Smt E.Tirumala Devi, MSc. LL.M

IN THE COURT OF SPL.JUDGE FOR TRIAL OF CASES UNDER SCs/STs

(PoA) ACT AT NIZAMABAD

Present:- Smt. E. Tirumala Devi Spl. Judge for trial of cases under SCs/STs (PoA) Act, Nizamabad

Tuesday, the 25th day of October 2016

SESSIONS CASE No.147 of 2016

(PRC No.14 of 2016 on the file of Addl. Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Armoor - Cr.No.05/2016 of PS Jakranpally)

1. Name of the complainant The State through Circle Inspector of Police Dichpally

2. Name of the accused Ollepu Narsaiah S/o Mallaiah, age 32 years, caste: Waddera, Occ: Labourer, r/o Balnagar camp, Secundrapoor village of Jakranpally mandal, Dist Nizamabad.

3. Offences 302 IPC

4. Plea of accused Not guilty

5. Finding of the Judge Found guilty

6. Prosecution conducted Addl. Public Prosecutor, Nizamabad by

7. Accused defended by Sri C. Devidas, advocate for accused

8. Sentence or Order The accused is found guilty for the charge under section 302 IPC and accordingly he is convicted therefor u/s 235(2) Cr.P.C. for the offence under section 302 IPC the accused is sentenced to undergo imprisonment for life and to pay fine of Rs.500/- (Rupees five hundred), in default of payment of fine, to undergo simple imprisonment for one month. The remand period i.e. from 18.01.2016 till the date of judgment shall be given set off against the period of imprisonment under section 428 Cr.P.C. M.Os 1 to 8 shall be destroyed after expiry of appeal time.

This case coming up this day for hearing before me for hearing on 18-10-2016 in the presence of Addl. Public Prosecutor for the State and that of Sri C. Devidas, advocate for the accused and having stood over for consideration to this day the Court delivered the following.

2 SC 147-2016

J U D G M E N T

The Circle Inspector of Police, Dichpally, laid the charge sheet against accused for the offence under sections 302 IPC in crime

No.05/2016 of PS. Dichpally.

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

On 15.01.2016 at 0800 hours, the complainant Ollepu

Venkati, younger brother of the deceased (PW.1) went to the PS

Dichpally and lodged a complaint stating that his elder brother namely Ollepu Malliah (since deceased) is having two daughters and one son. His elder brother’s son Ollepu Narsaiah (accused) used to wander here and there without doing any work and every day he used to quarrel with his deceased brother for want of money. It is further alleged that on 15.01.2016 at 2.20 a.m. Irgadindla Yellappa of Balnagar camp informed him that he had heard the noise of quarrelling of the accused with the deceased hence he went and saw the accused beating with one hammer (Sutti) on the head of the deceased and when he had asked the accused as to what had happened, then the accused pushed him aside and fled away from the scene with the hammer. On that, he (PW.1) along with his sons

Narsaiah and Venkat rushed to the hut of his deceased brother and found the deceased died due to head injury. Later, they searched

for the accused, but could not trace him. Hence, requested for

necessary action against A1.

On complaint from de facto complainant, P. Sridhar Goud, SI of Police P.S. Jakranpally (PW.13) registered the case in crime

No.05/2016 for the offence under section 302 IPC and sent FIRs to all the concerned. The further investigation was taken up by H.

3 SC 147-2016

Venkateshwarlu, Circle Inspector of Police, Dichpally (PW.15) and verified the investigation done by PW.13 and found on correct line.

During the course of investigation the statements of Ollepu Venkati, complainant (PW.1), Ollepu Venkati (PW.2), Ollepu Narsaiah (PW.3),

Irgadindla Yellappa (PW.4) and Ethari Komuraiah (LW.5) were recorded. Scene of offence panchanama was conducted in the presence of mediators Komire Raju (PW.10) and Badasu Mallesh (LW.11) and drew rough sketch of the scene and recovered blood stained earth, control earth, bloodstained cream colour woolen blanket and bloodstained red colour towel from the scene and got taken the photographs of the scene with the help of A. Yadagiri, PC 51 (PW.14) and held inquest in the presence of same mediators and got the photographs of the dead body. The deadbody was subjected for post mortem examination. Later, he proceeded to Community

Health Centre, Armoor, and secured the presence of Bodasu

Shankar (PW.10) and Gunje Ganga Narsaiah (LW.11) and seized bloodstained full hands white colour shirt, bloodstained white colour

Dhoti with maroon colour linings on it and bloodstained cream clolour cotton banyan under cover of seizure panchanama. Dr. A.

Amar Bushan, CAS, Community Health Centre, Armoor (PW.12) held autopsy over the deadbody of the deceased.

On 16-01-2016, PW.15 proceeded to Balnagar camp and recorded the statements of Dhyarangula Kavitha (PW.5) and Smt.

Pitla Mallamma (PW.6). On 18.01.2016, the accused was apprehended and on interrogation, he confessed to have committed the offence in the presence of Puli Satyanandam (PW.11) and

Venkat Venugopal Rao (Lw15) and seized bloodstained half black and ash colour linings T-Shirt and bloodstained blue & yellow colour 4 SC 147-2016 with black linings lungi and then accused No.1 led the police and panchas and produced bloodstained hammer from the agricultural fields of Errolla Sayanna and the same were seized under cover of panchanama and the arrest of the accused was effected and he was sent for judicial remand.

On 3.05.2016, PW.15 has received Final opinion from PW.12 opining that the cause of death of the deceased was due to Head injury. After completion of investigation, PW.15 filed charge sheet against the accused.

3. The learned Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Armoor, taken the case on file as PRC No.14/2016 under sections 302 IPC against the accused. The learned Magistrate after following the due procedure contemplated under section 209 committed the case to the Court of

Session Nizamabad Division Nizamabad. The Sessions Court took the case so committed to it on its file and numbered as SC 147/2016 and made over the same to this Court for trial.

4. After hearing the learned Additional Public Prosecutor and the learned advocate for accused and on consideration of the record, charge under section 302 IPC was framed against the accused, read over and explained to him to which, he pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried.

5. To prove its case the prosecution has examined Pw1 to Pw15 and marked Ex.P1 to P14 and MOs 1 to 10.

Pw1 Ollepu Venkati is the complainant and younger brother of the deceased. Pw2 Ollepu Venkati, Pw3 Ollepu Narsaiah are circumstantial witnesses. Pw4 Irgandindla Yellappa is the alleged 5 SC 147-2016 eyewitness. Pw5 Smt. Dhyarangula Kavitha and PW.6 Smt. Pitla

Mallamma are the daughters of the deceased. PW.7 Ajmeera Adavi

Raj is the witness and Smt. Ollepu Nagalaxmi @ Savithri is the wife of the accused. PW.9 Komire Raju is the panch witness for scene of offence panchanama and inquest. PW.10 Bodasu Shankar is panch for recovery of clothes of deceased at the Hospital. PW11 Puli

Satyanandam is the pach for confession and recovery. Pw12 Dr. A.

Amar Bushan, CAS, who conducted autopsy over the deadbody of the deceased. Pw13 P. Sridhar Goud, SI of Police, IO and issued

FIR. PW.14 A. Yadagiri, PC, took the photographs of scene and the dead body. PW.15 H. Venkateshwarlu, Circle Inspector of Police is the investigating officer.

Ex.P1 is the complaint. Ex.P2 is 161 Cr.P.C. statement of

PW.5. Ex.P3 is 161 Cr.P.C. statement of PW.6. Ex.P4 is scene of offence panchanama. Ex.P5 is the crime details form. Ex.P6

Inquest panchanama. Ex.P7 is Seizure panchanama of MOs 3 to 5.

Ex.P8 is the relevant portion in the confession-cum-recovery panchanama of clothes of the accused. Ex.P9 is the recovery panchanama of MO.8. Ex.P10 is the post mortem report. Ex.P11 is the FIR. Ex.P12 is set of (4) photographs. Ex.P13 is the requisition for recording 164 statement of PW.4. Ex.P14 is the FSL report.

MO-1 is the red colour towel with stripes. MO-2 is one bed sheet cream colour with maroon colour flowers. MO-3 is white colour full hands shirt. MO-4 is white colour dhoti. MO5 is the cream colour banyan. MO-6 is one bloodstained lungi blue in colour. MO.7 is one black and ash colour bloodstained T-Shirt. MO-8 is the bloodstained hammer. MO-9 is bloodstained earth and MO.10 is control earth.

6 SC 147-2016

6. After closure of the prosecution evidence the accused was examined under section 313 Cr.P.C. He denied the incriminating material against them in the evidence of prosecution witnesses and stated that the case is false and he does not know anything about this case and forcibly made him to confess and that he has no defence evidence.

7. Heard the learned Addl. PP and learned advocate for the accused.

8. Now the point for determination is:

Whether the prosecution is able to establish that the accused committed the offence and that he is liable for the charge beyond reasonable doubt?

POINT:

9. The accused stands charged before me for the offence under sections 302 IPC.

10. The epitome of the evidence led by the prosecution in brief is as follows:

11. PW-1/Ollepu Venkati deposed that the deceased is his elder brother and the accused is the son of the deceased. Lw4/I.Yellappa is the neighbor of the deceased. His brother Ollepu Mallaiah died on the eve of Sankranthi i.e., on the intervening night of 14/15-1-2016 and around 7 a.m. on 15-1-2016 Lw4 came to him and informed about the death of his brother. Immediately, he went there and saw that the dead body of his brother was lying with bleeding injuries on the forehead and eyes. The deceased and the accused used to live together but there were some disturbances. He further deposed that he gave complaint to the police, Ex.P1.

7 SC 147-2016

In the cross-examination he stated that he does not know the contents of Ex.P1 and that he does not know anything about the alleged offence.

12. PW-2/Ollepu Venkati deposed that, the deceased is his elder paternal uncle and the accused is his cousin brother. On 15.1.2016 at 6.30 a.m. Lw4 I. Yellappa came to their house and informed about the death of the deceased saying that the accused beat the deceased to death. Immediately they went to the house of the deceased and saw that the deceased was lying with bleeding injuries on head and face. He further deposed that the accused used to drink and wander around and never used to do any work. He used to quarrel with his wife very often and his wife left his society long back. The accused has two daughters and a son and all of them used to live together with the deceased. The deceased and the accused used to quarrel every now and then.

In the cross-examination he stated that occasionally he used to visit the deceased and he does not know their daily affairs.

13. PW-3/Ollepu Narsaiah deposed that the deceased is his elder paternal uncle and the accused is his cousin brother. Lw4/I.Yellappa is the neighbor of his deceased uncle. His uncle died 8 months ago.

On 15-1-2016 at 6.30 a.m. Lw.4 came to their house and informed that the accused beat the deceased to death and immediately they rushed to their house and saw the dead body of the deceased lying with bleedings injuries on head and face. He further deposed that the accused was not there and that the accused used to work now and then and he has a wife and three children and that his wife left 8 SC 147-2016 him 6 months prior to his death as he used to quarrel with her very often.

In the cross-examination, he denied the suggestion that LW.4 has not informed about the alleged incident and that he did not see the dead body.

14. Pw4/Irgadindla Yellappa deposed that the accused is the son of the deceased. Their house is adjacent to that of him. He knows

Pw1 to 3. Around many months ago, one night he heard some big noise and went into the hut of the deceased and saw that he was beaten to death with a hammer by the accused and the accused was leaving the hut. He saw that the deceased is lying on the ground with bleeding injuries on head. At around 6 a.m. he went and informed the Pw1 and his family about the incident. He further deposed that the accused was in the habit of drinking and used to work occasionally and his wife left him long back as he quarrelled with her. He further deposed that Mallaiah(deceased) used to work.

The deceased and the accused used to quarrel very often.

In thecross-examination he stated that there is not much distance between his hut and the hut of the deceased and as he stood in front of their hut, he saw the accused coming out of the hut after hitting the deceased. There was a small bulb in their house which was lighted and his house also has a bulb which was lighted during that hour. He denied the suggestion that he did not hear any noise and that he did not wake up and go out and that he did not see the alleged incident and that he did not see the accused running away. He saw the accused running away from the scene of offence and out of fear; he returned to his hut and slept. In the morning, he went into the hut and saw the deceased and then informed his 9 SC 147-2016 relatives. He denied the suggestion that he is deposing false at the instance of Police.

15.Pw5/Smt. Dhyrangula Kavitha deposed that the deceased is her father and the accused is her brother. Her father died on the eve of Sankranti this year. The wife of Pw2 informed her about the death of her father. She went and saw the deadbody of her father with bleeding injury on the eye. She was declared hostile as she did not support the case of the prosecution. In her cross-examination she denied the suggestion that she stated before the police as in

Ex.P2 and that she is deposing false to save her brother/accused.

16. Pw6/Smt. Pitla Mallamma deposed that the deceased is her father and the accused is her brother. Her father died on the eve of

Sankranti this year. PW.1 informed her about the death of her father. She went and attended the funeral but his brother was not present at that time. She further deposed that her brother’s wife left her brother four months prior to the incident after quarrelling with her brother. She was declared hostile as she did not support the case of the prosecution. In her cross-examination she denied the suggestion that she stated before the police as in Ex.P3 and that she is deposing false to save her brother/accused.

17. Pw7: Ajmeera Adavi Raju deposed that he runs a hotel at Ganya thanda. Around few months ago one day at 4.00 am the accused came to his hotel and had tea and went away. After that, he came to know that the father of the accused is killed. He came to know that the accused killed his father. Subsequently police came and enquired about the whereabouts of the accused and he stated to the police that if the accused comes to his hotel again, he shall call them. After two days the accused 10 SC 147-2016 came to his hotel again for having tea, on which, he called the police and informed them. The police came down and apprehended the accused. The witness identified the accused present in the court hall.

In his cross-examination he denied the suggestion that he had not seen the accused at any time and that he is deposing false at the instance of the police.

18.Pw8: Smt. Ollepu Nagalaxmi @ Savithri deposed that the deceased is her father-in-law. The accused is her husband. Pw1 is the brother of her father-in-law. She knows Pw4. The accused used to quarrel with her and the deceased very often in a drunken condition and so she left him and went to her parents’ place. Her father-in-law died on Sankranthi day. The police, Jakranpally informed her about the death of her father-in-law saying that her husband killed the deceased. She went there and saw the dead body with injuries on the head and eyes and that the accused was not there at the time of funeral. I went back to my parents place after the funeral. Her son used to live with the deceased and the accused while two of her daughters were living with her. She came to know through the local people that her husband killed her father- in-law. She further deposed that she questioned her son and he replied that her husband killed her father-in-law by hitting him with a hammer. She further deposed that her husband never used to work and was an alcoholic. He always used to pester her father-in- law and her for money and that unable to bare the harassment, she left his society along with her two daughters. On the day of alleged incident her husband has asked for money but her father-in-law did not give him and so her husband went furious and beat him with a hammer.

11 SC 147-2016

19.Pw9: Komire Raju deposed that, on 15-1-2016 police conducted scene of offence panchanama and drawn rough sketch in his presence and in the presence of Lw11/Mallesh. Ex.P4 is scene of offence panchanama cum seizure panchanama, Ex.P5 is Crime details form. He also deposed that police seized one towel red in colour with stripes, (MO-1) and one bed sheet cream colour with maroon colour flowers (MO-2). The witness identified MOs 1 and 2 and also the signatures on Ex.P4 and P5 and thereafter the dead body was sent to Govt Hospital and police conducted Inquest panchanama, Ex.P6 in their presence. The witness identified his signature on Ex.P6. He further deposed that he saw the injuries on head and face of the deceased.

In his cross-examination he denied the suggestion that he is a stock witness to the police. He stated that he has signed after the papers were drafted and read over to him. He denied the suggestion that the police have not conducted any panchanama and

Inquest in his presence and that no material objects were seized by the police.

20.Pw10: Bodasu Shankar deposed that on 15-1-2016, he was called by Jakranpally Police to the post mortem room at Armoor along with Lw13/Ganga Narsaiah. He further deposed that in their presence police seized white colour full hands shirt (MO-3), white colour dhoti (MO-4), Cream colour Banian(MO-5). Ex.P7 is the seizure panchanama of the clothes of the deceased under MOs3 to

5. The witness identified, MOs 3 to 5 and his signature on Ex.P7.

12 SC 147-2016

In his cross-examination he denied the suggestion that the police have not conducted any panchanama and have not seized any material objects in his presence.

