Sri Ch.kishore Kumar

1  XII ADJ Court, Vsp.

AS No.204/2009

IN THE COURT OF THE XII ADDL. DISTRICT JUDGE: VISAKHAPATNAM

Present : Sri Ch.Kishore Kumar

XII ADDL. DISTRICT JUDGE

Friday, this the 28 th day of October, 2016.

APPEAL SUIT NO.204/2009

Between:

1. Smt. Sripada Venkata Surya Ramana Subbalakshmi, W/o Sripada Satyanarayana, Household Duties, residing at D.No.4-47-7, Vijayanagar Colony, Pedawaltair, Visakhapatnam (Died).

2. Sri Sripada Krishna Mohan, S/o Satyanarayana, (corrected as per orders on 10.3.2016 in I.A.151/2016) Working as system Executive of E-Funds India International, residing at D.No.4-47-7, Vijayanagar Colony, Pedawaltair, Visakhapatnam.

…..Appellants/Plaintiffs

And:

1. The state of Andhra Pradesh, rep. by its District Collector, Visakhapatnam.

2. Mandal Revenue Officer, Anandapuram Mandal, Visakhapatnam District.

3. Gudla Nookayya, S/o late Durgayya, Kothuru, Kallodipalem Hamlet, Gambheeram Village, Anandapuram Mandal, Visakhapatnam District.

4. Uppada Narasinga Rao, S/o Appanna, Kothuru, Kallodipalem Hamlet, Gambheeram Village, Anadapuram Mandal, Visakhapatnam District.

…..Respondents/defendants

APPEAL PRESENTED UNDER ORDER 41 RULE 1 R/W SECTION 94 CPC AGAINST THE DECREE AND JUDGMENT IN O.S.NO.135/1999 DATED 20.9.2006 ON THE FILE

OF II ADDL. SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE, VISAKHAPATNAM.

Between:

1. Smt. Sripada Venkata Surya Ramana Subbalakshmi, W/o Sripada Satyanarayana, Household Duties, residing at D.No.4-47-7, Vijayanagar Colony, Pedawaltair, Visakhapatnam (Died).

2. Sri Sripada Krishna Mohan, S/o Satyanarayana, (corrected as per orders on 10.3.2016 in I.A.151/2016) Working as system Executive of E-Funds India International, residing at D.No.4-47-7, Vijayanagar Colony, Pedawaltair, Visakhapatnam.

.....Plaintiffs

And

1. The state of Andhra Pradesh, rep. by its District Collector, Visakhapatnam.

2. Mandal Revenue Officer, Anandapuram Mandal, Visakhapatnam District.

3. Gudla Nookayya, S/o late Durgayya, Kothuru, Kallodipalem Hamlet, Gambheeram Village, Anandapuram Mandal, Visakhapatnam District.

4. Uppada Narasinga Rao, S/o Appanna, Kothuru, Kallodipalem Hamlet, Gambheeram Village, Anadapuram Mandal, Visakhapatnam District.

…..Defendants

This appeal is coming before me for final hearing on 29.8.2016 in the presence of Sri Tenneti Viswanatha Sastry, Advocate for appellant and of Sri N.Ravikumar, Advocate for 3rd respondent and R1, R2 and R4 remained exparte and upon perusing the material papers on record, upon hearing the arguments on both sides and the appeal having stood over for consideration till this day, this Court delivered the following:- 2  XII ADJ Court, Vsp.

AS No.204/2009

J U D G M E NT

1.This is an appeal filed by the Appellant/plaintiff against the Decree and

Judgment dated 20.9.2006 in O.S.No.135/1999 on the file of II Addl. Senior Civil

Judge, Visakhapatnam for permanent injunction restraining the defendants and

their men from ever interfering with his peaceful possession and enjoyment of the suit land.

2. The brief averments mentioned in the plaint are that the deceased plaintiff is the sister of one Konduri Kameswari Krishnaveni. They are the only heirs to their parents. Their parents died long back without leaving any properties. The deceased plaintiff’s husband is a retired government employee.

The deceased plaintiff’s sister married one Seetharama Murthy who was not having sufficient means to maintain his wife had no protection in her life. Thus, both Krishnaveni and her husband were under the protection of deceased plaintiff and her husband to have some means to sustain herself the said Krishnaveni got job as Prema Samajam Balavadi Teacher in Visakhapatnam District. While so, the husband of the said Krishnaveni predeceased her and they have no issues at all.

While so the said Krishnaveni working as Balavadi Teacher, the then Tahsildar of

Bheemunipatnam assigned tentatively Ac.3-00 cents of Banjar land(vagu) sitatued at Gambheeram village covered by S.No.195/1 under D.B Patta

No.222/87 in its proceedings dt.15.3.1978 and delivered the said possession of the said land to Krishnaveni. Therafter the said Krishnaveni brough the said land into cultivation by reclaiming as a dry land after covering up the ditches and leveled the mounds and cleared the bushes and brought it into cultivation by raising commercial crops and dry crops by employing labour. Thereafter the said

Krishnaveni requested the 2nd defendant to grant the regular “D” form Patta in her favour and the 2nd defendant after satisfying himself got the land measured and sub dividing from the other lands he issued D Form patta on 14.6.1985 under the same D.R.No.222/87 to an extent of Ac.3.26 cents covered by S.No.195/1(G) 3  XII ADJ Court, Vsp.

AS No.204/2009

of Gambheeram village as a dry land. Subsequently on 21.5.1989 the 2nd defendant issued 10(1) account copy and the 2nd defendant RDO jointly issued a pattadar pass book for the above said land i.e. suit schedule property in the name of said Krishnaveni on 30.7.1987. Even after issuance of the said regular D form patta the said Krishnaveni had been cultivating the land with the assistance of the husband of the 1st plaintiff and the 2nd plaintiff who is the eldest son of deceased 1st plaintiff by engaging labour and by paying land revenue to the government till her death on 3.9.1998. While the said Krishnaveni was enjoying the suit land the defendants 3 and 4 and their henchmen are causing loss to the crops raised on the suit land to some extent, the said Krishnaveni and neigbouring D form patta holders gave report to SHO Anadapuram P.S and the police filed charge sheet against them in CC.269/95 on the file of AJFCM,

Bheemunipatnam. The defendants 3 and 4 thereafter wanted to take revenge against the said Krishnaveni, they approached to defendants 1 and 2 with a request to cancel the D form patta standing in favour of the said Krishnaveni and allot the suit lands for their house sites. After the demise of Krishnaveni the deceased 1st plaintiff as sole legal heir of Krishnaveni inherited the suit property.

Even after demise of the said Krishnaveni the deceased 1st plaintiff has been in possession and enjoyment of the suit land by paying land revenue to the government. But the 1st plaintiff reliably came to know that the 2nd defendant recently sent proceedings to the 1st defendnt recommending for cancellation said deform patta issued in favour of the Krishnaveni and the MRO had inspected the suit land on 15.2.1999 with pressure of defendants 3 and 4 and other villagers of the Gambheeram village and expressed openly that the D form patta standing on the name of Krishnaveni be cancelled and the said land will be allotted to D3 and

D4 and others as house sites. The threatened action of the 2nd defendant without giving any show cause notice to the 1st plaintiff is opposed to natural justice. By taking such an action by 2nd defendant it amounts to denial of possessory title 4  XII ADJ Court, Vsp.

AS No.204/2009

inherited by the plaintiff from the Krishnaveni. Hence the suit.

3.The 2nd defendant filed written statement which was adopted by 1st defendant by denying all material avermens mentioned in plaint. It is submitted that according to the assignment policy of the Government, Government lands have to be assigned to the landless poor who are depending upon cultivation eak out their livelihood. IN this case original assignee died without having any heirs and therefore the land shall automatically vest in the government. The government is liberty to utilize such lands for public purpose. The government has right to cancel the patta under provisions of the assignment rules. Further the plaintiff is not a family member of the deceased pattadar and there is no relationship between these two persons. The plaintiff is not connected with her sister and the sites claiming ownership by way of inheritance. It is further submitted that the family means husband, wife, son and unmarried daughter.

Further the plaintiff admitted that her husband was Government employee it clearly indicates that the plaintiff is not an agriculturist and since the Government land has to be assigned to the landless poor persons only and the plaintiff has no inheritable interest and the land automatically vest in the government. Further the originally assignee married and died without any issues and therefore the parents are in no way concerned with the assigned land. Further whatever the adjustments were made by the plaintiff and her sister regarding family maintenance it would not confer any inheritable title over the land assigned by the government. Further Corporation of changes in Revenue records, payment of land revenue, issue of pattadar pass books, title deed in favour of the deceased not at all confer any title to the plaintiff. As such the plaintiff is not entitled to claim ownership over the land in question. In this case the original assignee died without having any heirs and therefore the land shall automatically vest in the government lands. The government is at liberty to utilize such land for public purpose. Further the plaintiff filed suit without observing mandatory provisions as 5  XII ADJ Court, Vsp.

AS No.204/2009

contemplated under Section 80 CPC. Therefore the suit is liable to be dismissed.

4.The 4th defendant filed written statement which was adopted by 3rd defendant by denying all material avermens mentioned in plaint. It is submitted that plaintiff and late Krishanaveni never in possession and enjoyment of the schedule property and they never raised any crop in the plaint schedule property. The suit schedule land is a barren vacant land belonging to the

Government and the villagers of the Gambeeram including these defendant tried to bring the land into cultivation, but the crops could not grow due to the mature of the soil. Then these defendants and others persons of Gambeeram village made representations to defendants 1 and 2 requesting them to assign the suit lands and other land for house sites. The case in C.C.No.269/95 was ended in acquittal. The plaintiff has no right to file suit and her remedy is otherwise under the Board standing orders and under the law in force. Therefore the suit is liable to be dismissed.

5. Basing on the above pleadings, the trial court had framed following issues:-

1. Whether the plaintiff is in possession and enjoyment of the plaint schedule property?

2. Whether the plaintiff is entitled for permanent injunction?

3. To what relief?

6.On behalf of the plaintiff, PWs.1 and 2 were examined and Exs.A1 to A11 were marked. On behalf of the defendants. DW.1 was examined and no documents were marked.

7.The learned trial judge after considering the oral and documentary evidence, the suit was dismissed with costs.

8.Aggrieved by the said decree and judgment of the trial court, the plaintiff preferred this appeal.

9.The learned counsel for the Appellant/plaintiff contended that the decree and judgment of the lower court are contrary to the law, weight of 6  XII ADJ Court, Vsp.

AS No.204/2009

evidence and probability of the case; that the lower court failed to appreciate the oral and documentary evidence in the case and misinterpreted the law relating to hereditary ship and assignments under ‘D’ Patta; that the lower court should have seen that whatever rights D pattadar may have or heritable under Hindu law and Hindu Succession act and that property escheats to government only in the absence of any heir; that the lower court should have seen that an heir to a ‘D’ pattadar can be landed rich and cannot be disqualified from inherit ‘D’

Pattadar land and that 1st plaintiff being the natural sister of Krishnaveni succeeded to the plaint schedule land as there is no other legal heirs and she is in possession of the property. He further contended that the lower court should have seen that the defence of defendants 1 and 2 has to substance and desert, it is a regrettable that state government should go to the extent of denying the relationship and operation of law of succession and that D pattadar cannot loose possession unless State lawfully evicts the pattadar. Therefore prays to allow the appeal by setting aside the decree and judgment of the lower court.

10. Now the points for determination are:

1. Whether the plaintiff is in possession and enjoyment of the plaint schedule property?

2. Whether the plaintiff is entitled for permanent injunction?

3. Whether there are any grounds to interfere with the findings of the lower court?

POINTS 1 to 3:-

11.For the purpose of convenience, the parties in appeal are referred with their status in the original suit.

12.The suit in appeal was filed by the deceased plaintiff for permanent injunction restraining the defendants and their men from ever interfering with the peaceful possession and enjoyment of the suit schedule property. During the pendency of the suit the plaintiff died and after death of the plaintiff the 2nd plaintiff who is her son and legatte under registered will dt.2.8.1999 through which plaintiff bequeathed suit property in favour of 2nd plaintiff is impleaded as 7  XII ADJ Court, Vsp.

AS No.204/2009

per orders passed in I.A.No.440/2001 dt.14.12.2001.

