Sri. D. Seshayya

Crl.A.No.140/2022 1 XIII ADJ Court,

Dt: 27.04.2026 VJA.

IN THE COURT OF THE XIII ADDL.DIST. & SESSIONS JUDGE

(FAST TRACK COURT) KRISHNA AT VIJAYAWADA

Present: Sri D. Seshayya,

XIII Addl. Dist. & Sessions Judge,

(Fast Track Court) Vijayawada.

Monday, this the 27th day of April, 2026

Criminal Appeal No.140 of 2022

From which Court the : III Addl. Metropolitan

Magistrate,

appeal is preferred : Vijayawada.

Number of the case in that court : C.C. No.892/2018

Number of the Appeal : Crl.A.No.140/2022

Name and description of the Appellant:

Chintakayala Durga Prasad, S/o Venkannapathrudu, Hindu, Age 42 years, Lorry Driver, R/o D.No.7-136, Ishwarya Apartments, Prasadampadu, Vijayawada Rural. ….Accused. Name of the Respondents:

1. Donavalli Venkata Subba Rao, S/o Nageswara Rao, Hindu, Age 50 years, Business, R/o Flat No.401, Subhadra Kamala Nilayam, Poranki Village, Penamaluru Mandal, Krishna District. ….Complainant

2. The State: Rep. by Additional Public Prosecutor, XIII Additional District Court, Vijayawada.

Section of law under which the lower Court imposed conviction and

sentence: -

For the offence under section 138 of Negotiable Instruments Act and

accused is convicted under Section 255 (2) Cr.P.C. and sentenced to

undergo Simple Imprisonment for a period of 3 (three) months and pay

a sum of Rs.10,00,000/-, being the cheque amount towards

Crl.A.No.140/2022 2 XIII ADJ Court,

Dt: 27.04.2026 VJA.

compensation under Section 357(3) Cr.P.C. to the complainant within

60 days from the date of judgment, indefault of payment of

compensation, he shall undergo simple imprisonment for two months.

Whether Judgment of the lower court is allowed/confirmed/ modified/reversed. Confirmed

Particulars of Remand :

Notice Date ofDate of filingissued byAppellantDate ofDate of presentationthe Court toordered tohearingJudgment appearappear 11.08 .202212.08.202212.09.2022--23.04.202627.04.2026

This Criminal Appeal came before me on 23.04.2026 for final hearing in the presence of Sri J.Sridhar, Advocate for Appellant/Accused and of Sri P.Naga Phani Kalyana Tilak, Advocate for 1st Respondent/Complainant and

Additional Public Prosecutor for State/2nd respondent and upon perusing the

material on record, and on hearing both sides and having stood over till this day for consideration, this Court delivered the following: -

JUDGMENT

01.This criminal appeal is filed by the Appellant/Accused Under Section 374(3) of Cr.P.C. to set aside the conviction and sentence of the appellant/accused vide judgment in C.C.No.892/2018, dated 29.07.2022 on thefile of III Additional Metropolitan Magistrate's Court, Vijayawada, whereby, the Appellant/Accused was convicted Under Section 255(2)

Cr.P.C., for the offence under 138 of Negotiable Instruments Act (for brevity,

NI Act) and sentenced to undergo Simple Imprisonment for a period of 3

(three) months and pay a sum of Rs.10,00,000/-, being the cheque

amount towards compensation under Section 357(3) Cr.P.C. to the

complainant within 60 days from the date of judgment, indefault of

payment of compensation, he shall undergo simple imprisonment for

Crl.A.No.140/2022 3 XIII ADJ Court,

Dt: 27.04.2026 VJA.

two months, hence prays to acquit the accused for the said offence and set aside the judgment of the trial Court.

02.For the sake of convenience, the parties herein after referred to as arrayed in the trial court.

03. In brief, the case of the complainant is that:

The accused borrowed an amount of Rs.15,00,000/- (Rupees Fifteen

Lakhs only) from the complainant in 1st week of June, 2016 for the purpose of his business and family expenses agreeing to repay the said debt with interest at the rate of 24% per annum and thereby executed a promissory note in his favour. After repeated demands made by the complainant, accused issued a cheque bearing No.275157, for Rs.10,00,000/- drawn on

Andhra Bank, Bundar Road, Labbipet, Vijayawada, towards part payment.

On 24.03.2017 the complainant presented the said cheque through his banker, i.e., HDFC Bank, M.G. Road, Benz Circle, Vijayawada for encashment, but, the same was returned with an endorsement “Account

Blocked”, with a memo dated 28.03.2017. Then, the complainant got issued a legal notice to the accused on 18.04.2017 about dishonour of cheque. The accused received the said notice and got a reply dated 05.05.2017 with all false and frivolous contentions without making any payment. Hence, the complainant was constrained to filed a complaint against the accused.

04. The learned III Addl. Metropolitan Magistrate, Vijayawada, after recording sworn statement of the complainant, and based on material, took the cognizance of the offence U/s.138 of N.I.Act against the accused and numbered as C.C.892/2018. The copies of documents were supplied to the accused U/s.208 of Cr.P.C and accused was also examined U/s.251 of

Cr.P.C. for the offence U/s.138 of Negotiable Instruments Act by the trial

Court, for which, the accused pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried.

Crl.A.No.140/2022 4 XIII ADJ Court,

Dt: 27.04.2026 VJA.

05.To substantiate the case of the complainant, complainant himself was examined as P.W.1 and got marked Exs.P.1 to P7.

06.On being closed the complainant’s side evidence, the accused was examined U/s.313 Cr.P.C. by explaining the incriminating material in the evidence of complainant, for which, the accused denied said incriminating circumstances deposed against him. On behalf of accused, no oral evidence was adduced, but Ex.D1 copy of registered notice dated 18.03.2017 got issued to the accused in civil suit was marked in the cross examination of

PW.1.

07.The trial Court having considered the evidence of complainant witnesses, defence plea and material placed before it, found the accused guilty for the offence U/s.138 of N.I Act, convicted and sentenced him as stated supra.

08.Aggrieved by the conviction and sentence of the learned III

Addl.Metropolitan Magistrate, Vijayawada, the appellant/accused preferred this appeal mainly on the following grounds:

i) The calendar and judgment of the trial Court is contrary to the law, weight of evidence and probabilities of the case.

ii) The trial Court ought to have disbelieved the Exs.P1 to P7 marked on behalf of the complainant and therefore the trial Court ought to have acquitted the appellant in the interest of justice and equity.

iii) The trial Court ought to have held and observed that the complainant could not establish the guilt of the appellant for the offence under section 138 of N.I Act beyond reasonable doubt and therefore the trial Court ought to have acquitted the appellant.

iv) The trial Court failed to see that, the case of the complainant is not supported by any independent witnesses and the entire case is based on only his evidence, as the trial Court ought to have acquitted the accused.

Crl.A.No.140/2022 5 XIII ADJ Court,

Dt: 27.04.2026 VJA.

v) The trial Court convicted and sentenced the appellant only under surmises and presumptions based on the bald allegations of PW.1 and therefore the conviction and sentence passed against the accused is erroneous and mischievous.

vi) The trial Court ought to have held and observe that, the cross examination of PW.1 on behalf of accused not established the judgment and therefore the conviction and sentence passed against the appellant only is not in consonance of the established the provisions of law and therefore the trial Court erred in judgment

dated 29.07.2022 against the appellant.

vii) The trial Court ought not have observed and took into consideration of elicit the facts of the case in the cross examination of PW.1 in the case and therefore the judgment of trial Court is erroneous and misleading according to the establishing cannons of the law.

Hence, the appellant/accused sought this Court to set aside the impugned judgment of the trial court and acquit the appellant/accused.

09.Heard the arguments on both sides.

10.In the light of above rival contentions, the following points that would emerge for determination are that ;

(1) Whether the accused issued Ex.P.2 cheque

towards legally enforceable debt?

(2) Whether the complainant issued statutory notice

contemplated U/s.138(b) of NI Act?

(3) Whether the complainant could bring home the

guilt of the accused beyond reasonable doubt for

the offence U/s.138 of NI Act?

(4) Whether the Judgment of conviction and sentence

of the accused by the trial Court is factually and

legally correct and the trial Court failed to

appreciate the facts and legal position in proper

perspective and Judgment of the trial Court is

liable to be set aside or confirmed or modified?

Crl.A.No.140/2022 6 XIII ADJ Court,

Dt: 27.04.2026 VJA.

I have also carefully gone through the oral and documentary evidence on record relied upon by both parties apart from bestowing my anxious consideration to the rival contentions of the parties.

Point Nos.1 to 4:-

11.Points 1 to 4 are discussed and decided conjointly as they are interrelated and also to avoid redundancy in the discussion.

It is settled law that the appellate Court is empowered to re- appreciate or review the evidence on record. On consideration of the evidence on record, if the appellate Court finds that the verdict of the conviction to be perverse or against the settled position of the law, it is duly empowered to set aside the same. On the other hand, if the trial Court appreciated the evidence in right perspective and recorded the findings which are plausible and the view of the trial Court does not suffer from perversity, simply because the appellate court comes to a different conclusion on the appreciation of the evidence on record it will not substitute it’s findings to that of finding recorded by the trial court. The paramount consideration of the court should be to avoid miscarriage of justice. A miscarriage of justice, which may arise from the acquittal of the guilty, is no less than from the conviction of an innocent.

12.Before appreciating the facts, it would be appropriate to extract

Section 138 of NI Act for immediate perusal.

Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act provides:

“ 138. Dishonour of cheque for insufficiency, etc., of funds in the

account:- “Where any cheque drawn by a person on an account maintained by him with a banker for payment of any amount of money to another person from out of that account for the discharge, in whole or in part, of any debt or other liability, is returned by the bank unpaid, either because of the amount of money standing to the credit of that account is insufficient to honour the cheque or that it exceeds the amount arranged to be paid from that account by an agreement made with that bank, such person shall be deemed to

Crl.A.No.140/2022 7 XIII ADJ Court,

Dt: 27.04.2026 VJA.

have committed an offence and shall, without prejudice to any other provision of this Act, be punished with imprisonment for a term which may extend to two years, or with fine which may extend to twice the amount of the cheque, or with both :

Provided that nothing contained in this section shall apply unless,

(a) the cheque has been presented to the bank within a period of six months from the date on which it is drawn or within the period of its validity, whichever is earlier;

(b) the payee or the holder in due course of the cheque, as the case may be, makes a demand for the payment of the said

amount of money by giving a notice, in writing, to the drawer

of the cheque, within thirty days of the receipt of information

by him from the bank regarding the return of the cheque as

unpaid; and

(c) the drawer of such cheque fails to make the payment of the said amount of money to the payee or, as the case may be, to the holder in due course of the cheque, within fifteen days of the receipt of the said notice.

Explanation :- For the purposes of this section, "debt or other liability" means a legally enforceable debt or other liability.”

13.It is well settled law that in case of dishonored cheque under Section 138 of N.I Act, once the accused admitted his signature on the dishonored cheque, the presumption arises that the cheque was drawn for consideration and Court has to presume that the holder of the cheque received it for discharge of any debt or liability vide Judgments in (I) K. Bhaskaran Vs

Sankaran Vydyan Balan, 1999 (3) crimes, 2012 SC (ii) Hitan. P. Dalal vs

Bratin Dranath Benarji, 2001 (6), SCC 16 (IV) K.N. Beena Vs Muniyappan and another, 2001(2) ALT, criminal, 382 SC.

In Rangappa Vs Sri Mohan (Three Judges) 2010 (2) ALD criminal 734, SC, it was held that; “The burden of proof was on the accused, in view of presumption U/Sec. 139 of NI Act and standard of proof was of “preponderance of probability”

In the citation also the Apex Court in Meters and Instruments

Private Limited and another VS Kanchana Mahanth, 2017 (2)

ALD criminal, 958, SC, it was held that “Offence U/Sec. 138 of the Act is primarily a civil wrong, and burden of proof is on the accused in view of the presumption U/Sec. 139, but the standard of such proof is preponderance of probability”

Crl.A.No.140/2022 8 XIII ADJ Court,

Dt: 27.04.2026 VJA.

In T. Vasantha Kumar Vs Vijaya Lakshmi, 2015 (2) ALD (Criminal) 214 SC It was held that:

“Cheque as well as signature, since accepted by the accused, presumption U/Sec. 138 of Negotiable Instrument Act would operate and therefore burden was on accused to disprove existence of any legal enforceable debt or not”

The Apex Court in recent citation in Rohitbhai Jivanlal

Patel v. State of Gujarat, (2019) 18 SCC 106, held that:- “In the case at hand, even after purportedly drawing the presumption under Section 139 of the NI Act, the trial court proceeded to question the want of evidence on the part of the complainant as regards the source of funds for advancing loan to the accused and want of examination of relevant witnesses who allegedly extended him money for advancing it to the accused. This approach of the trial court had been at variance with the principles of presumption in law. After such presumption, the onus shifted to the accused and unless the accused had discharged the onus by bringing on record such facts and circumstances as to show the preponderance of probabilities tilting in his favour, any doubt on the complainant's case could not have been raised for want of evidence regarding the source of funds for advancing loan to the appellant accused..…”

In very recent judgment in Criminal Appeal No.123 of 2021,

dated 10.2.2021, M/s.Kalamani Tex and Another vs. P.

Balasubramanian, (Three Judges)the Apex Courtby quoting the citation in Rohitbhai Jivanlal Patel Vs. State of Gujarat, (2019) 18 SCC 106, stated supra, at para 14 held that:- “14. Adverting to the case in hand, we find on a plain reading of its judgment that the trial Court completely overlooked the provisions and failed to appreciate the statutory presumption drawn under Section 118 and Section 139 of NI Act. The Statute mandates that once the signature(s) of an accused on the cheque/negotiable instrument are established, then these ‘reverse onus’ clauses become operative. In such a situation, the obligation shifts upon the accused to discharge the presumption imposed upon him.”