21.Pw.P11: Pulli Satyanandam, VRO, deposed that on 18.1.2016, he was called by the C.I of Police to one hotel of Adavi Raju (Pw7) at Ganya thanda along with Lw15/Venugopal Rao. At the instance of police, he questioned the accused by taking him aside and the accused has confessed to have committed the offence. He further deposed that the police have seized one bloodstained Lungi blue in colour (MO-6) and one black and ash colour blood stained T-Shirt (MO-7) which were worn by the accused. The witness identified

MO-6 and 7. He further deposed that, following his confession the accused led them to a bush by the side of N.H.No.7: 44 near the fields of one Errolla Sayanna and had shown a bloodstained hammer(MO-8) which was hidden in the bushes and that the police seized MO-8. The relevant portion of confession cum recovery panchanama of the clothes of the accused is Ex.P8 and the recovery panchanama of MO-8 is Ex.P9. The witness identified his signatures on Ex.P8 and P9 and also the material objects. The witness identified the accused present in the Court hall.

In the cross-examination he denied the suggestion that he is a stock witness to the police and that no bloodstained clothes were seized from the body of the accused and that the police did not give him (accused) another pair of clothes and that MO-8 is also not recovered at the instance of accused. He denied the suggestion that the accused never confessed in his presence and that no material objects were recovered from him.

13 SC 147-2016

22.Pw12: Dr. K. Amar Bhushan, CAS, Govt. Hospital, Armoor, deposed that on 15.1.2016 on the requisition from Police, Armoor, he conducted autopsy over the dead body of Ollepu Mallaiah and issued post-mortem examination report under Ex.P10 and the cause of death was due to cardio respiratory arrest as a result of head injury. He further deposed that the injuries found on the dead body are possible if beaten with MO.8.

In his cross-examination he denied the suggestion that such injuries are possible if a person falls from a height and that he issued Ex.P10 at the instance of police without conducting Post

Mortem Examination.

23.Pw13: Sridhar Goud, SI of Police, deposed that basing on the complaint of PW.1 under Ex.P1, he registered the FIR as a case in

Cr.No.5/2016, Ex.P11 and after that he had handed over the file to

Venkateshwarlu, CI of Police. In his cross-examination he stated that Ex.P1 was given at 8 a.m.

24. Pw.14: A. Yadagiri, constable, deposed that on 15.1.2016 on the instructions of his SI and CI, he had taken the photographs of the dead body of Ollepu Narsaiah and Ex.P12 is set of (4) photographs. He further deposed that he shifted the dead body to the Hospital.

In his cross-examination he denied the suggestion that he has not taken the photographs and that he is deposing false at the instance of his officers.

25. PW.15, H.Venakateshwarlu, C.I of police, PS Dichpally, deposed that on 15.1.2016 he received file from PW.13 and 14 SC 147-2016 commenced investigation. He further deposed that, he went to the scene of offence and recorded the statements of PWs 1 to 4 and

LW.5/E. Kmoraiah and conducted scene of offence panchanama in the presence of PW.9 and LW.11/B. Mallesh and seized MOs1 and 2, and blood stained earth and control earth MOs 9 and 10. After that, he conducted inquest and seized the clothes of the deceased MOs 3 to 5 and got the photographs Ex.P12 through PW.14. On 16.1.2016, he went to Balanagar camp and recorded the statements of PWs5 and 6. On 18.1.2016, he apprehended the accused and produced

before the Court. He further deposed that in the presence of Pw11

and LW.15 V. Venugopal Rao, the accused had confessed to have committed the offence. He further deposed that following confession of accused, they have seized the bloodstained clothes of accused MOs 6 and 7 and he led them to the field of one Yerrolla

Sayanna and at the instance of accused, seized a hammer/MO.8 from the bushes, and a jute bag/MO-13. After that, the accused was arrested and produced before the Court for remand. On 19.1.2016, on his requisition, the JMFC recorded 164 Cr.P.C.

statement of PW.4, Ex.P13. He further deposed that he sent the material objects to FSL and collected the report, Ex.P14 and also

P.M.E report and after completion of investigation, he filed charge sheet.

In his cross-examination he stated that on the day of the incident, the deceased, accused and the son of accused were together in the house, and as the son of the accused was 3 years old, he did not record his statement. He denied the suggestion that

PW.4 had not stated anything about the offence and that his 164

Cr.P.C. statement was not recorded. He denied the suggestion that 15 SC 147-2016 he had not visited the scene of offence and not conducted scene of offence panchanama, inquest and that not seized any material objects and that accused never confessed the offence and no material objects were seized following his confession and that the accused was falsely implicated.

24. The learned Addl Public Prosecutor has submitted that it is a gruesome murder committed by a son killing his own father and that the prosecution could prove the case by the evidence of PWs 1 to

14. He further submitted that the accused was an irresponsible person being an alcoholic, never used to work and harass his father and wife for want of money and that is why, wife of the accused left him six months prior to the incident and that the accused continued living with the deceased. The accused in a drunken condition beat his own father with a hammer resulting in the death of the deceased. PW.4 is the eyewitness who saw the accused running away from the scene of offence and PW.4 informed the relatives of the deceased i.e. PW.1 and his family about the incident. PW.7 is the hotel owner who saw the accused at 4.00 a.m. as he had tea at his hotel and went away. PW.7 has also identified the accused in the Court hall and the evidence of PW.8 corroborates the evidence of PWs 1 to 14. The recovery of hammer used in the commission of offence at the instance of the accused, proves that the accused has committed the offence and has, therefore, prayed this Court to convict the accused.

25. The learned defence counsel for the accused has submitted that PW.1 has stated that he does not know the contents of the complaint and that PWs 5 and 6 have not supported the prosecution 16 SC 147-2016 case and that there are many variations in the statements of witnesses. He further submitted that PW.8 has stated that, her son was present on the day of alleged incident along with the accused and the deceased in the same hut but the police have not examined the boy and his presence is also not brought on record. He further submitted that the evidence of the boy is crucial which the prosecution failed to adduce and that the PW.11 is a stock witness to the prosecution and that the prosecution could not prove the offence beyond all reasonable doubt against the accused and, has, therefore prayed to acquit the accused.

26. Perused the evidence on record, PW.4 is the neighbor of the deceased. He used to live in the adjacent house of the deceased and many months ago, one night he heard a big noise and went into the hut of the deceased and saw that the deceased was beaten to death with a hammer and the accused was leaving the hut. He saw that the deceased had a bleeding injury on the head. On the next morning at 6 a.m. he went and informed PW.1, who is the brother of the deceased, and his family. It is also elicited through his evidence that the accused is the son of the deceased and that the deceased

Mallaiah used to work and maintain the family; while the accused was an alcoholic and there were quarrels between the accused and the deceased very often. In his cross-examination there was nothing much to discredit his evidence. It is further elicited that he saw the deceased running away from the scene of offence and so, out of fear, he returned to his hut and slept and that only on the next morning he went and informed the family of PW.1 17 SC 147-2016

27. PW.1 is the brother of the deceased. Through his evidence it is elicited that PW.4 has informed him about the death of the deceased at around 7.00 a.m. on 15.1.2016. Immediately, PW.1 went and saw the dead body and noticed that there was bleeding injury on the forehead and eyes. It is also elicited through his evidence that the deceased and accused lived together but there were some disturbances. He went and gave the complaint to the police under Ex.P1. In his cross-examination he stated that he does not know the contents of Ex.P1 and that he does not know anything about the alleged offence.

28. The evidence of PWs 2 and 3 runs in corroboration with that of

PW.1 to the extent that PW.4 came and informed about the death of the deceased. In addition to that, it is elicited that the accused used to drink, wander around and that he never used to work. PW.2 has specifically stated that he used to quarrel with his wife very often and the wife of the accused left him long back, that the accused and deceased used to quarrel very often. The evidence of PW.3 runs in corroboration with the evidence of PW.2. In addition to that he has stated that accused was not there at the scene of offence when they went to see the dead body.

29. PW.8 is the wife of the accused. Her evidence reveals that their son lived with the deceased and the accused and her daughters live with her. She came to know through local people that her husband killed her father-in-law. When she questioned her son, he stated to her that the accused killed the deceased by hitting him with a hammer. It is also elicited that the accused was an alcoholic and pestered her and the deceased for money very often and unable 18 SC 147-2016 to bear the harassment, she left his society. It is her evidence that her son informed her that the accused asked for money but the deceased did not heed to his request and so, the accused went furious and beat him with a hammer on the ill-fated day. In her cross-examination she admitted that she has not stated to the police that her son has informed about the incident. The evidence of

PW.15, the Investigating Officer, reveals that he has not recorded the statement of the son of the accused and PW.8, because the boy was only three years old.

Though the defence counsel has raised the point that non- examination of the boy i.e. son of the accused is fatal to the prosecution. It is opined that examining the child witness of three year old, is not proper and that even without the evidence of the boy, there is enough evidence on record to connect the accused with the crime.

30. PW.9 is the panch witness for the scene of offence panchanama. Through his evidence Ex.P4 i.e. scene of offence panchanama and Ex.P5, crime details form and also the seizure of

MOs 1 and 2 at the scene of offence are proved. PW.10 is the panch witness for the seizure of clothes of the deceased i.e. MOs 3 to 5 under Ex.P7.

31. PW.7 is the hotel owner at Ganya thanda. It is elicited through his evidence that few months ago; at 4.00 a.m. the accused came to his hotel, had tea and went away. He came to know later that the accused has killed his (accused) father and when police enquired about the accused, he had informed them that whenever he sees the accused again, he would pass on the information and it 19 SC 147-2016 is after two days, that the accused came again to his hotel and thereby PW.7 informed the police, who came there and apprehended the accused. PW.7 has identified the accused in the

Court hall.

32. Pw11 is panch witness for confession and recovery. The seizure of bloodstained clothes of the accused i.e. MOs 6 and 7 is proved through his evidence. Following the confession, the accused led PW.11 along with police to the fields of one Yerrolla Sayanna wherein he has produced MO.8 hammer hidden in the bushes and which was seized in the presence of PW.11 by the police. Ex.P8 and

P9 are relevant portions of recovery panchanamas.

33. PW12 is the doctor who conducted autopsy over the dead body and issued postmortem examination report under Ex.P10. As per the postmortem examination, the cause of death is cardio respiratory arrest as a result of head injury. He also deposed that the injuries found on the dead body are possible if beaten by MO.8.

35. The evidence of PWs 1 to 4 and 8 prove the previous and subsequent conduct of the accused previous conduct as elicited through these witnesses shows that he used to frequently quarrel with the deceased for want of money. It is due to the said quarrels for want of money, that PW.8 left his society four months prior to the alleged incident. The evidence of PW.4 clearly shows that he saw the accused running away from the scene of offence. The arguments of learned Public Prosecutor that the deceased being the father of the accused, he (accused) has no other reason to run away from the scene but to escape which gains strength in this regard.

Accused was not there when the other relatives went to see the 20 SC 147-2016 dead body. PWs 3 and 8 stated the same, and PW.8 has specifically stated that accused was absent at the funeral. The evidence of

PW.7 shows that the accused went to his hotel at 4.00 a.m. i.e.

after running away from the scene of offence he went to the hotel of

PW.7 and had tea. It is after two days the accused came again and on the information given by PW.7, the police have apprehended and following the confession of PW.7, MO.8/hammer was recovered and the doctor evidence proves that the injuries found on the dead body are possible if beaten by MO.8/hammer. Thus the evidence shows that the chain of events are so closely linked that they point out at the accused to have committed the offence and no one else. The accused might not have entertained the intention to kill his father, but the seat of injury, weapon used and gravity of the injury show that he has committed the act knowing that such injury is likely to cause the death of the deceased, therefore he is convicted.

36. In the result, the accused is found guilty for the charge under section 302 IPC and is convicted therefor under section 235(1)

Cr.P.C.

Partly typed to my dictation and partly dictated to Stenographer, transcribed by him, corrected and pronounced by me in open court on this the 25 th day of October 2016.

Special Sessions Judge, for trial of cases, under SCs/STs (PoA) Act, Nizamabad

The accused is heard under section 235(2) Cr.P.C. regarding sentence.

The accused stated to take a lenient view saying that he has small children. Having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case, for the offence under section 302 IPC the accused is sentenced 21 SC 147-2016 to undergo imprisonment for life and to pay fine of Rs.500/- (Rupees five hundred), in default of payment of fine, to undergo simple imprisonment for one month. The remand period i.e. from 18.01.2016 till the date of judgment shall be given set off against the period of imprisonment under section 428 Cr.P.C. M.Os 1 to 10 shall be destroyed after expiry of appeal time.

Accused is intimated about the right of appeal and that he can seek for legal aid if he does not have sufficient means.

-:: APPENDIX OF EVIDNECE ::- Witnesses examined For prosecution For defence

Pw1 Ollepu Venkati -None- Pw2 Ollepu Venkati Pw3 Ollepu Narsaiah Pw4 Irgadindla Yellappa Pw5 Smt.Dhyrangula Kavitha Pw6 Smt.Pitla Mallamma Pw7 Ajmeera Adavi Raj Pw8 Smt.Ollepu Nagalaxmi @ Savithri Pw9 Komire Raju Pw10 Bodasu Shankar Pw11 Puli Satyanandam Pw12 Dr.Amar Bhushan Pw13 P.Sridhar Goud Pw14 A.Yadagiri Pw15 H.Venkateshwarlu,C.I.P P.Dichpally

Exhibits marked

Ex.P1 Complaint Ex.P2 Portion of 161 Cr.P.C statement of Pw5 Ex.P3 Portion of 161 Cr.P.C statement of Pw6 Ex.P4 Scene of offence panchanama cum seizure panchanama Ex.P5 Crime Detail form Ex.P6 Inquest panchanama Ex.P7 Seizure panchanama of the clothes of the deceased 22 SC 147-2016

Ex.P8 The relevant portion of confession cum recovery panchanama of the clothes of the accused Ex.P9 Recovery panchanama of MO-8 Ex.P10 Post Mortem Report Ex.P11 First Information Report Ex.P12 Photographs (4) Ex.P13 Requisition for recording 164 Statement of PW.4 Ex.P14 FSL report. Material objects marked

MO-1 One Towel red in colour with strips MO-2 One bed sheet cream colour with maroon colour flowers MO-3 White colour full hands shirt MO-4 White colour dhothi MO-5 Cream colour Banian MO-6 One blood stained Lungi blue in colour MO-7 One black and ash colour blood stained T-Shirt MO-8 Blood stained Hammer MO-9 Blood stained earth MO-10 Control earth

Special Sessions Judge, for trial of cases, under SCs/STs (PoA) Act, Nizamabad

IN THE COURT OF THE MOTOR ACCIDENT CLAIMS TRIBUNAL

(III ADDL. DIST. JUDGE) AT NIZAMABAD

Present:- Smt.E.Tirumala Devi,M.Sc.LL.M., Spl.Judge for trial of cases, Under SCs/STs (PoA) Act-cum- VIII ADJ), Nizamabad FAC:III ADJ, Nizamabad.

Dated this the 21st day of February, 2014

OP No.351 of 2006

Between:

Bandari Srinivas, S/o yellaiah, aged anout 18 years, occ: Agriculture and business, R/o Pakpatla village, mandal District, Adilabad, Now residing at Balkonda village, District,Nizamabad.

..Petitioner

and

1.G.Gangareddy, S/o Ganganna, aged Major, Occ; Owner of the lorry bearing No. Ail 3219 R/o H.No. 4-71 Boregaon (p) village Nizamabad 503001 AP.

2.The United India Insurance company Ltd represented by its Divisional Manager Divisional Office, PO Box No. 313, Godown road, Nizamabad 503001 AP. (vide police No. 050700/31/05/01623 valid from 8-10-2005 to 7-10-2006)

3. Syed Iqbal S/o Syed Gafoor, aged major Occ: Owner of the lorry bearing No. CG-04-G-3294 R/o Nagnoor road Yawathamal post & District MS 445001.

4. National Insurance company Ltd represented by its Manager 10 Wardhamannagar Old Banda road, Nagpoor Ms 440 008( vide insurance policy No. 281/108/31/6300006346 valid from 11-08-2005 to 9-03-2006.

..Respondents

This petition coming 9-1-2014 before me for hearing in the presence of Sri. G.Prakash, advocate for petitioner, and of Smt.A.KavithaReddy, Advocate for respondent No.2 and of Sri. Muti- Ur-Rahman, Advocate for respondent No.4 and the respondents No1&3 remained set ex-parte and the matter having stood over for consideration till this day, this Tribunal made the following:

O R D E R

1. This is a petition filed by the petitioner under section 166(1)(a) of Motor vehicles act claiming compensation of Rs.50,000/- for the injuries sustained by him in a road accident.

