Sri CSSV.Durga Prasad

1

BEFORE THE ADDITIONAL CHAIRMAN ACCIDENTS CLAIMS

TRIBUNAL CUM XX ADDITIONAL CHIEF JUDGE; CITY CIVIL

COURTS; SECUNDERABAD.

Dated this the 17th day of June, 2014.

Present: Sri C.S.S.V. Durga Prasad,

Chairman, M.A.C.T-Cum-

XX Addl. Chief Judge, City Civil Courts, Secunderabad.

O.P.No. 540 of 2012

Between:

1) G. Deenamma W/o Ramamurthy, Age 40 years, Occ: House Wife R/o 1-38-1821, Rasoolpura, Begumpet, Secunderabad.

2) G. Krupavathi W/o G.Chittibabu, Aged 39 years, Occ: Nil R/o 1-38-1821, Rasoolpura, Begumpet,

Secunderabad. ...Petitioners

A N D

1. Katroth Gattu S/o Feeka, Aged Major Occ: owner of crime vehicle R/o 14-20-677/164 B Vivekanandanagar, Near Allapur, Borabanda, Quthbullapur, R.R District 500 042.

2. Reliance General Insurance Company Ltd 4th Floor, Sagar Complex, Abids,

Hyderabad. .. Respondents.

This petition is coming on this day for final hearing and disposal before me in the presence of Sri Sudarshan S. Reddy, Advocate for the Petitioners and Sri P. Sudheer Kumar, Advocate

for the Respondent.No.1 and Sri S. Surender Reddy, Advocate for

the Respondent.No.2 and the matter having stood over for consideration till this day, the Court passed the following:- 2

A W A R D

1.This is a Claim Application filed by the Claim petitioners under

Sec.166 of M.V. Act 1989 and rules 455 of APMV rules 1988 of M.V

Act, 1988, claiming compensation of Rs.40,00,000/- with costs and subsequent interest from the date of application till date of realization as against the persons and property of the respondents jointly and severally and costs of the petition.

2.The petitioners have filed this petition with the following allegations:

On 07.04.2012 at 7.30 A.M, P.W.2 along with the deceased

Ch. Nagamma were proceeding from Kamalanagar to ECIL Cross

Roads on her Scooty bearing.No. AP 29 AM 6232, when they reached Kapra Municipal Office, the driver of Innova bearing. No.

AP 28 TA9879 came with high speed in rash and negligent manner and dashed the scooty, due to which, the deceased Ch. Nagamma received serious injuries and she was shifted to Tulasi Hospital.

While undergoing treatment, she succumbed to injuries on the same day afternoon. The matter was reported to the police.

Prior to the accident, the deceased Ch. Nagamma was hale and healthy, aged about 55 years and working as Sweeper in ECIL and earning Rs. 38,000/- per month and used to take care of the

Petitioners. Petitioner.No.1and 2 are daughters of the deceased.

3

Due to matrimonial disputes, they are depending upon the deceased. Respondent.No.1 being the owner of the crime vehicle and Second Respondent is insurer, both of them are jointly and severally liable to pay the compensation. Hence, the petition.

3.The Respondent.No.1 has filed counter with the following allegations:

The accident was not taken place in the manner as alleged.

There is no rashness or negligence on the part of the driver of

Innova. The negligence is on the part of the rider of scooty. The vehicle is insured with the Second Respondent. There are no merits in the Petitioners’ claim and the same may be dismissed.

4.The Second Respondent filed counter with the following allegations:

The accident was not taken place in the manner as alleged.

There is no negligence or rashness on the part of the driver of

Innova. The driver of the crime vehicle was not having valid driving licence. The accident took place due to rash and negligent riding of the rider of the scooty, so, owner of the scooty and its insurance company are proper and necessary parties and in their absence, the petition is not maintainable. The Petitioners are put to strict proof about the age, occupation and earnings of the deceased. The claim is high and excessive and there are no merits in the petition.

Claimants are not entitled for any compensation. Hence the

Petition may be dismissed.

4

5.Basing on the above pleadings, the following issues were framed;

1. Whether the accident occurred owing to the rash and negligent driving of the driver of Innova bearing.No. AP 28 TA 9879?

2. Whether the Petitioners are entitled for compensation, if so, what amount and from whom?

3. To what relief?

6.To substantiate the case of petitioners, P.W.1 to 3 are the witnesses examined and Ex.A-1 to A-9 and Ex.X.1 to X.4 are the documents marked. R.W.1 is the witness was examined on behalf of the respondents and Ex.B.1 to B.3 documents are marked.

Respondent.No.2 filed petition in I.A. 253 of 2015 U/s. 170(b) of

MV Act, same is allowed.

7.Arguments are heard.

Issues No.1 and 2 :-

8.It is the case of the claimants that on 07.04.2012 at 7.30

A.M, P.W.2 along with the deceased Ch. Nagamma were proceeding on her Scooty, when they reached Kapra Municipal Office, the driver of Innova came with high speed in rash and negligent manner and dashed the scooty, due to which the deceased Ch. Nagamma received serious injuries and she succumbed to injuries on the same day afternoon. First respondent being the owner of the

Innova and second respondent being the insurer, both of them are 5 jointly and severally liable to pay the compensation. The stand of respondents is total denial of their liability.

9.At first place, it has to be seen whether the accident took place in the manner as alleged. The claimant No.1 herself examined as P.W.1 and narrated about the incident. As seen from the cross examination, she is not a direct eye witness to the incident. To prove the rash and negligence, the evidence of this witness will do very little.

10.From the beginning, the claimants are relying upon evidence of P.W.2. P.W.2 has stated that on 07.04.2012 at 7.30 A.M, she along with the deceased Ch. Nagamma were proceeding from

Kamalanagar to ECIL Cross Roads on her Scooty bearing.No. AP 29

AM 6232, when they reached Kapra Municipal Office, the driver of

Innova bearing. No. AP 28 TA 9879 came with high speed in rash and negligent manner and dashed the scooty, due to which the deceased Ch. Nagamma received serious injuries and she was shifted to Tulasi Hospital. While undergoing treatment, she succumbed to injuries on the same day afternoon.

11.During the course of cross examination, she reiterated her stand and there are no vital variations to deny her testimony. She stands to the test and her evidence is consistent that due to rash and negligent driving of the driver of the Innova bearing. No. AP 28

TA9879, the accident took place.

6

12. Ex.A.1 is the certified copy of F.I.R with complaint. Ex.A.2 is the certified copy of charge sheet. As seen from these documents, the matter was forthwith reported to the police and police after due investigation have filed charge sheet against the driver of the

Innova bearing. No. AP 28 TA 9879 mentioning that the accident took place due to his rash and negligent driving. As seen from the contents of these documents, P.W.2 was referred as direct eye witness. Her evidence is consistent about the rash and negligent driving on the part of the driver of Innova. Ex.A.1 F.I.R shows that the report was given at earliest point of time mentioning that the accident took place due to rash and negligent driving of driver of

Innova. Police have done the investigation and filed the charge sheet against the driver of the Innova bearing. No. AP 28 TA 9879, mentioning that the accident took place due to his negligence.

Ex.A.2 substantiates this fact.

13.The evidence of P.W.2 and the investigation done by the police is clinching that any amount of negligence is on the part of the driver of the Innova. The very occurrence of the accident in the present manner clearly shows any amount of negligence and rashness on the part of the driver of Innova. So it cannot be said that there is no negligence on the part of the driver of the crime vehicle. The evidence of P.W.2 and investigation done by police clearly discloses that the accident took place, solely due to negligence of the driver of the Innova. P.W.2 evidence is consistent about the rash and negligent driving on the part of driver of Innova.

7

So, now it is not open for them to contend that there is negligence on the part of the rider of the scooty.

14.It is the stand of the Respondent that the negligence is on the part of the rider of the scooty in riding the vehicle. As pointed out earlier, the evidence of P.W.2, the direct eye witness shows that the driver of the Innova came with high speed in rash and negligent manner and dashed the scooty. Ex.A.5 is the scene of offence panchanama and it explains how the accident took place. Ex.A.6 is rough sketch. Scene of offence panchanama and rough sketch indicate that the incident took place solely due to rash and negligent driving of driver of Innova. Ex.A.5 and 6 indicates any amount of rash and negligence on the part of the driver of crime vehicle. Since, the accident took place solely due to rash and negligent driving of driver of the crime vehicle, the owner of the scooty or its insurance company are not necessary parties for adjudication of this matter.

15.One of the stands the respondents have taken is that the driver was not holding valid driving license. One of the officials’ of

Second Respondent Company was examined as RW-1 and he stated that the driver of the Innova was having driving license to drive the

Innova but non-transport. It is the stand of respondents that the vehicle involved in this accident is transport vehicle. Ex.A.4 MVI report also indicate that the vehicle involved is Maxi cab Innova.

8

So, it is transport vehicle. The particulars show the vehicle involved in the accident is Innova transport. As per Ex.A.4 particulars, the driver of the Innova was holding licence to drive light motor vehicle, but non transport. There is no dispute about the fact that Innova is light motor vehicle.

16.The Learned Counsel for the Petitioner relied upon a decision reported in 2013 ACJ 1944 in a case in between S. Iyyapan Vs.

United India Insurance Company limited and another. Their

Lordships observed that –

“ Reading the provisions of section 146 and 147 of the Motor Vehicles Act,

it is evidently clear that in certain circumstances the insurer’s right is

safeguarded but in any event the insurer has to pay compensation when a

valid certificate of insurance is issued notwithstanding the fact that the

insurer may proceed against the insured for recovery of the amount. Under

Section 149 of the Motor vehicles Act, the insurer can defend the action,

intra alia, on the grounds, namely (i) the vehicle was not driven by a named

person, (ii) it was being driven by a person who was not having a duly

granted licence, and (iii) person driving the vehicle was disqualified to hold

and obtain a driving licence. Hence, in our considered opinion, the insurer

cannot disown its liability on the ground that although the driver was

holding a licence to drive a light motor vehicle but before driving light

motor vehicle used as commercial vehicle, no endorsement to drive

commercial vehicle was obtained in the driving licence. In any case, it is

the statutory right of a third party to recover the amount of compensation so

awarded from the insurer. It is for the insurer to proceed against the

9

insured for recovery of the amount in the event there has been violation of

any condition of the insurance policy.

