Sri Ch Vijaya Mohan

1MV OP NO.300 of 2013

BEFORE THE MOTOR ACCIDENTS CLAIMS TRIBUNAL-CUM-

I ADDL. DIST.& SESSIONS JUDGE

MEDAK AT SANGAREDDY

PRESENT: SRI CH.VIJAY MOHAN,

I ADDL.DIST.& SESSIONS JUDGE,

MEDAK AT SANGAREDDY.

Tuesday, the 15th day of September, 2015

M.V.O.P.NO. 300 OF 2013

Between:

Mandula Sudarshan s/o Ramulu, Aged about 58 years, Occu: Business r/o H.No.2-1-15, Bhavaninagar, Sangareddy town, Medak Dist. … CLAIMANT

A n d

1. Mohd.Abed s/o Mohd.Madar Sab, Aged: Major, Occu: Owner of Auto Trolley bearing No.AP.23 V 9235 r/o H.No.1-3-86, Maruthinagar, Sangareddy town, Medak Dist.

2.United India Insurance Company Limited, Rep by its Branch Manager, UIIC Ltd., Branch at Sangareddy town, Medak Dist. (Insurance policy No.051403311P301369768 issued on 21.12.2012 valid upto 20.12.2013) … RESPONDENTS

This case came up before me for final hearing in the presence of Sri Ch.Baswaraj, Counsel for the claimant and Sri B.Peddi Raju, Counsel for the respondent No.2, the Respondent No.1 remained ex parte, upon perusing the material papers on record; upon hearing both sides, and having stood over for consideration, the court made the following:-

J U D G M E N T

CLAIM: This petition is filed by the injured claimant under Section 166 of Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 claiming compensation of

Rs.2,00,000/- for the injuries sustained by him in a motor vehicle accident.

2MV OP NO.300 of 2013

PETITION AVERMENTS:

2.The case of the claimant, in brief, was that he was a resident of Sangareddy town, Medak district, aged about 58 years, living by doing business and was earning Rs.10,000/- per month, by the date of accident. He submitted that on 27.03.2013 at 9.30 PM while he was proceeding from New Bus Stand, Sangareddy to his home on his Scooter bearing No.AP.23 AA 4149 and when he reached near Govt. Junior College, Sangareddy, a trolley auto bearing No. AP.23 V 9235, driven by its driver at high speed in rash and negligent manner, dashed him, due to which he fell down on the road along with scooter and sustained injuries over his left arm, left leg, ear, mouth and other parts of the body. Immediately, the claimant was shifted to Govt. Hospital, Sangareddy and after giving first aid, he was referred to Gokul Hospital, Sangareddy, where he admitted as inpatient for one week and spent more than Rs.35,000/- for his treatment. Police, Sangareddy town registered a case in

Cr.No.125/2013 under Section 337 IPC against the respondent No.1, who is the driver-cum-owner of trolley auto bearing No. AP.23 V 9235 and the accident occurred only due to his rash and negligent driving and claimed compensation from the respondents l and 2, the driver- cum-owner and insurer of the trolley auto bearing No. AP.23 V 9235.

COUNTER AVERMENTS:

3.The Respondent No.1 remained ex parte.

3MV OP NO.300 of 2013

4.The Respondent No.2 filed counter denying the petition averments in a general manner and submitted that the the alleged complaint was lodged before the police with fifty days delay and hence the claimant is put to strict proof of the petition averments. As per the driving licence extract, the driver of the alleged crime vehicle was holding transport licence valid upto 3.8.2012, but the accident occurred on 27.03.2013 and that the driver is not having valid driving licence by the date of accident and hence the insurance company is not liable to pay any compensation to the claimant and seeks protection under Sections 147 and 149 of Motor Vehicles Act.

ISSUES:

5. Basing on the above pleadings, the following issues are framed for trial by my learned predecessor:

1. Whether the injuries sustained by the petitioner in the motor accident are due to rash and negligent driving of the driver of the crime vehicle?

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

3. To what result?

EVIDENCE BEFORE THE COURT:

6.The claimant examined himself as Pw.1 and got examined the doctor who treated him at Gokul Venkateshwara Multi

Speciality Hospital, Sangareddy as Pw.2. He filed Ex.A.1 to Ex.A.7 on his behalf. On behalf of the respondent No.2, RW.1, the 4MV OP NO.300 of 2013

Administrative Officer of insurance company was examined as RW.1 and Ex.B.1 to B.3 were marked on his behalf.

ARGUMENTS:

7.Heard the arguments of the learned counsel for the claimant and the Respondent No.2. The counsel for the respondent

No.2 had filed written arguments.

8.ISSUE NO.1:- The claimant filed his evidence affidavit on the same lines of his claim petition. He contended that the accident was due to the rash and negligent driving of the driver of the trolley auto bearing No. AP.23 V 9235, which hit his vehicle, due to which he sustained injuries. Nothing was elicited in his cross examination to disbelieve his evidence. He denied the suggestions given by the learned counsel for the respondent No.2 that the accident was due to his negligence.

9.The claimant had relied upon Ex.A.1 to Ex.A.4 in support of his contention. Ex.A.1 to Ex.A.4 are the attested copies of police records. Ex.A.1, attested copy of the First Information Report would disclose that the police report of the claimant on 16.05.2015 stating that he met with an accident dated 27.03.2015 near Govt. Junior

College, Sangareddy and as he was unconscious and took treatment in Gokul Hospital, Sangareddy, the delay was occurred in lodging the report. He clearly stated the number of the vehicle involved in the 5MV OP NO.300 of 2013 accident in his report. Ex.A.2, attested copy of the charge sheet would disclose that the police Sangareddy town after investigation filed the charge sheet against the respondent No.1 i.e. the driver of the trolley auto bearing No. AP.23 V 9235 holding him responsible for the accident. Ex.A.3, the attested copy of the Scene of observation panchanama would disclose that the place of accident was in front of

Govt. Junior College, Sangareddy. It was noted in the scene of observation panchanama that as observed from the scene, the accident appeared due to the rash and negligent driving of the driver of the trolley auto bearing No. AP.23 V 9235, which hit the activa scooter of the claimant. Ex.A.4, Attested copy of the injury certificate of the claimant would disclose that he sustained injuries in the said accident and was admitted in Gokul Venkateshwara Multi Speciality

Hospital, Sangareddy on 28.03.2013 and discharged on 1.4.2013.

10.No rebuttal evidence was adduced by the respondent

No.2. He had not examined the driver of the trolley auto to show that the accident occurred in any other manner. Hence, considering the evidence of Pw.1 and Ex.A.1 to Ex.A.4, it is held that the claimant sustained injuries due to the rash and negligent driving of the driver of the trolley auto bearing No. AP.23 V 9235. Hence, this issue is answered accordingly in favour of the claimant as against the respondent No.2.