2. That the averments of the petition are as follows:

2 OP 351,2006 That the petitioner is doing agriculture and business, was earning a sum of Rs. 10,000/- per month. The injured met with a motor accident on 08-12-2005 at about 10.00 p.m. and sustained fractures and injuries and got permanent disability. At the time of the accident the petitioner as owner of the goods i.e. paddy etc was travelling along with others in lorry bearing No. AIL 3219 proceeding towards their village and when the lorry reached the outskirts of

Nallur village at about 10.00 p.m. on 8-12-2005 and another lorry bearing No. CG-04-G-3294 was coming in the opposite directions and both the drivers of the lorries drove their lorries at high speed in a rash and negligent manner due to which there was head on collusion between the lorries culminating in the accident resulting in multiple and grievous injuries to petitioner and others. Immediately the petitioner was shifted to Nursing Home, Nizamabad and was treated by Medical Officer and Ortho surgeon. So far the petitioner has incurred an amount of Rs.30,000/- towards medical expenditure and special diet and attendant. As such P.S. Balkonda has registered a case in F.I.R. NO.148 of 2005 and it is pending before the

Honourable J.F.C.M at Armoor. That the respondent No.1 is the

owner of the lorry bearing No. AIL 3219 and the respondent No.2 is the driver the said lorry and the respondent No.3 is owner of the lorry bearing No. CG-04-G-3294 and the respondent No.4 is the insurer, as such all the respondent are liable to pay compensation to the petitioner jointly and severally.

3) The respondent No. 2 filed written statement. The averments in the written statement filed by respondent No. 2 are as follows:

“It is denied that the deceased is aged about 18 years and was earning Rs.10,000/- per month from agriculture cum business, and he was hale and healthy at the time of the accident, however the petitioners are put to strict proof of the same. That the petitioners put to strict proof that they have not filed any claim 3 OP 351,2006 petition in any Tribunal or any where in India except this claiming compensation in respect of this alleged accident. This respondent No.2 company has not received report in form No. 54 as per section .158(6) of M.V.Act as amended (vide Act.No. 54/94

W.e.f., 14-11-1994) from the concerned police officer or from the officer in charge of police station within 30 days from the date of accident. Therefore the respondent No.2 company does not admit the occurrence of the accident and involvement of the petitioner.

Hence the petitioners are put to strict proof of the same. It is denied that the respondent No.2 company does not admit that at the time of accident the petitioner was travelling with others in lorry bearing

No. AIL 3219 proceeding from Nizamabad to Pakpatla village, when the lorry reached the outskirts of Nallur village at about 10 p.m. on 8-12-2005 suddenly the said lorry driven by its driver in high speed and lost control over it and gave dash to another lorry bearing No.

CG-04-G-3294 which was coming in the opposite direction, as a result of it the petitioner and other inmates of the said lorry received fractures and injuries and that the petitioner was shifted to Govt.

Hospital, Nizamabad and the medical officer and other team of doctors treated the petitioner. It is also denied that prior to the accident the petitioner was hale and healthy and he was a farmer cum business man and he was earning Rs.10,000/- per month, and his entire earnings were contributed to the family. It is further submitted that at the time of accident as per the police record total ten persons were traveling in the lorry as unauthorized passengers, and there is delay in lodging complaint before the police, thus it is crystal clear that in both the lorries there are ten unauthorized passengers traveling at the time of alleged accident which is against the MV Act, rules and Insurance Company Policy terms and conditions and it is specifically submitted that the lorry was carrying the unauthorized passengers and both the drivers of the lorries 4 OP 351,2006 caused the accident due to their rash and negligent driving of the vehicle and the same is admitted by the other petitioners in

OP.No.349 of 2006 and OP.No.351 to 354 of 2006 on the file of

MACT, Hon’ble Ist Addl.Dist.Judge, and all the said claim petitions may be clubbed with this OP and the petitioners in other petition are the eye witness of the said accident as such the claim against this respondent is not correct and this respondent company is not liable to pay any compensation to the petitioners. That it is submitted that as seen from the complaint the accident occurred due to the collusion of the two vehicles and therefore the contributory negligence can be attributed from the facts and both the owners of the lorries are responsible for the accident, and not this respondent

No.2 company alone is liable for payment of compensation due to contributory negligence, therefore on this Count also the petition is liable for dismissal. That the respondent No.2 company does not admit that the person who drove the Lorry No.AIL-3219 is having effective valid driving licence to drive such vehicle and the said vehicle was road worthy to ply at the material time of accident. The respondent No.2 company further denies that the respondent No.1 is the registered owner of the said Lorry at the material time of accident, however the petitioner shall be put to strict proof of the same. Further it is submitted that the accident occurred due to collusion of two lorries as the version of the petitioners herein in the above said other claim petitions, but there is every possibility that the said accident might have occurred due to rash and negligent driving of the driver of lorry bearing No.CG-04-G-3294 which is coming in the opposite direction, that even the driver of the said lorry is not having valid driving license and the lorry is not road worthy to ply at the material time of the accident, therefore the complainant deliberately involved the lorry No.AIL-3219 after one day delay to suit his claim petition. That the respondent No.2 5 OP 351,2006 company does not admit that the Lorry No.AIL-3219 involved in the alleged accident is insured with the respondent company and the policy was in force, on the date and time of alleged accident.

However the petitioner shall be put to strict proof of the same. That even if this Hon’ble Court comes to conclusion that the accident took place due to contributory negligence of the drivers of the two vehicles and the owners of the two lorries and also the insurer of the another lorry bearing No.CG-04-G-3219,and if the petitioner is entitled for any compensation then the same may be awarded against the owners of the said vehicles. In any case, the amount of compensation claimed is excessive, capricious and exorbitant and out of all proportions, hence the petitioner is put to strict proof of the same. That the drivers of both the lorries, and the owner and insurer of the lorry bearing No. CG-04-G-3219 are also necessary parties to the petition and hence due to non-joinder of necessary parties the petition therefore is liable for dismissal. That the respondent No.2 company be permitted to file supplementary or amended counter if found necessary at a later stage. That the respondent No.2 company seeks protection under sections 147,149 and 170 M.V.Act.

The respondent No.2 filed additional written statement in which they stated as follows:-

This respondent submits that the seating capacity of alleged insured vehicle is 3 in all, whereas at the time of alleged accident more person (more than 8 person) were travelling in the vehicle than its seating capacity and the alleged accident might have occurred due to over loading of the vehicle. The carriage of passengers more than seating capacity is breach of alleged terms and conditions of the policy and Motor Vehicle Act and rules for which this respondent is not liable for any compensation. Further, this respondent submits that as per policy only, 2 persons i.e., 6 OP 351,2006 driver and the cleaner are covered and no other risk is covered and our company is denying the accident and thereby our company is not liable to pay any compensation.

The averments in written statement filed by R4 are as follows:-

That this respondent company denied that the Lorry bearing

No.CG 04 G 3294 was driven by its driver in a rash and negligent manner as alleged by the petitioners in their claim petition. That this respondent company denied the age, income avocation and health condition of the petitioner. It is also not admitted that the petitioner was doing agriculture and business and was earning Rs.10,000/- per month as stated by the petitioner in the claim petition. However, the petitioner is put to strict proof of the same. That the matter of accident is not reported by the insured in collusion with the petitioner with a view to cause loss to this respondent company and as such this respondent company is not liable to pay any compensation to the petitioner. This respondent company denied that the lorry bearing No. CG-04-G-3294 was insured with this respondent company at the time of accident as stated by the petitioner in the claim petition. That this respondent company is not liable to pay any compensation unless and until it is proved that the person at the wheel of lorry bearing No. CG-04-G-3294 was having valid and effective driving license to drive such lorry and the lorry was road worthy to ply. That this respondent company is not aware of the criminal case proceedings launched in the above matter.

However the petitioners are put to strict proof of the same. That this respondent company denied that the lorry bearing No. CG 04 G 3294 was plying not in contervention to the policy terms and conditions and also MV.Act regulation. That the lorry bearing No. AIL 3219 was carrying (8) passengers at the time of the alleged accident, and was not having valid permit at the time of accident.

7 OP 351,2006 The driver who was driving the lorry bearing No. AIL 3219 at the time of the alleged accident was not holding valid and effective driving license to drive such lorry, the accident if any took place was due to his rash and negligent driving of the lorry bearing No. AIL 3219 as such the owner and Insurer of lorry bearing No. AIL 3219 are liable to pay compensation to the petitioners if any. That the lorry bearing No. AIL 3219 and lorry bearing No. CG 04 G 3294 are goods carrying vehicle. It does not cover the risk of the passengers travelling in it. As per FIR (8) persons are travelling in lorry bearing

No. AIL 3219 at the time of the alleged accident. Accordingly police has issued FIR against the driver of lorry bearing No. AIL 3219 and the alleged accident took place due to his rash and negligent driving of its driver. As such owner and Insurer company of lorry bearing

No. AIL 3219, R1&R2 are liable to pay compensation to the petitioners if any. The alleged accident took place on 08-12-2005 at about 10.00p.m. in the out skirts of Nallur village Near P.S.

Balkonda and this matter was reported to police Balkonda on 09-12- 2005 at about 5.30 a.m. The delay in reporting the matter to police clearly shows that the lorry bearing no. CG 04 G3294 has been involved after a careful consideration. The Police, Balkonda has issued FIR No. 148 of 2005 dated 09-12-2005 against the driver of lorry bearing No. AIL 3219 U/Sec. 304 (A) and 337 IPC and as such the crime vehicle is lorry bearing No. AIL 3219 only. As such the owner and insurer of lorry bearing no. AIL 3219(R-1&R-2) are liable to pay compensation to the petitioners if any. FIR has not been issued against the lorry bearing No. CG 04 G 3294, and as such R-4 company is not at all liable to pay any compensation to the petitioners. That in any case the amount of compensation claimed by the petitioner is highly excessive, arbitrary and out of all proportions and the petitioner is not entitled for any amount. That this respondent company may be permitted to file supplementary or 8 OP 351,2006 amended counter if found necessary at a later stage. That this respondent company seeks protection under section 149 and 170 of MV.Act.

4. Taking into consideration both the claim petition and written statement my predecessor has framed the following issues:

1. Whether the accident occurred due to the rash and negligent driving of lorry bearing No. CG-4-G-3294 by its driver?

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

3. To what relief ?

5. During the trial, the petitioner was examined as Pw1 and

Ex.A1 and A2 were marked the respondents No.2 has adduced evidence by examining Rw1, the Senior Assistant Manager, United

India Insurance Company, Nizamabad and marked Ex.B1:policy of lorry No. AIL,3219 and the respondent No.4 got marked Ex.B2:

policy of lorry No.CG-04-G-3294.

6. Heard arguments of learned advocate for petitioner and also advocate for respondents.

7. ISSUE NO.1:

The case of the petitioner necessary for a decision on this issue as follows:

a) That the petitioner is doing agriculture and business, was eaning a sum of Rs. 10,000/- per month. The injured met with a motor accident on 08-12-2005 at about 10.00 p.m. and sustained fractures and injuries and got permanent disability. At the time of the accident the petitioner along with others as owner of the goods i.e. paddy etc was travelling in lorry bearing No. AIL 3219 proceeding towards their village and when the lorry reached the outskirts of Nallur village at about 10.00 p.m. on 8-12-2005 and another lorry bearing No. CG-04-G-3294 was coming in the opposite directions and both the drivers of the lorries drove their lorries at high speed in a rash and negligent manner due to which there was 9 OP 351,2006 head on collusion between the lorries culminating in the accident resulting in multiple and grievous injuries to petitioner and others.

Immediately the petitioner was shifted to Nursing Home, Nizamabad and was treated by Medical Officer and Ortho surgeon. So far the petitioner has incurred an amount of Rs.30,000/- towards medical expenditure and special diet and attendant. As such P.S. Balkonda has registered a case in F.I.R. NO.148 of 2005 and it is pending

before the Honourable J.F.C.M at Armoor. That the respondent No.1

is the owner of the lorry bearing No. AIL 3219 and the respondent

No.2 is the driver of the said lorry and the respondent No.3 is owner of the lorry bearing No. CG-04-G-3294 and the respondent No.4 is the insurer, as such all the respondents are liable to pay compensation to the petitioner jointly and severally.

b) On complaint the SHO PS Balkonda had registered a case in

Cr.No. 148/2005 under section 304-A and 337 IPC. The petitioner got marked certified copy of FIR as Ex.A1 and certified copy of

Injury certificate as Ex.A2. The perusal of Ex.A1 & A2 shows that the police registered the crime against the driver of the lorry and had sent the injured to Govt. Hospital for examination.

c) On the other hand the case of the respondents is that in the nature of general and specific denial. The respondent No.2 denied the accident itself, stated that the accident has not occurred due to rash and negligent driving of the lorry bearing No. AIL 3219 and contended that the accident occurred due to rash and negligent driving of the driver of the lorry bearing No. CG-04-G-3294 while R4 contended that the accident occurred due to rash and negligent driving of the lorry bearing No. AIL 3294 and stated that the petitioner is put to strict proof of the same.

d) In the cross examination done by the R2, and R4. Pw1 while maintaining his stand has stated as follows: It is not true to suggest 10 OP 351,2006 that he is deposing false with an intention to get compensation and that R2 and R4 are not liable to pay any amount to him towards compensation.

e) The contesting respondent No.2 have adduced evidence in rebuttal on this aspect. Rw1, Senior Assistant Manager of R2 company, United India Insurance Company, Nizamabad was examined who deposed that the accident occurred due to rash and negligent diving of lorry bearing No. AIL 3219 as per the investigation report of their company but contended that the lorry was carrying more passengers i.e. 8 members were travelling at the time of accident while the capacity is only 2+1 including driver and that R1 has violated the terms of policy and hence R2 is not liable.

In cross examination he admitted that the claim of driver of the lorry bearing No.AIL 3219 vide OP.NO. 422/2006 was settled in Lok

Adalath by the R2 company. Ex.A1 revealed that the accident occurred in the opposite direction and that the driver of the lorry bearing No. AIL3219 dashed against another lorry. Though Pw2 has stated that there was negligence of both the drivers it appears to be an after thought because in Ex.A1, FIR the complaint was given against the driver of the lorry of AIL 3219 and it is also a judicially noticeable fact that R2 company has admitted its liability by settling the matter in Lok Adalath in another claim arising out of the same accident. Therefore based on the evidence, it can be safely held that the pleaded accident had occurred resulting in the injuries to the petitioner due to the rash and negligent driving of the driver of the lorry bearing No. AIL.3219 but not due to the rash and negligent driving of lorry bearing No. CG-04 -G-3294. The issue No.1 is answered accordingly infavour of the petitioners and against the respondents. No.1 and 2.

11 OP 351,2006

8. ISSUE NO. 2:-

As regards the injuries and on other allied aspects the case of the petitioner is as follows :

a) Prior to the accident the petitioner was hale and healthy and was doing business and was an agriculturist earning Rs.10,000/- per month. In the accident the petitioner sustained grievous injuries and incurred expenditure towards his treatment. During chief examination Pw1 reiterated his above pleaded case in this aspect. In cross examination he denied the suggestion that he has not incurred any expenditure and that he did not sustain any grievous injuries and that the documents filed are false, and that he is not entitled to any compensation.

Thus shock pain and suffering at the time of the accident, pain, discomfort and inconvenience during the period of treatment, operation, bed rest, can be visualized, taking into consideration day to day human experience. In the facts and circumstances of the case a sum of Rs.20,000/- (Rs. Twenty thousand only) is awarded as compensation under the head of injuries, shock, pain and suffering.

b) As regards the claim in respect of hospital, medical and other expenses the pleaded case of the petitioner and the evidence on record with regard to the injuries sustained, treatment received and expenses incurred is already extracted supra.

Having regard to the nature of the injuries sustained by Pw1 and the evidence on record a sum of Rs,10,000/- (Rs.Ten thousand only) is awarded as compensation under the heads, hospital, medical and for extra nourishment, attendant, transport and incidental charges and for future expenses, and other expenses

c) Ex.A2 injury certificate shows only simple injuries caused to the petitioner. Accordingly no compensation is awarded towards loss of earnings in past and present.

12 OP 351,2006

d) As regards loss of future earnings no compensation need be awarded as pw1 did not sustain any permanent partial disability.

Hence no other compensation amounts are awarded to the petitioner under the head of loss of earnings present and future, and under the group of heads loss of prospects of life, loss of amenities of life, loss of enjoyment of life, loss of opportunities of life, (economical, political and social) loss of pleasures of life, loss of expectations of life and social disability.

e) In all the petitioner is entitled to the following compensation amounts:

1) compensation under the head injury sock, pain and suffering Rs. 20,000/- 2)Compensation under the heads,hospital Rs. 10,000/- medical transport, extra nourishment attendant future and other incidental charges.