13.To prove the case the 2nd plaintiff examined himself as PW.1. In evidence affidavit PW.1 reiterated all the averments mentioned in the plaint. The case of PW.1 is that his mother i.e. deceased plaintiff is sister of Kondurie

Kameswari Krishnaveni. The deceased plaintiff and said Krishnaveni are only legal heirs to their parents. His grand parents died long back and as said Krishnaveni had no properties she came under protection of his father and mother though she married one Seetharam Murthy who was not having sufficient mesne to maintain his wife and as such both Krishnaveni and her husband were under protection of his parents. While so the husband of the Krishnaveni pre deceased her and they have no issues at all. The then Tahsildar assigned Ac.3-00 Banzar land situated at

Gambeeram village covered by S.No.190/1 under Ex.A1 proceedings and delivered the possession of the land to his aunt Krishnaveni. Therafter the said

Krishnaveni brought the said land into cultivation by reclaiming it as dry land after covering up the ditches and leveled the mounts and clear the bushes and brought it into cultivation by raising commercial corps and dry crops. On request of the Krishnaveni the 2nd defendant got the land measured and subdivided from other land and issued Ex.A2 regular D form patta on 14.6.1985 to an extent of Ac 3-20 cents covered by S.No.195/1g of Gambeeram village. Subsequently on 21.5.89 the 2nd defendant issued 10(1) account copy of Gambeeram village. The 2nd defendant and RDO of Visakhapatnam jointly issued pattadar passbook in the name of Krishnaveni for the suit schedule property on 30.7.1997. Even after issuance of the regular D form patta for the suit schedule property, the

Krishnaveni with the assistance of deceased plaintiff’s husband and with his assistance had been raising dry crops as well as Kasurina tope and also appointed watchman. The defendants 3 and 4 and their henchmen causing loss to the crops in the suit land and thereby the Krishnaveni and neighbouring D form patta holder gave report against them to SHO, Anadapuram P.S and police filed 8  XII ADJ Court, Vsp.

AS No.204/2009

charge sheet against them in CC.269/95 on the file of AJFCM, Bheemunipatnam.

Thereafter the defendants 3 and 4 approached the defendants 1 and 2 with a request to cancel the said D Form Patta issued in favour of his aunt Krishnaveni and allot the said land for their house sites. After the demise of his aunt on 3.9.1998 his mother i.e. deceased plaintiff as legal heir of the said Krishnaveni succeeded the schedule property and had been in peaceful possession and enjoyment of the said land. The deceased plaintiff reliably came to know that 2nd defendant sent proceedings to 1st defendant recommending for cancellation of D form patta and the MRO had inspected the suit land on 15.2.1999 with the pressure of defendants 3 and 4 and other villagers of Gambheeram village and expressed openly that D form patta of his aunt be cancelled and the said land will be allotted to defendant 3 and 4. Thus all the defendants colluded together tried to dispossesses the deceased plaintiff from the suit land. In support of his evidence, he got marked Ex.A1 proceedings dt.15.3.1978 issued by Tahsildar

Bheemunipatnam, Ex.A2 ‘D’ form Patta issued by MRO Anandapuram in favour of

Konduri Kameswari Krishnaveni, Ex.A3 death certificate of K.K.Krishnaveni, Ex.A4 pattadar pass book issued by MRO in favour of K.K.Krishnaveni, Ex.A5 bunch of land revenue receipts, Ex.A6 extract of the will executed by Mandalika Venkata

Subbamma in favour of deceased plaintiff and Krishnaveni, Ex.A7 is the Photostat copy of original of Ex.A6, Ex.A8 is the death certificate of Venkata Subbamma,

Ex.A9 certified copy of 10(1) account for the schedule property, Ex.A10 death certificate of deceased plaintiff and Ex.A11 registered will executed by deceased plaintiff in favour of the 2nd plaintiff. In support of his evidence the 2nd plaintiff examined PW.2. As seen from the evidence of PW.2, he has been working as

Watchman to the plaint schedule property of PW.1 on monthly salary of Rs.500/- and 3rd and 4th defendants used to threatened him for removal and trees and plantations made by PW.1. About two months back the MRO and his men came to suit schedule property and disturbed some plantations and trees besides 9  XII ADJ Court, Vsp.

AS No.204/2009

demolishing the thatched hut in the schedule property stating that the said land belongs to the Government.

14.No witness is examined on behalf of the defendants 1 to 3. 4th defendant examined himself as DW.1. He stated that the deceased plaintiff never in possession and enjoyment of the suit schedule property and that she never raised any crops and that the suit schedule land is bearren vacant land belonging to the government and himself and 3rd defendant tried to bring the land into cultivation but the crops could not grow due to the nature of the soil and that himself and other persons of Gambeeram village made representations to defendants 1 and 2 requesting them to assigned suit land and other lands for house sites and they made enquires and found that it is fit land for housing purpose.

15.As seen from the pleadings and evidence adduced by both parties it is an undisputed fact that the then Tahsildar of Bheemunipatanam assigned tentatively Ac 3-00 banjara land situated in Gambheeram village covered by

S.No.195/1 under Ex.A1 proceedings dt.15.3.1978 to K.K.Krishnaveni. Further it is also undisputed fact that Ex.A2 D form patta issued in favour of said Krishnaveni by MRO Anandapuram on 14.6.1985 to an extent of Ac3-26 cents covered by 195/1G of Gambheeram village. It is also an undisputed fact that the name of the

D form patta holder K.K.Krishnaveni is incorporated in Ex.A9 10(1) settlement register in respect of Ac 3-26 cent in S.NO.195/1G. It is also an undisputed fact that Ex.A4 pattadar pass book was issued in the name of K.Krishnaveni, D form patta holder in respect of schedule property i.e. Ac 3-26 cents in S.No.195/1G in

Gambheeram village. Further Ex.A5 cisth receipt shows that K.K.Krishnaveni had been paying cisth for the schedule property.

16.The case of the plaintiff is that after the death of K.K.Krishnaveni on 3.9.1998, deceased plaintiff being a sole legal heir of assignee Krishnaveni inherited the schedule property and she has been in possession and enjoyment of 10  XII ADJ Court, Vsp.

AS No.204/2009

the same and that D3 and D4 without having any manner of right and causing loss to the suit land and insisted D1 and D2 to cancel the D form patta issued in the name of K.K.Krishnavei and allot the said land to them.

17.The contention of the 2nd defendant that the original assignee

K.K.Krishnaveni died without having any heir and therefore the land shall automatically vest in Government and the Government is the liberty to utilize such land for public purpose the government has right to cancel the patta under the provisions of Assignment rules and that the plaintiff is not a family mebers of deceased pattadar and there is no relationship between these two persons and that the family members means husband, wife, son and unmarried daughter and that the deceased plaintiff’s husband was a government employee and that plaintiff is not an agriculturist and as such the plaintiff has no heritable interest and the land automatically vest in the government. As such the plaintiff is not eligible to claim ownership over the land in question. The respondents 3 and 4 contended that the plaintiff is never in possession and enjoyment of the schedule property. On perusal of Ex.A3 death certificate of the K.K.Krishnaveni D form patta holder shows that she died on 3.9.1998. The evidence of PW.1 shows that the husband of the K.K.Krishnaveni predeceased to her and they have no issues at all. The K.K.Krishnaveni died leaving behind the deceased plaintiff as her sole legal heir and she inherited the schedule property. The defendants did not dispute the death of the K.K.Krishnaveni and her husband. Further the defendants 1 and 2 also admitted in their counter that Krishnaveni died without any issues.

As per condition No.1 in Ex.A1 proceedings the land assigned in favour of late

K.K.Krishnaveni is ‘heritable’. But not alienable. The contention of the defendants 1 and 2 is that original assignee K.K.Krishnaveni died without having any heirs and that the plaintiff is not a family member of the deceased plaintiff and that family members means husband, wife, sons and unmarried daughter and that as the plaintiff is only a sister to the deceased assignee, the land 11  XII ADJ Court, Vsp.

AS No.204/2009

assigned to her shall automatically vest in the government. The definition of family as alleged by the defendants 1 and 2 in their written statement, no where mentioned in Andhra Pradesh Assigned Lands(Prohibition of Transfers) Act 1977 or in Ex.A1 proceedings. As per the conditions mentioned in Ex.A1 proceedings the land assigned to assignee is heritable. As per Section 15 of Hindu Succession

Act the plaintiff who is a natural sister being a sole legal heir of deceased

K.K.Krishnaveni inherited the schedule property. Further the defendants contended that there is no relationship between plaintiff and deceased

K.K.Krishnaveni. To prove the relationship between the plaintiff and deceased

K.K.Krishnaveni, PW.1 got marked Ex.A6 extract of registered will dt.12.9.1985 executed by mother of the plaintiff Mandalika Venkata Subbamma. The recitals of

Ex.A6 shows that the husband of the testator M.V.Subbamma predeceased her and that the plaintiff and deceased K.K.Krishnaveni are her daughters. Further

Ex.A8 death certificate of M.V.Subbamma shows that she died on 29.12.1986. The defendant did not dispute the genuineness and veracity of Ex.A6 the extract of the registered will dt.12.9.1985. Thus, it is clear that deceased plaintiff is own sister of late K.K.Krishnaveni and after the death of deceased K.K.Krishnaveni the plaintiff being a sole legal heir inherited the schedule property under Section 15 of Hindu Succession Act. It is well settled law that the possession follows the title.

As such after demise of Krishnaveni the plaintiff being sole legal heir of deceased

Krishnaveni the plaintiff inherited the property and she has been in possession and enjoyment of the same. The evidence of PW.1 further shows that the plaintiff came to know that the plaintiff sent proceedings to the 1st defendant recommending for cancelation of said D form patta and the MRO has inspected the suit land on 15.2.1999 with pressure of defendants 3 and 4 and other villagers of the Gambheeram village. The evidence of PW.1 is unchallenged by defendants 1 and 2. Further it is also not the contention of the D1 and D2 that they initiated proceedings for cancelation of patta and resume the possession of 12  XII ADJ Court, Vsp.

AS No.204/2009

the suit schedule property after the death of deceased K.K.Krishnaveni assignee.

Further it is also not the contention of defendants 1 and 2 that the original assignee K.K.Krishnaveni alienated the plaint schedule property to the plaintiff by violating the terms and conditions mentioned in Ex.A1 proceedings and Ex.A2 D form patta or against the provisions of the A.P. Assigned Lands (Prohibition of

Transfer) Act 1977. Further the evidence of DW.1 shows that himself, 3rd defendant and villagers of Gambheeram trying to suit land into cultivation and that they made representation to defendants 1 and 2 requesting to assign the suit land and they made enquiries and found that it is a fit land for housing purpose. It goes to show that the defendants tried to interfere with the peaceful possession and enjoyment of the plaintiff over the suit schedule property as contended by plaintiff. Further Ex.A11 registered will dt.12.8.1989 shows that the deceased plaintiff bequeathed the schedule property to PW.1. The defendants did not dispute the genuineness and veracity of Ex.A11 registered will. So, after the death of the deceased plaintiff PW.1 got the schedule property and has been in possession and enjoyment of the schedule property. PW.2 is a watchman for the lands of PW.1 supported the evidence of PW.1 that the defendants 3 and 4 used to threatened him for removals of trees and plantations made by pw.1 and about two months back MRO and his men came to suit schedule property and disturbed plantation and tress. Further DW.1 admitted in the cross examination that plaintiffs are in possession and enjoyment of the suit schedule land. Except suggestions nothing is elicited from the cross examination of PW.2 to disbelieve his evidence. So, the evidence adduced by the plaintiff clearly established that the plaintiff is in possession and enjoyment of the suit schedule property and the defendants are trying to interfere with the possession of property. The lower court did not appreciate the evidence adduced by both parties and came to wrong conclusion in dismissing the suit. Therefore the appeal is liable to allowed by setting aside the decree and judgment of the lower court.

13  XII ADJ Court, Vsp.

AS No.204/2009

18. In the result, appeal is allowed without costs by setting aside the decree and judgment passed in O.S.135/1999 on the file of II Addl. Senior Civil

Judge, Visakhapatnam on 20.9.2006. The permanent injunction is granted

restraining the respondents/defendants from interfering with the peaceful possession and enjoyment of the appellants/plaintiffs over the plaint schedule property.

Typed to my dictation by the Gr.I Stenographer, corrected and pronounced by me in the open court, on this the 28 th day of October, 2016.

XII ADDL. DISTRICT JUDGE

VISAKHAPATNAM

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

-N I L - XII ADJ:: VSP

Copy to: The II Addl. Senior Civil Judge, Visakhapatnam.

14  XII ADJ Court, Vsp.

AS No.204/2009

Date of presentation:26.3.2008 Date of filing:10.8.2009

IN THE COURT OF THE XII ADDL. DISTRICT JUDGE: VISAKHAPATNAM

Present : Sri Ch.Kishore Kumar

XII ADDL. DISTRICT JUDGE

Friday, this the 28 th day of October, 2016.

APPEAL SUIT NO.204/2009

Between:

1. Smt. Sripada Venkata Surya Ramana Subbalakshmi, W/o Sripada Satyanarayana, Household Duties, residing at D.No.4-47-7, Vijayanagar Colony, Pedawaltair, Visakhapatnam (Died).