6MV OP NO.300 of 2013

11.ISSUE NO.2 :- The claimant submitted that he sustained injuries over his left arm, left leg, ear, mouth and other parts of the body and he was immediately shifted to Govt. Hospital,

Sangareddy and after giving first aid, he was referred to Gokul

Hospital, Sangareddy, where he was treated as inpatient for one week and got examined Pw.2 in support of his contention. Pw.2, stated that he is working as Orthopaedic Surgeon in Gokul

Venkateshwara Multi Speciality Hospital, Sangareddy since four years. Pw.2 stated that Pw.1 admitted in their hospital on 28.03.2013 with history of injuries sustained in a road traffic accident and on examination, he was found to have sustained a laceration over the left knee joint of 8 x 3 x 2 cms and a blunt injury over chest and shoulder and the injuries were opined as simple in nature. Pw.2 stated that Pw.1 was admitted in their hospital as inpatient for a period of four days. Ex.A.7 is the photo stat copy of medical certificate issued by him. Ex.A.6 is the bill issued by their hospital.

Pw.2 stated that Pw.1 is still complaining about some pain in his knee joint and has limping. Pw.2 stated that Pw.1 might have 5% of permanent disability due to said injury. Pw.2 admitted in his cross examination that Pw.1 was not referred by the police and he voluntarily came to their hospital. Pw.2 admitted that he had not issued any disability certificate to Pw.1 and denied that he is deposing false to help Pw.1. A perusal of Ex.A.4/discharge card of 7MV OP NO.300 of 2013

Gokul Venkateshwara Multi Speciality Hospital, Sangareddy would go to show that the claimant was admitted in the said hospital on 28.03.2013 and was discharged on 1.4.2013 in stable condition and his injuries were diagnosed as Head Injury, Cut injury on left knee lateral aspect 8 x 3 x 2 cms. Ex.A.5 is the injury certificate issued by

SKS Neuro Polytrauma Hospital, Kachiguda, Hyderabad, which would disclose that the claimant had severe pain in his left shoulder joint with restricted movements since one and half month due to RTA, but the doctor who treated him in SKS Neuro Hospital is not examined in this case. Ex.A.6 is two medical bills, one is for

Rs.403.50 paise for some medication and the other is for Rs.16,900/- issued by Gokul Venkateshwara Multi Speciality Hospital,

Sangareddy towards Registration, ICU charges, Consultations,

Nursing charges, IV fluids and fee of Duty Doctor etc. Ex.P.7 is the copy of the medical certificate issued by the above said hospital stating that the claimant was admitted in their hospital on 28.3.2013 with history of RTA and sustained injury over left knee joint and a blunt injury over the chest. Pw.2 admitted that Ex.A.6 and Ex.A.7 were issued by their hospital. Considering the evidence of Pws.l and 2 and Ex.A.4 to Ex.A.7, the claimant might have sustained a blunt injury over chest, an injury on left shoulder and an injury on left knee and he was treated as inpatient in Gokul Hospital, Sangareddy for four days and after discharging from Gokul Hospital, he might have 8MV OP NO.300 of 2013 taken treatment at SKS Neuro Hospital, Kachiguda, Hyderabad.

Considering the above, an amount of Rs.30,000/- is awarded towards 'pain and suffering' sustained by him due to the said injuries.

The claimant had filed the medical bills for an amount of

Rs.17,303/- marked under Ex.A.6. As Pw.2 also admitted these bills, the above amount of Rs.17,303/- is awarded towards 'medical expenses' of the claimant.

The claimant had not adduced any evidence in proof of his income from the business. In the absence of any evidence, his income is considered as Rs.5,000/- per month. Considering the injuries sustained by him, the loss of income is considered for a period of two months, an amount of Rs.10,000/- is awarded towards 'loss of income'.

Considering that he might have incurred some amount towards extra nutritious diet taken by him during the period of his recovery, towards transportation 'to and fro' to the hospital, an amount of Rs.10,000/- is awarded towards 'extra nourishment and transportation'.

As no evidence was adduced by the claimant that he sustained any permanent disability due to the accident, no amount is awarded towards “permanent disability”.

Hence, the total compensationawarded to the claimant under various heads is as follows:- 9MV OP NO.300 of 2013

Pain and sufferingRs.30,000-00

Medical expensesRs.17,303-00

Loss of incomeRs.10,000-00

Extra Nourishment and transportationRs.10,000-00

TOTAL Rs.67,303-00 and it is rounded off to Rs.67,500/-.

12.To determine as to who was liable to pay compensation, the Respondent No.2 contended that as per the driving licence extract, at the time of accident, the driver of the crime vehicle was not having transport licence to drive auto rickshaw or LMV transport licence and in support of his contention, he got examined RW.1, the

Administrative Officer of R.2 insurance company. RW.1 filed his evidence affidavit stating that the respondent No.1 had violated the terms and conditions of the insurance policy, due to above reasons, and hence the respondent No.2 is not liable to pay any compensation to the claimant. He relied upon Ex.B.1, the copy of the insurance policy, Ex.B.2, the driving licence particulars of respondent No.1 issued by Addl. Licensing Authority, Sangareddy and Ex.B.3 postal acknowledgment received by them for the notice sent to respondent

No.1. In the cross examination, RW.1 clearly admitted that by the time of this accident, Ex.B.1 policy is in force and that R.2 is liable to pay compensation if there are no violations. RW.1 stated that R.1 10MV OP NO.300 of 2013 was holding valid driving licence of non-transport category and he might have secured the transport category licence after the accident.

13.A perusal of Ex.B.1 insurance policy would disclose that it was valid from 21.12.2013 to 20.12.2014. Whereas the date of accident was on 27.03.2013. Hence, the policy was inforce by the date of accident. The respondent No.2 contended that the respondent No.1 was not holding transport category licence by the date of accident, but was possessing licence for non transport category. Admittedly, the auto trolley is a transport vehicle. As per

Ex.B.2, the respondent No.1 was not holding the licence for transport category, which is a clear violation on the part of the respondent

No.1. Though, the insurance policy is inforce, but for the violation of its terms and conditions by the respondent No.1, the respondent No.2 is not liable. Hence, this Court feels that it is just and proper to pass 'pay and recovery decree' in a case of this nature and is being passed accordingly. So, the respondent No.2/insurer has to pay the compensation to the claimant at the first instance and recover the same from the respondent No.1 by filing an Execution Petition.

Hence, this issue is answered infavour of the claimants and against the respondents.

14.Issue No.3 :- In the result, the petition is partly allowed, awarding compensation of Rs.67,500/- with proportionate costs and 11MV OP NO.300 of 2013 interest @ 7.5% per annum from the date of petition till the date of deposit of amount. The Respondent No.2/insurer has to pay the compensation to the claimants at the first instance and recover the same from the respondent No.1 by filing an execution petition. The respondent No.2 directed to deposit the compensation within a period of one month from the date of this order. The claimant is permitted to withdraw the same. Advocate fee is fixed at Rs.1500/-.

Typed to my dictation, corrected and pronounced by me in the open Court on this the 15th day of September, 2015.

I ADDL. DIST.& SESSIONS JUDGE

MEDAK AT SANGAREDDY

Appendix of evidence Witnesses examined

For ClaimantFor Respondents

PW.1 M.SudarshanRW.1 Sai Krishna Pw.2 Dr.P.Anand naik

Exhibits marked for claimant.