3) Compensation for loss of earnings Rs. --- ------------------- Rs. 30,000/- ------------------

f) In the facts and circumstances and under the present law the person is not entitled to any other compensation amounts. Rest of the claim is disallowed. I have perused all the decisions filed by both the counsels. In light of the decision in New India Assurance

Company Ltd Vs. Shibani Mondal and others, 2012 ACJ 1641, and in the facts and circumstances of the case it is held that the deceased was not a gratuitous passenger but a passenger accompanying his goods in the lorry and hence Insurance company is liable to pay compensation.

g) As regard the liability of the R1 to R4 it is to be noted that under issue no. 1 it was held that the driver of the lorry bearing no. AIL 3219 was solely responsible for the accident. Hence R1 and 2 who are the owner and employer of the driver of the lorry are jointly and severally liable to pay the compensation while the liability of R3 and R4 is not proved, the claim against R3 and R4 stands dismissed. Issue No.2 is answered accordingly.

13 OP 351,2006 9. ISSUE NO. 3:-

IN THE RESULT:- the petition is allowed in part awarding compensation of Rs.30,000/- (Thirty thousand only) to the petitioner, payable by the respondents no 1 and 2 jointly and severally together with proportionate costs and interest at 6% per annum from the date of the petition i.e., 16-6-2006 till the date of payment or realization recoverable by the petitioner from R1 and 2 jointly and severally.While the claim against R3 and R4 stands dismissed. The petitioner is permitted to withdraw the entire amount with accrued interest and proportionate costs. The respondents shall deposit the said amount within a month from this day. The respondents are directed to bear own costs.

The Tribunal is inclined to apportion the compensation among the petitioners as follows:

Petitioner No. Compensation awarded Permitted to be To be invested in any withdrawn nationalized bank 1 Rs. 30,000/- Rs.30,000/- with --- accrued interest and proportionate costs.

Advocate’s fee is fixed at Rs.1,000/- (Rs. One thousand only)

Dictated to the Personal Asst. transcribed by him, corrected

and pronounced by me in open court this the 21 st day of February, 2014.

Spl.Judge for trial of Cases under SCs/STs(PoA) Act cum VIII ADJ, Nizamabad.

: APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE :

FOR PETITIONERS FOR RESPONDENTS

Pw1: Bandari Srinivas Rw1:Mahajan Krishna

EXHIBITS MARKED

FOR PETITIONERS FOR RESPONDENTS

Ex.A1: CC of FIR Ex.B1: policy of R2 Ex.A2: Medical certificate Ex.B2: Policy of R4

Spl.Judge for trial of Cases under Scs/STs (PoA) Act cum VIII ADJ, Nizamabad.

14 OP 351,2006 15 OP 351,2006 16 OP 351,2006 17 OP 351,2006

a) That on 4-8-2009, while the petitioner was travelling in an auto bearing No.AP-25-V-9763 from Kuknoor village to Morthad village and the == 18 OP 351,2006 19 OP 351,2006

The case of the petitioner to arrive at a decision in this aspect is as follows:

a) On 31-10-2003 while the petitioner was proceeding on double bullock cart from Banswada to Uppalwai village, when he passed through Padmajiwadi X road and proceeding towards

Sadashivnagar, on N.H.7 when he reached near Satyapeerla Darga, at a distance of 3 kms towards West from PS Sadashivnagar, at about 5-30 a.m. meanwhile a bus belonging to APSRTC bearing

No.AP-11-Z-1759 which was coming from Nizamabad side and proceeding towards Kamareddy, being driven by its driver in a rash and negligent manner at high speed and lost his control over the bus and dashed the double bullock carts belonging to Prem Singh,

Venkat Naik, and other four double bullock carts including the double cart of the petitioner, due to which the petitioner fell down from the bullock cart and sustained multiple fractures to ribs, fracture of nasal bone, fracture of skull, multiple and grievous head injuries and other multiple and grievous injuries all over the body and one bull of the petitioner and one bull of the Rathod Prem Singh died and other bulls received grievous injuries belonging to Ch.Sabi

Bai, Rathod Venkat Naik, Chawhan Sangi Bai, Rathod Nirmala Bai, and Dhondi Ganesh and petitioner and also they have sustained fractures and other multiple and grievous injuries all over the body and their bullock carts have been completely damaged. The 20 OP 351,2006 accident occurred due to the sole rash and negligent driving of the driver of the APSRTC bus and he alone is responsible for the accident.

b). On complaint the SHO PS Sadashivnagar registered a case in

Cr.No.94/2003 U/s.337 IPC. After investigation the Police also filed charge sheet against the driver of the Bus U/s.337 and 338 IPC. The petitioner got marked certified copy of FIR as Ex.A1, and certified copy of charge sheet as Ex.A2. The perusal of Ex.A2 shows that the police registered the crime against the driver of the Bus and after investigation found the driver of the Bus negligently drove the Bus and committed the accident and consequently the charge sheet was filed against him.

c) On the other hand the case of the R1 and R2 is that in the nature of general and specific denial. They denied the rash and negligence on the part of the driver of the bus and they contended that the accident occurred due to the reason that the bulls got frightened on hearing the sound of the lorry which was coming from opposite direction and came in the way of the bus and as a result the accident occurred.

d) In the chief examination Pw1 has reiterated his above pleaded case and marked Ex.A1 FIR and Ex.A2 charge sheet. In cross examination Pw1 while maintaining his stand denied the suggestion that the accident occurred due to reason that the bulls got afraid on hearing the sound of lorry coming in opposite direction and that they came in the way of the bus and that there was no negligence on the part of the bus driver.

e) The contesting respondents have not adduced any evidence in rebuttal on this aspect. A perusal of the Ex.A2 the charge sheet would show that the Police investigation had also revealed that the driver of the Bus bearing No.AP-11-Z-1759 was alone responsible for the accident and hence the Police concerned have charge 21 OP 351,2006 sheeted the said driver for the offence punishable U/s.338 of

IPC. Thus from the evidence on record it is sufficiently comprehensible that the version of the petitioner is very probable on the application of the test of the preponderance of probabilities. It is therefore just and fair to accept the version of the petitioner. Thus on an over all view of the facts and evidence the well corroborated evidence of Pw1 is sufficient to hold that pleaded accident had occurred due to rash and negligent driving of the driver of the Bus bearing No.AP-11-Z-1759 resulting in the death of one bull and injuries to the other bull and damages to bullock cart belonging to the petitioner. Issue No.1 is answered accordingly in favour of the petitioner and against the respondents.

8. ISSUE NO.2:

As regards the injuries and on other allied aspects the case of the petitioner is as follows:

a) In the accident the petitioner sustained multiple fractures one of the bull of his cart died on the spot and the other was injured and his bullock cart was completely damaged, The Pw1 has reiterated his above pleaded case during his chief examination. In his cross examination Pw1 while maintaining his stand denied the suggestion that the accident occurred due to the bulls getting frightened on hearing the sound of the lorry coming in opposite direction and that there was no negligence on the part of the bus driver and also denied the suggestion that he has not sustained any damage and that he is deposing false to claim compensation. The contesting respondents have not adduce any evidence in rebuttal. And the accident is also not disputed. On perusal of the evidence on record it is clear that due to the accident several persons were injured and their bullock carts were damaged and that one bull died on the spot and other bulls were injured. But for Ex.A1 and A2 no other bills or documents were filed. The counsel for the respondent 22 OP 351,2006 argued saying that PME report was not filed to prove the death of bull and panchanama also is not filed and hence the case of the petitioner is not proved and compensation cannot be awarded in this case. But at the same time respondents did not adduce any evidence in rebuttal. The Police investigation also revealed the same injuries and damages as discussed supra and Ex.A2 corroborates the evidence of the petitioner. Hence it can safely be concluded that the version of the petitioner is very probable on the application of test of preponderance of probabilities

b) In the instant case one cannot expect the petitioner to file bills pertaining to the treatment of injured bull the transport charges and funeral expenses incurred etc. Having regard to the evidence on record a sum of Rs.10,000/- is awarded towards damage to bullock cart and Rs.5,000/- towards injuries sustained by one of the bull and Rs.20,000/- for the death of one bull.

c) In the facts and circumstances and under the present law the person is not entitled to any other compensation amounts. Rest of the claim is disallowed.

d) As regard the liability of the R1 and R2 it is to be noted that under issue No.1 it was held that the driver of the Bus bearing

No.AP-11-Z-1759 was solely responsible for the accident. Hence R1 and R2 who are the owner of the Bus and employer of the driver of the Bus are jointly and severally liable to pay the compensation.

Issue No.2 is answered accordingly in favour of the petitioner and against the R1 and R2.

9. ISSUE NO.3:

IN THE RESULT, the petition is allowed in part awarding compensation of Rs.35,000/-(Rs.Thirty five thousand only) to the petitioner, payable by the respondents No.1 and 2 jointly and severally together with proportionate costs and interest at 6% per annum from the date of the petition i.e., 22-1-2010 till the date of 23 OP 351,2006 payment or realization recoverable by the petitioner from the R1 and R2 jointly and severally.

The petitioner is permitted to withdraw the entire compensation amount of Rs.35,000/- along with accrued interest and proportionate costs. The rest of the claim is disallowed.

The respondents shall deposit the said amount within a month from this day. The petitioner is directed to with draw entire amount with costs. The respondents are directed to bear own costs.

This Tribunal is inclined to apportion the compensation among the petitioners as follows:

Petitioner Compensation Permitted to be To be invested in any

No. awarded withdrawn nationalized Bank 1 Rs.35,000/- Entire amount -- along with accrued interest

and

proportionate costs

Advocate’s fee is fixed at Rs.1,500/- (Rs. Fifteen Hundred only)

Dictated to the Personal Asst. transcribed by him, corrected

and pronounced by me in open court this the 30 th day of January, 2014.

Spl.Judge for trial of

Cases under SCs/STs(PoA)

Act cum VIII ADJ,

Nizamabad.

24 OP 351,2006 -:: APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE ::-

FOR PETITIONER FOR RESPONDENTS

PW1: Chowhan Babu -- -:: Exhibits marked ::-

Ex.A1: CC of FIR --

Ex.A2: CC of charge-sheet

Spl.Judge for trial of

Cases under SCs/STs(PoA)

Act cum VIII ADJ,

Nizamabad.

IN THE COURT OF SPL.JUDGE FOR TRIAL OF CASES UNDER

SCs/STs (PoA) ACT AT NIZAMABAD

Present:- Smt. E. Tirumala Devi Spl. Judge for trial of cases under SCs/STs (PoA) Act, Nizamabad

Monday, the 3rd day of October 2016

SPL. SESSIONS CASE (SC/ST) No.20 of 2015 (PRC No.29/2015 on the file of 2nd Additional Judicial

Magistrate of First Class, Nizamabad - Cr.No.282/2011 of

PS Town-V Nizamabad) 1 Name of the complainant Sub-Divisional Police Officer, Nizamabad 2 Name of the accused 1 Shaik Khaja Wali s/o Baba, aged 41 years, Caste: Muslim, Occ: Business R/o Nagaram of Nizamabad Mandal & District.

2. Shaik Ayesha W/o Shaik Khaja Wali, aged 39 years, Caste: Muslim, Occ: Household R/o Nagaram of Nizamabad Mandal & District 3 Offences charged Under sections 354,506, 290 and 323 IPC and 3(1)(x) of SCs/STs (PoA) Act 1989 4 Plea of the accused Not guilty 5 Finding of the Judge Not guilty 6 Prosecution conducted Addl. Public Prosecutor, by Nizamabad 7 Accused defended by Sri M.Rajender Reddy, advocate, Nizamabad.

8 Sentence or order The accused No.1 is found not guilty for the charge under sections 354,506, 290 and 323 IPC and 3(1)(x) of SCs/STs (PoA) Act 1989 and A2 is found not guilty for the charge under sections 506, 290 and 323 IPC and 3(1)(x) of SCs/STs (PoA) Act 1989 and they are acquitted of the said charges under section 235(1) Cr.P.C. The bail bonds of the accused shall stand cancelled after expiry of six months. The unmarked non valuable property if any shall be destroyed after expiry of appeal time.

This case coming before me for hearing on 28.09.2016 in the presence of Addl. Public Prosecutor for the State and Sri M. Rajender Reddy advocate for the accused and 2 SC/ST-SC 20-2015 having stood over for consideration to this day the court delivered the following;

J U D G M E N T

The Sub-Divisional Police Officer, Nizamabad laid the charge sheet against the accused for the offences under sections 290 and 323 IPC and 3(1)(x) of SCs/STs (PoA) Act 1989 in crime No.282/2011 of PS Town-V

Nizamabad.

2. The case of the prosecution in narrow encompass is that, on 1.12.2011, the SI Town-V Nizamabad received a complaint forwarded by the Court vide Crl.MP No.2360/2011 on the file of I Addl. Judicial Magistrate of First

Class, Nizamabad, in which the complainant Smt. Kethavath

Vijaya Laxmi (PW.1) stated that she is the owner of the house bearing No.10-10-1136/1A situated at Nagaram,

Nizamabad. The accused No.1 and 2 are husband and wife and they are her tenants in a portion of said house for the last two years on a rent of Rs.1,500/- per month.

PW.1 is also residing in a portion of said house. About one year ago, the accused requested her to lend an amount of Rs.2,50,000/- and they promised to repay the said amount within one month, but the accused did not repay the amount and developed enmity and they also stopped payment of rent to PW.1 for the last six months. They also used to quarrel with PW.1 as and when she asked the rents and they also threatened her to kill if she demands the rent and loan amount.

3 SC/ST-SC 20-2015 2.1 It is further alleged that on 14.1.2011, when

PW.1 requested the accused for repayment of loan amount, they became wild and started abusing PW.1 in the most filthy language by taking her caste name as “LAMBADI

LANJA EMI PEEKUNTAVO PEEKU, MEMO PAISALU MATHRAM IVVAMU” and outraged her modesty by pulling her saree and also beat her with hands and created nuisance in the locality and threatened her with dire consequences in the presence of Goulikar Mahesh (PW.2), Cherla Bhaskar (LW.3), Vemula

Raghu (LW.4), Badavath Jagan (PW.3)and Chanda Satyam (PW.4) and they interfered and rescued PW.1 from the clutches of the accused.

2.2 It is further alleged that PW.1 came to know that the accused have fabricated and concocted a false document and mortgaged the said portion of the house to one Laxmi without her knowledge and consent. Laxmi informed PW.1 that the accused having mortgaged the house, handed over the vacant possession to her and subsequently the said Laxmi tried to occupy the same but with the intervention of local people, the said Laxmi went away stating that she would come again with more force and occupy the said portion.

2.3 On complaint, M. Lingam, SI of Police, (PW.7) registered a case in crime No.282/2011 u/s 323, 290, 420, 354 and 506 IPC and u/s 3(1)(x) of SCs/STs (PoA) Act and issued FIRs to all concerned. Since it is an atrocity case, the investigation had been entrusted to J. Rama

Mohan Rao (PW.8) Sub-Divisional Police Officer, 4 SC/ST-SC 20-2015

Nizamabad. During the course of investigation, PW.8 examined and recorded the statements of PW.1, Goulikar

Mahesh (PW.2), Cherla Bhaskar (LW.3), Vemula Raghu (LW.4), Badavath Jagan (PW.3) and Chanda Satyam (PW.4).

Later, he visited the scene of offence and conducted the scene of offence panchanama. During the course of his investigation as the ingredients of offences u/s 420, 354 and 420 had not been attracted, the said offences were deleted from the charge.

2.4 While the investigation was in progress, the accused obtained interim stay in Crl.MP No.1855/2012 in

Crl.P.No.1735/2012 from the Hon’ble High Court, but on 9.6.2014 the Hon’ble High Court has issued final orders in Criminal Revision case No.1919/2012 and

Crl.P.No.1735/2012 that the criminal petition was dismissed. After completion of investigation charge sheet was laid by PW.9 D. Anand Kumar, Sub-Divisional

Police Officer, Nizamabad, against the accused showing them as absconding for the offences u/s 290 and 323 IPC and u/s 3(1)(x) of SCs/STs (PoA) Act 1989.

3. The learned 2nd Addl. Judicial Magistrate of

First Class, Nizamabad, taken the case on file as PRC

No.29/2015 under sections 290 and 323 IPC and u/s 3(1)(x) of SCs/STs (PoA) Act 1989. The learned

Magistrate after following the due procedure contemplated

under section 209 Cr.P.C. committed the case against the accused.

5 SC/ST-SC 20-2015

4. After hearing the learned Additional Public

Prosecutor and the learned advocate for accused and on consideration of the record, charges under sections 290, 354, 506 and 323 IPC and u/s 3(1)(x) of SCs/STs (PoA) Act 1989 were framed against accused No.1 and u/s 290, 506 and 323 IPC and u/s 3(1)(x) of SCs/STs (PoA) Act 1989 were framed against accused No.2; read over and explained to the accused to which they pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried.

