Smt D.Madhavi Krishna

1 of 9 MVOP 208/ 2022, III ADJ Court, Sangareddy

BEFORE THE CHAIRPERSON, MOTOR VEHICLE ACCIDENT CLAIMS

TRIBUNAL -CUM- III ADDITIONAL DISTRICT AND SESSIONS JUDGE,

SANGAREDDY

PRESENT: Smt. D. Madhavi Krishna, Chairperson, MACT-cum-III Additional District and Sessions Judge, Sangareddy.

Monday, This the 18 th Day of May, 2026

MVOP NO. 208 OF 2022

Between:

Master B. Varun, S/O. Bagari Vijay Kumar, Aged: 3 Years Occ. Student, R/O. H.No.-1-35/3, Chowtakur Village and Mandal, Sangareddy. Petitioner being minor Represented by his father B.Vijay Kumar as natural Guardian ...Claimant

And

1. N.Narsimha Nayak, S/O. N.Gobrya Nayak, Aged: Major, Occ: Driver of Indica Car Bearing No. AP-11-AB-6757, R/O. H.No. 1-86/1, Ram Singh Nayak Thanda, Lingampally Village, Kulkacherla Mandal, Vikarabad District.

2. Nenavath Raju, S/O. Nenavath Gobriya, Aged: Major, Occ: Business, Owner of Indica Car Bearing No. AP-11-AB-6757, R/O. H.No. 1-86/1, Ram Singh Nayak Thanda, Lingampally Village, Kulkacherla Mandal, Vikarabad District.

...Respondents

x x x This petition has come before me on 12-05-2026 for final hearing in the presence of M/s. G.Mallaiah,Counsel for claimant and Respondent nos.1 and 2 remained ex-parte and no representation from petitioner counsel, hence treated as heard and upon perusal of the material papers on record and having stood over for consideration till this day, the Court made the following :-

O R D E R

1.This petition is filed under Section, 166 of Motor Vehicle Act,1988 by the claimant seeking compensation of Rs.5,00,000/-(Rupees Five Lakhs only) with interest @ 18% per annum from the date of petition till realization with 2 of 9 MVOP 208/ 2022, III ADJ Court, Sangareddy costs against the respondents jointly and severally for the injuries sustained by petitoner in an Motor Vehicle Accident that occurred on 06.03.2022 .

2. The brief averments of the petition are as follows:

That on 06-03-2022, the claimant with his father, mother and brother were proceeding from old bus stand towards Sanjaeeva Nagar on his father’s

TVS Jupiter Scooty bearing No.TS-15-EJ-4558 in a moderate speed and on correct side. At about 5.00pm, when they reached in the limits of Sangareddy, near Nalla Pochamma Temple, on NH.No.161, one Indica Car bearing No.AP- 11-AB-6757, driven by its driver i.e. respondent No. 1 in rash and negligent manner and turned his car suddenly to the right side to Asthabal Darga without any indicator and gave dash to claimant father’s Scooty and all of them fell down on the road. As a result, the claimant received injuries on scalp i.e., (1.Lesions on Scalp in multiple in numbers and also all over the scalp. 2.

Scalp Folliculitis convergent squint of anaemia) and other injuries all over the body. The claimant was shifted to Govt. Hospital, Sangareddy and the claimant has also taken treatment in MNR Hospital Sangareddy and later he is shifted to Balaji Hospital for better treatment and claimant incurred huge amount for treatment. The Scooty of his father was also completely damaged.

ii) The Police,Sangareddy Town registered case in Cr.No.63/2022 for the offence u/Sec.337 IPC against the driver of car bearing No. AP-11-AB-6757 ie., Respondent No.1, and the same is pending before the Addl. J.F.C.M. at

Sangareddy.

3 of 9 MVOP 208/ 2022, III ADJ Court, Sangareddy iii) The accident occurred only due to the rash and negligent driving of the

Car bearing No AP-11-AB-6757, by its driver/respondent No.1 during the course of employment with its owner. The respondent No.2 is the owner of the said Car bearing No AP-11-AB-6757. The respondents have not furnished the policy particulars of the vehicle, as such the claimant reserves his right to implead the insurance company as and when the claimant secured the policy particulars. As such the respondents are jointly and severally liable to pay the compensation to the claimant.

iv) The claimant was hale and healthy at the time of accident. The claimant was studying and after the accident, the claimant is forced to stop his studies.

The claimant is facing lot of difficulties. Huge amount incurred for his treatment and still the claimant is undergoing treatment. The claimant is not able to walk properly and not in a position to stand for some time and not discharging his activities properly. Now the claimant is depending upon others.

Hence, the claim petition

3.Respondent nos.1 & 2 having received notices failed to appear before te court and remained ex-parte.

4.During the course of petitioner side evidence father of minor petitioner/injured examined as PW1 and got marked Ex.A1 to A5 documents.

