Sri Ch. Vijay Mohan

IN THE COURT OF THE MOTOR ACCIDENTS CLAIMS TRIBUNAL (VII ADDL.DISTRICT

JUDGE) AT KHAMMAM.

Dated this, the 24th day of March, 2016

Present: Sri R.Pundareekakshudu, Chairman, M.A.C.T.-Cum-

Special Judge for trial of cases under-

SCs and STs (POA) Act-cum- VII Addl.District Judge, Khammam.

M.V.O.P.No.1250 of 2012

BETWEEN:

Chintalacheruvu Sravya, D/o Venkata Krishna Reddy, Age: 19 years, Occ:B.Tech II year (ECE), Sai Spurthi Institute of Technology, Sathupally, R/o TRR Street, Sathupally, Khammam district.

….Claim Petitioner.

And

1. Thirupathi Satyanarayana, S/o Venkateswarlu, Age: Major, Owner of Auto bearing No.AP.20.TB.4823, R/o Gangaram village, Sathupally Mandal, Khammam District.

IFFCO Tokio General Insurance Company Limited, rep. by its 2. Branch Manager, D.No.8-3-201/1, 1st floor, Veeraiah Choudary Complex above Bajaj Showroom, Wyra Road, Khammam- 507001,Insurer of crime vehicle i.e., auto bearing No.AP.20.TB.4823, vide policy bearing No.1-12BGWEWP400, valid from 18.01.2012 to midnight on 17.01.2013.

…Respondents.

This O.P. coming before me on 08.02.2016 for final hearing in the presence of Sri Ramisetti Hariprasad, Advocate for Claim Petitioner; Respondent No.1 remained ex parte; and of Sri G.Sita Rama Rao, Advocate for Respondent No.2; upon perusing the material papers on record; upon hearing arguments on both sides and having stood over for consideration till this day, this Tribunal passed the following:

O R D E R

This petition is filed by the petitioner under Section 166 of Motor Vehicle 1.

Act for grant of compensation of Rs.15,00,000/- towards special and general damages with regard to the injuries sustained by her in the accident which occurred on 23.08.2012.

2(a).Brief averments in the petition are that on 23-08-2012, in the evening hours, while the claim petitioner was coming from Gangaram towards Sathupally in an auto bearing No.AP.20.TB.4823 and at about 5 P.M when the auto reached near Amma mess,

Siddaram cross road, Sathupally, the driver of auto drove the vehicle in a rash and negligent manner at high speed and in the process of over taking, a DCM Van bearing 2

No.AP.20.TB.4043, dashed against the DCM Van from behind towards left side, as a result, the claim petitioner, who was travelling in the said auto sustained severe crush injuries to her right hand, head and other parts of her body.

The claim petitioner received the following injuries:

Fracture shaft of humerus distal 3rd with type III C compound wound 1) Fracture of both bones forearm right middle 3rd end of the radius 2)

3) Fracture clavical right 2(b). Immediately after the accident, the petitioner was shifted to Dr.Raghu Ram

Hospital, Sathupally. Due to the seriousness of injuries, the petitioner was shifted to

Dr.M.J.Naidu Hospital, Vijayawada, for better treatment. During the course of treatment, X-rays were taken and necessary clinical tests were conducted. As the fractures caused to the right hand are very serious in nature, in order to avoid its amputation, four major surgeries were done by Dr.M.J.Naidu, Orthopedic surgeon. The petitioner was discharged from the hospital on 12.09.2012. The petitioner in all spent

Rs.3,00,000/- towards medical treatment, extra nourishment, nursing, transportation etc. The petitioner requires to spend future medical expenses including physiotherapy.

2©. That upon the report given by R.RamaRao, the Police, P.S.Sathupally registered a case in Crime No.229 of 2012 under Sections 337 IPC, against the driver of the auto bearing No.AP.20.TB.4823.

2(d). That the Claim Petitioner was a student of B.Tech II year ECE branch, but due to fracture injuries the claim petitioner unable to move, lift or bend her right hand, right hand is not functioning and she became permanently disabled person. The claim petitioner is completely bed ridden, not attending classes and so there is no possibility of appearing examinations, she has to forgo at least one or two academic years, apart from employment opportunities. Further because of sutures applied on the right eye brow, a permanent scar was formed which resulted disfiguration on her face. Because of disfiguration on face and in view of permanent disability caused to her right hand, the marriage chances of the petitioner also became bleak. The petitioner is aged about 19 years. The petitioner is entitled to claim compensation under the heads pecuniary and 3 non-pecuniary damages. Hence, this petition is filed claiming compensation of

Rs.15,00,000/- with costs and interest.

2(e). That the accident was occurred due to the rash and negligent driving of the auto bearingNo.AP.20.TB.4823 by its driver. Respondent No.1 and Respondent No.2 are owner and insurer of auto and as such, Respondent Nos.1 and 2 are jointly and severally liable to pay compensation.

Respondent No.1 was set ex parte as per docket order dt.29.01.2013. 3.

4. Respondent No.2 filed counter. Brief averments in the counter of Respondent No.2 are that Respondent No.2 denied all the allegations in the petition. Respondent No.2 denied all the allegations made in the petition with regard to mode of accident, age, avocation of the injured petitioner. The Respondent No.2 denies the nature of the injuries sustained by the petitioner, nature of treatment taken, alleged expenditure incurred by the petitioner towards medical and other expenses. The Respondent No.2 denies that the driver of the crime vehicle was having valid licence to drive the vehicle and the vehicle was having valid permit and fitness to ply on the road, on the date of accident. Respondent No.2 denies that the crime vehicle was insured with Respondent company at the time of accident. The accident was occurred due to the rash and negligent drive by the driver of DCM Van bearing No.AP.20.TB.4043. The petition is bad for non-joinder of necessary parties i.e., owner and insurer of DCM Van. The driver and owner of crime vehicle failed to furnish the particulars which are mandatory under

Sec.134 of MV Act. Respondent No.2 is entitled for protection under Sections 147 and 149 of the Motor Vehicles Act. Respondent No.2 sought protection under Section 170 of the Motor Vehicles Act to take all the defences available to Respondent No.1. The claim of compensation is very high. Hence, respondent No.2 prayed to dismiss the petition.

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

1. Whether the accident had occurred due to rash and negligent drive by the driver of auto bearing No.AP.20.TB.4823?

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

3. To what relief ?

4

6.During enquiry, the petitioner is examined as PW1, PW.2 examined and Exs.A1 to

A15 are marked. On behalf of Respondent No.2, RWs.1 and 2 are examined and Exs.B1 to B5 are marked.

7.Respondent No.2 filed a petition under Section 170 of M.V.Act in I.A.No.28 of 2016 and the same is allowed.

8.Heard arguments on both sides.

9.ISSUE No.1:

PW.1 who is the petitioner in the evidence stated that on 23.08.2012 evening hours, while she was coming from Gangaram towards Sathupally in an auto bearing

No.AP.20.TB.4823 and at about 5 P.M when the auto reached near Amma mess,

Siddaram cross road, Sathupally, the driver of auto drove the vehicle in a rash and negligent manner at high speed and in the process of over taking, a DCM Van bearing

No.AP.20.TB.4043, dashed against the DCM Van from behind towards left side, as a result, she received severe crush injuries to her right hand, head and other parts of her body. She further deposed that she was shifted to Dr.Raghu Ram Hospital, Sathupally, from there to Dr.M.J.Naidu Hospital, Vijayawada, for better treatment. She further deposed that the accident was taken place due to the rash and negligent drive by the driver of auto bearing No.AP.20.TB.4823. She further deposed that on the report given by R.RamaRao, the Police, P.S.Sathupally registered a case in Crime No.229 of 2012 under Sections 337 IPC, against the driver of the auto bearing No.AP.20.TB.4823. She further deposed that four surgeries were conducted on her in the hospital. PW.1 filed

Exs.A1 to A15. Ex.A1 is the First Information Report in Cr.No.229/2012 of

P.S.Sathupally, Ex.A2 is the CC of charge sheet, Ex.A3 is the CC of Wound certificate,

Ex.A4 is the Bonafied certificate issued by Sai Spurthi Institute of Technology,

B.Gangaram, Sathupally, Ex.A5 is the Discharge summary issued by issued by MK

Naidu Super Specialty Hospital, Vijayawada, Ex.A6 is the Emergency admission certificate issued by MJ Naidu Super Specialty Hospital, Vijayawada, Ex.A7 is the

Essentiality certificate issued by MJ Naidu Super Specialty Hospital, Vijayawada for

Rs.2,24,811/- including hospital charges, investigation and pharmacy charges, implant and vascular surgery charges, Ex.A8 is the Radiologist report issued by Dr.M.Krishna 5

Kumar, Dr.Ramesh, Cardiac and Multi-specialty hospital Limited, Vijayawada, Ex.A9 is the Prescription issued by Dr.L.Raghuram, Orthopedic Surgeon, Sathupally, Ex.A10 is the certificate issued by Medical Officer, C.H.C., Sathupally, Ex.A11 is the Final bill issued by MJ Naidu Super Specialty Hospital, Vijayawada for Rs.1,40,000/-, Ex.A12 is the Out-patient Laboratory test bill-cum-receipt (2) in number for Rs.10,500/- issued by

Dr.Ramesh Cardiac and Multi-specialty Hospital Limited, Vijayawada, Ex.A13 is the

Pharmacy OP Sale bills (3) in number issued by Teja Pharmacy, Vijayawada for

Rs.9,062/-, Ex.A14 is the Medical bills (42) in number worth Rs.19,220/-, Ex.A15 is the

Medical Prescriptions (24) in number.