5. To prove its case, the prosecution has examined

Pw.1 to Pw.9 and marked Ex.P1 to P10. On behalf of accused, accused No.2 was examined as DW.1 and got marked

Ex.D1 to D12.

6. Pw1 Smt. Kethavath Vijayalaxmi is the defacto complainant. Pw2 Goulikar Mahes, Pw3 Badavath Jagan and

Pw.4 Chanda Satyma are examined as eyewitnesses to the incident. Pw5 Alakunta Pandu and Pw.6 Bontha Yadagiri are panch for scene of offence panchanama. Pw.7 M. Lingam, SI of Police, Town-V PS issued FIR. Pw.8 J. Ram Mohan Rao,

Sub-Divisional Police Officer, Nizamabad, is the first IO and PW.9 D. Anand Kumar, Sub-Divisional Police Officer,

Nizamabad, are the investigating officers.

Ex.P1 is the complaint. Ex.P2 is the signature of

PW.5 on Crime Detail form. Ex.P3 is the signature of

PW.6 on Crime Detail form. Ex.P4 is the FIR. Ex.P5 is the proceedings of SP, Nizamabad. Ex.P6 is the Crime

Detail form. Ex.P7 to P9 are caste certificates of PW.1, 6 SC/ST-SC 20-2015 and accused No.1 and 2. Ex.P10 is the proceedings of SP,

Nizamabad.

DW.1 Shaik Ayesha is the accused No.2.

Ex.D1 is relevant portion in 161 Cr.P.C. statement of PW.3. Ex.D2 is relevant portion in 161 Cr.P.C.

statement of PW.4. Ex.D3 is private complaint against

PW.1. Ex.D4 is the notice dt.12.6.2012 issued to PW.1 by

Municipal Office, Nizamabad.. Ex.D5 is the notice dt.7.7.2012 issued to DW.1 by Municipal Office,

Nizamabad. Ex.D6 is the CC of docket order in OS

No.356/2011. Ex.D7 is the Electricity bill standing on the name of DW.1. Ex.D8 is the property tax assessment.

Ex.D9 is a set of (6) receipts of property tax. Ex.D10 is the gift deed in favour of accused No.1 executed by

DW.1. Ex.D11 is the Rectification Deed. Ex.D12 is the certificate issued by Project Director, TSHCL along with copy of patta issued by Government.

6. After closure of the prosecution evidence the accused were examined under section 313 Cr.P.C. They denied the incriminating material against them in the evidence of the prosecution witnesses and stated that the

PW.1 having occupied their house, filed a false case.

7. Heard the learned Addl. PP and learned advocate

for the accused.

8. Now the point for determination is:

Whether the prosecution is able to establish that the accused have committed the offences and liable 7 SC/ST-SC 20-2015 for the charges framed against them beyond reasonable doubt?

POINT:

9. The accused herein stands charged for the offences under sections 290, 354, 506 and 323 IPC and u/s 3(1)(x) of SCs/STs (PoA) Act 1989 against accused No.1 and u/s 290, 506 and 323 IPC and u/s 3(1)(x) of SCs/STs (PoA)

Act 1989 against accused No.2.

10. The epitome of the evidence led by the prosecution in brief is as follows:

Pw1 Smt. Kethavath Vijayalaxmi deposed that in the year 2010 she lent Rs.2,50,000/- to the accused and that though they have promised to repay within a month, they could not repay till three months, so she asked for repayment of amount on which they abused her in the name of her caste saying that “Lambada

Lanja Emi Peekuntavu Peeku, Memu Paisalu Mathram

Invvamu” and again abused her as “Chinali, Bosidi,

Lambadi Lanja” pulled her saree and tried to outrage her modesty and also threatened her. Pw1 further deposed that after one week the accused again came to her with some papers saying that the house belongs to them and asked her to vacate and that she refused saying that she is the owner of the house and that she gave complaint Ex.P1.

In her cross-examination Pw1 denied the suggestion that she filed a civil suit against the 8 SC/ST-SC 20-2015 accused with regard to her house and later withdrawn the same. She denied the suggestion that Revenue

Divisional Officer, has disposed of the matter favouring the accused. She denied the suggestion that the accused No.2 was allotted the plot in 2005 under Indiramma Patakam and that she got a house constructed in the said plot. She admitted that she did not file any proof to show that the accused owe her Rs.2,50,000/-. She denied that she trespassed into the land of accused and to grab the property, she got filed the present complaint falsely against the accused. She denied the suggestion that she grabbed the property of accused at the instance of one Devender. She denied the suggestion that she never stated before the police that the accused have abused her by saying that Chinali, Bosidi, Lambadi

Lanja. She denied the suggestion that accused never abused her and tried to outrage her modesty and they never threatened to her. She denied the suggestion that Municipal Commissioner has issued a certificate on 12.6.2012 showing that the property belongs to the accused. She denied the suggestion that the accused are the tax payers till that day.

Pw2 Goulikar Mahesh deposed that the accused are tenants in the house of Pw1 that in the year 2011 on one day, when she was doing his work he saw the accused and Pw1 quarrelling with another person and 9 SC/ST-SC 20-2015 that he went and intervened and that the accused abused Pw1 in the name of caste and beat Pw1 and pulled her saree.

In his cross examination he has admitted that he is a bore-well mechanic and he worked for around two months at the house of Devender. He denied the suggestion that no such alleged incident has taken place and he is deposing false at the instance of

Devender and PW.1. He denied the suggestion that the accused were not the tenants of PW.1 and that the house belongs to the accused.

Pw3 Badavath Jagan deposed that in the year 2011 when he went to engage a mason opposite to the house of Pw1 he saw the accused and pw1 quarrelling and that both of them have abused pw1 in the name of caste saying as “Lambadi Lanja, Emi, Peekuntavo

Peeku, Memo Paisalu Mahtram Ivvamu and also beat Pw1.

In his cross examination he stated that police examined him after 15 days of the alleged incident.

He denied the suggestion that he has stated before the police as in Ex.D1 saying that the accused and

PW.1 abused one another and that accused beat PW.1.

He denied the suggestion that no such alleged incident has taken place and that the accused never abused and beat PW.1.

10 SC/ST-SC 20-2015

Pw4 Chanda Satyam deposed that in the year 2011 while he was doing masonry work in a house opposite to the house of pw1 there was a quarrel between the accused and Pw1 and Pw1 was asking the accused to vacate her house as the accused have not paid the money on which the accused claimed that the house belong to them and it is Pw1 who has to leave the house and also abused her in the name of caste.

In his cross examination he stated that police examined him after 20 days of the alleged incident.

He denied the suggestion that he has stated before the police as in Ex.D2 that he was going towards the house of Devender. He denied the suggestion that no such alleged incident had taken place and that he is deposing at the instance of PW.3 as he has close acquaintance with him.

Pw5 Allakunta Pandu deposed that he had signed at the instance of police and that he does not know the contents of papers and EX.P2 is his signature on crime detail form. He was declared hostile. In his cross examination by the learned Addl. Public

Prosecutor he denied the suggestion that V Town police conducted scene of offence panchanama and also drew rough sketch in his presence and that he is deposing false having compromised with the accused.

11 SC/ST-SC 20-2015

In his cross examination by the defence counsel, he admitted that there are allegations against

Devender that he had grabbed the lands of others and that he is facing complaints before the Collector and

Mandal Revenue Officer.

Pw6 Bontha Yadagiri deposed that Ex.P3 is his signature on the crime detail form and that he signed at the instance of S.I. He too was declared hostile.

In his cross examination by the learned Addl.

Public Prosecutor he denied the suggestion that V

Town police conducted scene of offence panchanama and also drew rough sketch in his presence and that he is deposing false having compromised with the accused.

Pw7 M.Lingam the then Sub-Inspector of Police V town Nizamabad deposed that on 1-12-2011 he received complaint referred by Judicial Magistrate of First

Class, under Ex.P1 and registered FIR No.282 of 2011 under Ex.P4 and handed over the CD file to Sub-

Divisional Police Officer, for investigation.

In his cross examination he stated that as per the record, there is no complaint given by PW.1 prior to the Court referred complaint.

Pw8 J.Rama Mohana Rao, the then Sub-Divisional

Police Officer, Nizamabad, deposed that on receipt of

Ex.P5 SP proceedings Ex.P5 on 10-12-2011 he took up 12 SC/ST-SC 20-2015 investigation and visited the scene of offence and conducted scene of offence panchanama as in Ex.P6, crime detailed form and that he obtained caste certificates Exs.P7 to P9 to the effect that Pw1 belong to ST community and the accused belong to BC-E community.

In his cross-examination he stated that there is no record to show that PW.1 filed any other complaint prior to the Court referred complaint under Ex.P1.

He admitted that the abuses mentioned in 161 statement are different from those deposed before the

Court. He stated that he has not collected any documents with regard to ownership of the house of

PW.1 and that he has not investigated into the case in that manner. He denied the suggestion that investigation has not been done properly.

Pw9 D.Anand Kumar Sub-Divisional Police Officer,

Nizamabad deposed that on receipt of Ex.P10 SP proceedings he took up further investigation and verified the investigation done by Pw8 and laid charge sheet against the accused.

In his cross examination he denied that he filed a false charge sheet without proper investigation.

11. The evidence of Dw1 Shaik Ayesha is that she was allotted a patta land by the Government in the year 13 SC/ST-SC 20-2015 2008 and they have erected a hut in the said plot and also obtained electricity connection in 2009. She further deposed that in the year 2011, she obtained loan and started constructing her house and the property tax was assessed in the name of her husband/A1. She further deposed that in the month of

October 2011 her husband fell sick and so, both of them went to Guntur and returned in November 2011 and that PW.1 occupied their house and when they questioned PW.1, she abused them and also beat A2, then she gave a complaint to V Town Police, but they did not register the case, she returned home and by that time PW.1 called PW.3, LW.4 Raghu and few others and all of them abused her saying that she cannot stay in that area as she came from Guntur. Then, she left to Guntur and came back in March 2012 filed a private complaint, Ex.D3 against PW.1. She further deposed that she came to know that PW.1 was getting the tax assessed on her name and so, she gave application in Municipal office, subsequently

Municipal Office had issued a notice dt. 12.6.2012

Ex.D4 to PW.1. She further deposed that the

Municipal Corporation, Nizamabad, has issued notice

dt. 7.7.2012, Ex.D5 to her stating that the said

property belongs to her. She further deposed that

PW.1 filed OS No.356/2011 on the file of Prl. Junior

Civil Judge, Nizamabad, against her and subsequently

14 SC/ST-SC 20-2015 withdrawn the said suit. She further deposed that

PW.1 has trespassed into their house and has in turn filed this false case against them and that they never abused PW.1 in the name of caste and never beat her.

In her cross-examination she denied the suggestion that she has not filed any proof to show that she was allotted patta land by the Government in 2008, so also, availment of loan from the Housing

Corporation. She denied the suggestion that Ex.D3 to

D12 are false and created for the purpose of this case and that they are not the owners of the said house. She denied the suggestion that she did not file any case against PW.1 when she trespassed into her house and also when she abused her on account of asking her to vacate the house. She further denied the suggestion that Ex.D7 does not reveal the address of the house and that it does not pertain to the house dispute. She admitted that PW.1 is in possession of the said house at present. She denied the suggestion that since PW.1 is owner of the house, as such, they could not evict her from the house.

12. The learned Public Prosecutor has submitted that through the circumstantial evidence they could prove the charges against the accused by examining PWs 1 to

9. He submitted that the de facto complainant has 15 SC/ST-SC 20-2015 let out her house to the accused and that she has also extended loan of Rs.2.5 lakh to them and when she asked them repay, they have abused her in the name of their caste. He further submitted that the documents filed by the accused in defence evidence are fabricated and that they need not be relied upon.

He further submitted that the de facto complainant is in possession of the property, which negatives the contention of the accused and has therefore prayed to convict the accused.

13. The learned defence counsel has submitted that the main motive behind the case is the dispute with regard to ownership of the house and there is no investigation with regard to that aspect, no documentary evidence is placed by the investigation agency to prove the said contention of PW.1 that she is the house owner. He further submitted that PW.1 has denied the documents i.e. Orders of Revenue

Divisional Officer, which are in favour of the accused holding that the said house belongs to the accused and not PW.1. He further submitted that the case is based on such blatant lies of PW.1 and with defective investigation, the prosecution could not prove the allegation against the accused and has therefore prayed to acquit the accused.

16 SC/ST-SC 20-2015

14. The case of Pw1 is that, the accused are her tenants and that in 2011 she had lent a sum of

Rs.2,50,000/- for one month to them but they have not repaid till three months and that when she asked them to repay the amount, they have abused her in the name of caste, threatened her and pulled her saree. She further stated that she came to know through one

Laxmi that the accused owe Rs.1,50,000/- to her also and that the accused have come with papers saying that the house belongs to them and asked her to vacate. She has also stated that the accused filed a case before the Revenue Divisional Officer, and PW.1 also filed a case before the Revenue Divisional

Officer, and after that she went to police to file a complaint but there was no response and there after she filed a private complaint under Ex.P1. In her cross-examination she had denied that she filed a civil suit against the accused with regard to said house and has withdrawn the suit. She has also denied that the decision of Revenue Divisional

Officer, was in favour of accused. She also denied the ownership of the accused and also the order of

Municipal Commissioner dt. 12.6.2012 saying that the property belongs to the accused.

It is elicited from her cross-examination that she has not filed any proof to show that the accused owe her Rs.2,50,000/- and that she does not know 17 SC/ST-SC 20-2015 whether she has filed any title documents of the house.

15. The evidence of PW.4, who is a mason, reveals that in 2011 he was doing masonry in the opposite house of PW.1 and that he saw the quarrel between

PW.1 and accused and that when he heard voices, he went there and saw that PW.1 asked the accused to vacate the house as they have not repaid the amount while the accused stated that the house belongs to them and that it is PW.1 who should vacate the house and that the accused abused her in the name of caste.

16. DW.1 filed documents to show that she was allotted patta and obtained loan and got the house constructed in the said patta land. This Court is not inclined to decide over the title holder of the house but the documents strengthen the plea of the defence that though the property belongs to the accused, the PW.1 has occupied it. The evidence of

PW.1, PW.4 and DW.1 shows that there was dispute with regard to ownership of the house and the case cropped up from the said issue. PW.1 has also deposed about the cases before the Revenue Divisional Officer filed by her and also the accused.

17. The Investigating Officer examined as PW.8 has admitted that he has not collected the ownership documents of the house of PW.1 and has not 18 SC/ST-SC 20-2015 investigated in that regard. PW.1 has not given any such documents of the house and also that she has not given any proof to show that she has lent an amount of Rs.2,50,000/- to the accused. He has also admitted that he has not investigated with regard to loan extended by PW.1 to the accused and that he has not examined the neighbours as witnesses. He has also admitted that he has not investigated as to whether there are any civil disputes pending between the accused and PW.1. Thus, the investigation suffers the said lacunae.

18. The scene of offence panchanama is not proved as the panch witnesses examined as PW.5 and PW.6 turned hostile. Though PW.1 has stated about the abuses made by the accused, the intention to humiliate PW.1 in the name of caste is not established. Hence, the allegation under Sec.3(1)(x) of SCs & STs (PoA) Act are not proved.

19. PW.1 has not stated specifically that A1 has pulled her saree and tried to outrage her modesty.

Moreover, the evidence of PW.2 reveals that in his presence the quarrel between the accused and PW.1 went on as they beat one another and by pulling each other’s sarees. Therefore, there is no other evidence placed before this Court to show that A1 19 SC/ST-SC 20-2015 tried to outrage the modesty of PW.1. So, the charge u/s 354 IPC is also not proved.

20. Though PW.1 stated that accused have threatened her, no other specific overt acts were stated by her.

No other witness spoke about any threat posed by the accused. So, the charge u/s 506 IPC are not proved.

No specific injuries are stated by PW.1 and no medical certificate is filed by the prosecution to prove the injuries of PW.1. Therefore, the charge u/s 323 IPC is also not proved. Thus, the prosecution failed to prove the charges against the accused beyond all reasonable doubt. Hence, the accused are entitled to acquittal.

21. In the result, accused No.1 is found not guilty for the charge under sections 354,506, 290 and 323 IPC and 3(1)(x) of SCs/STs (PoA) Act 1989 and A2 is found not guilty for the charge under sections 506, 290 and 323 IPC and 3(1)(x) of SCs/STs (PoA) Act 1989 and they are acquitted of the said charges under section 235(1)

Cr.P.C. The bail bonds of the accused shall stand cancelled after expiry of six months. The unmarked non valuable property if any shall be destroyed after expiry of appeal time.