2. Sri Sripada Krishna Mohan, S/o Satyanarayana, (corrected as per orders on 10.3.2016 in I.A.151/2016) Working as system Executive of E-Funds India International, residing at D.No.4-47-7, Vijayanagar Colony, Pedawaltair, Visakhapatnam.

…..Appellants/Plaintiffs

And:

1. The state of Andhra Pradesh, rep. by its District Collector, Visakhapatnam.

2. Mandal Revenue Officer, Anandapuram Mandal, Visakhapatnam District.

3. Gudla Nookayya, S/o late Durgayya, Kothuru, Kallodipalem Hamlet, Gambheeram Village, Anandapuram Mandal, Visakhapatnam District.

4. Uppada Narasinga Rao, S/o Appanna, Kothuru, Kallodipalem Hamlet, Gambheeram Village, Anadapuram Mandal, Visakhapatnam District.

…..Respondents/defendants

APPEAL PRESENTED UNDER ORDER 41 RULE 1 R/W SECTION 94 CPC AGAINST THE DECREE AND JUDGMENT IN O.S.NO.135/1999 DATED 20.9.2006 ON THE FILE OF II ADDL.

SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE, VISAKHAPATNAM.

Between:

1. Smt. Sripada Venkata Surya Ramana Subbalakshmi, W/o Sripada Satyanarayana, Household Duties, residing at D.No.4-47-7, Vijayanagar Colony, Pedawaltair, Visakhapatnam (Died).

2. Sri Sripada Krishna Mohan, S/o Satyanarayana, (corrected as per orders on 10.3.2016 in I.A.151/2016) Working as system Executive of E-Funds India International, residing at D.No.4-47-7, Vijayanagar Colony, Pedawaltair, Visakhapatnam.

.....Plaintiffs

And

1. The state of Andhra Pradesh, rep. by its District Collector, Visakhapatnam.

2. Mandal Revenue Officer, Anandapuram Mandal, Visakhapatnam District.

3. Gudla Nookayya, S/o late Durgayya, Kothuru, Kallodipalem Hamlet, Gambheeram Village, Anandapuram Mandal, Visakhapatnam District.

4. Uppada Narasinga Rao, S/o Appanna, Kothuru, Kallodipalem Hamlet, Gambheeram Village, Anadapuram Mandal, Visakhapatnam District.

…..Defendants

This is an appeal filed by the Appellant/2nd plaintiff to set aside the Decree and Judgment dated 20.9.2006 in O.S.No.135/1999 on the file of II Addl. Senior Civil

Judge, Visakhapatnam and to allow the appeal with costs.

The Value of the appeal for the purpose of court fee and jurisdiction is Rs.1,79,300/- and a court fee of Rs.4,226/- is paid U/Sec.26(a) r/w Sec.49 of A.P.C.F and S.V.Act.

15  XII ADJ Court, Vsp.

AS No.204/2009

This appeal is coming before me for final hearing on 29.8.2016 in the presence of Sri Tenneti Viswanatha Sastry, Advocate for appellant and of Sri N.Ravikumar, Advocate for 3rd respondent and R1, R2 and R4 remained exparte and upon perusing the material papers on record, upon hearing the arguments on both sides and the appeal having stood over for consideration till this day, this Court doth order and:-

D E C R E E

1) that the appeal be and the same is hereby allowed by setting aside the decree and judgment passed in O.S.135/1999 on the file of II Addl. Senior Civil Judge, Visakhapatnam on 20.9.2006; and

2) that the permanent injunction is granted restraining the respondents/defendants from interfering with the peaceful possession and enjoyment of the appellants/plaintiffs over the plaint schedule property; and

3) that there be no costs.

Given under my hand and the seal of the court, this the 28th day of October, 2016.

XII ADDL. DISTRICT JUDGE

VISAKHAPATNAM.

MEMORANDUM OF COSTS

FOR APPELLANTFOR RESPONDENTS

No costs memo is filed Stamp on vakalat Rs. 2-00 Court fee paid Rs. 4,226-00 Process fee paid Rs. 150-00 Advocate fee Rs. 7,079-00 Typing & Misc. charges Rs. 100-00 __________ Appeal Costs certifiedRs.11,557-00

LOWER COURT COSTS

Stamp on vakalat Rs. 2-00 Court fee paid Rs. 4,226-00 Process fee paid Rs. 150-00 Advocate fee Rs. 7,079-00 Typing & Misc. charges Rs. 100-00 _____________ Lower Costs certifiedRs.11,557-00

Throughout costs certifiedRs.23,114-00

XII ADJ/VSP 16  XII ADJ Court, Vsp.

AS No.204/2009

1 XII ADJ Court, Vsp. MOP 96/2014

BEFORE THE CHAIRMAN - MOTOR VEHICLE ACCIDENTS CLAIMS TRIBUNAL -

cum- XII ADDL. DISTRICT & SESSIONS JUDGE : VISAKHAPATNAM

Present: Sri Ch.Kishore Kumar Chairman, MACT - cum – XII ADDL. DIST. & SESSIONS JUDGE : Visakhapatnam

Monday, this the 31 st day of October, 2016

M.O.P.No.96/2014

Between:

1. Marupilla Madhusudhana Rao (Died)

2. Marupilla Nagamani, W/o late Madhusudhana Rao, Hindu, aged 33 years, House wife, R/o Peddipalem Village, Anandapuram Mandal, Visakhapatnam District.

3. Marupilla Chandrahas, S/o late Madhusudhana Rao, Hindu, aged 16 years, r/at –rest do-.

4. Marupilla Jaya Vardhan, S/o late Madhusudhana Rao, Hindu, aged 14 years, R/at -rest do-. (Being 3 & 4 petitioners are minors being represented by their mother and natural guardian the 2nd proposed petitioner herein) (Proposed petitioners are L.Rs., to the 1st petitioner ordered in I.A.520/2015, dt.28.4.2015.)

.....Petitioners

A n d:

1. Dommety Siva Kumar, S/o Venkateswara Rao, Hindu, age not known, R/at D.No.30-1-69, Jypore Road, Jyothi Hospital, Saluru-535591, Vizianagaram District (Owner of the crime vehicle bearing No.AP 35 P 6453 motor car).

2. Bharathi Axa General Insurance Co., Ltd., 1st floor, The Farns Loan S.No.28, Next to Akem Balliet, Doddanikundi outer Ring Road, Bangalore (Insurer of the Crime Vehicle bearing No.AP 35 P 6453 Motor Car).

3. Md.Anvar Hussen, S/o late Bakshi, 48 years, Muslim by caste, Saluru, Vizianagaram District (Driver of the Crime vehicle bearing No.AP 35 P 6453). (Amended as per order in I.A.527/15, dt.28.4.2015)

...Respondents

This petition has come on 21.10.2016 for final hearing before me in the presence of Sri P.Visweswara Rao, Sri M.Venkateswara Rao and Sri S.V.Ramana, Advocates for claim petitioner and of Sri D.Siva Prasad, Advocate for 2nd respondent and respondents 1 and 3 remained exparte and upon perusing the material papers on record and upon hearing the arguments on both sides 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 claim petitioner U/Sec. 166 of

M.V.Act seeking compensation for an amount of Rs.12,00,000/- on account of injuries sustained by him in motor vehicle accident occurred on 4.3.2013.

2. The brief averments mentioned in the claim petition are that the claim petitioner used to earn an amount of Rs.10,000/- per month as a Supervisor in 2 XII ADJ Court, Vsp. MOP 96/2014 Sri Venkateswara Developers, Visakhapatnam. On 4.3.2013 at 3-45 p.m the claim petitioner along with his friend Gundu Seshu were proceeding on motorcycle bearing No.AP 31 AW 0349 from Anandapuram Sub Registrar Office to Peddipalem. When they reached near Orian Hotel on N.H.16 road, Vellanki, the car bearing registration No.AP 35 P 6453 proceeding from Andapuram towards

Thagarapuvalasa drove it in a rash and negligent manner and dashed the motorcycle from behind and thereby the petitioner and his friend fell on the road and sustained grievous and simple injuries. The petitioner sustained injuries to his right leg. Immediately he was shifted to Seven Hills Hospital for treatment.

On the statement of the petitioner, Anandapuram Traffic P.S registered a case in

Cr.No.26/2013 u/s 337 and 338 and after investigation the charge sheet is filed against the driver of the car. The claim petitioner spent huge amount for the treatment, extra nourishment and for surgery of removal of his leg. Hence the petition.

3. The respondents 1 and 3 are set exparte.

4. The 2nd respondent filed counter by denying all material averments mentioned in the claim petition and also denied mode and manner of accident stated by the claim petitioner in the claim petition. This respondent submits that the accident occurred due to rash and negligent on the part of the rider of the motorcycle only and offending car belongs to the 1st respondent was falsely implicated in order to get compensation from the 2nd respondent. This respondent denied nature of injuries sustained by claim petitioner and also denied the amount spent for the treatment, medicines and extra nourishment.

Further this respondent submit that the driver of the car is not having valid, effective and specified class of driving licence. Further the amount of compensation claimed by the claim petitioner under various heads is excessive and exorbitant. Therefore, the petition is liable to be dismissed against this respondent.

3 XII ADJ Court, Vsp. MOP 96/2014

5. Basing on the above pleadings, the following issues were settled for trial:

1. Whether the petitioner sustained injuries in the motor vehicle accident occurred on 4.3.2013, due to rash and negligent driving of Car bearing No.AP 35 P 6453 by its driver?

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

3. To what relief?

6.After framing of issues the claim petitioner died and thereupon petitioners 2 to 4 are added as L.Rs of the claim petitioner as per orders passed in I.A.No.520/2015 dt.28.4.2015. Thereafter the 2nd respondent filed additional counter by stating that petitioners 2 to 4 are not at all entitled for compensation for the death of the injured claim petitioner, as the death of the claim petitioner is natural death and there is no nexus between the death of the deceased and the alleged injuries sustained by him in the accident. Therefore, the petition is liable to be dismissed against this respondent.

7. On behalf of the petitioner, PWs.1 to 4 are examined and Exs.A-1 to

A-10 are marked. On behalf of the 2nd respondent, RW.1 is examined and Exs.B1 to B3 are marked.

8. As per orders dt.19.10.2016 in I.A.869/2016 filed under section 170 of M.V Act the 2nd respondent is permitted to take all defences that are available to the 1st respondent.

9. Heard both sides counsel.

ISSUE NO.1:-

10.This claim petition is filed by the deceased claim petitioner U/Sec.

166 of M.V. Act seeking compensation on account of injuries sustained by him.

During pendency of the claim petition the claim petitioner died and thereby the petitioners 2 to 4 who are wife and sons are added as L.Rs of the deceased claim petitioner as per orders passed in I.A.NO.520/2015 dt.28.4.2015. As per the pleadings and evidence adduced before the Court, it is an undisputed fact that the 1st respondent is owner, 2nd respondent is insurer and 3rd respondent is 4 XII ADJ Court, Vsp. MOP 96/2014 driver of the Car bearing registration No.AP 35 P 6453(herein after called as crime car).

11. To prove his case, the 2nd petitioner who is the wife of the deceased claim petitioner examined as PW.1. PW.1 deposed about the sustaining of injuries by deceased claim petitioner in the motor vehicle accident occurred on 4.3.2013 near Orian Hospital, Velanki, due to rash and negligent driving of the driver of the crime car. In support of her evidence she got marked attested copies of Ex.A1 FIR, Ex.A2 wound certificate, Ex.A3 charge sheet, Ex.A4 MVI report,

Ex.A5 photostat copy of cover note, Ex.A6 requisition of ASI and Ex.A7 bunch of medical bills issued by seven hills hospital, Ex.A8 death certificate of the deceased claim petitioner, Ex.A9 bill issued by Ottobock dt.11.3.2014 along with advance receipt and Ex.A10 certificate issued by Navauga constructions.

According to her evidence she is not an eye witness to the accident.

12. To prove the rash and negligence on the part of the driver of the crime car, the claim petitioners examined eye witness as PW.2. He stated that on the date of the accident he being pillion rider and deceased claim petitioner being rider of the motorcycle were proceeding on motorcycle from Anandapuram

Sub Registrar Office to go to his house at Peddipalem. When they reached near

Orian Hotel on N.H.16 road, Vellanki, the crime car proceeding from Andapuram towards Thagarapuvalasa drove it in a rash and negligent manner and dashed their motorcycle from behind and thereby himself and deceased claim petitioner fell on the road and sustained grievous injuries.

13. RW.1 who is the Senior Executive in 2nd respondent insurance company had denied rash and negligent driving on the part of the 3rd respondent and stated that the accident took place only due to rash and negligence riding of the rider of the motorcycle only.