10. PW.2 is the Doctor of M.J.Naidu Super Specialty Hospital, Vijayawada. PW.2 in the evidence stated that petitioner was treated at his hospital and surgeries were conducted.

11. RW.1 who is the Executive of Respondent No.2 company in the evidence stated that the driver of the crime vehicle Tirupathi Maheswara Rao, had no valid licence at the time of accident. He further deposed that the accident was taken place due to the negligence of driver of DCM Van bearing No.AP.20.TB.4043. He further deposed that the owner and insurer of DCM Van were not added as parties.

12. RW.2 who is the Superintendent of RTA, Khammam, in the evidence stated that

T.Maheswara Rao has got non transport driving licence from 21.04.2009 onwards and he got transport licence from 08.05.2012 for auto rickshaw. She further deposed that

Ex.B5 is the true copy of the driving licence of T.Maheswara Rao.

13. As seen from Ex.B5, the transport licence was issued on 05.05.2012, the accident was taken place on 23.08.2012. So, by the date of accident the driver of the auto T.Maheswara Rao has got transport endorsement. On behalf of the respondents

Exs.B1 to B5 are marked. Ex.B1 is the CC of Insurance Policy No.78859183 valid from 18.01.2012 to 17.01.2013, Ex.B2 is the D.L.Extract of the driver

Maheswar Rao, issued by RTA, Khammam, Ex.B3 is the Original copy of

R.C. issued by RTA, Khammam, Ex.B4 is the authorization, Ex.B5 is the true copy of driving licence of T.Maheswara Rao.

14. Ex.A1 is the FIR in Cr.No.229/12. Ex.A2 is the charge sheet. The police filed charge sheet against T.Maheswara Rao, the driver of the crime vehicle i.e., auto bearing 6

No.AP.20.TB.4823. So, the police after investigation filed charge sheet against the driver of the crime vehicle. Ex.A3 is the wound certificate. So, as per Ex.A3 there are three fracture injuries to the petitioner. Ex.A4 is the Bonafide certificate of the petitioner. As per Ex.A4 petitioner was studying 4th year B.Tech during the year 2014-15. Ex.A5 is the discharge summary. Ex.A6 is the Emergency admission certificate, Ex.A7 is the

Essentiality certificate for Rs.2,24,811/-, Ex.A8 is the Radiologist report, Ex.A9 is the

Prescription, Ex.A10 is the certificate issued by Medical Officer, C.H.C., Sathupally,

Ex.A11 is the Final bill for Rs.1,40,000/-, Ex.A12 is the Out-patient Laboratory test bill- cum-receipt (2) in number for Rs.10,500/-, Ex.A13 is the Pharmacy OP Sale bills (3) in number issued by Teja Pharmacy, Vijayawada for Rs.9,062/-, Ex.A14 is the Medical bills (42) in number worth Rs.19,220/-, Ex.A15 is the Medical Prescriptions (24) in number.

15. The petitioner’s counsel submitted that the evidence of PWs.1 and 2 and other documents filed by the petitioner establish that the driver of the auto was negligent at the time of accident. Whereas the counsel of Respondent No.2 contention is that the driver of the crime vehicle had no transport endorsement on the date of accident. The documents produced by the RW.2 coupled with her evidence clearly establish that by the date of accident driver has got transport endorsement. RW.2 further stated that the by the date of accident the driver was possessing valid transport licence and the auto rickshaw is a light motor vehicle. RW.1 who is the executive of Respondent No.2’s company in the evidence stated that by the date of accident, Ex.B1 insurance policy was in force. So, petitioner received injuries in the accident. The accident was taken place due to the rash and negligent driving by the driver of auto. The insurance policy was in force. Respondent No.1 is the owner of the auto and Respondent No.2 is the insurer of the auto. So, Respondent Nos.1 and 2 are jointly and severally liable to pay compensation. Accordingly, this issue is answered.

16.ISSUE NO.2:

TOWARDS PAIN AND SUFFERENCE:

The petitioner counsel submitted that the petitioner is a student of engineering by the time of accident and due to accident she received injuries on her right hand, her right hand was crushed and four surgeries were conducted. The counsel further submitted that the petitioner lost her 7 studies and academic career and she lost her job opportunities and marriage prospects. The counsel further submitted that the petitioner is entitled for pecuniary and non-pecuniary damages.

17. The counsel cited decision reported in 2014 ACJ at page 2613 in between N.Surender Rao and others Vs. B.Swamy and another . In this decision Hon’ble Supreme Court held that deceased is aged about 19 years,

III year B.Tech student. The monthly income was assessed at Rs.12,000/- per month and awarded compensation of Rs.14,21,000/-. The counsel cited another decision i.e., 2014(5) ALD at page 42(SC) in between

V.Mekala Vs. M.Malathi and another. In this decision Hon’ble Supreme

Court held that the claimant is aged about 16 years was a brilliant student and she secured 1s t rank in 10t h standard and studying 11t h standard at the time of accident. The Hon’ble Supreme Court taken into income of the injured notionally at Rs.10,000/- per month and future prospects 50% was taken into consideration and granted compensation. The counsel cited another decision reported in 2010(5) ALT 232 (D.B) in between

PolaBhadramma Vs.G.Kumar and another . In this decision our Hon’ble

High Court held that in case of injury in the accident claimant is entitled compensation for pain and sufferance, loss of earnings to the family, nursing and attendant charges, span of life and future medical expenses.

The counsel cited another decision i.e., 2011 ACJ at page 1 in between Raj

Kumar Vs. Ajay Kumar and another. In this decision our Hon’ble Supreme

Court held that in case of injuries the injured is entitled to pecuniary damages and non-pecuniary damages.

Pecuniary damages are :

i)Expenses relating to treatment, hospitalization, medicines, transportation, nourishing food and miscellaneous expenditure ii)Loss of earnings (and other gains) which the injured would have made had he not been injured, comprising:

a) Loss of earnings during the period of treatment

b) Loss of future earnings on account of permanent disability iii)Future medical expenses

Non-Pecuniary damages are:

8 iv)Damages for pain, suffering and trauma as a consequence of the injuries

v)Loss of amenities(and/or loss of prospects of marriage) vi)Loss of expectation of life (shortening of normal longevity)

The counsel cited another decision reported in 2010(4) ALD at page 217 in between A.Chalapathi vs. Satyanarayana N.Nuwal and others. In this decision our Hon’ble High Court held that the qualified orthopedic surgeon, who treated appellant, categorically deposed that appellant has suffered disability to extent of 20% on account of shortening of leg. Such evidence has to be taken into account unless Court finds the evidence of

Doctor is not worthy of acceptance by giving cogent reasons.

18. PW.1 in her evidence stated that four major surgeries were conducted by Dr.M.J.Naidu. PW.2 also in the evidence stated that the petitioner has got the following injuries:

1. Fracture shaft of humerus distal 3r d with Type III C compound wound which includes:

i) Fracture distal 2/3r d of humerus right ii) Brachial artery injury right iii) Crush injury right arm with skin and tissue loss 10x4 cms posterior aspect of right arm

2. Fracture both bone forearm right middle 3r d and distal end of the radius, which includes:

i) Fracture shaft of radius right ii) Fracture of shaft of ulna right iii) Fracture distal end radius right

3. Fracture clavicle right

4. Fracture right rib 3r d

19. PW.2 further deposed that four major fractures on the right hand and one major artery injury and skin loss of 10cm. He further deposed that the petitioner has sustained two fractures to the right side chest i.e., clavicle bone and rib. He further deposed that the following surgeries were conducted on 24.08.2012:

1. Brachial artery repair with saphaneons vein graft

2. Interlocking nailing for humerus 9

3. L-wire fixation both bone forearm, which includes, treatment for fracture shaft of radius, fracture shaft of ulna and fracture distal radius.

He further deposed that on 05.09.2012 she has undergone split skin grafting for skin loss of right arm and skin was taken from the right thigh.

He further deposed that the patient was discharged from the hospital on 12.09.2012 and again she was on continuous follow up treatment till all the fractures are united i.e., up to 25.0.2013.

20. Ex.A5 is the discharge summary. So, there are four surgeries were conducted to the petitioner and they are:

Surgery-I :-

Under general anesthesia

Supine position

Wound thoroughly washed

Part prepared and draped

Brachial artery repair with sephanous veinois graft

Surgery-2 :-

Fracture shaft of humerus

Fracture site is reduced and fixed with interlocking nailing 1 proximal and 2 distal screws

Surgery-3:-

Fracture both bone forearm

Fracture site is reduced and fixed with radius L-wire and ulna L-wire

Hemostasis secured

Wound closed

Surgery-4 :-

Post trauma raw area

Patient split skin graft taken from thigh spread over post traumatic raw are

Applied cutical dressing pads

The evidence of PW.2 shows that there are four fractures to the petitioner. The accident was taken place on 23.08.2012, the follow up treatment was continued up to 25.06.2013. Taking into injuries and surgeries underwent by the petitioner, I feel Rs.30,000/- is the reasonable compensation for each grievous injury under the head pain and sufferance.