Partly typed to my dictation and partly dictated to P.A., transcribed by him, corrected and pronounced by me in open court on this the 3 rd day of October 2016

Special Sessions Judge, for trial of cases, under SCs/STs (PoA) Act, Nizamabad 20 SC/ST-SC 20-2015 -:: APPENDIX OF EVIDNECE ::- Witnesses examined For prosecution For defence

Pw1 Smt. Kethavath Vijayalaxmi Dw1 Smt. Shaik Ayesha Pw2 Sri Goulikar Mahes Pw3 Sri Badavath Jagan Pw4 Sri Chanda Satyma Pw5 Sri Alakunta Pandu Pw6 Sri Bontha Yadagiri Pw7 Sri M. Lingam, IO Pw8 Sri J. Ram Mohan Rao, SDPO Pw9 Sri D.Anand Kumar S.D.P.O

Exhibits marked Ex.P1 Complaint Ex.D1 Relevant portion in 161 Cr.P.C. statement of PW.3. Ex.P2 signature of PW.5 on Ex.D2 Relevant portion in Crime Detail form161 Cr.P.C. statement of PW.4. Ex.P3 signature of PW.6 on Ex.D3 Private complaint Crime Detail formagainst PW.1 Ex.P4 FIR Ex.D4 Notice dt.12.6.2012 issued to PW.1 by Municipal Office, Nizamabad Ex.P5 Proceedings of SP, Ex.D5 Notice dt.7.7.2012 Nizamabad dt.10.12.2011issued to DW.1 by Municipal Office, Nizamabad Ex.P6 Crime detail form Ex.D6 CC of docket order in OS No.356/2011 Ex.P7 Caste certificate of Pw.1 Ex.D7 Electricity bill standing on the name of DW.1. Ex.P8 Caste certificate of A1 Ex.D8 Property tax assessment Ex.P9 Caste certificate of A2 Ex.D9 Set of (6) receipts of property tax. Ex.P10 Proceedings of SP, Ex.D10 Gift deed in favour Nizamabad dt.26.11.2014of accused No.1 executed by DW.1. Ex.D11 Rectification Deed Ex.D12 certificate issued by Project Director, TSHCL along with copy of patta issued by Government

Material objects marked Nil Special Sessions Judge, for trial of cases, under SCs/STs (PoA) Act, Nizamabad 21 SC/ST-SC 20-2015

IN THE COURT OF THE MOTOR ACCIDENT CLAIMS TRIBUNAL

(VIII ADDL. DIST. JUDGE) AT NIZAMABAD

Present:- Smt.E.Tirumala Devi,M.Sc.,LL.M. Spl.Judge for trial of cases, Under SCs/STs (PoA) Act-cum- VIII ADJ), Nizamabad

Tuesday, this the 14th day of March, 2014

OP No. 1030 of 2007

Between:

Khadeeruddin s/o.Gaffar, aged 38 years, occu: driver, r/o. Perkit village of

Armoor mandal, Dist. Nizamabad, at present residing at RTC colony,

Nizamabad.

.. Petitioner

AND

1. Jabbar s/o.Abdul Rauf, Occu: owner of jeep bearing No.AP-1-T- 5510 r/o.H.No. 5-107, Echoda village of Adilabad Dist.

2. Oriental Insurance Co.Ltd., through its Br.Manager, 1st floor, Jay Sree Bhavan, Warda Maharastra-442001 rep. by its Divisional Manager, godown road, Nizamabad. ( Insurer of the jeep bearing No.AP-1-T-5510s vide policy No.163403/31/2007/1708.)

3. Sri Mahindar singh s/o.Bala Singh,occu: owner of the lorry bearing No.MH-31-AP-7858 r/o. No.9, Sanyansar, BAJWA, Naireu, Nagpur, State MH.

4. The New India Assurance Co. Ltd., rep. by its Divisional Manager, Divisional office at APSFC Bldg. 1st floor, Opp: ZP office, Nizamabad. (Policy No. 00003389 valid from 5.11.2006 to 4.11.2007) …Respondents

This petition coming on 4th day of March, 2014 before me for hearing in the presence of Sri, M. Rajender Reddy, & M. Krishnareddy, advocates for petitioner, and of Sri R. Rathnakar reddy, Advocate for the respondent No.1, and of Sri A. Jaganmohan Reddy, Advocate for the respondent no.2, and of Sri B. Annarao, Advocate for the respondent no.4, and the respondent no.3 remained absent and was set exparte, and having stood over for consideration till this day, this Tribunal made the following:

O R D E R

1. This is a petition filed by the petitioner Under Section 166(1)(a) of Motor Vehicles Act, claiming compensation of 2 OP 1030 of 2007

Rs.6,00,000/- ( Rs. Six lakhs) for the injuries sustained by him in a road accident,

2. The averments in the petition are as follows:-

The petitioner is a driver by profession and was earning a sum of Rs.10,000/- per month, and he is resident of RTC colony,

Nizamabad Dist.

It is further averred that at the time of accident i.e. on 23-10- 2007 the petitioner herein alongwith others were travelling in a jeep bearing No.AP-1-T-5510 from Adilabad to Armoor side. When they reached near Perkit village shivar, the driver of the jeep bearing

No.AP-1-T-5510 drove the jeep with a high speed, in a rash and negligent manner and dashed to a parked lorry bearing No.MH-31-

AP-7858, which was parked by its driver without any indication.

Due to impact of the accident, the petitioner herein and others fell down in a culvert and sustained injuries. The petitioner herein sustained grievous injuries to head, skull and other parts of the body. Immediately after the accident, the petitioner was shifted to

Govt. hospital, Nizamabad and treated by the Medical officers as inpatient. It is further submitted that on account of fractures, the left hand of the petitioner was amputated above the elbow, and steel rod was inserted in his left leg, and also received fracture and multiple injuries on other parts of the body. It is submitted that the petitioner has incurred an expenditure of Rs.3,00,000/- towards medicines and for extra nourishment. The accident occurred due to rash and negligent driving of the jeep bearing No.AP-1-T-5510 by its driver, and also due to rash and negligent driving of the lorry bearing No.MH-31-AP-7858 by its driver. As such, the petitioner is 3 OP 1030 of 2007 claiming a sum of Rs.6,00,000/- in lumpsum as compensation from the respondents No.1 to 4.

3. The respondent no.1 resisted the claim of the petitioner by filing its counter denying that the accident has occurred due to rash and negligent driving of the jeep bearing No.AP-1-T-5510. In fact, the accident has occurred due to rash and negligent parking of the lorry bearing No.MH-31-AP-7858 without any indication by its driver, as such, the driver of the lorry is responsible for the alleged accident. The respondent no.1 herein does not admit the injuries sustained by the petitioner, and also does not admit the age, avocation and earnings of the petitioner, and the amount spent by the petitioner towards the medical treatment. It is mainly submitted that the vehicle of this respondent no.1 was duly insured with the respondent no.2, and the insurance policy was in force at the time of accident, and finally prayed to dismiss the petition.

The respondent No.2 i.e. The Oriental Insurance Company

Ltd., filed its written statement wherein it is denied that the alleged accident took place due to rash and negligent driving of the jeep bearing No.AP-1-T-5510 by its driver. The respondent no.2 submitted that the driver of the crime vehicle was not having valid and effective driving licence to drive jeep as on the date of accident, and the crime vehicle is not having valid permit to ply on the road.

The respondent no.2 company submits that the alleged crime vehicle was not having valid and effective insurance policy as on the date of accident. The respondent No.1 has not intimated about the alleged accident to the respondent no.2 company. It is denied that on 23.10.2007 the petitioner and others were travelling in the jeep bearing No.AP-1-T-5510, and the driver of the jeep drove the 4 OP 1030 of 2007 vehicle with a high speed, in a rash and negligent and gave dash to the parked lorry, without switching on the indication. It is also denied that the petitioner herein also incurred an expenditure of

Rs.3,00,00/- towards medicines and for extra nourishment. The respondent no.2 company specifically submits that as per the contents of the petition, the lorry bearing No. MH-31-AP-7858 was stopped without giving any signal or indicator, due to which the driver of the jeep bearing No.AP-1-T-5510 could not control the jeep and the alleged accident has occurred, as such, the respondent no.2 company is not liable to pay any compensation to the petitioner.

The respondent company also does not admit the age, avocation and earnings of the petitioner at Rs.10,000/- p.m. and the petitioner is put to strict proof of the same. The respondent no.2 company craves the leave of this Court to take all defences available U/s.170 of MV Act and to contest the case on all grounds apart from those specified U/s.147, 149 of MV Act.

The respondent no.3 remained absent and he was set- exparte.

The Respondent no.4 i.e. The New India Assurance Co.Ltd., resisted the claim of the petitioner by filing its written statement denying all the material allegations made in the petition, and submitted that the respondent No.4 company does not admit the age, avocation and earnings of the petitioner and the petitioner is put to strict proof of the same. It is denied that on 23.10.2007 the petitioner and others were travelling in the jeep bearing No.AP-1-T- 5510, and the driver of the jeep drove the vehicle with a high speed, in a rash and negligent and gave dash to the parked lorry bearing

No.MH-31-AP-7858, without switching on the indication. It is also 5 OP 1030 of 2007 denied that the petitioner herein sustained multiple and grievous injuries and left hand was amputated above the elbow, and left leg was fractured, also incurred an expenditure of Rs.3,00,00/- towards medicines and for extra nourishment. The respondent no.4 denies that the vehicle of the respondent no.3 was insured with this respondent, and even if the vehicle is insured with this respondent, the liability of this respondent is to be strictly governed by the provisions of MV Act, rules, terms and conditions of the relevant insurance policy. It is submitted that the driver of the lorry was not having valid driving licence at the material time of accident, as such, this respondent company is not liable to pay the compensation to the petitioner even if the petitioner proves its case. It is submitted that the concerned police did not furnish the required information to the Court in the specified form No.54 U/s.158(6) of

MV Act. It is submitted that the claim of the petitioner under various heads is exorbitant, and finally prayed to dismiss the petition with costs.

4. Taking into consideration both the claim petition and written statement my predecessor has framed the following issues:

1)Whether the petitioner sustained injuries on account of the rash and negligent driving of the driver of the jeep bearing No.AP-1-T-5510 by its driver?

2)Whether the petitioner is entitled for compensation. If so, against which of the respondents?

3) To what relief?

5. On behalf of petitioner, the petitioner was examined as P.W.1, and Dr. L. Ramulu, as Pw2, and the eye witness to the accident is examined as Pw.3, and got marked Ex.A.1 to A.19, and on behalf 6 OP 1030 of 2007 of the respondents Rws.1 and 2 are examined, and Ex.B.1 and B.2 are marked.

6. Heard arguments of learned advocate for petitioner and also advocate for respondents.

7. ISSUE No.1:

The case of the petitioner necessary for a decision on this issue is as follows:

The petitioner is a driver by profession and was earning

Rs.10,000/- per month, and he is resident of RTC colony,

Nizamabad Dist.

It is further averred that at the time of accident i.e. on 23-10- 2007 the petitioner herein alongwith others were travelling in a jeep bearing No.AP-1-T-5510 from Adilabad to Armoor side. When they reached near Perkit village shivar, the driver of the jeep bearing

No.AP-1-T-5510 drove the jeep with a high speed, in a rash and negligent manner and dashed to a parked lorry bearing No.MH-31-

AP-7858, which was parked by its driver without any indication.

Due to impact of the accident, the petitioner herein and others fell down in a culvert and sustained injuries. The petitioner herein sustained grievous injuries to head, skull and other parts of the body. Immediately after the accident, the petitioner was shifted to

Govt. hospital, Nizamabad and treated by the Medical officers as inpatient. It is further submitted that on account of fractures, the left hand of the petitioner was amputated above the elbow, and steel rod was inserted in his left leg, and also received fracture and multiple injuries on other parts of the body. It is submitted that the petitioner has incurred an expenditure of Rs.3,00,000/- towards medicines and for extra nourishment. The accident occurred due to 7 OP 1030 of 2007 rash and negligent driving of the jeep bearing No.AP-1-T-5510 by its driver, and also due to rash and negligent driving of the lorry bearing No.MH-31-AP-7858 by its driver. As such, the petitioner is claiming a sum of Rs.6,00,000/- in lumpsum as compensation from the respondents No.1 to 4.

b) On complaint the SHO, PS Armoor had registered a case in

Cr.No.348 of 2007 U/s.304-A, 337 and 279 IPC. After the investigation the Police also filed charge sheet against the driver of the jeep bearing No.AP-1-T-5510 and lorry bearing No.MH-31-AP- 7858 U/s.304-A, 338,337 and 279 of IPC. The petitioner got marked certified copy of FIR as Ex.A1, and certified copy of charge sheet as Ex.A6. The perusal of Ex.A1 shows that the police registered the crime against the driver of the jeep bearing No.AP-1-

T-5510 by its driver, and also due to the negligence of the driver of the lorry bearing No.MH-31-AP-7858, and after investigation found the drivers of the jeep bearing No.AP-1-T-5510 by its driver, and also due to the negligence of the driver of the lorry bearing No.MH- 31-AP-7858, and committed the accident and consequently the charge sheet was filed against them.

c) On the other hand the case of the Respondents are that in the nature of general and specific denial. They denied the accident itself, that this respondent does not admit the persons who drove the jeep bearing No.AP-1-T-5510 by its driver, and also the driver of the lorry bearing No.MH-31-AP-7858 at the time of accident were holding valid subsisting driving license to drive such vehicles. It is also denied that the respondent No.1 and 3 are the registered owners of the jeep bearing No.AP-1-T-5510 and the lorry bearing

No.MH-31-AP-7858 at the time of the accident. They denied the 8 OP 1030 of 2007 accident itself, and respondent no.2 contended that there was no negligence on the part of the driver of the jeep, and that the accident occurred due to negligence of the driver of the lorry. While the respondent no.4 contended that there is no negligence by the driver of the lorry, and that the accident occurred due to rash and negligent driving of the jeep, and that the respondent no.4 company is not liable to pay any compensation.

d) Pw.1 re-iterated her above pleaded case and exhibited Ex.A.1 to

A.9. Ex.A.1 is the CC of FIR, Ex. A.2 is the CC of scene of offence panchanama, Ex.A.3 is the CC of rough sketch, Ex.A.4 is the CC of

MVI report bearing vehicle No.API-T-5510, Ex.A.5 is the CC of MVI report of the lorry bearing No. MH-31-AP-7858, Ex.A.6 is the CC of charge sheet, Ex.A.7 is the Xerox copy of RC book, Ex.A.8 is the copy of insurance policy, Ex.A.9 is the original discharge card,

Ex.A.10 are the bills. Ex.A.11 are final bills, Ex.A.12 are medical prescriptions, Ex.A.13 are the lab reports, Ex.A.14 is the driving licence, Ex.A.15 is the case sheet of Govt. hospital, Ex.A.16 is the case sheet of Deepa ortho hospital, Nizamabad, Ex.A.17 is the disability certificate, Ex.A.18 is the application under RTI Act,

Ex.A.19 is the information provided by GVK EMRI.

In the cross examination done by the Respondent no.2, he denied the suggestion that the accident occurred due to over loading of jeep, and that there was no negligence on the part of the driver of the lorry. In the cross examination done by respondent no.4, he denied that there is no negligence by the driver of the lorry, and that the R-4 company is not liable to pay any compensation, and that it is the only R.2 company, which is liable because the accident occurred due to rash and negligent driving of the jeep. Pw.3 an 9 OP 1030 of 2007 eye witness and complainant was examined, and he supported the version of pw.1 by narrating the manner, in which the accident has occurred.

e) The contesting respondent No.2 adduced evidence by examining its Branch Manager as Rw.1. He deposed that the name of the petitioner is not shown in Ex.A.5 the charge sheet, and that the accident has occurred only due to negligence of the lorry, which was parked in the middle of the road without switching on the parking lights, and hence, the respondent no.2 company is not liable to pay any compensation. In cross examination he admitted that the name of the petitioner is shown in the FIR, and in the cross examination by respondent no.4, he denied the suggestion that just to avoid the liability of R-2 company, he stated that the accident occurred due to negligence of R-3 vehicle, and that R-4 company is not liable.

Rw.2, is the Administrative Officer, New India Assurance Co.

Ltd., deposed that the accident has occurred due to rash and negligent driving of the jeep. In cross examination by petitioner company, he admitted that the name of the injured is mentioned in the charge sheet in the first para of particulars of investigation, and that both the vehicles are crime vehicles as per the charge sheet.

In the cross examination done by respondent no.2 he denied the suggestion that the driver of lorry was negligent in parking the vehicle in the middle of the road, and that the R-4 company is liable to pay the compensation.