14.The learned counsel for the appellant argued that, the trial Court erred in arriving at the finding that the appellant herein is guilty of the offense. The trial Court failed to appreciate the evidence let out by the complainant and

Crl.A.No.140/2022 9 XIII ADJ Court,

Dt: 27.04.2026 VJA.

produced relevant documents. It is the primary duty of the trial Court with regard to oral and documentary evidence adduced by the complainant to believe the version of PW.1. But in the cross-examination of PW.1 it is clearly evidencing that the complainant has no capacity to lend an amount of

Rs.15,00,000/- on 09.06.2016. Therefore, the evidence covered under

Exs.P1 to P7 are not relevant to draw an inference with regard to financial transactions between PW.1 and the accused.

15.The learned counsel for the appellant further argued that, the initial burden lies on the complainant to show that there is a legally enforceable debt to attract the offence under Section 138 of N.I. Act. If not so, the appellant is entitled to acquittal. On the other hand, except for bold and frivolous allegations, there is no tenable evidence adduced by the complainant to prove the guilt of the accused. But, the trial Court convicted the accused based on the surmises and presumptions. The initial burden lies on the complainant, whether the debt due under Ex.P1 is a duly enforceable debt, and later the appellant issued a cheque under Ex.P2 on 24.03.2017 for a sum of Rs.1,000,000/- towards partial payment. But no piece of paper was produced to prove the contention of the complainant about a fair transaction between the accused and the complainant.

16.The learned counsel for the appellant further argued that, if the accused is denied his signature on Ex.P2, a cheque bearing No.275157, the burden is shifted to the complainant to show that the accused issued a cheque in his favor towards part satisfaction of the debt covered under

Ex.P1. If not so, the benefit of doubt has been given to the Accused. On that, he relied on the decision reported in Basalingappa Vs. Mudibasappa 2019 (2) ALD (Crl) 732. As per the ratio, the Hon’ble Apex Court clearly discussed that the complainant ought to have proved the genuineness of the execution of Ex.P1, the promissory note and in turn issued a cheque under Ex.P2 to draw a presumption under Section 118-A of the Negotiable Instrument Act. If

Crl.A.No.140/2022 10 XIII ADJ Court,

Dt: 27.04.2026 VJA.

the accused disproved the contention of the complainant under Section 139 of the N.I. Act by producing rebuttable evidence, then automatically the burden shifted to the complainant. In this case, the appellant already denied the execution of Exs.P1 and P2 in connection with the financial transaction and also denied his signature on Ex.P2. Therefore, the complainant failed to produce rebuttable evidence to discharge his burden. Hence, the accused is entitled to the benefit of the doubt.

17.The learned counsel for the appellant further argued that, the initial burden lies on the complainant to produce the relevant document with regard to his financial capacity. In the cross-examination of PW.1, he categorically admitted about the filing of income tax returns at the relevant period. But those I.T. returns not filed before this Court to show that, he lent an amount of Rs.15,00,000/- on 09.06.2016, and in turn the accused issued a cheque on 24.03.2017 towards partial satisfaction. If the complainant failed to produce any authenticated document with regard to his financial capacity, the Court can draw an inference that the complainant has no financial capacity to lend such a huge amount. On that he relied on the decision reported in 1. K. Ashok Kumar Goud Vs. Sri Ramulu and others, 2017 (1)

ALT (Crl) 320 A.P, (2). K. Venkata Prasad Vs. Paramsai Swarupa,

Vijayawada, and another 2017 (1) ALT (Crl) 259. In both ratios the Apex

Court clearly discussed the burden of the complainant to prove the financial capacity about the lending of the amount. It is also the duty of the complainant to produce the bank statement with regard to his financial capacity. If the complainant failed to produce I.T. returns about his financial capacity, the Court can disbelieve the version of the complainant that there is no transaction between them and there is no legally enforceable debt to draw an inference that the debt due under Exs.P1 and P2 was duly incurred between PW.1 and the accused. In this case also the complainant failed to produce I.T. returns about his financial capacity, even though he admitted in his cross-examination about filing of I.T. returns. In those circumstances, the

Crl.A.No.140/2022 11 XIII ADJ Court,

Dt: 27.04.2026 VJA.

complainant failed to discharge his burden under Section 118 of the

Negotiable Instrument Act to prove the guilt of the accused under Section 138 of the N.I. Act. Hence, the trial Court erred in convicting the accused without appreciating the oral and documentary evidence adduced by the accused. Therefore, there is infirmity and illegality while convicting the accused by the trial Court. Therefore, the appellate Court must interfere with the conviction and sentence against the accused and set aside the trial

Court judgment in CC.No. 892/2018 on the file of III Addl. Metropolitan

Magistrate, Vijayawada, dated 29.07.2022, and the appeal may be allowed.

18.Per contra, the counsel for the 1st respondent/complainant argued that, the initial burden lies on the complainant to show that he lent an amount of Rs.15 lakhs to the accused on 09.06.2016 and he in turn executed Ex.P1 promissory note in his favor. Later, the accused issued a cheque bearing No. 275157 dated 23.04.2017 towards part payment. Later, he presented the same through his bank, and it was dishonored as “Account closed." The said information furnished by the concerned bank under Ex.P3 is a memo, and later a legal notice was issued to the accused on 18.04.2017, and in turn, the same was received and a reply notice was issued under Ex.P6, dated 05.05.2017. To prove the genuineness of Ex.P1, he has been examined as PW.1 and got marked Exs.P1 to P7. Therefore, the genuineness of Ex. P1 is clearly proved by the complainant to draw an inference that the promissory note is supported by consideration.

19.The learned counsel for the 1st respondent/complainant further argued that, PW.1 has been doing real estate business by the name and style

Janaki and Mahathi for the last 13 years and getting a sufficient amount from time to time. The accused is also doing real estate business in the same office. As such, he got acquaintance with the accused. Therefore, the acquaintance of the accused was clearly established by the complainant. On the other hand, the promissory note is not an attestable document. As such, there is no need for examination of either attestor or scribe of Ex.P1.

Crl.A.No.140/2022 12 XIII ADJ Court,

Dt: 27.04.2026 VJA.

Therefore, the claim of the complainant is clearly established by issuance of legal notice. Though a plea was taken by the accused that one Sarath intended to purchase house property on that, he gave some advance, and in turn, the accused issued a cheque to the said Sarath, subsequently the said sale transaction was not fruitful, and thereafter the accused asked for the return of the cheque from the said Sarath. Later, the complainant and Sarath colluded together and pressed into service Exs.P1 and P2 to file the present complaint. Such is the case, rebuttable evidence must be adduced by the accused with regard to his business transaction with one Sarath. It is also pertinent to note that a cheque covered under Ex.P2 was issued by the accused through his bank, but there is no piece of paper produced by the accused or entered into the witness box to prove his contention about the sale transaction between him and one Sarath. In those circumstances the burden of the accused has not discharged under Section 139 of N.I. Act with regard to the defence taken about collateral security of Exs.P1 and P2 handed over to Sarath and later pressed into service. Therefore, it clearly shows that there was a transaction under Ex.P1 and received amount of

Rs.15 lakhs and later issued a cheque under Ex.P2.

20.The learned counsel for the 1st respondent/complainant further argued that, in this case, the financial capacity of PW.1 is also disputed. Now a days, Rs.15 lakh is easily available to the individuals. On the other hand,

Pw1 is doing real estate business. Moreover, on perusal of the signatures of the accused on Exs.P1 and P2 with the 313 Cr.P.C. examination, it clearly shows that the accused executed Ex.P1 and later issued a cheque under

Ex.P2. On the other hand, there is a civil suit filed by the complainant against the accused, and the accused filed a written statement in that suit. In those circumstances it clearly shows that the complainant not only filed this case but also filed civil suit vide OS.No.75/2017 on the file of the VII Addl.

District Court, Vijayawada, for recovery of the amount. Therefore, the burden of the complainant is discharged under sec.118 of the Negotiable Instrument

Crl.A.No.140/2022 13 XIII ADJ Court,

Dt: 27.04.2026 VJA.

Act to show that there was a consideration passed under Ex.P1 and later issued a cheque under Ex.P2 and thereafter dishonored the same due to the account being closed by the drawer. The trial Court also clearly discussed the genuineness of Ex.P1 and later issued Ex.P2. But there is no rebuttable evidence adduced by accused under Section 139 of the Negotiable

Instruments Act to disprove the contention of the complainant. Nevertheless, the trial court clearly and categorically discussed that the accused admitted signature on Exs.P1 and P2, and it is presumed that it was duly issued in favor of the complainant. The trial Court clearly and categorically discussed each and every aspect about proving the legally enforceable debt by the complainant against the accused to prove the guilt of the accused under

Section 138 of the N.I. Act by relying upon a decision in

K. Bhaskaran Vs. Sankar Vidya Balan, reported in 1997 (7) SCC 510,

2010 (2) ALD (Crl) 734 SC, and Rangappa Vs. Mohan, reported in AIR

2010 SC 1898. Vijaya Vs. Lakshman and another, 2014 (1) ALT (Crl) 434

SC, and Rahit bai Jeevan Lal Patil Vs. State of Gujarat and another,

2019 (2) ALD (Crl) 385 SC.Therefore, the complainant has successfully proved his case against the accused to prove the guilt of the accused under

Section 138 of the Negotiable Instrument Act. Hence, the decisions relied upon by the counsel for the appellant are not identical to the present facts of the case. There is no infirmity or irregularity committed by the trial Court while convicting the accused. There is no perversity or irrational reasons assigned by the trial Court while coming to conclusion that the accused was found guilty for the offence under Section 138 of Negotiable Instruments Act and convicting him. So, absolutely, there is no necessity to interfere with the findings and conviction of the accused.

21.In the light of the above discussion, I am of the opinion, the appeal is devoid of merits and the same is liable to be dismissed.

Crl.A.No.140/2022 14 XIII ADJ Court,

Dt: 27.04.2026 VJA.

22. In the result, the Criminal Appeal is dismissed by confirming the judgment of conviction of the accused in C.C.No.892/2018, dated 29.07.2022 on the file of the III Addl. Metropolitan Magistrate, Vijayawada.

The Accused shall surrender before the trial Court within one month to undergo sentence imposed by the trial Court. In case, the accused fails to surrender before the trial Court, the trial Court shall secure the presence of the accused by taking necessary steps and see that the accused shall undergo the sentence as per the judgment of the trial Court in

C.C.No.892/2018, dated 29.07.2022 on the file of III Addl. Metropolitan

Magistrate's Court, Vijayawada and inform the same to the Appellate Court.

The appeal is disposed off accordingly.

Dictated to Stenographer Gr.III, transcribed and typed by her, corrected and

pronounced by me in open Court on this the 27th day of April, 2026.

Sd/- D.Seshayya,

XIII Addl. Dist. & Sessions Judge, (FTC) Vijayawada.

Appendix of Evidence -Nil-

Sd/- D.Seshayya,

XIII Addl. Dist. & Sessions Judge, (FTC) Vijayawada. Copy to:

The III Addl. Metropolitan Magistrate, Vijayawada.

Crl.A.No.65/2022 1 XIII ADJ Court,

Dt: 13.04.2026 VJA.

IN THE COURT OF THE XIII ADDL.DIST. & SESSIONS JUDGE

(FAST TRACK COURT) KRISHNA AT VIJAYAWADA

Present: Sri D. Seshayya,

XIII Addl. Dist. & Sessions Judge,

(Fast Track Court) Vijayawada.

Monday, this the 13th day of April, 2026

Criminal Appeal No.65 of 2022

From which Court the : I Addl. Metropolitan Magistrate's appeal is preferred Court, Vijayawada.

Number of the case in that Court : C.C. No.980/2018

Number of the Appeal : Crl.A.No.65/2022

Name and description of the Appellant:

Buddavarapu Venkateswara Rao, S/o Nagabhushanam, Hindu, Age 52 years, Retired Employee, R/o D.No.5-111/6, B.C. Colony, Punadipadu, Kankipadu Mandal, Krishna District. ….Accused

Name of the Respondents:

1. Vura Venkateswara Rao, S/o Kondala Rao, Hindu, Age 52 years, Business, R/o D.No.56-5-3/1, Ramineni Street, Patamata, Vijayawada. ...Complainant

02. The State: Rep. by Additional Public Prosecutor, XIII Additional District Court, Vijayawada.

Section of law under which the lower Court imposed conviction and

sentence: -

For the offence under Section 138 of Negotiable Instruments Act and

accused is convicted under Section 255 (2) Cr.P.C. and sentenced to

undergo Simple Imprisonment for one year and he is liable to pay

compensation to the extent of cheque amount of Rs.3,00,000/- and he is

directed to deposit the compensation amount into the Court within two

months from the date of this judgment, in default of payment of

Crl.A.No.65/2022 2 XIII ADJ Court,

Dt: 13.04.2026 VJA.

compensation amount, he shall undergo simple imprisonment for a

period of three months.

Whether Judgment of the lower court is allowed/confirmed/ modified/reversed. Confirmed

Particulars of Remand :

Notice Date ofDate of filingissued byAppellantDate ofDate of presentationthe Court toordered tohearingJudgment appearappear 25.04.202225.04.202225.05.2022--10.04.202613.04.2026

This Criminal Appeal came before me on 10.04.2026 for final hearing in the presence of Sri G.V.Ramakrishna Prasad, Advocate for Appellant/Accused and 1st respondent/complainant appeared in-person and Smt.Ch.Geeta Poornima, Additional Public Prosecutor for State/2nd respondent and upon perusing the material on record, and on hearing both sides and having stood over till this day for consideration, this Court delivered the following: -

:JUDGMENT:

01.This criminal appeal is filed by the Appellant/Accused Under Section 374 (3) of Cr.P.C. to set aside the conviction and sentence of the trial Court against appellant/accused vide judgment dated 30.03.2022 in

C.C.No.980/2018 on thefile of I-Additional Metropolitan Magistrate,

Vijayawada, whereby, the Appellant/Accused was convicted Under Section 255(2) Cr.P.C., for the offence under Section 138 of Negotiable Instruments

Act (for brevity, NI Act) and sentenced to undergo Simple Imprisonment for

one year and he is liable to pay compensation to the extent of cheque

amount of Rs.3,00,000/- and he is directed to deposit the compensation

amount into the Court within two months from the date of this judgment,

in default of payment of compensation amount, hence, prays to acquit the accused for the said offence.

