Sri. G.balagangadhara Tilak Roy
VIII ADDITIONAL DISTRICT JUDGE COURT(FTC), GAJUWAKA
Gajuwaka Court Complex Gajuwaka · Visakapatnam · Andhra Pradesh
SRI. G.BALAGANGADHARA TILAK ROY, VIII ADDITIONAL DISTRICT JUDGE COURT(FTC), GAJUWAKA, is posted at Gajuwaka Court Complex Gajuwaka, Visakapatnam, Andhra Pradesh, India. 4 court orders on record since 2015. 4 judgments with full text available. Primarily handles MVOP, SC cases.
Featured Judgments
DRAFT JUDGMENT
IN THE COURT OF THE XIII ADDITIONAL DISTRICT AND
SESSIONS JUDGE, VISAKHAPATNAM AT GAJUWAKA
Present: Sri CH. BALA GANGADHARA TILAK ROY, X Additional District and Sessions Judge, Visakhapatnam at Anakapalli (FAC) XIII Addl. District and Sessions Judge, Visakhapatnam at Gajuwaka.
TUESDAY, THE TWENTY SECOND DAY OF SEPTEMBER, 2015
SESSIONS CASE No.85/2012
(P.R.C.No.23/2011 on the file of III Addl. Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Gajuwaka in Cr.No.287/2010 of Gajuwaka Traffic Police station, Visakhapatnam City)
NAME OF THE COMPLAINANT:State represented by the Inspector of Police, Gajuwaka Traffic Police station, Visakhapatnam City. NAME OF THE ACCUSED:1.Gulla Mohan Rao @ Chicken Srinu @ Chepala Srinu, S/o. Late Veera Swamy, 36 years, Vadabalija, R/o.D.No.65-1-171/1,Veera Varalaxmi Nilayam, Srinivasa Nagar, Sriharipuram,Visakhapatnam, Ph:9948598290.
2.Adala Paparao, S/o. Tatarao, 39 years, Vadabalija, R/o.D.No. 65- 1-194/G,SrinivasaNagar, Coromonadal gate, Malkapuram, Visakhapatnam, ph.92982 51200.
3.Narsipuram Ramprasad, S/o. Late Bhujunga Rao, 40 years, Patnaik, D.No.24-9-7/1, Kanithi Road, Guntinivanipalem, Gajuwaka, Visakhapatnam, ph:5030902258.
4.Chodpalli Jagadeswara Rao, S/o. Late Suryanarayana, 45 years, Vadabalija, D.No.21-42-39, opposite to AVN College, Visakhapatnam, Ph:9550427699.
5.Sunkara Surya Prakash @ Chilaka @ Bujji, S/o. Late Satyanarayana, 38 years, Telaga, Sujatha Nagar, Near Ratnagiri Nagar, Swatvik Residency, 2nd floor, Visakhapatnam, Ph: 9298007347.
6.Chintala Srinivas, S/o. Late Venkatayya,R/o.D.No.26-23-2, Chaitanya Nagar, China Gantyada, Visakhapatnam.
Date, time and place of :On 26.09.2010 at about min-night, at Zinc Gate, New Gajuwaka, OccurrenceVisakhapatnam. Charges:Sec.302 & 201 r/w. 34 of IPC Plea of the AccusedAccused 1 to 6 pleaded not guilty Finding of the Court:Accused found not guilty Sentence or Order: In the result, the accused 1 to 5 are found not guilty under section 302 r/w.34 of I.P.C., and accused 6 is found not guilty under sections 302, 201 r/w.34 of I.P.C., and shall be acquitted u/Sec.232 Cr.P.C. of the offence punishable u/Sections u/s.302, 201 r/w.34 of IPC. M.Os.1 to 9 and 11 to 15 shall be destroyed after the appeal time is over. M.O.10 shall be confiscated to the State of Andhra Pradesh. The bail bonds and surety bonds of the accused 1 to 6 shall stand cancelled. Prosecution conducted bySri O. Ratan Raju, Addl. Public Prosecutor, Gajuwaka. Accused 1 to 6 were Sri M.Ravi, Advocate for A.1, Sri M.Satya Narayana, Advocate for defended by A.2 to A.5 and Sri Sk.Sharif, Advocate for A.6.
This Sessions case has come up on 18.09.2015 for final hearing before me in the presence of Sri O. Ratan Raju, Additional Public Prosecutor for State -
Complainant and Sri M.Ravi, Advocate for A.1, Sri M.Satya Narayana, Advocate for A.2 to A.5 and Sri Sk.Sharif, Advocate for A.6 and the matter having stood over for consideration till this day, this court delivered the following:-
J U D G M E N T
01.The prosecution filed charge sheet, in Cr.No.287/2010, under section 302, 201 r/w.34 of I.P.C., of Gajuwaka Traffic Police Station, Visakhapatnam city, against A.1 to A.6. The state represented by Inspector of Police, Gajuwaka Traffic
Police Station, Visakhapatnam city filed the charge sheet against all the accused.
02.The allegations of the charge sheet are as follows:
All the accused are the residents of different areas in Visakhapatnam and they are close friends doing various types of business. The two deceased by names Danda Srinivas and Danda Siva Nagaraju @ Siva (herein after referred to as first deceased and second deceased) who are brothers and that first deceased and second deceased are at logger heads with the accused in respect of various real estate transactions prior to the date of offence.
03.A.6 gave Rs.3,50,000/- to A.1 about six months prior to the date of offence and that the A.1 issued a blank cheque and executed a promissory notice and original documents relating to his sites in Sabbavaram and Gotiwada Villages for the money received from A.6. A.1 obtained the site from L.W.14 which is situated in Survey No.51/2 of Atchutapuram and got it registered in the name of
L.W.12 on 23.06.2010 and that A.1 signed as witness in the said registered sale deed. L.W.12 gave Rs.2,00,000/- to A.1 in connection with the said sale deed transaction and further promised to pay the balance of Rs.1,66,000/- within a period of 1 ½ months and that A.1 started abusing L.W.12 in foul words on the ground that the amount was not paid by L.W.12 to A.1. L.W.12 informed the same to A.6 about the abusive language of A.1 against L.W.12 and that A.6 promised to speak to A.1 on his return from Bombay. On 31-08-2010, while the
L.W.12 was returning from Atchutapuram at 8.30 P.M., the A.1 dashed against vehicle of L.W.12 near Sri Kanya Lodge at Gajuwaka which resulted in fall of
L.W.12. L.W.12 received medical treatment at R.K.Hospital, Gajuwaka and that
L.W.12 informed the incident to A.6.
04.On 26-09-2010 at about 8.30 P.M., A.1 telephoned to L.W.12, to come to Sriharipuram market place for a discussion about the matter but L.W.12 did not go there. On the same day, L.W.12, A.6, L.W.22, L.W.10 and L.W.13 along with first deceased and second deceased, L.W.16 and others reached near the house of
L.W.22 and warned A.1 on cell phone and to discuss about the amount due from the L.W.12 to A.1. L.W.10 at that time called L.W.13 on cell phone of L.W.12 and questioned about the audacity of A.1 and to come to Zinc gate to settle scores. At about 9.30 P.M., A.1 and A.6 also spoke with each other on their cell phones.
Thus, A.1 to A.5 are aware of the presence of first deceased and second deceased along with others at the spot of offence.
05.At about 10.30 P.M., L.W.18 who is the brother-in-law of A.1 was going on his motorcycle and reached zinc company. L.W.12, L.W.10, first deceased and second deceased, L.W.11 and A.6 beat L.W.18 with hands. L.W.22 chastised all the people and sent away L.W.18 and others who were standing on the left side of the road. At about midnight, A.1 came there on the road from
Sriharipuram towards New Gajuwaka driving red colour Maruthi Swift car bearing
No. AP 31 AT 4193 at high speed and dashed against first deceased and second deceased and that first deceased and second deceased were consequently jolted in such a way that they flied into the air and hit against the front glass of the car and fell on the road. The front glass of the car was also broken. The letter “G.M.R” were also found painted on the car and it is an abbreviation of the name of A.1. Besides A.1 who is driving the car, A.2 to A.5 were also seated in car and that they ran away.
06.L.W.22 lifted first deceased and second deceased with the help of others and took them to R.K.Hospital, Gajuwaka and then to Care Hospital and that the first deceased and second deceased were taken to K.G.Hospital,
Visakhapatnam on the advice of the above mentioned two hospitals. The first deceased and second deceased were admitted in K.G.Hospital, Visakhapatnam, while they were in unconscious condition. At about 12.30 P.M., on 27.09.2010 first deceased by name Danda Srinivas expired and second deceased by name
Danda Siva Naga Raju on 28.09.2010 died at about 7.00 A.M., due to their injuries.
07.On a report given by A.6, a case in Cr.No.287/2010 on the file of
Gajuwaka Traffic police station was registered under sections 337, 338 of I.P.C., on 27.09.2010 at 11.00 hrs by L.W.42. During the investigation after the demise of first deceased, the section of law was altered into 304-A IPC. During the course of inquest of first deceased and second deceased, it came to light that the accused Nos.1 to 5 have deliberately committed the offence in order to kill the deceased and there after the section of law was again altered into one under section 302 I.P.C. During the investigation, L.W.41 seized the broken glass pieces of the car, blood stained tar road flakes, control tar road flakes, under the cover of mediators report on 27.09.2010 at about 12.30 P.M., which is attested by
L.Ws.20 and 21. L.W.41 also took digital photographs at that time. On the same day at about 6 P.M., L.W.41 seized the car bearing No.AP 31 AT 4193 which belonged to A.1 which was found on the left side of service road leading from
Burma Camp to Tatichetlapalem in Kancharapalem area of Visakhapatnam. The photographs were also taken at that time and that the mediator's report was drafted which is attested by L.Ws.20 and 21. At the time of examination of A.6 on 28.09.2010 as a witness under section 161 Cr.P.C., L.W.42 Inspector of Police seized a cheque with No.033389-530233002 which was drawn by A.1, a promissory note for an amount of Rs.3,50,000/-, which was executed by A.1 and the original document No.2208/2008 and other connected documents.
08.L.W.37 conducted post mortem examination over the dead bodies of first deceased and second deceased and found eleven injuries on the body of first deceased opined that first deceased died due to head injury and that twelve injuries were found on the body of second deceased and opined that the death of second deceased is due to head injury associated with fracture injury of left tibia.
On 02.10.2010 at about 12 noon, A.1 was arrested at the power grid situated by the side of Hill Top Guest House road at Steel plant area in the presence of
L.Ws.27 and 28, and he was interrogated. A.1 disclosed and produced his black and grey colour Nokia cell phone 99485 98290 and it was seized under the cover of mediator's report. The A.1 voluntarily disclosed to show the house of his brother-in-law and also other accused who travelled in the car at the time of offence and also produced the record relating to the car and on the same day at about 14 Hrs., A.1 along with the police party including the mediators went to
Karnavanipalem junction at the Kanithi road, where A.1 showed A.2 to A.5.
L.W.42 arrested them under the cover of mediators report attested by L.Ws.27 and 28. On the same day, at about 15.30 Hrs., A.1 took the police party including the mediators to the house of his brother-in-law i.e., L.W.16 at Tikkavanipalem of
Kancharapalem, Visakhapatnam, and produced the Registration certificate,
Insurance and Pollution Certificates and also his driving license and the same was seized under the cover of mediators report, which is attested by L.Ws.20 and 21.
A.1 to A.5 were produced before the court for remand on 03-10-2010.
09.The investigation disclosed that A.6 intentionally gave false report regarding the offence knowing fully that A.1 to A.5 are occupants of the car bearing No.AP 31 AT 4193 and that A.1 is driving the car at the time of the commission of the offence and that A.1 to A.5 have motive to commit the offence, in such a way as if it is a minor traffic accident and to screen A.1 to A.5. A.6 was arrested on 04.11.2010 and was produced before the Court for remand. L.W.38 conducted examination over the viscera of both the deceased and also the other material objects viz., blood stained apparels of first deceased and second deceased and submitted his opinion. L.W.39 conducted the examination over the material objects like broken glass pieces and submitted his opinion. After completion of investigation, charge sheet is filed after collecting the call list regarding cell phone calls, and thus the accused 1 to 6 are liable for punishment under sections 302, 201 r/w.34 of I.P.C.,. Hence, the charge sheet.
10. The learned III Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate,
Visakhapatnam at Gajuwaka has taken the cognizance of offence under section 302 of I.P.C., r/w 34 of I.P.C., against A.1 to A.5 and under section 201 of I.P.C., against A.6 on 14.06.2011 and committed this Case to the Sessions Division,
Visakhapatnam as the offence u/Sec.302 IPC., which is exclusively triable by the
Court of Sessions. The Honourable Metropolitan Sessions Judge, Visakhapatnam has made over this case to this Court for disposal according to Law.
11. After appearance of the accused A.1 to A.6 before this Court and after hearing the prosecution and defence counsel, a charge u/Sec.302 of I.P.C r/w.34 of I.P.C., was framed against the accused 1 to 5 and a charge under section 201 of I.P.C., was framed against the A.6 and the contents of the charge were read over and explained to all the accused in Telugu. All the accused pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried.
12. On behalf of the prosecution, P.W.1 to P.W.34 were examined and
Ex.P-1 to Ex.P-45 and M.Os.1 to 15 were marked. While, on behalf of the accused, no witnesses were examined and no documents were marked during the trial of the case.
13. After completion of the prosecution evidence, the accused 1 to 6 were examined u/Sec.313 Cr.P.C and they were explained about the incriminating evidence available on record against them in the prosecution evidence. During the said examination, the accused 1 to 6 stated that the police unnecessarily filed this case against them and they have not committed the offence and they do not know anything about this case.
14.After hearing the arguments of the Additional public prosecutor and the learned counsel for the accused 1 to 6, the case is posted for Judgment.
15. The points for consideration are:
01. Whether the prosecution established the guilt of the accused 1 to 5 for the offence punishable u/Section 302 r/w.34 of I.P.C., and the guilt of the accused 6 for the offence punishable u/Section 201 of I.P.C?
02. To what relief?
POINT NO.1:
16.The charge under section 302 r/w.34 of I.P.C.: The allegations of the prosecution are that there was a dispute with regard to the real estate business in between accused and the deceased 1 and 2 who are by names Danda Srinivas and Danda Siva Nagaraju @ Siva (herein after referred to as first deceased and second deceased). The allegations of the prosecution disclosed that there were some money transactions between A.1 and A.6 and consequently, that the A.1 executed blank cheque and promissory note and delivered them along with some original documents under his signature to A.6. Other allegations of the prosecution are with regard to sale of property by A.1 to L.W.12 after entering into a sale transaction with L.W.14 and that the L.W.12 fell in arrears of payment of a part of sale consideration amount to the A.1 in that context. Consequently, the A.1 verbally abused L.W.12 on account of non-payment of due amounts by the L.W.12 to A.1. Thus these incidents consequently lead to the alleged motor vehicle accident alleged to have been caused by the A.1 to the first deceased and second deceased on the date of offence i.e., 26.09.2010.
17.The first aspect is whether the prosecution adduced any evidence to prove any transaction of sale, among A.1, L.W.12 and L.W.14. The prosecution examined L.W.12 as P.W.10 and L.W.14 as P.W.12. P.W.10 deposed that he got acquaintance with A.6 but he does not know who are A.1 to A.5. The P.W.10 has not stated anything with regard to the sale transaction between A.1 and P.W.10 through P.W.12. Even the evidence of P.W.12 does not enclose that he sold or executed any sale deed directly to P.W.10. It is the A.1 who sold some plots to some persons by forming plots in the land of P.W.12. It is P.W.12 who registered the plots in favour of the purchasers. So, the evidence of P.Ws.10 and 12 do not disclose any transaction among the P.W.10 and A.1 through P.W.12. Therefore, in view of the evidence of P.W.10, the allegation of the prosecution that he was due to pay some amount to A.1 and that A.1 abused P.W.10 in connection with the due amount is unbelievable.
