Sri. G. Pratap Kumar

IN THE COURT OF THE MOTOR ACCIDENTS CLAIMS TRIBUNAL

(I ADDL. DIST. JUDGE) AT NZAMABAD

Monday this the 19th day of March, 2012

Present: G. Prathap Kumar, B.A., B.L., Spl. Sessions Judge for trial of cases under SCs & STs (PoA) Act-cum-VIII A.D.J., Nizamabad. FAC: I Addl. Dist. Judge, Nizamabad.

O.P.No. 609 of 2010

BETWEEN:

1. Pandhiri Dhavu S/o Shivaiah, age 48 years, Occ: Coolie

2. Pandhiri Dhondubai W/o Dhavu, age 40 years, Occ: Housewife, Both R/o 50 quarters, I-2, Room No. 001, Nagaram, Nizamabad.

.. Petitioners

A N D

1. Kummathe Ashok S/o Ramkishan, aged 50 years, Occ: Business, driver of auto bearing No. AP-23U-3942, R/o H.No. 1-12-5/M, Jammikunta, Near Sai Baba Temple, Medak.

2. Kummathe Santosh S/o Ashok, aged 30 years, Occ: owner of auto bearing No. AP-23U-3942, R/o H.No. 1-12-5/M, Jammikunta, Near Sai Baba Temple, Medak.

.. Respondents

This petition coming on 16-3-2012 for final hearing before me in the presence of Sri Yerram Ganapathi, Advocate for Petitioners and respondents set ex parte, having stood over for consideration till this day, this Tribunal delivered the following:

O R D E R

1.This petition is filed U/s 166(1)(c)of M.V. Act read with Rule 455 of

A.P. Motor Vehicles Rules, 1989 seeking compensation of Rs.3,50,000/- for the death of Pandhiri Arjun in the motor vehicle accident that occurred on 12-7-2010 at about 10.30 a.m. in the shivar of Medak.

I-Pleadings of Petitioner:

2.Briefly stated case of the petitioners is that on 12-7-2010 at about 10.30 a.m., the deceased and others were travelling in the auto bearing

No. AP-23U-3942 from Medak town to Bodhan cross-roads and when they reached opposite to V.B. Wood Furniture, the driver of the said auto drove at high speed in a rash and negligent manner and lost control over the auto, as a result, the auto turned turtle. Due to which, the deceased

2609-10

sustained grievous injuries and was shifted to Govt. hospital Medak, where he died while undergoing treatment.

4. Basing on the complaint, Police Medak have registered a criminal case in FIR No. 110/2010 u/s 304-A, 337 IPC against the driver of the crime auto. It is also pleaded that the deceased was aged about 18 years, and doing fish business, and earning a sum of Rs.10,000/- per month.

5.Notice was served to the respondents and they did not turn up hence they were set ex-parte.

6.The petitioners in proof of their case, examined first petitioner as

PW-1 and they also relied upon Ex. A1 to A7.

7.The oral testimony of PW-1 is consistence with the pleadings as to the date, time and manner of accident. The petitioners claims that the deceased was their son and he was aged about 18 years and doing fish business and earning Rs. 10,000/- per month and due to the death of deceased, they lost earnings of the deceased, which he used to contribute for the welfare of the family and now they are suffering a lot and came on the road and begging for livelihood and prayed to award Rs. 3,50,000/-.

The above testimony was unchallenged since no cross-examination was done.

8.Ex. A1 is the certified copy of FIR, which shows that complaint was lodged by one M.A. Khalad. As seen from FIR, the accident occurred on 12-7-2010 and the driver of the auto namely Ashok was made accused.

The contents of the complaint are consistent with the pleadings and oral testimony of PW-1 as to the date, time and manner of accident. Ex. A6 is the charge-sheet. As seen from the charge-sheet, the police found that one Ashok was the driver of the auto bearing No. AP-23U-3942 at the time of accident and after investigation the police found that he was negligent in driving the vehicle and he was charge-sheeted for the offence u/s 304-

A, 337 IPC. Ex. A2 is the Inquest report wherein the apparent cause of

3609-10

death was shown as a result of road accident. Ex. A3 is the PME report of the deceased. The doctor who conducted postmortem examination opined that the death of the deceased was on account of haemorrage as a result of head injury.

9.On scrutiny of the above oral and documentary evidence, the petitioners clearly made out that the deceased was travelling in the crime auto. PW-1 is not an eyewitness, as such, his evidence may not be relevant for determining the negligence on the part of driver. PW-1’s statement coupled with police records and in the absence of any contra evidence from respondents, clearly makes out that the petitioners have made out the case that the accident was result of rash and negligent driving of auto bearing No. AP-23U-3942 and I have no hesitation to hold that the accident was result of rash negligent driving of the auto bearing

No. AP-23U-3942.