10

So, for four injuries petitioner is entitled Rs.1,20,000/-(Rupees One Lakh twenty thousand only) under the head pain and sufferance.

21. TOWARDS MEDICAL EXPENSES:

Petitioner filed medical bills and they are marked as Exs.A7 to A14.

Ex.A7 is the final bill for Rs.2,24,811/-. Ex.A11 medical bills for

Rs.1,40,000/-. The said Ex.A11 bill is also included in Ex.A7. Ex.A14 is for Rs.19,220/-, which is also included in Ex.A7. So, Ex.A12 is the Lab receipts for Rs.10,500/-. Ex.A13 is the pharmacy bill for Rs.9,062/-. So, the petitioner is entitled the compensation covered under bills A7, A12 and

A13. Ex.A7 bill is for Rs.2,24,811/-, Ex.A12 bill is for Rs.10,500/- and

Ex.A13 bill is for Rs.9,062/-. So the petitioner is entitled to Rs.2,44,373/-.

The amount is rounded to Rs.2,44,400/-. So, an amount of

Rs.2,44,400/-(Rs. Two lakhs forty four thousand and four hundred only) is entitled by the petitioner under head medical expenses.

22.TOWARDS LOSS OF EARNINGS:

The petitioner is an engineering student of 2nd year ECE branch by the date of accident. In the decision cited by the petitioners counsel i.e.

2014(5) ALD at page 42(SC) in between V.Mekala Vs. M.Malathi and another, the Hon’ble Supreme Court has taken as the notional income of 11t hstandard student at Rs.10,000/- per month and granted compensation. In this case also the petitioner is an engineering student.

So, in my view Rs.10,000/- per month is the reasonable income of the petitioner which is notionally taken into consideration. In the decision the

Hon’ble Supreme Court also taken into consideration future prospects as

50%, as per the decision of our Hon’ble Supreme court i.e.,2014(5) ALD at page 42(SC). So, 50% of the income comes to Rs.5,000/-. So, the total income of the petitioner per month is Rs.10,000/-+Rs.5,000/-=Rs.15,000/- per month. The annual income of the petitioner comes to Rs.1,80,000/- for which petitioner is entitled. In the decision cited by the petitioner counsel i.e., 2011 ACJ at page 1 in between Raj Kumar Vs. Ajay Kumar and 11 another, which is referred above, calculations with regard to loss of earnings and future loss of earnings were made as annual income and percentage of disability out of annual income and multiplier applicable. So, loss of earnings as future prospects of the petitioner is determined as follows: Annual income of the petitioner is Rs.1,80,000/-, as per the evidence of PW.2 the petitioner has got 30% disability. So, 30% of annual income comes to Rs.54,000/-. Multiplier 18 is applicable to petitioner.

So, Rs.54,000/-X18=Rs.9,72,000/-. So, the petitioner now entitled to

Rs.9,72,000/-(Rupees Nine lakhs seventy two thousand only) under the head loss of earnings.

23.TOWARDS LOSS OF ENJOYMENT OF LIFE AND MARIAGE PROSPECTS:

In the decision cited by the petitioner i.e., 2014(5) ALD at page 42(SC) in between V.Mekala Vs. M.Malathi and another, the Hon’ble Supreme

Court also granted compensation under the head loss of enjoyment of life and marriage prospects. I have also seen the crushed hand of the petitioner, during her evidence in the Court. So, there is a damage to the marriage prospects of the petitioner. So, in my view Rs.1,00,000/-(Rupees

One Lakh only) is the reasonable compensation under the head loss of enjoyment of life and marriage prospects.

24. TOWARDS ATTENDANT AND EXTRA NOURISHMENT CHARGES:

Attendant charges :

i)

The petitioner needs one attendant during her treatment in the hospital and subsequently after discharge from the hospital during healing period. As per the evidence of PW.2 the final treatment was done on 25.06.2013. So, from the date of accident, the petitioner was under treatment nearly for Ten(10) months. So, for ten months period the petitioner is entitled for attendant charges. So, I feel Rs.1,000/- per month is the reasonable compensation towards attendant charges.

So, for ten months petitioner is entitled Rs.10,000/-(Rupees ten thousand only) towards attendant charges.

12

Extra Nourishment charges :

The petitioner needs some extra nourishment of food to heal up her injuries. So, I feel Rs.10,000/-(Rupees ten thousand only) is the reasonable compensation towards extra nourishment.

So, the petitioner is entitled to an amount of Rs.20,000/- (Rs. Twenty thousand only) under the head attendant charges and extra nourishment charges.

25. Thus, petitioner is entitled for claim of compensation under various heads as follows:

a) Towards pain and Sufferance -Rs.1,20,000/-

b) Towards Loss of Earnings -Rs.9,72,000/-

c) Towards Hospital and Medical expenses - Rs.2,44,400/-

d) Towards loss of enjoyment of life and - Rs.1,00,000/- marriage prospects

d) Towards Attendant and Extra -Rs.0,20,000/- Nourishment charges --------------------- Total - Rs.14,56,400/- --------------------- (Rupees Fourteen Lakhs Fifty six thousand and four hundred only)

Thus, the petitioner is entitled for claim of compensation of Rs.14,56,400/- (Rupees

Fourteen Lakhs Fifty six thousand and four hundred only). Accordingly, Issue No.2 is answered.

26.ISSUE No.3:

In the result, the petition is allowed in part with proportionate costs, against Respondent Nos.1 and 2 by awarding compensation of

Rs.14,56,400/- (Rupees Fourteen Lakhs Fifty six thousand and four hundred only) to the petitioner with subsequent interest at 7.5% per annum from the date of petition till the date of deposit.

Respondent Nos.1 and 2 are jointly and severally liable to pay compensation. Two (2) months time is granted to deposit the compensation amount.

13

On such deposit, the petitioner is permitted to withdraw an amount of

Rs.6,00,000/-(Rupees Six lakhs only) and the rest of the compensation amount of the petitioner with accrued interest and proportionate costs shall be deposited in any nationalized bank for a period of four(4) years.

Rest of the claim of the petitioner is dismissed. The fees of the

Advocates is fixed at Rs.3,000/-(Rupees three thousand only).

Dictated to Copyist, transcribed by her, corrected and pronounced by

me in the open Court on this, the day of 24t h day of March, 2016.

CHAIRMAN,

MOTOR ACCIDENTS CLAIMS TRIBUNAL,

(VII ADDL. DISTRICT JUDGE),

KHAMMAM.

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

For Witnesses examined

For Petitioner: For Respondents:

PW-1: Ch.Sravya RW-1: Md.Fareed PW-2: Dr.MJ Naidu RW-2: J.Aruna

EXHIBITS MARKED FOR PETITIONER:

Ex.A1 is the First Information Report in Cr.No.229/2012 of P.S.Sathupally,

Ex.A2 is the CC of charge sheet

Ex.A3 is the CC of Wound certificate

Ex.A4 is the Bonafied certificate issued by Sai Spurthi Institute of Technology, B.Gangaram, Sathupally

Ex.A5 is the Discharge summary issued by issued by MK Naidu Super Specialty Hospital, Vijayawada

Ex.A6 is the Emergency admission certificate issued by MJ Naidu Super Specialty Hospital, Vijayawada

Ex.A7 is the Essentiality certificate issued by MJ Naidu Super Specialty Hospital, Vijayawada for Rs.2,24,811/- including hospital charges, investigation and pharmacy charges, implant and vascular surgery charges.

Ex.A8 is the Radiologist report issued by Dr.M.Krishna Kumar, Dr.Ramesh, Cardiac and Multi-specialty hospital Limited, Vijayawada

Ex.A9 is the Prescription issued by Dr.L.Raghuram, Orthopedic Surgeon, Sathupally

Ex.A10 is the certificate issued by Medical Officer, C.H.C., Sathupally

Ex.A11 is the Final bill issued by MJ Naidu Super Specialty Hospital, Vijayawada for Rs.1,40,000/-

Ex.A12 is the Out-patient Laboratory test bill-cum-receipt (2) in number for Rs.10,500/- issued by Dr.Ramesh Cardiac and Multispeciality Hospital Limited, Vijayawada 14

Ex.A13 is the Pharmacy OP Sale bills (3) in number issued by Teja Pharmacy, Vijayawada for Rs.9,062/-

Ex.A14 is the Medical bills (42) in number worth Rs.19,220/-

Ex.A15 is the Medical Prescriptions (24) in number

EXHIBITS MARKED FOR RESPONDENTS:

Ex.B1 is the CC of Insurance Policy No.78859183 valid from 18.01.2012 to 17.01.2013

Ex.B2 is the D.L.Extract of the driver Maheswar Rao, issued by RTA, Khammam

Ex.B3 is the Original copy of R.C. issued by RTA, Khammam

Ex.B4 is the authorization

Ex.B5 is the true copy of driving licence of T.Maheswara Rao

CHAIRMAN,

MOTOR ACCIDENTS CLAIMS TRIBUNAL,

(VII ADDL. DISTRICT JUDGE),

KHAMMAM.