18. It is the allegation of the prosecution that P.W.10, P.W.8, P.W.11 and
P.W.14 along with A.6 and P.W.19 and others, went to the house of P.W.19. But the evidence of P.W.10 or P.W.11 do not disclose that all of them went to the house of P.W.19 in order to have a negotiation with A.1 about the abusive language used by the A.1 against P.W.10. There is no evidence of these witnesses that they altogether went to the accident spot and they were present along with first and second deceased at the time of offence on the date of offence. The evidence of P.Ws.10, 8, 11 and 14 disclosed their non-acquaintance with A.1 to A.5.
19.There is nothing in the evidence of them that A.6 was also present along with them at the time of offence, date of offence and scene of offence.
P.W.19 has spoken about the happening of some motor vehicle accident near his house but he did not see which vehicle hit the first and second deceased. He even expressed ignorance about the knowledge and acquaintance with P.Ws.8, 10, 11, 14, 16, 19 A.1 and A.6. So this evidence of P.Ws.8, 10, 11, 14, 16 and 19 is absolutely disproving the allegations of the prosecution against A.1 to the effect that he drove red colour maruthi swift car bearing No.AP 31 AT 4193 in high speed and dashed against the deceased 1 and 2. The evidence of these witnesses is revealing nothing about witnessing of the accident to the first and second deceased. When they have not seen the actual accident and when they have not got any knowledge about the crime vehicle, their evidence cannot be considered to say that the A.1 has driven the said crime car and dashed against first and second deceased by driving the car in rash and negligent manner.
20.There is nothing which shows that A.1 has driven the alleged car in rash and negligent manner. The prosecution has thus failed to establish that the accident was caused to first and second deceased with the crime vehicle car and that it was driven by A.1 at the time of cause of accident to the first and second deceased. When such evidence is not placed by the prosecution, then no proof can be said to have been placed to say that the A.1 with a criminal intention to cause the death of first and second deceased has driven the crime vehicle at such high speed and dashed the first and second deceased.
21.Therefore, either the rash and negligent act in driving the crime vehicle car cannot be attributed to the A.1 or so also the criminal intention to kill the first and second deceased by driving the car against them. In the absence of such evidence, the alleged criminal intention to kill the deceased first and second deceased in the manner alleged by the prosecution cannot be fastened on A.1.
Even, the very evidence of P.W.1 who is wife of deceased first deceased Danda
Srinivas and P.W.2 who is wife of second deceased Danda Siva Nagaraju @ Siva, have not spoken anything suspecting about the death of first and second deceased in the manner alleged by prosecution.
22.So the evidence of P.Ws.1 and 2 is not of any help to prosecution to say that A.1 has driven the crime car with an intention to kill first and second deceased. P.W.3 who is mother of first and second deceased, P.W.4 who is relative of first deceased by name Srinivas did not see accident and they do not know about the facts of the case alleged by the prosecution. P.W.5 who is father-in-law of second deceased by name Siva Naga Raju has also not seen accident and he did not make any enquiry about the cause of the death of second deceased.
P.Ws.1 and 2 identified M.Os.1 to 5 as the clothes belonging to the first and second deceased. P.W.5 has denied her statement in Ex.P.1. P.W.6 also denied his statement in Ex.P.2 and he did not speak about the circumstances relating to the manner of the accident. He came to know about the accident through one of his relatives.
23.P.W.7 is the neighbour of the first and second deceased but he did not know how the deceased first and second deceased died. He only came to know on enquiry that first and second deceased met with an accident and that he informed to the wife of deceased by name Srinivas through phone. So the evidence of all these witnesses is not at all establishing the case of the prosecution with regard to the criminal intention of the A.1 to drive the car with rash and negligent manner and with an intention to kill the first and second deceased. P.W.8 has no knowledge of the accused or the first and second deceased. He does not also know about the case facts. He does not also know about the accident. So others evidence is not in any way helpful to the prosecution to prove its case.
24.P.W.9 does not know the accused 1 to 6. He knows the first and second defendants. P.W.9 does not know how the accident occurred and he has not enquired about the accident. He came to know that the accident took place when a car hit some persons. He does not even know how many persons sustained injuries. His house is situated at a distance of 200 meters from the scene of accident. He denied statement in Ex.P.4, P.W.8 denied his statement in
Ex.P.3. P.W.10 denied his statement in Ex.P.5. P.W.11 denied his statement in
Ex.P.6. P.W.13 stated that he possessed the crime car and sold it to Reddy cars and cars in the year 2008 and that they have given the sale letter to him. P.W.13 has no knowledge whether one Gulla Mohan Rao purchased the car, he denied the statement in Ex.P.7. So it is not established that the crime car was purchased by A.1. It is not known who purchased the car, at best it can be said that P.W.13 is the owner of the car. P.W.14 is brother-in-law to A.1 and that he never received any records from A.1 and that A.1 never informed about his involvement in accident. P.W.14 denied the statement in Ex.P.8. P.W.15 is friend of A.1 and he knows P.W.16 also.
25.P.W.15 did not know the first and second deceased and that he came to know about the accident but he did not know who sustained injuries in the accident. It is only hear say evidence. However, in the cross-examination by public prosecutor he admitted that A.1 and others were present when he went to
Scindia High School, and he was not aware of what was spoken by A.1 on telephone. He also telephoned to L.W.18 who is P.W.16. P.W.16 stated that he is brother-in-law of A.1 and that he has given complaint to police. So this evidence of P.Ws.14, 15 and 16 is not revealing anything with regard to the criminal intention on the part of A.1. There is nothing in the evidence of P.W.15 that the
A.1 has driven a crime car and dashed the deceased 1 and 2. So all this evidence is not establishing anything with regard to the criminal intention of A.1 to kill first and second deceased in the manner alleged by the prosecution.
26.P.W.16 denied the evidence alleged in Ex.P.9. P.Ws.16 and 15 being brother-in-law and friend of A.1 may speak in favour of A.1. Though their evidence is not to be considered to say that the A.1 has no criminal intention but the other evidence of witnesses of prosecution is not at all proving any circumstance which suggests that the A.1 has driven crime car and caused accident to the first and second defendants, leaving apart criminal intention on the part of A.1 to kill first and second deceased.
27.P.W.18 is a mediator who stated that he never acted as mediator for the observation of the scene of offence, seizure of materials under Exs.P.14, P.15,
P.16 and P.17 under mediator reports. Infact Exs.P.4 to P.17 are the signatures of mediators on alleged mediator reports. Though the police requested him to act as a mediator he has not seen and inspected the scene of offence and seizure of broken glass pieces of the car, blood stained tar road flakes, control flakes, crime vehicle under the cover of mediators reports. He was also not present at the time of conducting of inquest over the dead bodies of the first and second deceased.
P.W.20 does not know first and second deceased but he admitted his signatures in
Exs.P.19 and 20. However, P.W.20 denied his presence at the time of inquest over the dead bodies of the deceased 1 and 2. He denied the suggestive case of the prosecution with regard to his presence at the inquest.
28.P.W.21 also denied that he acted as mediator, however he admitted his signatures on Exs.P.21, 22 and 23, but he did not admit the seizure of crime car in his presence, the observation of the scene of offence by he investigating officer, the seizure of Material Objects, at the scene of offence, and the seizure of the crime car in the presence of the mediators who are mentioned in Ex.P.22.
29.Thus the evidence which is discussed above is unreliable and unbelievable to say that the A.1 has driven the crime car in rash negligent manner and caused accident to the first and second deceased and that A.1 has got criminal intention to kill first and second deceased and that the death was caused by A.1 to the first and second deceased, in such a manner. Even, the above discussed evidence through P.Ws.1 to 21 has not disclosed about the presence of A.2 to A.5 in the crime car when it was driven by A.1 at the time of alleged accident to the first and second deceased on the date of offence at the scene of offence. So it cannot be said that the A.2 to A.5 have shared criminal intention with A.1 to cause the death of first and second deceased in the manner alleged by prosecution.
30.P.W.22 is the head constable who handed over the dead body of the deceased for post postmortem examination by the Doctor. P.W.23 is Circle
Inspector of Police, while working as Sub-Inspector of Police at Gajuwaka Police station, registered a report given by P.W.16 as in Cr.No.493/2010 under sections.341, 323, 379 r/w.34 of I.P.C., and that he visited the scene of offence at the Zinc Gate. He prepared the rough sketch of scene of offence and examined
P.W.23, he denied the suggestion that P.W.16 did not come to police station and did not give report. This evidence of P.W.23 does not prove the case of the prosecution against A.1 to A.6. P.W.24 is a Deputy Civil Surgeon, P.H.C., East
Godavari District, who examined L.W.19 by name Bhinkanth Ojha @ Nepali
Chinna. He found some simple injuries and issued Ex.P.24. He says nothing to do with the proof of the case of the prosecution against A.1 to A.6. P.W.25 examined first deceased by name Srinivas and also second deceased by name Siva Naga
Raju and found injuries on the body of the deceased.
31.P.W.25 issued Ex.P.25 wound certificate for first deceased Srinivas and
Ex.P.26 wound certificate for second deceased Siva Naga Raju. Ex.P.27 is wound certificate of D.Venkat. There is nothing in the evidence of P.W.25 to say that the
Exs.A.1 to A.6 caused the death of the deceased and that A.6 screened offenders
A.1 to A.5. P.W.26 examined first and second deceased while they were in unconscious state and referred them to Neuro surgeon ward after registering the case in MLC.No.7695/2010 and informed the same to the concerned police.
Ex.P.30 is the attested copy of M.L.C intimation. Therefore, he examined first and second deceased while they were with injuries and that he registered medico legal case and informed the same to police.
32. P.W.27 received intimation from Gajuwaka Traffic Police Station with regard to the M.L.C., intimation from K.G.Hospital about first and second deceased and he found both the deceased in unconscious state and he did not record statements and that he did not know the duty doctor whom he met and obtained endorsement of duty doctor on some papers. Ex.P.30 is attested copy of
M.L.C., intimation and P.W.27 did not produce any such paper and that he has not spoken anything about the offence. Ex.P.28 has given an opinion with regard to the examination of the glass pieces. Ex.P.28 is the FLS Report / opinion, Ex.P.29 is the letter of advice, M.O.6 is the few broken glass pieces, M.O.7 is the broken glass. There is difference between similar and same and that he did not mention the words same in his opinion. So this evidence of P.W.28 does not prove any circumstances to say that glass pieces belong to the car of the A.1 and that the car of the A.1 is involved in the accident.
33.P.W.29 escorted the dead body of the second deceased and after postmortem examination he handed over dead body to the relatives of second deceased. P.W.30 is Sub-Inspector of Police, II Town Police Station, he worked as
Sub-Inspector of Police, Gajuwaka police station, who examined scene of offence and prepared Ex.P.31 rough sketch and Ex.P.32 is scene of observation report in
Cr.No.287/2010 and that he also seized the controlled earth and blood stained earth, M.Os.8, 9 and 10 are blood stained tar pieces, controlled tar piece and red colour swift car bearing No.AP 31 AT 4193 respectively. He examined body of second deceased Siva Naga Raju and conducted inquest over him in the presence of the Panchayat Raj. He also examined P.W.2, L.W.6, P.W.5, P.W.3, A.6, Polayya and Narasimha Murthy and he sent the dead body for postmortem examination.
P.W.30 thought that glass pieces belonging to the car glass as per the statements of the neighbours of the scene. Observation of scene of offence took place twelve hours after the time of accident. P.W.30 did not post any guard at the scene of offence. Therefore investigation of P.W.30 is not trust worthy to say that the glass pieces belongs to the crime car.
34.P.W.31 worked as Inspector of police, Gajuwaka Traffic Police Station and he received Ex.P.33 original First Information Report. As per the investigation of P.W.30 he altered the First Information Report from the Sections 337, 338
I.P.C., to Section 304-A IPC., and filed original alternation memo. He conducted inquest over the dead body of the first deceased at K.G.Hospital. P.W.30 conducted inquest over the second deceased. P.W.31 recorded the statements of
A.6, P.W.10, P.W.19, P.W.1, P.W.3, P.W.4, L.W.5, P.W.2, L.W.6, P.W.5 and one
Santhi. Basing on their statements, he altered the section of law from 304-A
I.P.C., to 302 I.P.C., and filed Ex.P.35 alternation memo. P.W.31 also examined
P.W.8, P.W.9, P.W.12, P.W.13, P.W.11. The witnesses who were examined by the
P.W.31 have not stated anything proving the offence under section 337, 338, 304-A and 302 of I.P.C., against A.1 to A.6. Even P.W.31 has not registered any altered F.I.R. No reason is offered by the P.W.31, which is substantial and reasonable, to say that there is reason for not registering altered First
Information Reports. P.W.31 sent seized objected to F.S.L., under Ex.P.36 letter of advice. He seized crime car under Ex.P.37 mediator report, dated 2.10.2010. He seized M.Os.11, 12, 13 and 14 which are R.C., Driving License of Mohan Rao,
Pollution Certificate and Insurance Policy. All these documents do not prove the case of the prosecution. These circumstances are not supprted by the eye witnesses.
35.However, P.W.31 stated that he recorded the Exs.P.1, P.2, P.3, P.4, P.5,
P.6, P.7, P.8 and P.9 from the concerned witnesses. In the cross-examination, he has admitted certain critical errors which are material, he has not seized original driving license of A.1, Ex.P.22 is not in his hand writing. Even the police constable has written Ex.P.22 and his investigation of P.W.31 is erratic and he is indicating that he has not conducted investigation as stated in his chief-examination. It shows that he has approved the investigation and introduced the same as if he has done the same. So such evidence cannot be relied on to say that the investigation of P.W.31 is of any help to the prosecution to show any circumstances that establishes the offence alleged by the prosecution.
36.P.W.32 has assumed charge subsequently and filed charge sheet as investigation was already completed. So it is just a formality to conduct preliminary investigation. P.W.33 has conducted autopsy over dead body of first deceased and issued Postmortem certificate. This examination discloses some injuries and the cause of death relating to the first deceased. So also he also conducted the postmortem examination of dead body of second deceased and found injuries and cause of death. But the observation and evidence of P.W.33 do not point out anything against A.1 to A.6.
37.P.W.34 is the Assistant Commissioner of Police, who forwarded material objected like viscera to the R.F.S.L., Visakhapatnam for examination.
Ex.P.40 is the letter of advice, he forwarded material i.e., glass pieces collected from the scene of offence. Ex.P.41 is F.S.L.Report, dated 13.12.2010, Ex.P.42 is the F.S.L.Report, dated 15.12.2010. They were forwarded to the Inspector of police, Gajuwaka police station. P.W.34 is not investigating officer. So the evidence of P.W.34 is not proving any circumstances relating to the alleged offence i.e., said to have been committed at the scene of offence. There is nothing in the evidence of prosecution to say that the A.6 suppressed any material relating to the commission of offence under Section 302 of I.P.C., and thereafter screened A.1 to A.5 from being punished. Therefore no proof is evidencing under section 201 I.P.C., against A.6. Thus prosecution has failed to establish charge under section 302 of I.P.C., r/w.34 I.P.C., against A.1 to A.5 and charge under section 201 I.P.C., against A.6. A.1 to A.6 are entitled to benefit of doubt. M.Os.1 to 9 and M.Os.11 to 15 shall be destroyed after appeal time is over. M.O.10 shall be confiscated to this State.