Ex.A.1 Attested copy of FIR Ex.A.2 Attested copy of Charge Sheet. Ex.A.3 Attested copy of Scene of observation panchanama. Ex.A.4 Discharge Card of Gokul Hospital. Ex.A.5 Injury certificate issued by SKS Neuro Hospital. Ex.A.6 Medical bills for Rs.17,303/-. Ex.A.7 Photo stat copy of medical certificate of Gokul Hospital.

Exhibits marked for Respondent No.2:

Ex.B.1 Copy of the insurance policy. Ex.B.2 Copy of the driving licence particulars. Ex.B.3 is the Postal Acknowledgment.

I ADDL. DIST.& SESSIONS JUDGE

MEDAK AT SANGAREDDY

12MV OP NO.300 of 2013

Dt. 15.09.2015.

Arguments of both sides heard. Order pronounced in open court (vide separate one). In the result, the petition is partlyallowed,awarding compensation of Rs.67,500/- with proportionate costs and interest @ 7.5% per annum from the date of petition till the date of deposit of amount. The Respondent No.2/insurer has to pay the compensation to the claimants at the first instance and recover the same from the respondent No.1 by filing an execution petition. The respondent No.2 directed to deposit the compensation within a period of one month from the date of this order. The claimant is permitted to withdraw the same. Advocate fee is fixed at Rs.1500/-.

I.ADJ

1M.V.O.P.NO.168 OF 2014

BEFORE THE MOTOR ACCIDENTS CLAIMS TRIBUNAL-CUM-

I ADDITIONAL DISTRICT & SESSIONS JUDGE

MEDAK AT SANGAREDDY

PRESENT: CH.VIJAY MOHAN,

I ADDL. DISTRICT & SESSIONS JUDGE,

MEDAK AT SANGAREDDY.

Tuesday, the 22nd day of September, 2015

M.V.O.P. NO. 168 OF 2014 Between:

1. Allakatla Kistaiah s/o Venkat Ramaiah, Aged 38 years, Occu: Agril.,

2. Allakatla Laxmi w/o A.Kistaiah, Aged 32 years, Occu: House hold. Both r/o Mardi (v), Kalher Mandal, Medak District.

… CLAIMANTS AND

1. Mohd.Nazeer s/o Ghouse, Aged: Major, Occu: Owner of Tractor bearing No.AP.24 AN 5568, r/o H.No.3-51, Bollakpally (v), Pitlam Mandal, Nizamabad Dist.

2. M/s. Reliance General Insurance Company Limited, through its Manager, IV Floor, Sagar Plaza, Abids, Hyderabad – 500 001. (Policy No. 1804542343000008 valid from 17.01.2014 to 16.01.2015)

3. Saigonda s/o Ramgonda, Aged: Major, Owner of Trailer bearing No.AP.25 J 4353, r/o H.No.4-85/2, Fathepur (v), Kalher Mandal, Medak Dist.

… RESPONDENTS

This Original Petition came up before me for final hearing in the presence of Sri P.Vishnu Vardhan Reddy, Counsel for the claimants, Sri

G.Chandrakanth, Counsel for the Respondent No.1, Sri T.Satyanarayana, Counsel

for the Respondent No.2 and Sri M.Ravi, Counsel for the Respondent No.3; upon

perusing the material papers on record and upon hearing both sides, and having stood over for consideration, till this day, the court made the following:- 2M.V.O.P.NO.168 OF 2014

J U D G M E N T

This petition is filed by the parents of the deceased, under

Section 166 of Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 claiming compensation of

Rs.5,00,000/-, for the death of the deceased, by name, Allakatla Pandari, in a motor vehicular accident.

2.The case of the claimants, in brief, was that the deceased was a resident of Mardi (v), Kalher Mandal, Medak District, aged about 11 years and he was a student of 4th class, by the date of accident.

They submitted that on 26.01.2014, the deceased and one Khadeer came to Kalher by Auto rickshaw. At about 3.00 PM, when the deceased and Khadeer was proceeding towards the bore well on Kalher to

Masanpally BT road for drinking water, at that time, the driver of the

Tractor and Trailor bearing Nos.AP.23 AN 5568 and AP.25 J 4353 drove the same at high speed in rash and negligent manner and dashed the deceased by coming towards wrong side, due to which the deceased fell down, received injuries and died on the spot. The said accident took place only due to the rash and negligent driving of the driver of the tractor-trailor. The police Sirgapur registered a case in Cr.No.14/2014 u/s 304-A IPC against the driver of the Tractor and Trailor bearing

Nos.AP.23 AN 5568 and AP.25 J 4353 and the said case is pending

before the Judicial First Class Magistrate, Narayankhed. Due to sudden

and untimely death of the deceased, the claimants suffered much mental 3M.V.O.P.NO.168 OF 2014 pain and agony and hence claimed compensation from the Respondents no.1 and 2, the owner and insurer of the said Tractor and Trailor bearing

Nos.AP.23 AN 5568 and AP.25 J 4353.

3.The Respondents No.1 to 3 filed separate counters denying the petition averments. The Respondent No.1 submitted that the vehicle was validly insured with the respondent No.2, covering the period of accident and that the driver of the vehicle was also having valid license and that the deceased himself has contributed for the accident, as such the claimants are not entitled for any compensation from the respondents. The Respondent No.2 contended that the alleged accident is caused due to the sole/contributory negligence on the part of the driver of the auto, as such he himself is responsible and this respondent no.2 is not liable to pay compensation to the claimants. The respondent No.2 further contended that the driver of the insured vehicle is not having valid and effective driving licence as on the date of accident and that the owner had willfully entrusted the vehicle to a person who was not having driving licence, as such even if this respondent is found to be the insurer, he is not liable to pay any compensation. The respondent No.3 contended that he is the owner of the trailor bearing No. AP.25 J 4353, which was validly insured with the respondent No.2 by covering the period of accident and he has not violated any terms and conditions of the policy. The respondent No.3 further contended that the deceased 4M.V.O.P.NO.168 OF 2014 himself contributed for the accident, as such the claimants are not entitled for any compensation from the respondents l to 3.

4.Basing on the above pleadings, the following issues were framed by my learned predecessor for trial:

1.Whether the death of the deceased occurred in the motor accident due to the rash and negligent driving of the driver of the crime vehicle?

2.Whether the petitioners are entitled for compensation, as prayed for, if so, at what amount and from whom?

3.To what result?

5. During the course of trial, on behalf of the claimants, Pws.l and 2 were examined and Ex.A.1 to Ex.A.6 were marked. On behalf of the respondent No.2, Ex.B.1, copy of the insurance policy is marked by consent. No oral evidence is adduced on behalf of the respondents No.1 to 3.

6.Heard the learned counsel for the claimants and the respondents. Perused the record.