In the instant case, admittedly the driver was holding a valid driving licence

to drive light motor vehicle. There is no dispute that the motor vehicle in

question, by which accident took place, was Mahindra Maxicab. Merely

because the driver did not get any endorsement in the driving licence to

drive Mahindra Maxicab, which is a light motor vehicle, the High Courts

have committed grave error of law in holding that the insurer is not liable

to pay the compensation because the driver was not holding the licence to

drive a commercial vehicle. The impugned judgment is, therefore, liable to

be set aside”.

Applying the ration laid down by the lordship and considering the fact that the victim is third party, liability of Respndent.No.2 cannot be dissolved.

17.In the present case, no witness was examined to prove that first respondent is having knowledge that the driver of the Innova was not holding valid driving licence and deliberately handed over the vehicle to the driver. The victim is third party. Unless the

Respondents have established that the First Respondent deliberately handed over the vehicle to the driver, who is not holding valid driving licence, their liability cannot be dissolved.

18.R.W.1 evidence no way improvises stand of the Second

Respondent that there is violation to the terms of the policy. The mode of driving of transport and non-transport vehicle is one and the same, victim is third party. The driver of the crime vehicle has 10 possessed the licence to drive light motor vehicle, of course, non- transport. Considering the present set of circumstances, it cannot be said that Petitioners claim is vitiated on this ground.

19.Ex.A-3 is Post-mortem examination report. As seen from this document, it shows that the dead body was sent for post mortem examination and medical Officer opined that due to injuries sustained in the accident, death was caused. So, this document substantiates the stand of the claimants that due to injuries sustained in the accident, the death was caused.

20.One of the contentions of the respondents is that the petitioners have not filed documents to show that they are legal heirs of deceased. It is true that they have not filed succession certificate or legal heir certificate. Law never mandates such a proof. The evidence of P.W.1 speaks volumes of truth. Ex.A.2 clearly indicates the name of the Claimant.No.2 as daughter of the deceased. The respondents have not adduced any evidence to say that claimants are not legal heirs of deceased. So it is not open for the Respondents to say that the claimants are not family members of the deceased.

21.Ex.A.4 is the copy of M.V.I Report and it shows that on requisition by the police, Motor Vehicle Inspector has inspected the crime vehicle and he is of the opinion that accident was not caused due to any mechanical defects of the Innova.

11

22. So, at this place, through the evidence of P.W.1 and 2 , by placing Exs.A-1 to A-6, the claimants could establish that due to rash and negligent driving of driver of the Innova accident took place and Ch. Nagamma sustained serious injuries and succumbed to injuries.

23.Second Respondent has filed Ex.B.2 and B.3 and they show that notices were sent to owner of the vehicle and to the driver of the vehicle requesting them to produce driving licence particulars of the driver of the crime vehicle. The fact remains notices were served and they never produced any record. As pointed out earlier, accepting the stand of Second Respondent that the driver is having licence to drive light motor vehicle non-transport, the case of the

Second Respondent is examined. So, Ex.B.2 and B.3 also no way helpful to the respondents to say that the terms of the policy are violated. No force is found on this line of agitation.

24. In this case the first respondent never disputed his status as owner of the vehicle. The accident took place due to rash and negligent driving of the driver of the Innova which belongs to the first respondent. So, first respondent being owner is variously liable to the acts of his driver. The vehicle is validly insured with

Second Respondent under Ex.B.1 policy. So, both the respondents are jointly and severally liable to pay any compensation.

12

25. Now it has to be seen that what is the quantum of the compensation that can be awarded.

It is the evidence of P.W.1 and 2 that deceased Ch. Nagamma is their mother and she is working as Sweeper in ECIL. In pursuance of summons issued to the Company, P.W.3 was deputed to give evidence. Ex.X.1 is authorisation given to him. Ex.X.2 is the appointment order of the deceased and Ex.X.3 is the salary certificate and Ex.X.4 is the salary particulars including deductions.

During course of cross examination, P.W.3 has admitted that Ch.

Nagamma was drawing net salary of Rs.24,940/-. So, the version of the Petitioners that she was drawing more than Rs.40,000/- cannot be accepted, in view of the net salary mentioned by their own witness P.W.3. So, the earnings of the deceased per month was Rs.25,000/-.

26.The evidence of P.W.3 is clinching that deceased Ch.

Nagamma left with six months service only. It is not the evidence of P.W.3 or P.W.1 and 2 that Ch. Nagamma has got facility of

Pension after retirement. Admittedly, Ch. Nagamma was left with six months only. So, it cannot be said that even after retirement, she will be getting Rs. 25,000/- per month or any family pension.

13

So, earnings of the deceased has to be assessed taking into consideration of the service left. So for computation of the compensation, the earnings of the deceased per month notionally is taken as Rs.15,000/- per month. Admittedly, the deceased left with six months service only. So, no amount is added as future profits.

27.There is dispute regarding the date of birth. The evidence of

P.W.3 is answered to it. He has mentioned that the deceased was aged about 59 years, by the date of accident and she left with six months service only. So, the age as mentioned by P.W.3 is found acceptable and the age of the deceased is taken as 59 years.

28.One of the contentions of the Respondents is that claimants are married and there is no dependency. Ex.A.9 shows divorce was obtained by one of the claimant. It is the evidence of P.W.1 and 2 that they are having matrimonial disputes. Ex.A.9 substantiates that fact. Even though entire dependency on the part of the claimants may not be accepted, but the contribution by the deceased to the family cannot be denied.

14

29.In the decision reported in 2009 ACJ 1298, between Sarla

Verma and others Vs. Delhi Transport Corporation and another, their Lordships observed that:

“Tribunals/courts adopt and apply different operative multipliers.

Some follow the multiplier with reference to Susamma

Thomas(set out in Column 2 of the Table above); some follow

the multiplier with reference to Trilok Chandra (Set out in

Column 3 of the Table above); some follow the multiplier with

reference to Charlie (Set out in Co. 4 of the table above); many

follow the multiplier given in second column of the table in the

Second Schedule to MV Act(extracted in column 5 of the Table

above); and some follow the multiplier actually adopted in the

Second Schedule while calculating the quantum of

compensation (set out in column 6 of the Table above). For

example, if the deceased is aged 38 years, the multiplier would

be 12 as per Susamma Thomas, 14 as per Trilok Chandra, 15 as

per Charlie, or 16 as per the multiplier given in Column 2 of the

Second Schedule to M.V.Act. Some Tribunals, as in this case

apply the multiplier of 22 by taking the balance years of service

with reference to the retiring age. It is necessary to avoid this

kind of inconsistence. We are concerned with cases falling

under Section 166 and not under section 163-A of M.V.Act. In

cases falling under Section 166 of the M.V.Act, Davies method is

applicable.

We, therefore, hold that the multiplier to be used should be as

mentioned in column 4 of the Table above(prepared by applying

Susamma Thomas, Trilok Chandra and Charlie), which starts

with an operative multiplier of 18 (for the age groups of 15 to 21

and 21 to 25), reduced by one unit for every five years, that is,

M.17 for 26 to 30 years, M-16 for 31 to 35 years, M-15 for 36 to 40

years, M-14 for 41 to 45 years and M-13 for 46 to 50 years, then

reduced by two units for every five years, that is, M-11 for 51 to

55 years, M-9 for 56 to 60 years, M-7 for 61 to 65 years and M-5

for 66 to 70 years.” 15

Considering the ratio laid down by their Lordships, the multiplier '9' has to be taken for the reason that the deceased is aged 59 years.

30.Claimant No.1 and 2 are daughters of deceased. In the above said decision their Lordships held with regard to the deduction for personal and living expenses, that:

“Having considered several subsequent decisions of

this Court, were of the view that where the deceased

was married, the deduction towards personal and

living expenses of the deceased should be one-third

(1/3 rd ) where the number of dependent family members

is 2 to 3; one-fourth (1/4 th ) where the number of

dependent family members is 4 to 6; and one-fifth

(1/5 th ) where the number of the dependent family

members exceed six.”

As per the above ratio, 1/3rd of the amount has to be deducted for the expenses which the victim would have incurred towards maintaining herself, had she been alive, since the dependents are 'two'.

31.The earning capacity of the deceased is taken as Rs.15,000/- per month. Out of the above said amount, 1/3 has to be deducted in consideration of the expenses which the victim would have incurred towards maintaining herself, had she been alive i.e., Rs.

16 5,000/- per month (Rs. 15,000 X 1/3 = 5,000). So monthly earnings of the deceased is taken as Rs.10,000/- (Rs.15,000 – Rs.

5,000 = Rs. 10,000). So, the annual contribution of the deceased to the family is taken as Rs.1,20,000/- per annum (Rs.10,000 x 12 = 1,20,000/-). So the loss of dependency and contribution of the deceased is Rs.10,80,000/-(Rs.1,20,000/- X 9), since multiplier is ‘9’. The petitioners are also entitled toRs.5,000/-(Rupees Five

Thousand Only) under the head of transportation, and

Rs.5,000/- (Rupees Five Thousand Only) towards funeral expenses and Rs.10,000/-(Rupees Ten Thousand Only) towards loss of love, affection. The total compensation works out to Rs.11,00,000/- (Rupees Eleven Lakhs only). Therefore, petitioners are entitled to the total compensation of

Rs.11,00,000/- (Rupees Eleven Lakhs only). Accordingly issue

Nos.1 and 2 are answered.

ISSUE NO.3 :

32.In the result, this petition is partly allowed awarding compensation of Rs.11,00,000/- (Rupees Eleven Lakhs only) with proportionate costsand interest @ 6 % p.a. from the date of petition till the date of realization to the petitioners No.1 and 2.

The respondents No.1 and 2 are jointly and severally liable to pay 17 compensation to the petitioners and they are directed to deposit the compensation amount within one month from the date of this order.

The amount of compensation shall be apportioned among the petitioners No.1 and 2, by paying Rs.5,50,000/- (Rupees Five

Lakhs Fifty Thousand Only) each to Petitioner.No.1 and 2, on such deposit, they are permitted to withdraw Rs.2,50,000/- (Rupees Two Lakhs Fifty Thousand Only) each and the remaining amount of Rs. 3,00,000/- (Rupees Three Lakhs only) each shall be kept in fixed deposit in any nationalized bank for a period of three years. The rest of the claim is dismissed without costs. Advocate’s fee fixed at Rs.2,000/-.