POINT NO.2:
38. In the result, the accused 1 to 5 are found not guilty under section 302 r/w.34 of I.P.C., and accused 6 is found not guilty under section 201 of I.P.C., and A.1 to A.6 shall be acquitted u/Sec.235 (1) Cr.P.C. of the offence punishable u/Sections u/s.302, 201 r/w.34 of IPC. M.Os.1 to 9 and 11 to 15 shall be destroyed after the appeal time is over. M.O.10 shall be confiscated to the State of Andhra Pradesh. The bail bonds and surety bonds of the accused 1 to 6 shall stand cancelled.
Dictated to the Stenographer, transcribed by him, corrected and pronounced
by me in the open Court, this the 22nd day of September, 2015.
X ADDL. DISTRICT & SESSIONS JUDGE,
VISAKHAPATNAM AT ANAKAPALLI
(FAC) XIII ADDL. DISTRICT & SESSIONS JUDGE,
VISAKHAPATNAM AT GAJUWAKA.
APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE
No of witnesses examined
For Prosecution:
P.W.1: D.Latha P.W.2: D.Jeevitha P.W.3: D.Sumathi P.W.4: D.Sujatha P.W.5: U.Kamala P.W.6: K.Rajesh P.W.7: K.Nookesh P.W.8: M.Maheswara Rao P.W.9: V.Dinakar Raju P.W.10: B.Venkata Polayya P.W.11: S.Mohan Rao P.W.12: K.Appala Naidu P.W.13: P.Vijay Kumar P.W.14: T.Chinna Rao. P.W.15: N.Srinivasa Rao. P.W.16: A.Venkata Ramana. P.W.17: P.Appa Rao. P.W.18: G.Srinivasa Rao. P.W.19: P.V.V.V.S.A.Narasimha Murthy P.W.20: T.Krupananda Rao P.W.21: A.Srinivasa Rao P.W.22: P.V.Srinivasa Rao P.W.23: N.Nageswara Rao P.W.24: Dr. K.Rajanna P.W.25: Dr. N.Kameswara Rao P.W.26: Dr. J.B.N.Rao P.W.27: O.K.Viswanadham P.W.28: D.Venkateswarulu P.W.29: K.Ramanjaneyulu P.W.30: K.Ramachandra Rao P.W.31: R.Srinivas P.W.32: N.Kalidas P.W.33: Md. Taqidin Khan P.W.34: V.Suresh Babu
For Defence:
NONE.
No. of Exhibits Marked
For Prosecution:
Ex.P-1/04-03-2015: Sec.161 Cr.P.C., Satement of P.W.5. Ex.P-2/04-03-2015: Sec.161 Cr.P.C., Satement of P.W.6.
Ex.P-3/06-03-2015: Sec.161 Cr.P.C., Satement of P.W.8. Ex.P-4/06-03-2015: Sec.161 Cr.P.C., Satement of P.W.9. Ex.P-5/06-03-2015: Sec.161 Cr.P.C., Satement of P.W.10. Ex.P-6/06-03-2015: Sec.161 Cr.P.C., Satement of P.W.11. Ex.P-7/06-03-2015: Sec.161 Cr.P.C., Satement of P.W.13. Ex.P-8/06-03-2015: Sec.161 Cr.P.C., Satement of P.W.14. Ex.P-9/06-03-2015: Sec.161 Cr.P.C., Satement of P.W.16. Ex.P-10/09-03-2015: Signature on scene observation report, dated 27.09.2010 at 12.30 P.M.,of P.W.17. Ex.P-11/09-03-2015: Signature on mediator's report, dated 27.09.2010 at 6.00 P.M.,of P.W.17. Ex.P-12/09-03-2015: Signature of P.W.18 on Inquest report of first deceased. Ex.P-13/09-03-2015: Signature of P.W.17 on Inquest report of second deceased. Ex.P-14/09-03-2015: Signature of P.W.18 on scene observation report, dated 27-09-2010 at 12.30 P.M. Ex.P-15/09-03-2015: Signature of P.W.18 on Mediator's report, dated 27-90-2010 at 6-00 P.M. Ex.P-16/09-03-2015: Signature of P.W.18 on Inquest report of first deceased. Ex.P-17/09-03-2015: Signature of P.W.18 on Inquest report of second deceased. Ex.P-18/09-03-2015: Sec.161 Cr.P.C., Satement of P.W.19. Ex.P-19/10-03-2015: Signature on Inquest report of first deceased of P.W.20. Ex.P-20/10-03-2015: Signature on Inquest report of second deceased of P.W.20. Ex.P-21/ : Signature on mediator's report, dated 2-10-2010 at 12.00 noon. Ex.P-22/ : Signature on mediator's report, dated 2-10-2010 at 2.00 P.M. Ex.P-23/ : Signature on mediator's report, dated 2-10-2010 at 3.30 P.M. Ex.P-24/12-03-2015: Wound certificate, dated 12-01-2011. Ex.P-25 : Wound certificate of first deceased. Ex.P-26 : Wound certificate of second deceased. Ex.P-27 : Wound certificate of B.Venkat. Ex.P-28 : FSL Report/ Opinion. Ex.P-29 : Letter of advise. Ex.P-30 : Account of M.L.C.Intimation. Ex.P-31 : Rough sketch. Ex.P-32 : Scene observation report. Ex.P-33 : Original F.I.R.287/10. Ex.P-34 : Alteration memo under sections 338, 337 to 304-A I.P.C. Ex.P-35 : Alteration memo 304(A) to 302. Ex.P-36 : Letter of advice. Ex.P-37 : Mediator's report, dated 2-10-2010 at 3-30 P.M. Ex.P-38 : P.M.Report of first deceased. Ex.P-39 : P.M.Report of Second deceased. Ex.P-40 : Letter of advice. Ex.P-41 : F.S.L.Opinion, dated 13-12-2010. Ex.P-42 : F.S.L.Opinion, dated 15-12-2010. Ex.P-43 : Cheque by No.033389530233002 of centurion Bank. Ex.P-44 : Pro-note for Rs.3,50,000/-. Ex.P-45 : Sale deed document No.2208/08 executed in favour of G.Mohana Rao.
For defence : NIL
M.O.1 : Blood Stained green coloured T-Shirt of first defendant. M.O.2 : Blood Stained Cement coloured pant of first defendant. M.O.3 : Blood Stained black coloured T-Shirt of second defendant. M.O.4 : Blood Stained white coloured cut banian of second defendant. M.O.5 : Blood Stained blue coloured Shirt of second defendant. M.O.6 : One brittled glass piece. M.O.7 : Brittled glass pieces. M.O.8 : Control bitnus piece. M.O.9 : Blood Stained bitnus taru piece.
M.O.10 : Swift car bearing No.AP 31 AT 4193. M.O.11 : R.C., of AP 31 AT 4193 Swift car. M.O.12 : Driving license of G.Mohana Rao. M.O.13 : Pollution certificate. M.O.14 : Policy schedule. M.O.15 : Nokia Cell Black Colour.
X ADDL. DISTRICT & SESSIONS JUDGE, ANAKAPALLI
(FAC) XIII ADDL. DISTRICT & SESSIONS JUDGE,
VISAKHAPATNAM AT GAJUWAKA.
Copies to:
1. The Registrar (Judicial), Hon'ble High Court of A.P., Hyderabad.
2. The III Addl. Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Gajuwaka in VSP. 3.The Commissioner of Police, Visakhapatnam.
CALENDAR & JUDGMENT
IN THE COURT OF THE XIII ADDL. DISTRICT AND SESSIONS JUDGE, GAJUWAKA
Present: Sri CH. BALA GANGADHARA TILAK ROY, X Additional District and Sessions Judge, Visakhapatnam at Anakapalli (FAC) XIII Addl. District and Sessions Judge, Visakhapatnam at Gajuwaka.
TUESDAY, THE TWENTY SECOND DAY OF SEPTEMBER, 2015
SESSIONS CASE No.85/2012
(P.R.C.No.23/2011 on the file of III Addl. Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Gajuwaka in Cr.No.287/2010 of Gajuwaka Traffic Police station, Visakhapatnam City)
NAME OF THE COMPLAINANT:State represented by the Inspector of Police, Gajuwaka Traffic Police station, Visakhapatnam City.
NAME OF THE ACCUSED:1. Gulla Mohan Rao @ Chicken Srinu @ Chepala Srinu, S/o. Late Veera Swamy, 36 years, Vadabalija,R/o.D.No.65-1-171/1,Veera VaralaxmiNilayam,SrinivasaNagar, Sriharipuram, Visakhapatnam, Ph:9948598290.
2. Adala Paparao, S/o. Tatarao, 39 years, Vadabalija, R/o.D.No. 65-1-194/G, Srinivasa Nagar,Coromonadalgate,Malkapuram, Visakhapatnam, ph.92982 51200.
3. Narsipuram Ramprasad, S/o. Late Bhujunga Rao, 40 years, Patnaik, D.No.24-9-7/1, Kanithi Road,Guntinivanipalem,Gajuwaka, Visakhapatnam, ph:5030902258.
4. Chodpalli Jagadeswara Rao, S/o. Late Suryanarayana, 45 years, Vadabalija, D.No.21- 42-39, opposite to AVN College, Visakhapatnam, Ph:9550427699.
5. Sunkara Surya Prakash @ Chilaka @ Bujji, S/o. Late Satyanarayana, 38 years, Telaga, Sujatha Nagar, Near Ratnagiri Nagar, Swatvik Residency, 2nd floor, Visakhapatnam, Ph: 9298007347.
6. Chintala Srinivas, S/o. Late Venkatayya, R/o.D.No.26-23-2, Chaitanya Nagar, China Gantyada, Visakhapatnam.
Date of Complaint/Report::18-05-2011
Date of apprehension:14-06-2011
Date of commencement of :02/03/15 trial:
Date of closing of Trial:12/06/15
Date of Judgment:22-09-2015
Whether the accused is/are in : Accused 1 to 6 are on bail bail or in Jail
Explanation for delay in :Vide Docket Extract committal Court
Explanation for delay in trial Vide docket extract Court:
This case is filed by the Inspector of Police, Gajuwaka Traffic Police station,
Visakhapatnam City. He has filed charge sheet against the accused 1 to 6 in
Cr.No.287/2010 of Gajuwaka Traffic Police station, Visakhapatnam City, for the offences punishable under sections 302, 201 r/w.34 of IPC and it was taken on file as
P.R.C.No.23/2011 on the file of III Addl. Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Gajuwaka, for the offence punishable under sections 302, 201 r/w.34 of IPC and committed to Metropolitan
Sessions Judge's Court, Visakhapatam, as the offence under sec.302 of IPC is exclusively
triable by the Court of Sessions. After receiving the record, it was numbered as
S.C.85/12 and made over the same to this Court for disposal according to law. Case is posted from time to time and on 23.10.2013 a charge under sec.302 r/w 34 of IPC was framed against the accused 1 to 5 and a charge under section 201 of IPC was framed against A.6, read over and explainedto them in their vernacular language and they pleaded not guilty to the said charges and claimed to be tried. Case is posted from time to time for fixing of trial schedule.
On 28.01.2015 trial schedule was fixed by this Court. On 02.03.2015 prosecution examined P.Ws.1 to 3 in chief-examination and got marked M.Os.1 to 5. On 04-03-2015 P.Ws.4 to 7 were examined and got marked Exs.P.1 and P.2. On 05-03-2015
P.Ws.8 to 16 were examined and got marked Exs.P.3 to P.9. On 09-03-2015 PWs.17 to 19 were examined and Exs.P.10 to P.18 got marked. On 10-03-2015 Exs.P.19 and P.20 got marked. On 11-03-2015 P.W.21 and P.W.22 were examined and Ex.P-21 to Ex.P-23 got marked. On 12-03-2015 P.W.23 to P.W.25 were examined and Ex.P-24 to P-27 got marked. On 13-03-2015 P.W.26 and P.W.27 were examined in chief-examination, on 16-03-2015 P.Ws.26 to P.30 were examined and M.Os.6 and 7 were marked. On 17-03-2015 P.Ws.26 to 29 were cross-examined, P.Ws.30 to 33 were examined and
Exs.P.31 to 39 and M.Os.8 to 14 were marked. On 13-04-2015 P.W.34 was examined and
Exs.40 to 43 were marked. On 12-06-2015 P.W.35 was examined and Exs.44 and 45 and
M.O.15 were marked and prosecution side evidence is closed. After closure of the prosecution evidence, on 26.06.2015 the accused 1 to 6 were examined under sec.313 Cr.P.C., with regard to the incriminating evidence adduced against them by the prosecution witnesses and they denied the truth in the evidence of prosecution witnesses and reported that they have no defence witnesses to be examined on their behalf. On 18.09.2015 arguments were heard on both sides and matter is posted for Judgment on 22-09-2015. On 22-09-2015 Judgment pronounced (Vide separate Judgment).
Hence, accused 1 to 5 are found not guilty under section 302 r/w.34 of
I.P.C., and accused 6 is found not guilty under section 201 of I.P.C., and A.1 to A.6 shall be acquitted u/Sec.235 (1) Cr.P.C. of the offence punishable u/Sections u/s.302, 201 r/w.34 of IPC. M.Os.1 to 9 and 11 to 15 shall be destroyed after the appeal time is over.
M.O.10 shall be confiscated to the State of Andhra Pradesh. The bail bonds and surety bonds of the accused 1 to 6 shall stand cancelled.
X ADDL. DISTRICT & SESSIONS JUDGE, ANAKAPALLI
(FAC) XIII ADDL. DISTRICT & SESSIONS JUDGE,
VISAKHAPATNAM AT GAJUWAKA.
Copies to:
1. The Registrar (Judicial), Hon'ble High Court of A.P., Hyderabad.
2. The III Addl. Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Gajuwaka in VSP.
3. The Commissioner of Police, Visakhapatnam.
M.V.O.P.NO. 1115/2011 1 Date:28.08.2015
IN THE COURT OF MOTOR VEHICLE ACCIDENTS CLAIMS TRIBUNAL–CUM-
XIII ADDITIONAL DISTRICT JUDGE: AT GAJUWAKA
Present: Sri Ch. Bala Gangadhar Tilak Roy, Chairman, Motor Vehicle Accidents Claims Tribunal-cum-X Additional
District Judge, Anakapalli,
(FAC) XIII Addl. District Judge, Gajuwaka.
FRIDAY, THE TWENTY EIGHTH DAY OF AUGUST, 2015
M.V.O.P.No.1115/2011
Between
1. Jagabathuni Sree Vani, W/o. Late Jagabathuni Kota Venkata Sivudu, Hindu, aged 41 years, employee.
2. Jagabathuni Vinaya Venkata Sowmya, D/o. Late Jagabathuni Kota Venkata Sivudu, Hindu, aged about 18 years, Student, (declared as Major as per the Orders passed in I.A.No.503/12, dated 21-12-2012).
3. Jagabathuni Nagasri, D/o. Late Jagabathuni Kota Venkata Sivudu, Hindu, aged about 19 years, Student, (declared as Major as per the Orders passed in I.A.No.77/14, dated 02-04-2015).