7.Issue No.1:- The claimant No.1, the father of the deceased, examined himself as P.W.1. He filed his evidence-affidavit on the same lines of the claim petition. Admittedly, he is not an eyewitness to the accident. The claimants had examined an eye-witness to the accident, as P.W.2. P.W.2 filed his evidence affidavit stating that he witnessed the accident and that the accident was due to the rash and negligent driving 5M.V.O.P.NO.168 OF 2014 of the driver of the tractor tipper lorry No. KA-4-B-2524 and that he was cited as an eye-witness by the police in the charge sheet and was examined by the police. In the cross-examination, he stated that the he reached the accident spot within two minutes after this accident and saw the offending vehicle coming in high speed. Nothing more was elicited in his cross-examination to disbelieve his evidence as an eye-witness.

8.The claimants relied upon Ex.A.1 to A.6 in support of their contention. Ex.A1, the certified copy of the First Information Report would disclose that the police report was given by the claimant No.1 about the death of his son, on being informed by one Janardhan over phone, while he was working in his agricultural fields. He stated the number of the tractor involved in the accident in his report. Ex.A2, the certified copy of the charge sheet would disclose that the police after investigation filed the charge sheet against the driver of the tractor bearing No.AP.24 AN 5568 holding him responsible for the accident.

P.W.2 was also cited as an eyewitness by the police in the list of witnesses appended to the charge sheet, which adds credence to his evidence as an eyewitness before this Tribunal. Ex.A3, the certified copy of the scene of observation panchanama along with rough sketch would disclose that the place of accident was at the outskirts of Kalher on a 'Thar road' and the Tractor and Trailor bearing Nos.AP.23 AN 5568 and AP.25 J 4353 and the dead body of the deceased were also found at the place of accident. Ex.A4, the certified copy of the inquest 6M.V.O.P.NO.168 OF 2014 panchanama would disclose that the panch-witnesses opined that the cause of death of the deceased was due to the road traffic accident.

Ex.A5, certified copy of the post mortem examination report would disclose that the cause of the death of the deceased was due to shock due to spleenic rupture. Ex.A6, certified copy of the M.V.I report would disclose that there was no mechanical defect in the Tractor and Trailor bearing Nos.AP.23 AN 5568 and AP.25 J 4353.

9.The respondents no.1 to 3 had not adduced any rebuttal evidence to disbelieve the evidence of P.W.2 or the investigation conducted by the police. Though the respondents No.1 to 3 contended that the deceased contributed for the accident, no evidence was adduced by them to show that the accident was due to the contributory negligence of the deceased. The respondents No.1 to 3 had not examined the driver of the tractor, nor adduced any evidence to show that the investigation conducted by the police was false. Hence, considering the oral evidence of PW2 and and the documentary evidence marked under Ex.A.1 to A.6, it is held that the death of the deceased was due to the rash and negligent driving of the driver of the tipper Tractor and Trailor bearing Nos.AP.23 AN 5568 and AP.25 J 4353. Hence, Issue No.1 is answered accordingly in favour of the claimants as against the respondents.

7M.V.O.P.NO.168 OF 2014

10.Issue No.2 :- The claimants had not filed any documentary evidence in proof of the age of the deceased. In the absence of any reliable proof of the age of the deceased, his age as found in the inquest and post mortem examination reports is considered. As per Ex.A.4 and

A.5, the certified copies of inquest and post mortem examination reports would disclose the age of the deceased as 11 years, it is taken as such.

The deceased is a non earning member.

11.The learned Advocate for the claimants had relied upon the judgment of the Hon'ble Apex Court in Kishan Gopal and another Vs.

Lala and others, reported in 2013 (6) ALD 59 (SC), wherein the editorial board lucidly mentioned in Head Note as under:-

Motor Vehicles Act 1988 – Section 168 – Compensation – Quantum of, determination – Deceased, aged 10 years, was assisting father in agricultural operations – As per Clause 6 of Second Schedule under Section 163-A of Act notional income of non-earning persons can be taken at Rs.15000/- - However, considering drastic fall in rupee value, it would be just and reasonable to take notional income as Rs.30,000/- - Taking young age of parents namely mother who was about 36 years old, at time of accident, as per 2009 (3) ALD 83 (SC), multiplier 15 can be applied to multiplicand – Thus, Rs.4,50,000/- (Rs.30,000 x 15) towards loss of contribution of deceased to family and Rs.50,000/- under conventional heads towards loss of love and affection, funeral expenses, last rites etc., as held in (1994) 2 SCC 176, would be fair, just and reasonable compensation to be awarded in favour of appellants – Said amount will carry interest at rate of 9% p.a., as per (2011) 14 SCC 481, for reason that Insurance company has been contesting claim for nearly about 21 years.” 8M.V.O.P.NO.168 OF 2014

In the case on hand, the deceased was aged 11 years and was a student of 4th class, by the date of accident. Relying upon the above decision, this Court also would take the notional income of the deceased as Rs.30,000/- per annum. The mother of the deceased i.e. claimant

No.2 is shown as 32 years by the date of filing of the claim petition. In the inquest report marked under Ex.A.4, she was shown as 32 years old.

Hence, The multiplier for the age group of 31 – 35 years is '16' as per the judgment of the Hon'ble Apex Court in Sarla Verma and others

Vs. Delhi Transport Corporation and another (2009 ACJ 1298). Thus, the loss of contribution of the deceased to the family would be

Rs.4,80,000/- (Rs.30,000/- x 16). To which, I would like to add

Rs.50,000/- towards loss of love and affection, funeral expenses, last rites etc, as was awarded in the above cited decision. Hence, the total compensation would come to Rs.5,30,000/-. Since the claimants claimed compensation of Rs.5,00,000/-, the compensation amount is restricted to the amount claimed.

12.The respondent No.2 had not adduced any evidence in proof of the breach of the terms and conditions of the policy. He filed a copy of the policy marked under Ex.B.1. Ex.B.1 would disclose that the respondent No.1 was the registered owner of the Tractor No.AP.24 AN 5568 and it was insured with the respondent No.2 vide Policy

No.1804542343000008 valid for the period from 17.01.2014 to 16.01.2015. As the date of accident is stated to be on 26.01.2014, the 9M.V.O.P.NO.168 OF 2014 policy is found to be valid by the date of accident. The respondent No.3 is the owner of the trailor No.AP.25 J 4353, which was attached to the tractor No.AP.24 AN 5568 at the time of accident. Hence, the respondents No.1 to 3 are held to be jointly and severally liable to pay the compensation to the claimants.

13.Issue No.3:- In the result, the petition is allowed, awarding a compensation of Rs.5,00,000/- (Rupees five lakhs only) with costs and interest @ 7.5% per annum from the date of petition till the date of its deposit before the Court. The Respondents No.1 to 3 are held to be jointly and severally liable to pay the compensation amount to the claimants and they are directed to deposit the same within a period of one month from the date of this order. The above compensation amount is apportioned between both the claimants in equal proportion and they are permitted to withdraw 50% of their respective share amounts at the first instance and their remaining share amounts shall be kept in fixed deposit in any nationalised bank for a period of three years. Advocate fee is fixed at Rs.5,000/-.

Typed to my dictation, corrected and pronounced by me in the open court on this the 22nd day of September, 2013.