14. On perusal of Ex.A1 FIR shows that on the statement of the deceased claim petitiner, Anandapuram P.S registered a case in Cr.No.26/2003 U/Sec 338 and 337 IPC against the driver of the crime car. The deceased claim petitioner got 5 XII ADJ Court, Vsp. MOP 96/2014 mentioned in Ex.A1 date, time, place of accident, number of the crime car is shown as AP 35 P 6435, rash and negligence of the crime car and details of injuries sustained by him and PW.2 in the accident are mentioned. Ex.A2 wound certificate issued by Seven Hills Hospital shows that immediately after the accident, the deceased claim petitioner was admitted in Hospital with history of

RTA with crush injury to right leg with comminuted fracture upperend of right tibia, multiple lacerated injuries and knee amputation was done. Ex.A6 requisition filed by ASI before the JFCM Court, Bheemunipatnam stating that during the course of investigation and on examination of witnesses it came to the notice that the complainant gave crime vehicle car No.AP 35 P 6435 instead of AP 35 P 6453 due to confusion and ignorance at the time of giving statement while under going treatment at Seven Hills Hospital. Further it is learnt that the direct witnesses also stated that the crime vehicle No.AP 35 P 6453 and request the court to rectify the crime vehicle NO. AP 35 P 6453 instead of AP 35 P 6435 to proceed further investigation. Ex.A4 MVI report shows that the MVI inspected the crime car bearing NO.AP 35 P 6453 and opined that the accident was not due to any mechanical defect of the crime car. The contents of Ex.A3 charge sheet would go to show that after completion of investigation S.I of Police,

Anandapuram P.S filed charge sheet against 3rd respondent driver of the crime car bearing No.AP 35 P 6453 under Sec.338 and 337 IPC for his rash and negligent driving of the crime car. In the list of witnesses of Ex.A4, the deceased claim petitioner is shown as defacto complainant/injured and PW.2 is shown as injured/eye witness. PWs.1 and 2 also got mentioned in the additional chief affidavit that the correct number of the crime vehicle is AP 35 P 6453.

15.The 1st respondent owner and 3rd respondent driver of the crime car did not choose to contest the case by denying the case of the claim petitioner and remained exparte. Further the 2nd respondent insurance company did not dispute genuineness and veracity of Exs.A1 to A4 and A6 and also did not dispute factum of accident, involvement of the crime car bearing NO.AP 35 P 6 XII ADJ Court, Vsp. MOP 96/2014 6453 and sustaining of injuries to deceased claim petitioner in the accident. PW.1 wife of the deceased deposed about the sustaining of injuries to her deceased husband i.e. deceased claim petitioner in the motor vehicle accident occurred on 4.3.2013. PW.2 eye witness/injured categorically stated in his evidence that while he being a pillion rider and deceased claim petitioner being rider of the motorcycle were proceeding from Anandapuram Sub Registrar office to

Peddipalem and when they reached near Orian Hotel, Velanki the driver of the crime car proceeding from Anandapuram towards Thagarapuvalasa driven it in a rash and negligent manner and dashed their motorcycle thereby they fell on the road. The 2nd respondent disputed the rash and negligence on the part of the driver of the crime car in the cross examination of PWs.1 and 2 by suggesting that the accident took place due to rash and negligence of the rider of the motorcycle. They denied the said suggestion. The 2nd respondent examined his

Senior Executive as RW.1. RW.1 denied rash and negligent on the part of the driver of the crime car stating that the accident took place due to rash and negligent riding of the rider of the motorcycle. It is not the evidence of RW.1 that he is an eye witness to the incident. The driver of the crime car is proper person to deny the evidence of PW.2/injured/eye witness or to explain as to how the accident took place. In the present case the driver of the crime car is shown as 3rd respondent but he did not choose to contest the case by denying his rash and negligent driving of the crime car and remained exparte. Further nothing is elicited form the cross examination of PWs.1 and 2 to show that claim petitioners in collusion with respondents 1 and 3 filed claim petition with false allegations in order to get compensation from the insurance company. Moreover Ex.A3 charge sheet shows that after completion of investigation 3rd respondent driver of the crime car was charge sheeted for his rash and negligent driving. RW.1 also admitted in the cross examination that after completion of investigation 3rd respondent driver of the crime car was charge sheeted for rash and negligent driving of the crime car. The evidence of PW.1 and PW.2 is corroborated with 7 XII ADJ Court, Vsp. MOP 96/2014 Exs.A1 to A4 and A6. This court does not find any reasons to disbelieve the evidence of PW.1 and Pw.2 and Exs.A1 to A4 and A6. Thus, the oral and documentary evidence adduced by the claim petitioners clearly established that deceased claim petitioner sustained grievous injuries in motor vehicle accident occurred on 4.3.2013 due to rash and negligent driving of 3rd respondent driver of the crime car. This issue is answered accordingly in favour of the petitioners.

ISSUE NO.2:

16. The evidence of PW.1 shows that immediately after the accident her deceased husband i.e. claim petitioner was shifted to Seven Hills Hospital,

Visakhapatnam wherein he was treated as inpatient and during the course of treatment his right leg was amputated and he was bed ridden and later he died due to that reason and that himself and his children are not able to maintain themselves and it is very difficult to lead their lives. The 2nd respondent disputed nature of injuries sustained by deceased claim petitioner and treatment was given to him and quantum of amount spent for treatment and medicines and that the death of the deceased is not due to injuries sustained in the accident. The 2nd respondent has given suggestions to that effect to PW.1. The evidence of PW.2 who is an eye witness corroborated the evidence of PW.1 with regard to sustaining of grievous injuries to the deceased claim petitioner and shifting of him to Seven Hills Hospital for treatment. Further to prove the nature of injuries, treatment given to the deceased claim petitioner the claim petitioners examined

PW.3 who is consultant Orthopedic Surgeon in Seven Hills Hospital. The evidence of PW.3 shows that the deceased claim petitioner admitted in hospital with crush injury with multiple fractures on his right leg with vascular injury and subsequently developed gangrene to right leg for which above knee amputation of right lower limb was done on 12.3.2013. Subsequently he was managed in the hospital with regular dressing and he was discharged from hospital on 25.3.2013.

Thereafter the deceased claim petitioner came for regular follow up treatment to the hospital and disability sustained to him was assessed by PW.3 as 60% which 8 XII ADJ Court, Vsp. MOP 96/2014 was partial and permanent in nature. Further he identified Ex.A7 bills relating to

Seven Hills Hospital and medical bills and Ex.A2 wound certificate. Except suggestions nothing is elicited from the cross examination of PW.3 to disbelieve his evidence. The evidence of PW.3 supported by Ex.A2 and A7 medical bills issued by Seven Hills hospital. Further the claim petitioners examined Manager of

Ottobock Healthcare India Private Limited as PW.4 to prove Ex.A9 bill. His evidence shows that they are running business in the name and style as Ottobock

Healthcare India Private Limited and they are providing artificial parts to human beings. In that process they provided one artificial leg to one Madhusudhanarao i.e. deceased claim petitioner on 11.3.2014 and collected a sum of Rs.1,75,000/-.

He identified Ex.A9 bill i.e. tax invoice dt.11.3.2014 along with advance receipts.

Except suggestion nothing is elicited from the cross examination of PW.4 to disbelieve his evidence and Ex.A9. The evidence of PW.1 is supported by evidence of PWs.2 to 4 and Exs.A2, A7 and A9. The evidence of PWs.1 to 4 and Exs.A2, A7 and A9 clearly established that the deceased claim petitioner sustained crush injury to right leg and he was treated in Seven Hills hospital as inpatient from 4.3.2013 to 25.3.2013 and during the course of treatment above knee of right lower limb was amputated and spent Rs.3,05,876/- for treatment and medicines as inpatient in Seven Hills Hospital and Rs.1,75,000/- for artificial leg and

Rs.18,394/- towards blood and medicines purchased from out side.

17. The petitioners contended that later the deceased claim petitioner died due to the injuries sustained in the accident. The 2nd respondent contended that the deceased died late due to ill health and not due to the injuries sustained in the motor vehicle accident. Ex.A8 death certificate of the deceased claim petitioner shows that he died on 5.11.2014. Whereas the accident took place on 4.3.2013 i.e. the deceased died after one year eight months that too after filing of claim petition. The claim petitioner did not produce any medical record to show that the deceased claim petitioner died due to injuries sustained in motor vehicle accident only. Except bare statement of PW.1 no material placed by the claim 9 XII ADJ Court, Vsp. MOP 96/2014 petitioners to show that the deceased claim petitioner died in consequence of injuries sustained by him in the accident.

18. The 2nd respondent contended that at the time of accident

PW.1/injured was proceeding on motorcycle and that as more than one vehicle involved in the accident the drivers of the both vehicles equally responsible for the accident. In support of his contention he has submitted decisions 1) 2008(1)

CCC 322(NS), Renukadevi H. etc. vs. Bangalore Metropolitan TPT Corpn. Etc.

(2) 2006 ACJ 855, Agnuru Jaya Ramulu vs, Mohammed Afzal Miyan and another.

The decisions cited by the 2nd respondent not helpful to it because it is not the pleading in the counter or it is not the evidence of RW.1 that there is a negligence on the part of the both driver of crime car and motorcycle. Moreover the oral and documentary evidence adduced by the claim petitioner clearly established that the accident took place only due to rash and negligent driving of the 3rd respondent driver of the crime car.

19. The 2nd respondent contended that since the deceased claim petitioner/injured died while pending of the claim petition, the claim petitioners who are L.Rs of the deceased are not entitled to any compensation. In support of his contention he relied upon a decision reported in 2011 (3) ALD 520 (E.Jangaiah died per LRs. Vs. S. Prathap Reddy and another) wherein it was held that to claim compensation towards loss cause to the estate the appellants have to establish that some amount has been spent for the treatment of the injuries sustained by the deceased petitioner. But except marking medical bills, no evidence adduced to prove the substantiate medical bills and therefore the appellants are not entitled for compensation as L.Rs of the deceased claimant.

The above decision is not much helpful to the 2nd respondent because in the present case the claim petitioners examined PW.3 who is orthopedic surgeon in

Seven Hills Hospital to prove Ex.A7 medical bills and hospital in patient bill and examined PW.4 Manager of Ottobock Healthcare India Private Ltd., who provides artificial leg to the deceased claim petitioner to prove Ex.A9 bills. The 2nd 10 XII ADJ Court, Vsp. MOP 96/2014 respondent did not adduce any rebuttal evidence to disprove Ex.A7 and A9 bills.

Therefore the claim petitioners 2 to 4 who are L.Rs. of deceased 1st claim petitioner entitled to amount spent for treatment and medicines to deceased claim petitioner for the injuries sustained by him in the motor vehicle accident towards loss of estate.

20. In view of the above circumstances the petitioners are entitled compensation of Rs.4,99,270/- towards loss caused to the estate as L.Rs of the deceased claimant.

21. RW.1 who is Senior Executive of 2nd respondent insurance company admitted that the crime car belongs to 1st respondent is insured with the 2nd respondent insurance company for the period from 31.5.2012 to 30.5.2013 vide

Ex.B1 policy. The date of accident is 4.3.2013. By that date Ex.B1 policy is in force. As Ex.B1 policy is in force by the date of the accident the 1st respondent being owner/insured, 2nd respondent being insurer and 3rd respondent being driver of the crime car are jointly and severally liable to pay compensation to the petitioner. This point is answered accordingly.

22.ISSUE NO.3:-

a) In the result, the petition is allowed in-part with proportionate costs by awarding compensation of Rs.4,99,270/- (Rupees four lakhs ninety nine thousand two hundred and seventy only) to petitioners.

b) The respondents 1 to 3 are jointly and severally liable to pay compensation to the petitioner with interest @ 7.5% p.a. from the date of filing of the petition i.e., from 10.9.2013 till the date of realization and they are directed to deposit the compensation amount within one month from the date of this order;

c) The entire compensation amount divided into three equal shares and allots one such share each to the petitioners 2 to 4.

d) On deposit, the 2nd petitioner is permitted to withdraw her entire 1/3rd share of compensation amount along with components of interest and costs.

e) The 3rd and 4th petitioners being minors their share of compensation amount shall be deposited in any Nationalized bank till they attain majority and 11 XII ADJ Court, Vsp. MOP 96/2014 on attaining majority they are permitted to withdraw their entire share of compensation amount along with interest accrued thereon.

g) Advocate fee is fixed at Rs.1,500/-(Rupees one thousand five hundred only).

Typed to my dictation by the Personal Assistant, corrected and pronounced by me in the open court on this, the 31 st day of October, 2016.

Chairman, MACT-cum- XII Addl Dist. & Sessions Judge, Visakhapatnam.