Directly dictated to the Stenographer Grade-I, typed by him, corrected and

pronounced by me in the open Court on this the 17 day of June, 2015.

Chairman, M.A.C.T.

(XX ADDL. CHIEF JUDGE)

SEC’BAD

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

Witnesses Examined on behalf of the Petitioners

PW-1: Smt. G. Deenamma

PW-1: Smt. Krupavathi

PW-1: Sri A.K. Desai

Witnesses Examined on behalf of the Respondents

RW-1: Porikasushanth

Exhibits Marked on behalf of the petitioners

Ex.A-1: Certified copy of FI.R with complaint.

Ex.A.2: Certified copy of charge sheet

Ex.A.3: Certified copy of Post Mortem Examination Report.

Ex.A.4: Certified copy of M.V.I Report.

18

Ex.A.5 : Certified copy of panchanama

Ex.A.6 : Certified copy of rough sketch

Ex.A.7: Salary slip.

Ex.A.8: Order of Divorce Order (copy)

Ex.A.9 Certified copy of decree of divorce

Ex.X.1 Authorization

Ex.X.2 Copy of appointment order

Ex.X.3 Salary Certificate

Ex.X.4: Salary Payment particulars

Exhibits Marked on behalf of the Respondents

Ex.B-1: Policy

Ex.B-2: Notice sent to Respondent.No.1.

Ex.B-3: Notice sent to driver along with postal receipt

Chairman, M.A.C.T.

(XX ADDL. CHIEF JUDGE)

SEC’BAD 71111111111111111111111111111 1117777777777777111111111177

BEFORE THE ADDITIONAL CHAIRMAN ACCIDENTS CLAIMS TRIBUNAL CUM XX

ADDITIONAL CHIEF JUDGE; CITY CIVIL COURTS; SECUNDERABAD.

Dated this the 3rd day of June, 2015.

Present: Sri C.S.S.V. Durga Prasad,

Chairman, M.A.C.T.-cum-

XX Addl. Chief Judge,

City Civil Courts, Secunderabad.

O.P.No. 764 of 2011

Between:

1) Smt. Lunavath Ambi W/o Late Lunavath Balu @ Bhalu Aged 25 years, Occ: Household.

2) Lunavath Prakash @ Surya Prakash S/o Late Lunavath Balu @ Bhalu, aged 7 years Occ: Student

3) Smt. Lunavath Parengan W/o Lunavath Laxman, Aged 55years, Occ: Household.

4) Lunavath Laxman S/o Late Lunavath Ramji, Aged 60 years, Occ: Nil (Petitioners No.2 is minor represented Through their natural mother and guardian The petitinioner.No.1 herein)

All are residents of H.No.8-1-300, Shivaji Nagar, Secunderabad ….Petitioners.

A N D

1) M/s Sneha Transport, Represented by P. Venkateswarlu, Aged Major Occ: Business R/o H.o.3-277/B/C, Khammam X Roads, Kodad Nalgonda District.

2) The New India Assurance Co. Ltd., Rep. by its Manager H.No.5-2-174/2, II Floor, Madan Mohan Building R.P. Road,

Secunderabad. ..Respondents.

This petition is coming on this day before me for disposal in the presence of Sri P. Rajender Reddy, Advocates for petitioners, Respondent.No.1 remained 2

Set Exparte and Sri Ram Reddy, Advocate for the Respondent No.2 and having stood over for consideration till this day the court made the following:-

A W A R D

1.This is a Claim Application filed by the Claim petitioners under Sec.166 and 163 of

M.V. Act 1989 and rules 475/1B of A.P.M.V Rules 1989 r/w 163-A and section 140 of M.V

Act 1989 claiming compensation of Rs.18,00,000/- with costs and subsequent interest from the date of application till date of realization as against the persons and property of the respondents jointly and severally and costs of the petition.

2.The claimants have filed this petition with the following allegations:

On 08.120.2011 at about 7.00 P.M., the deceased L. Balu was proceeding on his motor cycle bearing.No. AP 29 AN 9299 from Nacharam to Kushaiguda and when he reached Mallapuram Cross Roads, driver of lorry bearing.No. AP 24 Y 9136 drove the vehicle in rash and negligent manner dashed the motor cycle from back side. Balu sustained serious injuries, shifted to hospital, where he succumbed to injuries. The matter was reported to the police.

Prior to the accident, the deceased was hale and healthy, aged about 25 years and working as plumber in M/s. United Infrastructure (I) Pvt. Ltd and getting salary of

Rs.12,000/- per month. Petitioner.No.1 is wife and Claimant.No.2 is minor child and

Claimant.No.3 and 4 are parents of the deceased. Due to the sudden death of the deceased, the claimants were put to irreparable loss. First respondent is the owner of the lorry and second respondent is insurer. Both of them are jointly and severally liable to pay the compensation. Hence, the petition.

3. First Respondent remained ex-parte.

4.The Second Respondent filed counter with the following allegations:

The accident was not taken place in the manner as alleged. There is no negligence or rashness on the part of the driver of the lorry bearing.No. AP 24 Y 9136. The driver of the crime vehicle was not having valid driving licence. The accident took place due to rash and negligent riding of the motor cycle by the deceased himself, so, owner of the motor cycle and its insurance company are proper and necessary parties and in their absence, the petition is not maintainable. The Petitioners are put to strict proof about the 3 age, occupation and earnings of the deceased. The claim is high and excessive and there are no merits in the petition. Claimants are not entitled for any compensation. Hence the

Petition may be dismissed.

5.Basing on the above pleadings, the following issues were framed;

1. Whether the accident occurred owing to the rash and negligent driving of the driver of lorry bearing.No. AP 24 Y 9136 ?

2. Whether the Petitioners are entitled for compensation, if so, what amount and from whom?

3. To what relief?

6.To substantiate the case of petitioners, P.W.1 to 3 are the witnesses examined and

Ex.A-1 to A-7 are the documents marked. No witness was examined on behalf of the respondents and Ex.B.1 policy is marked with consent. Respondent.No.2 filed petition in

I.A. 328 of 2014 U/s. 170(b) of MV Act, same is allowed.

7.Arguments are heard.

Issues No.1 and 2 :-

8.It is the case of the claimants that on 08.120.2011 at about 7.00 P.M., the deceased L. Balu was proceeding on his motor cycle bearing.No. AP 29 AN 9299 from

Nacharam to Kushaiguda and when he reached Mallapuram Cross Roads, driver of lorry bearing.No. AP 24 Y 9136 drove the vehicle in rash and negligent manner dashed the motor cycle from back side. Balu sustained serious injuries, shifted to hospital, where he succumbed to injuries. First respondent being the owner of the lorry and second respondent being the insurer, both of them are jointly and severally liable to pay the compensation. The stand of respondents is total denial of their liability.

9.At first place, it has to be seen whether the accident took place in the manner as alleged. The claimant No.1 herself examined as P.W.1 and narrated about the incident.

4

As seen from the cross examination, she is not a direct eye witness to the incident. To prove the rash and negligence, the evidence of this witness will do very little.

10.From the beginning, the claimants are relying upon evidence of P.W.2. P.W.2 has stated that on 08.120.2011 at about 7.00 P.M., he found that the deceased L. Balu was proceeding on his motor cycle bearing.No. AP 29 AN 9299 at Mallapuram Cross Roads, driver of lorry bearing.No. AP 24 Y 9136 drove the vehicle in rash and negligent manner dashed the motor cycle from back side. Balu sustained serious injuries and was shifted to hospital, where he succumbed to injuries on the same night.

11.During the course of cross examination, he reiterated his stand and there are no vital variations to deny his testimony. He stands to the test and his evidence is consistent that due to rash and negligent driving of the driver of the lorry bearing.No. AP 24 Y 9136, the accident took place.

12. Ex.A.1 is the copy of F.I.R. Ex.A.6 is the copy of charge sheet. As seen from these documents, the matter was forthwith reported to the police and police after due investigation have filed charge sheet against the driver of the lorry mentioning that the accident took place due to his rash and negligent driving. As seen from the contents of these documents, P.W.2 was referred as direct eye witness. His evidence is consistent about the rash and negligent driving on the part of the driver of lorry. Ex.A.1 F.I.R shows that the report was given at earliest point of time mentioning that the accident took place due to rash and negligent driving of driver of lorry. Police have done the investigation and filed the charge sheet against the driver of the lorry, mentioning that the accident took place due to his negligence. Ex.A.6 substantiates this fact.

13.The evidence of P.W.2 and the investigation done by the police is clinching that any amount of negligence is on the part of the driver of the lorry. The very occurrence of the accident in the present manner clearly shows any amount of negligence and rashness on the part of the driver of lorry. So it cannot be said that there is no negligence on the part of the driver of the crime vehicle. The evidence of P.W.2 and investigation done by police clearly discloses that the accident took place, solely due to negligence of the driver of the lorry. P.W.2 evidence is consistent about the rash and negligent driving on 5 the part of driver of lorry. So, now it is not open for them to contend that there is negligence on the part of the deceased.

14.It is the stand of the Respondent that the negligence is on the part of the deceased in riding the motor cycle. As pointed out earlier, the evidence of P.W.2, the direct eye witness shows that the driver of the lorry came with high speed in rash and negligent manner and dashed the motor cycle. Ex.A.5 is the scene of offence panchanama and it explains how the accident took place. The very accident took place due to dashing of lorry to the motor cycle from the back side. That itself indicate any amount of rash and negligence on the part of the driver of crime vehicle. Since, the accident took place solely due to rash and negligent driving of driver of the crime vehicle, the owner of the motor cycle or its insurance company are not necessary parties for adjudication of this matter.

15. It is also stand of the respondents that the driver of the lorry was not holding driving licence. They have not filed any documents to show that the driver was not holding valid driving licence. In the absence of such evidence, now it is not open for the Second

Respondent to contend that there is a violation to the terms of policy.

16.Ex.A-3 is Post-mortem examination report. As seen from this document, it shows that the dead body was sent for post mortem examination and medical Officer opined that due to injuries sustained in the accident, death was caused. Ex.A.2 is the inquest report. As seen from this document, inquest was held over the dead body of the deceased and panchayathdars are of opinion that due to injuries sustained in the accident Balu died.

