / accused while performing their duties; that as per the case of the prosecution the accused entered into the office and enquired about the others, but not directly assaulted or deter the employees working there in the office; that the trial court erred in coming to the conclusion that the accused has found guilty for the offence punishable under section 353 of IPC and hence the appellant is entitled for an acquittal and prayed to set aside the conviction imposed by the trial court and to acquit the appellant / accused for the alleged offence punishable under section 353 of IPC.

(10) To prove the offence under section 353 of Indian Penal Code, the prosecution must establish the assault or criminal force used by the accused against a public servant and further, the said assault occurred while the public 7 | P a g e C . A . N o . 2 3 2 o f 2 0 1 8 servant was performing his duties. More importantly, the alleged assault was intended to prevent or deter the public servant from performing his duties. The learned counsel for the appellant / accused submitted that the prosecution has failed to prove the essential requirements that the public servant was assaulted or subjected to criminal force when he was carrying out his responsibilities or he attempts to discouraging him from doing his duties.

(11) Admittedly, there was acquaintance between PWs.1 and 2 and the accused as the accused was suspended C.E.O., and PW1 was clerk and PW2 is the Attender working in Primary Agricultural Co-Operative Society, Angallu.

It is clear from the evidence of PWs. 1 and 2 that the accused entered into the office and asked their superior officers and abused them. Thereafter altercations took place between PWs. 1 and 2. It is enlighten by the learned counsel for the appellant that as per the statement given by Basireddy

Venkataramana Reddy before the police that when he along with

J.Ramachandra Reddy and P,Mohan Reddy were present before the

Panchayath office, Angallu they heard cries from PACS Office and then they entered into the PACS office. It is further stated that PWs. 1 and 2 were attending their duties. Whereas the learned counsel for the defence has elicited from PW1 during his cross examination that on the date of alleged incident, Ramachandra Reddy, Mohan Reddy and Mallaiah and Reddeppa are the customers were present at that time. In his chief examination, PW3

B.Venkataramana Reddy deposed that he was called by PW1 through phone, while he was present at Madanapalle stating that the accused made galata in

PACS, Angallu. Further, PW4 also stated in his chef examination that he went to PACS Bank to deposit the loan amount of his mother. But the statement given by PW3 before the police and the evidence of PW3 in his chief examination are with two different versions. However, he declared as hostile 8 | P a g e C . A . N o . 2 3 2 o f 2 0 1 8 witness and except marking his 161 Cr.p.c. statement as Ex.P2, nothing is elicited in support of the incident. However, PW4 in his cross examination admitted that he did not state before the police that the accused made galata and abused PWs. 1 and 2 in filthy language and asked him and LW4 to leave from the said bank as the police did not ask the same.

(12) PW1 denied the suggestion that he did not mention in Ex.P1 or report or 161 Cr.p.c. statement that the accused came to the office and asked their superior officers and abused them in filthy language; that he stated that he does not know whether the accused has filed a requisition to supply the documents with regard to the present case and also through R.T.I. Act.

Further, PW1 denied the suggestion that accused did not visit the Bank and never abused and never beat him with chappal. The case of the prosecution is that the accused attempted to beat PWs. 1 and 2 with chappal but it is not the specific case of the prosecution that he beat PW.1 with chappal. Therefore, the prosecution case is not clearly and fully established that the accused was in a drunken state by the alleged time. It is the argument of the learned counsel for the appellant that if a person is in a drunken stage, he cannot claim the stairs and enter in the first floor of the building where the PACS office is situated. This fact has not been considered by the trial court. No medical certificate is obtained by the investigation officer in respect of consuming alcohol by the accused.

(13) Upon considering the material available on record, particularly the status and position of the appellant / accused that he was under suspension and he is facing Departmental Enquiry. Further, he applied for certain copies of official documents under RTI Act. The prosecution witnesses have also admitted the same, but they failed to state whether the documents required by the appellant accused were served on him or not. Therefore, as argued by 9 | P a g e C . A . N o . 2 3 2 o f 2 0 1 8 the learned counsel for the appellant, when the appellant / accused questioned about the supply of documents required by him, and the superior officials of

PACS are evading supplying the same, he questioned the attitude of the superior officers in their absence. There are no good terms between the officials of PACS, Angallu and the appellant accused as on the date of incident as he was facing departmental enquiry in respect of misappropriation of amounts.