I ADDL. DIST.& SESSIONS JUDGE

MEDAK AT SANGAREDDY

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

WITNESSES EXAMINED

FOR CLAIMANTSFOR RESPONDENTS

PW.1 Allakatla KistaiahNIL PW.2 Kummari Janardhan 10M.V.O.P.NO.168 OF 2014

EXHIBITS MARKED ON BEHALF OF CLAIMANTS:

Ex.A1 Certified copy of F.I.R

Ex.A2 Certified copy of charge sheet.

Ex.A3 Certified copy of Scene of offence panchanama and sketch.

Ex.A4 Certified copy of Inquest report.

Ex.A5 Certified copy of Post Mortem Examination report.

Ex.A6 Certified copy of Motor Vehicle Inspector's report.

EXHIBITS MARKED ON BEHALF OF RESPONDENT NO.2:

Ex.B.1 Copy of the Policy.

I ADDL. DIST.& SESSIONS JUDGE

MEDAK AT SANGAREDDY

11M.V.O.P.NO.168 OF 2014

DT.22.09.2015 Heard arguments on both sides. Judgment pronounced in the open Court (vide separate one) In the result, the petition is allowed, awarding a compensation of Rs.5,00,000/- (Rupees five lakhs only) with costs and interest @ 7.5% per annum from the date of petition till the date of its deposit before the Court. The Respondents No.1 to 3 are held to be jointly and severally liable to pay the compensation amount to the claimants and they are directed to deposit the same within a period of one month from the date of this order. The above compensation amount is apportioned between both the claimants in equal proportion and they are permitted to withdraw 50% of their respective share amounts at the first instance and their remaining share amounts shall be kept in fixed deposit in any nationalised bank for a period of three years. Advocate fee is fixed at Rs.5,000/-.

I Additional District Judge

1M.V.O.P.NO.167 OF 2014

BEFORE THE MOTOR ACCIDENTS CLAIMS TRIBUNAL-CUM-

I ADDITIONAL DISTRICT & SESSONS JUDGE

MEDAK AT SANGAREDDY

PRESENT: SRI CH.VIJAY MOHAN,

I ADDL.DIST.& SESSIONS JUDGE,

MEDAK AT SANGAREDDY.

THURSDAY, THE 27th DAY OF AUGUST, 2015

M.V.O.P. NO. 167 OF 2014 Between:

1. Smt.Vislavath Shoba w/o late Shankar, Aged 24 years, Occu: House hold.

2. Vislavath Naveen s/o late Shankar, Aged 6 years,

3. Vislavath Rahul s/o late Shankar, Aged 4 years,

4. Vislavath Gunji @ Gujri w/o late Meghiya, Aged 60 years, Occu: House hold.

5. Kum.Vislavath Vijaya Rani d/o late Maliya, Aged 18 years, Occu: House hold.

(Claimants No.2 & 3 are minors, under the care, custody and guardianship of their mother, Shoba, claimant No.1)

All are native of Shahbad tanda, Yellupet (v), Mandal: Tekmal, Dist.Medak. Now r/o Pothireddipally (v), Mandal: Sangareddy, Medak District. … Claimants AND

1. Ramavath Naresh s/o Valya, Aged Major, Occu: Owner of Trolley bearing No.AP.23 TA 0380 r/o H.No.1-43/1, Shahbad, Mandal: Tekmal, Medak District.

2. M/s Royal Sundaram Alliance Insurance Company Limited, through its Manager, A-block, 5th floor, Jerwel Pawan Towers, Raj Bhavan Road, Somajiguda, Hyderabad. … RESPONDENTS

This Original Petition came up before me for final hearing in the presence of Sri M.Dhanraj, Counsel for the Claimants and of Sri P.Balreddy, Counsel for the Respondent No.2, while the Respondent No.1 remained ex parte; upon perusing the material papers on record and upon hearing both sides, and having stood over for consideration, till this day, the court made the following:-

Contd...

2M.V.O.P.NO.167 OF 2014

J U D G M E N T

CLAIM: This petition is filed by the Claimants/wife, children, mother and unmarried sister of the deceased, under Section 166 of Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 claiming compensation of

Rs.10,00,000/- for the death of the deceased by name Vislavath

Shankar in a motor vehicle accident .

PETITION AVERMENTS:

2.The case of the Claimants, in brief, was that the deceased was a resident of Shabad thanda of Yellupet (v),

Mandal: Tekmal, Medak District, aged about 25 years, doing agriculture and attending the labour work on contract basis and was earning Rs.10,000/- per month, by the date of accident.

The Claimants submitted that on 7.1.2014, the deceased was attending the labour work on contract basis to load and unload the fertilizer bags in the trolley auto bearing No.AP.23 TA 0380.

At about 4.00 PM, the deceased along with the driver of the said trolley auto were proceeding to Papannapet to bring fertilizer bags. When they reached near the cross roads of

Timmaipally, the driver of the said trolley drove it in rash and negligent manner and in the meanwhile, one buffalo came suddenly on the road and the driver in order to save the buffalo, applied sudden brakes, as a result, the trolley turned turtle, the deceased fell down and received severe injuries.

3M.V.O.P.NO.167 OF 2014

Immediately, the deceased was shifted to Govt. Hospital,

Medak, from there he was referred to Gandhi Hospital,

Secunderabad, where while undergoing treatment, he succumbed to injuries on 10.01.2014. The Police, Papannapet registered a case in Cr.No.6/2014 under Section 304-A IPC against the driver of the trolley auto bearing No.AP.23 TA 0380 and the same is pending on the file of Judicial First Class

Magistarte, Andole at Jogipet. The Claimants claimed compensation from the respondents l and 2, the owner and the insurer of the trolley auto bearing No.AP.23 TA 0380.

COUNTER AVERMENTS:

3. The Respondent No.1 remained ex parte.

4.The Respondent No.2 filed counter denying the petition averments. The respondent no.2 denied the age, occupation and earnings of the deceased, the manner of accident, the involvement of trolley auto bearing No.AP.23 TA 0380, which resulted in the death of the deceased and that that the Claimants were the legal heirs of the deceased. The respondent No.2 contended that the respondent No.1 had not paid any premium for the labourers or passengers, as such the claimants are not entitled for any compensation either from this respondent or from the respondent No.1. The respondent No.2 further contended that the person who drove the offending 4M.V.O.P.NO.167 OF 2014 vehicle was not having valid and subsisting driving licence and the vehicle was not road worthy to ply on the road and puts the claimants to strict proof of the same. The respondent No.2 contended that the compensation claimed was excessive and sought protection under Sections 147, 149 and 170 (b) of of

Motor Vehicles Act.

ISSUES:

5.Basing on the above pleadings, the following issues were framed for trial by my learned predecessor:

1.Whether the deceased died in the motor accident due to the rash and negligent driving of the driver of the crime vehicle?

2.Whether the Claimants are entitled for compensation as prayed for, if so, at what amount and from whom?

3.To what result?

EVIDENCE BEFORE COURT:

6. On behalf of the claimants, Pws.1 and 2 were examined and Ex.A.1 to Ex.A.6 were marked. On behalf of the respondent No.2, RW.1 was examined and Ex.B.1 was marked.