4. Jagabathuni Lakshmi Narayana, S/o. Koti Nagulu, i.e., father of deceased J.K.V.Sivudu, Hindu, aged about 70 years.
5. Jagabathuni Sivamba (died).
6. Boddu Koteswaramma, W/o. B.Srinivasa Rao, Hindu, aged about 41 years, R/o.Anumallipet, Desaipet Panchayat, Vetapalem Post – 523 187 and Mandal, Prakasam District, Chirala D.M.C., (6th petitioner is L.R., of 5th petitioner and hence added as a party as per the Orders passed in I.A.No.862/2014, dt.02-04-2015).
... Petitioners
All the petitioners i.e., 1 to 4 are the residents of Sector XI, Quarter No.120-D, Ukkunagaram, Visakhapatnam, Visakhapatnam District, Andhra Pradesh.
And
1.Indukuri Nagaraju, S/o. Lakshmipathi Raju, aged 53 years, Bus Driver of APSRTC, Kurmanapalem, Visakha Steel City Bus Depot, caste by Kshatriya, r/o.D.No.27-7-136/1, Sai Nagar, Gajuwaka, Visakhapatnam. 2.The Vice-Chairman and Managing Director, A.P.S.R.T.C, Bus Bhavan, Musheerbad, Hyderabad. 3.The Regional Manager, APSRTC, Visakhapatnam. 4.The Depot Manager, APSRTC, Kurmanapalem, Visakha Steel City Bus Depot, Visakhapatnam.
... Respondents
M.V.O.P.NO. 1115/2011 2 Date:28.08.2015
This petition has come up on 21-08-2015 before me for final hearing in the presence of Sri Sajja Srinivasa Rao, Advocate for petitioners and that the first respondent called absent and remained set exparte and of Sri A.Srinivas, Advocate
for the Respondent Nos.2 to 4 and upon hearing their arguments and the matter
having stood over for consideration till this day, this Court delivered the following:
O R D E R
This claim petition is filed by the petitioners, under Section 166 of the Motor
Vehicles Act, read with 455 of Andhra Pradesh Motor Vehicle Rules, claiming compensation of Rs.1,00,00,000/- against the respondents 1 to 4, on account of the death of one Jagabathuni Kota Venkata Sivudu, S/o. Jagabathuni Lakshmi
Narayana, in a motor vehicle accident with subsequent interest and for costs of the petition.
2. The pleadings of the petitioners are as follows:
The petitioners 4 and 5 are parents of Jagabathuni Kota Venkata Sivudu, herein after called as the deceased. The deceased was working as a foreman with
Employee No.108845 in E.M.D.Gas Safety Department in Visakha Steel Plant,
Visakhapatnam and put up service of 25 years in his employment. The deceased was drawing an amount of Rs.37,854.90 Ps., per month as salary and was contributing his earnings for the maintenance of the petitioners. The petitioners 2 and 3 are the daughters, while the petitioner 1 is the wife of the deceased.
3. The petitioners 2 and 3 were declared as majors by age as per the orders passed in I.A.No.503/2012, dated 21-12-2012 and the orders passed in
I.A.778/2014, dated 02-04-2015. The fifth petitioner who is the mother of the deceased died intestate on 13.10.2014 and that the sixth petitioner being legal representative of the fifth petitioner is added as necessary party to the petition, as per the orders in I.A.No.862/2014 in M.V.O.P.NO.1115/2014, dated 02.04.2015. The petitioners 4 and 5 were sickly persons and the petitioners 2 to 5 have lost medical aid from the quota of the deceased employee. The parents for the deceased were also eligible for medical aid from the company. The petitioners 1 to 5 have also lost facility of leave travel allowance benefits of Rs.20,000/- for every two years. The
M.V.O.P.NO. 1115/2011 3 Date:28.08.2015 petitioners 2 and 3 also lost school fee reimbursement benefits every month @ 40% and that the petitioners have lost bonus benefits to the tune of Rs.19,000/- per annum.
4.The deceased was hale and healthy prior to the accident and he was aged 46 years by the time of accident. The deceased was the sole bread winner of the entire family of the petitioners. One Allu Chalapathi Kumar, who is also Steel Plant
Employee informed to the wife of deceased i.e., first petitioner, about the accident to the deceased at 3.20 P.M., on 24.04.2011 and that deceased with injuries was admitted in Visakhapatnam Steel General Hospital. The accident occurred when the deceased was proceeding on his motor cycle bearing No.AP33 A 6117 to attend the shift duty. A bus bearing No. AP11 Z 6163 belonging to Visakhapatnam Steel City
Bus Depot being driven by APSRTC Bus Driver, who is first respondent, in a rash and negligent manner without blowing horn in high speed hit the motor cycle of the deceased and dragged him to a distance of 20 feet which resulted in severe head injury with bleeding. The doctors on examination of the deceased at the hospital declared him dead. The deceased sustained multiple injuries on his head and also he sustained injuries to his brain.
5.The first respondent was rash and negligent in driving AP11Z 6163 Bus (herein after called as Crime Vehicle) which was responsible for the cause of the accident to deceased. The Steel Plant Traffic Police Station registered a Crime in 162/2011, dated 24-04-2011. The parents of the petitioners are spending huge amounts for their medical needs and they are also unable to do any work. The second petitioner is studying in second year Intermediate course, while the third petitioner is studying Tenth Class. Deceased was drawing House Rent Allowance in addition to the salary, thus the monthly salary of the deceased was Rs.42,000/-.
6.The deceased was having fourteen years of further service by the time of his death. The deceased would have drawn Rs.80,000/- per month had he been alive. The pay revision is also due from the year 2012 to the deceased. The Pay
M.V.O.P.NO. 1115/2011 4 Date:28.08.2015
Revision is effected for every five years. The increase in the salary would be 40% of his salary. Considering the revision of salary to be effected after the year 2012 and after the year 2017, the increase would have been Rs.67,20,000/- altogether approximately. The petitioners are therefore entitled to an increase of
Rs.39,36,907/-.
7.The first respondent is driver of APSRTC Bus i.e., crime vehicle, the second respondent is the owner of the crime vehicle, the third and fourth respondents are subordinates to the second respondent. All the respondents 1 to 4 are jointly and severally liable to pay compensation to the petitioners. The petitioners are therefore claiming compensation amount of Rs.1,00,00,000/- on account of all heads from the respondents. Therefore the petitioners are entitled for the compensation amount as prayed for in the petition.
8.The second respondent filed counter with the following pleadings. The second respondent denied all the allegations of the petitioners with regard to the occurrence of the accident in the manner pleaded by the petitioners, the age of the deceased, the dependency of the petitioners entirely on the deceased, the salary income of the deceased etc.,. The further pleadings of the respondents are that the accident occurred due to rash and negligent driving of the deceased. The respondents also denied the remaining years of service of the deceased as fourteen years and that the deceased has put up twenty years of service as an employee in
Visakhapatnam Steel Plant. The increase in the salary of the deceased in the remaining service period as pleaded by the petitioners is also denied by the respondents. The respondents also denied the calculations given by the petitioners in the petition with regard to the standard of increase in the salary income and what to be earned by the deceased.
9. The respondents also denied that the first respondent has not got valid driving license to drive crime vehicle bus. However, the respondents admitted that the first respondent was driving the bus bearing No.AP 11 Z 6163 on 24.04.2011
M.V.O.P.NO. 1115/2011 5 Date:28.08.2015 and that the driver was taking right turn at four road junction, near the bus stop at
Sector 10 of the Steel Plant, the driver observed the approaching of the motor cyclist from right side road with an indication to turn further right and subsequently the driver left sufficient space to the motor cyclists to pass the vehicle. The other pleadings of the respondents are that the motor cyclist suddenly turned to the left margin while the bus was turning to the right side at that time was stopped by the first respondent by the brakes. However, the motor cyclist came in a very high speed and dashed the right side portion of the bus. The motor cyclist is in an inebriated condition, the accident occurred due to the speed of the motor cyclist while riding the motor cycle and due to inebriated condition of the motor cyclist. The motor cyclist skidded backwards after dashing bus there is no negligence on the part of the first respondent. Therefore, the petition may be dismissed and the petitioners are not entitled to any compensation amount.
10. Based on the above pleadings, the Court settled the following issues for trial :
1.Whether the deceased Jagabathuni Kota Venkata Sivudu, S/o. Jagabathuni Lakshmi Narayana, died in the accident that occurred due to rash and negligent driving of APSRTC driver of the bus bearing No.AP 11 Z 6163? 2.Whether the petitioners are entitled to compensation? If so, to what amount and from whom? 3.To what relief?
11. During the course of enquiry, on behalf of petitioners, P.Ws.1, 3 and 4 were examined and P.W.2 was eschewed and got marked Exs.A.1 to A.12 and on behalf of respondents, R.W.1 was examined and no documents were marked.
12. Heard both sides. The counsel for petitioners also filed written arguments.
ISSUE NO.1:
13. The evidence of P.Ws.1, 3 and 4 are only to be considered to know whether the petitioners' contentions are correct. The evidence of P.W.2 cannot be considered for the reasons that he was not submitted for cross-examination by the respondents. The evidence of P.W.3 disclosed that he has not witnessed the accident, so also the P.W.1 has not witnessed the accident. The only evidence of
M.V.O.P.NO. 1115/2011 6 Date:28.08.2015
P.W.4 is available to say that there was an accident to the deceased. According to
P.W.4, the crime vehicle dashed the deceased while he was going on his motor cycle at the scene of accident. So this evidence of P.W.4 is believable in view of the Ex.A.1
First Information Report, and Ex.A.7 Charge Sheet which are prima facie material, though not substantiate piece of evidence and though P.W.4 was not cited as witness in the charge sheet. However, the evidence of P.W.4 cannot be discarded for that reason.
14. The P.W.4 is also a co-employee in the Steel Plant along with the deceased.
The P.W.4 denied the suggestive case of respondent with regard to the non- observation of the accident by him, so as there is no specific rebuttal evidence, in any manner to discredit, the evidence of P.W.4, it can be considered to say that the accident occurred to the deceased due to the rash and negligent driving of the crime bus by the first respondent. Though the first respondent is examined as R.W.1, his evidence also shows that the deceased was approaching from the right side of the bus and that the crime bus was also proceeding straight to take right turn. It is the evidence of R.W.1 that though the deceased was proceeding towards right side by taking a turn but he turned left side suddenly, while the crime bus was taking turn towards right side.
15. The evidence of R.W.1 coupled with the investigation which is evident from
Ex.A.7 charge sheet, it can be said that the accident did not take place due to rash and negligent driving of the deceased. It is obviously evident prima-facie from the investigation of the police officer in Ex.A.7 that the first respondent has dashed the deceased and dragged him to distance. So the first respondent while driving the crime bus hit the deceased and that there was no turning taken by the deceased to the left side as spoken by the R.W.1. It is the evidence of the R.W.1 as if the deceased came in speed manner while driving his motor cycle and and hit the crime bus on right side. So the manner of accident as spoken by the R.W.1 cannot be believed in view of the facts and circumstances evident from the pleadings and the evidence of R.W.1.
M.V.O.P.NO. 1115/2011 7 Date:28.08.2015
16. Therefore, the accident occurred to the deceased due to rash and negligent driving of first respondent in driving the crime vehicle. The petitioners filed Ex.A.4 driving license which discloses the valid and effective driving license of the first respondent to drive the crime vehicle bus. Ex.A.6 Motor Vehicle Inspector Report reveals that the accident did not occur due to any mechanical defect or failure of brake. So, the accident was totally due to rash and negligent act of the first respondent. Ex.A.5 revealed that the crime bus was having registration certificate and that the Ex.A.6 also revealed the crime bus was having fitness certificate validly. Therefore, the crime bus was having all permissions to ply on the road.
Issue No.1 is answered accordingly, in favour of the petitioners and against the respondents.
ISSUE NO.2:
17. The contention of the petitioners is that the deceased was an employee in
Visakhapatnam Steel Plant Company. The evidence of P.W.1 being wife of the deceased reveals that the deceased was an employee of the Visakhapatnam Steel
Plant. Even, there is no specific denial of the respondents about the employment of the deceased in the Visakhapatnam Steel Plant. The evidence of P.Ws.3 and 4 proved that the deceased was working in the Visakhapatnam Steel Plant. The petitioners contended that the deceased was drawing a salary amount of
Rs.37,854.90/- per month, by the date of accident and that they filed Ex.A.11 salary certificate which pertained to the salary particulars of the deceased for the month of April 2011. This also mentioned the bank account number of the deceased. This pay certificate in Ex.A.11 disclosed the salary of the deceased as mentioned in the pleadings of the petitioners. The evidence of P.Ws.3 and 4 is also supporting the contention of the petitioners with regard to the salary amount of the deceased as mentioned in Ex.A.11.
18. The petitioners have not examined the accounts clerk who is concerned with the salary disbursement to the employees. Even the petitioners have not filed the bank account of the deceased to show the deposit of salary amount. However,
M.V.O.P.NO. 1115/2011 8 Date:28.08.2015 the pay slip / Ex.A.11 is not otherwise rebutted by the respondents to show that the particulars of salary as mentioned in Ex.A.11 are not correct. Ex.A.11 cannot be said to have mentioned incorrect particulars as suggested by the counsel for the respondents in the cross-examination of P.W.1. The format of Ex.A.11 cannot be obtained by the petitioners by fabricating the same. Ex.A.11 pertained to the computer generated particulars of the salary of the deceased. Several number of particulars have been mentioned in the salary pay slip and such particulars of the pay slip cannot be created by the petitioners. Therefore this Ex.A.11 pay slip can be relied on, to say that the deceased was earning a salary amount of Rs.37,854.90/- per month by the date of accident.
19. The deceased was having fourteen years of service as per the contention of the petitioners and that from the evidence of P.Ws.3 and 4 the deceased would have got two pay revisions, had he been alive till the end of superannuation of his service as per the contention of the petitioners. The evidence of management of the
Visakhapatnam Steel Plant is not placed by the petitioners to know whether the pay revisions would be given to Visakhapatnam Steel Plant employees as contended by the petitioners.
20. However, it is an undisputed fact with regard to the revision of pay scales of the employees, Visakhapatnam Steel Plant. The deceased being employee of a big organization like Visakhapatnam Steel Plant would naturally get pay revisions with higher benefits. So there would be definite increase in the salary income and other benefits to the deceased, had he been alive to continue his service. So the petitioners can be given benefit of increase in the salary of deceased on notional basis, as per the principle of law laid down by the Honourable Supreme Court of
India in the Judgment which is reported in 2013 (4) ALT 35 (Supreme Court) between
Rajesh and others Vs. Rajveer Singh and others
The age of the deceased was forty six years by the date of the accident. So the 30% of the prevailing salary is relevant percentage of the increase for the future will be
M.V.O.P.NO. 1115/2011 9 Date:28.08.2015 added to the income of the deceased shows that what could be loss in the financial terms to the petitioners. The petitioners being six persons, the deduction out of the earnings of the deceased towards his personal expenses would be put at 1/4th of the income. Therefore, the net income of the deceased has to be arrived yet, after making calculations as mentioned above which is as follows:
21. The salary of the deceased per month is Rs.37,854.90/-, 30% of the salary amount is Rs.11,356.47/-. This Rs.11,356.47/- shall be added to Rs.37,854.90/-.
Thus the salary income of the deceased per month is fixed at Rs.37,854.90/- +
Rs.11,356.47/- = Rs.49,211.37/- rounded to Rs.49,211/-. 1/4th of the income of
Rs.49,211/- comes to Rs.12,303/-. Out of Rs.49,211/-, the Rs.12,303/- shall be deducted towards personal expenditure of the deceased which comes to Rs.49,211/- - Rs.12,303/- = Rs.36,908/-. The net income of the deceased per month is
Rs.36,908/-. The annual income of the deceased is Rs.36,908/- x 12 =
Rs.4,42,896/-.