(14) Therefore, there are contradictory versions of Prosecution witnesses in respect of overt acts of the appellant / accused and also the presence of PWs. 3 and 4 at the relevant time of alleged incident. Further, there is no explanation from the prosecution that why the superior officers were not present at the PACS office at the relevant time. When PW3 is alleged to be the Chairman of PACS Bank, the hostility of PW3 does matter in suspecting the case of the prosecution. Therefore, this court is of the humble opinion that the facts in respect of attending the appellant accused on the relevant date of incident were completely not picturized by the prosecution.

(15) Though the prosecution failed to bring the complete picture and the complete particulars in respect of the Departmental Enquiry, the prosecution is able to prove the overt act of the accused in appearing in the

PACS Office and questioning the authorities present at that time about the documents and the attitude of his superiors. Though the accused denied the case of the prosecution in toto, he failed to adduce defence evidence in respect of his defence.

(16) In view of the above discussion and the submissions of the learned counsel appearing for the appellant / accused and the learned

Additional Public Prosecutor for the state, I find no substance and force in the

10 | P a g e C . A . N o . 2 3 2 o f 2 0 1 8 contentions of the learned counsel for the appellants / accused that there is no such accident occurred and it can be presumed that the incident was occurred and as far as to the extent of involvement of the accused in disturbing PWs. 1 and 2 while they are discharging their official duties by disposition of the chairs and tables and records of the office. Since the trial court failed to discuss all aspects borne out from the record, and consider the lacunae on the part of the prosecution in its impugned judgment, the same warrants interference in the present appeal in respect of quantum of sentence imposed against the accused, but the conviction is not liable to be set aside. Hence, the appeal is liable to be allowed in part. However, in my considered opinion that setting aside the sentence of Simple Imprisonment for a period of SIX months and retaining the order of imposing fine by the trial court and imposing additional fine amount of Rs.10,000/- for the offence punishable under section 353 I.P.C., against the appellant / accused will meet the ends of justice.

(17) In the result, criminal appeal is partly allowed by confirming

the conviction dated 28-09-2018 passed by the learned II Additional

Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Madanapalle, in C.C. No. 465 of 2017

against the appellant / accused. The sentence imposed by the trial court

to undergo Simple Imprisonment for a period of SIX months is set aside

and the conviction is confined to imposing fine only. The payment of

fine is enhanced from Rs.5000/- to Rs.15,000/-. The appellant / accused

is directed to pay enhanced fine amount of Rs.10,000/- for the offence

punishable under section 353 of I.P.C. in default to undergo S.I. for a

period of THREE months. The rest of the claim to set aside the

conviction is dismissed. On payment of enhanced fine amount of

Rs.10,000/- the appellant / accused shall be set at liberty if he is not

required in any other crime / cases. The bail bonds of the appellant /

11 | P a g e C . A . N o . 2 3 2 o f 2 0 1 8

Accused shall be in force for a period of Six months. Accordingly the

appeal is disposed of.

Typed to my dictation directly on computer. Corrected, Signed and

pronounced by me in the open Court on this the 04th day of April, 2025.

Sd/- B Abraham,

II Addl. District & Sessions Judge. Madanapalle.

Appendix of evidence - Nil –

Sd/- B Abraham,

II Addl. District & Sessions Judge. Madanapalle.

1 | P a g e C . A . N o . 2 3 2 o f 2 0 1 8

IN THE COURT OF THE SECOND ADDITIONAL DISTRICT AND SESSIONS

JUDGE AT MADANAPALLE.

Present : Sri. Bandela Abraham, II Addl. District & Sessions Judge, Madanapalle.

Friday, the Fourth (04th) day of April, Two thousand and Twenty-Five. (2025).