The respondent No.1 remained ex parte.

7.Heard the learned counsel for the Claimants and the

Respondent No.2.

8.Issue No.1 :- The Claimants examined an eye witness to the accident as Pw.2. Pw.2 filed his chief affidavit on the same lines of the claim petition. According to him, the accident 5M.V.O.P.NO.167 OF 2014 occurred due to the rash and negligent driving of the driver of the trolley auto. In his cross examination, he stated that the deceased is his younger brother and denied that the deceased was travelling as a passenger in the auto. He stated that the auto was taken on hire for transporting the fertilizer bags and admitted that the auto trolley was not loaded at the time of accident. Nothing more was elicited in the cross examination of

Pw.2 to discredit his evidence-in-chief.

9.The Claimants had also relied upon Ex.A.1 to Ex.A.6 in support of their contention. Ex.A.1, the certified copy of the

First Information Report would disclose that the police report was given by the relative of the deceased on 10.1.2014 at 1400 hours. The de facto complainant stated the number of the trolley auto, the manner of the accident etc in his report.

Ex.A.2, the certified copy of the charge sheet would disclose that the police after investigation filed the charge sheet against the driver of the trolley auto bearing No.AP.23 TA 0380 holding him responsible for the accident. Pw.2 was also cited as a witness in Ex.A.2, the charge sheet filed by the police. Ex.A.3, the certified copy of Scene of observation panchanama would disclose that it was conducted by the police on 10.01.2014 at 1530 hours on Mallampet road near Papannapet. Ex.A.4, the certified copy of the inquest report would disclose that the 6M.V.O.P.NO.167 OF 2014 panchas opined that the deceased died due to the receipt of injuries in the accident that occurred due to the rash and negligent driving of the driver of the trolley auto. Ex.A.5, the certified copy of the post mortem examination report disclosed that the deceased died due to spinal injury. Ex.A.6, the certified copy of the Motor Vehicle Inspector’s report would disclose that the accident was not due to any mechanical defects of the trolley auto.

10.The respondent No.2 had not adduced any rebuttal evidence to disbelieve the evidence of Pw.2 or the investigation conducted by the police. In the absence of any rebuttal evidence, considering the evidence of Pw.2 and Ex.A.1 to

Ex.A.6, it is held that the deceased died due to the injuries sustained in the road traffic accident due to the rash and negligent driving of the driver of trolley auto bearing No.AP.23

TA 0380. Hence, the issue No.1 is answered accordingly in favour of the Claimants as against the respondent No.2.

11.Issue No.2 :- Now what is the quantum the claimants are entitled to is the question. The Claimant No.1, the wife of the deceased, examined herself as Pw.1. She filed her chief affidavit stating that her husband was aged about 25 years, doing agriculture and also attending labour work on contract and was earning Rs.10,000/- per month, by the date of 7M.V.O.P.NO.167 OF 2014 accident. But, she had not filed any reliable proof about the age, occupation and earnings of the deceased. In the absence of any reliable proof of the age of the deceased, it is considered as per the inquest and post mortem examination reports marked under Ex.A.4 and Ex.A.5. As the deceased is found to be aged as 25 years in the said reports, his age is considered as such. In the absence of any reliable proof of the occupation and income of the deceased, the income of the deceased is considered as Rs.3,000/- per month, as per the judgment of the Hon'ble Apex Court in New India Assurance

Company Limited Vs. Kalpana and others (2007 (2) ALD

122 SC). As the petition was filed u/s 166 of the Motor

Vehicles Act, 1988, the multiplier is taken as per the judgment of the Hon'ble Apex Court in Sarla Verma and others Vs.

Delhi Transport Corporation and another (2009 ACJ

1298). As the number of Claimants are 5, 1/4th is deducted towards the personal expenses of the deceased, as per the above judgment. As the age of the deceased is considered as 25 years, multiplier “18” is taken as per the said judgment, for the purpose of assessing the compensation. Hence, the loss of dependency is calculated as Rs.3,000 x 12 x 18 x 3/4 =

Rs.4,86,000/-. An amount of Rs.10,000/- is awarded towards loss of consortium to the Claimant No.1, an amount of

Rs.10,000/- is awarded to the Claimants towards loss of 8M.V.O.P.NO.167 OF 2014 estate and Rs.5,000/- is awarded towards funeral expenses.

Hence, the compensation awarded to the Claimants under various heads is as follows:-

Loss of dependencyRs. 4,86,000-00

Loss of consortiumRs. 10,000-00

Loss of estateRs. 10,000-00

Funeral expensesRs. 05,000-00

Total Rs. 5,11,000-00

12.Now, who has to pay the compensation is the question. The respondent No.2 is contending that the deceased was travelling in the vehicle as a passenger in goods vehicle and as such, the claimants are not entitled to claim any compensation from the respondent No.2 and in support of his contention, examined Rw.1. RW.1 filed his chief affidavit stating that the respondent No.1 had not paid any premium for the labour or passenger and as such the respondent No.2 is not liable to pay any compensation to the claimants. In the cross examination, RW.1 stated that it is mentioned in the complaint that the TATA ACE vehicle was taken on hire for transporting urea and in Ex.P.2, it was mentioned that the vehicle was hired for getting manure and in Ex.P.3 it was mentioned that the vehicle was going for procuring manure. RW.1 admitted that the seating capacity of TATA ACE is 1 + 1 i.e. for the driver and cleaner, to whom the premium was collected as per Ex.B.1.

9M.V.O.P.NO.167 OF 2014

13.A perusal of the police record marked under Ex.A.1 to

Ex.A.4 would disclose that the deceased engaged the auto trolley i.e. TATA ACE No.AP.23 TA 0380 from his village Yellupet to go to Papannapet to bring the fertilizer bags and was travelling in the said vehicle along with the driver. Admittedly the crime vehicle is a goods vehicle, as per the evidence of

RW.1. Ex.B.1, the insurance policy would disclose that the seating capacity of auto trolly is “2” and the premium of

Rs.100/- was paid to cover for owner-driver and another sum of

Rs.100/- was paid under legal liability to paid driver/cleaner. As per the police record, at the time of accident, the deceased and the driver of the auto trolley were travelling in the crime vehicle i.e. two persons were travelling, which is permissible under

Ex.B.1 policy. The accident occurred while they were proceeding to Papannapet to bring the fertilizer bags. Hence, it is to be treated that the deceased was travelling in the crime vehicle in the capacity of owner of goods, that admittedly covers the policy marked under Ex.B.1, as the premium was paid to cover the owner-driver and driver/cleaner. Admittedly, the crime vehicle is a light motor vehicle, on which no cleaner would work in normal course. Since only two persons were travelling in the crime vehicle at the time of accident, which is permissible capacity of the crime vehicle, and as the policy was 10M.V.O.P.NO.167 OF 2014 existing as on the date of accident, and the provisions of Motor

Vehicles Act are beneficial legislation, the respondents No.1 and 2 are held to be jointly and severally liable to pay the compensation to the Claimants.