So, these documents substantiate the stand of the claimants that due to injuries sustained in the accident, the death was caused.

17.One of the contentions of the respondents is that the petitioners have not filed documents to show that they are legal heirs of deceased. It is true that they have not filed succession certificate or legal heir certificate. Law never mandates such a proof. The evidence of P.W.1 speaks volumes of truth. Inquest report Ex.A.2 clearly indicates the name of the Claimant.No.3 as father of the deceased. The respondents have not adduced any evidence to say that claimants are not legal heirs of deceased. So it is not open for the

Respondents to say that the claimants are not family members of the deceased.

6

18.Ex.A.4 is the copy of M.V.I Report and it shows that on requisition by the police,

Motor Vehicle Inspector has inspected the crime vehicle and he is of the opinion that accident was not caused due to any mechanical defects of the lorry.

19.Ex.A.5 is scene of offence panchanama. Scene of offence panchanama indicates that the incident took place solely due to rash and negligent driving of driver of lorry.

20.So, at this place, through the evidence of P.W.1 and 2, by placing Exs.A-1 to

A-6, the claimants could establish that due to rash and negligent driving of driver of the lorry, accident took place and Balu sustained injuries and succumbed to injuries.

21.Ex.B.1 policy is marked with consent and it shows that First Respondent has insured the vehicle with the Second Respondent under Ex.B.1 policy. In this case the first respondent remained exparte and never disputed his status as owner of the vehicle. The accident took place due to rash and negligent driving of the driver of lorry, which belongs to the first respondent. So, first respondent being owner is vicariously liable to acts of his driver and he is liable to pay compensation. Since the vehicle is validly insured by the

Second Respondent. Both are jointly and severally liable to pay the compensation.

Accordingly the point is answered.

22.Now it has to be seen that what is the quantum of the compensation that can be awarded?

It is the evidence of P.W.1 that her husband was working as plumber and employed in United Infrastructure company and earning Rs.12,000/- per month and he is aged about 25 years. Considering the evidence of P.W.1 and Ex.A.2 inquest report and

Ex.A.3 Post Mortem Examination Certificate, the age of the deceased is mentioned as 25 years. So, the same is taken as the age of the deceased.

23.P.W.3 is the Managing Director of M/s United Infrastructure Pvt. Limited and mentioned that the deceased is working as Plumber in their company and was getting monthly salary of Rs.12,000/-. As seen from the contents of the inquest, the occupation of the deceased was mentioned as Plumber. There is no reason to deny the evidence of

P.W.3 that the deceased was employee of his organization. But the salary as mentioned 7 by P.W.3 appears to be exaggerated. Considering the age and occupation of the deceased his monthly salary is taken as Rs. 5,000/-.

24.In the decision reported in 2009 ACJ 1298, between Sarla Verma and others Vs.

Delhi Transport Corporation and another, their Lordships observed that:

“Tribunals/courts adopt and apply different operative multipliers. Some follow the multiplier with reference to Susamma Thomas(set out in Column 2 of the Table above); some follow the multiplier with reference to Trilok Chandra (Set out in Column 3 of the Table above); some follow the multiplier with reference to Charlie (Set out in Co. 4 of the table above); many follow the multiplier given in second column of the table in the Second Schedule to MV Act(extracted in column 5 of the Table above); and some follow the multiplier actually adopted in the Second Schedule while calculating the quantum of compensation (set out in column 6 of the Table above). For example, if the deceased is aged 38 years, the multiplier would be 12 as per Susamma Thomas, 14 as per Trilok Chandra, 15 as per Charlie, or 16 as per the multiplier given in Column 2 of the Second Schedule to M.V.Act. Some Tribunals, as in this case apply the multiplier of 22 by taking the balance years of service with reference to the retiring age. It is necessary to avoid this kind of inconsistence. We are concerned with cases falling under Section 166 and not under section 163-A of M.V. Act. In cases falling under Section 166 of the M.V. Act, Davies method is applicable.

We, therefore, hold that the multiplier to be used should be as mentioned in column 4 of the Table above(prepared by applying Susamma Thomas, Trilok Chandra and Charlie), which starts with an operative multiplier of 18 (for the age groups of 15 to 21 and 21 to 25), reduced by one unit for every five years, that is, M.17 for 26 to 30 years, M-16 for 31 to 35 years, M-15 for 36 to 40 years, M-14 for 41 to 45 years and M-13 for 46 to 50 years, then reduced by two units for every five years, that is, M-11 for 51 to 55 years, M-9 for 56 to 60 years, M-7 for 61 to 65 years and M-5 for 66 to 70 years.”

Considering the ratio laid down by their Lordships, 18 multiplier has to be taken for the reason that the deceased is aged 25 years.

8

25.In a decision reported in 2013 ACJ 1403 in a case in between Rajesh and others

Vs. Rajbir Singh and others. Their Lordship held that “Since the court in Santosh Devi’s case, 2012 ACJ 1428 (SC), actually intended to follow the principle in the case of salaried persons as laid down in Sarla Verma’s case, 2009 ACJ 1298 (SC) and to make it applicable also to self-employed and persons on fixed wages, it is clarified that the increase in the case of those groups is not 30 per cent always; it will also have a reference to the age. In other words, in the case of self-employed or persons with fixed wages, in case the deceased victim was below 40 years, there must be an addition of 50 per cent to the actual income of the deceased while computing future prospects. Needless to say that the actual income should be income after paying the tax, if any. Addition should be 30 per cent in case the deceased was in the age group of 40 to 50 years.” ‘In Sarla Varma’s case, 2009 ACJ 1298 (SC),, it has been stated that in the case of those above 50 years, there shall be no addition. Having regard to the fact that in the case of those self-employed or fixed wages, where there is normally no age of superannuation, we are of the view that it will only be just and equitable to provide an addition of 15 per cent in the case where the victim is between the age group of 50 and 60 years so as to make the compensation just, equitable, fair and reasonable. There shall normally be no addition thereafter.” “Whether the Tribunal is competent to award compensation in excess of what is claimed in the application under section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, is another issue arising for consideration in this case. At para 10 of

Nagappa’s case 2003 ACJ 12 (SC), it was held as follows:

“(10) Thereafter, section 168 empowers the Claims Tribunal to ‘make an award determining the amount of compensation which appears to it to be just’. Therefore, only requirement for determining the compensation is that it must be ‘just’. There is no other limitation or restriction on its power for awarding just compensation.”

Considering the ratio laid down by their Lordship and considering the occupation of the deceased and uncertainty in his work, so Rs.1000/- is added as future prospects.

26.Claimant No.1 to 4 are wife, son and parents of the deceased. So, total dependents are (4) in number. In the above said decision their Lordships held with regard to the deduction for personal and living expenses, that:

“Having considered several subsequent decisions of this Court, were of the view that where the deceased was married, the deduction towards personal and living expenses of the deceased should be one- third (1/3 rd ) where the number of dependent family members is 2 to 3; one-fourth (1/4 th ) where the number of dependent family members is 4 9 to 6; and one-fifth (1/5 th ) where the number of the dependent family members exceed six.”

As per the ratio laid down by their lordships, 1/4th of the amount has to be deducted for the expenses which the victim would have incurred towards maintaining himself, had he been alive, since the dependents are 'Four'.

27.The earning capacity of the deceased was taken as Rs. 6,000/- per month (Rs.

5,000/- income of the deceased + Rs.1,000/- future prospects). Out of the above said amount, 1/4th has to be deducted in consideration of the expenses which the victim would have incurred towards maintaining himself, had he been alive i.e., Rs.4,500/- per month (Rs.6,000 X 1/4 = 1,500/-). So, the monthly contribution of the deceased works out to Rs. 6,000 – Rs. 1,5000 = Rs. 4,500/- and the annual contribution of the deceased to the family is works out to Rs.54,000/- (4,500/- x12) per annum. Considering the ratio laid down by their lordships, the multiplier is taken as 18, since the age of deceased is 25 years. So the loss of dependency and contribution of the deceased to the family is Rs. 9,72,000 (Rs.4,500 x 12 x 18 = Rs. 9,72,000/-).

28Rs.30,000/- (Rupees Thirty Thousand Only) is granted as compensation under the head of loss of estate, love and affection. 1st petitioner being the wife of the deceased, is entitled toRs.30,000/- (Rupees Thirty Thousand Only)under the head of consortium and Rs.10,000/- (Rupees Ten Thousand Only) is granted under the head of transport and Rs.10,000/- (Rupees Ten Thousand Only) is granted under funeral expences. The total compensation works out to Rs. 10,52,000/- (Rupees Ten Lakhs Fifty Two

Thousand Only). Therefore, petitioners No.1 to 4 are entitled to the total compensation of

Rs. 10,52,000/- (Rupees Ten Lakhs Fifty Two Thousand Only). Accordingly issue

Nos.1 and 2 are answered in favour of claimants against the respondents.

10

ISSUE NO.3 :

29.In the result, this petition is partly allowed awarding compensation of Rs.

10,52,000/- (Rupees Ten Lakhs Fifty Two Thousand Only) with proportionate costsand interest @ 6 % p.a. from the date of petition till the date of realization to the petitioners

Nos.1 to 4. The respondents No.1 and 2 are jointly and severally liable to pay compensation to the petitioners and they are directed to deposit the compensation amount within one month from the date of this order. The amount of compensation shall be apportioned among the petitioner No.1 to 4, by paying Rs.5,52,000/- (Rupees Five Lakhs

Fifty Two Thousand Only)to first petitioner wife, on such deposit, 1st petitioner is permitted to withdraw Rs.2.52,000/- (Rupees Two Lakhs Fifty Two Thousand Only) and the remaining amount of Rs. 3,00,000/- (Rupees Three Lakhs only) shall be kept in fixed deposit in any nationalized bank for a period of three years. Rs 2,00,000/- (Rupees

Two Lakhs Only) is awarded to the Petitioner.No.2 and as he is minor, his share shall be kept in fixed deposit in any nationalized bank till attaining their majority. Rs.2,00,000/- (Rupees Two Lakhs Only)to Third petitioner mother, on such deposit, 3rd petitioner is permitted to withdraw Rs.1,00,000/- (Rupees One Lakh Only)and the remaining amount of Rs.1,00,000/- (Rupees One Lakh Only) shall be kept in fixed deposit in any nationalized bank for a period of three years. Rs.1,00,000/- (Rupees One Lakh Only) is apportionedto Fourth petitioner/father, on such deposit, he is permitted to withdraw the entire amount. Rest of the claim of the Petitioners is dismissed without costs. Advocate’s fee fixed at Rs.1,000/-

Directly dictated to the Stenographer Grade-I, typed by him, corrected and pronounced by me in the open Court on this the 3rd day of June, 2015.