Crl.A.No.65/2022 3 XIII ADJ Court,

Dt: 13.04.2026 VJA.

02.For the sake of convenience, the parties herein after referred to as arrayed in the trial court.

03. In brief, the case of the complainant is that:

On 14.01.2017 the accused borrowed an amount of Rs.3,00,000/- (Rupees Three Lakhs only) from the complainant for the purpose of his family expenses and executed promissory note in favour of the complainant agreeing to repay the same with interest @ 24% p.a. either to the complainant or his order on demand. After several demands made by the complainant, the accused issued a cheque bearing No.627830, dated 30.08.2017 for

Rs.3,00,000/- in favour of complainant drawn on Punjab National Bank,

Srinagar Colony, Vijayawada, towards part payment. When the complainant presented the said cheque for collection through his banker, i.e., Andhra Bank,

Patamata Branch, Vijayawada, but, the same was returned with an endorsement “Insufficient funds” and the same was informed to the complainant by his banker through cheque returned memo, dated 31.08.2017.

Then, the complainant got issued a legal notice to the accused on 18.09.2017, the accused returned the notice with false endorsement as “not claimed”.

Hence, the complainant was constrained to file the present complaint.

04. Originally, the complaint was filed before the IV Addl. Chief Metropolitan

Magistrate’s Court, Vijayawada, after recording sworn statement of the

complainant, and based on material, took the cognizance of the offence

U/s.138 of N.I.Act against the accused vide C.C.No.651/2018. Later, the said case was transferred to the Court of I Additional Metropolitan Magistrate,

Vijayawada as per the proceedings of the Hon’ble Prl. District Judge, Krishna,

Machilipatnam in Dis.No.1579, dated 22.02.2018 and renumbered as

C.C.No.980/2018. On appearance of accused, copies of all documents were furnished to him under Section 208 Cr.P.C. The accused was also examined

U/s.251 of Cr.P.C. for the offence U/s.138 of N.I Act by the trial Court, for which, the accused pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried.

Crl.A.No.65/2022 4 XIII ADJ Court,

Dt: 13.04.2026 VJA.

05.During the course of trial, the complainant himself was examined as

PW.1 and got marked Exs.P1 to P5 before trial Court.

06.On being closed the complainant’s side evidence, the accused was examined under Section 313 Cr.P.C. by explaining the incriminating material in the evidence of complainant, for which, he denied said incriminating circumstances and reported no defence evidence on his behalf.

07.The trial Court having considered the evidence of complainant witnesses and material placed before it, found the accused guilty for the offence U/s.138 of Negotiable Instruments Act, convicted and sentenced him as stated supra.

08.Aggrieved by the calendar and Judgment, the Accused preferred this appeal, mainly on the following grounds that:

i) The calendar and Judgment of the trial Court is contrary to law, weight of evidence and probabilities of the case.

ii) The trial Court ought to have consider that there is no legally enforceable debt between the complainant and the accused not not considered.

iii) The trial Court ought to have observe, the 1 st respondent/complainant himself examined as PW.1, either the scribe or the attestor of Ex.P1 was not examined to prove the execution of Ex.P1. But the trial Court not observed the same and on the other hand relied on the said document.

iv) The trial Court ought to have accept the contention of the accused that no notice was served on the accused, but not accepted and relied on the said document.

v) The trial Court ought to have accept the contention of the accused that the complainant has no financial capacity to lent the accused, but not accepted.

vi) The trial Court ought to have observe that the complainant did not file any documentary proof relating to his financial capacity especially his income tax returns even though the accused took a plea of his financial capacity, but not observed.

Crl.A.No.65/2022 5 XIII ADJ Court,

Dt: 13.04.2026 VJA.

vii) The trial Court failed to observe, that the accused totally denied the case of the complainant, but not observed and on the other hand basing on the assumptions and presumptions opined that the accused committed an offence under Section 138 of Negotiable Instruments Act.

Hence, the appellant/accused sought this Court to set aside the impugned judgment of the trial court and acquit the appellant/accused.

09.Heard both sides.

10.In the light of above rival contentions, the following points that would emerge for determination are that;

(1) Whether the accused issued Ex.P.2 cheque towards

legally enforceable debt?

(2) Whether the complainant issued statutory notice

contemplated U/s.138(b) of NI Act?

(3) Whether the complainant could bring home the guilt

of the accused beyond reasonable doubt for the

offence U/s.138 of NI Act?

(4) Whether the Judgment of conviction and sentence

of the accused by the trial Court is factually and

legally correct or the trial Court failed to appreciate

the facts and legal position in proper perspective

and Judgment of the trial Court is liable to be set

aside or confirmed or modified?

I have also carefully gone through the oral and documentary evidence on record relied upon by both parties apart from bestowing my anxious consideration to the rival contentions of the parties.

Points No.1 to 4:-

11.Points 1 to 4 are discussed and decided conjointly as they are interrelated and also to avoid redundancy in the discussion.

It is settled law that the appellate Court is empowered to re- appreciate or review the evidence on record. On consideration of the evidence on record, if the appellate Court finds that the verdict of the conviction to be perverse or

Crl.A.No.65/2022 6 XIII ADJ Court,

Dt: 13.04.2026 VJA.

against the settled position of the law, it is duly empowered to set aside the same. On the other hand, if the trial Court appreciated the evidence in right perspective and recorded the findings which are plausible and the view of the trial Court does not suffer from perversity, simply because the appellate Court comes to a different conclusion on the appreciation of the evidence on record it will not substitute it’s findings to that of finding recorded by the trial court. The paramount consideration of the court should be to avoid miscarriage of justice.

A miscarriage of justice, which may arise from the acquittal of the guilty, is no less than from the conviction of an innocent.

12.Before appreciating the facts, it would be appropriate to extract Section 138 of NI Act for immediate perusal.

Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act provides:

“ 138. Dishonour of cheque for insufficiency, etc., of funds in the

account:- “Where any cheque drawn by a person on an account maintained by him with a banker for payment of any amount of money to another person from out of that account for the discharge, in whole or in part, of any debt or other liability, is returned by the bank unpaid, either because of the amount of money standing to the credit of that account is insufficient to honour the cheque or that it exceeds the amount arranged to be paid from that account by an agreement made with that bank, such person shall be deemed to have committed an offence and shall, without prejudice to any other provision of this Act, be punished with imprisonment for a term which may extend to two years, or with fine which may extend to twice the amount of the cheque, or with both :

Provided that nothing contained in this section shall apply unless,

(a) the cheque has been presented to the bank within a period of six months from the date on which it is drawn or within the period of its validity, whichever is earlier;

(b) the payee or the holder in due course of the cheque, as the case may be, makes a demand for the payment of the said amount of

money by giving a notice, in writing, to the drawer of the cheque,

within thirty days of the receipt of information by him from the

bank regarding the return of the cheque as unpaid; and

(c) the drawer of such cheque fails to make the payment of the said amount of money to the payee or, as the case may be, to the holder

Crl.A.No.65/2022 7 XIII ADJ Court,

Dt: 13.04.2026 VJA.

in due course of the cheque, within fifteen days of the receipt of the said notice.

Explanation :- For the purposes of this section, "debt or other liability" means a legally enforceable debt or other liability.”

13.It is well settled law that in case of dishonored cheque under Section 138 of N.I Act, once the accused admitted his signature on the dishonored cheque, the presumption arises that the cheque was drawn for consideration and Court has to presume that the holder of the cheque received it for discharge of any debt or liability vide Judgments in (I) K. Bhaskaran Vs

Sankaran Vydyan Balan, 1999 (3) crimes, 2012 SC (ii) Hitan. P. Dalal vs

Bratin Dranath Benarji, 2001 (6), SCC 16 (iii) K.N. Beena Vs Muniyappan and another, 2001(2) ALT, criminal, 382 SC.

In Rangappa Vs Sri Mohan (Three Judges) 2010 (2) ALD criminal 734, SC, it was held that; “The burden of proof was on the accused, in view of presumption U/Sec. 139 of NI Act and standard of proof was of “preponderance of probability”

In the citation also the Apex Court in Meters and Instruments

Private Limited and another VS Kanchana Mahanth, 2017 (2) ALD

criminal, 958, SC, it was held that “Offence U/Sec. 138 of the Act is primarily a civil wrong, and burden of proof is on the accused in view of the presumption U/Sec. 139, but the standard of such proof is preponderance of probability”

In T. Vasantha Kumar Vs Vijaya Lakshmi, 2015 (2) ALD (Criminal) 214 SC It was held that:

“Cheque as well as signature, since accepted by the accused, presumption U/Sec. 138 of Negotiable Instrument Act would operate and therefore burden was on accused to disprove existence of any legal enforceable debt or not”

The Apex Court in recent citation in Rohitbhai Jivanlal Patel v. State of Gujarat, (2019) 18 SCC 106, held that:- “In the case at hand, even after purportedly drawing the presumption under Section 139 of the NI Act, the trial court proceeded to question the want of evidence on the part of the complainant as regards the source of funds for advancing loan to the accused and want of examination of relevant witnesses who allegedly extended him

Crl.A.No.65/2022 8 XIII ADJ Court,

Dt: 13.04.2026 VJA.

money for advancing it to the accused. This approach of the trial court had been at variance with the principles of presumption in law. After such presumption, the onus shifted to the accused and unless the accused had discharged the onus by bringing on record such facts and circumstances as to show the preponderance of probabilities tilting in his favour, any doubt on the complainant's case could not have been raised for want of evidence regarding the source of funds for advancing loan to the appellant accused..…”

In very recent judgment in Criminal Appeal No.123 of 2021,

dated 10.2.2021, M/s.Kalamani Tex and Another vs. P.

Balasubramanian, (Three Judges)the Apex Courtby quoting the citation in Rohitbhai Jivanlal Patel Vs. State of Gujarat, (2019) 18

SCC 106, stated supra, at para 14 held that:- “14. Adverting to the case in hand, we find on a plain reading of its judgment that the trial Court completely overlooked the provisions and failed to appreciate the statutory presumption drawn under Section 118 and Section 139 of NI Act. The Statute mandates that once the signature(s) of an accused on the cheque/negotiable instrument are established, then these ‘reverse onus’ clauses become operative. In such a situation, the obligation shifts upon the accused to discharge the presumption imposed upon him.”

14.The learned counsel for the appellant argued that, the contention of the complainant that the accused borrowed an amount of Rs.3,00,000/- on 14.01.2017 to meet his family expenses and executed a promissory note in his favour under Ex.P1 and rate of interest is @ 24% per annum. Later the accused issued a cheque bearing No.627830, dated 30.08.2017 for a sum of

Rs.3,00,000/- towards part satisfaction of debt due under Ex.P1. The said cheque drawn on Punjab National Bank, Srinagar Colony, Vijayawada.

Thereafter, the cheque was dishonored as “insufficient funds.” Consequently, he got issued legal notice and it was endorsed as un-claimed on 27.09.2017.

As such, he constrained to file a complaint against the appellant. Such is the the case, it is the primary duty of the complainant to prove his financial capacity and also validity of promissory note under Ex.P1.

15.The learned counsel for the appellant further argued that, the trial Court failed to appreciate about the proof of legally enforceable debt. It is a primary

Crl.A.No.65/2022 9 XIII ADJ Court,

Dt: 13.04.2026 VJA.

duty of the complainant to prove Ex.P1 pronote duly executed by accused in his favour in the presence of attestors and scribe. But, in this case except the complainant none of were examined as witnesses to prove the genuineness of

Ex.P1. Therefore, non examination of either attestors or scribe of Ex.P1 is due doubt about Ex.P1 is pressed into service without any genuine transaction between PW.1 and accused, but the trial Court simply believed the version of complainant by taking into consideration of Exs.P1 to P5 to prove the guilt of accused.

16.The learned counsel for the appellant further argued that, the trial Court failed to observe about service of notice to the accused. After dishonor of cheque, it is a mandatory to issue legal notice to accused to call upon him for repayment of amount. In this case there is no service of notice to the accused to know about a cheque was dishonored and is liable for offence under

Section 138 of Negotiable Instruments Act. On that count also the trial Court failed to observe about non serving of statutory notice. In those circumstances, accused is entitled for acquittal.

17.The learned counsel for the appellant further argued that, the trial Court also failed to appreciate about financial capacity of PW.1 to lent an amount of

Rs.3,00,000/- on 14.01.2017. If any transaction is more than Rs.20,000/-,

PW.1 ought to have pay by way of cheque or he must produce I.T. returns to show that he was in possession of Rs.3,00,000/- at the time of alleged transaction. Mere production of Exs.P1 and P2 are not sufficient about the financial capacity of the complainant. When the accused is totally denied about the financial transaction, the Court is not presumed that the transaction under

Ex.P1 is legally enforceable debt and consequentially a cheque was issued under Ex.P2 and the same was dishonored to attract offence under Section 138 of N.I. Act. If the complainant failed to establish about financial status to lent amount under Ex.P1, the Court can presume that there is no legally enforceable debt. Therefore, the Court can acquit the accused. On that, he relied on the following decisions reported in (1) Kanakamedala Venkata

Crl.A.No.65/2022 10 XIII ADJ Court,

Dt: 13.04.2026 VJA.

Krishna Prasad Vs Peram Sai Swaroopa and others, 2017 (2) ALT

Criminal 981. (2) R.Chennakesavarao Vs P.Lakshmi Narasaiah and others

2017 (2) ALD Criminal 471. (3) K.Subramani Vs A.Damodara Naidu 2015

(2) ALD Criminal 603 SC. The first ratio is clerly discussed acquittal of accused is not a illegal when the complainant failed to produce income tax returns with regard to his financial status. The 2nd ratio is concerned, the complainant ought to have fulfill the ingredients to attract the section 138 of

N.I. Act. The 3rd ratio is concerned, when the complainant failed to prove his financial status to lent Rs.14,00,000/- to the accused the Court can acquit the accused. In this case also the complainant failed to establish his financial status and also legally enforceable debt under Ex.P1. Hence, the trial Court erred in convicting the accused without appreciating the oral and documentary evidence adduced by the accused. There is infirmity and illegality while convicting the accused by the trial Court. Therefore, the appellate Court must interfere with the conviction and sentence against the accused and set aside the trial Court judgment in C.C.No.980/2018 on the file of I Addl. Metropolitan

Magistrate, Vijayawada, dated 30.03.2022, and the appeal may be allowed.