14.Issue No.3 :- In the result, the petition is partly allowed, awarding compensation ofRs.5,11,000/-with proportionate costs and interest @ 7.5% per annum from the date of petition till the date of deposit of amount. The

Respondents No.1 and 2 are held to be jointly and severally liable to pay the awarded amount to the Claimants and they are directed to deposit the same within a period of one month from the date of this order. The claimant No.1 (wife) is entitled to a sum of Rs.2,00,000/-, claimants No.2 and 3 (minor children) are entitled to a sum of Rs.1,00,000/- each and the claimants No.4 (mother) and claimant No.5 (unmarried sister) are entitled to a sum of Rs.55,500/- each. The Claimant No.1 is permitted to withdraw 50% of her share amount along with accrued interest and costs on the entire compensation amount and her remaining amount shall be deposited in any nationalized bank, in fixed deposit, for a period of three years. The share amounts of Claimants No.2 & 3 (minors) shall be kept in fixed deposit in any nationalised bank till they attain majority. The claimants 11M.V.O.P.NO.167 OF 2014

No.4 and 5 are permitted to withdraw their respective share amounts. Advocate fee is fixed at Rs.4,000/-.

Typed to my dictation, corrected and pronounced by me in the open Court on this the 27th day of August, 2015.

I ADDL. DIST.& SESSIONS JUDGE

MEDAK AT SANGAREDDY

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

WITNESSES EXAMINED

FOR ClaimantsFOR RESPONDENTS

PW.1 Vislavath ShobaRW.1 K.Leela Kumar

Pw.2 V.Bheemla

EXHIBITS MARKED ON BEHALF OF Claimants:

Ex.A1Certified copy of F.I.R and complaint.

Ex.A2 Certified copy of Charge sheet.

Ex.A3Certified copy of Scene of offence panchanama & sketch.

Ex.A4Certified copy of Inquest report.

Ex.A5Certified copy of PME Report.

Ex.A6Certified copy of MVI Report.

EXHIBITS MARKED ON BEHALF OF RESPONDENT NO.2:

Ex.B1True copy of Policy.

I ADDL. DIST.& SESSIONS JUDGE

MEDAK AT SANGAREDDY

12M.V.O.P.NO.167 OF 2014

1POCSO SC.NO.24 OF 2014

IN THE COURT OF I ADDL.DISTRICT & SESSIONS JUDGE

MEDAK AT SANGAREDDY

PRESENT:CH.VIJAY MOHAN, I Addl. Dist.& Sessions Judge,

MEDAK AT SANGAREDDY.

Wednesday, the 23rd day of September, 2015

POCSO S.C.NO. 24 OF 2014 (CRIME NO.05 OF 2014 OF P.S THOGUTA)

Name of the ComplainantThe State of Telangana through Sub Inspector of Police, P.S. Thoguta.

Description of the AccusedAkaram Swamy s/o Isthari, Aged 23 years, Caste: SC (Madiga), Occu: Decoration work r/o Marpadga (v), Kondapak Mandal, Medak District.

Charge/sUnder Sections 354 (A) IPC and Section 11

(iv) of Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012.

Plea of the AccusedNot guilty

Finding of the chargeFound not guilty

Sentence or OrderAcquitted under Section 232 Cr.P.C.

Prosecution conducted bySri G.Chinnaiah, Addl. Public Prosecutor.

Accused defended bySri K.Vijay Kumar, Advocate.

This case came up before me for final hearing in the presence of Addl. Public Prosecutor for the Complainant/State and Sri K.Vijay Kumar,

Advocate for the Accused, upon perusing the material papers on record and upon hearing both sides and having stood over for consideration, till this day, this court made the following:-

Contd...

2POCSO SC.NO.24 OF 2014

J U D G M E N T

Theaccused was charged for the offences under Section 354 (A) IPC and Section 11 (ii)(iv) of Protection of Children from Sexual

Offences Act, 2012 for outraging the modesty of a girl below the age of 18 years.

2.The case of the prosecution, in brief, is that, on 07.01.2014 at 1900 hours, Akaram Yadagiri (Lw.1) came to P.S. Thoguta and lodged a report stating that his youngest daughter Saritha (Lw.2), Aged 14 years, is studying 10th class in Zilla Parishad High School, Marpadga and that the accused has been harassing his daughter for the last three months by following her and on 06.01.2014 at 5.30 PM, when his daughter was alone in the house, the accused came to his house, tried to outrage the modesty of his daughter. One Thara (Lw.6) saw him and scolded, he went away.

Basing on the said report, the Asst.Sub Inspector of Police, Thoguta Police

Station (Lw.9) registered a case in Cr.No.05/2014 under Section 354 (A)

IPC and Sec. 12 of POCSO Act, 2012, examined and recorded the statement of the de facto complainant, visited the scene of offence and conducted the scene of offence panchanama in the presence of Bakki

Narsimlu and Akaram Srinivas (Lws.7 and 8), examined and recorded the statements of independent persons viz., Akaram Kanakamma, Akaram Giri,

Akaram Praveen Kumar and Akaram Thara (Lws.3 to 6). Thereafter, the

Sub Inspector of Police, Thoguta (Lw.10) took up further investigation of the 3POCSO SC.NO.24 OF 2014 case from Lw.9, verified the investigation done by Lw.9 and found to be on proper lines. On 91.01.2014, while the investigation was in progress, the accused was arrested and produced before the Court and after completion of the investigation, the Sub Inspector of Police, Thoguta (Lw.10) filed charge sheet against the accused under Sections 354 (A) IPC and Sec. 11

(ii)(iv) of POCSO Act, 2012.

3.The case was taken on file for the above offences by the learned Judicial First Class Magistrate, Siddipet and on appearance of accused before the said Court, copies of documents were furnished to him as required under Section 207 Cr.P.C and as the offence under Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012 is exclusively triable by this

Court, committed the case to this Court vide PRC No.15/2014. On appearance of the accused before this Court and on hearing both sides, my learned predecessor framed charges under Section 354 (A) IPC and

Section 11 (iv) of Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012 against the accused, read over and explained to him in telugu. He pleaded not guilty and claimes to be tried.

4.During the course of trial, the prosecution had examined Pws. 1 to 6 and marked Ex.P.1 to Ex.P.7, on its behalf. The Incharge Addl. Public

Prosecutor had given up the evidence of remaining Lws.7 to 10.

5.As can be seen from the evidence of the witnesses, the victim (Pw.2), her parents (Pws.1 & 3), her brothers (Pws.4 & 5) and an eye 4POCSO SC.NO.24 OF 2014 witness (Pw.6) turned hostile and it appears no worthwhile purpose will be served by examining the rest of the witnesses, whose evidence gains importance if the victim and victim's relatives supported the prosecution. As

Pws.1 to 6 had not supported the prosecution case, the evidence of other witnesses is given up by the prosecution.

6.As there is no incriminating evidence appearing against the accused in the evidence of the prosecution witnesses, the examination of the accused under Section 313 Cr.P.C is dispensed with.

7.Heard the arguments of the learned Addl. Public Prosecutor and the learned defence counsel.