He also got examined Dr.K.Sridhar, Consultant Surgeon incharge of Balaji hospitals as PW2.

5.Heard counsel for petitioner. Perused the record.

4 of 9 MVOP 208/ 2022, III ADJ Court, Sangareddy

6.Now the points for consideration are:

1. Whether the accident had occurred due to rash and negligent driving of the respondent No.1 i.e., the driver of Indica Car bearing No.AP-11-AB- 6757 ?

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

3. To what relief?

Point No.1:-

7.This petition is filed by minor/injured through his father. To prove his case the father of the injured examined as PW1. PW1 deposed evidence as per petition that on 06.03.2022 when he along with his wife and his two sons including the injured petitioner coming on his TVS Jupiter Scooty bearing registration No.TS-15-EJ-4558 in moderate speed proceeding towards

Sanjeeva Nagar from old Bus stand, around 5.00 pm., when they have reached near Nallapochamma Temple on NH.No.161 one Indica Car bearing

No. AP-11-AB-6757 being driven by its driver who is R1 in rash and negligent manner turned suddenly to the right side to Asthabal Darga without any indicator and gave dash to the Scooty. As such they all fell down on the road.

The claimant sustained injuries on scalp 1.lesions on scalp in multiple in number, 2. folliculitis convergent squint of Anaemia, and other injuries all over the body. Immediately the injured was shifted to Government hospital,

Sangareddy and from there to MNR hospital, Sangareddy and from there to

Balaji hospital for better treatment.

8.On the complaint of mother of injured (Ex.A1) Police Sangareddy registered the case in Cr.No.63/2022 for the offence U/Sec.337 of IPC against 5 of 9 MVOP 208/ 2022, III ADJ Court, Sangareddy

R1. PW1 further said that said accident was occurred only due to rash and negligent driving of R1. After investigation police laid charge sheet for offence

U/Sec.338 of IPC against R1 herein and Sec.196 of M.V.Act against R2 i.e.,

Ex.A2. It seems that R2 who is registered owner of Indica Car bearing no. AP- 11-AB-6757 allowed R1 to drive the car which is not insured. Ex.A3 is Crime detail form and rough sketch. Ex.A4 is Medical certificate issued by Sri Balaji

Medicover hospitals which shows that on 06.03.2022 minor petitioner was brought to their hospital with history of road traffic accident. On examination, it is noticed that the Claimant sustained injury to head - right ear bleed + Nasal bleed + Vomitings and Laceration over right ear and right lower limb which are grievous in nature.

9.As both respondents remained ex-parte, the evidence of PW1 and documents marked through him remain unchallenged. Therefore, considering the record it is held that the accident was occurred due to rash and negligence driving of R1 of Indica car bearing No. AP-11-AB-6757 in which accident the

Claimant sustained injuries. Accordingly point no.1 is answered.

Point No.2:-

10.In view of observation in above point as the petitioner sustained injuries in road traffic accident he is entitled for claiming compensation. Now the quantum of compensation is to be decided.

11.Petitioner also filed discharge summery issued by Sri Balaji Medicover hospitals which shows that from the date of accident the injured was under treatment up to 14.03.2022 as inpatient. The patient was given conservatively 6 of 9 MVOP 208/ 2022, III ADJ Court, Sangareddy treatment and discharged in stable condition. But PW1 deposed that due to injury sustained in the accident his son is facing a lot of difficulties and not able to walk properly and not in a position to stand long time.

12.The evidence of PW2 also substantiated above part of evidence and

Ex.A4 and Ex.A5. Petitioner also filed discharge summery issued by MNR

Medical collage hospital, Sangareddy but it is not marked but it shows that from 19.05.2022 to 23.05.2022 petitioner was under treatment. Therefore it can be said that petitioner underwent a lot of pain through out treatment. As such considering the evidence of PW1 and PW2 and the injuries sustained by the minor petitioner as seen from the record awarding an amount of

Rs.1,00,000/- as compensation under the head of pain and suffering which will meet ends of justice.

Medical expenses:-

13.Though the petitioner is claiming Rs.3,04,555/- amount towards medical expenses he filed bills/receipts worth Rs.1,12,045/- only. Ex.A5 is Essentiality

Certificate issued by Sri Balaji Medicover hospitals. Petitioner filed advance receipts for Rs.10,000/- and Rs.58,000/- those were shown in inpatient final bill which is for Rs.84,000/- which also shown in Ex.A5. Other bills (15) in number for total Rs.37,995/- of which petitioner is entitled to. Therefore in total petitioner is entitled for Rs.1,12,045 + Rs.37,995/- = Rs.1,50,040/- only towards medical expenses.