18.Per contra, the 1st respondent/complainant argued that, the initial burden lies on the complainant to show that he lent an amount of Rs.3 lakhs to the accused on14.01.2017 under Ex.P1 and in turn executed a promissory note in his favor. Later, the accused issued a cheque bearing No.627830, dated 30.08.2017 towards partial payment. Later, he presented the same through his bank, and it was dishonored as “insufficient funds." The said information furnished by the concerned bank under Ex.P3 is a memo, and later a legal notice was issued to the accused on 18.09.2017 and in turn the same was unclaimed. To prove the genuineness of Ex. P1, he has been examined as

PW.1 and got marked Exs.P1 to P5. Therefore, the genuineness of Ex.P1 is clearly proved by the complainant to draw an inference that the promissory note is supported by consideration.

Crl.A.No.65/2022 11 XIII ADJ Court,

Dt: 13.04.2026 VJA.

19.The 1st respondent/complainant further argued that, PW.1 is doing

Kirana business and getting sufficient amount by time to time. The accused is customer to him and used to purchase provisions from his shop. As such, he got acquaintance with the accused. Therefore, the acquaintance of the accused was clearly established by the complainant. On the other hand, the promissory note is not a attestable document. As such there is no need for examination of either attestors or scribe of Ex.P1. Therefore, the claim of the complainant is clearly established by issuance of legal notice. Though a plea was taken by accused that he is a Bank employee and he is getting

Rs.59,000/- per month. Such is the case a rebuttable evidence must be adduced by accused with regard to his financial capacity. It is also pertinent to note that, a cheque covered under Ex.P2 was issued by accused through his

Bank I.e., Punjab Nation Bank, wherein he was working as Head-cashier.

Therefore, the accused is the best person to know the consequences of issuance of cheque in favour of PW.1. Therefore, it is clearly shows that there is a transaction under Ex.P1 and received amount of Rs.3 lakhs and later issued a cheque under Ex.P2.

20.The 1st respondent/complainant further argued that, in this case, his financial capacity is also disputed. Nowadays, Rs.3 lakhs is easily available to the individuals. On the other hand, PW.1 is doing Kirana Business. Moreover, on perusal of the signatures of the accused on Exs.P1 and P2 with the 313

Cr.P.C. examination, it clearly shows that the accused executed Ex.P1 and later issued a cheque under Ex.P2. On the other hand, there is no need to file a civil suit against the accused. Non-filing of a civil suit is not a ground to discard the claim of the complainant with regard to an N.I. Act case. The said fact was decided by the Honorable Apex Court in Gorantla Venkateswara

Rao Vs. Kolla Veera Raghava Rao and Another reported in 2005 (2) ALT (Crl.) 413 (A.P.), wherein at para No.42 it is clearly discussed that: “ mere non filing of suit by itself is not a circumstance leading to a conclusion that there was no legally enforceable debt”. When the documents are available on record

Crl.A.No.65/2022 12 XIII ADJ Court,

Dt: 13.04.2026 VJA.

by way of Exs.P1 and P2 with regard to execution of promissory note and later issued a cheque under Ex.P2, the said documents Exs.P1 and P2 are clearly established the claim of complainant that there is legally enforceable debt. It is an option to the complainant to file suit against the accused or not, therefore, non filing of civil suit is not a ground to discard the claim of the complainant.

Therefore, the burden of complainant is discharged under Section 118 of

Negotiable Instrument Act to show that there is a consideration passed under

Ex.P1 and later issued a cheque under Ex.P2 and thereafter dishonoured the same due to “Insufficient Funds”. In addition to that, the service of notice is also clearly established by the complainant under Section 27 of General

Clauses Act. The reason is that, the accused is residing at B.C. colony,

Punadipadu, Kankipadu Mandal and the notice was also issued for the same address. As such a presumption can be drawn that the legal notice under

Ex.P4 was duly sent to the correct address, but it was unclaimed. The trial

Court also clearly discussed about the genuineness of the Ex.P1 and later issued Ex.P2. But there is no rebuttable evidence adduced by accused under section 138 of Negotiable Instruments Act by relying on a decision in

Rangappa Vs Mohan reported in AIR 2010 SC 1898. Therefore, the complainant has successfully proved his case against the accused to prove the guilt of the accused under Section 138 of Negotiable Instrument Act.

Hence, the decisions relied by the counsel for Appellant are not identical with the present facts of the case. There is no infirmity or irregularity committed by the trial Court while convicting the accused. There is no perversity or irrational reasons assigned by the trial Court while coming to conclusion that the accused was found guilty for the offence under Section 138 of N.I Act and convicting him. So, absolutely, there is no necessity to interfere with the findings and conviction of the accused.

21.Therefore, in the light of the above discussion, I am of the opinion, the appeal is devoid of merits and the same is liable to be dismissed.

Crl.A.No.65/2022 13 XIII ADJ Court,

Dt: 13.04.2026 VJA.

22. In the result, the Criminal Appeal is dismissed by confirming the judgment of conviction of the accused in C.C.No.980/2018, dated 30.03.2022 on the file of the I Additional Metropolitan Magistrate, Vijayawada. The

Accused shall surrender before the trial Court within one month to undergo sentence imposed by the trial Court. In case, the accused fails to surrender

before the trial Court, the trial Court shall secure the presence of the accused

by taking necessary steps and see that the accused shall undergo the sentence as per the judgment of the trial Court in C.C.No.980/2018, dated 30.03.2022 on the file of the I Additional Metropolitan Magistrate, Vijayawada and inform the same to the Appellate Court.

The appeal is disposed off accordingly.

Typed to my dictation by Stenographer Gr.III, corrected and pronounced by me in open Court on this the 13th day of April, 2026.

Sd/- D.Seshayya,

XIII Addl. Dist. & Sessions Judge, (FTC) Vijayawada.

Appendix of Evidence

-Nil-

Sd/- D.Seshayya,

XIII Addl. Dist. & Sessions Judge, (FTC) Vijayawada. Copy to:

The I-Additional Metropolitan Magistrate, Vijayawada.

MVOP.No.85/2022 1 XVI ADJ Court,

Dt: 18-10-2024

NDG.

BEFORE THE MOTOR ACCIDENTS CLAIMS TRIBUNAL-CUM

THE XVI ADDITIONAL DISTRICT AND SESSIONS JUDGE'S COURT ::

NANDIGAMA

Present: Sri D.Seshayya,

XIl Addl. District & Sessions Judge, Vijayawada.

FAC XVI Additional District & Sessions Judge: Nandigama.

Friday, this the 18h day of October, 2024

M.V.O.P.No.85/2022

Between :

Rayapati Asivadham, S/o.Pothuraju, Hindu,

41 years, Previously lorry driverSC Colony,

Pochampalli Village, Jaggaiahpet Mandal,

Krishna District. Petitioner

And

1.Guntupalli Ramana, Slo.Venkata Gandhi, Hindu, 34 years, Properties, R/o.D.No.13-467, 2nd line, Teachers Colony, Kanuru, Penamaluru, Vijayawada Town, Krishna District.

Owner of Lorry bearing No.AP-16-TH-6797

2. National Insurance Company Limited, Represented by its Divisional Manager, Divisional Office, Garlapati Complex, 2nd floor, D.No.27-12-76, Alibaig Street, PB.365, Governorpet, Vijayawada.

...Respondents

The petition coming on 20-09-2024 for final hearing before me in the presence of Sri K.Krishna Ráo, Advocate for the petitioner and the 1st respondent remained Set Exparte and of Sri S.Venkateswara Rao, Advocate for 2nd respondent, upon perusing the material papers on record and having stood over for consideration to this date, this Tribunal passed the following:

MVOP.No.85/2022 2 XVI ADJ Court,

Dt: 18-10-2024

NDG.

A WARD

This petition is filed under Section 166 and 167 of Motor Vehicles Act, 01. 1988 read with Rule 455 of A.P.M.V. Rules, 1989 claiming compensation of

Rs.15,00,000/- with costs and interest @ 24% per annum on account of injuries sustained by the petitioner in a road accident occurred on 17-03-2022 at about 04.00 hours, near Dubacherla Village, Nallajerla Mandal, West

Godavari District.

02. The petitioner is the injured person. The 1s respondent is the owner and 2nd respondent is lnsurer of crime vehicle, i.e.,Lorry bearing No.AP-16-TJ-6797 and 2nd respondent insured the crime under Policy vehicle No.560600312110004487 valid from 22-12-2021 to 21-12-2022.

03. The material averments of the petition, in brief are as follows:

a] That on 17-03-2022 at about 04.00 hours, while the petitioner being driver of lorry bearing No.AP-16-TJ-6797 belongs to 1 respondent, was coming from Visakhapatnam to unload coal in KCP factory at Muthyala village, when he reached to Dubacherla Village, Nallajerla Mandal, West Godavari

District, another lorry was going ahead of his lorry and the driver of another lorry applied sudden breaks, due to which, he dashed the front going lorry and sustained crush injuries to his right leg from knee to foot and also injuries to his left leg. The front portion of his lorry damaged. The was shifted to GGH,

Eluru for treatment, later he was referred to GGH, Vijayawada for better treatment. Basing on the hospital intimation and statement of petitioner, the

Nallajerla Police registered a case in Cr.No.18/2022, U/sec.338 of IPC, against the unknown lorry.

(b) It is further submitted that the petitioner was aged about 41 years and he was hale and healthy at the time of accident. The petitioner was working as lorry driver and earning Rs.18,000/- per month apart from Rs.200/

J ourt,

MVOP.No.85/2022 3 XVI ADJ Court,

Dt: 18-10-2024

NDG. as batta. Due to the accident, he sustained grievous injuries: (1) amputation

of right foot; (2) crush injury below right knee and (3) fracture of right

femur. The doctors conducted surgeries and inserted steel rod in his right femur and also below knee right leg removed and he treated for 30 days at

hospital and incurred an amount of Rs.50,000/- for better treatment. The

doctors advised him to take bed rest for a period of six months and he paid an

amount of Rs.5,000/- per month for three months to the attendant. The petitioner is the only earning member of their entire family. Due to accident, the petitioner and his family members have been suffering a lot for the loss of earnings of the petitioner towards his family.

(c) It is further submitted that due to accident, the petitioner sustained fracture injuries, which are grievous in nature, thereby he is not able to attend his daily works and became disabled and he has been suffering lot of mental agony apart from serious injuries. Due to injuries he lost his present and future earnings and he is unable to walk till today. He lost his employment as a driver due to the accident. The petitioner received permanent disability of 80% and unable to perform his normal duty.

(d) The 1 respondent is owner of crime vehicle and 2nd respondent is

Insurer of crime vehicle, i.e.,AP-16-TJ-6797. So that Respondents No.1 and 2 are jointly liable to pay compensation. Hence, the petition is filed against the

Respondents No.1 and 2 are jointly and severally liable to make good

compensation to the petitioner.

04. Though notice received by the 1# respondent, but he failed to attend

before the Tribunal, hence, he was remained Set Exparte.

05. The 2nd respondent filed the counter denying the petition averments and further contended that there is rash and negligent driving of driver of crime

MVOP 18-Dt:

MVOP.No.85/2022 4 XVI ADJ Court,

Dt: 18-10-2024

vehicle and the petitioner himself was responsible for the accident. Moreover, NDG.

as per contents of FIR also, petitioner failed to apply brakes and caused injuries to himself and due to. his self negligence only accident occurred.

Therefore, 2nd respondent is not. liable to pay any compensation to the petitioner. The petitioner colluded with owner of crime vehicle and filed this petition for wrongful gain. The petitioner has to approach the Workmen

Compensation Tribunal and this Court has no jurisdiction to try this case. The petitioner alleged that he spent an amount of Rs.50,000/- at Government

Hospital, Vijayawada, but it is baseless and not supported by any proof. The disability of 80% of petitioner is not cocrect. The compensation claimed by the petitioner is excessive and exorbitant and not entitled for the same. Hence, 2nd respondent prays to dismiss the petition with costs.

06. On these rival contentions, the following issues were settled for trial:

1. Whether the petitioner received injuries in a road accident occurred on 17-03-2022 at about 04.00 hours, near Dubacherla Village,

Nallajerla Mandal, West Godavari District, due to rash and

negligent driving of the Lorry bearing No.AP-16-TJ-6797 ?

2. Whether the petitioner is entitled to receive an amount of Rs.15,00,000/- with interest @ 18% p.a., towards compensation ? If so, from whom ? 3 To what relief ?

07. During the course of trial, the petitioner was examined as P.W.1 and got marked Exs.A.1 to A.7.

On behalf of the 2nd respondent. one B.Ramakrishna, Deputy Manager of 20 respondent Insurance Company was examined as R.W.1 and no documents were marked on their behalf.

08. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner, as well as 2nd respondent. I have also carefully perused the oral and documentary evidence.

urt., ADJ

MVOP.No.85/2022 5 XVI ADJ Court,

Dt: 18-10-2024

ISSUE No.1: NDG.

09. The petitioner himself was examined as P.W.1. As per his evidence, he iS working as driver on a lorry bearing No.AP-16-TJ-6797 on the lorry of 1 respondent. On 17-03-2022 at about 04.00 A.M., while he was driving the lorry bearing No.AP-16-TJ-6797, when he reached to Dubacherla Village of

Nallajerla Mandal of West Godavari District on NH-16 road, at that time, one lorry proceeding on same direction. The front lorry driver suddenly applied breaks, due to which, he lost his control and dashed the front going lorry from backside, on that, he sustained severe injuries over his body. mmediately, he was shifted to Eluru Government Hospital for treatment. He gave statement to

the police, basing on which, Cr.No.18/2022 for the offence U/s.338 IPC was

registered by the Nallajerla police. He used to getting Rs.18,000/- per month;

apart from Rs.200/- per day as batta. The 1 respondent is owner of his lory

and 2nd respondent is Insurer. Due to accident, steel rod was inserted in his

right femur and also below knee of right leg removed. The doctor advised him

to take rest for 6 months, due to injuries, he cannot able to perform his duties

as lorry driver. Due to accident, he became disabled person, the Government

Hospital also issued Disability Certificate to show that he is having 80%

permanent disability. Though a crime was registered against opposite vehicle,

but the police filed charge sheet as vehicle not traced out. Hence, the

petitioner being a 3rd party to his vehicle and the insurance policy was also

covered to the driver and cleaner along with 3rd parties for geting

compensation. Hence, he filed a petition for claim of Rs.15,00,000/- towards

Compensation.