8.Now, the points for determination are:-

1.Whether the prosecution proved the guilt of the accused for the offences with which he was charged, beyond all reasonable doubt?.

2.To what relief?.

9.POINT NO.1:- The prosecution examined altogether six witnesses, out of whom Pw.1 is the complainant and father of the victim,

Pw.2 is the victim herself, Pw.3 is the mother of the victim, Pws. 4 & 5 are the brothers of the victim and Pw.6 is an eye witness to the alleged incident.

5POCSO SC.NO.24 OF 2014

10.Pw.1 – Akram Yadagiri is the complainant and father of the victim girl. He deposed that about one year back, some unknown person came to his house in his absence and his daughter (Pw.2) informed him about the same and on that he went to P.S.Thoguta and informed the police. The police took his signature Ex.P.1 on white paper and except that he does not know anything about the case. Pw.2 – Kumari Akram Saritha is the victim. According to her, about one year back, some unknown person trespassed into her house in the absence of her parents, but had not done anything on her and she informed the same to her parents. Then, they went to P.S.Thoguta and informed the police. Pw.3 – Smt.Akram Kanakamma is the mother of Pw.2. According to her, about one year back, some unknown person trespassed into her house in the absence of herself and

Pw.1, but had not done anything on Pw.2 as informed by her. Then, Pws.1 and 2 went to P.S.Thoguta and informed the police. Pw.4 – Akram Giri is the brother of Pw.2. According to him, he does not know anything about this case as he went out of his house on his job. Pw.5 – Akram Praveen kumar is another brother of Pw.2. He also stated that he does not know anything about this case as he went out of his house on his job. The alleged eye witness to the incident by name Smt.Akram Tara is examined as Pw.6. But, she too stated that she does not know anything about this case. Pws.1 to 6 turned hostile and did not support the prosecution case. They denied having stated to the police as in Ex.P.2 to Ex.P.7 respectively.

6POCSO SC.NO.24 OF 2014

11.According to the prosecution version, the accused trespassed into the house of Pw.2 and outraged her modesty. In a case of this nature, the evidence of the victim (Pw.2) and that of her relatives (Pws.1, 3 to 5) are very important. The victim girl was examined as Pw.2 and she gave a clean chit to the accused by deposing that some unknown person trespassed into her house in the absence of her parents, but said person had not done anything on her. The other witnesses examined by the prosecution are Pws.1, Pws.3 to 5, who are the parents and brothers of the victim girl respectively, but they had not at all supported the prosecution case, though they are closely related to the victim. It appears both the parties might have entered into a settlement or compromise outside the

Court, due to which they have not supported the prosecution case. In view of material witnesses turning hostile, the learned incharge Addl.Public

Prosecutor had given up the evidence of rest of the witnesses i.e. Lws.7 to

10. As no incriminating evidence was elicited by the prosecution in the evidence of Pws.l to 6, the examination of the accused under Section 313

Cr.P.C is also dispensed with. Thus, the prosecution case must fail due to lack of proving its case beyond all reasonable doubt.

12.Considering the oral and documentary evidence available on record, this Court comes to conclusion that the prosecution failed to prove the case against the accused beyond all reasonable doubt.

7POCSO SC.NO.24 OF 2014

13.POINT NO.2 :- In the result, the accused is found not guilty for the offences punishable under Section 354 (A) IPC and Section 11 (iv) of

Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012, and consequently, acquitted under Section 232 Cr.P.C. The bail bonds of the accused shall stand cancelled after the expiry of appeal time. The unmarked case property, if any, shall be destroyed after the expiry of appeal time.

Typed to my dictation, corrected and pronounced by me in the open Court on this 23rd day of September, 2015.

I ADDL.DISTRICT & SESSIONS JUDGE

MEDAK AT SANGAREDDY

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

WITNESSES EXAMINED ON BEHALF OF

PROSECUTION:DEFENCE

Lw.1/Pw.1 Akram YadagiriNil Lw.2/Pw.2 Akram Saritha Lw.3/Pw.3 Akram Kanakamma Lw.4/Pw.4 Akram Giri Lw.5/Pw.5 Akram Praveen kumar Lw.6/Pw.6 Akram Thara

EXHIBITS MARKED FOR

PROSECUTION:

Ex.P.1 Signature of Pw.1 on Report. Ex.P.2 161 Cr.P.C statement of Pw.1. Ex.P.3 161 Cr.P.C statement of Pw.2. Ex.P.4 161 Cr.P.C statement of Pw.3. Ex.P.5 161 Cr.P.C statement of Pw.4. Ex.P.6 161 Cr.P.C statement of Pw.5. Ex.P.7 161 Cr.P.C statement of Pw.6.

8POCSO SC.NO.24 OF 2014

DEFENCE: NIL

MATERIAL OBJECTS

NIL

I ADDL.DISTRICT & SESSIONS JUDGE

MEDAK AT SANGAREDDY

9POCSO SC.NO.24 OF 2014

Dt. 23.09.2015.

Accused present. Arguments of both sides heard. Judgment pronounced in open Court (vide separate one) In the result, the accused is found not guilty for the offences punishable under Section 354 (A) IPC and Section 11 (iv) of Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012, and consequently, acquitted under Section 232 Cr.P.C. The bail bonds of the accused shall stand cancelled after the expiry of appeal time. The unmarked case property, if any, shall be destroyed after the expiry of appeal time.

I Addl. Dist.& Sessions Judge

TSME000000892014

Presented on : 26-02-2014 Registered on : 12-03-2014 Decided on : 20-08-2015 Duration : 1 years, 5 months, 22 days

IN THE COURT OF

I Additional District and Sessions Judge, Sangareddy

AT ,MEDAK

(Presided Over by SMT. K. JAYANTHI,)

SC.SPL/200005/2014

Exhibit No. (PROSECUTION): Police Kowdipally Through Police Station Officer Kowdipally PS 85 , Kowdipally v and M Medak Dist. MEDAK

Police Kowdipally VERSUS : Nunavath Srikanth Age: 22 Occupation : Age.22 years Caste. ST Lambada Occ.aGril RO Singamarri Thanda of Mutrajpally V Kowdipally M Medak Dist.

----------------------------------------------------------------------------- APP for State }: Addl.P.P., Advocate for appearing for Nunavath Srikanth Advocate appearing for , respectively. -----------------------------------------------------------------------------

Offence punishable under :

376,366IPC of Indian Criminal Law Amendment Act, of , of , of ,

JUDGMENT

(Delivered on 20-08-2015)

Accused present. Arguments on both sides heard. Judgment pronounced in open court vide separate one. In the result the accused is found not guilty for the offences punishable under section 366 IPC, 376 2 i of Criminal Law Amendment Act,2013 and section 6 read with 5 I of Protection of Children from Sexual offences Act 2012 and consequently acquitted under section 235 1 Cr.P.C. The bail bonds of the accused shall stand cancelled after the appeal time. The unmarked non-valuable case property, if any, shall be destroyed after the expiry of the appeal time.

Date : 20-08-2015 Sd/-

I Additional District and Sessions Judge, Sangareddy