On perusal of Ex.A.6 CC of charge sheet shows that the police investigation also reveals that the drivers of lorry and also jeep were responsible for the accident.

10 OP 1030 of 2007

Therefore, in the light of the evidence of pws.1 and 3, coupled with the documentary evidence, it is sufficient to hold that the pleaded accident had occurred due to rash and negligent driving of the two vehicles i.e. jeep bearing No.AP-1-T-5510 and also due to rash and negligent driving of the lorry bearing No.MH-31-AP-7858 by its respective drivers only.

Issue No.1 is answered accordingly in favour of the petitioner and against the respondents.

8. ISSUE No.2:

As regards the injuries and on other allied aspects the case of the petitioner is as follows:

The petitioner sustained multiple and grievous injuries in the accident and immediately after the accident, he was shifted to govt.

hospital, Nizamabad, and admitted as inpatient, and was operated, and his left hand was amputated above the elbow, and a rod was inserted in his left leg. After getting discharged from the hospital, he has taken treatment in Deepa Ortho hospital, Nizamabad as inpatient from 29.10.2007 to 18.11.2007. Pw.1 deposed that he had incurred huge expenditure to an extent of Rs.3,00,000/- towards treatment of his injuries.

Pw.2 Dr.L. Ramulu, in his chief examination stated that he examined pw.1 and found the following injuries in pw.1.

1.Crush injury to left arm.

2.Fracture shaft femur.

Both the injuries are grievous in nature, might have been caused with blunt object. On 24.10.2007, he conducted operation and amputation was done to left arm, then he referred the patient to Gandhi hospital, Hyderabad for further treatment on 29.10.2007.

Pw.2 further deposed that on the same day, Pw.1 was admitted in 11 OP 1030 of 2007 his hospital, and he conducted operation on 13.10.2007 and rod was inserted to left femur bone, and discharged on 18.11.2007.

Ex.A.9 is the discharge summary and Ex.A.15 is the case sheet.

Ex.A.16 is another case sheet of the petitioner, Ex.A.10 are the medical bills, Ex.A.11 is the final bill, Ex.A.12 are the prescriptions ,

Ex.A.13 are the lab reports, and Ex.A.17 is the disability certificate.

In cross examination pw.2 denied that he is deposing false to help the petitioner, and that all the exhibits filed by the petitioner with regard to the treatment are false and created for the purpose of this case.

Thus shock, pain and suffering at the time of the accident, pain, discomfort and inconvenience during the period of treatment, operation, bed rest, can be visualized, taking into consideration day to day human experience. In the facts and circumstances of the case a sum of Rs. 1,00,000/-(Rupees one lakh) is awarded as compensation under the head of injuries, shock, pain and suffering.

B) As regards the claim in respect of hospital, medical and other expenses the pleaded case of the petitioner and the evidence on record with regard to the injuries sustained, treatment received and expenses incurred is already extracted supra. Pw1 had pleaded and deposed that he had incurred medical expenditure of Rs.3,00,000/-.

Pw2 also deposed to that effect he had examined the petitioner and proved Ex.A9, A.10, A.11, A.12, A.13, A.15, A.16 and A.17.

Further in a decision in MD APSRTC Vs.Kathavath Gopal and another reported in 2003 (5) ALD 198, Our Hon’ble High Court held that compensation towards expenditure incurred on extra nourishment and transport cannot be denied even though treatment was given at Govt. Hospital, and one cannot expect positive 12 OP 1030 of 2007 evidence proving actual expenditure and hence some reasonable hypothesis cannot be ruled out. Having regard to the nature of the injuries sustained by Pw1 and the evidence on record a sum of Rs.

2,00,000/- (Rs. Two lakhs )is awarded as compensation under the heads, hospital, medical, for extra nourishment, attendant, transport and incidental charges, for future expenses, and other expenses.

C) Prior to the accident, the petitioner was hale an healthy, and working as a driver and was earning Rs.10,000/- p.m. Ex.A.14 is filed to show that he possesses valid driving licence. On a reasonable hypothesis earnings of the petitioner is taken as

Rs.4500/- p.m. and it is common knowledge that without reasonable physical fitness, one cannot attend to his normal work.

In the light of the evidence in regard to the injury sustained by him and treatment received by Pw1 and also taking into consideration the time required for the injury to heal it is reasonable to accept that he was out of work for at least about one year. Accordingly a sum of Rs.54,000/-( Rs. Fifty four thousands ) is taken as compensation towards loss of earnings in (past and present),

D) As regards loss of future earnings no compensation needs be awarded as Pw1 sustained 70% permanent partial disability. Due to crush injuries to left arm, the left arm was amputated. The petitioner field Ex.A.17 disability certificate to show that he sustained 70% permanent partial disability. Ex.A.17 is issued by

Dist. Medical board, Nizamabad. Hence, the compensation to which the petitioner is entitled under the head loss of earnings ( future ) is determined by multiplier method. The age of the petitioner as per 13 OP 1030 of 2007 the pleadings and oral evidence is ( 38 ) years. But in the medical prescriptions, it is shown as ( 35 ) years. To rule out the ambiguity in the circumstances of the case, the age of the petitioner is taken as ( 38) years as per the pleadings, and the appropriate multiplier is fixed at (15). His annual income comes to Rs.54,000/- by applying the multiplier method. The loss of income for the remaining span of life works out to Rs.8,10,000/- (Rs.54,000/- x 15) with the disability at 70% for one upper limb, which can be considered as 1/6th of the entire body. The above compensation is scaled down to

Rs.94,500/-, ( Rs.8,10,000/- x 70/100 =Rs.5,67,000/- x 1/6th ) =

Rs.94,500/-, and the same is accordingly awarded as compensation to the petitioner under the head of loss of future earnings.

Coming to the claim under the head loss of prospects of life, loss of amenities of life, loss of enjoyment of life, loss of opportunities of life, (economical, political and social) Loss of pleasures of life, loss of expectations of life and social disability.

It is necessary to award compensation to Pw.1 as he had suffered 70% permanent partial disability as certified by the Dist.

Medical Board. The said disability and condition adversely has impact on the physical and functional capacity of the claimant, which cannot be compensated. Therefore, he will not be able to live like a normal human being and will not be able to enjoy the life like any other man of normal health. Hence, a sum of Rs.50,000/- is awarded in the facts and circumstances of the case as compensation under the head loss of prospects of life, loss of amenities of life, loss of enjoyment of life, loss of opportunities of life, (economical, political and social) Loss of pleasures of life.

14 OP 1030 of 2007

E) In all the petitioner is entitled to the following compensation amounts:

1) Compensation under the head injury, shock, pain and suffering Rs. 1,00,000/- 2)Compensation under the heads, hospital Rs. 2,00,000/- medical transport, extra nourishment attendant future and others incidental charges.

3) Compensation for loss of earnings. Rs.54,000/- ( past and present ).

4) Compensation for loss of future earnings. Rs.94,500/-

5) Compensation for loss of Rs.50,000/- prospects of life, loss of amenities of life, loss of enjoyment of life, loss of opportunities of life, (economical, political and social) Loss of pleasures of life. ---------------- Rs.4,98,500/- ----------------

F) In the facts and circumstances and under the present law the person is not entitled to any other compensation amounts. Rest of the claim is disallowed.

G) As regard the liability of the Respondents are concerned, it is to be noted that under issue No.1 it was held that the drivers of both the vehicles i.e. jeep bearing No.AP-1-T-5510 and lorry bearing No.MH-31-AP-7858 are responsible for the accident. Hence

R1 and R2 who are the owner and insurer of jeep bearing No.AP-1-

T-5510 , and respondents No.3 and 4 who are owners and insurer of lorry bearing No.MH-31-AP-7858 are jointly and severally liable to pay the compensation. Issue No.2 is answered accordingly in favour of the petitioner and against the Respondents.

10. ISSUE NO.3:

IN THE RESULT, the petition is allowed in part awarding compensation of Rs.4,98,500/-( Rs.four lakhs ninety eight 15 OP 1030 of 2007 thousands five hundred) to the petitioner, payable by the respondents No.1 to 4 jointly and severally together with proportionate costs and interest at 6% per annum from the date of the petition i.e., 10-12-2007 till the date of payment or realization recoverable by the petitioner from R1 to R-4 jointly and severally.

The petitioner is permitted to withdraw Rs.98,500 /- with accrued interest and proportionate costs. The remaining balance of

Rs.4,00,000/- is kept in FD in any nationalized bank for a period of three years till the necessity ceases. The petitioner is permitted to with draw quarterly interest on his deposit. For that purpose the petitioner is at liberty to open an SB account in any nationalized bank of his choice and seek necessary directions in that regard. The rest of the claim is disallowed.

The respondents shall deposit the said amount within a month from this day. The respondents are directed to bear own costs.

This Tribunal is inclined to apportion the compensation among the petitioners as follows:

Petitioner No. Compensation Permitted to be To be invested in any awarded withdrawn nationalized Bank 1 Rs.4,98,500/- Rs.98,500-with and the remaining balance accrued interest and of Rs.4,00,000/- to be kept proportionate costs in any nationalized bank for a period of 3 years

Advocate’s fee is fixed at Rs.2,000/- (Rs. Two thousands only).

Dictated to the Grade I Stenographer, transcribed by him,

corrected and pronounced by me in open court this the 14 th day of March, 2014.

Spl.Judge for trial of Cases under SCs/STs(PoA) Act cum VIII ADJ, Nizamabad.

16 OP 1030 of 2007

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

FOR PETITIONER FOR RESPONDENTS

PW1:Khadeeruddin @ KhadeerRw.1.K.Rajanarayan Rao PW2: Dr. L.Ramulu Rw.2. Padma Rao Pw.3. Monind Rao Chowre -:: Exhibits marked ::-

Ex.A1: CC of FIR Ex.B.1. Insurance policy Ex.A2: CC of scene of offence. Ex.B.2.Insurnace policy Ex.A3: CC of rough sketch Ex.A4: CC of MVI report. Ex.A5: CC of MVI report. Ex.A6: CC of charge sheet. Ex.A7: RC book. Ex.A8: Xerox copy of insurance policy Ex.A9: discharge card Ex.A10: bills. Ex.A11: final bills. Ex.A.12. prescriptions. Ex.A.13. lab report. Ex.A.14. DL of the petitioner. Ex.A.15. case sheet of govt. hospital. Ex.A.16. case sheet of Deepa hospital. Ex.A.17. disability certificate. Ex.A.18. application under RTI Act. Ex.A.19. information from GVK services.

Spl.Judge for trial of Cases under SCs/STs(PoA) Act cum VIII ADJ, Nizamabad.

IN THE COURT OF THE MOTOR ACCIDENT CLAIMS TRIBUNAL-CUM-

III ADDL.DIST.& SESSIONS JUDGE (FAST TRACK COURT)

NIZAMABAD.

Present: Smt.E.Tirumala Devi, Msc, LL.M., Spl. Judge for trial of cases, Under SCs/STs (PoA) Act-cum- VIII Addl. Dist.& Sessions Judge, FAC:III Addl.Dist.& Sessions Judge, (FTC) Nizamabad.

Dated this the 14th day of March 2014

OP. No.1841 of 2003

BETWEEN

Bodas Yadaiah s/o.Narsimlu, aged 25 years, Occ: Labour R/o.Dasnagar, Nizamabad.

.. Petitioner

And

1- K.Sunil Kumar s/o. Lingaiah, aged Major, occ:owner of Van No.MWN-3970, R/o. Gajwal Dist. Medak.

2- National Insurance Company Limited, Represented by its Branch Manager, Branch office, Laxmirajam complex, Jawahar road, Nizamabad. (Vide Police No.270501/31/03/6702155 valid from 3-7-2003 to 2- 7-2004)

.. Respondents

This Petition is coming on 28-2-2014 before me for final hearing in the presence of Sri.Ega Ganga Reddy, Advocate for the petitioner, and R1 is set exparte and Sri.K.Ashok, Advocate for respondent No.2 and having heard and stood over for consideration till this day the court made the following:

O R D E R

1- This is an application filed under section 166(1) (a) of Motor vehicle act 1988 R/w. Rules 455 of A.P. Motor vehicles Rules 1989 for grant of compensation of Rs.3,00,000/- on account of the injuries sustained by the petitioner in a motor vehicle accident, which occurred on 25-11-2003 at about 8-00 P.M. at Chinthakunta village.

2- The averments in the petition are as under:-

That on 25-11-2003 the petitioner along with other labourers were travelling in the van bearing No.MWN-3970 and about 8-00 P.M.

when the Van reached Chinthakunta village crossing, Mosra village sivar, 2

Varni mandal, Dist.Nizamabad mean time the driver of the van drove the van in a rash and negligent manner, with high speed and gave dash to a tractor and later fell down into a ditch due to which the petitioner and other labourers fell down and sustained injuries. The petitioner sustained fracture of right shoulder humerous, fracture of right fore arm, fracture of right radius, right ulna, fracture of right leg medial mallalus, fracture of right side chest 3rd and 4th rib, multiple abrasions on the chest, right ankle, injuries on head, chest, hands and on other parts of the body. Thus sustained permanent disability. Immediately after the accident the petitioner was shifted to Sri.Venkateshwara Hospital,

Nizamabad where he was admitted as in patient and underwent several operations and rod was inserted in his right leg, so far the petitioner incurred more than Rs.1,00,000/- towards his medical expenditure and he is still undergoing treatment from private doctors.

That prior to the accident the petitioner was hale and healthy and was working as a labour on Van No.MWN-3970 and was earning more than Rs.4,000/- per month and was contributing his entire earnings to his family members, who are dependants upon the earnings of the petitioner.

But due to the accident, all the earnings of the petitioner were effected.

The petitioner and his family members are put to mental agony, hardship and monitory loss. The life of the petitioner became gloomy and dark.

The pain and suffering underwent by the petitioner cannot be expressed in terms of words. That the accident took place due to rash and negligent driving of the driver of the Van bearing No.MWN-3970 who is solely responsible for the accident. The R1 is the owner of the vehicle and the respondent No.2 is the insurer of the vehicle involved in the accident and the insurance policy is in force on the date of the accident, a such both the respondents 1 and 2 are jointly and severally liable to pay the 3 compensation to the petitioner and prayed to award a compensation of

Rs.3,00,000/- with costs and interest.

3. The respondent no.1 is set ex-parte.

4. The respondent No.2 filed his written statement as follows:

That the R2 company does not admit the occurrence of the alleged accident and involvement of the petitioner , Hence he is put to strict proof of the same. That the R2 company does not admit that the petitioner was aged about 25 yeas and was hale and healthy on the date and time of the accident and he was labourer of R1 on van bearing No.MWN-3970 and was earning Rs.4,000/- per month. However the petitioner is put to strict proof of the same.

That the R2 company does not admit that on 25-11-2003 while the petitioner along with other labourers was travelling in van bearing

No.MWN-3970 from Varni towards Nizamabad side and that when they reached near Chinthakunta village crossing at Mosra village shivar, the driver of the van drove the same in a rash and negligent manner with high speed and dashed to tractor bearing No.AP25-G-4816 and lost control over the same due to which the van turned turtle and fell down into a ditch due to which the petitioner and other persons in the van sustained injuries. It is denied that the petitioner has sustained fractures to his right shoulder humerous, right forearm, right radius, right ulna, right leg, medial malloius fracture of right side chest 3rd and 4th ribs, multiple and grievous injuries on various parts of the body and immediately he was admitted in Sri.Venkateshwara Nursing Home and treated by Dr.V.Akhilesh as inpatient and incurred an amount of

Rs.1,00,000/- towards medicines and treatment and still he is taking treatment with private doctors and he became dependant on others and he got permanent disability and his future earnings are also effected. However the petitioner is put to strict proof of the same. That 4 the R2 company does not admit that the person who drove the van bearing No.MWN-3970 at the time of the alleged accident was having effective valid driving license to drove the said vehicle and the said vehicle was roadworthy to ply at the material time of the alleged accident and the R2 company further denies that the R1 was the registered owner of the said van at the material time of the accident.

However the petitioner is put to strict proof of the same.

That the matter of the accident is not reported to this respondent No.2 company by the owner of the van in collusion with the petitioner to cause loss to this R2 company as such the R2 company is not liable to pay any compensation to the petitioner. The R2 company specifically submits that the van bearing No.MWN-3970 is goods carrying vehicle and the petitioner and others were travelling as unauthorized passengers, as such R2 company is not liable to pay any compensation.