14.Further the petitioner is entitled to Rs.10,000/- towards transportation charges and Rs.10,000/- towards extra-nourishment. Though the petitioner is 7 of 9 MVOP 208/ 2022, III ADJ Court, Sangareddy claiming amount under the head of loss of future earnings and under disability as the injujrd is minior is not entitled to claim loss of earnings and there is no sufficient evidence to enable the petitioner to get compensation under the head of disability. Thus the petitioner in total entitled for Rs.2,70,040/- only.

15. Details of compensation awarded are given below:-

Sl.No.Discription Amount of Rs.

1Pain and suffering Rs.1,00,000 2Medical expensesRs.1,50,040/- 3Traveling and extra-nourishmentRs. 20,000/-

Total: Rs.2,70,040/-

16.Though the petitioner has claimed Rs.5,00,000/- towards compensation under various categories, but he could not make out the case to get such amount as compensation. Hence the petitioner is awarded an amount of

Rs.2,70,040 ( Rupees Two Lakhs Seventy Thousand Forty only) towards compensation.

Who are liable to pay:-

17.As regards liability on the respondents is concerned, the respondent

No.1 is the driver and respondent No.2 is the owner of the car involved in the accident and the same was not insured and hence the respondent No.1 & 2 are liable to pay the compensation to the petitioner.

18. For the reasons set forth in the preceding paragraphs, I am of the considered opinion that the respondent No.1 & 2 are jointly and severally 8 of 9 MVOP 208/ 2022, III ADJ Court, Sangareddy liable to pay the compensation of Rs.2,70,040/- to the petitioner. Accordingly the points No.1 and 2 are answered.

Point No.3:-

19.In view of the above finding Point Nos.1 and 2, the petition has to be allowed in part. As seen from the record petitioner paid Court fee. Accordingly the point No.3 is answered.

20. In the result, the petition is allowed in part by awarding compensation of Rs.2,70,040 ( Rupees Two Lakhs Seventy Thousand Forty only) to the petitioner with proportionate costs and interest @ 7.5% per annum from the date of petition till the date of deposit and respondent No.1 & 2 are jointly and severally liable to pay the compensation to the petitioner.

ii.The respondent No.1 & 2 are directed to deposit the said amount within 2 months from the date of this order and on such deposit the amount shall be kept in FDR in any nationalized bank till the petitioner attains majority.

iii. On failure of deposit of amount by R1 & R2, petitioner is entitled for recovery of said amount from R1 & R2 as per law.

iv.Advocate fee is fixed at Rs.3,000/-.

(Typed to my dictation by the Stenographer, corrected and pronounced by me in the Open Court on this the 18 th day of May, 2026).

Chairperson, MACT-Cum-III Addl. District &

Sessions Judge, Sangareddy.

9 of 9 MVOP 208/ 2022, III ADJ Court, Sangareddy

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

witnesses examined for

CLAIMANTS: RESPONDENT S :

PW1- B.Vijay Kumar None PW2- Dr.K.Sridhar

EXHIBITS MARKED FOR

CLAIMANT: Ex.A1: CC of FIR along with complaint Ex.A2: CC of Chargesheet Ex.A3: CC of Scene of offence panchanama with sketch map Ex.A4: Injury certificate Ex.A5: Medical bills

RESPONDENTs NIL

Chairperson, MACT-Cum-III Addl. District &

Sessions Judge, Sangareddy.

1 of 5Crl.M.P.No. 247/2026, III ADJ Court, SRD

IN THE COURT OF SPECIAL SESSIONS JUDGE FOR TRIAL OF

OFFENCES UNDER THE SCHEDULED CASTES AND SCHEDULED

TRIBES (POA) ACT, 1989 -CUM-III ADDITIONAL DISTRICT & SESSIONS

JUDGE :: SANGAREDDY

PRESENT: Smt. D. Madhavi Krishna, Spl. Judge for trial of offences under SCs/STs (POA) Act -Cum-III Additional District & Sessions Judge, Sangareddy

MONDAY, DATED THIS THE 18th DAY OF MAY, 2026

Crl.M.P. No. 247 of 2026

IN Cr.No. 18 of 2025 (P.S. Indrakaran )

Between:

Julakanti Mallesham, S/o. Mallaiah, aged about 57 years, Occ: Business, R/o. H.No.4-1/13, Kasaram village, Patancheru mandal, Sangareddy District.

...Petitioners/A5

And

The State through SHO, P.S. Indrakaran.

...Respondent/Complainant

PETITION FILED UNDER SECTION 438 OF Cr.P.C This petition came up before me for final hearing in the presence of Sri G.Nawajulu,Advocate for the petitioner/A5 and of Learned Special Public Prosecutor for the state, having perused the material on record, having heard both sides and having stood over for consideration, the Court made the following:-

O R D E R

1.This petition is filed under Section 438 of Cr.P.C., by Petitioner/A5 praying to grant anticipatory bail in the event of his arrest in Crime No.18 of 2025 of P.S Indrakaran for the offences under Sections 420, 464, 467, 468 r/w. Sec. 34 of IPC.