10. In order to prove the contention of petitioner, he produced Ex.A.1 to A.7. Ex.A.1 is the Copy of FIR in Cr.No. 138/2022 of Nallajerla P.S, dt.18-03-2022,

Ex.A.2 is the Disability Certificate, dt.10-06-2022, Ex.A.3 is the Copy of Policy of 2nd respondent, dt.21-12-2021, Ex.A.4 is the Copy of 'C' book of 1st respondent, dt.30-04-2018, Ex.A.5 is the Copy of Driving License of petitioner, 2.

MVOP.No.85/2022 6 XVI ADJ Court,

Dt: 18-10-2024

Ex.A.6 is the Attested copy of Wound Certificate, dt.02-09-2022 and Ex.A.7 is NDG.

the Attested copy of Final report. Ex.A.1 to A.7 are relevant documents to show that 1s respondent is owner of the crime vehicle at the time of accident.

2nd respondent is Insurer. At the time of accident, P.W.1 being driver of lorry and thereby, the opposite vehicle was not traced out, in those. circumstances, the petitioner can file a petition against his owner and Insurer for getting

compensation. On the other hand, the front going vehicle driver suddenly

applied breaks on that the petitioner dashed the front vehicle due to lost his control. Therefore, it is clearly shows that the negligent act of front vehicle to cause accident, but unfortunately the police failed to traced out the vehicle who is responsible for the accident. Consequently, the petitioner constrained to file this petition against R1 and R2 being owner and insurer to his vehicle. Therefore, the front lorry driver is responsible for injuries and permanent disability to the petitioner. Therefore, the petitioner is entitled for relief as prayed for.

11. On behalf of 2nd respondent, the Deputy Manager of-2nd respondent Insurance Compariy was examined as R.W.1 and no documents were marked. According to the evidence of R.W.1, the petitioner himself negligently drove the vehicle and responsible for the accident without negligent act of front going lorry. The said theory was set up by the petitioner to get compensation. On the other hand, the petitioner got any grievance, he is at liberty to file a petition under VWorkmen Compensation Act to approach Workmen Compensation

Tribunal but not before this Court under M.V.Act. On the other hand, as per

FIR, it is clearly mentioned that the driver of the vehicle bearing No.AP-16-TJ 6797 is responsible for accident. Therefore, it is clearly shows that the petitioner himself caused for accident and sustained injuries. Therefore, the claim under M.V.Act is not available to the petitioner and the present petition is liable to be dismissed.

Court, ADJ

MVOP.No.85/2022 7 XVI ADJ Court,

Dt: 18-10-2024

The learned counsel for 2nd respondent arqued that when the documents NDG. 12. filed by the petitioner are clearly evidencing that the petitioner himself is responsible for the accident, in those circumstances, the theory of the petitioner that one lorry is proceeding ahead and obtained sudden breaks, on that, he lost his control and caused accident and resulting caused severe injuries and leg was amputated and caused permanent disability for 80% is not sustainable in the eye of law. On the other hand, except cause production of

Ex.A.2 is Permanent Disability Certificate, dt.10-06-2022, the Medical Officer

has not examined by the petitioner about genuineness of Ex.A.2. Therefore,

the claim of the petitioner not at all tenable, one is the theory of the petitioner is not true and the disability is also not proved. Moreso, this Court has no

jurisdiction to entertain the claim of petitioner under M.A.T.Cases. The

petitioner is got any grievance, he is at liberty to file a petition before the

Workmen Compensation Tribunal for his claim being a driver of lorry bearing

No.AP-16-TJ-6797 against 1* respondent. Therefore, the present petition is

liable to be dismissed.

13. The learned counsel for petitioner argued that when the front vehicle is

not traced out by the police agency, however, the petitioner can entitle for

claim against 1 respondent being owner and 2nd respondent being insurer of

crime vehicle. Moreover, the manner of accident clearly reported to the police

and crime was also registered and later, the charge she�t was filed as the

accident vehicle was not traced out. In those circumstances, the claim of the

petitioner shall be taken into consideration that the petitioner sustained injuries

due to negligent act of front going vehicle and also permanent disability.

Moreover, there is no need for go to Workmen Compensation Act and the petitioner can approach before this Court under M.V.Act. On that, he relied on a decision reported in (1) 2011 AÇJ 1 in the case of Raj Kumar Vs. Ajay

Kumar and another: (2) 2023 ACJ Page 444 in the case of Branch

Manager, New India Assurance Co. Ltd. Vs. urmila Biswakarma (Chettri)

8 MVOP.No.85/2022 XVI ADJ Court,

Dt: 18-10-2024 NDG.

and others: (3) 2022 ACJ 1995 in the case of Abhimanyu Partap Singh Vs.

Namita Sekhon and another; (4) 2018 ACJ Page 1011 in the case of

Jagdish Vs. Mohan and others; (5) 2019 ACJ 2374 in the case of National

Insurance Co. Ltd. Vs. Anil Kumnar and others; (6) 2021 ACJ 2554 in the case of Chandra and another Vs. Mukesh Kumar Yadav and others; (7) 2019 ACJ 559 in the case of Ramla and others Vs. National Insurance

Co. Ltd. and others; (8) Writ Petition No.534/2000 decided by the Hon'ble

Supreme Court of India in the case of Baja AIlianz General Insurance

Company Private Ltd. Vs. Union of India & Ors; (9) 2010 ACJ 487 in the

case of S.Suresh Vs. Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd. and another;

On perusing the decisions relied by the petitioner's Counsel, it is clearly held by the Hon'ble Apex Court that the income of the petitioner shall be taken into consideration as a driver of the lorry at the time of accident. On the other hand, when the Disability Certificate was produced by the petitioner under Ex.A.2,

Such claim shall be taken into consideration, evèn ttough the Medical officer was not examined by the petitioner. The presumption can be drawn U/s.74 (1) of Bharatiya Sakshya Adhiniyam, to show that the Certificate issued by Public

Servant is need that is true and genuine one, unless contrary is proved. The said fact was reiterated all the decisions more particularly, in Writ Petition No.534/2020 by the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India on 16-11-2021, it is clearly discussed that as per the aspect of issuance of Certificate on Disability of victim is concerned, it is reiterated that the guidelines laid down by this Court in Raj Kumar Vs. Ajay Kumar Vs. 2011 (1) SCC 343, mandatorily must be followed by the MACTs. Therefore. the negligent act of front vehicle and also Disability Certificáte also established by the petitioner for getting

Compensation. Moreover, income of the petitioner also shall be taken into

Consideration as a driver of lorry at the time of accident. On the other hand, there is no relief for go to Workmen Compensation for getting compensation and the Tribunal can entertain the clain of the petitioner under M.V.Act.

Court. DJ

MVOP.No.85/2022 XVI ADJ Court,

Dt: 18-10-2024

Therefore, the decisions relied by the petitioner's counsel in various aspects NDG.

are identical with the present facts of the case. Therefore, the petitioner is entitled for the claim as prayed for. Hence, the petitioner proved that he involved in the accident and sustained iniuries due to accident. Therefore, 1 respondent being owner and 2nd respöndent being Insurer of crime vehicle are liable for payment of compensation to the petitioner.

14. On perusing the entire case record filed by the petitioner and the documents produced under Ex.A.1 to A.7 are clearly shows that the crime vehicle is covered with valid insurance at the time of accident. In those circumstances, all the documents are clearly shows that the petitioner produced ample evidence with

regard to accident and also consequently disablement of 80% due to accident.

Ex.A.2 Disability Certificate clearly shows that the petitioner has disability to

his Right Lower Limb and he has 80% of disability. Therefore, the claim of the

petitioner is clearly established by producing oral and documentary evidence.

Hence, the petitioner is entitled to claim compensation from the respondents as prayed for. Accordingly, lssues No.1 is answered.

ISSUE NO.2:

15. Now coming to the petitioner's claim. The petitioner is claiming compensation of Rs.15,00,000/-.

The petitioner claimed in the petition that he was aged about 41 years

by the date of accident. The petitioner stated in his petition that he was

working as lorry driver and earning Rs.18,000/- per month apart from Rs.200/

as batta. So, on keen perusal of evidence of P.W.1, he did not produce any documentary proof with regard to the source of his income. In this context, this

Court relied on a decision reported in 'Chandra @ Chnada @ Chandraram

vs Mukesh Kumar Yadav' (2022) 1 SCC 198, wherein the Hon'ble Supreme

Court of India held that in absence of salary certificate the minimum wage

MVOP.No.85/2022 10 XVI ADJ Court,

Dt: 18-10-2024

NDG. notification can be a yardstick but at the same time cannot be an absolute one to fix the income of the injured. in absence of documentary evidence on record

Some amount of quessWork is required to be done. But at the same time the guesswork for assessing the income of the injured should not be totally detached from reality. The deceased having bright future and he could have served his family in the best way on the basis of income of his salary. So, loss of income of the petitioner is estimated notionally fixed by this Tribunal at

Rs.9,000/-, thereby, notional income of Rs.9,000/- only has to be taken into

Consideration, in view of the background facts of the case.

16. In this case, the petitioner has 80% of disability, therefore, his income is calculated per month is Rs.7,200/- (Rs.9,000 x 80%).

Now the compensation towards disability of petitioner towards his future income, the petitioner is entitled to future prospects as he was self-employed.

The petitioner stated in his petition that he was 41 years by the date of accident and it is also mentioned as per Disability Certificate under Ex.A.2, therefore, he can entitle to an addition of 25% of the established income vide

National Insurance Company Limited vs. Pranay Sethi and others (2017

ACJ 2700 SC). Then, the income of the petitioner per month Comes to

Rs.9,000/- (Rs.7,200 + 1,800) and when it is calculated per year is

Rs.1,08,000/- (Rs.9,000 x 12). As per Ex.A.8 Disability Certificate of the petitioner, the petitioner's age is 41 years, thereby proper multiplier for the age group 41 to 45 is "14' as per the decision in the case of Vide Sarala Varma

Vs. Delhi Transport Corporation and another (2009) 6 SCC 121. Thus, the loss of incomne of the petitioner is estimated at Rs.15,12,000/

(Rs.1,08,000/- x 14).

17. As per the decisions in the cases of 1 Sarala Verma and others Vs. Delhi Transport Corporation and another (2009)6 SCC 121.

COurt, . ADJ

MVOP.No.85/2022 11 XVI ADJ Court,

Dt: 18-10-2024

NDG.

2. 'Raj Kumar vs Ajay Kumar & Anr (2011) 1 SCC 343. 'National Insurance Co. Ltd vs Pranay Sethi', 2017 ACJ 2700 SG 3. Reshma Kumari & Ors vs Madan Mohan & Anr', 2013 (||) ACC 907 4. (SC).

18. By keeping in view of the above observations and the judgments of the

Hon'ble Supreme Court referred supra. now the Tribunal calculated the

Compensation under various heads to which the petitioner is entitled as under

by considering the facts and circumstances of the case:

S.No. Nature of compensation Amount in Rs.Ps.

1. Loss of income towards his disability 15,12,000.00 Pain and suffering

2. 40,000.00

3. For grievous injuries 40,000.00

4. Extra nourishment of food 50,000.00

5. Transportation charges 10,000.00

Total Rs.16,52,000.00

As noted in the table supra, the petitioner is entitled to a total compensation

amount of Rs.16,52,000/-. The petitioner claimed Rs.15,00,000/- towards compensation in his petition. As per the Judgment vide Mona Baghel &

others Vs. Sajjan Singh Yadav & others', 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 734, the

petitioner is entitled to just compensation. Therefore, the petitioner is entitled to get compensation of Rs.16,52,000/- from the Respondents No.1 and 2. The petitioner claimed Rs.15,00,000/-, on that, he paid Court Fee for the said

claim. Therefore, he is directed to pay Court Fee of Rs.1,360/- for the

remaining compensation amount. Therefore, this Court has no hesitation to hold that the petitioner is entitled to pay compensation of Rs.16,52,000/- along with simple interest of 7.5% per annum thereon.from the date of filing of the

petition till date of realization from the respondents No.1 and 2 jointly and

severally. Accordingly, issue No.2 is answered.

12 XVI ADJ Court, MVOP.No.85/2022 NDG.

Dt: 18-10-2024

ISSUE NO.3: In the result, 19.

The petition is allowed awarding total compensation of Rs.16,52,000/

with proportionate costs and interest thereon at 7.5% per annum from the date of petition till the date of realization against the respondents 1 and 2 jointly and severally;

i) The petitioner is directed to deposit Court Fee of Rs.1,360/-before this Tribunal within one month and thereafter, the Office is directed to prepare Decree;

i) On deposit of 2nd respondYnt, the petitioner is entitled to claim Rs.16,52,000/- and he is entitled to withdraw sum of Rs.9, 52, 000/ along with the interest on the total compensation amount and costs

and remaining sum of Rs.7,00,000/- from tis share of compensation

shal be kept in FDR in any nationalized bank for a. period of two years;

v) The respondents No.1 and 2 are directed to deposit the said compensation amount along with costs and interest into Court within one month from the date of this order;

V) Rest of the petitioner's claim is dismissed:

vi)Advocate fee is fixed at Rs.2,000/-.

Typed to my dictation by the Stenographer directly on computer,

corrected and pronounced by me in the open Court, this the 18h day of

October, 2024.

CHAIRMAN: MOTOR ACCIDENT CLAIMS TRIBUNAL CUM XIll ADDL.DISTRICT & SESSIONS

JUDGE AT VIJAYAWADA.

FAC ICHAIRMAN: MOTOR ACCIDENT CLAIMS

TRIBUNAL CUM XVI ADDL. DISTRICT & SESSIONS

JUDGE AT NANDIGAMA.