It is further submitted that even if the petitioner proves that he was travelling as labourer and the policy was in force on the date of accident, unless additional premium is paid for the risk coverage of the persons travelling in the said vehicle as labourer, the R2 company is not liable to pay any compensation. The R2 company further submits that as per the contents of the petition and FIR the petitioner and others were travelling in the crime vehicle as labourer as such the petitioners ought to have filed claim before the commissioner for workmen compensation to establish that the petitioner sustained injuries during the course of employment under R1. Even if the Hon’ble court comes to conclusion that the petitioners are at liberty to file the claim before the

Tribunal and the petitioners are entitled for any compensation, then the

Award may be restricted as per the provisions under workmen compensation Act.

5

That the R2 company does not admit that the van bearing No.MWN- 3970 involved in the alleged accident is insured with this respondent company and the policy was in force on the date and time of the alleged accident. However, the petitioner is put to strict proof of the same. That the driver of the van bearing No.MWN-3970 is also necessary party to this petition, hence due to non joinder of the necessary party the petition is liable to be dismissed. That the R2 company further submits that as per the contents of the petition and FIR in the above case two vehicles i.e., the van bearing No.MWN-3970 and tractor bearing No.AP-25-G- 4816 have been involved in the alleged accident and there is contributory negligence of both vehicles, as such the owner, driver and insurance company of the tractor bearing No.AP25-G-4816 are also necessary parties to this s petition, due to their non joinder the petition is liable for dismissal. The R2 company further denies that the driver of the tractor was having effective valid driving license to drive such vehicle and the vehicle was road worthy to ply at the material time of the accident.

However the petitioner is put to strict proof of the same. Even if this

Hon’ble court comes to conclusion that the petitioner has sustained any

injuries in the alleged accident and he is entitled for any compensation then the same be awarded against both the vehicles i.e., the Van bearing No.MWN-3970 and the tractor bearing No.AP25-G- 4816 as contributory negligence. That the R2 company is seeking protection under section 147, 149 and 170 of MV Act.

5- Basing upon the above pleadings, the following issues were framed for adjudication:

1- Whether the accident was caused due to rash and negligent driving of Van bearing No.MWN-3970 by its driver?

2- Whether the petitioner is entitled for compensation? if so to what amount and against which of the respondents?

3- To what relief?

6 6- In order to substantiate the claim the petitioner himself examined as Pw1 and Dr.V.Akhilesh as Pw2 and marked Exs.A1 to A4. On the other hand the respondents have not adduced any oral evidence but the respondent no.2 marked Ex.B1 insurance policy with consent.

7- Heard arguments of learned advocate for petitioner and also advocate for respondents.

8- ISSUE NO.1:

The case of the petitioner necessary for a decision on this Issue is as follows:

That on 25-11-2003 the petitioner along with other labourers were travelling in the van bearing No.MWN-3970 and about 8-00 P.M. when the Van reached Chinthakunta village crossing, Mosra village sivar, Varni mandal, Dist.Nizamabad mean time the driver of the van drove the van in a rash and negligent manner, with high speed and gave dash to a tractor and later fell down into a ditch due to which the petitioner and other labourers fell down and sustained injuries. The petitioner sustained fracture of right shoulder humerous, fracture of right fore arm, fracture of right radius, right ulna, fracture of right leg medial mallalus, fracture of right side chest 3rd and 4th rib, multiple abrasions on the chest, right ankle, injuries on head, chest, hands and on other parts of the body.

Thus sustained permanent disability. Immediately after the accident the petitioner was shifted to Sri.Venkateshwara Hospital, Nizamabad where he was admitted as in patient and underwent several operations and rod was inserted in his right leg, so far the petitioner incurred more than

Rs.1,00,000/- towards his medical expenditure and he is still undergoing treatment from private doctors.

7

That prior to the accident the petitioner was hale and healthy and was working as a labour on Van No.MWN-3970 and was earning more than Rs.4,000/- per month and was contributing his entire earnings to his family members, who are dependants upon the earnings of the petitioner.

But due to the accident, all the earnings of the petitioner were effected.

The petitioner and his family members are put to mental agony, hardship and monitory loss. The life of the petitioner became gloomy and dark.

The pain and suffering underwent by the petitioner cannot be expressed in terms of words. That the accident took place due to rash and negligent driving of the driver of the Van bearing No.MWN-3970 who is solely responsible for the accident.

b) On complaint the SHO, PS Varni had registered a case in

Cr.No.139/2003 U/s.337 IPC. After the investigation the Police also filed charge sheet against the driver of the Van under section 338 of IPC. The petitioner got marked certified copy of FIR as Ex.A1 and certified copy of charge sheet as Ex.A2. The perusal of Ex.A2 shows that the Police registered the crime against the driver of the Van and after investigation found the driver of the Van negligently drove the Van and committed the accident and consequently the charge sheet was filed against him.

c) On the other hand the case of the R2 is that in the nature of general and specific denial. They denied the accident itself, that this respondent does not admit the person who drove the Van bearing No. MWN-3970 at the time of the accident was holding valid subsisting driving license to drive such vehicle. It is also denied that the respondent No.1 is the registered owner of the Van at the time of the accident and stated that the petitioner is put to strict proof of the same.

8

d) In the cross examination done by the R1 and R2 Pw1 while maintaining his stand has stated as follows: It is not true to suggest that there was no fault of driver of Van bearing No.MWN-3970 and that he is deposing false with an intention to get compensation and that R1 and R2 are not liable to pay any amount to him towards compensation.

e) The contesting respondents have not adduced any evidence in rebuttal on this aspect. They have filed petition under section 170 of

MV Act. A perusal of the Ex.A2 the charge sheet would show that the

Police investigation had also revealed that the driver of the Van bearing

No.MWN-3970 was alone responsible for the accident and hence the

Police concerned have charge sheeted the said driver for the offence punishable U/s.338 of IPC. Thus from the evidence on record it is sufficiently comprehensible that the version of the petitioner is very probable on the application of the test of the preponderance of probabilities. It is therefore just and fair to accept the version of the petitioner. Thus on an over all view of the facts and evidence the well corroborated evidence of Pw1 is sufficient to hold that pleaded accident had occurred due to rash and negligent driving of the driver of the Van bearing No.MWN-3970 resulting in the injuries to the petitioner. Issue

No.1 is answered accordingly in favour of the petitioner and against the respondents.

9- ISSUE No.(2) :-

As regards the injuries and on other allied aspects the case of the petitioner is as follows:

The petitioner sustained multiple grievous injuries in the accident.

Immediately after the accident he was shifted to Sri.Venkateshwara

Hospital, Nizamabad where he under went treatment as in patient and 9 underwent major operations. After discharging from the hospital Pw1 is continuing treatment in private hospitals and incurred an expenditure of more than Rs.1,50,000/- till now. Dr.V.Akhilesh was examined as Pw2 who stated that on examining Pw1 he found the following injuries:

1) Fracture of right plox humerus

2) Fracture of right radius and ulna L/3

3) Fracture of left medial mallelous

4) Fracture of right chest of 3rd and 4th ribs

5) Abrasion over chest 3 x 3 cms

6) Injury over right ankle 4 x 2 cms

The injuries 1 to 4 are grievous in nature and the injury 5 and 6 are simple in nature. He was treated as conservatively. Ex.A3 wound certificate issued by Pw2..

In cross examination he denied that Pw1 did not sustain grievous injuries and that he is deposing false to help him.

Thus shock, pain and suffering at the time of the accident, pain discomfort, and inconvenience during the period of treatment, operation, best rest, can be visualized, taking into consideration day to day human experience. In the facts and circumstances of the case a sum of

Rs.50,000/- is awarded as compensation under the head of injuries, shock, pain and suffering.

b) As regards the claim in respect of hospital, medical and other expenses the pleaded case of the petitioner and the evidence on record with regard to the injuries sustained, treatment received and expenses incurred is already extracted supra. Pw1 had pleaded and deposed that he had incurred medical expenditure of Rs.1,50,000/-. Pw2 also deposed to that effect and proved ExA3.

10

Further in a decision in MD APSRTC Vs.Kathavath Gopal and another reported in 2003 (5) ALD 198, Our Hon’ble High Court held that compensation towards expenditure incurred on extra nourishment and transport cannot be denied even though treatment was given at Govt.

Hospital, and one cannot expect positive evidence proving actual expenditure and hence some reasonable hypothesis cannot be ruled out.

Having regard to the nature of the injuries sustained by Pw1 and the evidence on record a sum of Rs.50,000/- is awarded as compensation under the heads, hospital, medical and Rs.10,000/- for extra nourishment, attendant, transport and incidental charges and Rs.10,000/- for future expenses and other expenses is awarded which comes up to

Rs.70,000/- under the heads of hospital, medical and other expenses.

c) That prior to the accident the petitioner was hale and healthy was aged 25 years and was working as labourer on Van bearing

No.MWN:3970 and was earning more than Rs.4,000/- per month as salary. On a reasonable hypothesis the earnings of the petitioner is taken as Rs.4,000/- per month and it is common knowledge that without reasonable physical fitness one cannot attend to his normal work.

In light of the evidence with regard to the injury sustained by him and treatment received by Pw1 and also taking into consideration the time required for the injury to heal, it is reasonable to accept that he was out of work for at least about 1 year. Accordingly a sum of

Rs.48,000/- is awarded as compensation towards loss of earnings in past and present.

d) As regards loss of future earnings no compensation need be awarded as Pw1 did not sustain any permanent partial disability. Hence no other compensation amounts are awarded to the petitioner under the head of loss of earnings present and future, and under the group of heads loss of prospects of life, loss of amenities of life, loss of enjoyment 11 of life, loss of opportunities of life, (economical, political and social) Loss of pleasures of life,. Loss of aspects of life, loss of expectations of life and social disability.

e) In all the petitioner is entitled to the following compensation amounts:

1) Compensation under the head injury, Rs. 50,000=00 Shock, pain and suffering

2) Compensation under the heads, hospital Rs. 70,000=00 Medical transport, extra nourishment, Attendant future and other incidental Charges

3) Compensation for loss of earnings Rs. 48,000=00 ------------------- Rs.1,68,000=00 -------------------

f) In the facts and circumstances and under the present law the person is not entitled to any the compensation amounts. Rest of the claim is disallowed.

g) As regard the liability of the R1 and R2 it is to be noted that under issue No.1 it was held that the driver of the Van bearing No.MWN-3970 was solely responsible for the accident. Hence R1 and R2 who are the owner of the van and insurer are jointly and severally liable to pay the compensation. Issue No.2 is answered accordingly in favour of the petitioner and against the R1 and R2.

10- ISSUE No.(3) :-

IN THE RESULT, the petition is allowed in part awarding a compensation of Rs.1,68,000/- (Rupees One lakh sixty eight thousand only) to the petitioner payable by the respondents No.1 and 2 jointly and severally together with proportionate costs and interest at 6% per annum from the date of the petition i.e., 10-12-2003 to 11-10-2006 and from 18- 12 10-2013 till the date of realization. In this case the petitioner is not entitled to interest from 11-10-2006 to 18-10-2013 as per orders dated 18-10-2013 in IA.No.810/2010.

Both the respondents are directed to deposit the compensation amount within a period of one month from the date of order.

The petitioner is permitted to withdraw Rs.68,000/- with accrued interest and proportionate costs. The remaining balance of Rs.1,00,000/- is kept in FD in any nationalized bank for a period of three years with reinvestment facility till the necessity ceases. The petitioner is permitted to withdraw quarterly interest on his deposit. For that purpose the petitioner is at liberty to open an SB account in any nationalized bank of his choice and seek necessary directions in that regard. The rest of the claim is disallowed. The respondents are directed to bear own costs.

This Tribunal is inclined to apportion the compensation among the petitioners as follows:

Petitioner Compensation Permitted to be To be invested in No awarded withdrawn any nationalized bank 1 Rs.1,68,000/- Rs.68,000/- with And the remaining accrued interest and balance of proportionate costs Rs.1,00,000/- to be kept in any nationalized bank for a period of 3 years.

The Advocate fee is fixed at Rs.1,500/- (Rupees fifteen hundred only).

Dictated to Personal Assistant, transcribed corrected and

pronounced by me in the open court on this the 14th day of March, 2014.

FAC: Chairman, M.A.C.T.-cum-III Addl. Dist. &

Sessions Judge, (FTC),

Nizamabad.

13 :: APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE ::

For petitioner : For respondents :

P.W.1 : Bodas Yadaiah --NIL-- P.W.2: Dr.V.Akhilesh :: EXHIBITS MARKED ::

Ex.A.1 : CC of F.I.R., Ex.B.1 : Policy marked with consent Ex.A.2 : CC of charge sheet. Ex.A.3 : CC of injury certificate Ex.A4 : Xerox copy of insurance policy (marked subject to objection)

FAC: Chairman,

M.A.C.T.-cum-III Addl. Dist. &

Sessions Judge, (FTC),

Nizamabad.

14

DECREE

IN THE COURT OF THE MOTOR ACCIDENT CLAIMS TRIBUNAL-CUM-

III ADDL.DIST.& SESSIONS JUDGE (FAST TRACK COURT)

NIZAMABAD.

Present: Smt.E.Tirumala Devi, Msc, LL.M., Spl. Judge for trial of cases, Under SCs/STs (PoA) Act-cum- VIII Addl. Dist.& Sessions Judge, FAC:III Addl.Dist.& Sessions Judge, (FTC) Nizamabad.

Dated this the 14th day of March 2014

OP. No.1841 of 2003 Dt.of rep:10-12-2003

Dt.of Inst:20-12-2003

BETWEEN

Bodas Yadaiah s/o.Narsimlu, aged 25 years, Occ: Labour R/o.Dasnagar, Nizamabad.

.. Petitioner

And

1- K.Sunil Kumar s/o. Lingaiah, aged Major, occ:owner of Van No.MWN-3970, R/o. Gajwal Dist. Medak.

2- National Insurance Company Limited, Represented by its Branch Manager, Branch office, Laxmirajam complex, Jawahar road, Nizamabad. (Vide Police No.270501/31/03/6702155 valid from 3-7-2003 to 2- 7-2004)

.. Respondents

CLAIM: Petition filed U/s.166(1) (a) of Motor Vehicle Act, 1988 r/w.Rules 455of A.P.M.V.Rules, 1989, claiming compensation of Rs.3,00,000/- with costs and interest @24% P.A. from the date of the filing of the petition till the date of realization from the respondents, the petitioner received injuries in a motor vehicle accident which occurred on 25-11-2003 at about 8-00 P.M. at Chinthakunta village.

COURT FEE: Rs.2,360/- is paid under rule 475 (1) (b) of APMV Rules.

This Petition is coming on 28-2-2014 before me for final hearing in the presence of Sri.Ega Ganga Reddy, Advocate for the petitioner, and R1 is set exparte and Sri.K.Ashok, Advocate for respondent No.2 and having heard and stood over for consideration till this day the Tribunal DOTH ORDER AND DECREE AS FOLLOWS:

1- The petition is allowed in part awarding a compensation of Rs.1,68,000/- (Rupees One lakh sixty eight thousand only) to the petitioner payable by the respondents No.1 and 2 jointly and severally together with proportionate costs and interest at 6% per annum from the date of the petition i.e., 10-12-2003 to 11-10-2006 and from 18-10-2013 till the date of realization. In this case the petitioner is not entitled to interest from 11-10-2006 to 18-10-2013 as per orders dated 18-10-2013 in IA.No.810/2010.

15 2- Both the respondents are directed to deposit the compensation amount within a period of one month from the date of order.

3- That this Tribunal doth further order the petitioner is permitted to withdraw Rs.68,000/- with accrued interest and proportionate costs. The remaining balance of Rs.1,00,000/- is kept in FD in any nationalized bank for a period of three years with reinvestment facility till the necessity ceases. The petitioner is permitted to withdraw quarterly interest on his deposit. For that purpose the petitioner is at liberty to open an SB account in any nationalized bank of his choice and seek necessary directions in that regard. The rest of the claim is disallowed. The respondents are directed to bear own costs.

4- The Advocate fee is fixed at Rs.1,500/- (Rupees One thousand five hundred only).

5- That this Tribunal doth order that the respondents do pay a sum of Rs. to the petitioner towards the proportionate costs of the petition.

CHAIRMAN

MACT-cum-III Addl. Dist.& Sessions

Judge (FTC) Nizamabad

:PARTICULARS OF COSTS:

For petitioner For Respondents

(Costs memo filed) (Costs memo not filed) 1- Stamp on petition Rs.

2- Stamp on power Rs.

3- Stamp on exhibits Rs.

4- Advocate fee Rs.

5- Service of process Rs.

6- Commissioner fee Rs.

7- Misc.Charges Rs.

8- Publication charges Rs.

------------------------------------------------------------- Total Rs. --------------------------------------------------------------

Given under my hand and seal of the court on this the 14th day of March, 2014.

CHAIRMAN

MACT-cum-III Addl. Dist.& Sessions

Judge (FTC) Nizamabad.

16