CRIMINAL APPEAL No. 232 of 2018

( in )

C.C. No. 465 of 2017

( On the file of II Additional Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Madanapalle )

Name and descriptive : Yanamala Bhaskar Reddy, aged about particulars of the appellant / 44 years, S/o Bayya Reddy, Residing at Accused Kosuvaripalli Road, Mudivedu Village, Kurabalakota Mandal, Under suspension CEO of PACS, Angallu.

Name of the Respondent / : The State of Andhra Pradesh, Complainantrepresented by its Station House Officer, Mudivedu Police Station. Crime No. 29 of 2017 (U/Sections 353 of I.P.C.)

Conviction and sentence : Accused found guilty for the offence imposed on the appellant / punishable under section 353 of IPC, Accused by the trial court and he is convicted under section 255 (2) Cr.p.c., and sentenced to undergo Simple Imprisonment for a period of SIX Months and he also sentenced to pay fine of Rs.5,000/- in default to suffer Simple Imprisonment for a period of One month. The remand period of the accused, if any, shall be given set off under section 428 of Cr.p.c. The accused is appraised of his right of appeal.

Whether the trial court : MODIFIED. sentence is confirmed, or reversed or modified, if In the result, criminal appeal is modified, the modification:: partly allowed by confirming the conviction dated 28-09-2018 passed by the learned II Additional Judicial

Magistrate of First Class, Madanapalle,

in C.C. No. 465 of 2017 against the appellant / accused. The sentence imposed by the trial court to undergo Simple Imprisonment for a period of SIX months is set aside and the conviction is confined to imposing fine only. The payment of fine is enhanced from 2 | P a g e C . A . N o . 2 3 2 o f 2 0 1 8

Rs.5000/- to Rs.15,000/-. The appellant / accused is directed to pay enhanced fine amount of Rs.10,000/- for the offence punishable under section 353 of I.P.C. in default to undergo S.I. for a period of THREE months. The rest of the claim to set aside the conviction is dismissed. On payment of enhanced fine amount of Rs.2,000/- the appellant / accused shall be set at liberty if he is not required in any other crime / cases. The bail bonds of the appellant / Accused shall be in force for a period of Six months. Accordingly the appeal is disposed of.

Date of lower court judgment : 28-09-2018

Date of presentation of appeal : 08-10-2018

Date of admission : 08-10-2018

Date of notice to respondent : 22-10-2018

Date of final hearing : 26-03-2025

Date of Appeal judgment : 04-04-2025

This Criminal Appeal is coming on 26-03-2025, before me for final hearing in the presence of Sri G.Bayya Reddy, Advocate for appellant /

Accused and the Addl. Public Prosecutor for the State; upon haring their arguments, perusing the relevant material on record and having stood over for consideration till this day, this court delivered the following :

J U D G M E N T

(1) This Criminal Appeal is filed by the appellant / Accused under section 374 (3) Cr.P.C., praying to allow the appeal by setting aside the conviction and sentence dated 28-09-2018 passed by the learned II Additional

Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Madanapalle, in C.C. No.465 of 2017, and to

acquit the appellant / Accused in the interest of justice.

3 | P a g e C . A . N o . 2 3 2 o f 2 0 1 8 (2) The State of A.P., represented by the Inspector of Police,

Mudivedu Police Station, has laid a charge sheet against the accused in Crime

No.29 of 2017 of Mudivedu Police Station for the offence punishable under sections 353, 506 of I.P.C. alleging that Lw1 Beedam Rajana and Lw-2 Side

Ramesh are the clerk and attender in Primary Agriculture Cooperative Society (PACS), Angallu respectively. About 3 years back, the accused being the CEO of said PACS was suspended due to misuse of society funds to a tune of

Rs.32,00,000/- (Rupees Thirty Two Lakhs only) and now he was under suspension. On 24-04-2017 at about 2.50 P.M. when LW1 and Lw2 discharging their official duties in PACS Office, the accused came to the said office in intoxication state and behaved highhandedly and abused them in filthy language and thrown the office furniture and chairs then and there. When Lw1 and 2 tried to prevent his acts the accused abused them in unparliamentary language and try to beat with chappal and obstructed their legitimate duties and then he went away. LW1 lodged a report before LW6 G Venkateswarlu, SI of Police, Mudivedu police station who in turn registered a case in

Cr.No.29/2017 U/sec.353 and 506 of IPC and he took up further investigation, visited the scene of offence, examined the same, prepared rough sketch. He examined witnesses there and recorded their statements. On 05-05-2017 the

SI of Police served Sec.41-A Cr.P.C notice on the accused with a direction to appear before the court to answer the charge. Hence, the accused has committed the offence punishable under section 353 of IPC.