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

No. of Witnesses examined

For Petitioner: For Respondents :

PW-1: Marupalli NagamaniRW.1: Abdul Raheem PW-2: Gundu Seshu PW-3: Dr. Sushat Kumar Mallik PW-4: S.Santosh Kumar

No. of Exhibits Marked

FOR PETITIONER:

Ex.A-1 : Attested copy of FIR in Cr.No.26/13 of Anandapuram Traffic P.S. Ex.A-2 : Attested copy of wound certificate. Ex.A-3 : Attested copy of charge sheet. Ex.A-4 : Attested copy of MVI Report. Ex.A.5 : Photostat copy of cover note. Ex.A.6 : True copy of requisition of A.S., Anandapuram Traffic P.S. Ex.A.7 :Bunch of medical bills along with final bill issued by Seven Hills Hospital Ex.A.8 : Death certificate of deceased claim petitioner. Ex.A.9 :Hospital bill issued by Ottobock dt.11.3.2014 along with advance receipts. Ex.A10 : Certificate issued by Navayuga Constructions.

FOR RESPONDENTS:-

Ex.B1: Attested copy of policy with terms and conditions. Ex.B2: Office copy of notice issued to R1. Ex.B3: Postal acknowledgment.

XII ADJ/Vsp.

12 XII ADJ Court, Vsp. MOP 96/2014 Date of presentation:10.09.2013 Date of filing:27.01.2014

BEFORE THE CHAIRMAN - MOTOR VEHICLE ACCIDENTS CLAIMS TRIBUNAL -

cum- XII ADDL. DISTRICT & SESSIONS JUDGE : VISAKHAPATNAM

Present: Sri Ch.Kishore Kumar Chairman, MACT - cum – XII ADDL. DIST. & SESSIONS JUDGE : Visakhapatnam

Monday, this the 31 st day of October, 2016

M.O.P.No.96/2014

Between:

1. Marupilla Madhusudhana Rao (Died)

2. Marupilla Nagamani, W/o late Madhusudhana Rao, Hindu, aged 33 years, House wife, R/o Peddipalem Village, Anandapuram Mandal, Visakhapatnam District.

3. Marupilla Chandrahas, S/o late Madhusudhana Rao, Hindu, aged 16 years, r/at –rest do-.

4. Marupilla Jaya Vardhan, S/o late Madhusudhana Rao, Hindu, aged 14 years, R/at -rest do-. (Being 3 & 4 petitioners are minors being represented by their mother and natural guardian the 2nd proposed petitioner herein) (Proposed petitioners are L.Rs., to the 1st petitioner ordered in I.A.520/2015, dt.28.4.2015.)

.....Petitioners

A n d:

1. Dommety Siva Kumar, S/o Venkateswara Rao, Hindu, age not known, R/at D.No.30-1-69, Jypore Road, Jyothi Hospital, Saluru-535591, Vizianagaram District (Owner of the crime vehicle bearing No.AP 35 P 6453 motor car).

2. Bharathi Axa General Insurance Co., Ltd., 1st floor, The Farns Loan S.No.28, Next to Akem Balliet, Doddanikundi outer Ring Road, Bangalore (Insurer of the Crime Vehicle bearing No.AP 35 P 6453 Motor Car).

3. Md.Anvar Hussen, S/o late Bakshi, 48 years, Muslim by caste, Saluru, Vizianagaram District (Driver of the Crime vehicle bearing No.AP 35 P 6453). (Amended as per order in I.A.527/15, dt.28.4.2015)

...Respondents

This is a claim petition filed by the claim petitioner U/Sec. 166 of M.V.Act seeking compensation for an amount of Rs.12,00,000/- on account of injuries sustained by him in motor vehicle accident occurred on 4.3.2013 through Car bearing registration No.AP 35 P 6453, directing the respondents to pay the same with interest at 18% p.a., and costs of the petition.

Amount claimed is Rs.12,00,000/- and a Court Fee of Rs.11,360/- is paid under Rule 475(1) OF A.P.M.V.Rules, vide challan No.1, dt.2-8-2013, SBH, Dist. Court Branch, Visakhapatnam.

This petition has come on 21.10.2016 for final hearing before me in the presence of Sri P.Visweswara Rao, Sri M.Venkateswara Rao and Sri S.V.Ramana, Advocates for claim petitioner and of Sri D.Siva Prasad, Advocate for 2nd respondent and respondents 1 and 3 remained exparte and upon perusing the material papers on record and upon hearing the arguments on both sides and having stood over for consideration, till this day, this court doth Order and pass :

13 XII ADJ Court, Vsp. MOP 96/2014

D E C R E E

1. That the petition be and the same is herebyallowed in-part by awarding compensation of Rs.4,99,270/- (Rupees four lakhs ninety nine thousand two hundred and seventy only) to petitioners; and

2. that the respondents 1 to 3 are jointly and severally do pay compensation to the petitioner with interest @ 7.5% p.a. from the date of filing of the petition i.e., from 10.9.2013 till the date of realization and they are directed to deposit the compensation amount within one month from the date of this order; and

3. that the respondents do also pay to the petitioners a sum of Rs.7,514/- towards proportionate costs of the petition and advocate fee fixed by court;

and

4. that the entire compensation amount divided into three equal shares and allot one such share each to the petitioners 2 to 4; and

5. that on deposit, the 2nd petitioner be and is hereby permitted to withdraw her entire 1/3rd share of compensation amount along with components of interest and costs; and

6. that the 3rd and 4th petitioners being minors their share of compensation amount shall be deposited in any Nationalized bank till they attain majority and on attaining majority they are permitted to withdraw their entire share of compensation amount along with interest accrued thereon; and

7. that the Advocate fee is fixed at Rs.1,500/-(Rupees one thousand five hundred only).

Given under my hand and seal of the Court on this the 31 st day of October, 2016.

The Chairman, MACT – cum- XII Addl. Dist. & Sessions Judge Visakhapatnam

MEMORANDUM OF COSTS

FOR PETITIONERS FOR RESPONDENTS

Stamp on Vakalat Rs. 2.00 Court fee paid Rs.11,360/- -NIL- Proportionate C.F Rs. 4,726.00 Process fee paid Rs. 80.00 Stamps on documents Rs. 6.00 Commissioner fee Rs. 1,000.00 Advocate Fee (fixed) Rs. 1,500.00 Typing & Misc. charges Rs. 200.00 ---------------- Pro-costs allowed Rs. 7,514.00 XII ADJ/VSP

1 XII ADJ Court, Vsp. MOP 873/2014

BEFORE THE CHAIRMAN - MOTOR VEHICLE ACCIDENTS CLAIMS TRIBUNAL - cum-

XII ADDL. DISTRICT & SESSIONS JUDGE : VISAKHAPATNAM

Present: Sri Ch.Kishore Kumar Chairman, MACT - cum – XII ADDL. DIST. & SESSIONS JUDGE : Visakhapatnam

Monday, this the 31 st day of October, 2016

M.O.P.No.873/2014

Between: Kum. Annamreddy Divya, D/o Ammathalli, Hindu, aged 19 years, residing at Rampuram Village, Pendurthi Mandal, Visakhapatnam District.

....Petitioner

A n d:

1.Tirupudi Ramana, S/o China Appanna, Hindu, aged 26 years, Owner and driver of the Auto bearing No.AP 35 W 6223, residing at Achenta Nagar, Gajularega Village, Vizianagaram District. 2.National India Insurance Company Limited, Rep. by its Branch Manager, III Floor, Rao & Sons Complex, Bheind ICICI Bank, Dwarakanagar, Visakhapatnam.

...Respondents

This petition has come on 24.10.2016 for final hearing before me in the presence of Sri B.Jagannadharao, Advocate for claim petitioner and of Sri E.V.Narasimha Rao (Rajesh), Advocate for 2nd respondent and 1st respondent remained exparte and upon perusing the material papers on record and upon hearing the arguments on both sides 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 claim petitioner U/Sec. 166 of M.V.

Act seeking compensation for an amount of Rs.2,00,000/- on account of injuries sustained by her in motor vehicle accident occurred on 28.10.2013.

2.The brief averments mentioned in the claim petition are that the petitioner is studying 1st Year M.B.B.S in MIMS College, Vizianagaram. On 28.10.2013 the petitioner boarded an auto bearing No.AP 35 W 6223 at Railway

Station, Vizianagaram to go to MIMS College, 1st respondent driver of the said auto drove it in a rash and negligent manner at high speed and when reached

Ambatisatram suddenly applied brakes and thereby auto turned turtle, resulting which the petitioner fell down on the road and sustained severe injuries on the forehead, nose, on back side of the neck and spinal card. The petitioner was shifted to Tirumala Nursing Home, Vizianagara for treatment and thereafter shifted to MIMS. On report Vizianagara Traffic P.S registered a case in

Cr.No.216/2013 u/s 338 IPC against 1st respondent. Due to the grievous injuries 2 XII ADJ Court, Vsp. MOP 873/2014 sustained in the accident the petitioner suffered with untold pain and mental agony. Hence the petition.

3. The 1st respondent remained exparte.

4. The 2nd respondent filed counter by denying all material averments mentioned in the claim petition. This respondent denied mode and manner of accident stated by the claim petitioner in the claim petition. This respondent does not admit that the driver of the auto is having valid and effective driving licence to drive the auto by the date of the accident. The amount of compensation claimed by the claim petitioner under various heads is highly excessive and exorbitant. Therefore, the petition is liable to be dismissed against this respondent.

5.Basing on the above pleadings, the following issues were settled for trial:

1. Whether the petitioner sustained injuries in the motor vehicle accident occurred on 28.10.2013 due to rash and negligent driving of driver of auto bearing No.AP 35 W 6233?

2. Whether the petitioner is entitled to compensation? If so, to what amount and from which of the respondents?

3. To what relief?

6.On behalf of the petitioner, PWs.1 to 3 are examined and Exs.A-1 to A- 10 and Exs.X1 are marked. On behalf of the 2nd respondent, RW.1 is examined and Exs.B1 and B2 are marked.

7.As per orders dt.24.11.2014 in I.A.603/2014 filed under section 170 of

M.V Act the 2nd respondent is permitted to take all defences that are available to the 1st respondent.

8. Heard both sides counsel.

ISSUE NO.1:-

9.This claim petition is filed by the claim petitioner U/Sec. 166 of M.V.

Act seeking compensation on account of injuries sustained by her in motor vehicle accident. As per the pleadings and evidence adduced before the Court, it is an undisputed fact that the 1st respondent is owner cum driver and 2nd respondent is insurer of auto bearing registration No.AP 35 W 6223 (herein after called as crime auto).

3 XII ADJ Court, Vsp. MOP 873/2014

10. To prove his case, the claim petitioner examined herself as PW.1.

She stated that on the date of the accident i.e. on 28.10.2013 she boarded the crime at Vizianagaram Railway station to go to MIMS College, the driver of the said auto drove it in a rash and negligent manner at high speed and when reached Ambatisatram the driver of the auto suddenly applied brakes thereby the auto turned turtle, resulting which she fell down on the road and sustained multiple injuries. In support of her evidence she got marked attested copies of

Ex.A1 FIR, Ex.A2 wound certificate, Ex.A3 MVI report, Ex.A4 charge sheet, Ex.A5 photostat copy of policy, Ex.A6 photostat copy of DL, Ex.A7 discharge summary issued by MIMS College, Ex.A8 bunch of medical bills, Ex.A9 diagnosis report and

Ex.A10 discharge summary issued by seven hills hospital.

11.The 2nd respondent contended that the accident took place due to negligence of the claim petitioner while she getting down from the auto. The 2nd respondent has given suggestions to that effect to PW.1 in the cross examination.

She denied the same.

12. On perusal of Ex.A1 FIR shows that on the statement of PW.1,

Vizianagaram Traffic P.S. Registered a case in Cr.No.216/2013 U/Sec 338 IPC against the driver of the crime auto. In Ex.A1, PW.1 got mentioned date, time, place of accident, number of the crime auto, rash and negligence on the part of the driver of the crime auto and details of injuries sustained by her. Ex.A2 wound certificate issued by MIMS, shows that on the same day of the accident PW.1 admitted in hospital with grievous and simple injuries. Ex.A3 MVI report shows that the M.V.I inspected the crime auto and opined that the accident was not due to any mechanical defect of the crime auto. The contents of Ex.A4 charge sheet would go to show that after completion of investigation S.I of Police,

Vizinanagaram Traffic P.S registered a case under section 338 IPC against 1st respondent owner cum driver of the crime auto for his rash and negligent driving of the crime auto. In the list of witnesses of Ex.A4 PW.1 is shown as defacto complainant/injured.