IN THE COURT OF THE MOTOR ACCIDENTS CLAIMS TRIBUNAL (VII ADDL.DISTRICT

JUDGE) AT KHAMMAM.

15

Dated this, the 24th day of March, 2016

Present: Sri R.Pundareekakshudu, Chairman, M.A.C.T.-Cum-

Special Judge for trial of cases under-

SCs and STs (POA) Act-cum- VII Addl.District Judge, Khammam.

M.V.O.P.No.1250 of 2012

Presented on:14.11.2012. Filed on:04.12.2012

BETWEEN:

Chintalacheruvu Sravya, D/o Venkata Krishna Reddy, Age: 19 years, Occ:B.Tech II year (ECE), Sai Spurthi Institute of Technology, Sathupally, R/o TRR Street, Sathupally, Khammam district.

….Claim Petitioner.

And

1. Thirupathi Satyanarayana, S/o Venkateswarlu, Age: Major, Owner of Auto bearing No.AP.20.TB.4823, R/o Gangaram village, Sathupally Mandal, Khammam District.

IFFCO Tokio General Insurance Company Limited, rep. by its 2. Branch Manager, D.No.8-3-201/1, 1st floor, Veeraiah Choudary Complex above Bajaj Showroom, Wyra Road, Khammam- 507001,Insurer of crime vehicle i.e., auto bearing No.AP.20.TB.4823, vide policy bearing No.1-12BGWEWP400, valid from 18.01.2012 to midnight on 17.01.2013.

…Respondents.

CLAIM FOR : Petition filed under Section 166 of M.V. Act claiming compensation of Rs.15,00,000/- with interest @ 12% per annum and to award costs on account of injuries sustained by petitioner in a motor accident that occurred on 23.08.2012 at ABOUT 5.00 pm near Amma Mess, Siddaram Cross Road, Sathupally, Khammam District, due to rash and negligent driving by the driver of Auto bearing registration No.AP-20.TB.4823.

Respondent No.1 is the owner and Respondent No.2 is the insurer of Auto bearing registration No.AP-20.TB.4823.

COURT FEE PAID: Court fee of Rs.14,360/- paid U/Rule 475 (1) (b) of A.P.M.V. Rules.

DECREE:

This O.P. coming before me on 08.02.2016 for final hearing in the presence of Sri Ramisetti Hariprasad, Advocate for Claim Petitioner; Respondent No.1 remained ex parte; and of Sri G.Sita Rama Rao, Advocate for Respondent No.2; upon perusing the material papers on record; upon hearing arguments on both sides and having stood over for consideration till this day, this Court doth order and decree:

1.That the petition be and is hereby allowed in part with proportionate costs.

2.That the petitioner be and is hereby awarded compensation of Rs.14,56,400 (Rupees Fourteen Lakhs Fifty six thousand and four hundred only) with subsequent interest @ 7.5% per annum from the date of petition till the date of deposit.

3.Respondent Nos.1 and 2 are jointly and severally liable to pay the compensation.

16

4. That time of two (2) months is granted to deposit the compensation amount.

5. That on deposit of amount, the petitioner is permitted to withdraw an amount of Rs.6,00,000/- (Rupees Six lakhs only) and the rest of the compensation amount of the petitioner with accrued interest and proportionate costs shall be deposited in any nationalized bank for a period of four(4) years.

6. That rest of the claim is dismissed.

7.Advocate’s fee is fixed at Rs.3,000/- (Rupees three thousand only).

8. Respondents No.1 and 2 do also pay to the petitioner a sum of Rs…………. towards proportionate costs of the petition.

Given under my hand and the seal of this court on this, the 24th day of March, 2016.

CHAIRMAN,

MOTOR ACCIDENTS CLAIMS TRIBUNAL,

(VII ADDL. DISTRICT JUDGE),

KHAMMAM.

PARTICULARS OF COSTS

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- FOR FOR-1 FOR R-2

PETITIONER

1. Stamps on PetitionRs.

2. Stamps on powerRs.

3. Stamps on processRs.

4. Stamps on documentsRs.

5.Stamps on petitionsRs.

6. Advocate’s feeRs.

7. Commissioner’s feeRs.

8. Publication charges.Rs.

9. Misc. & Type chargesRs.

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ TOTALRs.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

CHAIRMAN,

MOTOR ACCIDENTS CLAIMS TRIBUNAL,

(VII ADDL. DISTRICT JUDGE),

KHAMMAM.

17 18

1

IN THE COURT OF THE MOTOR ACCIDENTS CLAIMS TRIBUNAL (VII ADDL.DISTRICT

JUDGE) AT KHAMMAM.

Dated this, the 22nd day of MARCH, 2016

Present: Sri R.Pundareekakshudu, Chairman, M.A.C.T.-Cum-

Special Judge for trial of cases under-

SCs and STs (POA) Act-cum- VII Addl.District Judge, Khammam.

M.V.O.P.No.1281 of 2012

Between:

1. Puppala Rama Rao, S/o Bhushaiah, Aged: 24 years, Occ: Agriculture, R/o Erlapudi village, Khammam Urban Mandal, Khammam district.

2. Puppala Sridevi, W/0 Rama Rao, Aged;26 years, Occ: House hold, R/o Erlapudi village, Khammam Urban Mandal, Khammam district.

And

1. The Correspondent, Sahithi Residential School, Khammam, Owner of School

Bus No.KL.17.A.9412.

National Insurance Co. Ltd, rep. by its Branch Manager, through local 2. branch, Khammam (Policy No.50404/31/11/6300001146 valid from 15.06.2011 to 14.06.2012) …Respondents

This petition is coming before me for hearing on 14-03-2016 in presence of Sri P.Viplavakumar, Advocate for claim petitioners, Where as Respondent No.1 remained ex parte. Sri V.N.Hanumantha Rao, Advocate for Respondent No.2; upon perusing the material papers on record; upon hearing arguments on both sides and having stood over for consideration till this day, this Tribunal passed the following:

O R D E R

1. This petition is filed by the petitioner for grant of compensation of Rs.3,00,000/- towards general and special damages on account of death of deceased in a motor accident that occurred on 21.11.2011. The claim petitioner Nos.1 and 2 are the parents of the deceased P.Gowtham.

2. The brief averments in the petition are that on 21.11.2011 morning, the deceased went to school in the school bus and evening after completion of classes, he boarded the school bus bearing No.KL.17.A.9412 to go back to home and on the way at about 1630 to 1700 hours, the deceased along with some other students got down near

Ramkya Thanda to pass urinals, in the meantime the bus driver taken the bus in reverse, without taking any precaution, resulting the bus tyre hit to the deceased, due to which he received injuries, immediately he brought to the house at 5.30 pm and he started vomiting. The deceased was shifted to Janani Hospital, Khammam and got 2 admitted as in patient for treatment, where the doctors scanned the head and informed that the deceased received internal severe injury and advised to shift him to

Hyderabad. Immediately, the deceased was shifted to Ahaya Hospital, Hyderabad and while undergoing treatment the deceased was died. Later the body of the deceased was shifted to Khammam, where the Duty Medical Officer, Govt. hospital, Khammam, conducted Post Mortem and issued PME report.

2(b). The accident took place due to rash and negligent driving of the driver of crime vehicle i.e. bus bearing No.KL.17.A.9412. The Police, P.S.Khanapuram Haveli registered a case in Cr.No.288/2011, under Sec.304-A and IPC against the driver of crime vehicle.

2©. The deceased Gowtham was a student of LKG and is aged about 6 years.

Due to the death of the deceased the claim petitioners are suffering untold mental agony. The deceased was the only son of claim petitioners and there is no chance to get children. As such the petitioners are claiming Rs.3,00,000/- towards general and special damages.

3. Respondent No.1 remained ex parte. Respondent No.2 filed written statement.

4. The brief averments in the written statement of Respondent No.2 are that

Respondent No.2 denied all the allegation in the petition. The Respondent No.2 specifically denies about the age, vocation and the mode of the accident. The

Respondent No.2 does not admit that the driver of crime vehicle was having valid driving licence at the time of accident. The Respondent No.2 does not admit that the crime vehicle was insured by their company. Respondent No.2 is entitled to contest on all the grounds available to Respondent No.1 under Sec.170 of MV Act. The respondent seeks protection under Sec.147 and 149 of M.V.Act. The claim of compensation is very high.

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

Whether the accident had occurred due to rash and negligent drive by the 1.

driver of Bus bearing No.KA.17.A.1700?

Whether the petitioners are entitled for compensation? If, so, what amount and 2.

from which of the respondents?

3

3. To what relief?

6. During the enquiry, 1st petitioner is examined as PW.1, PW.2 examined and

Exs.A1 to A4 were marked. On behalf of Respondent No.2 RWs.1 to 3 are examined and Exs.B1 to B7 were marked. Ex.X1 is marked.

7. Respondent Nos.2 filed petitions under Sec.170 of M.V.Act in IA No.836/15 and the same is allowed.

8. Heard both sides. Respondent No.2 filed written arguments.

9. ISSUE NO.1

As seen from the issue No.1, the bus number is mentioned as KA.17.A.1700 but as seen from exhibits filed by the petitioners, the vehicle number is mentioned as

KL.17.A.9412. So, there is a type mistake in Issue No.1, with regard to the bus number. As per Order 14 Rule 5 of CPC, the court has got power at any stage before the judgment to amend the issues or to strike out the issues which are not relevant.