(3) The learned II Additional Judicial Magistrate of First Class,

Madanapalle took cognizance against the accused for the offence punishable under section 353 of I.P.C.. On appearance of the accused, necessary copies supplied to him as required under section 207 of Cr.P.C.

4 | P a g e C . A . N o . 2 3 2 o f 2 0 1 8 (4) The accused was examined under section 251 of Cr.P.C. and the contents of accusation for the offence under section 353 of I.P.C. was read over and explained to him in his known language Telugu, for which he denied the accusation, pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried.

(5) During the course of trial on behalf of the prosecution, PWs. 1 to 5 were examined and Ex.P-1 to P-4 got marked. After completion of prosecution evidence, the accused was examined under section 313 of Cr.P.C., by explaining the incriminating material available in the evidence of prosecution witnesses against him, for which he denied the same and reported no defence evidence.

(6) After full pledged trial the trial court held that the accused found guilty for the offence punishable under section 353 of IPC, he is convicted under section 255 (2) Cr.P.C., and sentenced to undergo Simple Imprisonment for a period of SIX Months and he also sentenced to pay fine of Rs.5,000/- in default to undergo suffer Simple Imprisonment for a period of one month for the offence punishable U/sec.353 IPC.

(7) Aggrieved by the same, the appellant / accused has preferred the present criminal appeal with the following grounds :-

That the order of the trial court is against the weight of evidence and probabilities of the case;

The trial court ought to have acquitted the accused on the ground that prosecution failed to prove its case beyond all reasonable doubt;

The trial court failed to act that the prosecution miserably failed to substantiate the charges levelled against the accused; 5 | P a g e C . A . N o . 2 3 2 o f 2 0 1 8

The trial court ought to have seen that the evidence as to scene of offence is highly inconsistent;

The trial court should have seen that the evidence of Pw1 to Pw5 is discrepant and such the same is not worthy of any evidence;

The trial court failed to see that the evidence of disinterested witnesses is not let in and non examination of such witnesses is a serious lacuna in the prosecution case;

The trial court has not considered the evidence let i by the prosecution in the proper perspective and the appreciation is faulty.;

The finding of the trial court are based on only presumptions, surmises and conjectures, which are not relevant to the circumstances of the case;

The trial court ought to have accepted the defence version that this case is foisted case against the accused at the behest of PW1 as there were disputes related to PACS, Angallu and the accused are pending;

The learned judge should have seen that the circumstances relied upo by the prosecution is not proved ad even if proved are wholly insufficient to base conviction.;

The prosecution has to establish is case and it cannot take advantage of the case of the accused, which fact has not been considered by the trial court;

Hence, the appeal to set aside the judgment in toto passed against the appellant / accused by the learned II Additional Judicial Magistrate of First

Class, Madanapalle in C.C. No.465 of 2017 on 28-09-2018 by allowing the appeal in the interest of justice.

(8) The point for consideration of this appeal is :

6 | P a g e C . A . N o . 2 3 2 o f 2 0 1 8

Whether the prosecution has even proved its case against the convicted accused for the offence u/sec.

353 of IPC beyond all reasonable doubt? If so, the impugned judgment and order of conviction of the trial court against the appellant / accused is tenable in law or to be set aside ?