22. The multiplier of 13 is applicable in view of the age of the deceased, as per the second schedule of the motor vehicle act 1998. The compensation payable towards loss of dependency to the petitioners is to be assessed by multiplying annual net income i.e., Rs.4,42,896/- with the multiplier 13. Thus the petitioners are entitled to Rs.57,57,648/- (Rupees Fifty Seven Lakhs Fifty Seven
Thousand Six Hundred and Forty Eight only) towards loss of dependency on account of the death of the deceased who is the sole bread winner of the family of the petitioners.
23. The petitioners are entitled to other compensation amounts; the first petitioner being wife of the deceased is deprived of companionship at this age, so the amount of Rs.1,00,000/- is awarded towards loss of companionship. This amount is awarded considering the status of the deceased as an employee with substantial income in the Visakhapatnam Steel Plant.
24. The petitioners 2 and 3 being daughters of the deceased have lost the love and affection of the father. The petitioners 2 and 3 have thus lost the guidance,
M.V.O.P.NO. 1115/2011 10 Date:28.08.2015 support, care and caution of the deceased. Therefore, the petitioners 2 and 3 are awarded Rs.25,000/- each towards these aspects.
25. The fourth petitioner is father and he has lost love, affection and care from the deceased, therefore the fourth petitioner has been awarded an amount of
Rs.25,000/- in this regard. The fifth petitioner being the mother of the deceased is also entitled to compensation towards loss of love, affection and care from the deceased but she died while the case is pending. The sixth petitioner being daughter of fifth petitioner is added as legal representative of fifth petitioner. Therefore, sixth petitioner can also be awarded compensation on account of loss of his brother, whose love and affection is also expected by her.
26. The sixth petitioner can also claim compensation as legal representative of the fifth petitioner. Therefore, an amount of Rs.25,000/- is also awarded to sixth petitioner. However, the sixth petitioner is not entitled to any share in the compensation amount which is calculated above. The petitioners are also awarded an amount of Rs.5,000/- towards transport charges. Though the evidence of
P.Ws.1, 3 and 4 revealed that the petitioners are also being paid an amount equivalent to the salary amount of the deceased by the Visakhapatnam Steel Plant
Management, as per the scheme evolved by the Visakhapatnam Steel Plant
Management to the family members of the deceased employee of the
Visakhapatnam Steel plant, in case the employee of the Visakhapatnam Steel Plant dies during the period of their employment.
27. Therefore, the counsel for respondents contended that the petitioners have not sustained any financial loss. This contention of the counsel for respondents cannot be countenanced. The payment being made by the Visakhapatnam Steel
Plant in accordance with such scheme can be regarded as compensation payment to the deceased employee's family so as to prevent the family of deceased employee from facing any financial troubles for having sustenance and from vagaries of life.
The loss of the deceased to the family of the petitioners is also a loss in terms of money. The actual financial benefits which the petitioners' family would get, had the
M.V.O.P.NO. 1115/2011 11 Date:28.08.2015 deceased been alive, would not be extended to the family of the petitioners in Toto.
28. Therefore, the petitioners are entitled to the compensation from the respondents. The respondents are therefore liable to pay the compensation amount.
The petitioners are therefore entitled to total compensation amount of
Rs.57,57,648/- + Rs.1,00,000/- + Rs.50,000/- (Rs.25,000/- x 2) +
Rs.25,000/- + Rs.25,000/- + Rs.5,000/- = Rs.59,62,648/- from the respondents. The petitioners are also entitled to interest @ 6% per annum, on the said compensation amount from the date of petition till the date of realization, since the respondents have not settled the claim even after filing of this petition. The respondents 1 to 4 are jointly and severally liable to pay the compensation amount to the petitioners. Respondents 2 to 4 are however being owners and managers of crime bus are directed to deposit the said compensation amount within one month from the date of Judgment before this Court. The Issue No.2 is answered accordingly in favour of the petitioners and against the respondents.
ISSUE NO.3:
29. In the result, the petition is partly allowed, with proportionate costs, directing the respondents 1 to 4 jointly and severally, to pay the compensation amount of Rs.59,62,648/- (Rupees Fifty Nine Lakhs Sixty two Thousand Six
Hundred and Forty Eight only) with interest of 6% P.A., to the petitioners.
Respondents 2 to 4 are directed to deposit amount in this Court, within one month from the date of this Judgment and recover the same if necessary from the first respondent, failing which, the petitioners are at liberty to execute the Order and recover the compensation from the respondents 1 to 4.
The first petitioner is entitled to Rs.30,00,000/- (Rupees Thirty Lakhs only) and she is permitted to withdraw an amount of Rs.10,00,000/- (Rupees
Ten Lakhs only) with interest accrued there on. The petitioners 2 and 3 are entitled to Rs.7,50,000/- (Rupees Seven Lakhs Fifty Thousand only) each, which come to (Rs.7,50,000/- x 2 = Rs.15,00,000/-) Rs.15,00,000/- (Rupees
Fifteen Lakhs only), together with interest accrued thereon. The fourth petitioner
M.V.O.P.NO. 1115/2011 12 Date:28.08.2015 is entitled to Rs.14,37,648/- (Rupees Fourteen Lakhs Thirty Seven Thousand
Six Hundred and Forty Eight only). The fourth petitioner is entitled to withdraw an amount of Rs.2,50,000/- (Rupees Two Lakhs and Fifty Thousand only) and the sixth petitioner is entitled to Rs.25,000/- (Rupees Fifty Thousand only) and she is permitted to withdraw the same. The balance amount of petitioners 1 to 4 shall be deposited in a Nationalized Bank for a period of two years and thereafter the petitioners 1 and 4 are entitled to receive Fixed Deposit amount together with interest accrued thereon. The rest of the compensation claim is disallowed. The
Advocate’s Fee is fixed at Rs.1,000/-.
Dictated to Stenographer, transcribed by him, corrected and
pronounced by me in Open court, this the 28th day of August, 2015.
CHAIRMAN
MOTOR VEHICLES ACCIDENTS CLAIMS
TRIBUNAL-cum- X ADDL.DISTRICT JUDGE
ANAKAPALLI
(FAC) XIII ADDL. DISTRICT JUDGE,
GAJUWAKA
APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE
NO. OF WITNESSES EXAMINED
For Petitioners:
P.W.1 : J.Sreevani P.W.2 : D.Narasinga Rao (eschewed) P.W.3 : P.Nageswara Rao P.W.4 : A.Chalapathi Kumar
For Respondents:
R.W.1 : I.Naga Raju
NO. OF DOCUMENTS MARKED
For petitioners:
Ex.A.1 : Certified Copy of First Information Report. Ex.A.2 : Certified Copy of Complaint given by first petitioner.
M.V.O.P.NO. 1115/2011 13 Date:28.08.2015
Ex.A.3 : Certified Copy of P.M Report. Ex.A.4 : Certified Copy of driving license.
Ex.A.5 : Certified Copy of RC/B-Register. Ex.A.6 : Certified copy of Motor Vehicles Inquest Report. Ex.A.7 : Certified Copy of Charge sheet. Ex.A.8 : Office copy of legal notice. Ex.A.9 : Acknowledgment Due. Ex.A.10: Certified copy of ration card. Ex.A.11: Original last pay slip of the deceased for the month of April 2015. Ex.A.12: Identity card of deceased/Jagabathuni Kota Venkata Sivudu.
For Respondents:- NIL.
CHAIRMAN,
MACT-CUM X ADSJ, AKP
(FAC) XIII ADSJ., GWK.,
M.V.O.P.NO. 1115/2011 14 Date:28.08.2015 Date of presentation: 25-07-2011 Date of filing : 26-08-2011
IN THE COURT OF MOTOR VEHICLE ACCIDENTS CLAIMS TRIBUNAL–CUM-
XIII ADDITIONAL DISTRICT JUDGE: AT GAJUWAKA
Present: Sri Ch. Bala Gangadhar Tilak Roy, Chairman, Motor Vehicle Accidents Claims Tribunal-cum-X Additional
District Judge, Anakapalli,
(FAC) XIII Addl. District Judge, Gajuwaka.
FRIDAY, THE TWENTY EIGHTH DAY OF AUGUST, 2015
M.V.O.P.No.1115/2011
Between
1. Jagabathuni Sree Vani, W/o. Late Jagabathuni Kota Venkata Sivudu, Hindu, aged 41 years, employee.
2. Jagabathuni Vinaya Venkata Sowmya, D/o. Late Jagabathuni Kota Venkata Sivudu, Hindu, aged about 18 years, Student, (declared as Major as per the Orders passed in I.A.No.503/12, dated 21-12-2012).
3. Jagabathuni Nagasri, D/o. Late Jagabathuni Kota Venkata Sivudu, Hindu, aged about 19 years, Student, (declared as Major as per the Orders passed in I.A.No.77/14, dated 02-04-2015).
4. Jagabathuni Lakshmi Narayana, S/o. Koti Nagulu, i.e., father of deceased J.K.V.Sivudu, Hindu, aged about 70 years.
5. Jagabathuni Sivamba (died).
6. Boddu Koteswaramma, W/o. B.Srinivasa Rao, Hindu, aged about 41 years, R/o.Anumallipet, Desaipet Panchayat, Vetapalem Post – 523 187 and Mandal, Prakasam District, Chirala D.M.C., (6th petitioner is L.R., of 5th petitioner and hence added as a party as per the Orders passed in I.A.No.862/2014, dt.02-04-2015).
... Petitioners
All the petitioners i.e., 1 to 4 are the residents of Sector XI, Quarter No.120-D, Ukkunagaram, Visakhapatnam, Visakhapatnam District, Andhra Pradesh.
And
1. Indukuri Nagaraju, S/o. Lakshmipathi Raju, aged 53 years, Bus Driver of APSRTC, Kurmanapalem, Visakha Steel City Bus Depot, caste by Kshatriya, r/o.D.No.27-7-136/1, Sai Nagar, Gajuwaka, Visakhapatnam.
2. The Vice-Chairman and Managing Director, A.P.S.R.T.C, Bus Bhavan, Musheerbad, Hyderabad.
3. The Regional Manager, APSRTC, Visakhapatnam.
4. The Depot Manager, APSRTC, Kurmanapalem, Visakha Steel City Bus Depot, Visakhapatnam.
... Respondents
This claim petition is filed by the petitioners, under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, read with 455 of Andhra Pradesh Motor Vehicle Rules, claiming compensation of Rs.1,00,00,000/- against the respondents 1 to 4, on account of the death of one Jagabathuni Kota Venkata Sivudu,
M.V.O.P.NO. 1115/2011 15 Date:28.08.2015
S/o. Jagabathuni Lakshmi Narayana, in a motor vehicle accident with subsequent interest and for costs of the petition. A court fee of Rs.99,360/- is payable under Rule 475(1) of A.P.M.V Rules. The SBH Challan is herewith enclosed towards CF. This petition has come up on 21-08-2015 before me for final hearing in the presence of Sri Sajja Srinivasa Rao, Advocate for petitioners and that the first respondent called absent and remained set exparte and of Sri A.Srinivas, Advocate for the Respondent Nos.2 to 4 and upon hearing their arguments and the matter having stood over for consideration till this day, this Court doth Order and:
D E C R E E D E C R E E
1. that the petition be and the same is hereby allowed, in part, with proportionate costs in favour of the petitioners and against the respondents 1 to 4 jointly and severally;
2. that the Petitioners be and are hereby awarded compensation of
Rs.59,62,648/- (Rupees Fifty Nine Lakhs Sixty two Thousand Six
Hundred and Forty Eight only) with interest of 6% P.A., to the petitioners from the date of the petition i.e., 25-07-2011 till realization;
3. that the Respondents 2 to 4 are directed to deposit amount in this Court, within one month from the date of this Judgment and recover the same if necessary from the first respondent, failing which, the petitioners are at liberty to execute the Order and recover the compensation from the respondents 1 to 4.
4. that the first petitioner is entitled to Rs.30,00,000/- (Rupees Thirty Lakhs only) and she is permitted to withdraw an amount of Rs.10,00,000/- (Rupees Ten Lakhs only) with interest accrued there on.
5. that the petitioners 2 and 3 are entitled to Rs.7,50,000/- (Rupees Seven Lakhs Fifty Thousand only) each, which come to (Rs.7,50,000/- x 2 = Rs.15,00,000/-) Rs.15,00,000/- (Rupees Fifteen Lakhs only), together with interest accrued thereon.
6. that the fourth petitioner is entitled to Rs.14,37,648/- (Rupees Fourteen Lakhs Thirty Seven Thousand Six Hundred and Forty Eight only).
7. that the fourth petitioner is entitled to withdraw an amount of Rs.2,50,000/- (Rupees Two Lakhs and Fifty Thousand only); 8. that the sixth petitioner is entitled to Rs.25,000/- (Rupees Fifty Thousand only) and she is permitted to withdraw the same.
9. that the balance amount of petitioners 1 to 4 shall be deposited in a Nationalized Bank for a period of two years and thereafter the petitioners 1 and 4 are entitled to receive Fixed Deposit amount together with interest accrued thereon.
10. that the rest of the compensation claim be and the same is hereby disallowed without costs;
11. that the Advocate’s Fee is fixed at Rs.1,000/- (Rupees One Thousand only).
M.V.O.P.NO. 1115/2011 16 Date:28.08.2015
12. that the respondents 1 to 4 do also pay to the petitioners a sum of Rs.1,002-00 (Rupees One Thousand and Two only) towards Institutional costs of the petition.
Given under my hand and the seal of this Court, this the 28th day of August, 2015.
CHAIRMAN
MOTOR VEHICLES ACCIDENTS CLAIMS
TRIBUNAL-CUM X ADDL. DISTRICT JUDGE
ANAKAPALLI
(FAC) XIII ADDL. DISTRICT JUDGE,
GAJUWAKA
Memorandum of Costs
For Petitioners:For Respondents :
Rs. Ps. (No costs memo is filed) Stamp on vakalat 2 - 00 Advocate's fees 1,000 - 00 --------------- Inst. Costs allowed at Rs.1,002 - 00 --------------- (Rupees One Thousand and Two only)
Certified that the Decree is drafted in accordance with Order.
Administrative Officer.
CHAIRMAN
MACT-CUM-X ADJ, AKP
(FAC) XIII ADJ., GWK.,
M.V.O.P.NO. 698/2013 1 Date:11.09.2015
IN THE COURT OF MOTOR VEHICLE ACCIDENTS CLAIMS TRIBUNAL–CUM-
XIII ADDITIONAL DISTRICT JUDGE: AT GAJUWAKA
Present: Sri Ch. Bala Gangadhara Tilak Roy, Chairman, Motor Vehicle Accidents Claims Tribunal-cum-X Additional
District Judge, Anakapalli,
(FAC) XIII Addl. District Judge, Gajuwaka.
FRIDAY, THE ELEVENTH DAY OF SEPTEMBER, 2015
M.V.O.P.No.698/2013
Between
1. Vadamodula Masenamma, W/o. Late Nookanna, Hindu, aged 45 years, r/at. Jalaripeta Village, Venkatapathipalem Post, Mutyalammapalem Panchayat, NTPC (SO), Paravada Mandal, Visakhapatnam District.