So, the bus number is amended as KL.17.A.9412 in the Issue No.1, instead of

KA.17.A.1700. So, now the issue No.1 is read as follows:

Whether the accident had occurred due to rash and negligent drive by the 1.

driver of Bus bearing No.KL.17.A.9412?

10. PW.1 who is the 1st petitioner is the father of the deceased. PW.1 in the evidence stated that the deceased was studying LKG in Sahithi Public School,

Khammam. He further deposed that on 21.11.2011 morning, deceased went to the school, in the school bus and in the evening after completion of classes, he boarded the bus bearing No.KL.17.A.9412 to come back to home, at about 1630 hours, along with some other students. He further deposed that the deceased got down at Ramkya

Thanda, to pass urinals, in the meanwhile, the bus driver taken the reverse of the bus and hit the deceased and the deceased received injuries. He further deposed that the deceased was brought to his house and he shifted the deceased to Janani hospital,

Khammam and the doctor took scanning of the head and informed about injury and advised to shift to Hyderabad and immediately he was shifted to Abhaya Hospital,

Hyderabad and the deceased died while undergoing treatment. He further deposed that the accident was taken place due to the rash and negligent drive by the driver of the crime vehicle. PW.1 filed Exs.A1 to A4 documents. Ex.A1 is the CC of First 4

Information Report, Ex.A2 is the CC of Charge Sheet, Ex.A3 is the MVI Report and

Ex.A4 is the CC of PME Report.

11. PW.2 is the eye witness in the evidence stated that on 21.01.2011 at about 4.30 hours he went to the village to take his boy from the bus and one boy got down from the bus to answer the nature calls and when the boy was trying to board the bus, the bus moved and the boy fell down and received injuries.

12. RW.1 is the Administrative Officer of Respondent No.2’s company. RW.1 in the evidence stated the crime bus has no fitness and permit and insurance company is not liable to pay compensation.

13. RW.2 is the Administrative Officer, RTA, Khammam in the evidence stated that as per the record the bus bearing No.KL.17.A.9412 stands in the name of Sri Aditya

Gayatri School, previously in the name of Swathi Public School. He further deposed that as per their record fitness certificate was issued to the vehicle for the period from 08.06.2012 to 15.05.2013 under Ex.B6 and the permit is valid from 16.06.2012 to 15.06.2017. He further deposed that by the date of accident the bus did not possess permit and fitness.

14. RW.3 who is the Director of Sahithi School in the evidence stated that they purchased the bus in the year 2010 and sold away the same in 2012. He further deposed that they obtained permit and fitness certificate from RTA, Khammam under

Ex.X1.

15. The petitioner’s counsel submitted that the bus was originally registered at

Kerala and subsequently RW.3 was purchased and obtained permit and fitness certificates at Khammam. The counsel further submitted that the fitness and permit were available at Kerala. The counsel further submitted that the insurance policy was in force by the date of accident. So, Respondent Nos.1 and 2 are jointly and severally liable to pay compensation.

16. Whereas Respondent No.2’s counsel contention is that the crime vehicle did not possesses permit and fitness by the date of accident and there is violation of policy conditions and Respondent No.2 is not liable to pay compensation. Ex.A1 is the FIR,

Ex.A2 is the charge sheet. Ex.A3 is the MVI report and Ex.A4 is the PME Report. So, the documents filed by the petitioners shows that the deceased died in the accident.

5

Police filed charge sheet against one M.Satyanarayana, driver of bus No.KL.17.A.9412.

So, the documents filed by the PW.1 shows that the driver of bus was negligent at the time of accident. The deceased is the son of PW.1. So, the deceased received injuries as the bus was suddenly reversed and hit the deceased. RW.1 in the evidence categorically admitted that insurance policy was in force by the date of accident.

RW.1 further admitted that the driving licence of the driver is also valid. So, the vehicle was originally registered at Kerala and subsequently purchased by

RW.3Exs.B6 and B7 are the permit and fitness obtained from Andhra Pradesh

Government subsequently.

17. The petitioners are the parents of the deceased. So, the deceased died in the accident. By the date of accident the vehicle is covered with insurance. So, RW.3 who purchased the vehicle obtained permit and fitness from Andhra Pradesh Government.

Earlier vehicle was registered at Kerala. So, unless permit and fitness obtained at

Kerala vehicle would not be allowed to ply on the road. More so, the petitioners are the 3rd parties, it is difficult for the petitioners to secure the documents from Kerala, with regard to fitness and permit. As per the decision of Hon’ble High court reported in 2014 (3) ALD at page 706 in between New India Assurance Co. Ltd., Kurnool Vs.

Katika Giridhar Rao and another, our Hon’ble High court held that though the driver of the vehicle not possessed driving licence to drive the vehicle but, insurance company is liable to pay compensation and has to recover the same from the owner, in view of the precedents laid down by Constitutional courts. So, admittedly the policy was in force by the date of accident. Respondent No.1 is the owner of the vehicle and

Respondent No.2 is the insurer of the vehicle, both of them are jointly and severally liable to pay compensation. Accordingly, Issue No.1 is answered.

18. ISSUE NO.2:

LOSS OF DEPENDENCY

PW.1 is the father of the deceased. The deceased was studying LKG and aged about 6 years by the date of accident. As per the decision of Hon’ble Supreme Court i.e., 2013 SAR (Civil) 1067-SC reported in Kishan Gopal Vs. Lala, where in a 10 years boy died in the motor accident, the Hon’ble Supreme Court taken into consideration the notional income of the deceased as Rs.30,000/- and applied multiplier 15 and granted

Rs.4,50,000/- and also Rs.50,000/- under the other conventional heads. As per 6

Schedule-II under Section 163 of the Motor Vehicles Act, the notional income for compensation for those who have no income prior to the accident is to be taken into consideration as Rs.15,000/- per annum. Schedule-II is inserted by virtue of Act 54 of 1994 with effect from 14.11.1994. So, in this case notional income of the deceased is taken into account as Rs.15,000/- per annum and multiplier 15 is applicable. So, the total compensation is Rs.15,000/-X15=Rs.2,25,000/-. So, the petitioners are entitled to Rs.2,25,000/-(Rupees Two Lakhs twenty five thousand only) under the head loss of dependency. Petitioners also entitled for compensation under the heads funeral expenses and transport charges and love and affection.

19.TOWARDS TRANSPORT:

I feel that Rs.5,000/- (Rupees Five thousand only) is the reasonable compensation towards transport charges.

20.TOWARDS FUNERAL EXPENSES:

I feel Rs.10,000/- (Rs. Ten thousand only) is the reasonable compensation towards funeral charges.

21.TOWARDS LOVE AND AFFECTION:

Petitioner Nos.1 and 2 lost their son. So, I feel Rs.40,000/-(Forty thousand only) is the reasonable compensation towards love and affection.

22. So, petitioners in total entitled for Rs.2,80,000/-(Rs. Two lakhs, eighty thousand only) under all the heads as mentioned below:

Towards loss of dependency: Rs.2,25,000/-

Towards transport: Rs.0,05,000/-

Towards love and affection: Rs.0,40,000/-

Towards funeral expenses: Rs.0,10,000/- -------------------------------

Total: Rs.2,80,000/- ------------------------------ (Rs. Two lakhs, eighty thousand only)

23. 1st petitioner is the father of the deceased. 2nd petitioner is the mother of the deceased. I feel Rs.1,00,000/-(Rupees One lakhs only) is the reasonable compensation to the 1st petitioner. I feel Rs.1,80,000/- (Rupees One lakh, eighty 7 thousand only) is the reasonable compensation to the 2nd petitioner. I feel the apportioned compensation is reasonable and justifiable to the facts and circumstances of the case. So, Respondent Nos.1 and 2 are jointly and severally liable to pay compensation. Accordingly, Issue No.2 is answered.

24.ISSUE No.3:

In the result the petition is allowed in part with proportionate costs against

Respondent Nos.1 and 2, awarding compensation of Rs.2,80,000/-(Rs. Two lakhs eighty thousand only) with subsequent interest at 7.5% from the date of the petition till deposit.

Respondent Nos.1 and 2 are jointly and severally liable to pay the compensation.

Time of two (2) months is granted to deposit the compensation amount.

Out of the compensation amount awarded 1st petitioner is entitled to

Rs.1,00,000/- (Rupees One lakhs only) with proportionate costs and interest and the petitioner No.2 is entitled to Rs.1,80,000/-(Rupees One lakh, eighty thousand only) with interest and proportionate costs.

On such deposit, 1st petitioner is permitted to withdraw the entire amount of compensation awarded to him with interest and proportionate costs. 2nd petitioner is permitted to withdraw an amount of Rs.1,00,000/-(Rupees one Lakh only) and the rest of compensation amount of 2nd petitioner with interest and proportionate costs shall be deposited in any Nationalized Bank for a period of two(2) years.

The rest of the claim of the petitioner’s is dismissed. Advocates fee is fixed at

Rs.3000/- (Rupees Three thousand only).

Dictated to the Copyist, transcribed by her, corrected and pronounced by me in

the open Court on this, the 22nd day of MARCH, 2016.