(9) P O I N T :

The learned counsel for the appellant / accused would submit that there are developed versions of the prosecution case from stage to stage; that there is a delay of nearly 24 hours in lodging the report with the police; that the appellant / accused was remained as an employee though he was under suspension and therefore, the provisions of section 353 of IPC does not attract to the present case on hand; that the rupture or conflict between two employees generally does not automatically attract the provisions of section 353 IPC; that the alleged case of prosecution deals with assault or criminal force to deter a public servant from discharging their duty; that the case of prosecution is not that PWs. 1 and 2 were assaulted or threatened directly by the appellant / accused while performing their duties; that as per the case of the prosecution the accused entered into the office and enquired about the others, but not directly assaulted or deter the employees working there in the office; that the trial court erred in coming to the conclusion that the accused has found guilty for the offence punishable under section 353 of IPC and hence the appellant is entitled for an acquittal and prayed to set aside the conviction imposed by the trial court and to acquit the appellant / accused for the alleged offence punishable under section 353 of IPC.

(10) To prove the offence under section 353 of Indian Penal Code, the prosecution must establish the assault or criminal force used by the accused against a public servant and further, the said assault occurred while the public 7 | P a g e C . A . N o . 2 3 2 o f 2 0 1 8 servant was performing his duties. More importantly, the alleged assault was intended to prevent or deter the public servant from performing his duties. The learned counsel for the appellant / accused submitted that the prosecution has failed to prove the essential requirements that the public servant was assaulted or subjected to criminal force when he was carrying out his responsibilities or he attempts to discouraging him from doing his duties.

(11) Admittedly, there was acquaintance between PWs.1 and 2 and the accused as the accused was suspended C.E.O., and PW1 was clerk and PW2 is the Attender working in Primary Agricultural Co-Operative Society, Angallu.

It is clear from the evidence of PWs. 1 and 2 that the accused entered into the office and asked their superior officers and abused them. Thereafter altercations took place between PWs. 1 and 2. It is enlighten by the learned counsel for the appellant that as per the statement given by Basireddy

Venkataramana Reddy before the police that when he along with

J.Ramachandra Reddy and P,Mohan Reddy were present before the

Panchayath office, Angallu they heard cries from PACS Office and then they entered into the PACS office. It is further stated that PWs. 1 and 2 were attending their duties. Whereas the learned counsel for the defence has elicited from PW1 during his cross examination that on the date of alleged incident, Ramachandra Reddy, Mohan Reddy and Mallaiah and Reddeppa are the customers were present at that time. In his chief examination, PW3

B.Venkataramana Reddy deposed that he was called by PW1 through phone, while he was present at Madanapalle stating that the accused made galata in

PACS, Angallu. Further, PW4 also stated in his chef examination that he went to PACS Bank to deposit the loan amount of his mother. But the statement given by PW3 before the police and the evidence of PW3 in his chief examination are with two different versions. However, he declared as hostile 8 | P a g e C . A . N o . 2 3 2 o f 2 0 1 8 witness and except marking his 161 Cr.p.c. statement as Ex.P2, nothing is elicited in support of the incident. However, PW4 in his cross examination admitted that he did not state before the police that the accused made galata and abused PWs. 1 and 2 in filthy language and asked him and LW4 to leave from the said bank as the police did not ask the same.

(12) PW1 denied the suggestion that he did not mention in Ex.P1 or report or 161 Cr.p.c. statement that the accused came to the office and asked their superior officers and abused them in filthy language; that he stated that he does not know whether the accused has filed a requisition to supply the documents with regard to the present case and also through R.T.I. Act.

Further, PW1 denied the suggestion that accused did not visit the Bank and never abused and never beat him with chappal. The case of the prosecution is that the accused attempted to beat PWs. 1 and 2 with chappal but it is not the specific case of the prosecution that he beat PW.1 with chappal. Therefore, the prosecution case is not clearly and fully established that the accused was in a drunken state by the alleged time. It is the argument of the learned counsel for the appellant that if a person is in a drunken stage, he cannot claim the stairs and enter in the first floor of the building where the PACS office is situated. This fact has not been considered by the trial court. No medical certificate is obtained by the investigation officer in respect of consuming alcohol by the accused.