2 of 5Crl.M.P.No. 247/2026, III ADJ Court, SRD

2.The brief case of the prosecution is that :-

On 11.02.2025 at 1800 hours, complainant/J.Venkatesh lodged a complaint before police Indrakaran stating that he has purchased two plots each admeasuring 365 sq.yards in Sy.No.121/AA2, A121/AA4 situated at

Indrakaran village under registered sale deed docts.14175/2021, 24226/2021 from one Purra Narayana/A1 in this case wherein A2 and A3 acted as mediators and they assured about the purchase. Further at the time of purchase the plots are open plots and when later he went to the purchases plots it was possession of others. Hence, prayed to take necessary action against accused who cheated him.

ii)Basing on the said complaint police Indrakaran registered a case against A1 to A8 in Cr.No.18/2025 for the offences u/Secs. 420, 464, 467, 468 r/w. Sec. 34 of IPC and took up the investigation.

3.The brief averments of petition are that: -

Petitioner is innocent and no way concerned with the offence he is falsely implicated in this case and that the alleged offences does not attract towards him and that that entire investigation is completed and he is no more required for investigation and that the petitioner is apprehending arrest from the hands of police ad if he arrested his reputation will be damaged and that the petitioner is ready face trial and also read to co- operate with the investigation agency and ready to abide by the conditions that may be imposed by the court and are ready to furnish sufficient sureties to the satisfaction of the court, hence, prays to grant him anticipatory bail.

3 of 5Crl.M.P.No. 247/2026, III ADJ Court, SRD

4.Notice of this petition served on learned Additional Public Prosecutor who filed counter denying the anticipatory bail to petitioner contending that there is prima-facie and reasonable ground to believe that accused no.5 prayed a key role in conspiracy and if he is granted anticipatory bail, he may not co-operate with the investigation agency and may abscond or may hamper the evidence. Hence, prays to dismiss the petition.

5.Heard both sides and perused the record.

6.Now the point for consideration is “Whether the petitioner/A5 is entitled for grant of anticipatory bail as prayed for?”

POINT:

7On perusal of Case Diary, it reveals that, complainant alleged that accused persons cheated him by false transactions. However, a perusal of the contents of FIR does not attract other offences except 420 IPC. Further no date mentioned in the complaint when the complainant went to the alleged property after purchase. However, the offence u/Sec. 420 IPC is punishable with imprisonment for upto seven years and a fine. Though, prosecution contended that investigation is pending, however, as per the directions of Hon’ble Apex Court in Satender Kumar Antil vs CBI and in

Arnesh Kumar the concerned police shall issue notice u/Sec. 41-A Cr.P.C for the offences punishable with less than seven years or may be extended up to seven years, but in the present case it appears that the police have not issued notice u/Sec. 41-A Cr.PC to petitioner as required. Further, record 4 of 5Crl.M.P.No. 247/2026, III ADJ Court, SRD reveals that A1 to A4 and A6 were already enlarged on bail. Hence, taking into consideration of all the facts and circumstances of the case, this court is of the view that custody of the petitioner is not required at this stage and he can be granted anticipatory bail with certain conditions.

8.In the result, the petition is allowed granting anticipatory bail to the petitioner/Accused. No.5 and directed him to surrender before Addl.Judl.

Magistrate of First Class, Sangareddy within 15 days from the date of this

order and on such surrender the learned Addl. Judl. Magistrate of First

Class, Sangareddy shall release the petitioner/A5 on bail on his executing personal bond for Rs.10,000/- with two sureties each for a like sum to his/her satisfaction and on following conditions:

[ i.The Petitioner/ Accused. No.5 should not cause the evidence disappear in any manner.

ii.The Petitioner/Accused.No.5 should not cause threat or promise, dissuade any person who is acquainted with the facts of the case, from disclosing such facts to the Court or to the Police officer.

iii.The Petitioner/Accused.No.5 should ensure his presence

before the Court whenever require.

iv.The Petitioner/Accused.No.5 shall not leave the jurisdiction of the Court without prior permission.

5 of 5Crl.M.P.No. 247/2026, III ADJ Court, SRD

v)Further the petitioner/A5 shall comply all the conditions under section 438 of Cr.P.C and shall not commit any further offence and shall not come into contact with the witnesses.

Typed to my dictation by Stenographer Grade-I, corrected and

pronounced by me in the open Court on this the 18 th day of May, 2026.

III Addl. District and Sessions Judge, Sangareddy.

Copy to:-

1. The Addl. Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Sangareddy.

2. Sri G.Nawajulu, Advocate for petitioner/A5

3. The Station House Officer, P.S.Indrakaran.