Court. ADJ

MVOP.No.85/2022 13 XVI ADJ Court,

Dt: 18-10-2024 NDG.

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

Witnesses examined

For Petitioner: For 2nd Respondent:

P.W.1: R.Asirvadam -R.W.1: B.Ramakrishna

Documents marked

For Petitioner:

Ex.A.1 Copy of FIR in Cr.No.138/2022 of Nallajerla P.S, dt.18-03-2022 Ex.A.2 Disability Certificate, dt.10-06-2022 Copy of Policy of 2nd respondent, dt.21-12-2021 Ex.A.3

Copy of C' book of 1 respondent, dt.30-04-2018

Ex.A.4 Ex.A.5 Copy of Driving License of petitioner

Attested copy of Wound Certificate, dt.02-09-2022

Ex.A.6 Ex.A.7 Attested copy of Final report

For 2nd Respondent : -- NIL --

CHAIRMAN: MOTOR ACCIDENT CLAIMS

TRIBUNAL CUM XIII ADDL.DISTRICT & SESSIONS

JUDGE AT VIJAYAWADA.

FAC ICHAIRMAN : MOTOR ACCIDENT CLAIMS

TRIBUNAL CUM XVI ADDL. DISTRICT & SESSIONS

JUDGE AT NANDIGAMA.

MVOP.No.21/2023 XIII ADJ Court,

Dt: 23.04.2026 VJA.

BEFORE THE CHAIRMAN : MOTOR ACCIDENTS CLAIMS TRIBUNAL-

CUM-XIII ADDL. DISTRICT & SESSIONS JUDGE AT VIJAYAWADA

Present: Sri D.Seshayya,

XIII ADDL. DISTRICT & SESSIONS JUDGE,

VIJAYAWADA.

Thursday, this the 23 rd day of April, 2026.

M.V.O.P No. 21 of 2023

Between :

1. Jangam Margarate Meri, W/o. Late Kantha rao @ kanthaiah, Hindu, aged about 42 years, House wife, D.No. 1/428, Bapujinagar, Gudivada, Krishna District, presently residing at D.No. 25-1-19, sukumari Nivas, C.S.R. road, Near Satyanaryana Swamy temple, Gandhinagar, Vijayawada -3.

2. Jangam Ramya, D/o. Late Kantha rao @ kanthaiah, Hindu, aged about 23 years, D.No. 1/428, Bapujinagar,, Gudivada, Krishna District, presently residing at D.No. 25-1-19, sukumari Nivas, C.S.R. road, Near Satyanaryana Swamy temple, Gandhinagar, Vijayawada -3.

3. Jangam Sowmya, D/o. Late Kantha rao @ kanthaiah, Hindu, aged about 22 years, D.No. 1/428, Bapujinagar,, Gudivada, Krishna District, presently residing at D.No. 25-1-19, sukumari Nivas, C.S.R. road, Near Satyanaryana Swamy temple, Gandhinagar, Vijayawada -3.

...Petitioners

And

1. Y.Sujeev Kumar, S/o. Y.Sudheer Kumar, Hindu, aged about 35 years, Driver of the Crime Vehicle, FF 1, Adhunika Apartments, Raghuram Street, Labbipeta, Vijayawada -1, Krishna District.

2. Yallamalli Sudev Kumar, S/o. Devanandam, Hindu, Owner of the crime vehicle bearing No, AP 29 CA 2124, D.No. 1-35/1, Gundabathula vari street, Near S.B.I. Kankipadu, Krishna District.

3. IFFCO – TOKIO General Insurance Co.Ltd., Represented by its Manager, D.No. 40-1-53, 1st floor, Annapurna Building, Opp. ICICI Bank, Near Benz Circle, M.G.road, Vijayawada -10

4. Jangam Vijayamma, W/o late Essaku, D.No.7-54, Age 79 years, R/o Kunderu Village, Krishna District.

(Respondent No.4 added as per orders in I.A.388/2025) ..Respondents

***

MVOP.No.21/2023 XIII ADJ Court,

Dt: 23.04.2026 VJA.

This Petition coming on 22.04.2026 for hearing before me in the presence of Sri Ch.Bhaskara Rao, Advocate for the petitioners and of Smt. M.Manimma, Advocate for Respondents 1 and 2 and Sri. V.Srinivasa Rao, Advocate for 3rd respondent and the matter having stood over for consideration till this day, and upon consideration, this Court delivered the following :

AWARD

The present petition is filed by the petitioners under sec. 167 of the

Motor Vehicle Act, 1988, and Rule 455 of the A.P.M.V. Rules for awarding compensation of Rs.9,00,000/- along with interest at the rate of 12% from the date of the petition and costs for the death of the deceased Kantharao @

Kanthaiah, aged 45 years, in a motor vehicle accident that occurred on 10.02.2022 at about 09.00 hours in front of his house, while he was sleeping.

Later, the quantum of the compensation amount was increased from Rs.9 lakhs to Rs.15 lakhs as per orders in I.A. No. 320/2026 dated 20.03.2026.

02. The 1st petitioner is the wife and petitioners 2 and 3 are daughters of the deceased Kantharao @ Kanthaiah. The 1st respondent is driver of the car, 2nd respondent is owner of car bearing No.AP 16 DD 0578, 3rd respondent is insurer of the crime vehicle and the 4th respondent is the mother-in-law of the 1st petitioner and mother of the deceased.

03. The material averments of the petition, in brief are as follows:

On 10.02.2022, at 9.00 am, while the deceased was sleeping near his house adjacent to the road margin in Kunderu village, the driver of crime vehicle i.e., 1st respondent drove his car at high speed in a rash and negligent manner without blowing horn and dashed into the deceased. As a result, the deceased fell down and sustained severe injuries to his head. Later, he was shifted to GRACE Hospital, Vuyyuru for treatment. During the course of treatment, he succumbed to the injury. Later, a report was lodged to the police and police registered a case in crime No.88/2022 of Kankipadu Police Station, under Section 304 (A) IPC.

MVOP.No.21/2023 XIII ADJ Court,

Dt: 23.04.2026 VJA.

The petitioner further submitted that, the deceased was aged about 45 years and used to work as a painter and get Rs.30,000/- per month.

Petitioners 1 to 3 and the 4th respondent are the only dependents of the deceased Kantha Rao. Therefore, the present petition is filed for compensation of Rs.15 lakhs against respondents 1 to 3 jointly and severally to pay compensation to the petitioners and 4th respondent. Hence, this petition.

04. The respondents 1 and 2 filed a counter and denied the averments made in the petition. What are the allegations mentioned in the petition are not true and correct, they are invented for the purpose of the present petition. The deceased negligently slept in front of his house without observing the vehicles.

Moreover, the 1st respondent had a valid driving license at the time of the accident. The 2nd respondent insured his vehicle with the 3rd respondent vide

Policy No.ITG/83043875, valid from 21.10.2021 to 20.10.2022, and the same was valid at the time of the accident. Therefore, the 3rd respondent alone has to indemnify the liability, if any, from the 3rd party. Therefore, the claim against respondents 1 and 2 is liable to be dismissed.

05. The 3rd respondent filed a written statement and denied the averments made in the petition. What are the allegations mentioned in the petition are not true and correct, they are invented for the purpose of the present petition.

Though the 2nd respondent is the owner of the vehicle bearing Reg.No. AP 16

DD 0578, the 1st respondent negligently drove the vehicle and violated the terms and conditions of the policy. The rules and regulations contemplated with the M.V. Act and Rules were not properly followed by respondents 1 and 2, as such, the claim against 3rd respondent is liable to be dismissed. As per guidelines of the Apex Court in Bajaj Allianz Vs. Union civil appeal No.

534/2020, it is clearly about the guidelines for compensation. It is also further discussed in Chandra Kantha Tiwari vs. New India Assurance Company

Limited (Civil Appeal No. 2527/2020), decided on 08.06.2020, the rate of interest is only 6%. The said fact was also reiterated in Sri Antony vs. the

MVOP.No.21/2023 XIII ADJ Court,

Dt: 23.04.2026 VJA.

Managing Director, K.S.RTC, and others (Civil Appeal 2551/2020) decided on 10.06.2020. It is also discussed more interest awarded on the future medical expenses in the judgement reported in Oriental Insurance Company

Vs. Smt. Champabti Roy and also Rani Vs. National Insurance Company

Ltd. (2018) 8 SCC 492. Moreover, there is no proof of income produced by the petitioners about earnings of Rs.30,000/- per month. Therefore, the petitioners and respondents 1 and 2 colluded together and filed a false case. Hence, the petition is liable to be dismissed.

06. Basing on the pleadings of both parties, the following issues have been framed as follows: -

1. Whether the accident is occurred due to rash and negligent

driving of the driver of the vehicle bearing No. AP 16 DD

0578 or not?

2. Whether the petitioners are entitled for compensation of Rs. 9 lakhs as prayed for?

3. Whether the petitioners are entitled to interest @ 12% from

the date of the accident till the date of realization of the

compensation amount of Rs. 9 lakhs?

4. To what relief ?

This Court also framed the following additional issue:

Whether the petitioners are entitled for compensation of Rs. 15 lakhs by

virtue of the amendment as prayed for?

07.On behalf of the petitioners, the 1st petitioner was examined as PW.1, and Exs.A1 to A6 were marked. The eyewitness was examined as PW.2. On behalf of the 3rd respondent, no oral evidence is adduced except marking

Ex.B1 attested copy of the insurance policy.

08.Heard both sides. Written arguments filed by Counsel for 3rd respondent and perused the same.

MVOP.No.21/2023 XIII ADJ Court,

Dt: 23.04.2026 VJA.

Issue No.1.

09.The 1st petitioner was examined as PW.1. As per her evidence, she is the wife and petitioners 2 and 3 are daughters of the deceased. The 1st respondent is a driver of the vehicle, 2nd respondent is the owner of the car bearing No. AP 16 DD 0578, the 3rd respondent is insurer to the crime vehicle and the 4th respondent is the mother-in-law of PW.1 and mother of the deceased. On 10.02.2022, at 9.00 a.m, while the deceased was sleeping near his house adjacent to the road margin in Kunderu village, the 1st respondent drove his car at high speed in a rash and negligent manner without blowing horn and dashed into the deceased. As a result, the deceased fell down and sustained severe injuries on his head. Later, he was shifted to GRACE

Hospital, Vuyyuru for treatmemnt. During the course of treatment, he succumbed to injuries. Later, a report was lodged to the police and police registered a case in crime No. 88/2022 of Kankipadu Police Station under

Section 304 (A) IPC.

10.PW.1 further deposed that, the deceased was aged about 45 years and used to work as a painter and get Rs.30,000/- per month. Petitioners 1 to 3 and the 4th respondent are the only dependants of the deceased Kantha Rao.

Therefore, the present petition is filed for compensation of Rs.15 lakhs against respondents 1 to 3 jointly and severally to pay compensation to the petitioners and 4th respondent.

11.In order to prove the contention of the petitioners, they have produced

Exs.A1 to A6, which are attested copies of the FIR, Attested copy of the postmortem report, Xerox copy of the driving license of the 1st respondent,

Attested copy of the M.V.I. report, Xerox copy of the Insurance Policy and

Xerox copy of the Registration Certificate.

12.The petitioners also produced PW.2, who is an eyewitness and he categorically supported the version of the petitioners that on 10.02.2022 at 09.00 am, while the deceased was sleeping in front of his house, the 1st

MVOP.No.21/2023 XIII ADJ Court,

Dt: 23.04.2026 VJA.

respondent drove his car bearing No. AP 16 DD 0578 in a rash and negligent manner and dashed the deceased, and later he succumbed to injuries at the hospital.

13.On behalf of the 3rd respondent, no oral evidence is adduced except marking Ex.B1, an attested copy of the policy issued by the company to the crime vehicle.

14. The learned counsel for the 3rd respondent argued that, there is no liability on the part of 3rd respondent due to the negligent act of 1st respondent.

It is the primary duty of the deceased to sleep away from the road, but negligently, he slept near to the road. Therefore, it clearly shows that the deceased negligently slept on the road, and there is no negligence on the part of 1st respondent to cause the accident. As per Sec.171 of the M.V. Act, the

Court only awards simple interest at 5 to 6%, but not 12%. On that he relied on the decision reported in Kaushaya Begum and others Vs. New India

Assurance Company Ltd. and others (Civil Appeal 6/2001), reported in

AIR 2001 SC 485. As per guidelines of the Apex Court in Bajaj Allianz Vs.

Union civil appeal No. 534/2020, it is clearly discussed about the

guidelines for compensation. It is also further discussed in Chandra

Kantha Tiwari vs. New India Assurance Company Limited (Civil Appeal

No. 2527/2020), decided on 08.06.2020. The rate of interest is only 6%.

The said fact was also reiterated in Sri Antony Vs. the Managing Director,

K.S.RTC, and others (Civil Appeal 2551/2020) decided on 10.06.2020. It is also discussed more interest awarded on the future medical expenses in the

judgement reported in Oriental Insurance Company Vs. Smt. Champabti

Roy and also Rani Vs. National Insurance Company Ltd. (2018) 8 SCC

492. Moreover, there is no proof of income produced by the petitioner about earnings of Rs.30,000/- per month. Therefore, the petitioners clearly and miserably failed to establish the income of the deceased to grant compensation as prayed by the petitioners against the 3rd respondent.

Therefore, the evidence let out by the petitioners is not tenable, and there is a

MVOP.No.21/2023 XIII ADJ Court,

Dt: 23.04.2026 VJA.

contributory negligence to be considered in favor of the 3rd respondent while granting compensation. Therefore, there is no proper proof of negligence or income of the deceased. As such, the compensation amount and interest thereon are very excessive. Hence, the Court can consider the income of the deceased on a notional income basis only.

15. The learned counsel for petitioners argued that, when there is negligence on the part of 1st respondent proved by the petitioners as a driver of the car and 2nd respondent is the owner of the car at the time of the accident,

dated 10.02.2022. Moreover, the police also registered a case against 1st

respondent and the said document was also produced before this Court.

Exs.A1 to A6 are relevant documents to show that a crime was registered against 1st about his negligent act. On the other hand, the petitioners also produced Exs.A3 to A6 with regard to the driving license of 1st respondent, MVI report, insurance policy, and registration certificate of the crime vehicle.