13.1st respondent owner cum driver of the crime vehicle did not choose to contest the case by denying the case of the claim petitioner and remained 4 XII ADJ Court, Vsp. MOP 873/2014 exparte. The 2nd respondent did not dispute the genuineness and veracity of

Exs.A1 to A4 and also did not dispute factum of accident involvement of crime auto and sustaining of injuries to PW.1 in the accident. PW.1/eye witness/injured categorically stated that while she was proceeding in auto to her college the driver of the crime vehicle drove it in a rash and negligent manner with high speed and suddenly applied brakes thereby the auto turned turtle, resulting which she fell down and sustained multiple grievous and simple injuries. The 2nd respondent denied rash and negligent on the part of the driver of the crime vehicle by way of suggestion in the cross examination of PW.1. The driver of the crime vehicle is proper person to deny the evidence of PW.1 or to explain as to how the accident was occurred. In the present case the driver of the crime auto is shown as 1st respondent he did not choose to contest the case by denying his rash and negligent driving of the crime auto and remained exparte. Nothing is elicited from the cross examination of PW.1 to show that she in collusion with 1st respondent filed claim petition with false allegations in order to get compensation from the insurance company. Further Ex.A4 charge sheet shows that after completion of investigation 1st respondent was charge sheeted for rash and negligent driving of the crime auto. The evidence of PW.1 is duly corroborating with Exs.A1 to A4. Nothing is elicited from the cross examination of PW1 to disbelieve his evidence and Exs.A1 to A4. The evidence of PW.1 and Exs.A1 to A4 clearly established that PW.1 sustained injuries in motor vehicle accident occurred on 28.10.2013 due to rash and negligent driving of the 1st respondent driver of the crime auto. This issue is answered accordingly in favour of the petitioner.

ISSUE NO.2:

14.With regard to this issue, the evidence of PW.1 is that in the above said accident she sustained several injuries on her forehead, nose, backside of the neck and spinal card and immediately after the accident she was shifted to

Tirumala Nursing and thereafter she was shifted to MIMS where the major operation was conducted and she is advised to take bed rest for two months.

Further she was admitted in Seven Hills Hospital where she underwent surgery.

5 XII ADJ Court, Vsp. MOP 873/2014 Due to the multiple injuries she suffered with untold pain and metal agony. The 2nd respondent disputed injuries sustained by her in the accident in the cross examination of PW.1.

15. To prove injuries the claim petitioner examined Dr.D.S.Prabhakararao

Casuality Medical Officer in Maharaja Institute Medical College (MIMS) as PW.3. His evidence shows that on 28.10.2013 he examined PW.1 and found injuries one abrasion on frontal surface of the skull (2) laceration over root of the nose (3) abrasion over dorso radial aspect of left wrist injury. (4) X-Ray left wrist shows chip fracture of styloid process of radious is noted on the left side.(5) MRI report shows longitudinal fracture involving anterior half of cervical vertebral body with focal disruption of all. Injury No.4 and 5 are grievous in nature and injuries 1 to 3 are simple in nature. He identified Ex.A2 wound certificate and Ex.X1 case sheet of PW.1. His evidence further shows that PW.1 was treated in their hospital from 28.10.2013 to 6.11.2013. PW.1 was treated conservatively. The 2nd respondent suggested to PW.3 that PW.1 did not sustain any injuries as certified in Ex.A2 wound certificate. PW.3 denied the same. Except suggestion nothing is elicited from the cross examination of PW.3 to disbelieve his evidence and Ex.A2 wound certificate and Ex.X1 case sheet. The evidence of PW.3 is supported by Ex.A2 and

Ex.X1.

16.Further the claim petitioner examined plastic surgeon in Seven Hills

Hospital as PW.2. Her evidence shows that on 8.5.2015 PW.1 was admitted in their hospital and she conducted surgery to PW.1 and removed the scar on left wrist and done skin grafting. Further PW.1 discharged from the hospital on 9.5.2015.

Except suggestion nothing is elicited from the cross examination of PW.2 to disbelieve her evidence. The evidence of PW.1 is supported by medical evidence of PW.2 and 3 and Ex.A2 wound certificate, Ex.A7 discharge summary issued by

MIMS, Ex.A8 medical bills and Ex.A9 diagnosis report and Ex.A10 discharge summary issued by Seven Hills Hospital and Ex.X1 case sheet. So, the evidence of

PWs.1 to 3 and Exs.A2, A7 to A10 and Ex.X1 clearly established that PW.1 sustained two grievous injuries and three simple injuries and she took treatment as inpatient in MIMS from 28.10.2013 to 6.11.2013 and during that period she 6 XII ADJ Court, Vsp. MOP 873/2014 underwent operation on 28.10.2013. Further she took treatment in Seven Hills

Hospital on 8.5.2015 and 9.5.2015 in Seven Hills Hospital and she underwent surgery on 8.5.2015 and totally spent Rs.50,728/-.

17.In view of the nature of injuries sustained by PW.1 an amount of

Rs.35,000/- towards pain and suffering and Rs.50,728/- towards treatment and medicines,Rs.5,000/-towards attendant charges,Rs.2,000/-towards transportation and Rs.5,000/- towards extra nourishment. In total the claim petitioner is entitled to compensation of Rs.97,728/-.

18.The 2nd respondent contended that 1st respondent violated terms and conditions of the policy by driving the crime auto without having valid and effective driving licence by the date of the accident and therefore insurance company is not liable to pay compensation. In support of his contention the 2nd respondent examined his Assistant in 2nd respondent insurance company as RW.1.

He stated that the 1st respondent driver of the crime auto is not having valid transport licence as on the date of the accident. In support of his evidence he got marked Ex.B1 authorization letter and Ex.B2 DL extract of 1st respondent. The evidence of RW.1 coupled with Exs.B2 DL extract of the 1st respondent shows that he got renewed the DL on 10.11.2009 and it is valid up to 27.10.2019 in respect of the LMV nontransport and 9.11.2012 in respect of the LMV transport. The date of accident is 28.10.2013. So, by the date of the accident the DL of the 1st respondent in respect of the LMV transport is expired. But in respect of the LMV nontransport is in force by the date of the accident.

19.The learned counsel for the petitioner contended that as the crime auto comes under LMV and that the driver who is authorized to drive LMV non transport is competent to drive any LMV irrespective of it is non transport or transport or commercial vehicle. In this regard the decisions reported in 2010 (2)

An.W.R.365 (D.B) (Jhar.) Ajit Kumar Jha v. Md. Raju and another it was held that "We are of the view that the Tribunal has committed serious error of law in holding that a person although authorized to drive a light motor vehicle cannot drive an auto rickshaw which is a transport vehicle. Sec.2 (21) of MV Act 1988 defines the words light motor vehicle as "light motor vehicle" means a transport vehicle or 7 XII ADJ Court, Vsp. MOP 873/2014 omnibus the gross vehicle weight of either of which or a motor car or tractor or road roller the unladen weight of any of which, does not exceed 7500 kilograms."

From plain reading of the definition it is clear that light motor vehicle means and includes the transport vehicle."

22. Further in a decision 2014 ACJ 2873(SC) Kulwant Singh and Others Vs.

Oriental Insurance Company Ltd., wherein it was held that "A person holding driving licence to drive 'light motor vehicle' was authorized to drive light goods vehicle. "(2013 ACJ 1944 (SC) and 2008 ACJ 721 (SC) followed)

At para No.9 it was held that "We find the judgments relied upon cover the issue in favour of the appellants. In Annappa Irappa Nesaria, 2008 ACJ 721 (SC), this court referred to the provisions of section 2(21) and (23) of the Motor

Vehicles Act, 1988, which are definitions of 'light motor vehicle' and 'medium goods vehicle' respectively and the rules prescribing the forms for the licence, i.e., rule 14 and Form No.4. It was concluded; "(16) From what has been noticed herein before, it is evident that 'transport vehicle' has now been substituted for 'medium goods vehicle' and 'heavy goods vehicle'. The light motor vehicle continued, at the relevant point of time, to cover both 'light passenger carriage vehicle' and 'light goods carriage vehicle'. A driver who had a valid licence to drive a light motor vehicle, therefore, was authorized to drive a light goods vehicle as well."

23. In S. Iyyapan, 2013 ACJ 1944 (SC) the question was whether the driver who had a licence to drive 'light motor vehicle' could drive 'light motor vehicle' used as a commercial vehicle, without obtaining endorsement to drive a commercial vehicle. It was held that in such a case, the insurance company could not disown its liability. It was observed:

24. "In the instant case, admittedly the driver was holding a valid driving licence to drive light motor vehicle. There is no dispute that the motor vehicle in question, by which accident took place, was Mahindra maxicab. Merely because the driver did not get any endorsement in the driving licence to drive Mahindra maxicab, which is a light motor vehicle, the High Court has committed grave error of law in holding that insurer is not liable to pay compensation because the driver was not holding the licence to drive a commercial vehicle. The impugned judgment is, therefore, liable to be set aside." 8 XII ADJ Court, Vsp. MOP 873/2014

25. Further in a decision relied upon on by the learned counsel for the petitioners reported in 2011(1) ALD 48 E. Rajeswari and others v. T.S. Sekhar and another wherein it was held that; "The LMV licence issued to a driver enables him to drive the vehicle of that category it is immaterial whether such vehicle is being used as purely for private purposes or as a transport vehicle. Admittedly the vehicle involved in the accident was light motor vehicle and Ex.B1 is a LMV licence. Therefore, the finding of the Tribunal that insurance company not liable to pay compensation as driver of the vehicle did not possess valid driving licence, held, cannot be sustained."

26. The above said decisions are applicable to the present facts on hand because it is an undisputed fact that the crime auto comes under Light motor vehicle and further as on the date of the accident 1st respondent driver of the crime vehicle is authorized to drive LMV-non transport. As per the ratio laid down in the above said cases the LMV licence issued to a driver enables him to drive the vehicle of that category it is immaterial whether such vehicle is being used as purely for private purposes or as a transport or for commercial purpose. As such the insurance company could not disown its liability. Further Ex.A5 photostat copy of policy shows that the crime auto is insured with 2nd respondent insurance company and it is in force by the date of accident. 2nd respondent did not dispute genuineness and veracity of Ex.A5. Further RW.1 admitted in cross examination that the crime vehicle is insured with the 2nd respondent insurance company and it is in force by the date of the accident. Therefore, 1st respondent being owner cum driver and 2nd respondent being insurer of the crime auto are jointly and severally liable to pay compensation to the petitioner. This issue is answered accordingly.

20.ISSUE NO.3:-

a) In the result, the petition is allowed in-part with proportionate costs by awarding compensation of Rs.97,728/- (Rupees ninety seven thousand seven hundred and twenty eight only) to petitioner.

b) The respondents 1 and 2 are jointly and severally liable to pay compensation to the petitioner and they are directed to deposit the said compensation amount along with interest @ 7.5% p.a. from the date of filing of the petition i.e., from 26.6.2014 till date of realization within one month from the date of this order;

c) The petitioner is permitted to withdraw entire compensation amount along 9 XII ADJ Court, Vsp. MOP 873/2014 with interest accrued thereon.

d) Advocate fee is fixed at Rs.1,500/-(Rupees one thousand and five hundred only).

Typed to my dictation by the Personal Assistant, corrected and pronounced by me in the open court on this, the 31 st day of October, 2016.

Chairman, MACT-cum- XII Addl Dist. & Sessions Judge, Visakhapatnam.

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

No. of Witnesses examined

For Petitioner: For Respondents :

PW-1: Annamreddy Divya RW.1: A. Venu Gopal Rao PW-2: Dr. Anjali Saple PW-3: Dr.D.S.prabhakara Rao

No. of Exhibits Marked

FOR PETITIONER:

Ex.A-1 : Attested copy of FIR in Cr.No.216/2013 of Vizianagaram Traffic P.S. Ex.A-2 : Attested copy of wound certificate. Ex.A-3 : Attested copy of MVI report. Ex.A-4 : Attested copy of charge sheet. Ex.A.5 : Photostat copy of policy. Ex.A.6 : Photostat copy of D.L. Ex.A.7 :Discharge summary issued by Maharaja Institute of Medical Sciences. Ex.A.8 :Bunch of Medical Bills. Ex.A.9 : Diagnosis reports. Ex.A10: Discharge summary issued by Seven Hills Hospital.

FOR RESPONDENTS:-

Ex.B1: Authorization letter. Ex.B2: D.L extract of 1st respondent.

X SERIES: Ex.X1: Case sheet. XII ADJ/Vsp.

1 XII ADJ Court, Vsp. MOP 873/2014

Date of presentation:26.6.2014 Date of filing:9.7.2014

BEFORE THE CHAIRMAN - MOTOR VEHICLE ACCIDENTS CLAIMS TRIBUNAL - cum-

XII ADDL. DISTRICT & SESSIONS JUDGE : VISAKHAPATNAM

Present: Sri Ch.Kishore Kumar Chairman, MACT - cum – XII ADDL. DIST. & SESSIONS JUDGE : Visakhapatnam

Monday, this the 31 st day of October, 2016

M.O.P.No.873/2014

Between:

Kum. Annamreddy Divya, D/o Ammathalli, Hindu, aged 19 years, residing at Rampuram Village, Pendurthi Mandal, Visakhapatnam District.