CHAIRMAN,

MOTOR ACCIDENTS CLAIMS TRIBUNAL-

Cum- VII ADDL.DISTRICT JUDGE, KHAMMAM.

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

WITNESSES EXAMINED FOR

PETITIONERS:RESPONDENTS:

8

P.W.1.Puppala Rama Rao, RW.1:Nittala Laxminarayana P.W.2. Jatoth Mohan. RW.2:B.Krishna Reddy RW.3:J.Raghava Rao

EXHIBITS MARKED FOR

PETITIONERS:

Ex.A.1. Certified copy of First Information Report in Cr.No.288/11 of P.S., Khanapuram Haveli, dt.22.11.2011 Ex.A.2. Certified copy of Charge Sheet in CC No.19/12 on the file of II Addl.JFCM, Khammam, dt.22.11.2011 Ex.A.3. Certified copy of MVI Report, dt.28.11.2011 Ex.A.4. Certified copy of PME Report, dt.22.11.2011

RESPONDENTS:

Ex.B.1: Insurance Policy issued by R-2 company in favour of insured/R-1 valid from 15-06-2011 to 14-06-2012, dt:14.06.2011 Ex.B2: Office copy of Regd. Legal notice got issued by R-2 company to the Respondent No.1, dt.23.01.2015 Ex.B3: Postal Receipt No.3821, 23.01.2015 Ex.B4: Postal acknowledgement signed by R-1, dt.28.01.2015 Ex.B5: CC of MVI Report, dt.28.11.2011 Ex.B6: Extract of total history of fitness certificate of school bus issued by RTA, Khammam, 05.09.2015 Ex.B7: Extract of total history of permit of school bus issued by RTA,Khammam, dt.05.09.2015

Ex.X-1: is the Form 24 issued by RTA, Khammam

CHAIRMAN,

MOTOR ACCIDENTS CLAIMS TRIBUNAL-

Cum- VII ADDL.DISTRICT JUDGE,

KHAMMAM.

9

IN THE COURT OF THE MOTOR ACCIDENTS CLAIMS TRIBUNAL (VII ADDL.DISTRICT

JUDGE) AT KHAMMAM.

Dated this, the 22nd day of MARCH, 2016

Present: Sri R.Pundareekakshudu, Chairman, M.A.C.T.-Cum-

Special Judge for trial of cases under-

SCs and STs (POA) Act-cum- VII Addl.District Judge, Khammam.

M.V.O.P.No.1281 of 2012

Presented on:15.11.2012. Filed on:10.12.2012.

Between:

1. Puppala Rama Rao, S/o Bhushaiah, Aged: 24 years, Occ: Agriculture, R/o Erlapudi village, Khammam Urban Mandal, Khammam district.

2. Puppala Sridevi, W/0 Rama Rao, Aged;26 years, Occ: House hold, R/o Erlapudi village, Khammam Urban Mandal, Khammam district.

And

1. The Correspondent, Sahithi Residential School, Khammam, Owner of School

Bus No.KL.17.A.9412.

2. National Insurance Co. Ltd, rep. by its Branch Manager, through local branch,

Khammam (Policy No.50404/31/11/6300001146 valid from 15.06.2011 to 14.06.2012) …Respondents

CLAIM FOR : Petition filed under Section 166 of M.V. Act claiming compensation of Rs.3,00,000/- with interest @ 12% per annum and with regard to the death of the deceased P.Gowtham in a motor accident that occurred on 21.11.11 at 4.00 p.m under the limits of P.S.Khanapuram Haveli, Khammam District due to rash and negligent driving by the driver of School Bus bearing registration No.KL-17-A-9412.

Respondent No.1 is the owner and Respondent No.2 is the insurer of School Bus bearing registration No.KL-17-A-9412.

COURT FEE PAID: Court fee of Rs.2,360/- paid U/Rule 475 (1) (b) of A.P.M.V. Rules.

DECREE:

This petition is coming before me for hearing on 14-03-2016 in presence of Sri P.Viplavakumar, Advocate for claim petitioners, Where as Respondent No.1 remained ex parte. Sri V.N.Hanumantha Rao, Advocate for Respondent No.2;upon perusing the material papers on record; upon hearing arguments on both sides and having stood over for consideration till this day, this Court doth order and decree: That the petition be and is hereby allowed in part with proportionate costs 1. against Respondent Nos.1 and 2 That the petitioners be and are hereby awarded compensation of 2. Rs.2,80,000/-(Rs. Two lakhs eighty thousand only) with subsequent interest at 7.5% from the date of the petition till deposit.

10

That the Respondent Nos.1 and 2 are jointly and severally liable to pay 3. compensation.

4. That time of two (2) months is granted to deposit the compensation amount.

5. That out of the compensation amount awarded 1st petitioner is entitled to Rs.1,00,000/- (Rupees One lakhs only) with proportionate costs and interest and the petitioner No.2 is entitled to Rs.1,80,000/-(Rupees One lakh, eighty thousand only) with interest and proportionate costs.

6. That on such deposit, 1st petitioner is permitted to withdraw the entire amount of compensation awarded to him with interest and proportionate costs. 2nd petitioner is permitted to withdraw an amount of Rs.1,00,000/-(Rupees one Lakh only) and the rest of compensation amount of 2nd petitioner with interest and proportionate costs shall be deposited in any Nationalized Bank for a period of two(2) years.

7. That the rest of the claim of the petitioner’s is dismissed.

8.Advocate’s fee is fixed at Rs.3,000/- (Rupees three thousand only).

9. Respondents No.1 and 2 do also pay to the petitioner a sum of Rs…………. towards proportionate costs of the petition.

Given under my hand and the seal of this court on this, the 22nd day of March, 2016.

CHAIRMAN,

MOTOR ACCIDENTS CLAIMS TRIBUNAL-

Cum- VII ADDL.DISTRICT JUDGE,

KHAMMAM.

PARTICULARS OF COSTS

FORFOR R-1FOR R-2

PETITIONER

1. Stamps on PetitionRs.

2. Stamps on powerRs.

3. Stamps on processRs.

4. Stamps on documentsRs.

5.Stamps on petitionsRs.

6. Advocate’s feeRs.

7. Commissioner’s feeRs.

8. Publication charges.Rs.

9. Misc. & Type chargesRs.

CHAIRMAN,

MOTOR ACCIDENTS CLAIMS TRIBUNAL-

Cum- VII ADDL.DISTRICT JUDGE,

KHAMMAM.

11

IN THE COURT OF THE MOTOR ACCIDENTS CLAIMS TRIBUNAL (VII ADDL.DISTRICT

JUDGE) AT KHAMMAM.

Dated this, the 17th day of DECEMBER, 2015

Present: Sri R.Pundareekakshudu, Chairman, M.A.C.T.-Cum-

Special Judge for trial of cases under-

SCs and STs (POA) Act-cum- VII Addl.District Judge, Khammam.

M.V.O.P.No.1390 of 2012

Presented on:28.11.2012. Filed on:29.12.2012.

BETWEEN:

Kolla Venkateswar Rao, S/o late Appa Rao, Aged: 47 years, 1.

Occ: Driver,

Kolla Laxmi, W/o Venkateswar Rao, Aged:37 years, Occ: 2.

House-hold,

3. Kolla Bharathi, W/o late Appa Rao, Aged: 60 years, Occ:

House-hold,

4. Kolla Rajesh, S/o Venkateswar Rao, Aged: 27 years, Occ: Nil

5. Kolla Sathish, S/o Venkateswar Rao, Aged: 23 years,

Occ: Engineering Student 12

All are native of Jaggaiahpeta of Krishna District, R/o H.No.5-1-166, Kaviraja Nagar, Khammam Town and District.

…Claim Petitioners

And

1. Sudhakar Ankush Patil, S/o Ankush Patil, Aged:Major, Occ: Owner of Lorry bearing No.MH-24-J-2252, R/o Badur, Tq.Nilanga, Latur, Maharashtra.

2. The New India Assurance Co, Ltd, rep. by its Manager, Branch Office, Gayathri Krupa, Chandranagar, Ukka Marg, Latur-413512 (Policy No.16090331110100003589 valid from 09.08.2011 to 08.08.2012) …Respondents

CLAIM FOR : Petition filed under Section 166 of M.V. Act claiming compensation of Rs.16,00,000/- with interest @ 18% per annum and with regard to the death of the deceased Kolla Hareesh in a motor accident that occurred on 30.05.2012 at 12.30 hours near ‘Y’ Junction, Opp. D.Mart, Kukatpalli, due to rash and negligent driving by the driver of Lorry bearing registration No.MH-24-J-2252.

Respondent No.1 and 2 are the owner and insurer of Lorry bearing registration No.MH-24-J-2252

COURT FEE PAID: Court fee of Rs.15,360/- paid U/Rule 475 (1) (b) of A.P.M.V. Rules.

DECREE:

This O.P. coming before me on 02.11.2015 for final hearing in the presence of Sri K.Srinivasa Rao, Advocate for Claim Petitioners; Sri Vunnam Venkateswarlu, Advocate for Respondent No.1 and of Sri B.Gangadhar , Advocate for Respondent No.2; upon perusing the material papers on record; upon hearing arguments on both sides and having stood over for consideration till this day, this Court doth order and decree:

1.That the petition be and is hereby allowed in part with proportionate costs.