(13) Upon considering the material available on record, particularly the status and position of the appellant / accused that he was under suspension and he is facing Departmental Enquiry. Further, he applied for certain copies of official documents under RTI Act. The prosecution witnesses have also admitted the same, but they failed to state whether the documents required by the appellant accused were served on him or not. Therefore, as argued by 9 | P a g e C . A . N o . 2 3 2 o f 2 0 1 8 the learned counsel for the appellant, when the appellant / accused questioned about the supply of documents required by him, and the superior officials of

PACS are evading supplying the same, he questioned the attitude of the superior officers in their absence. There are no good terms between the officials of PACS, Angallu and the appellant accused as on the date of incident as he was facing departmental enquiry in respect of misappropriation of amounts.

(14) Therefore, there are contradictory versions of Prosecution witnesses in respect of overt acts of the appellant / accused and also the presence of PWs. 3 and 4 at the relevant time of alleged incident. Further, there is no explanation from the prosecution that why the superior officers were not present at the PACS office at the relevant time. When PW3 is alleged to be the Chairman of PACS Bank, the hostility of PW3 does matter in suspecting the case of the prosecution. Therefore, this court is of the humble opinion that the facts in respect of attending the appellant accused on the relevant date of incident were completely not picturized by the prosecution.

(15) Though the prosecution failed to bring the complete picture and the complete particulars in respect of the Departmental Enquiry, the prosecution is able to prove the overt act of the accused in appearing in the

PACS Office and questioning the authorities present at that time about the documents and the attitude of his superiors. Though the accused denied the case of the prosecution in toto, he failed to adduce defence evidence in respect of his defence.

(16) In view of the above discussion and the submissions of the learned counsel appearing for the appellant / accused and the learned

Additional Public Prosecutor for the state, I find no substance and force in the

10 | P a g e C . A . N o . 2 3 2 o f 2 0 1 8 contentions of the learned counsel for the appellants / accused that there is no such accident occurred and it can be presumed that the incident was occurred and as far as to the extent of involvement of the accused in disturbing PWs. 1 and 2 while they are discharging their official duties by disposition of the chairs and tables and records of the office. Since the trial court failed to discuss all aspects borne out from the record, and consider the lacunae on the part of the prosecution in its impugned judgment, the same warrants interference in the present appeal in respect of quantum of sentence imposed against the accused, but the conviction is not liable to be set aside. Hence, the appeal is liable to be allowed in part. However, in my considered opinion that setting aside the sentence of Simple Imprisonment for a period of SIX months and retaining the order of imposing fine by the trial court and imposing additional fine amount of Rs.10,000/- for the offence punishable under section 353 I.P.C., against the appellant / accused will meet the ends of justice.

(17) In the result, criminal appeal is partly allowed by confirming

the conviction dated 28-09-2018 passed by the learned II Additional

Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Madanapalle, in C.C. No. 465 of 2017

against the appellant / accused. The sentence imposed by the trial court

to undergo Simple Imprisonment for a period of SIX months is set aside

and the conviction is confined to imposing fine only. The payment of

fine is enhanced from Rs.5000/- to Rs.15,000/-. The appellant / accused

is directed to pay enhanced fine amount of Rs.10,000/- for the offence

punishable under section 353 of I.P.C. in default to undergo S.I. for a

period of THREE months. The rest of the claim to set aside the

conviction is dismissed. On payment of enhanced fine amount of

Rs.10,000/- the appellant / accused shall be set at liberty if he is not

required in any other crime / cases. The bail bonds of the appellant /

11 | P a g e C . A . N o . 2 3 2 o f 2 0 1 8

Accused shall be in force for a period of Six months. Accordingly the

appeal is disposed of.

Typed to my dictation directly on computer. Corrected, Signed and

pronounced by me in the open Court on this the 04th day of April, 2025.

Sd/- B Abraham,

II Addl. District & Sessions Judge. Madanapalle.

Appendix of evidence - Nil –

Sd/- B Abraham,

II Addl. District & Sessions Judge. Madanapalle.