Chairman, M.A.C.T.

(XX ADDL. CHIEF JUDGE)

SEC’BAD.

11

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

Witnesses Examined on behalf of the Petitioners

PW-1: Smt. Lunavath Ambi

PW-2: L. Suresh

PW-2: Ch. Shyam Kiran

Witnesses Examined on behalf of the Respondents

-Nil-

Exhibits Marked on behalf of the petitioners

Ex.A.1Certified Copy of FIR

Ex.A.2Certified copy of Inquest Report

Ex.A.3Certified copy of Post Mortem Examination Report

Ex.A.4Certified copy of M.VI Report

Ex.A.5Certified copy of scene of offence panchanama

Ex.A.6Certified Copy of Charge Sheet

Ex.A.7Service cum salary certificate in original

Exhibits Marked on behalf of the Respondents

Ex.B.1 Copy of Policy marked with consent

Chairman, M.A.C.T.

(XX ADDL. CHIEF JUDGE)

SEC’BAD.

BEFORE THE ADDITIONAL CHAIRMAN ACCIDENTS CLAIMS

TRIBUNAL CUM XX ADDITIONAL CHIEF JUDGE; CITY CIVIL

COURTS; SECUNDERABAD.

Dated this the 3rd day of June, 2015.

Present: Sri C.S.S.V. Durga Prasad, Chairman, M.A.C.T.-cum- XX Addl. Chief Judge, City Civil Courts, Secunderabad.

O.P.No. 675 of 2011

Between:

1) Esramoni Manemma W/o E. Masaiah, Aged about 43 years, Occ: House hold.

2) Esramoni Masaiah, S/o E. Chennaiah, Aged about 48 years, Occ: Labour.

3) Esramoni Varalaxmi D/o E. Masaiah, Aged about 19 years, Occ: Student.

All are R/o H.No.11-2-472/4/C,

Namalgundu, Secunderabad. .. Petitioners.

A N D

1) K. Anjaiah S/o K.Chandraiah, Age : Major: Occ: Owner of Mahindra Maxicab Jeep. No. AP 22-U-5669, R/o H.No.1-10/1,Gouri Sankar Colony, Badepally, Jadcherla, Mahabubnagar.

2) The New India Assurance Company Limited., Rep. by its Divisional Manager, TP Claims Cell, 2nd Floor, Madan Mohan Building,

R.P. Road, Secunderabad. ...Respondents.

This petition is coming on this day before me for disposal in the presence of Sri D. Vilas Advocate for Petitioners and Respondent.No.1 remained exparte and Sri V. Ram Reddy, Advocate for the Respondent No.2 and having stood over for consideration till this day the court made the following:- 2

A W A R D

1.This is a Claim Application filed by the Claim petitioners under Sec.166 of

M.V. Act 1988 and rules 455 of M.V Rules and r/w Section 140 of M.V Act 1989 claiming compensation of Rs. 4,00,000/- with costs and subsequent interest from the date of application till date of realization as against the persons and property of the respondents jointly and severally and costs of the petition.

2.The claimants have filed this petition with the following allegations:

On 25.05.2010 at about 04.15 P.M., while the deceased Shiva Kumar along with his friends were returning from Srisailam to Gangapuram (V) in Mahindra

Maxicab Jeep bearing. No. AP 22 U 5669 and when they reached near cotton Mill,

Marchal (V) Outskirts, the driver of the said jeep drove the vehicle in high speed, rash and negligent manner and dashed to a road side neem tree, due to which Shiva

Kumar fell down and received grievous injuries and he was shifted to Government

Hospital, Kalwakurthy for treatment, later he was shifted to Osmania General

Hospital, Hyderabad for better treatment, where he succumbed to injures on the same day, while undergoing treatment. The matter was reported to the police.

Prior to the accident, the deceased aged about 23 years, unmarried and he was working in Balaji printing press, Hyderabad and was earning Rs. 6,000/- per month and contributing the entire amount for the benefit of the family.

The claimant No.1 is the mother, Claimant. No. 2 is father, and

Claimant.No.3 is the sister of the deceased E. Shiva Kumar. Due to the sudden death of Shiva Kumar, the claimants were put to mental shock, agony and became destitute and put to irreparable loss. First respondent is the owner of the vehicle and second respondent is insurer. Both of them are jointly and severally liable to pay the compensation. Hence, the petition.

3

3.First Respondent remained exparte.

Second respondent filed counter with the following allegations:

The accident was not taken place in the manner as alleged. There is no negligence or rashness on the part of the driver of Mahindra Maxi Cab Jeep bearing

No. AP 22U 5669. The driver of the jeep was not holding valid driving license. The vehicle was not having valid permit and not fit for road worthy to ply. The policy does not cover the inmates of the vehicle. The Petitioners are put to strict proof about the age, occupation and earnings of the deceased. The claim is high and excessive and there are no merits in the petition. Hence the Petition may be dismissed.

4.Basing on the above pleadings, the following issues were framed:

1. Whether the accident occurred owing to the rash and negligent driving of driver of Jeep bearing. No. AP 22 U 5669?

2. Whether the Petitioners are entitled for the compensation? If so to what amount and against which of the respondents?

3. To what relief?

5.To substantiate the case of petitioners, P.Ws.1 and 2 are the witnesses examined and Ex.A-1 to A-8 documents were marked. No witness was examined on behalf of the respondents. Ex.B.1 policy is marked with consent.

6.Arguments heard.

4

Issues No.1 and 2 :-

7.It is the case of the claimants that on 25.05.2010 at about 04.15 P.M., while the deceased Shiva Kumar along with his friends was returning from Srisailam to

Gangapuram (V) in Mahindra Maxicab Jeep bearing. No. AP 22 U 5669 and when they reached near cotton Mill in the outskirts of Marchal, the driver of the said jeep drove the vehicle in high speed, rash and negligent manner and dashed to a road side tree, due to which Shiva Kumar fell down and received grievous injuries and was shifted to Osmania General Hospital, Hyderabad for better treatment, where he succumbed to injures. First respondent being the owner of the vehicle and second respondent being the insurer, both of them are jointly and severally liable to pay the compensation. The stand of respondents is total denial of their liability.

8.At first place, it has to be seen whether the accident took place in the manner as alleged. The claimant No.2 himself was examined as P.W.1 and he narrated about the incident. As seen from his cross examination, he is not a direct eye witness to the incident. To prove rash and negligence, the evidence of this witness will do very little.

9.From the beginning, the claimants are relying upon evidence of P.W.2. P.W.2 has stated that on 25.05.2010 at about 04.15 P.M., the deceased Shiva Kumar was travelling Mahindra Maxicab Jeep bearing. No. AP 22 U 5669 along with him and when they reached near cotton Mill, Marchal (V) Outskirts, the driver of the said jeep drove the vehicle in high speed, rash and negligent manner and dashed to a road side neem tree, due to which Shiva Kumar fell down and received grievous injuries and later he learnt that Shiva Kumar succumbed to injures on the same day, while undergoing treatment.

5

10.During the course of cross examination, he reiterated his stand and there are no vital variations to deny his testimony. He stands to the test and his evidence is consistent that due to rash and negligent driving of the driver of the Jeep, the accident took place.

11. Ex.A.1 is the copy of F.I.R with complaint. Ex.A.7 is the final report. As seen from the documents, the matter was reported to the police and police after due investigation have filed final report against the driver of Mahindra Maxicab

Jeep bearing. No. AP 22 U 5669, mentioning that the accident took place due to his rash and negligent driving. The fact remains, the driver of the crime vehicle is no more and he also died in the accident. P.W.2 is the person who has presented

Ex.A.1 report, on the basis of which, case was registered and investigated into.

P.W.2 was cited as direct eye witness as seen from the contents of these documents.

These documents attach any amount of sanctity to the version of P.W.2 about the occurrence of the accident in the manner as alleged by him and his witnessing of the incident. His evidence discloses that he is inmate of the vehicle and he witnessed the incident. So he is a better person to say and explain how the accident took place.

His evidence is consistent that the accident took place due to rash and negligent driving of driver of Mahindra Maxicab Jeep bearing. No. AP 22 U 5669.

12.It is the stand of the Respondent that there is no negligence is on the part of the deceased driver. The respondents have not examined any witnesses to prove that there no rash or negligence on the part of the deceased driver.

13. The very occurrence of accident from the front side itself shows any amount of rash and negligence on the part of driver of the jeep. Evidence of P.W.2 discloses any amount of negligence and rashness on the part of the deceased driver in driving the jeep. As point out earlier, the respondents have not examined any witnesses to 6 substantiate their stand or to question the sanity of the evidence given by the P.W.2.

Evidence of P.W.2 speaks volumes of truth and explains how the accident took place and show that any amount of negligence is on the part of driver of crime vehicle.

14.Police have also done the investigation and came to conclusion that the accident took place due to rash and negligent driving driver of jeep. P.W.2 who is a direct eye witness, who is a better person to speak about the rash and negligence, categorically has stated that due to rash and negligent driving of driver of jeep, the accident took place. Nothing is found in the cross examination of P.W.2 to say that he is deposing falsehood for one reason or other.

15.There is any amount of negligence on the part of the driver of the jeep.

Further, the investigation done by police clearly shows that the negligence is solely on part of driver of jeep. The evidence of P.W.2 and investigation done by police clearly discloses that the accident took place, solely due to negligence of the driver of the driver of jeep.

16. It is also stand of the respondents that the driver of the jeep was not holding driving licence. They have not examined any witnesses to prove this fact. Now it is not open for them to contend that the driver of the jeep was not holding valid driving license. It is also the stand of Second Respondent that the vehicle is not in fit condition and not having valid permit. The evidence of P.W.2 clearly shows that due to high speed, the driver of the jeep lost control of the vehicle and dashed to a tree. So, it is not the spirt of evidence of P.W.2 that there are any mechanical defects of the vehicle which is root cause to the accident. Respondents have not adduced any evidence to say that the vehicle is not having valid permit. So, there is no force in the contention of the respondents in this regard.