2. That the petitioners 1 and 2 be and are hereby awarded compensation of Rs.7,18,000/- (Rs. Seven lakhs and eighteen thousands only) with subsequent interest @ 7.5% per annum from the date of petition till the date of deposit.

3. Respondent Nos.1 and 2 are jointly and severally liable to pay the compensation.

4. That time of two (2) months is granted to deposit the compensation amount.

5. That out of the compensation amount awarded 1st petitioner is entitled to Rs.2,18,000/- (Rupees two lakhs and eighteen thousand only) with proportionate interests and costs and the 2nd petitioner is entitled to Rs.5,00,000/-(Rupees five lakhs only) with proportionate interests and costs.

6. That on such deposit, petitioner Nos.1 and 2 are permitted to withdraw an amount of Rs.1,50,000/-(Rupees One lakh fifty thousand only) each and the rest of the compensation amount of Petitioner Nos.1 and 2 shall be deposited in any Nationalized Bank for a period of three(3) years. 7.That the claim of petitioner Nos.3 to 5 is dismissed without costs. Rest of the claim of the petitioners is dismissed 13

8.Advocate’s fee is fixed at Rs.3,000/- (Rupees three thousand only).

9. Respondents No.1 and 2 do also pay to the petitioner a sum of Rs…………. towards proportionate costs of the petition.

Given under my hand and the seal of this court on this, the 17th day of December, 2015.

CHAIRMAN

MOTOR ACCIDENTS CLAIMS TRIBUNAL

(SPL.JUDGE FOR TRIAL OF CASES UNDER SCs AND STs (POA) ACT-CUM-ADDL.DISTRICT JUDGE),

KHAMMAM.

PARTICULARS OF COSTS

FORFOR R-1FOR R-2

PETITIONER

1. Stamps on PetitionRs. e

2. Stamps on powerRs. x

3. Stamps on processRs.p

4. Stamps on documentsRs.a 5.Stamps on petitionsRs.r

6. Advocate’s feeRs. t

7. Commissioner’s feeRs.e

8. Publication charges.Rs.

9. Misc. & Type chargesRs.

CHAIRMAN

MOTOR ACCIDENTS CLAIMS TRIBUNAL

(SPL.JUDGE FOR TRIAL OF CASES UNDER SCs AND STs (POA) ACT-CUM-ADDL.DISTRICT JUDGE),

KHAMMAM

14

IN THE COURT OF THE SPECIAL SESSIONS JUDGE FOR TRIAL OF CASES

UNDER S.Cs & S.Ts (PoA) ACT AT KHAMMAM.

Dated this the 22nd day of MARCH, 2016.

Present: Sri R.Pundareekakshudu, Spl. Judge for trial of cases under- SCs and STs (POA) Act-cum- Addl.Sessions Judge, Khammam,

SESSIONS CASE No.19 of 2015

(P.R.C.No.51/2014 was committed by I Addl.Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Kothagudem in Crime No.234/2013 of P.S., Enkoor for the offences under Sections 366, 376 of IPC and Sec.3 (1) (xii) of SC & ST (PoA) Act,1989.

=============================================================

PROSECUTION::ACCUSED:

Spl.Public Prosecutor conducted the : Battula Venkateswarlu, S/o Gopal, prosecution.Age:27 years, Occ: Agent in Sree RamafinanceCompanyat Sathupally, R/o Venkatapuram village of Kalluru Mandal.

Defence conducted by: Sri J.Nageswara Rao. Advocate defended the accused.

Charges: Charges u/ss.366 and 376 IPC and Section 3 (1) (xii) of SC & ST (PoA) Act,1989 framed against the accused

Plea of the accused: Not guilty.

Finding of the Court: Not Guilty

Sentence or order : In the result, I find the accused is not guilty of the offences under Sections.366 and 376 IPC and Section 3 (1) (xii) of SC & ST (PoA) Act, 1989. Accordingly he is acquitted under Section 235 (1) Cr.P.C. His bail bonds shall stands cancelled.

This Sessions Case coming before me for hearing; upon hearing arguments on both sides and having stood over for consideration till this day, this Court delivered the following:

J U D G M E N T

1. The State represented by the Sub-Divisional Police Officer, Kothagudem filed this case against the accused in Cr.No.234 of 2013 under sections 366, 376 of IPC and Sec.3 (1) (xii) of SC & ST (PoA) Act,1989 of P.S., Enkoor.

2

2. On 17.12.2014 the I Addl. Judl. Magistrate of I Class, Kothagudem taken the case on file under sections 366, 376 IPC and Section 3 (1) (xii) of SCs/STs(PoA)

Act,1989 and registered the case as PRC.No.51 of 2014.

3.After appearance of the accused, the learned Magistrate furnished the copies of documents to the accused as required under section 207 Cr.P.C. The learned

Magistrate committed the case to this Court under section 209 Cr.P.C after following

the procedure.

4.On 30.05.2015, this Court taken the case on file under sections 366,376 IPC and Sec.3 (1) (xii) of SC & ST (PoA) Act,1989. On 05.06.2015, the accused appeared

before this Court. On 25.08.2015, after hearing both sides, this Court framed the

charges u/ss.366 and 376 IPC and Section 3 (1) (xii) of SC & ST (PoA) Act,1989 against the accused and read over and explained to him in Telugu. The accused pleaded not guilty of the said charges and claimed to be tried.

5.During the trial, the prosecution in all examined PWs.1 to 4 and marked

Exs.P.1 to P.5.

6. The learned Spl. Public Prosecutor given up LWs.4, 6 to 29. LW.4 (B.Sujatha),

LW.6(V.Radha Krishna), LW.7(V.Ganga), LW.8(V.Govardhan Rao), LW.9(K.Rukmini),

LW.10(K.Laxmi), LW.11(T.Satyam), LW.12(M.Thulasamma), LW.13(T.Maha Laxmi),

LW.14(T.Kotesh), LW.15(T.Prasad), LW.16(Gangaram), LW.17(K.Ram chandraiah),

Lw.18(V.Govardhan Rao),LW.19(M.Pulla Rao), LW.20(T.Ramulu), LW.21(G.Nagesh),

LW.22(Nagamalleswara Rao), LW.23(Y.Venkateswarlu), LW.24(Dr.S.Jhansi laxmi),

LW.25(Dr.Kishore), LW.26(B.Pulla Rao), LW.27(K.Vinod), LW.28(Rangaraju Bhaskar),

LW.29(B.Surendar Rao)

7. After closure of prosecution evidence, as there is no incriminating evidence available against the accused, the examination under Sec.313 Cr.P.C. is dispensed with.

8. Heard both sides.

The case of the prosecution is that on 23.12.2013 at 16.00 hours, 9.

the defacto complainant (PW.1) lodged a complaint stating that about 5 days back i.e., on 19.12.2013, his daughter Thati Madhavi(PW.4), W/o Prasad left 3 the house at about 12.00 hours, while they went for cultivation work. The same was witnessed by Borroth Neelamma (PW.3) and narrated the same to them. PW.1 further stated that they noticed that their daughter was disappeared from the house and she did not return to house, they searched at all the surroundings and their relative’s houses but, her address was not traced. Further he stated that `his daughter is having female kid aged about 4 years.

10. It is the further case of prosecution that LW.26 (B.Pulla Rao) SHO,P.S.

Enkoor registered a case in Cr.No.234/2013 under head Women missing and issued FIR sent the copies to the concerned officers, took up investigation. During the course of investigation he visited the scene of offence, secured the presence of PWs.1 to 3 and LW.4(B.Sujatha) and examined them and recorded their statements and drafted sketch of first scene in the presence of mediators LWs.16 and 17(B.Rambabu and

K.Ram Chandraiah). While the investigation is in progress that on 04.01.2014 at 11.00 hours, PW.4 came to police station along with her parents and given statement that the accused under the pretext to collect finance amount, had a sore eye on PW.4/victim and he maintained relationship with her by deceitful manner and waiting for chance to fulfill his sexual lust, during that period the accused mesmerized and subdued the victim/PW.4 and he participated in sexual intercourse by threatening her with dire consequences and blackmailed her that he will reveal the matter to her husband and spoil her life, if she refused to cooperate. On 19.12.2013 at 12.00 hours, the accused came to the PW.4 , while she was at her parents 4 house and forced her to come with him by saying that he will marry her, on believing his words the victim/PW.4 eloped with him, without informing her in-mates and she was brought to Gangadevipadu village. There accused again forced and participated in sexual intercourse with her. When PW.4 asked to marry her he refused to marry her.

11. It is the further case of prosecution that as per the statements of of

PW.4, LW.27(K.Vinod)S.I of police PS Enkoor has altered the section of has

as 366,376 IPC and Sec.3(1)(xii) of SC/ST(POA) Act,1989. The C.D file

is forwarded to LW.28 (Rangaraju Bhaskar), SDPO, Kothagudem for further investigation. The Superintendent of police, Khammam issued proceedings vice C.No.06/SC-ST/Pro/2014, dt.04.01.2014, appointing LW.28(Rangaraju bhaskar) as investigation officer. On 08.01.2014 LW.28 verified the scene of offence, secured the presence of PWs.1 to 4 and LW.4(B.Sujatha),examined them and recorded their statements.