2. Vadamodula Tata Rao, S/o. Late Nookanna, Hindu, aged 27 years, rest -do-.
3. Vadamodula Demudu, S/o. Late Nookanna, Hindu, aged 25 years, rest -do-.
4. Vadamodula Danayya, S/o. Late Nookanna, Hindu, aged 21 years, rest -do-.
5. Vadamodula Demudamma, W/o. Late Danayya, Hindu, aged 75 years, rest -do-.
... Petitioners
And
1. Tutta Thata Rao, S/o. Pydaiah, Hindu age not known, but major, owner cum driver of Auto bearing Regn. No.AP 31 TT 2741, r/at. D.No.30-95-13/9, Appikonda, Visakhapatnam.
2. M/s. United India Insurance Company Limited, represented by its Divisional Manager, D.O-II, Aspen Towers, Near Petrol Bunk, New Resapuvanipalem, Visakhapatnam.
... Respondents
This petition has come up on 4-09-2015 before me for final hearing in the presence of Sri R.Gnaneswara Rao, Advocate for petitioners and that the first respondent called absent and remained set exparte and of Sri S.S.Mohana Rao, Advocate for the Respondent No.2 and upon hearing their arguments and the matter having stood over for consideration till this day, this Court delivered the following:
O R D E R
This claim petition is filed by the petitioners, under Section 166 of the
Motor Vehicles Act, read with 455 of Andhra Pradesh Motor Vehicle Rules, claiming compensation of Rs.25,00,000/- against the respondents 1 and 2, in connection with the death of one Vadamodula Nookanna, S/o. Late Danayya, in a motor vehicle accident with an interest @ 12% per annum and for costs of the petition.
2. The pleadings of the petitioners are as follows:
The first petitioner is wife and petitioners 2 to 4 are sons and fifth
M.V.O.P.NO. 698/2013 2 Date:11.09.2015 petitioner is the mother of Late Vadamodula Nookanna, S/o. Late Danayya (here after called as deceased). The deceased was working as Junior Technician in Steel plant, Visakhapatnam and was drawing a salary of Rs.21,185/- as gross salary. On 21.05.2012 in the morning hours, the deceased went to attend his duty for General
Shift and was returning from his duty in the evening time and he boarded an auto vehicle bearing No. AP 31 TT 2741, herein after called as crime vehicle. While the deceased was travelling in the crime vehicle, the driver drove the crime vehicle in rash and negligent manner and lost control due to speed over the vehicle, which turned turtle on the road. Consequently the deceased received severe injuries on chest and other parts of the body and immediately he was shifted to Steel Plant
General Hospital for first aid.
3.Thereafter, the deceased was shifted to Seven Hills Hospital for better medical treatment but the doctor examined and declared him dead. The postmortem was conducted in K.G.Hospital on 22-05-2012. The accident occurred to the deceased due to the rash and negligence of the crime vehicle by the driver i.e., first respondent who is also owner of the crime vehicle. The steel plant police registered the case in crime No.109/2012 under sections 304-A, 338 of Indian Penal
Code against first respondent driver of the crime vehicle.
4.The deceased was only bread winner of the entire family of the petitioners and that the petitioners lost the livelihood and dependency. The first petitioner has lost the companionship while the other petitioners have lost the love and affection and guidance to the children. The deceased has got long service in the employment and that his salary would be increased in the course of time.
Therefore, the respondents 1 and 2 are liable to pay the compensation amount to the petitioners. The deceased was aged 48 years. The petitioners paid Rs.20,000/- towards funeral expenses and Rs.2,000/- towards transport expenses. Petitioners are claiming compensation of Rs.25,00,000/- along with 12% interest per annum from the date of accident till the date of realization.
5.The first respondent remained exparte and did not contest the petition.
M.V.O.P.NO. 698/2013 3 Date:11.09.2015
The second respondent Insurance Company filed counter with the following pleadings:
The second respondent denied all the allegations of the petitioners that the age of the petitioner was 48 years, the designation of the deceased employee was Junior Technician in Steel Plant and the earnings of the deceased were
Rs.21,185/- per month. The respondent also denied the manner of accident to the deceased as pleaded by the petitioners. The first respondent was not rash and negligent in driving the crime vehicle. The crime vehicle has got valid vehicular documents, such as C-Book, permit, fitness certificate etc., to ply on the road. The first respondent is holding a valid and subsisting driving license to drive crime vehicle by the time of accident. The respondent is not aware of the pendency of criminal case proceedings against the first respondent. The respondent company seeks protection under sections 147, 149 and 170 of M.V.Act. The petitioners are not entitled to interest as claimed by them. The interest has to be restricted to 6% per annum. Therefore, the petition may be dismissed.
6. Based on the above pleadings, the Court settled the following issues for trial :
1. Whether the petitioner sustained injuries in the motor accident occurred on 21-05-2012 at 5-45 P.M., near Alluri Seetha Rama Raju Junction, Paravada Road, Gajuwaka, Visakhapatnam, due to rash and negligent driving of the driver of the bajaj auto bearing No.AP 31 TT 2741 and later succumbed to death?
2. Whether the petitioners are entitled to compensation? If so, to what amount and from which of the respondents?
3. To what relief?
7. During the course of enquiry, on behalf of petitioners, P.Ws.1 to 4 are examined and Exs.A.1 to A.6 and Exs.X.1 to X.3 were marked, but on behalf of respondents, no oral or documentary evidence is adduced.
8.After closure of the evidence, arguments of both the petitioners and respondent No.2 heard.
9.The counsel for petitioners filed written arguments. The counsel for respondent No.2 also filed written arguments. Matter is thus posted for Judgment.
M.V.O.P.NO. 698/2013 4 Date:11.09.2015
The written arguments of the counsel for petitioners and respondent No.2 are considered.
ISSUE NO.1:
10.It is the contention of the petitioners that the first respondent who is the owner cum driver of the crime vehicle has driven the crime vehicle in rash and negligent manner without having control over the speed of the crime vehicle. The further contention of the petitioners is that the crime vehicle has turned turtle due to the rash and negligent act of the first respondent in driving the crime vehicle at high speed without having any control over the crime vehicle.
11.To prove these contentions P.Ws.1 to 4 are examined. P.W.1 is the wife of the deceased but she has not witnessed the accident. Therefore, her evidence is not of any help to say how the accident to the deceased occurred and consequently death of the deceased caused. P.W.2 is a third party who is the resident of
Muthyalammapalem. This P.W.2 was returning to his house after attending at hospital in Kurmannapalem on 21-05-2012, in the evening time on his motor cycle and that he has seen the crime vehicle proceeding with passengers near Alluri
Seetha Rama Raju Junction, Paravada Road. According to P.W.2, the driver of the crime auto vehicle drove the said vehicle in rash and negligent manner at high speed and lost control over the speed of the crime vehicle. Thus P.W.2 stated that the crime vehicle turned turtle due to such rash and negligent act of the first respondent / driver. P.W.2 has also rushed to the accident spot and has seen a male person sustained grievous injuries and immediately he was shifted to Steel Plant
General Hospital.
12.This evidence of P.W.2 reveals the manner of accident and how the deceased sustained injuries in the accident. Thus it is established through P.W.2 that the first respondent drove the crime vehicle in high speed without having control over the crime vehicle. This sort of the act of the first respondent Tantamounts to rash and negligent act, so this rash or negligent act of the first respondent in driving the crime vehicle resulted the turtle of the crime vehicle on the road and thereby
M.V.O.P.NO. 698/2013 5 Date:11.09.2015 causing injuries severely to the deceased. This is the evidence of P.W.2 which can be relied on to believe the case of the petitioners. There is nothing in the cross-examination of the P.W.2 to say that he has not witnessed the accident.
Though the P.W.2 had not given report to the police nor police recorded his statement, the evidence of petitioner cannot be disbelieved.
13.The suggestive case to the P.W.2 with regard to the happening of accident in darkness and the impossibility of witnessing accident is denied by P.W.2.
So the evidence of P.W.2 is trust worthy to say that the accident to the deceased occurred due to rash and negligent driving of the crime vehicle by the first respondent. Ex.A.1 is the First Information Report and Ex.A.5 is the charge sheet.
These two documents are not substantial piece of evidence but they can be considered as prima-facie material on the basis of which the investigation of the
Investigating Officer in respect of the motor vehicle accident that occurred to the deceased can be taken into view to know whether there is any prima-facie material to say that the first respondent committed any act of accident in driving the crime vehicle at the time of accident.
14.The charge sheet was filed on investigation by the Investigating Officer and it reveals prima-facie material to say that the first respondent was rash and negligent to cause the accident as pleaded by the petitioners, which resulted in the death of the deceased. Therefore, the petitioners proved that the deceased died in the motor vehicle accident due to rash and negligent act of the first respondent.
15.The second respondent has not adduced any evidence to rebut the evidence of the petitioners. The first respondent has not come into the witness box to deny the contentions of the petitioners either by filing counter pleadings or by examining himself as witness. So the adverse inference also can be drawn against the first respondent in this regard. Issue No.1 is answered accordingly, in favour of the petitioners and against the respondents.
M.V.O.P.NO. 698/2013 6 Date:11.09.2015
ISSUE NO.2:
16. It is the contention of the petitioners that the deceased was earning
Rs.21,185/- of gross salary per month by the date of his death. The petitioners filed
Ex.A.6 salary slip. Salary slip reveals that it pertains to the person by name
Vadamodula Nookanna, who is a Junior Technician of the Visakhapatnam Steel
Plant. P.W.3 filed Ex.X.2 salary certificate of the deceased by name Vadamodula
Nookanna. This Ex.X.2 also reveals that the deceased was working as Junior
Technician in Employee No.115186, Rashtriya Ispat Nigam Limited, i.e.,
Visakhapatnam Steel Plant. The salary of the deceased was Rs.20,846/- as per
Ex.X.2. So the Ex.X.6 is showing the excessive salary amount where as the deceased was receiving Rs.20,846/- as on the date of the deceased as per revised pay arrears which was effected from 01-01-2012. So the Ex.A.6 pay slip cannot be considered in view of the Ex.X.2 which is an authorized pay certificate produced by the employee of the Visakhapatnam Steel Plant on the summons of this Court.
Thus, the deceased was having a salary amount of Rs.20,846/- per month at gross.
17.Since the petitioner was aged 48 years even as per the evidence of
P.W.4, the date of birth of the deceased is 31-03-1964. The death of the deceased was on 21-05-2012. So, the deceased has completed 48 years by the date of his death. So, this evidence of P.W.4 coupled with the contentions of the petitioners can be considered to say that the deceased was having some more service in his employment. So the deceased has scope for increase in the income of the deceased.
Thus, the future increase in the income of the deceased can be fixed @ 30% of the existing salary income.
18.Therefore, the 30% of the salary income is Rs.6,253.80/-, this can be rounded off to Rs.6,254/-. This 30% is calculated as per the age of the deceased as per the Judgment of the Honourable Supreme Court of India, which is reported in
II (2012) ALC 377 (SC) between Santhosh Devi and National Insurance
Company Limited and others and also the Judgment of the Honourable Supreme
Court of India which is reported in 2009 ACJ 1298 between Sarala Varma and
M.V.O.P.NO. 698/2013 7 Date:11.09.2015 others and Delhi Transport Corporation and another.
19.Thus the gross income of the deceased per month is fixed at
Rs.6,254/- + Rs.20,846/- = Rs.27,100/-. The deceased has a family consisting of five members. Therefore, the personal expenditure of the deceased would be fixed at 1/4th of the income of the deceased. Thus the monthly net income of the deceased per month comes to Rs.27,100/- - (¼ x 27,100) = Rs.20,325/-. The annual income of the deceased is Rs.20,325/- x 12 = Rs.2,43,900/-.
20. The evidence of P.Ws.3 and 4 corroborated and supported the contentions of the petitioners in respect of income of the deceased as claimed by the petitioners.
The petitioners have lost the dependency which has to be compensated in terms of finance. The livelihood and sustenance of the petitioners is absolutely dependent on the deceased only. Therefore, the loss of dependency can be compensated by considering age of the deceased and the annual net income of the deceased. The compensation payable to the petitioners in this regard is calculated by multiplying the annual net income of Rs.2,43,900/- with the multiplier of 13 as per the age of the deceased at 48 years.
21.Thus the amount of compensation towards loss of dependency is payable @ Rs.31,70,700/- (Rupees Thirty One Lakhs Seventy Thousand and
Seven Hundred only) (13 x 2,43,900). The petitioners are also entitled to funeral expenses of Rs.20,000/- (Rupees Twenty Thousand only) as prayed for by the petitioners. The petitioners are also entitled to Rs.2,000/- (Rupees Two
Thousand only) towards transport charges. The first petitioner having lost the companionship of her husband is entitled for compensation which is awarded @
Rs.25,000/- (Rupees Twenty Five Thousand) and Petitioners 2 to 4 have lost love and affection of their father and they are awarded compensation @ Rs.3,000/- each, i.e., (3,000 x 3 = 9,000) (Rupees Nine Thousand only), fifth petitioner being mother lost love and affection of her son and she is awarded compensation of Rs.3,000/- (Rupees Three Thousand only). Thus they are entitled for total compensation amount of Rs.32,29,700/- (Rupees Thirty Two Lakhs Twenty
M.V.O.P.NO. 698/2013 8 Date:11.09.2015
Nine Thousand and Seven Hundred only) (Rs.31,70,700 + Rs.20,000/- +
Rs.2,000/- + Rs.25,000/- + Rs.9,000/- + Rs.3,000/-).
22. The petitioners are entitled to interest @ 6% per annum, on the said compensation amount from the date of petition till the date of realization, since the respondents have not settled the claim even after filing of this petition. The respondents 1 and 2 being owner-cum-driver and insurer of the crime vehicle are jointly and severally liable to pay the compensation amount to the petitioners.
Second respondent being Insurance Company is liable to pay compensation as First
Respondent Insurance Company has got valid driving license to drive crime vehicle and as the insurance policy was in force by the date of the accident as per the
Ex.A.4 that disclosed the particulars of the Insurance Policy. Ex.A.4 also reveals the driving license particulars of the first respondent driver. Thus the deceased died in the motor vehicle accident as per Ex.A.2 inquest report and Ex.A.3 postmortem report coupled with Exs.A.1 to A.5. Therefore, the petitioners are entitled to compensation amount of Rs.32,29,700/-. Second respondent being insurance company is liable to pay compensation amount to the petitioners and is directed to deposit the said compensation amount within one month from the date of Judgment
before this Court. The Issue No.2 is answered accordingly in favour of the
petitioners and against the respondents.
ISSUE NO.3:
23.In the result, the petition is allowed, with costs, directing the respondents 1 and 2 jointly and severally, to pay the compensation amount of
Rs.32,29,700/- (Rupees Thirty Two Lakhs Twenty Nine Thousand and
Seven Hundred only) with interest of 6% P.A., to the petitioners from the date of filing of petition i.e., 16-07-2013 till realization. Second Respondent being Insurance
Company is directed to deposit the compensation amount into this Court, within one month from the date of this Judgment and recover the same if necessary from the first respondent, failing which, the petitioners are at liberty to execute the Order and recover the compensation from the respondents 1 and 2.
M.V.O.P.NO. 698/2013 9 Date:11.09.2015
The first petitioner is entitled to Rs.20,00,000/- (Rupees Twenty
Lakhs only) and she is permitted to withdraw an amount of Rs.10,00,000/- (Rupees Ten Lakhs only) with interest accrued there on. The petitioners 2 to 4 are entitled to Rs.4,00,000/- (Rupees Four Lakhs only) each, which come to (Rs.4,00,000/- x 3 = Rs.12,00,000/-) Rs.12,00,000/- (Rupees Twelve Lakhs only), together with interest accrued thereon and they are entitled to withdraw the entire amount. The fifth petitioner is entitled to Rs.29,700/- (Rupees Twenty
Nine Thousand and Seven Hundred only) and she is permitted to withdraw the same. The balance amount of first petitioner shall be deposited in a Nationalized
Bank for a period of two years and thereafter the first petitioner is entitled to receive Fixed Deposit amount together with interest accrued thereon. The
Advocate’s Fee is fixed at Rs.10,000/-. The petitioners are directed to pay the Court fee on the excessive amount into Court. The Office is directed to collect the same.