7

17.Ex.A.2 is the inquest report. Ex.A-6 is Post-mortem examination report. As seen from these documents, the inquest was held over the dead body of the deceased and panchayathdars are of opinion that due to injuries sustained in the accident Shiv Kumar died. Ex.A-6 post mortem examination report also shows that the dead body was sent for post mortem examination and medical Officer opined that due to injuries sustained in the accident, the death was caused.

18.One of the contentions of the respondents is that the petitioners have not filed any documents to show that they are legal heirs of deceased. It is true that they have not filed succession certificate or legal heir certificate. Law never mandates such a proof. The evidence of P.W.1 speaks volumes of truth. He is father of deceased.

Ex.A.8 is the copy of ration card which was verified with the original card substantiates the status of the claimants. These facts attach any amount of sanctity to the version of P.W.1 that claimants are legal heirs of deceased.

19. So, at this place, through the evidence of P.W.1 and 2, by placing

Exs.A-1 to A-8, the claimants could establish that due to rash and negligent driving of driver of the Mahindra Maxicab Jeep bearing. No. AP 22 U 5669 accident took place and Shiva Kumar sustained serious injuries and succumbed to injuries.

20. In this case the first respondent remained exparte and never disputed his status as owner of the vehicle. The accident took place due to rash and negligent driving of driver of Mahindra Maxicab Jeep bearing. No. AP 22 U 5669 which belongs to the first respondent. So, first respondent being owner is vicariously liable to the acts of his driver and is liable to pay compensation. The vehicle is validly insured with Second Respondent under Ex.B.1 policy. So, both the respondents are jointly and severally liable to pay any compensation.

8

21.Now it has to be seen that what is the quantum of the compensation that can be awarded?

It is the evidence of P.W.1 that his son was working in printing press and earning Rs. 6,000/- per month. Evidence of P.W.1 and Ex.A.2 inquest are crucial.

It is evident from this document that the deceased Shiva Kumar is a private employee. At the earliest point of time in the inquest, the occupation of the deceased is shown as private employee. So, the same is accepted. But the income as stated by P.W.1 appears to be exaggerated. So, the earnings of the deceased considering his age and occupation is taken as Rs. 3,000/- per month.

22.In a decision reported in 2013 ACJ 1403 in a case in between Rajesh and others Vs. Rajbir Singh and others. Their Lordship held that “In Sarla Varma’s case, 2009 ACJ 1298 (SC),, it has been stated that in the case of those above 50 years, there shall be no addition. Having regard to the fact that in the case of those self-employed or fixed wages, where there is normally no age of superannuation, we are of the view that it will only be just and equitable to provide an addition of 15 per cent in the case where the victim is between the age group of

50 and 60 years so as to make the compensation just, equitable, fair and

reasonable. There shall normally be no addition thereafter.”

“Whether the Tribunal is competent to award compensation in excess of what is

claimed in the application under section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, is another issue arising for consideration in this case. At para 10 of Nagappa’s case

2003 ACJ 12 (SC), it was held as follows:

“(10) Thereafter, section 168 empowers the Claims Tribunal to ‘make an award

determining the amount of compensation which appears to it to be just’. Therefore, only requirement for determining the compensation is that it must be ‘just’. There is no other limitation or restriction on its power for awarding just compensation.”

Considering the ratio laid down by their Lordship and considering the occupation of the deceased, Rs.1,000/- is added as future prospectus.

9

23.In this case, it is undisputed fact that the deceased is unmarried, so age of the mother of the deceased has to be taken into consideration. The age of the mother was mentioned as 38 years in Ex.A.8 ration card. As seen from ration card, the document was prepared in the year 2006 and the accident took place in the year 2010. So at the time of date of the accident, the mother of the deceased is aged about 42 years. In the petition, the age of the mother of the deceased was shown 43 years. Considering the age of deceased, the age of claimant No.1 as mentioned in

Ex.A.8 ration card is found acceptable. So, same is taken as her age. The age of the mother is taken as 42 years for applying the multiplier.

24.In the decision reported in 2009 ACJ 1298, between Sarla Verma and others

Vs. Delhi Transport Corporation and another, their Lordships observed that:

“Tribunals/courts adopt and apply different operative multipliers. Some follow the

multiplier with reference to Susamma Thomas(set out in Column 2 of the Table

above); some follow the multiplier with reference to Trilok Chandra (Set out in

Column 3 of the Table above); some follow the multiplier with reference to Charlie (Set out in Co. 4 of the table above); many follow the multiplier given in second column of the table in the Second Schedule to MV Act(extracted in column 5 of the

Table above); and some follow the multiplier actually adopted in the Second

Schedule while calculating the quantum of compensation (set out in column 6 of the Table above). For example, if the deceased is aged 38 years, the multiplier would be

12 as per Susamma Thomas, 14 as per Trilok Chandra, 15 as per Charlie, or 16 as

per the multiplier given in Column 2 of the Second Schedule to M.V.Act. Some

Tribunals, as in this case apply the multiplier of 22 by taking the balance years of service with reference to the retiring age. It is necessary to avoid this kind of inconsistence. We are concerned with cases falling under Section 166 and not under section 163-A of M.V.Act. In cases falling under Section 166 of the M.V.Act, Davies method is applicable.

We, therefore, hold that the multiplier to be used should be as mentioned in column 4

of the Table above(prepared by applying Susamma Thomas, Trilok Chandra and

Charlie), which starts with an operative multiplier of 18 (for the age groups of 15 to 21 and 21 to 25), reduced by one unit for every five years, that is, M.17 for 26 to 30 years, M-16 for 31 to 35 years, M-15 for 36 to 40 years, M-14 for 41 to 45 years and M-13 for 46 to 50 years, then reduced by two units for every five years, that is, M-11 10 for 51 to 55 years, M-9 for 56 to 60 years, M-7 for 61 to 65 years and M-5 for 66 to 70 years.”

Considering the ratio laid down by their Lordships, the multiplier '14' has to be taken for the reason that the mother of the deceased is aged 42 years.

25. In the above said decision their Lordships held with regard to the deduction for personal and living expenses, that:

“Having considered several subsequent decisions of this Court, we

are of the view that where the deceased was a bachelor, 50 per cent

would be treated as the personal and living expenses of the bachelor

and 50 per cent as the contribution to the family.”

As per the above ratio, 50 per cent of the amount has to be deducted for the expenses which the deceased would have incurred towards maintaining himself, had he been alive, since the deceased is a bachelor.

26.The earnings of the deceased was taken as Rs.4,000/- (Rs. 3,000/- +

Rs.1,000/-) per month including future prospects. Out of the above said amount, 50 per cent has to be deducted in consideration of the expenses which the victim would have incurred towards maintaining himself, had he been alive i.e., Rs.2,000/- per month. So, the contribution of the deceased to the family per month is taken as

Rs.2,000/- (Rs. 4,000 – Rs. 2,000 = Rs. 2,000/-). The annual contribution of the deceased to the family is taken as Rs.24,000/- per annum (Rs.2,000 x 12 = 24,000/-).

So the loss of dependency and contribution of the deceased is Rs.3,36,000/- (Rs.24,000/- X 14), since multiplier is 14.

27.The petitioners are also entitled toRs.10,000/- (Rupees Ten Thousand

Only) under head of transportation, and Rs.10,000/- (Rupees Ten Thousand Only) towards funeral expenses.

11

28.As seen from the evidence of P.W.1, the deceased is prime earning member in the family. So his sudden death might have caused panic in their life. Second

Petitioner is father. Deceased is young. So there is a force in the contention of the

Claimants that they became destitute. So, Rs.30,000/- (Rupees Thirty Thousand

Only) is granted under the head of loss of estate, love and affection. The total compensation works out to Rs.3,86,000/- (Rupees Three Lakhs Eighty Six

Thousand Only). Therefore, petitioners No.1 to 3 are entitled to the total compensation of Rs.3,86,000/- (Rupees Three Lakhs Eighty Six Thousand Only).

Accordingly issue Nos.1 and 2 are answered.

ISSUE NO.3 :

29.In the result, this petition is partly allowed awarding compensation of

Rs.3,86,000/- (Rupees Three Lakhs Eighty Six Thousand Only) with proportionate costsand interest @ 6 % p.a. from the date of petition till the date of realization to the petitioners No.1 to 3. The respondents No.1 and 2 are jointly and severally liable to pay compensation to the petitioners and they are directed to deposit the compensation amount within one month from the date of this order. The amount of compensation shall be apportioned among the petitioners No.1 to 3, by paying Rs.2,50,000/- (Rupees Two Lakhs Fifty Thousand only) to first petitioner, on such deposit, 1st petitioner is permitted to withdraw Rs.1,50,000/- (Rupees One Lakh Fifty Thousand Only) and the remaining amount of Rs.

1,00,000/- (Rupees One Lakh only) shall be kept in fixed deposit in any nationalized bank for a period of three years. Rs.1,06,000/- (Rupees One Lakh Six

Thousand only) is apportioned to the Petitioner.No.2 and he is permitted to withdraw 56,000/- (Rupees Fifty Six Thousand only) and remaining amount of Rs.

50,000/- (Rupees Fifty Thousand only) shall be kept in fixed deposit in any nationalized bank for a period of three years. Rs.30,000/- (Rupees Thirty 12

Thousand only) is apportioned to the Petitioner No.3 and she is permitted to withdraw the entire amount. The rest of the claim is dismissed without costs.

Advocate’s fee fixed at Rs.1,000/-.

Dictated directlyto the Stenographer Grade-I, typed by him, corrected and pronounced

by me in the open Court on this the 3rd day of June, 2015.

Chairman, M.A.C.T.

(XX ADDL. CHIEF JUDGE)

SEC’BAD

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

Witnesses Examined on behalf of the Petitioners

PW-1: Esramoni Masaiah

P.W.2: B.Shivnandu

Witnesses Examined on behalf of the Respondents

-Nil-

Exhibits Marked on behalf of the petitioners

Ex.A-1: Certified copy of FI.R along with complaint.

Ex.A.2: Certified copy of Inquest Report

Ex.A.3: covering letter of inquest report

Ex.A.4: Original Death Certificate

Ex.A.5: Original application for certified copies returned by JFCM Kalwakurthy

Ex.A.6: Attested copy of Post Mortem Examination Report.