LW.28 sent a requisition to the tahsildar,enkoor to issue caste certificates of complainant, victim and also sent a requisition to Tahsildar, Kallur to issue caste certificate of accused. Later he visited Gangadevipadu village and secured the presence of LWs.6 to 8(V.Radha Krishna, V.Ganga and V.Govardhan Rao) and drafted 2nd scene in CDF and rough sketch, in the presence of LWs.18 and 19(V.Govardhan Rao and M.Pulla Rao). Later he visited Rallabanjar village of Dammapeta mandal, secured Lws.9 to 14(K.Rukmini, K.Laxmi, T.Satyam, M.Thulasamma, T.Maha Laxmi and T.Kotesh), examined them and recorded their statements and drafted 3rd scene in CDF and rough sketch in the presence of LWs.20 and 21(T.Ramulu 5 and G.Nagesh). Further he secured LW.15 (Thati Prasad) husband of the victim, examined him and recorded his statement.

12. It further the case of prosecution that on 03.02.2014, the accused was arrested by LW.28 and sent to judicial remand. LW.22 (Nagamalleswara Rao)

Tahsildar, Enkoor issued caste certificates of the PW.1 and victim/PW.4. LW.23(Y.Venkateswarlu), Tahsildar, Kallur issued caste certificate of the accused. LW.24(Dr.S.Jhansi lakshmi Bhai) Medical Officer, examined the victim and issued Medical certificate stating that there is no evidence of recent intercourse. LW.25(Dr.Kishore) Medical officer examined the accused for potency and issued certificate, stating that there is nothing to suggest that the male is not capable of performing Sex Act. LW.29(B.Surendar Rao),

SDPO, Kothagudem obtained copy of revised proceeding from the

Superintendent of Police, Khammam vide C.No.59/SC-ST/Pro/14, dt.20.10.2014 authorizing him to take up investigation, as such he took up investigation and verified the investigation done by Lw.28 and found correct lines. After collecting all the relevant documents and certificates, the

Sub-Divisional Police Officer, Kothagudem filed charge sheet against the accused for the aforesaid offences.

13.The plea of the accused is denial of offence.

14. The point for consideration whether prosecution proved the guilty against the accused with regard to the offences with which he was charged?

15.POINT:

PW.1 who is the de facto complainant in the evidence stated that PW.2 is his wife. PW.4 is his daughter, he do not know the accused. He further deposed that 6 he belong to Koya caste and he do not know the caste of accused. He further deposed that the husband of PW.4 Thati Prasad was working as APSP constable.

He further deposed that about two years ago on one day his daughter Madhavi (PW.4) came to his house along with her daughter and stayed for four days. He further deposed that when he went to coolie work on that day, his daughter had a quarrel with PW.2 and left the house. He further deposed that Pw.4 went to their relative’s house but she did not turn up for four days. He further deposed that as his daughter did not turn up for four days, he went to police station and police drafted the report, he signed on the report. He further deposed that Ex.P1 is his signature on the report, he do not know the contents in the report, police recorded his statement. He further deposed that his daughter returned to house four days later and informed him that she went to their relative’s house as PW.2 quarreled with her and his daughter did not disclose anything that somebody elope her. PW.1 was declared as hostile by the prosecution.

16. PW.2 in her evidence stated that PW.1 is her husband and she belong to Koya caste, she do not know to which community accused belongs. She further deposed that about two years ago on one day her daughter PW.4 quarreled with her and left the house. She further deposed that after her daughter returned to the house, she came to know that she went to their relatives house, she do not know to which village she gone there. She further deposed that there were nobody eloped her daughter and there were no body committed rape on her daughter. She further deposed that she did not state anything to the police. PW.2 also declared as hostile by the prosecution.

7 17.PW.3 in her evidence deposed that PWs.1 and 2 are her neighbours and she knew PW.4. She further deposed that she do not know any person at Gangadevipadu village, she do not know the accused and she do know anything about the offence. Pw.3 was declared as hostile by the prosecution.

18. Pw.4 in her evidence deposed that her in laws house is at Rallabanjara and she was married at the age of 18 years. She further deposed that her husband worked as APSP constable at Gangaram, 15th Betalian. She further deposed that she do not know the accused. She further deposed that in the year 2013, she went to her parents house along with her daughter and stayed for 10 days. She further deposed that there was a dispute between her and PW.2 and she left the house without informing to her parents and went to relative’s house at Gangadevipadu village. She further deposed that she returned after four days and there was nothing happened at Gangadevipadu village and there is no body committed rape on her. She further deposed that she did not disclose to her parents that accused with a deceitful words took away her from her parents house with a view to marry her and thereby enjoyed her sexually, against her wish. She further deposed that as her parents filed missing case against her, police recorded her statement and police sent her to government hospital. PW.4 also declared as hostile by the prosecution.

19. PW.4 is the victim; she did not state anything against the accused with regard to the offence. PWs.1 and 2 are the parents of the PW.4 and they did not state anything about the offence. PW.3 is the circumstantial witness; she did not state anything against the accused. So, the evidence adduced by the prosecution did not disclose any offence against the accused. So, the 8 accused is entitled for acquittal.

20.In the result, I find the accused is not guilty of the offences under

Sections.366 and 376 IPC and Section 3 (1) (xii) of SC & ST (PoA) Act, 1989.

Accordingly he is acquitted under section 235(1) Cr.P.C. His bail bonds shall stands cancelled.

Typed to my dictation to Copyist, corrected and pronounced by me in the open Court on this, the 22nd day of March, 2016.

SPL. SESSIONS JUDGE FOR TRIAL OF

CASES UNDER SCs AND STs (PoA) ACT,

KHAMMAM.

-APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE-

Witnesses Examined For Prosecution: For Defence: PW.1: M.Linga Raju. -: None :- PW.2: M.Mangamma PW.3: B.Neelamma. PW.4: T.Madhavi. Exhibits marked for Prosecution:

Ex.P1 : Dt.23.12.2013: Signature on complaint by Pw.1. Ex.P2 : Dt.08.01.2014: The 161 Cr.PC Statement of P.W.1. Ex.P3 : Dt.08.01.2014: The 161 Cr.PC Statement of P.W.2. Ex.P4 : Dt.08.01.2014: The 161 Cr.PC Statement of P.W.3. Ex.P5 : Dt.08.01.2014: The 161 Cr.PC Statement of P.W.4.

EXHIBITS MARKED FOR DEFENCE

-Nil-

MATERIAL OBJECTS

NIL-

SPL. SESSIONS JUDGE FOR TRIAL OF

CASES UNDER SCs AND STs (PoA) ACT,

KHAMMAM.

IN THE COURT OF

Prl.District and Sessions Judge

AT ,KHAMMAM

SC/100316/2016

Exhibit No. (PROSECUTION): The State P.S III Town, Kothagudem Through Police Station Officer Kothagudem III Town 58 , The State P.S III Town, Kothagudem

KHAMMAM

The State P.S III Town, Kothagudem VERSUS Bhattu Suresh Age: 0 Occupation : 21 years, Occ.Coolie, Ro.Muniya Thanda, Ho.Regalla of Kothagudem Mandal, Khammam Dist. ----------------------------------------------------------------------------- APP for State }: PP, Advocate for appearing for Bhattu Suresh Advocate appearing for , respectively. -----------------------------------------------------------------------------

Offence punishable under : 366-A of INDIAN PENAL CODE,

ORDER

1. Accused present. Learned Public Prosecutor present. 2. Heard. Perused the record. As can be seen from the record, the victim girl is aged about 17 years and thus she is a minor as on the date of offence. 2. Hence this case is made over to the court of Special Designated Judge for trial of cases under Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012 (I Addl. Sessions Judge, Khammam) for disposal according to law. Accused is hereby directed to appear before the said court on 18.11.2016 at 10.30 AM without fail. 3. Office is directed to transmit the entire case record forthwith to the Special Designated Court for trial of cases under POCSO Act at Khammam duly indexed.

Date : 19-10-2016 Prl.District and Sessions Judge

IN THE COURT OF

Prl.District and Sessions Judge

AT ,KHAMMAM

SC/100317/2016

Exhibit No. (PROSECUTION): The State P.S III Town, Kothagudem Through Police Station Officer Kothagudem III Town 15 , The State P.S III Town, Kothagudem

KHAMMAM

The State P.S III Town, Kothagudem VERSUS Sapavat Chitti Babu Age: 0 Occupation : 23 years, Caste.Lambada, Occ.Agriculture, Ro.Goriya Thanda, Ho.Seetharampuram of Kothagudem Mandal, Khammam Dist.

----------------------------------------------------------------------------- APP for State }: PP, Advocate for appearing for Sapavat Chitti Babu Advocate appearing for , respectively. -----------------------------------------------------------------------------

Offence punishable under : 376,417 of INDIAN PENAL CODE,

ORDER

1. Accused present. 2. This case is made over to the court of Special Judge for trial of cases relating to Atrocities Against Women, Khammam for Trial and Disposal according to law. 3. Accused is hereby directed to appear before the said Court on 18.11.2016 at 10.30 A.M without fail. 4. The office is directed to transmit the record forthwith to the said court duly indexed.

Date : 19-10-2016 Prl.District and Sessions Judge