Dictated to Stenographer, transcribed by him, corrected and
pronounced by me in Open court, this the 11th day of September,
2015.
CHAIRMAN
MOTOR VEHICLES ACCIDENTS CLAIMS
TRIBUNAL-cum- X ADDL.DISTRICT JUDGE
ANAKAPALLI
(FAC) XIII ADDL. DISTRICT JUDGE,
GAJUWAKA
APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE
NO. OF WITNESSES EXAMINED
For Petitioners: For Respondents:
P.W.1 : V.Masenamma R.W.1 : NONE P.W.2 : Someswara Rao P.W.3 : I.Gurumurthy P.W.4 : A.Seshu Kumar
M.V.O.P.NO. 698/2013 10 Date:11.09.2015
NO. OF DOCUMENTS MARKED
For petitioners:
Ex.A.1 : Certified Copy of First Information Report. Ex.A.2 : Certified Copy of Inquest Report. Ex.A.3 : Certified Copy of P.M Report. Ex.A.4 : Certified Copy of Motor Vehicle Inspector Report. Ex.A.5 : Certified Copy of Charge Sheet. Ex.A.6 : Salary slip of the deceased.
For Respondents:- NIL.
CHAIRMAN,
MACT-CUM X ADSJ, AKP
(FAC) XIII ADSJ., GWK.,
M.V.O.P.NO. 698/2013 11 Date:11.09.2015
Date of presentation: 16-07-2013 Date of filing : 16-07-2013
IN THE COURT OF MOTOR VEHICLE ACCIDENTS CLAIMS TRIBUNAL–CUM-XIII
ADDITIONAL DISTRICT JUDGE: AT GAJUWAKA
Present: Sri Ch. Bala Gangadhara Tilak Roy, Chairman, Motor Vehicle Accidents Claims Tribunal-cum-X Additional
District Judge, Anakapalli,
(FAC) XIII Additional District Judge, Gajuwaka.
FRIDAY, THE ELEVENTH DAY OF SEPTEMBER, 2015
M.V.O.P.No.698/2013
Between
1. Vadamodula Masenamma, W/o. Late Nookanna, Hindu, aged 45 years, r/at. Jalaripeta Village, Venkatapathipalem Post, Mutyalammapalem Panchayat, NTPC (SO), Paravada Mandal, Visakhapatnam District.
2. Vadamodula Tata Rao, S/o. Late Nookanna, Hindu, aged 27 years, rest -do-.
3. Vadamodula Demudu, S/o. Late Nookanna, Hindu, aged 25 years, rest -do-.
4. Vadamodula Danayya, S/o. Late Nookanna, Hindu, aged 21 years, rest -do-.
5. Vadamodula Demudamma, W/o. Late Danayya, Hindu, aged 75 years, rest -do-.
... Petitioners
And
1. Tutta Thata Rao, S/o. Pydaiah, Hindu age not known, but major, owner cum driver of Auto bearing Regn. No.AP 31 TT 2741, r/at. D.No.30-95-13/9, Appikonda, Visakhapatnam.
2. M/s. United India Insurance Company Limited, represented by its Divisional Manager, D.O-II, Aspen Towers, Near Petrol Bunk, New Resapuvanipalem, Visakhapatnam.
... Respondents
This claim petition is filed by the petitioners, under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, read with 455 of Andhra Pradesh Motor Vehicle Rules, claiming compensation of Rs.25,00,000/- against the respondents 1 and 2, in connection with the death of one Vadamodula Nookanna, S/o. Late Danayya, in a motor vehicle accident with an interest @ 12% per annum and for costs of the petition.
A fixed court fee of Rs.24,360/- is paid under Rule 475(1) of A.P.M.V Rules. Court Fees paid vide challan No.15, at State Bank of Hyderabad, District Court Branch, Visakhapatnam, dated 15-07-2013.
This petition coming on this day before me for final hearing in the presence of Sri R.Gnaneswara Rao, Advocate for petitioners and that the first respondent called absent and remained set exparte and of Sri S.S.Mohana Rao, Advocate for the Respondent No.2 and upon hearing their arguments and the matter having stood
M.V.O.P.NO. 698/2013 12 Date:11.09.2015 over for consideration till this day, and this Court doth Order and:
D E C R E E D E C R E E
1. That the petition be and the same is hereby allowed;
2.That the respondents 1 and 2 jointly and severally be and are hereby directed to pay the compensation amount of Rs.32,29,700/- (Rupees Thirty Two Lakhs Twenty Nine Thousand and Seven Hundred only) with interest of 6% P.A., to the petitioners from the date of filing of petition i.e., 16-07-2013 till realization.
3.That the second respondent being Insurance Company be and the same is hereby directed to deposit the compensation amount into this Court, within one month from the date of the Judgment i.e., 11-09-2015 and recover the same if necessary from the first respondent, failing which, the petitioners are at liberty to execute the Order and recover the compensation from the respondents 1 and 2.
4.That the first petitioner be and is hereby entitled to Rs.20,00,000/- (Rupees Twenty Lakhs only) and she is permitted to withdraw an amount of Rs.10,00,000/- (Rupees Ten Lakhs only) with interest accrued there on and that the balance amount of first petitioner shall be deposited in a Nationalized Bank for a period of two years and thereafter she is entitled to receive Fixed Deposit amount together with interest accrued thereon.
5.That the petitioners 2 to 4 be and are hereby entitled to Rs.4,00,000/- (Rupees Four Lakhs only) each, which come to (Rs.4,00,000/- x 3 = Rs.12,00,000/-) Rs.12,00,000/- (Rupees Twelve Lakhs only), together with interest accrued thereon and they are hereby entitled to withdraw the entire amount.
6.That the fifth petitioner be and is hereby entitled to Rs.29,700/- (Rupees Twenty Nine Thousand and Seven Hundred only) and she is permitted to withdraw the same.
7.That the petitioners be and are hereby directed to pay the Court fee on the excessive amount into Court.
8.That the Office is hereby directed to collect the same.
9.As per the direction of the Court in its Order, dated 11-09-2015, an additional Court fee of Rs.7,500/- has been paid by the petitioners into Court. Therefore, the total Court Fee paid by the petitioners is Rs.31,860/-.
10.That the Advocate’s Fee be and the same is hereby fixed at Rs.10,000/- (Rupees Ten Thousand only).
11. That the respondents 1 and 2 do also pay to the petitioners a sum of Rs.42,071-00 (Rupees Forty Two Thousand and Seventy One only) towards costs of the petition. Given under my hand and the seal of this Court, this the 11 th day of September, 2015.
CHAIRMAN
MOTOR VEHICLES ACCIDENTS CLAIMS
TRIBUNAL-CUM X ADDL. DISTRICT JUDGE
ANAKAPALLI
(FAC) XIII ADDL. DISTRICT JUDGE,
GAJUWAKA
M.V.O.P.NO. 698/2013 13 Date:11.09.2015
Memorandum of Costs
For Petitioners:For Respondents :
Cost memo filed. Rs. Ps. (No costs memo is filed)
Stamp on vakalat 3 – 00 Stamp of petition 31,860 – 00 Process Fees 100 – 00 Court fees of other documents 8 - 00 Advocate's fees (fixed) 10,000 – 00 Typing Charges 100 - 00 --------------- Costs allowed 42,071 - 00 --------------- (Rupees Forty Two Thousand and Seventy One only)
Certified that the Decree is drafted in accordance with Order.
Administrative Officer. CHAIRMAN
MACT-CUM-X ADJ, AKP
(FAC) XIII ADJ., GWK.,
M.V.O.P.NO.579/2013 1 Date:11.09.2015
IN THE COURT OF MOTOR VEHICLE ACCIDENTS CLAIMS TRIBUNAL–CUM-
XIII ADDITIONAL DISTRICT JUDGE: AT GAJUWAKA
Present: Sri Ch. Bala Gangadhara Tilak Roy, Chairman, Motor Vehicle Accidents Claims Tribunal-cum-X Additional
District Judge, Anakapalli,
(FAC) XIII Addl. District Judge, Gajuwaka.
FRIDAY, THE ELEVENTH DAY OF SEPTEMBER, 2015
M.V.O.P.No.579/2013
Between
Shabana Rahman, D/o. Azizur Rahman, Muslim, aged 24 years, r/at.D.No.11-32-37, Azzemabad, Gajuwaka, Visakhapatnam.
... Petitioner
And
1. Varam Rama Chandra Babu Naidu, S/o. Late Simhachalam Naidu, Hindu, aged 46 years, owner-cum-rider of motorcycle bearing Regn. No.AP 31 AS 8090, R/at.Qtr. No.138/F, Sector-V, Ukkunagaram, Visakhapatnam.
2. M/s.United India Insurance Company Ltd., represented by its Divisional Manager, Aspen Towers, near Petrol Bunk, New Resapuvanipalem, Visakhapatnam.
... Respondents
This petition has come up on 28-08-2015 for final hearing before me in the presence of Sri Vantaku Appa Rao, Advocate for petitioner and that the first respondent called absent and remained exparte and of Sri G.K.Swamy, Advocate for the second Respondent and upon hearing their arguments and the matter having stood over for consideration till this day, this Court delivered the following:
O R D E R
The petitioner filed this petition under Section 166 of Motor Vehicle Act r/w.Rule 455 of Motor Vehicles Rules, claiming compensation of Rs.1,50,000/- with interest @ 18% per annum, from the date of accident till the date of realization, for the injuries sustained by her in motor vehicle accident that occurred on 03-02-2013 at about 6-00 p.m., near Alluri Seetharamaraju Circle Junction, Paravada to KBR
Junction road, Gajuwaka, Visakhapatnam District.
2. The pleadings of the petitioner are as follows:
The petitioner along with her paternal junior aunt by name Apsara
Begum went to Indira Park, Steel Plant on her scooty moped bearing No.AP 31 AU
M.V.O.P.NO.579/2013 2 Date:11.09.2015 1779 and was returning to the house on 03-02-2013 and reached near Alluri
Seetharamaraju Circle Junction, Parawada, at about 6-00 P.M., at that time a Hero
Honda Karizma motor cycle bearing registration No.AP 31 AS 8090, being driven by
the first respondent in rash and negligent manner at high speed, came from left side of the moped vehicle of the petitioner and dashed the petitioner's moped without giving any signal. Consequently, the petitioner along with her paternal junior aunt fell on the road and sustained grievous injuries. The petitioner and her aunt were shifted to R.K.Hospital, Gajuwaka and they joined in Sri Krishna
Orthopaedic Center, Chinagantyada on the next day. The accident occurred only due to rash and negligent driving of the first respondent.
3.The steel plant police station registered the case in Crime No.25/2013 under sections 338 and 337 of IPC against the first respondent. The petitioner sustained fracture of lower end of left radius and fifth metacarpal of neck and that she became permanently disabled. The petitioner is not in a position to attend her normal duties and she has been continuously suffering from pain due to the injuries. The petitioner is unable to do any work due to fracture injuries. The petitioner was absent from her duties continuously and lost her employment. The petitioner took medical treatment as an inpatient and outpatient from Sri Krishna
Orthopedic Center, Gajuwaka and spent Rs.20,000/- towards medical treatment and
Rs.2,000/- towards transportation. The petitioner is therefore claiming
Rs.1,50,000/- with interest and prays the Court that this petition may be allowed.
4.First respondent remained exparte without contesting the petition. The second respondent Insurance Company filed counter with the following pleadings:
The respondent denied all the allegations with the petitioner with regard to the manner of accident as pleaded by the petitioner, the injuries and medical treatment of the petitioner as stated in the petition. The respondent contended that the first respondent has no valid and subsisting driving license. The first respondent was not rash and negligent in driving the vehicle bearing No.
AP 31 AS 8090, hereafter called as crime vehicle. The respondent denied the
M.V.O.P.NO.579/2013 3 Date:11.09.2015 medical expenditure amount incurred by the petitioner. The respondent seeks protection under sections 158, 147, 149 and 170 of the Motor Vehicle Act. The respondent also denied the age of the injured as 24 years and her avocation as a teacher. The respondent also denied the income of the injured @ Rs.6,000/- per month. The petitioner was rash and negligent in driving her moped scooty and she was responsible for the cause of accident. The petitioner is not having valid driving license to drive moped scooter at the time of accident. The petitioner claimed excessive compensation amount. There is no loss of earning for the petitioner and there is no disability for the petitioner. The petitioner is not entitled for interest @ 18% per annum. Therefore the petitioner is not entitled to compensation amount of
Rs.1,50,000/-. Therefore, the petition may be dismissed.
5.Based on the above pleadings, the Court settled the following issues for trial :
1. Whether the injured sustained injuries in the motor accident on 03-02-2013 at 6-00 P.M., at KBR Junction, Gajuwaka, occurred due to the rash and negligent driving of the driver of the Motor Cycle bearing No.AP 31 AS 8090?
2. Whether the petitioner is entitled to compensation? If so, to what amount and from which of the respondents?
3. To what relief?
6. During the course of enquiry, on behalf of petitioner, P.Ws.1 and 2 are examined and got marked Exs.A.1 to A.7 and on behalf of respondents, no oral or documentary evidence is adduced. The counsel for second respondent filed written arguments. The counsel for petitioner advanced verbal arguments. After hearing both sides, the matter is posted for Judgment.
ISSUE NO.1:
7.It is the evidence of P.W.1, who is the injured herself that she was going on a moped scooty along with her aunt as pillion rider to her house and that her moped scooty was dashed by the crime vehicle which was driven by the first respondent at the time of accident at the scene of accident. The other evidence of
P.W.1 is that the first respondent has driven the crime vehicle in rash and negligent manner without giving signals or without blowing horn. Thus the first respondent
M.V.O.P.NO.579/2013 4 Date:11.09.2015 tried to over take moped scooty of the petitioner from the left side of the petitioner.
8.Therefore, the P.W.1 thus spoke that the first respondent has committed act of rash and negligence to cause accident. The cross-examination of
P.W.1 by second respondent does not reveal anything with regard to the untrustworthiness of the evidence of P.W.1 with regard to the way in which accident occurred. The cross-examination of second respondent is to the effect that the accident did not occur due to the negligent act in driving the crime vehicle and that the petitioner did not sustain grievous injuries. This is a suggestive case of the second respondent denied by the P.W.1. The only contention through the cross- examination of P.W.1 by second respondent is that the petitioner sustained simple injuries.
9.Even suggestive case of second respondent is denied by the P.W.1 to the effect that the crime vehicle driver had no driving license at the time of the accident. Therefore, the evidence of P.W.1 is neither rebutted nor contradicted by eliciting anything in the cross-examination of P.W.1 so as to show that the accident did not occur as spoken to by the P.W.1. The evidence of P.W.1 is thus not in any way put in doubt with regard to the truth relating to the accident. Ex.A.1 is First
Information Report and Ex.A.2 is charge sheet, being prima-facie material is sufficient to say that the first respondent driver has committed act of rash and negligence in driving crime vehicle and causing accident to the petitioner.
10.These documents lend support to the evidence of P.W.1. Therefore, in view of this evidence of P.W.1 and the above mentioned documents, it can be said that the petitioner sustained injuries in motor vehicle accident that was caused by the first respondent. The first respondent is not examined as witness. He has neither filed any counter denying the pleadings of the petitioner. Second respondent has not examined any witness to disprove the contention of the petitioner.