Ex.A.7: Attested copy of Final Report

Ex.A.8: Copy of Ration Card.

Exhibits Marked on behalf of the Respondents

Ex.B-1: Policy marked through consent

Chairman, M.A.C.T.

(XX ADDL. CHIEF JUDGE)

SEC’BAD.

IN THE COURT OF THE SPECIAL JUDGE FOR TRIAL OF OFFENCES UNDER S.Cs

& S.Ts (POA) ACT-CUM-VI ADDL. METROPOLITAN SESSIONS JUDGE;

SECUNDERABAD.

Dated this the 9th day of June, 2015

Present: Sri C.S.S.V Durga Prasad,

Special Judge for Trial of Offences

Under S.Cs & S.Ts (POA) Act-cum- VI Addl. Metropolitan Sessions Judge; Secunderabad.

SC. No. 21 of 2014

(P. R. C. No. 10 of 2013 of XI Addl. Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Secunderabad)

Committed by : Sri Ch.V.R.R Varaprasad, XI Addl. Chief Metropolitan

Magistrate, Secunderabad

Crime No. & Police Station : Cr.No.174/2013 of P.S. Bowenpally Police Station

Name of the Complainant : The State represented through Assistant Commissioner of Police Begumpet Division, Secunderabad.

Name and Description of the accused :

1. Chandraiah S/o Balaiah, Aged 25 years, Occ: Driver

2. Siddavva W/o Balaiah, Aged 50 years, Occ: Maid Servant

3. Balaiah S/o Late Venkataiah, Aged 70 years, Occ: Watchman

All R/o H.No.8-7-178/70, Swarnadamanagar, Old Bowenpally, Secunderabad N/o Rayinipally Village, Medak Mandal, Medak District.

Prosecution conducted by : Sri Gopal Singh Addl. Public Prosecutor.

Accused defended by : Sri K. Janardhan Reddy Sri B.M. Krishna Reddy Advocate for Accused

Offences : U/s. 498 (A) & 304 (B) of IPC & under section 3 and 4 of Dowry Prohibition Act 2

Plea of Accused:Pleaded not guilty.

Result

In the result, the Accused.No.1 to 3 is found not guilty for the charge under section U/s. 498 (A) and 304 (B) of IPC, under section 3 and 4 of Dowry Prohibition Act and they are acquitted under section 235 (1) Cr.P.C. Unmarked property if any shall be destroyed after appeal time is over. The bonds and bail bonds of the accused shall stand cancelled and sureties are hereby discharged.

-: J u d g m e n t :-

1.The Assistant Commissioner of police, Begumpet Division,

Secunderabad has filed the charge sheet against the

Accused.No.1 to 3 with the following allegations:

The marriage of deceased Manjula was performed with the

Accused No.1 about three years back. Accused No.2 and 3 are parents of Accused No.1. At the time of marriage, apart from

Rs.29,000/- cash, 71 grams of gold and 550 grams of silver were given. Then she joined the company of the accused. Accused started harassing her to get Rs. 1,00,000/- from her parents.

On 26.04.2013, having fed up with the behaviour of the accused and their harassment, Manjula hanged herself and died.

The matter was reported to the police. Inspector of Police has registered this case, Assistant Commissioner of Police took up further investigation, examined the scene of offence, prepared panchanama and seized material in the presence of panchas.

Examined the witnesses and recorded their statements. Inquest was held over the dead body of the deceased by Thaslidhar and 3 dead body was sent for post mortem examination. After apprehension of the accused, they were sent for remand. After completion of investigation, on receipt of relevant certificates, charge sheet is filed.

2.The Learned XI Addl. Chief Metropolitan Magistrate,

Secunderabad has taken cognizance of the offence under section

U/s. 323, 498 (A) and 304 (B) of IPC, under section 3 and 4 of Dowry

Prohibition Act against the accused and having satisfied with the material committed the case to the court of Sessions and in turn, this case is made over to this court for disposal.

3.After appearance of the accused, they were examined under section 228 Cr.P.C. denied the offence and wants to be tried.

Charges under section U/s. 498 (A) and 304 (B) of IPC, under section 3 and 4 of Dowry Prohibition Act were framed against the accused and read over to them and explained them in Telugu and they pleaded not guilty.

4.To substantiate the case of the prosecution P.W.1 to 7 were examined. Exs.P.1 to P.9 documents are marked.

5.In this case, P.W.1 to 6 denied the prosecution case and they were treated hostile. As seen from the record, there is no incriminating material warranting the examination of the accused under section 313 Cr.P.C., so, examination of the accused under the above said provision is dispensed. No defence is reported.

4

6.Arguments are heard.

7.Now the point for determination is that

Whether the prosecution has established its case against the accused beyond all reasonable doubt for the charge under section U/s. 498 (A) and 304 (B) of IPC, under section 3 and 4 of

Dowry Prohibition Act?

8.It is the case of the prosecution that Manjula is legally wedded wife of accused.No.1. Their marriage was performed about 3 years prior to the incident. Accused always used to harass Manjula for additional dowry and they used to harass her physically and mentally. Manjula died due to hanging. Thus, the accused are liable.

9.At first place it has to be seen whether the prosecution could establish the occurrence of death of Manjula. It is the evidence of

P.W.1 to 6 that Manjula hanged herself and died. Ex.P.9 is post mortem certificate issued by the Medical Officer who has conducted post mortem examination over the dead body of

Manjula and contents shows that due to hanging, the death was caused. Ex.P.8 is the inquest report and it reveals that on the requisition of the police, Thaslidhar has conducted inquest over the dead body of the deceased in the presence of panchas and panchayathdars are of the opinion that due to hanging, the death was caused and it is suicidal in nature. In this case, Ex.P.8 inquest report, Ex.P.9 Post Mortem Examination certificate are marked with consent. So the defence is also not disputing the occurrence of the death of Manjula due to hanging. So, at this place it is 5 established that Manjula hanged herself on 26.04.2013 and committed suicide.

10.P.W.2 is the mother of the deceased, P.W.1 father of the deceased, P.W.3 to 5 are relatives of the deceased. P.W.6 is neighbour of the accused and deceased. Their evidence is consistent that the marriage of Manjula was performed with

Accused.No1. The line of cross examination of the defence shows that they are not disputing about the marriage in between Manjula and Accused.No.1. So at this place, it is established that the marriage of Manjula was performed with Accused.No.1 as per caste customs and she is legally wedded wife of Accused.No.1.

11.It is the case of the prosecution that the incident took place at the house of accused. As seen from the line of the cross examination of the defence, evidence of P.W.1 to 6 is left unchallenged on the above said issue. P.W.7 who is the owner of the house in which the offence took place has also corroborated the prosecution case. So, at this place it is further established that Manjula hanged herself at the house of the accused.

12.The crucial aspect is that involvement of the accused. It is the case of the prosecution that accused is the root cause for death of deceased Manjula and used to harass the deceased.

13.P.W.1 is the father of the deceased. Case was initiated on the complaint of P.W.1. P.W.2 is the mother. From the beginning the prosecution is relying upon the evidence of P.W.1 to 5. They are parents and relatives of the deceased and it is the case of the prosecution that they have knowledge about the harassment 6 caused by the accused. All of them stand in a line and stated that

Manjula hanged herself and died and they do not know the reason for the death. Further they certified that the relationship between the accused and the deceased were cordial. It is their evidence that due to stomach ache, Manjula hanged herself. P.W.7 who is the neighbour also has stated so.

14.A vital shock was given to the case of the prosecution by the evidence of these witnesses. There is no single whisper in their evidence that the accused used to harass the deceased for

additional dowry or for one reason or other. The stand of the

prosecution was shattered by the evidence of these witnesses.

15.The Learned Addl. Public Prosecutor has argued that the witnesses have given false version in the court during course of their evidence. A suggestion was given to the above said witnesses to the above said effect, which was duly denied by them. By giving these suggestions, now the prosecution wants to say that witnesses have given false version in the court. If the prosecution wants to say that the witnesses are in habit of deposing falsehood, how the prosecution can expect that these witnesses have given true version to the Police, while recording their 161 Cr.P.C statements. So in toto their evidence has to be discarded and no sanctity can be attached to Ex.P.2 to P.7.

16.Then remaining evidence is the evidence of P.W.7. He stated that at the time of offence the accused have resided as tenants in his house and Accused.No.1 was his driver. He did not state anything with regard to strained feeling between the parties 7 or the harassment said to have been caused by the accused. Of- course it is not the case of the prosecution that he had any knowledge of the alleged harassment. His evidence is that the accused used to reside in his house and he came to know that

Manjula has committed suicide. As pointed out earlier, occurrence of death of Manjula is already established. The crucial aspect is that the reason for the death. To establish that fact, the evidence of this witness is not helpful to the prosecution in any manner.

17.In this case, independent witnesses P.W.5 and 6 never supported the prosecution stand. P.W.1 the father of the victim never stated anything against the accused. P.W.2 mother of the deceased, P.W.3 and 4 uncle and aunty of the deceased never stated that the accused demanded any additional dowry or used to harass deceased Manjula for additional dowry. All of them were turned hostile to the prosecution. Learned Additional Public

Prosecutor has rightly given up the evidence of other witnesses.

No useful purpose will be served in examining the Investigating

Officer, so his evidence is closed. Absolutely there is no evidence to say that the accused used to harass Manjula for money and they are the root cause for her death. So, no case is made out by the prosecution. This point is answered in favour of the accused against the prosecution.

18. In the result, the Accused.No.1 to 3 is found not guilty for the charge under section U/s. 498 (A) and 304 (B) of IPC, under section 3 and 4 of Dowry Prohibition Act and they are acquitted under section 235 (1) Cr.P.C. Unmarked property if any shall be destroyed after appeal time is over. The bonds and bail bonds of 8 the accused shall stand cancelled and sureties are hereby discharged.

Dictated directly to the Stenographer Grade-I and typed by him, corrected and

pronounced by me in the Open Court on this the 9th day of June, 2015.

SPL JUDGE FOR THE TRIAL OF OFFENCES

UNDER S.Cs & S.Ts (POA) ACT-CUM –

VI ADDL. METROPOLITAN SESSIONS JUDGE

SEC’BAD.