1

IN THE COURT OF THE VII ADDITIONAL DISTRICT JUDGE, MADANAPALLE

Present : Sri Bandela Abraham,

II Additional District Judge,

Madanapalle

FAC VII Additional District Judge, Madnapalle

Friday the Twenty first day of March, 2025

O.E.P No. 297/2023

M.V.O.P NO.153/2008

BETWEEN:

1. Syed Kalesha, s/O Baba Saheb, Aged about 62 Years,

2. S. Ameerunnisa, w/o Syed Kalesha, aged about 53 years,

Both are Muslims, residing at Aravapalem Veedhi, Sodum.

Decree Holders

And:

National Insurance Company Limited, Reptd., by its Branch Manager, D. No. 16/1254, 1st Floor, Nellore.

Judgment Debtor

This Execution Petition coming on 03.03.2025 before me in the presence of D. Venkata Ramana Reddy , Advocate for the J.Drs and of Sri D. Venkateswa Reddy , Advocate for the 2nd Judgment Debtor and upon perusing the counter and other material papers on the record and having stood over for consideration till this day, the Court delivered the following :

O R D E R :

This Execution Petition filed under Order 21 Rule 43, 64 to 66 CPC prays to attach the movables which are available in the Office of the 2nd Judgment Debtor / Insurance Company at Madanapalle and if he fails to pay the E.P. debt, sell the moveables and the amount so realized may be paid to the Decree Holders.

Therefore, by accepting the calculations of the Respondent / J.Drs., this court is of the humble opinion that the J.Drs. have filed excess amounts than what actually they have to pay as per the directions of the Honourable High Court. Hence, the E.P. is liable to be closed.

In the result, the E.P. closed.

Typed to my dictation to the Stenographer and after correction pronounced by me in the open Court, this the 21 st day of March, 2025.

II Additional District Judge,

Madanapalle

FAC VII Additional District Judge, Madanapalle 2

The Respondent / Judgment Debtor has clearly mentioned the calculations in his counter wherein it is mentioned that the 2nd J.Dr. / Insurance company has paid excess amount of Rs.52,763/- than the amount what actually has to be paid to the Decree Holders.

On the other hand, a fresh and simple calculation memo is filed on behalf of the Decree Holders on 03-03-2025, wherein it is mentioned that the total amount deposited by the 2nd Respondent / Judgment Debtor / Insurance company is Rs.8,68,379/- and the balance amount is Rs.3,25,748/- Whereas in the 7th column of the Execution petition, it is shown as Rs.8,78,379/- only paid by the J.Dr. / Insurance company and the balance is shown as Rs,3,12,748/.

Therefore, there is ambiguity in respect of the figures shown by the J.Drs. in the

Execution petition and the fresh calculation memo.

Further, as per the argument advanced by the learned counsel for the

J.Dr / Insurance Company, the D.Hrs. have not shown the amounts towards TDS to a tune of Rs.10,954/- and Rs.72,864/-. Further, he argued that the Decree

Holder has shown total interest on the enhanced compensation and interest awarded by the Honourable High Court.

Admittedly, the O.E.P. is filed after the orders passed by the Honourable

High Court of A.P. in M.A.C.T. No.02 of 2016 dated 18-01-2023. When such is the case, the Decree Holders are expected to file a detailed calculation memo in respect of already deposited amounts by the 2nd J.Dr. / Insurance Company as per the orders of the A.C.T / II ADJ., MPl, and the amounts deposited after passing the orders by the High Court of A.P., separately. But the J.Drs. failed to do so. However, the calculations mentioned in the counter of the J.Dr. /

Insurance Company is impressing as it contains the total calculations separately and the TDS amounts which reveals that the J.Drs. have paid an excess amount of Rs.52,763/-.

Therefore, by accepting the calculations of the Respondent / J.Drs., this court is of the humble opinion that the J.Drs. have filed excess amounts than what actually they have to pay as per the directions of the Honourable High

Court. Hence, the E.P. is liable to be closed.

In the result, the E.P. closed.

Typed to my dictation to the Stenographer and after correction pronounced by me in the open Court, this the 21st day of March, 2025.

3

II Additional District Judge,

Madanapalle

FAC VII Additional District Judge, Madanapalle