Therefore, the case of the petitioner can be believed with regard to the rash and negligent act of the first respondent which result in the injuries to the petitioner.
Issue No.1 is answered accordingly in favour of petitioner and against the
M.V.O.P.NO.579/2013 5 Date:11.09.2015 respondents.
ISSUE NO.2:
11.The petitioner examined P.W.2 who is the Orthopedic surgeon of
Sri Krishna Orthopaedic Hospital, Gajuwaka. P.W.2 stated that the petitioner sustained fracture to the left wrist and fracture to the metacarp of left hand. So according to the P.W.2 both the injuries are grievous in nature. The suggestive case of the second respondent in the cross-examination of P.W.2 that the P.W.2 did not examine patient i.e., P.W.1 and P.W.1 has not sustained injuries. This suggestive case is denied by the P.W.2. According to P.W.2, the P.W.1 took some medical treatment in R.K.Hospital and later P.W.1 came to hospital to P.W.2. P.W.2 has not issued wound certificate and disability certificate. P.W.2 issued bills for Rs.3,600/- and did not suggest any bed rest for the patient and that the petitioner was not inpatient.
12.According to the P.W.2 one injury is grievous in nature and other injuries are simple in nature. This evidence simply proves that the P.W.1 was not admitted as inpatient and that P.W.2 has not issued wound certificate for the P.W.1.
P.W.2 has not advised bed rest for P.W.1. P.W.2 has earlier stated that petitioner sustained two fracture injuries but subsequently he stated that there was only one grievous injury to P.W.1 and other injuries are simple in nature. When the Ex.A.2 would certificate was not issued by the P.W.2, this Ex.A.2 cannot be said to have been proved by the P.W.1. The petitioner should have examined the doctor who has issued wound certificate. So the contents of wound certificate cannot be considered to say that the petitioner sustained two fracture injuries.
13.Even the evidence of P.W.2 doctor says, only one grievous injury was sustained by the petitioner. Therefore the petitioner can be said to have received only one grievous injury which is a fracture injury to her left wrist. Ex.A.2 shows that the wound certificate was issued by Dr. N.Kameswara Rao, P.W.2 is Dr. M.Murali
Mohan. So P.W.2 is not competent to speak about Ex.A.2 wound certificate. Ex.A.7 is the out-patient profile, Ex.A.5 is the medical bill. According to P.W.2, he has issued
M.V.O.P.NO.579/2013 6 Date:11.09.2015 medical bills for Rs.3,600/-. The petitioner filed medical bills to the tune of
Rs.6,431/-. Ex.A.7 out-patient profile related to the R.K.Hospital, Gajuwaka. This
R.K.Hospital does not belong to the P.W.2. So, this Ex.A.7 out-patient profile cannot be considered in the absence of evidence of doctor about out-patient treatment. So it can be said that the petitioner had incurred expenditure of Rs.3,600/- only towards medical expenditure.
14.The petitioner has thus not proved any medical treatment which she had taken in R.K.Hospital. Therefore, the alleged medical treatment in R.K.Hospital cannot be believed. The petitioner contends that she was working as teacher by the time of accident and that she filed Ex.A.6 salary certificate to show that she was earning Rs.10,000/- per month as salary. The petitioner pleaded in the petition that she was receiving a salary income of Rs.6,000/- per month. There is no evidence of the school management to prove Ex.A.6 salary certificate. So it cannot be said that the petitioner was earning Rs.10,000/- as salary per month by doing teacher job.
15.The petitioner has not placed any evidence to show that she has been absent from her school duties, however the evidence of P.W.2 disproved the contention of the petitioner that she is rather disabled and that she was advised bed rest. Therefore the petitioner with the injuries was not prevented from attending to her duties continuously for any longer period as contended by her. As she deposed, she might have taken rest for fifteen days to have relief from pain and sufferings due to her injury. She might have lost at best a salary of one month.
16.For all the above reasons, the petitioner is entitled for the following compensation. The petitioner has sustained only two injuries. Even according to
Ex.A.2 certificate or according to P.W.2. One of those two injuries is only a fracture injury and her other injury is simple in nature. Therefore, the petitioner is entitled to compensation for one grievous injury which is a fracture to the left wrist. The evidence of P.W.2 does not disclose any disability, even on evidential aspect.
Therefore, the petitioner can be awarded compensation as per the second schedule of the Motor Vehicles Act, after considering the economic factors prevailing as on
M.V.O.P.NO.579/2013 7 Date:11.09.2015 today.
17.As such, an amount of Rs.30,000/- (Rupees Thirty Thousand only) is awarded towards fracture injury to the left hand. The petitioner is entitled to the compensation for the other injury which is a simple in nature.
Therefore, considering the nature of injury, an amount of Rs.5,000/- (Rupees
Five Thousand only) is awarded as per the second schedule of the Motor
Vehicles Act towards compensation for simple injury. The petitioner is also entitled to medical bills to a tune of Rs.3,600/- (Rupees Three Thousand and
Six Hundred only). The petitioner is entitled to loss of earning temporarily for one month which can be awarded @ Rs.6,000/- per month. So the amount of
Rs.6,000/- (Rupees Six Thousand only) is awarded towards loss of
earnings temporarily for one month. The petitioner is also awarded an
amount of Rs.2,000/- (Rupees Two Thousand only) towards transport
expenses. The petitioner is also awarded an amount of Rs.5,000/- (Rupees
Five Thousand only) towards pain and sufferance. The reason is that the fracture injury invariably causes some inconvenience and pain to the body and mind of the petitioner.
18.The petitioner is not entitled to any compensation on the ground of disability due to the fracture injury. The reason is that the evidence of P.W.2 does not reveal any disability to the petitioner due to the injuries sustained by her. Even there is no certificate issued by medical board declaring any disability of the petitioner. Therefore, the compensation cannot be awarded for the reason of any disability to the petitioner. The petitioner is entitled to interest @ 6% per annum on the said compensation amount Rs.51,600/- (Rupees Fifty One Thousand and
Six Hundred only) from the date of petition till the date of realization, as the claim of the petitioner is not settled by the respondents. The respondents 1 and 2 are jointly and severally liable to pay the compensation to the petitioner. The second respondent being Insurance Company is directed to pay compensation to the petitioner and is directed to deposit the said compensation amount within one
M.V.O.P.NO.579/2013 8 Date:11.09.2015 month from the date of Judgment before this Court. The Issue No.2 is answered accordingly in favour of the petitioner and against the respondents.
ISSUE NO.3:
19.In the result, the petition is allowed in part with proportionate costs, directing the respondents 1 and 2 jointly and severally, to pay the compensation amount of Rs.51,600/- (Rupees Fifty One Thousand and Six Hundred only) with interest of 6% per annum, to the petitioner from the date of filing of petition i.e., 19-06-2013 till the date of realization. Second respondent being Insurance
Company is directed to deposit the compensation amount into this Court, within one month from the date of this Judgment and recover the same if necessary from the first respondent.
The petitioner is permitted to withdraw an amount of Rs.51,600/- (Rupees Fifty One Thousand and Six Hundred only) with interest of 6% per annum. The advocate fee is fixed as Rs.500/-.
Dictated to Stenographer, transcribed by him, corrected and
pronounced by me in Open court, this the 11th day of September,
2015.
CHAIRMAN
MOTOR VEHICLES ACCIDENTS CLAIMS
TRIBUNAL-cum- X ADDL.DISTRICT JUDGE
ANAKAPALLI
(FAC) XIII ADDL. DISTRICT JUDGE,
GAJUWAKA
APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE
NO. OF WITNESSES EXAMINED
For Petitioner:
P.W.1 : Shabana Rahman P.W.2 : Dr. M.Murali Mohan
For Respondents:NONE
M.V.O.P.NO.579/2013 9 Date:11.09.2015
NO. OF DOCUMENTS MARKED
For petitioner:
Ex.A.1 : Attested Copy of First Information Report. Ex.A.2 : Attested Copy of Wound Certificate. Ex.A.3 : Attested Copy of Motor Vehicle Inspector Report. Ex.A.4 : Attested Copy of Charge Sheet. Ex.A.5 : Prescription and Medical Bills for Rs.6,431/-. Ex.A.6 : Original salary certificate. Ex.A.7 : out-patient profile.
For Respondents:- NIL.
CHAIRMAN,
MACT-CUM X ADSJ, AKP
(FAC) XIII ADSJ., GWK.,
M.V.O.P.NO.579/2013 10 Date:11.09.2015
Date of presentation: 19-06-2013 Date of filing : 24-06-2013
IN THE COURT OF MOTOR VEHICLE ACCIDENTS CLAIMS TRIBUNAL–CUM-XIII
ADDITIONAL DISTRICT JUDGE: AT GAJUWAKA
Present: Sri Ch. Bala Gangadhara Tilak Roy, Chairman, Motor Vehicle Accidents Claims Tribunal-cum-X Additional
District Judge, Anakapalli,
(FAC) XIII Addl. District Judge, Gajuwaka.
FRIDAY, THE ELEVENTH DAY OF SEPTEMBER, 2015
M.V.O.P.No.579/2013
Between
Shabana Rahman, D/o. Azizur Rahman, Muslim, aged 24 years, r/at.D.No.11-32-37, Azzemabad, Gajuwaka, Visakhapatnam.
... Petitioner
And
1. Varam Rama Chandra Babu Naidu, S/o. Late Simhachalam Naidu, Hindu, aged 46 years, owner-cum-rider of motorcycle bearing Regn. No.AP 31 AS 8090, R/at.Qtr. No.138/F, Sector-V, Ukkunagaram, Visakhapatnam.
2. M/s.United India Insurance Company Ltd., represented by its Divisional Manager, Aspen Towers, near Petrol Bunk, New Resapuvanipalem, Visakhapatnam.
... Respondents
The petitioner filed this petition under Section 166 of Motor Vehicle Act r/w.Rule 455 of Motor Vehicles Rules, by claiming compensation of Rs.1,50,000/- with interest @ 18% per annum, from the date of accident till the date of realization, for the injuries sustained by her in motor vehicle accident occurred on 03-02-2013 at about 6-00 p.m., near Alluri Seetharamaraju Circle Junction, Paravada to KBR Junction road, Gajuwaka, Visakhapatnam District. A court fee of Rs.860/- in challan No.14, dated15.6.2013 is payable under Rule 475(1) of A.P.M.V Rules. The petition coming on this day for final disposal before me in the presence of Sri Vantaku Appa Rao, Advocate for petitioner and of Sri G.K.Swamy, Advocate for the second Respondent and that the first respondent called absent and remained exparte and upon hearing their arguments, and upon hearing their arguments and the matter having stood over for consideration till this day, this Court doth Order and:
M.V.O.P.NO.579/2013 11 Date:11.09.2015
D E C R E E D E C R E E
1. that the petition be and the same is hereby allowed, in part, with proportionate costs, in favour of the petitioner and against the respondents 1 and 2 jointly and severally;
2. that the Petitioner be and is hereby awarded compensation of Rs.51,600/- (Rupees Fifty One Thousand and Six Hundred only) with interest of 6% P.A., to the petitioner from the date of the petition i.e., 19-06-2013 till realization;
3. that the second respondent is directed to deposit the compensation amount in this Court, within one month from the date of this Judgment and recover the same if necessary from the first respondent.
4. that the petitioner be and the same is hereby permitted to withdraw an amount of compensation of Rs.51,600/- (Rupees Fifty One Thousand and Six Hundred only) with interest @ 6% per annum.
5. that the rest of the compensation claim be and the same is hereby disallowed without costs;
6. that the Advocate’s Fee is fixed at Rs.500/- (Rupees Five Hundred only).
7. that the second respondent do also pay to the petitioner a sum of Rs.1,125-00 (Rupees One Thousand One Hundred and Twenty Five only) towards proportionate costs of the petition. Given under my hand and the seal of this Court, this the 11th day of September, 2015.
CHAIRMAN
MOTOR VEHICLES ACCIDENTS CLAIMS
TRIBUNAL-CUM X ADDL. DISTRICT JUDGE
ANAKAPALLI
(FAC) XIII ADDL. DISTRICT JUDGE,
GAJUWAKA
Memorandum of Costs
For Petitioner:For Respondents :
Cost memo filed. Rs. Ps. (No costs memo is filed) Stamp on vakalat 3 – 00 Stamp of petition 360 – 00 Process Fees 156 – 00 Stamp duty and penalty 6 - 00 Advocate's fees (fixed) 500 – 00 Typing Charges 100 - 00 --------------- Proportionate Costs allowed1,125 - 00 --------------- (Rupees One Thousand One Hundred and Twenty Five only) Certified that the Decree is drafted in accordance with Order.
Administrative Officer. CHAIRMAN
MACT-CUM-X ADJ, AKP
(FAC) XIII ADJ., GWK.,
Order Record 4 total
| Case No. | Parties | Date | Type | Outcome |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| SC/85/2012 | State Rep by the Inspector of Police vs Gulla Mohan Rao | 22 Sep 2015 | Order On Exgibit | Acquitted |
| MVOP/579/2013 | Shabana Rahman vs Varam Rama Chandra Babu Naidu and 1 other | 11 Sep 2015 | Order On Exgibit | — |
| MVOP/698/2013 | Vadamodula Masenamma vs Tutta Thata rao | 11 Sep 2015 | Order On Exgibit | — |
| MVOP/1115/2011 | Jagabathuni Sree Vani vs Indukuri Nagaraju | 28 Aug 2015 | Order On Exgibit | — |
Frequently Asked Questions
How many cases has SRI. G.BALAGANGADHARA TILAK ROY handled?
SRI. G.BALAGANGADHARA TILAK ROY has handled 4 court orders since 2015 at Gajuwaka Court Complex Gajuwaka. The average disposal rate is 3 orders per month.
What types of cases does SRI. G.BALAGANGADHARA TILAK ROY hear?
Based on available records, SRI. G.BALAGANGADHARA TILAK ROY primarily handles Motor Accident matters (Motor Accident Claims) and Criminal matters (Sessions Cases) at Gajuwaka Court Complex Gajuwaka.
Where is SRI. G.BALAGANGADHARA TILAK ROY currently posted?
SRI. G.BALAGANGADHARA TILAK ROY is posted as VIII ADDITIONAL DISTRICT JUDGE COURT(FTC), GAJUWAKA at Gajuwaka Court Complex Gajuwaka, Visakapatnam, Andhra Pradesh.
Are judgments by SRI. G.BALAGANGADHARA TILAK ROY available online?
Yes. 4 judgments by SRI. G.BALAGANGADHARA TILAK ROY are available on Legistro with full text, outcome, and sections cited.
How fast does SRI. G.BALAGANGADHARA TILAK ROY dispose cases?
SRI. G.BALAGANGADHARA TILAK ROY disposes approximately 3 cases per month, based on 4 orders handled over their tenure at Gajuwaka Court Complex Gajuwaka.
Since when is SRI. G.BALAGANGADHARA TILAK ROY serving?
SRI. G.BALAGANGADHARA TILAK ROY has been serving at Gajuwaka Court Complex Gajuwaka since 2015.
Case Types
Posting History
-
Aug 2015 — Sep 2015VIII ADDITIONAL DISTRICT JUDGE COURT(FTC), GAJUWAKA
-
Aug 2015 — Sep 2015XIII ADDITIONAL DISTRICT AND SESSIONS JUDGE COURT, GAJUWAKA · 4 orders
Outcomes on Record
Other Judges at this Court