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

WITNESSES EXAMINED FOR PROSECUTION

PW-1 Yellaiah

P.W-2 Smt. Anushamma

P.W-3 Venkaah

P.W.-4 St. Yadamma

P.W.-5 A.Pochaiah

P.W-6 B. Hanumanthu

P.W.7: Ankush Sawanth

WITNESSES EXAMINED FOR DEFENCE:

Nil.

EXHIBITS MARKED FOR PROSECUTION

Ex.P1Report of P.W.1

Ex.P.2161 Cr.P.C statement of P.W.1

Ex.P.3: 161 Cr.P.C Statement of P.W.2

Ex.P.4161 Cr.P.C Statement of P.W.3

Ex.P.5: 161 Cr.P.C Statement of P.W.4

Ex.P.6: 161 Cr.P.C Statement of P.W.5

Ex.P.7: 161 Cr.P.C Statement of P.W.6

Ex.P.8: Inquest marked with consent

Ex.P.9: Post Mortem Examination Report marked with consent 9

EXHIBITS MARKED FOR DEFENCE:

-Nil-

MATERIAL OBJECTS MARKED:

SPL JUDGE FOR THE TRIAL OF OFFENCES

UNDER S.Cs & S.Ts (POA) ACT-CUM –

VI ADDL. METROPOLITAN SESSIONS JUDGE

SEC’BAD.

IN THE COURT OF THE SPECIAL JUDGE FOR TRIAL OF OFFENCES UNDER

S.Cs & S.Ts (POA) ACT-CUM-VI ADDL. METROPOLITAN SESSIONS JUDGE;

SECUNDERABAD.

Dated this the 5th day of June, 2015.

Present: Sri C.S.S.V. Durga Prasad,

Special Judge for Trial of Offences

Under S.Cs & S.Ts (POA) Act-cum- VI Addl. Metropolitan Sessions Judge, Secunderabad.

SC. No. 369 of 2014

(P. R. C. No. 17 of 2014 of X Addl. Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Secunderabad)

Committed by :Sri K. Rajanna., X Addl. Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Secunderabad

Crime No. & Police Station : Cr.No.309 / 2013 of P.S. Gandhinagar Police Station

Name of the Complainant: The State through Sub Inspector of Police, Gandhinagar Police Station, Secunderabad.

Name and Description of the accused :

Gudipalli Shiva Ram S/o Sudharshan, Aged 38 years, Occ: Driver R/o H.No.2, Block.No.3, IDH Colony, Gandhi Nagar, Hyderabad.

Prosecution conducted by :Sri Gopal Singh Addl. Public Prosecutor.

Accused defended by : Sri S. Narayana Rao Advocate for Accused

Offences:U/s 307 of IPC against accused

Plea of Accused:Pleaded not guilty.

Result :

In the result, the Accused is found not guilty for the charge under

Section 307 of IPC and he is acquitted under section 235 (1) Cr.P.C. Bonds and bail bonds of the accused shall stand cancelled and sureties are hereby discharged. Unmarked property i.e., blade shall be destroyed after appeal time is over.

2

-: J u d g m e n t :-

1.The Sub Inspector of police, Gandhinagar Police Station, Secunderabad has filed the charge sheet against the accused with the following allegations:

Marriage of P.W.1 was performed with the accused about fourteen years back. They blessed with three children. Since one year, the accused is suspecting the character of P.W.1 and harassing her.

On 09.12.2013 at 5.30 A.M., accused with a blade attacked P.W.1 and caused injuries on her neck and stomach with an intention to kill her. P.W.1 was admitted in the hospital. Sub Inspector of Police recorded the statement of P.W.1, registered this case, examined the witnesses, visited scene of offence and observed the same, apprehended the accused and interrogated him in the presence of panchas and accused confessed about the offence and blade was seized and accused was sent for remand. After completion of investigation, he filed the charge sheet.

2.The Learned X Addl. Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Secunderabad has taken cognizance of the offence under section 307 of IPCagainst the accused and having satisfied with the material committed the case to the court of Sessions and in turn, this case is made over to this court for disposal.

3.After appearance of the accused, he was examined under section 228

Cr.P.C. denied the offence and wants to be tried. Charge under Section 307 of IPC was framed, read over to him and explained him in Telugu and he pleaded not guilty.

4.To substantiate the case of the prosecution P.W.1 and 2 are the witnesses examined. Exs.P.1 to P.4 documents are marked.

3

5.P.W.1 victim has given a go bye to the case of the prosecution. She ruled out the involvement of the accused. She was treated hostile. P.W.2 is one of the prime witness has also not supported the prosecution case.

Considering the hostility of P.W.1 and 2, the Learned Additional Public

Prosecutor has given up the evidence of other witnesses.

6. After closure of the prosecution evidence, as there is no incriminating material warranting the examination of the accused under U/Sec.313 Cr.P.C, same is dispensed. No defence is reported.

7.Arguments are heard.

8.Now the point for determination is that

Whether the prosecution has established its case beyond all reasonable doubt for the charge under Section 307 of IPC against accused?

9.It is the case of the prosecution that accused suspecting the character of P.W.1, attacked her and tried to kill her, thus accused is liable.

10.At first place it has to be seen whether the prosecution could establish the existence of injuries on the body of the victim. Ex.P.4 wound certificate is marked with consent. Even, though P.W.1 deviated her earlier stand on other issues, but corroborated the prosecution about her sustaining injuries on the date of incident. Ex.P.4 indicates that P.W.1 has sustained simple injuries. The line of cross examination of the defence also shows that they are not disputing about P.W.1 sustaining injuries. So, at this place, it is established by the prosecution that on the date of offence, P.W.1 has sustained injuries and injuries are simple in nature.

11. The crucial aspect is that the involvement of the accused. From the beginning, prosecution is relying upon the evidence of P.W.1. She is the person who has made a statement before police, on the basis of which, the 4 present prosecution has been launched. She stated that about one year back, accidentally she fell on thorny bushes and sustained injuries. She was admitted in the hospital and her signature was obtained by the police on her statement.

12.A vital shock was given to the case of the prosecution by the evidence of this witness. She is the victim and she is the person who was attacked and sustained injuries. There is no single whisper in her evidence that the accused attacked her and caused injuries. She denied the factum of examination by the police.

13.She has also denied her statement. It is the stand of the prosecution that at the hospital, statement of P.W.1 was recorded by the police. But it is the evidence of P.W.1 that her signature was obtained by the police and she does not know its contents. Contents of the statement show that as if she has stated to the police that the accused always used to harass her suspecting her character and finally on the date of incident, he tried to kill her. But that was not the spirit of her evidence. She is specific that her signature was obtained by the police on her statement. So, author of the report is denying, the very statement said to have been made by her.

14.There is no single whisper in the evidence of P.W.1 that it is the accused who attacked her with an intention to kill her and in process she sustained simple injuries. P.W.1 has stated that due to fall she sustained injuries. Nothing is found in her evidence to say that the accused attacked her and attempted to kill her.

5

15.P.W.2 is mother of P.W.1 and it is her evidence that about two years back, she was informed that P.W.1 fell down at the house and sustained injuries. She has also not supported the prosecution case. Her evidence further ruined the prosecution case.

16.The Learned Addl. Public Prosecutor has argued that the P.W.1 and 2 have given false version in the court. A suggestion was given to the above said witnesses to the above said effect, which was duly denied by them. By giving these suggestions, now the prosecution wants to say that witnesses have given false version in the court. If the prosecution wants to say that the witnesses are in habit of deposing falsehood, how the prosecution can expect that these witnesses have given true version to the Police, while recording their 161 Cr.P.C statements. So in toto their evidence has to be discarded and no sanctity can be attached to Ex.P.2 and 3.

17.P.W.1 is the injured and she did not state that accused attacked her and inflicted injuries with an intention to kill her. She never identified the accused as per the person who attacked her and caused injuries. Her evidence shattered the prosecution case irreparably and ruined its stand.

Nothing is found in the evidence of P.W.1 to say that the accused is involved in the commission of the offence.

18.Another limb of the prosecution case rests on the confession and recovery. Confession is inadmissible, even accepting the version of the police that they have recovered a blade from the accused, but that fact no way improvises the prosecution case. There is no connecting link between the blade said to have been seized from the accused, with the guilt alleged against him. P.W.1 totally ruled out the involvement of the accused in the commission of the offence and it is not the spirit of her evidence that it is the accused with the blade attacked her and caused injuries with an intention to kill her. The Learned A.P. has rightly given up evidence of other witnesses.

6

No useful purpose will be served in examining them in the present set of circumstances.

19.In this case, P.W.1 the injured never supported the prosecution case and failed to identify the accused as the culprit, who attacked her. P.W.2 is one of the crucial witness has given go bye to the case of the prosecution.

Scene of offence is not established. Weapon handled by the accused is not spoken. Motive behind the offence is not explained. Accused is not identified as culprit and no case is made by the prosecution.

20. In the result, the Accused is found not guilty for the charge under

Section 307 of IPC and he is acquitted under section 235 (1) Cr.P.C. Bonds and bail bonds of the accused shall stand cancelled and sureties are hereby discharged. Unmarked property i.e., blade shall be destroyed after appeal time is over.

Dictated directly to the Stenographer Grade-I and typed by him, corrected

and pronounced by me in the Open Court on this the 5th day of June, 2015.

SPL JUDGE FOR THE TRIAL OF OFFENCES

UNDER S.Cs & S.Ts (POA) ACT-CUM –

VI ADDL. METROPOLITAN SESSIONS JUDGE

SEC’BAD.

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

WITNESSES EXAMINED FOR PROSECUTION

PW-1G. Pusphalatha

P.W-2G. Manemma

WITNESSES EXAMINED FOR DEFENCE:

Nil.

EXHIBITS MARKED FOR PROSECUTION

Ex.P1Signature of P.W.1.

Ex.P2 161 Cr.P.C Statement of P.W.1

Ex.P3 161 Cr.P.C Statement of P.W.2

Ex.P4 wound certificate 7

EXHIBITS MARKED FOR DEFENCE:

-Nil-

MATERIAL OBJECTS MARKED:

-Nil-

SPL JUDGE FOR THE TRIAL OF OFFENCES

UNDER S.Cs & S.Ts (POA) ACT-CUM –

VI ADDL. METROPOLITAN SESSIONS JUDGE

SEC’BAD.