....Petitioner

A n d:

1.Tirupudi Ramana, S/o China Appanna, Hindu, aged 26 years, Owner and driver of the Auto bearing No.AP 35 W 6223, residing at Achenta Nagar, Gajularega Village, Vizianagaram District. 2.National India Insurance Company Limited, Rep. by its Branch Manager, III Floor, Rao & Sons Complex, Bheind ICICI Bank, Dwarakanagar, Visakhapatnam.

...Respondents

This is a claim petition filed by the claim petitioner U/Sec. 166 of M.V. Act seeking compensation for an amount of Rs.2,00,000/- on account of injuries sustained by her in motor vehicle accident occurred on 28.10.2013 through auto bearing registration NO.AP 35 W 6223, directing the respondents to pay the same with interest at 18% p.a., and costs of the petition.

Amount claimed is Rs.2,00,000/- and a Court Fee of Rs.1,360/- is paid under Rule 475(1) OF A.P.M.V.Rules, vide challan No.7, dt.26-06-2014, SBH, Dist. Court Branch, Visakhapatnam.

This petition has come on 24.10.2016 for final hearing before me in the presence of Sri B.Jagannadharao, Advocate for claim petitioner and of Sri E.V.Narasimha Rao (Rajesh), Advocate for 2nd respondent and 1st respondent remained exparte and upon perusing the material papers on record and upon hearing the arguments on both sides and having stood over for consideration, till this day, this court doth Order and pass :

D E C R E E

1.That the petition be and the same is herebyallowed in-part by awarding compensation of Rs.97,728/- (Rupees ninety seven thousand seven hundred and twenty eight only) to petitioner; and

2.that the respondents 1 and 2 are jointly and severally do pay compensation to the petitioner and they are directed to deposit the said compensation amount along with interest @ 7.5% p.a. from the date of filing of the petition i.e., from 26.6.2014 till date of realization within one month from the date of this order; and 1 XII ADJ Court, Vsp. MOP 873/2014

3.that the respondents do also pay to the petitioner a sum of Rs.2,992/- towards proportionate costs of the petition and advocate fee fixed by court; and

4.that the petitioner be and is hereby permitted to withdraw entire compensation amount along with interest accrued thereon; and

5.that the Advocate fee is fixed at Rs.1,500/-(Rupees one thousand and five hundred only).

Given under my hand and seal of the Court on this the 31 st day of October, 2016.

The Chairman, MACT – cum- XII Addl. Dist. & Sessions Judge Visakhapatnam

MEMORANDUM OF COSTS

FOR PETITIONERS FOR RESPONDENTS

Stamp on Vakalat Rs. 2.00 Court fee paid Rs.1360/- -NIL- Proportionate C.F Rs. 660.00 Process fee paid Rs. 130.00 Advocate Fee (fixed) Rs. 1,500.00 Publication charges Rs. 500.00 Typing & Misc. charges Rs. 200.00 -------------------- Pro-costs allowed Rs. 2,992.00 XII ADJ/VSP

1 XII ADJ Court, Vsp. MOP 93/2014

BEFORE THE CHAIRMAN - MOTOR VEHICLE ACCIDENTS CLAIMS TRIBUNAL -

cum- XII ADDL. DISTRICT & SESSIONS JUDGE : VISAKHAPATNAM

Present: Sri Ch.Kishore Kumar Chairman, MACT - cum – XII ADDL. DIST. & SESSIONS JUDGE : Visakhapatnam

Monday, this the 31 st day of October, 2016

M.O.P.No.93/2014

Between: Gundu Seshu, S/o late Ramamurthy, Hindu, aged 27 years, residing at Peddipalem, Anandapuram Mandal, Visakhapatnam District.

.....Petitioner

A n d:

1. Dommety Siva Kumar, S/o Venkateswara Rao, Hindu, age not known, R/at D.No.30-1-69, Jypore Road, Jyothi Hospital, Saluru-535591, Vizianagaram District (Owner of the crime vehicle bearing No.AP 35 P 6453 motor car).

2. Bharathi Axa General Insurance Co., Ltd., 1st floor, The Farns Loan S.No.28, Next to Akem Balliet, Doddanikundi outer Ring Road, Bangalore (Insurer of the Crime Vehicle bearing No.AP 35 P 6453 Motor Car).

3. Md.Anvar Hussen, S/o late Bakshi, 48 years, Muslim by caste, Saluru, Vizianagaram District (Driver of the Crime vehicle bearing No.AP 35 P 6453). (Amended as per order in I.A.517/15, dt.28.4.2015)

...Respondents

This petition has come on 21.10.2016 for final hearing before me in the presence of Sri P.Visweswara Rao, Sri M.Venkateswara Rao and Sri S.V.Ramana, Advocates for claim petitioner and of Sri D.Siva Prasad, Advocate for 2nd respondent and respondents 1 and 3 remained exparte and upon perusing the material papers on record and upon hearing the arguments on both sides 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 claim petitioner U/Sec. 166 of

M.V.Act seeking compensation for an amount of Rs.1,00,000/- on account of injuries sustained by him in motor vehicle accident occurred on 4.3.2013.

2.The brief averments mentioned in the claim petition are that the petitioner used to earn an amount of Rs.6,000/- per month as a lorry driver. On 4.3.2013 at 3-45 p.m he being a pillion rider and his friend Marupilla

Madhusudhana Rao were proceeding on motorcycle bearing No.AP 31 AW 0349 from Anandapuram Sub Registrar Office to Peddipalem. When they reached near

Orian Hotel on N.H.16 road, Vellanki, the car bearing registration No.AP 35 P 6453 proceeding from Andapuram towards Thagarapuvalasa drove it in a rash 2 XII ADJ Court, Vsp. MOP 93/2014 and negligent manner and dashed the motorcycle from behind and thereby the petitioner and his friend fell on the road and sustained grievous and simple injuries. On the statement of the Madhusudhana Rao Anandapuram Traffic P.S registered a case in Cr.No.26/2013 u/s 337 and 338 and after investigation the charge sheet is filed against the driver of the car. The petitioner took treatment as inpatient in Padmavathi Nursing Home and spent huge amount for the treatment and extra nourishment. Hence the petition.

3. The respondents 1 and 3 are remained exparte.

4. The 2nd respondent filed counter by denying all material averments mentioned in the claim petition and also denied mode and manner of accident stated by the claim petitioner in the claim petition. This respondent submits that the accident occurred due to rash and negligent on the part of the rider of the motorcycle only and offending car belongs to the 1st respondent was falsely implicated in order to get compensation from the 2nd respondent. This respondent denied nature of injuries sustained by claim petitioner and also denied the amount spent for the treatment, medicines and extra nourishment. Further this respondent submit that the driver of the car is not having valid, effective and specified class of driving licence. Further the amount of compensation claimed by the claim petitioner under various heads is excessive and exorbitant. Therefore, the petition is liable to be dismissed against this respondent.

5.Basing on the above pleadings, the following issues were settled for trial:

1. Whether the petitioner sustained injuries in the motor vehicle accident occurred on 4.3.2013, due to rash and negligent driving of Car bearing No.AP 35 P 6453 by its driver?

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

3. To what relief?

6.On behalf of the petitioner, PW.1 is examined and Exs.A-1 to A-6 are marked. On behalf of the 2nd respondent, RW.1 is examined and Exs.B1 to B3 are marked.

3 XII ADJ Court, Vsp. MOP 93/2014

7.As per orders dt.19.10.2016 in I.A.868/2016 filed under section 170 of M.V Act the 2nd respondent is permitted to take all defences that are available to the 1st respondent.

8. Heard both sides counsel.

ISSUE NO.1:-

9.This claim petition is filed by the claim petitioner U/Sec. 166 of M.V.

Act seeking compensation on account of injuries sustained by him. As per the pleadings and evidence adduced before the Court, it is an undisputed fact that the 1st respondent is owner, 2nd respondent is insurer and 3rd respondent is driver of the Car bearing registration No.AP 35 P 6453(herein after called as crime car).

10. To prove his case, the claim petitioner examined himself as PW.1. He stated that on the date of the accident he being pillion rider and his friend being rider of the motorcycle were proceeding on motorcycle from Anandapuram Sub

Registrar Office to go to his house at Peddipalem. When they reached near Orian

Hotel on N.H.16 road, Vellanki, the crime car proceeding from Andapuram towards Thagarapuvalasa drove it in a rash and negligent manner and dashed their motorcycle from behind and thereby himself and his friend fell on the road and sustained grievous injuries. In support of his oral evidence he got marked attested copies of Ex.A1 FIR, Ex.A2 wound certificate, Ex.A3 charge sheet, Ex.A4

MVI report, Ex.A5 photostat copy of policy, Ex.A6 true copy of requisition filed by ASI in the court of IV Metropolitan Magistrate, Bheemunipatnam.

11. RW.1 who is the Senior Executive in 2nd respondent insurance company had denied rash and negligent driving on the part of the 3rd respondent and stated that the accident took place only due to rash and negligence riding of the rider of the motorcycle only.

12. On perusal of Ex.A1 FIR shows that on the statement of rider of motorcycle, Anandapuram P.S registered a case in Cr.No.26/2003 U/Sec 338 and 337 IPC against the driver of the crime car. In Ex.A1 date, time, place of 4 XII ADJ Court, Vsp. MOP 93/2014 accident, number of the crime car is shown as AP 35 P 6435, rash and negligence of the crime car and details of injuries sustained by him and PW.1 in the accident are mentioned. Ex.A2 wound certificate shows that immediately after the accident, PW.1 was admitted in Hospital with history of RTA with injuries to left knee, right leg and right shoulder. Ex.A6 requisition filed by ASI

before the JFCM Court, Bheemunipatnam stating that during the course of

investigation and on examination of witnesses it is come to the notice that the complainant gave crime vehicle car No.AP 35 P 6435 instead of AP 35 P 6453 due to confusion and ignorance at the time of giving statement while under going treatment at Seven Hills Hospital. Further it is learnt that the direct witnesses also stated that the crime vehicle No.AP 35 P 6453 and request the court to rectify the crime vehicle NO. AP 35 P 6453 instead of AP 35 P 6435 to proceed further investigation. Ex.A4 MVI report shows that the MVI inspected the crime car bearing NO.AP 35 P 6453 and opined that the accident was not due to any mechanical defect of the crime car. The contents of Ex.A3 charge sheet would go to show that after completion of investigation S.I of Police, Anandapuram P.S filed charge sheet against 3rd respondent driver of the crime car bearing No.AP 35 P 6453 under Sec.338 and 337 IPC for his rash and negligent driving of the crime car. In the list of witnesses of Ex.A4 PW.1 is shown as one of the injured and his friend rider of the motorcycle is shown as defacto complainant. PW.1 also got mentioned in the additional chief affidavit that the correct number of the crime vehicle is AP 35 P 6453.

13.The 1st respondent owner and 3rd respondent driver of the crime car did not choose to contest the case by denying the case of the claim petitioner and remained exparte. Further the 2nd respondent insurance company did not dispute genuineness and veracity of Exs.A1 to A4 and A6 and also did not dispute factum of accident, involvement of the crime car bearing NO.AP 35 P 6453 and sustaining of injuries to PW.1 in the accident. PW.1/injured categorically stated in his evidence that while he being a pillion rider and his 5 XII ADJ Court, Vsp. MOP 93/2014 friend being rider of the motorcycle were proceeding from Anandapuram Sub

Registrar office to Peddipalem and when they reached near Orian Hotel, Velanki the driver of the crime car proceeding from Anandapuram towards

Thagarapuvalasa driven it in a rash and negligent manner and dashed their motorcycle thereby they fell on the road. The 2nd respondent disputed the rash and negligence on the part of the driver of the crime car in the cross examination of PW.1 by suggesting that the accident took place due to rash and negligence of the rider of the motorcycle. PW.1 denied the said suggestion. The 2nd respondent examined his Senior Executive as RW.1. RW.1 denied rash and negligent on the part of the driver of the crime car stating that the accident took place due to rash and negligent riding of the rider of the motorcycle. It is not the evidence of RW.1 that he is an eye witness to the incident. The driver of the crime car is proper person to deny the evidence of PW.1/injured/eye witness or to explain as to how the accident took place. In the present case the driver of the crime car is shown

as 3rd respondent but he did not choose to contest the case by denying his rash

and negligent driving of the crime car and remained exparte. Further nothing is elicited form the cross examination of PW.1 to show that PW.1 in collusion with respondents 1 and 3 filed claim petition with false allegations in order to get compensation from the insurance company. Moreover Ex.A3 charge sheet shows that after completion of investigation 3rd respondent driver of the crime car was charge sheeted for his rash and negligent driving. RW.1 also admitted in the cross examination that after completion of investigation 3rd respondent driver of the crime car was charge sheeted for rash and negligent driving of the crime car.