Moreover, PW2 eyewitness categorically supported the version of the petitioners with regard to the negligent act of 1st respondent while dashing the deceased in front of their house and sustaining injuries resulting the death of the deceased. Therefore, all records clearly establish the claim of the petitioners.

16. The learned counsel for petitioners further argued that, as per Ex.B1, the attested copy of the policy for the crime vehicle at the time of the accident is in force. The policy is effective from 21.10.2021 to 20.10.2022, whereas the accident occurred on 10.02.2022. Therefore, the policy copy is in force. In those circumstances, the petitioners produced ample evidence with regard to proof of their claim. Therefore, the petitioners produced ample evidence against respondents 1 to 3 to get compensation through this petition. Hence, the petitioners and 4th respondnet are entitled for compensation. Thus, Issue

No.1 is decided accordingly.

MVOP.No.21/2023 XIII ADJ Court,

Dt: 23.04.2026 VJA.

Issue Nos.2 & 3 and Additional Issue :

17.Now, it is to be decided what will be the quantum of compensation to which the petitioners and 4th respondent are entitled. Admittedly, the 1st petitioner is wife. Petitioners 2 and 3 are daughters and 4th respondent is mother of deceased. Therefore, they are only legal heirs of the deceased.

Now the loss of dependency is to be decided. The petitioners and 4th respondent claimed in the petition that the deceased was a painter and aged about 45 years by the date of accident. During his lifetime, he was getting

Rs.30,000/- per month towards salary. To prove their contention, PW.1 produced oral evidence through PW.2, but she did not produce any documentary proof with regard to the source of income of his deceased husband. In this context, this Court relied on a decision reported in ‘Chandra @ Chnada @ Chandraram Vs. Mukesh Kumar Yadav’ (2022) 1 SCC 198, wherein the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India held that ‘in absence of salary certificate the minimum wage notification can be a yardstick but at the same time cannot be an absolute one to fix the income of the deceased. In absence of documentary evidence on record some amount of guesswork is required to be done. But at the same time the guesswork for assessing the income of the deceased should not be totally detached from reality. So, loss of income of deceased is estimated notionally fixed by this Tribunal at Rs.10,000/-, thereby, notional income of Rs.10,000/- only has to be taken into consideration, in view of the background facts of the case. If it is calculated per year, which comes to

Rs.1,20,000/- (Rs.10,000 x 12).

18.The petitioner Nos.1 to 3 and 4th respondent are entitled to future prospects of the deceased since the deceased was self-employed and was aged about 45 years by the date of the accident and entitled to an addition of 25% of the established income vide National Insurance Company Limited vs. Pranay Sethi and others (2017 ACJ 2700 SC). Then, the income of the deceased comes to Rs.1,50,000/- (Rs.1,20,000 + 30,000) per year.

MVOP.No.21/2023 XIII ADJ Court,

Dt: 23.04.2026 VJA.

19. As the number of the depending family members of the deceased are four in number, 1/4 of the annual income of the deceased is to be deducted towards personal and living expenses as he had been alive and the balance amount will be per year is Rs.1,12,500 /-(Rs.1,50,000- 37,500) { Vide Sarala

Varma Vs. Delhi Transport Corporation and another ((2009) 6 SCC 121)}.

Thus, the annual income of the deceased is estimated at Rs.1,12,500/-.

The deceased age was shown as 4 5 years and as per Ex.A2 postmortem report also the deceased was aged about 45 years by the date of accident, thereby, proper multiplier for the age group of 41 to 45 is ‘14’ as per the decision in the case of Sarala Varma Vs. Delhi Transport Corporation and

another (2009) 6 SCC 121 and multiplier applicable is ‘14’ and thus, the

loss of income is estimated at Rs.15,75,000/- (Rs.1,12,500/- x 14).

20.In the case of Pranay Sethi the Hon’ble Supreme Court awarded a total sum of Rs.70,000/- under conventional heads viz., loss of estate, loss of consortium and funeral expenses and it was further held that the said sum should be increased at the rate of 10% in every three years. The judgment in

Pranay Sethi was rendered in the year 2017. In ‘National Insurance

Company Limited vs Pranay Sethi and others’ (2017) 16 SCC 680, the

Hon’ble Supreme Court awarded reasonable figures on conventional heads,

namely, loss of estate, loss of consortium and funeral expenses should be Rs.

15,000/-, Rs. 40,000/- and Rs. 15,000/- respectively. The aforesaid amounts should be enhanced at the rate of 10% in every three years. The Judgment in

Pranay Sethi was rendered on 31.10.2017.

Loss of EstateFuneral ExpensesLoss of consortium (for every 3 years(for every 3 years(for every 3 years 10% should be10% should be10% should be enhanced)enhanced)enhanced) As on 15,000.0015,000.0040,000.00 31.10.2017 As on 16,500.00 16,500.00 44,000.00 31.10.2020 (15000+1500)(15000+1500)(40000+4000) (3 years completed) As on 18,000.00 18,000.00 48,000.00

MVOP.No.21/2023 XIII ADJ Court,

Dt: 23.04.2026 VJA.

31.10.2023 (6 years (15000+1500+1500)(15000+1500+1500)(40000+4000+4000) completed)

21.Thus, a sum of Rs.18,000/- under each head is awarded to the petitioners and 4th respondent towards loss of estate and funeral expenses (vide judgment in N. Jayasree Vs.Cholamandalam MS Insurance Company in Civil appeal No.6451/2021. The three judge bench of Hon’ble Supreme

Court in United Insurance Company Vs. Satinder Gowara after considering the judgment in Pranay Sethi case has awarded spousal consortium at the rate of Rs.40,000/- and towards loss of parental consortium to each child at the rate of Rs.40,000/- and the said compensation under these heads also need to be enhanced by 10% for every three years. Thus, spousal consortium at the rate of Rs.48,000/- to the 1st petitioner and parental consortium at the rate of Rs.48,000/- each awarded to the petitioners 2 and 3 herein being the children of the deceased. Thus, the petitioners and 4 th respondent are entitled to total compensation comes hereunder :

1. Loss of Dependency Rs.15,75,000.00

2.Loss of estate Rs. 18,000.00

3.Funeral expenses Rs. 18,000.00

4.Spousal consortium to 1st petitioner. Rs. 48,000.00

5.Parental consortium to petitioners 2 and 3 Rs. 96,000.00 (each Rs.48,000/-)

TOTAL Rs.17,55,000.00

22.From the aforesaid discussion, thus the total sum comes to

Rs.17,55,000/-. But, the petitioners are filed this petition seeking compensation of Rs.15,00,000/-, therefore, the claim is restricted to

Rs.15,00,000/- in view of background facts of the case. Hence, the

petitioners are entitled compensation of Rs.15,00,000/- against

respondents 1 to 3, therefore, this Court has no hesitation to hold that

the petitioners and 4 th respondent are entitled for compensation of

MVOP.No.21/2023 XIII ADJ Court,

Dt: 23.04.2026 VJA.

Rs.15,00,000/- along with simple interest of 7.5% per annum thereon from

the date of filing of the petition till date of realization from Respondent

Nos.1 to 3 jointly and severally, is considered to be just and reasonable

compensation for the death of deceased. Accordingly, Issue Nos.2 and 3 and Additional Issue are answered.

23. Issue No.4 : In the result,

i) the petition is allowed awarding total compensation of Rs.15,00,000/- with costs and interest thereon at 7.5% per annum from the date of petition till the date of realization against the respondent Nos.1 to 3 jointly and severally; ii) the respondent Nos.1 to 3 are directed to deposit the said compensation amount along with interest and costs into Court within one month from the date of this order; iii) On such deposit of 3 rd respondent, the 1 st petitioner being wife of deceased is entitled to claim Rs.4,00,000/- and she is entitled to withdraw a sum of Rs.4,00,000/- along with the interest on the compensation amount and costs; iv) On such deposit of 3 rd respondent, the 2 nd petitioner being elder daughter of deceased is entitled to claim Rs.4,00,000/- and she is entitled to withdraw a sum of Rs.4,00,000/- along with the interest on the compensation amount and costs;

v) On such deposit of 3 rd respondent, the 3 rd petitioner being younger daughter of deceased is entitled to claim Rs.4,00,000/- and she is entitled to withdraw a sum of Rs.4,00,000/- along with the interest on the compensation amount and costs; vi) On such deposit of 3 rd respondent, the 4 th respondent being mother of deceased is entitled to claim Rs.3,00,000/- and she is entitled to withdraw a sum of Rs.3,00,000/- along with the interest on the compensation amount and costs;

MVOP.No.21/2023 XIII ADJ Court,

Dt: 23.04.2026 VJA.

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

Typed to my dictation by the Stenographer Gr.III directly on computer, corrected and pronounced by me in the open Court, this the 23rd day of April, 2026.

Sd/- D.Seshayya,

CHAIRMAN : MOTOR ACCIDENT CLAIMS

TRIBUNAL CUM XIII ADDL.DISTRICT &

SESSIONS JUDGE AT VIJAYAWADA.

Appendix of Evidence

Witnesses examined

For Petitioners: For Respondents:

P.W.1:Jangam Margarate Meri. - None-

P.W.2:Jangam Praveen.

Documents Marked

For Petitioners :

Ex.A1Attested copy of FIR, dated 10.02.2022.

Ex.A2Attested copy of postmortem report, dated 15.03.2022.

Ex.A3Xerox copy of the driving license of the 1st respondent.

Ex.A4Attested copy of MVI report.

Ex.A5Xerox copy of Insurance policy.

Ex.A6Xerox copy of registration certificate.

For 3 rd Respondent :

Ex.B1:Attested copy of Insurance Policy.

Sd/- D.Seshayya,

CHAIRMAN : MOTOR ACCIDENT CLAIMS

TRIBUNAL CUM XIII ADDL. DISTRICT &

SESSIONS JUDGE AT VIJAYAWADA.

MVOP.No.21/2023 XIII ADJ Court,

Dt: 23.04.2026 VJA.

MVOP.No.139/2020 1 XIII ADJ Court,

Dt: 23.04.2026 VJA.

BEFORE THE CHAIRMAN : MOTOR ACCIDENTS CLAIMS TRIBUNAL-

CUM-XIII ADDL. DISTRICT & SESSIONS JUDGE AT VIJAYAWADA

Present: Sri D.Seshayya,

XIII ADDL. DISTRICT & SESSIONS JUDGE,

VIJAYAWADA.

Thursday, this the 23 rd day of April, 2026

MVOP .No. 139 of 2020

Between : Medepalli Balaswamy, S/o. Late Joseph, aged 63 years, Retired Railway Employee, Ambedkar nagar, Yenamalakuduru, D.No. 16-156, Vijayawada -7.

...Petitioner

And

1. Banoth Kondaiah, S/o. Somulu, aged 49 years, Driver, APSRTC Bus bearing No, AP.11.Z. 7417, D.No. 4-52, Kajipet, Guntupalli, Ibrahimpatnam mandal, Krishna District.

2. A.P.S.R.T.C, Vijayawada, Represented by its Regional Manager, Vijayawada -520 002 Owner.

...Respondents

* * *

The petition coming on 21.04.2026 for final hearing before me in the presence of T.Uma Maheswara Rao, Advocate for petitioner and of Sri V.V.S.Sai Babu, Advocate for Respondent No.2, 1st Respondent remained exparte and the matter having stood over for consideration till this day, and upon consideration, this Court delivered the following :

A W A R D

01.This petition is filed Under Section 166 of Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 read with Rule 455 of A.P.M.V. Rules, 1989 claiming compensation of

Rs.10,00,000/- with costs and interest @ 9% per annum to the petitioner on account of injuries sustained by the petitioner in a motor vehicle accident occurred on 13.11.2019 at about 18.00 hours near new gate, V.T.P.S,

Ibrahimpatnam, N.T.R. District.

MVOP.No.139/2020 2 XIII ADJ Court,

Dt: 23.04.2026 VJA.

02.The petitioner is the injured person. The 1st respondent is the driver of

A.P.S.R.T.C bus bearing Reg.No.AP 11 Z 7417, which was owned by 2nd respondent.

03. The material averments of the petition, in brief are as follows:

On 13.11.2019, while the petitioner going on his Honda Activa motor cycle bearing Reg.No. AP 16 VS 2204 to go to G.Konduru, when he reached the place of occurrence, the driver of R.T.C bus bearing No. AP 11 Z 7417, route No. 350, drove the vehicle in a rash and negligent manner without blowing the horn or any signal and dashed him from behind, and he fell down from the motorcycle and sustained grievous injuries. Later, the son of the petitioner shifted him in V.T.P.S Ambulance and admitted him in Andhra

Hospital, Gollapudi. The petitioner was under treatment in I.C.U till 19.11.2019 and later shifted to Railway Hospital for better treatment and thereafter shifted to Andhra Hospital, Vijayawada (Heart and Brain). The petitioner was discharged from the hospital on 22.12.2019. The petitioner spent an amount of

Rs.1,54,970/-, but the Railway Department reimbursed Rs.50,000/-, and he spent Rs.2 lakhs from 19.11.2019 to 22.12.2019. The total bill was Rs.

8,00,000/-. The petitioner also underwent physiotherapy treatment for 3 months and spent Rs.1,50,000/-. The son of the petitioner lodged a report and the Ibrahimpatnam police registered a case in Cr.No. 561/2019 U/sec.337 IPC, and a charge sheet was filed under Setion 338 IPC, and it was numbered as

C.C.No.103/2020. The 1st respondent is a driver, and the 2nd respondent is the owner of the vehicle and also the insurer. Therefore, respondent Nos.1 and 2 are jointly liable to pay compensation amount of Rs.10,00,000/- to the petitioner. Hence, this petition.

04.The 1st respondent, though notice was served, did not turn up, and he was set ex parte on 13.09.2022.