The evidence of PW.1 is corroborated with Exs.A1 to A4 and A6. This court does not find any reasons to disbelieve the evidence of PW.1 and Exs.A1 to A4 and A6.

Thus, the oral and documentary evidence adduced by the claim petitioner clearly established that he sustained injuries in motor vehicle accident occurred on 4.3.2013 due to rash and negligent driving of 3rd respondent driver of the crime car. This issue is answered accordingly in favour of the petitioner.

6 XII ADJ Court, Vsp. MOP 93/2014 ISSUE NO.2:

14. The evidence of PW.1 shows that immediately after the accident he was shifted to Padmavathi Nursing Home, Thagarapuvalasa, wherein he was treated as inpatient and spent huge amount towards treatment, medicines and extra nourishment. The 2nd respondent disputed the nature of injuries sustained by

PW.1 in the cross examination. To prove the nature of injuries, PW.1 relied upon

Ex.A2 wound certificate. Ex.A2 shows that on the same day of the accident, PW.1 was admitted in the hospital with simple injuries i.e. pain and tenderness to left knee, pain and tenderness to right leg, pain and tenderness to right shoulder. No bone injuries are found. Except Ex.A2 the petitioner did not file any medical record to show that he took treatment as inpatient and he did not file any medical bills and prescriptions to show that he has spent huge amount. The 2nd respondent did not dispute the genuineness and veracity of Ex.A2. The evidence of PW.1 coupled with Ex.A2 wound certificate establish that PW.1 sustained three simple injuries.

15.In view of the injuries sustained by PW.1 an amount of Rs.15,000/- towards pain and suffering. As no medical bills and prescriptions produced before the court to show that he spent amount towards medicines. No amount is awarded towards medical expenses.

16.The 2nd respondent contended that at the time of accident

PW.1/injured was proceeding on motorcycle and that as more than one vehicle involved in the accident the drivers of the both vehicles equally responsible for the accident. In support of his contention he has submitted decisions 1) 2008(1)

CCC 322(NS), Renukadevi H. etc. vs. Bangalore Metropolitan TPT Corpn. Etc.

(2) 2006 ACJ 855, Agnuru Jaya Ramulu vs, Mohammed Afzal Miyan and another.

The decisions cited by the 2nd respondent are not helpful to it because it is not the pleading in the counter or it is not the evidence of RW.1 that there is a negligence on the part of the both driver of crime car and motorcycle. Moreover the oral and documentary evidence adduced by the claim petitioner clearly 7 XII ADJ Court, Vsp. MOP 93/2014 established that the accident took place only due to rash and negligent driving of the 3rd respondent driver of the crime car. RW.1 who is Senior Executive of 2nd respondent insurance company admitted that the crime car belongs to 1st respondent is insured with the 2nd respondent insurance company for the period from 31.5.2012 to 30.5.2013 vide Ex.B1 policy. The date of accident is 4.3.2013.

By that date Ex.B1 policy is in force. As Ex.B1 policy is in force by the date of the accident the 1st respondent being owner/insured, 2nd respondent being insurer and 3rd respondent being driver of the crime car are jointly and severally liable to pay compensation to the petitioner. This point is answered accordingly.

17. ISSUE NO.3:-

a) In the result, the petition is allowed in-part with proportionate costs by awarding compensation of Rs.15,000/- (Rupees fifteen thousand only) to petitioner.

b) The respondents 1 to 3 are jointly and severally liable to pay compensation to the petitioner with interest @ 7.5% p.a. from the date of filing of the petition i.e., from 10.9.2013 till the date of realization and they are directed to deposit the compensation amount within one month from the date of this order;

c) The petitioner is permitted to withdraw entire compensation amount along with interest accrued thereon.

d) Advocate fee is fixed at Rs.1,000/-(Rupees one thousand only).

Typed to my dictation by the Personal Assistant, corrected and pronounced by me in the open court on this, the 31 st day of October, 2016.

Chairman, MACT-cum- XII Addl Dist. & Sessions Judge, Visakhapatnam.

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

No. of Witnesses examined

For Petitioner: For Respondents :

PW-1: Gundu SeshuRW.1: Abdul Raheem 8 XII ADJ Court, Vsp. MOP 93/2014

No. of Exhibits Marked

FOR PETITIONER:

Ex.A-1 : Attested copy of FIR in Cr.No.26/13 of Anandapuram P.S. Ex.A-2 : Attested copy of wound certificate. Ex.A-3 : Attested copy of charge sheet. Ex.A-4 : Attested copy of MVI Report. Ex.A.5 : Photostat copy of policy. Ex.A.6 : True copy of requisition of A.S.I to MVI Report.

FOR RESPONDENTS:-

Ex.B1: Attested copy of policy with terms and conditions. Ex.B2: Office copy of notice issued to R1. Ex.B3: Postal acknowledgment.

XII ADJ/Vsp.

9 XII ADJ Court, Vsp. MOP 93/2014

Date of presentation:10.09.2013 Date of filing:27.01.2014

BEFORE THE CHAIRMAN - MOTOR VEHICLE ACCIDENTS CLAIMS TRIBUNAL -

cum- XII ADDL. DISTRICT & SESSIONS JUDGE : VISAKHAPATNAM

Present: Sri Ch.Kishore Kumar Chairman, MACT - cum – XII ADDL. DIST. & SESSIONS JUDGE : Visakhapatnam

Monday, this the 31 st day of October, 2016

M.O.P.No.93/2014

Between: Gundu Seshu, S/o late Ramamurthy, Hindu, aged 27 years, residing at Peddipalem, Anandapuram Mandal, Visakhapatnam District.

.....Petitioner

A n d:

1. Dommety Siva Kumar, S/o Venkateswara Rao, Hindu, age not known, R/at D.No.30-1-69, Jypore Road, Jyothi Hospital, Saluru-535591, Vizianagaram District (Owner of the crime vehicle bearing No.AP 35 P 6453 motor car).

2. Bharathi Axa General Insurance Co., Ltd., 1st floor, The Farns Loan S.No.28, Next to Akem Balliet, Doddanikundi outer Ring Road, Bangalore (Insurer of the Crime Vehicle bearing No.AP 35 P 6453 Motor Car).

3. Md.Anvar Hussen, S/o late Bakshi, 48 years, Muslim by caste, Saluru, Vizianagaram District (Driver of the Crime vehicle bearing No.AP 35 P 6453). (Amended as per order in I.A.517/15, dt.28.4.2015)

...Respondents

This is a claim petition filed by the claim petitioner U/Sec. 166 of M.V.Act seeking compensation for an amount of Rs.1,00,000/- on account of injuries sustained by him in motor vehicle accident occurred on 4.3.2013 through Car bearing registration No.AP 35 P 6453, directing the respondents to pay the same with interest at 18% p.a., and costs of the petition.

Amount claimed is Rs.1,00,000/- and a Court Fee of Rs.360/- is paid under Rule 475(1) OF A.P.M.V.Rules, vide challan No.8, dt.20-8-2013, SBH, Dist. Court Branch, Visakhapatnam.

This petition has come on 21.10.2016 for final hearing before me in the presence of Sri P.Visweswara Rao, Sri M.Venkateswara Rao and Sri S.V.Ramana, Advocates for claim petitioner and of Sri D.Siva Prasad, Advocate for 2nd respondent and respondents 1 and 3 remained exparte and upon perusing the material papers on record and upon hearing the arguments on both sides and having stood over for consideration, till this day, this court doth Order and pass :

D E C R E E

1. That the petition be and the same is herebyallowed in-part by awarding compensation of Rs.15,000/- (Rupees fifteen thousand only) to petitioner;

and

2. that the respondents 1 to 3 are jointly and severally do pay compensation to the petitioner with interest @ 7.5% p.a. from the date of filing of the petition i.e., from 10.9.2013 till the date of realization and they are directed to deposit the compensation amount within one month from the date of this order; and 10 XII ADJ Court, Vsp. MOP 93/2014

3. that the respondents do also pay to the petitioner a sum of Rs.1,346/- towards proportionate costs of the petition and advocate fee fixed by court;

and

4. that the petitioner be and is hereby permitted to withdraw entire compensation amount along with interest accrued thereon; and

5. that the Advocate fee is fixed at Rs.1,000/-(Rupees one thousand only).

Given under my hand and seal of the Court on this the 31 st day of October, 2016.

The Chairman, MACT – cum- XII Addl. Dist. & Sessions Judge Visakhapatnam

MEMORANDUM OF COSTS

FOR PETITIONERS FOR RESPONDENTS

Stamp on Vakalat Rs. 2.00 Court fee paid Rs.360/- -NIL- Proportionate C.F Rs. 54.00 Process fee paid Rs. 90.00 Advocate Fee (fixed) Rs. 1,000.00 Typing & Misc. charges Rs. 200.00 ---------------- Pro-costs allowed Rs. 1,346.00

XII ADJ/VSP

1 XII ADSJ Court, Vsp.

Crl.M.P No.589/2016

IN THE COURT OF XII ADDL. DISTRICT & SESSIONS JUDGE: VISAKHAPATNAM

Present: - Sri Ch. Kishore Kumar XII Addl. District & Sessions Judge,

Tuesday, this the 1 st day of November, 2016.

Crl.M.P.No.589/2016.

(in Cr. No.47/2016 of Kotavuratla P.S.)

Between: Dara Durga @ Siva Durga Prasad, S/o Nookaraju, 30 years, Settibalija, Cultivation, R/o A.S.Peta Village, Kotavuratla Village, Visakhapatnam District.

….Petitioner/Accused And: The State represented by its Public Prosecutor, Visakhapatnam. ….Respondent/complainant

This petition is coming on this day for final hearing before me in the presence of Sri M.V.Rajesh, Advocate for the petitioner/Accused and of Sri M.Venugopala Rao, Public Prosecutor, XII ADJ Court (Incharge), Visakhapatnam for the State and this matter having stood over for consideration till this day, this Court made the following:

O R D E R

1.This application is filed by the petitioner/Accused to enlarge him on regular bail U/Sec.439 Cr.P.C for the offence punishable under section 436 r/w 34 of IPC in

Cr.No.47/2016 of Kotavuratla Police station.

2.Notice is given to Public Prosecutor and he opposed the petition by filing memo.

3.The allegations made against the petitioner/accused is that on 5/6.9.2016 intervening night the petitioner/accused set fire to the house of defacto complainant due to differences between him and the accused about the cultivating of land and the matter was brought to the notice of village elders and they promised that they will enquired the matter on 6.9.2016 but in the meanwhile the incident was happened.

4. The learned counsel for the petitioner/accused contended that the petitioner did not commit any offence much less as alleged in the complaint and that there is a civil dispute between the families of petitioner and complainant and that the petitioner’s mother reported the matter to SHO Kotavuratla Police Station under receipt NO.117/16 dt.5.9.2016. On knowing the said report the complainant gave report against the petitioner and further the recitals of FIR shows that it is given under suspicion only and that the investigation is almost completed and that the petitioner is ready to furnish sufficient sureties to enlarge him on bail. In support of his contention the petitioner filed office copy of the receipt issued by SHO Kotavuratla P.S and office copy of the notice and copy of the plaint in O.S.157/2016 on the file of Junior Civil Judge, Narsipatnam. Therefore, prays to grant bail to petitioner.

2 XII ADSJ Court, Vsp.

Crl.M.P No.589/2016

5.The learned Public Prosecutor opposed the bail application by stating that if the accused released on bail there is a chance to commit the offence again and therefore prays to dismiss the petition.

6. Now the point for consideration is Whether the Petitioner/Accused can be enlarged on bail?

7. POINT : Perused the CD produced by prosecution which reveals all material witnesses i.e. 7 witnesses have already been examined, scene of offence is visited, scene observation report is prepared, material objects seized and further the recitals of FIR shows complaint is given under suspicion and most of the investigation is completed. The petitioner/accused is in judicial remand since 6.10.2016. Having regard to the facts and circumstances and contentions advanced in the bail application, it is just and proper to grant bail.

8.In the result, the petition is allowed and the petitioner/Accused is ordered to be released on bail on his executing a Bond for Rs.25,000/- (Rupees twenty five thousand only) with two sureties for a like sum each to the satisfaction of the Addl. Judicial First Class Magistrate, Narsipatnam.

Typed to my dictation by the Gr.I Stenographer, corrected and pronounced by me in open court on this the 1st day of November, 2016.

Sd/- Ch.Kishore Kumar

XII Addl. District & Sessions Judge, Visakhapatnam copy to:

1. The Addl. Judicial First Class Magistrate, Narsipatnam

2. The SHO, Kotavuratla Police station.

3. Sri M.V.Rajesh, Advocate for the petitioner.

//t.c.b.o// ////// //t.c.b.o.//

Superintendent XII Addl. Dist. & Sessions Judge's Court, Visakhapatnam