05.The 2nd respondent filed a counter and denied averments made in the petition with regard to the rash and negligent act of 1st respondent while

MVOP.No.139/2020 3 XIII ADJ Court,

Dt: 23.04.2026 VJA.

proceeding on the APSRTC bus to cause the accident. The other allegations mentioned in the petition are only invented for the purpose of the present petition. There is no negligence on the part of 1st respondent being a driver of the bus bearing No. AP 11 Z 7417. On the other hand, the petitioner himself ride the motorcycle bearing No. AP 16 BS 2204 in a rash and negligent manner and dashed the bus. Moreover, the petitioner is a retired railway employee and is getting a pension from time to time. What are the medical expenses incurred by the petitioner already reimbursed by the railway department. As such, there is no such huge amount spent by petitioner towards medical expenses. Therefore, the claim sought by the petitioner is very excessive. The respondent also denied all other allegations mentioned in the petition. Hence, the petition is liable to be dismissed.

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

1. Whether the accident occured due to rash and negligent

driving of the driver of the vehicle bearing No. AP 11 Z

7417 or not?

2. Whether the petitioner is entitled for compensation of Rs.10 lakhs as prayed for?

3. Whether the petitioner is entitled for interest @ 9% from

the date of accident till the date of realization of

compensation amount of Rs.10 lakhs?

4. To what relief?

07.On behalf of the petitioner, he himself examined as PW.1 and got marked Exs.P1 to P8. The medical officer was examined as PW.2 and got marked Exs.X1 to X3. The Eye witness was examined as PW.3. On behalf of the 2nd respondent, the 1st respondent was examined as RW.1, but, no documentary evidence was adduced.

08. Heard the arguments on both sides.

MVOP.No.139/2020 4 XIII ADJ Court,

Dt: 23.04.2026 VJA.

Issue No.1 :

09. The petitioner himself was examined as PW.1. As per his evidence, he is injured in this case. On 13.11.2019, while he was going on his Honda Activa motor cycle bearing Reg. No. AP 16 VS 2204 to go to G.Konduru, when he reached the place of occurrence, the driver of RTC bus bearing Reg.No. AP 11

Z 7417, route No. 350, drove the vehicle in a rash and negligent manner without blowing the horn or any signal and dashed him from behind, and he fell down from the motorcycle and sustained grievous injuries. Later, his son shifted him to Andhra Hospital, Gollapudi. He is under treatment in I.C.U till 19.11.2019 and later he was shifted to Railway Hospital for better treatment and thereafter shifted to Andhra Hospital, Vijayawada (Heart and Brain). He was discharged from the hospital on 22.12.2019 and spent an amount of

Rs.154,970/-, but the Railway Department reimbursed Rs.50,000/-, and he spent Rs.2 lakhs from 19.11.2019 to 22.12.2019. The total bill was Rs.

8,00,000/-. He also underwent physiotherapy treatment for 3 months and spent Rs.1,50,000/-. His son lodged a report to the police and Ibrahimpatnam registered a case No. 561/2019 U/sec. 337 IPC, and a charge sheet was filed

U/sec. 338 IPC. Therefore, he filed this petition for Rs.10 lakhs towards compensation. The 1st respondent is a driver and the 2nd respondent is the owner of the vehicle and also the insurer.

10.In order to prove the contention of petitioner, he produced Exs.A1 to A8.

Ex.A1 is the True copy of FIR, dt.15.11.2019, ExA.2 is the True copy of wound certificate, dt.22.11.2019, Ex.A3 True copy of rough sketch, Ex.A4 is xerox copy of permit of crime vehicle, Ex.A5 is xerox copy of driving licence of driver of crime vehicle, Ex.A6 is xerox copy of registration certificate of crime vehicle,

Ex.A7 is discharge summary and Ex.A8 is Attested copy of charge sheet.

11.In order to prove the contention of the petitioner, he also produced

PW.2, who provided treatment to PW.1. As per his evidence on 19.11.2019 at 4.30 p.m, the injured came to the hospital due to an R.T.A accident. The medical officer Dr. Dhramapuri Siva Kumar identified two injuries; one is

MVOP.No.139/2020 5 XIII ADJ Court,

Dt: 23.04.2026 VJA.

traumatic subarachnoid hemorrhage and the 2nd is a left temporol subdural hematoma. Both injuries are grievous in nature. They also issued a discharge certificate. Ex.X1 is an authorization letter. Ex.X2 is a case sheet and Ex.X3 is the X-ray report and C.T. brain scan report of PW.1.

12.The petitioner also produced PW.3, who is an eye witness and he categorically supported the contention to PW.1 with regard to accident and also the rash and negligent act of 1st respondent being a driver of an R.T.C bus and causing severe injuries to PW.1.

13.On behalf of the respondents, the 1st respondent was examined as

RW.1 and clearly deposed that the petitioner, being a motor cyclist, ride the motor cycle in a rash and negligent manner and dashed his bus, resulting in the injuries. There is no rash or negligent act on his part to cause an accident to the PW.1.

14.The learned counsel for 2nd respondent argued that, it is pure negligence on the part of petitioner to cause accident. At the time of accident, PW.1 aged about 63 years. Moreover, he was retired Railway Employee. Due to age factor and confusion state of mind PW.1 ride the motorcycle and dashed the

Bus and sustained injuries. But a false report was lodged by the son of PW.1 against 1st respondent without any fault. Moreover, PW.1 did not file any driving licence to show that he was possessed valid driving licence at the time of accident. Therefore, it is clearly shows that, there is negligence on the part of petitioner to cause accident. Mere fact that, RTC bus is a big vehilcle is not a paramount to consider that, 1st respondent drove R.T.C Bus with rash and negligent manner and dashed him from behind and resulting injuries to PW.1.

Therefore, the claim of the petitioner is not tenable in the eye of law.

15.The learned counsel for 2nd respondent further argued that, in this case the claim of the petitioner and interest thereon is very excessive. According to the claim of the petitioner, he spent an amount of Rs.1,54,970/- at Andhra

Hospital. But, the Railway Department reimbursed only Rs.50,000/-. But there

MVOP.No.139/2020 6 XIII ADJ Court,

Dt: 23.04.2026 VJA.

is no such proof to that effect. It is also elicited that he spent Rs.1,50,000/- towards physiotherapy. But no medical bills were filed to support his claim. In addition to that, in the chief examination of PW.2 itself, the amount incurred towards medical expenses is Rs.4,30,000/-, and the same was reimbursed by the Railway Department. Therefore, the oral testimony of PW.1 is contradictory with his own evidence, which is PW.2. In those circumstances, PW.1 is not entitled to compensation of Rs.10 lakhs towards all heads of claims. Therefore, the claim of the petitioner is not sustainable in the eye of the law. Hence, the petition is liable to be dismissed.

16.Per contra, the learned counsel for the petitioner argued that, the negligent act of 1st respondent being a driver of the bus is clearly proved by producing Exs.A1 to A8. The police also registered a case against 1st respondent and laid a charge sheet. Therefore, the presence of 1st respondent and negligent act are clearly established by the petitioner. Moreover, the 2nd respondent is the owner of the crime vehicle. The said fact was also proved by petitioner. In addition to that, the petitioner sustained fracture injuries and X- ray report was also filed under Ex.X3 by examining PW.2, who is a medical officer. Therefore, it clearly shows that the petitioner produced ample evidence with regard to the negligent act of 1st respondent to cause injuries to PW.1 at the time of the accident.

17.The learned counsel for the petitioner further argued that, the petitioner produced Exs.A1 to A8, relevant documents about the rash and negligent act of 1st respondent. As per Ex.A2 wound certificate clearly shows that, PW.1 received two grievous injuries. Ex.A4 is a permit for the vehicle. Ex.A5 is driving licence of 1st respondent. Ex.A6 is the registration certificate of the vehicle. Ex.A7 is the discharge summary and Ex. A8 is the attested copy of the charge sheet. Therefore, all aspects clearly and clinchingly proved the claim of the petitioner about receiving injuries and undergone treatment and also spending a huge amount towards medical expenses. Besides that, he has undergone physiotherapy treatment for 3 months by spending Rs.1,50,000/-.

MVOP.No.139/2020 7 XIII ADJ Court,

Dt: 23.04.2026 VJA.

As such, the petitioner is entitled to compensation. Though the PW.1 is claiming medical expenses of Rs.1,54,970/-, none of the medical bills were filed before this Court to consider his claim towards medical expenses.

Therefore, the petitioner was able to prove his claim against the respondents jointly and severally. Therefore, the petitioner can be entitled to compensation against the respondents. Accordingly, Issue No. 1 is answered in favor of the petitioner.

Issue Nos.2 & 3 :

18. Now coming to the petitioner’s claim. The petitioner is claiming

Rs.10,00,000/- under the head of compensation for continuing or permanent disability. As per Ex.A2 wound certificate, the petitioner received the following injuries: 1) traumatic sub arachnoid hemorrhage, 2) Left temporol subdural hematoma, which are grievous in nature. Hence, the petitioner entitled Rs.80,000/- (Rs.40,000/- X 2) for his grievous injuries under the head of pain and suffering. The petitioner contended that he spent an amount of

Rs.8,00,000/- towards medical expenses, but, he did not file any medical bills, hence, he is not entitle any medical expenses.

19. As seen from the record and evidence of petitioner shows that, he is retired Railway employee getting pension of Rs.19,000/- per month, as such he is getting annual income of Rs.2,28,000/-, for six months, the petitioner is getting Rs.1,14,000/-. Thus, the loss of income is fixed at Rs.1,14,000/- during medication of petitioner/PW.1 for a period of six months in view of grievous injuries sustained by petitioner.

20.For which this Court relied on a Judgment rendered in ‘New India

Assurance Co. Ltd., vs Korukonda Appa Rao and another’ [2010 ACJ

2807]. ‘For the proposition that the Tribunal can award just and

reasonable compensation on the basis of injury certificate and oral

testimony of the injured claimants in the absence of evidence of Doctor

MVOP.No.139/2020 8 XIII ADJ Court,

Dt: 23.04.2026 VJA.

when the wound certificate was marked without any objection from the

respondent’.

21.This Court also relied on a judgment reported in the case of ‘APSRTC,

Musheerabad, Hyderabad and another vs Ahamade Hussain’ 2011 (6)

ALD 323, it was held that sections 166 and 168 – compensation – for injuries sustained in accident, determination, reliance on medical certificate without claiming examining doctor issuing the same, impropriety and effect of. In the above decision, the petitioner sustained only fracture injuries but not suffered from permanent disability. Hence, the facts mentioned in the above decision are squarely applicable to the present case.

22.As per the decisions in the cases of

1.‘Sarala Verma and others Vs. Delhi Transport Corporation and another’ (2009)6 SCC 121.

2.‘Raj Kumar vs Ajay Kumar & Anr’, (2011) 1 SCC 343.

3.‘National Insurance Co. Ltd vs Pranay Sethi’, 2017 ACJ 2700 SC

4.‘Reshma Kumari & Ors vs Madan Mohan & Anr’, 2013 (II) ACC 907 (SC).

23.By keeping in view of the above observations and the judgments of the

Hon’ble Supreme Court referred supra, now the Tribunal calculated the

compensation under various heads to which the petitioner is entitled as under by considering the facts and circumstances of the case :

S.No.Nature of compensationAmount in Rs.

1.Pain and suffering50,000-00

2.For grievous injuries (2 x 40,000)80,000-00

3.Loss of earnings for six months during medication period. (Rs.19,000 X 6)1,14,000-00

4.Extra Nourishment 50,000-00

5.Transportation charges10,000-00

Total 3,04,000-00

MVOP.No.139/2020 9 XIII ADJ Court,

Dt: 23.04.2026 VJA.

As noted in the table supra, the petitioner is entitled to a total compensationamountofRs. 3,04,000/-againstRespondents

Nos.1 and 2. Therefore, this Court has no hesitation to hold that the petitioner is entitled for compensation of Rs.3,04,000- along with simple interest of 7.5% per annum thereon from the date of filing of the petition till date of realization from the respondents Nos.1 and 2 jointly and severally.

Accordingly, Issues No.2 and 3 are answered.

24. Issue No.4 : In the result,

i) This petition is partly allowed with proportionate costs in favour of the petitioner awarding compensation of Rs.3,04,000/- with costs and interest thereon @ 7.5% per annum from the date of petition till the date of realization against the respondent Nos.1 and 2 jointly and severally; ii) Rest of the petitioner’s claim is dismissed; iii) The respondent Nos.1 and 2 are directed to deposit the said compensation amount along with interest and costs into Court within one month from the date of this order; iv) On such deposit, the petitioner is permitted to withdraw the total amount of compensation of Rs.3,04,000/- along with costs and interest;

v) The Advocate fee is fixed at Rs.2,000/-.

Typed to my dictation by the Stenographer Gr.III directly on computer, corrected and pronounced by me in the open Court, this the 23rd day of April, 2026.

Sd/- D.Seshayya,

CHAIRMAN : MOTOR ACCIDENT CLAIMS

TRIBUNAL CUM XIII ADDL. DISTRICT &

SESSIONS JUDGE AT VIJAYAWADA.

MVOP.No.139/2020 10 XIII ADJ Court,

Dt: 23.04.2026 VJA.

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

Witnesses examined

For Petitioner: For Respondents :

P.W.1 :Madepalli Bala SwamyRW.1: Banoth Kondaiah P.W.2 :Dr.P.Nava Kiran :T.Deepak Kumar P.W.3

Documents marked

For Petitioner :

Ex.A1:True copy of FIR, dated 15.11.2019.

Ex.A2:True copy of wound certificate, dated 22.12.2019.

Ex.A3:True copy of rough sketch, dated 15.11.2019.

Ex.A4:Xerox copy of permit of crime vehicle.

Ex.A5: Xerox copy of driving licence of the driver of crime vehicle.

Ex.A6:Xerox copy of Registration certificate of crime vehicle.

Ex.A7:Original discharge summary.

Ex.A8: Attested copy of charge sheet.

For 2 nd Respondent: -Nil-

On behalf of 3 rd party:

Ex.X1:Authorization letter

Ex.X2:Case sheet report

Ex.x3:X-Ray report and CT Brain Scan report and blood investigation report.

Sd/- D.Seshayya,

CHAIRMAN : MOTOR ACCIDENT CLAIMS

TRIBUNAL CUM XIII ADDL. DISTRICT &

SESSIONS JUDGE AT VIJAYAWADA.