10.The oral testimony of PW-1 shows that the deceased was doing fish business and earning Rs. 10,000/- p.m. and at the time of accident, he was aged about 18 years. Except the oral evidence, no substantial evidence has been placed on record to show the age, occupation and earnings of the petitioner. As such, the claim of the petitioners regarding occupation and earnings has been rejected. However, since the deceased is shown as unmarried in Ex. A2 Inquest panchanama, the age of the mother of the deceased 40 years has to be considered, and the same has been taken for monetary benefit to be calculated if any. However, the petitioner is hale and healthy and aged about 18 years and his services as an unskilled labour cannot be ignored. Keeping in view the minimum wages payable to unskilled labour as on the date of accident a sum of Rs.

1,500/- (Rs. One thousand and five hundred only) is fixed towards monthly earnings.

4609-10

11.In order to apply the multiplier, the ratio laid down in Sarla Varma Vs.

Delhi Transport Corporation and another 2009 ACJ 1298, is relevant wherein it was held as follows:

21. We, therefore, hold that the multiplier to be used should be as mentioned in column 4 of the Table above (prepared by applying Susamma Thomas, Trilok Chandra and Charlie), which starts with an operative multiplier of 18 (for the age group of 15 to 20 and 21 to 25 years), reduced by one unit for every five years, that is, M-17 for 26 to 30 years, M-16 for 31 to 35 years, M-15 for 36 to 40 years, M- 14 for 41 to 45 years, and M-13 for 46 to 50 years, then reduced by two units for every five years, that is, M-11 for 51 to 55 years, M-9 for 56 to 60 years, M-7 for 61 to 65 years and M-5 for 66 to 70 years.

By following the above ratio, the appropriate multiplier for the person in the age group of 36 to 40 is 15 and same is fixed in the present case.

12.Admittedly, the deceased was unmarried. The petitioners who are parents of deceased and they are dependents of deceased. As per my findings as to the earnings, the deceased earnings fixed Rs. 1,500/- (Rs. One thousand and five hundred only) per month and 50% of the said income is to be deducted towards personal expenditure of the deceased keeping the ratio laid by the Apex Court in

Sarla Varma Vs. Delhi Transport Corporation and another 2009 ACJ 1298. After such deduction, a sum of Rs. 750/- per month is fixed for calculating the compensation and annual contribution comes to Rs. 9,000/-. The total loss of earnings comes to Rs. 9,000/- x 15 = Rs. 1,35,000/- (Rs. One lakh and thirty five thousand only). A sum of Rs. 5,000/- is awarded towards funeral expenses and the deceased was young person and died in the unfortunate accident. Keeping in view above factors in mind, a sum of Rs. 10,000/- is awarded towards loss of estate. Thus, in all the petitioners are entitled to Rs. 1,35,000/- + 5,000/- + 10,000/- = Rs.

1,50,000/-[ Rs. One Lakh and fifty thousand only].

Liability:

13.The first respondent is the driver and second respondent is owner of auto bearing No. AP-23U-3942. The deceased was travelling in the said auto. As such, both the respondents are jointly and severally liable to pay the compensation.

14.In the result, the petition is partly allowed awarding a total compensation of

Rs. 1,50,000/- [ One Lakh and fifty thousand only] with proportionate costs and

5609-10

interest @ 7.5% per annum from the date of filing of Original Petition till date of deposit. The 1st & 2nd respondents are jointly and severally liable to pay the compensation to the petitioners. They are directed to deposit the compensation amount and interest thereon, with proportionate costs, within one month from date of award so as to make payment to the petitioners. The rest of the claim is dismissed.

Out of the awarded compensation amount, 1st petitioner is apportioned Rs. 50,000/- (Rs. Fifty thousand only) and second petitioner is apportioned Rs. 1,00,000/- (Rs.

One lakh only). Soon after the deposit, petitioners are permitted to withdraw their share of amount with proportionate costs and accrued interest.

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

Typed to my dictation, corrected and pronounced by me in open Court, this the 19th day of March, 2012.

Chairman, FAC: MACT (I ADJ), Nizamabad. Appendix of Evidence

For Petitioner: For Respondents:

PW1 P. Dhavu None Exhibits marked

Ex A1: Certified copy of FIR Nil Ex A2: C.C. of Inquest Ex.A3: C.C. of PME report Ex A4: C.C. of Scene of offence with sketch Ex.A5: Certified copy of R.C. Ex.A6: C.C. of charge-sheet Ex.A7: MVI report

Chairman, FAC: MACT (I ADJ), Nizamabad.

6609-10

-:: D E C R E E ::-

IN THE COURT OF THE MOTOR ACCIDENTS CLAIMS TRIBUNAL

(I ADDL. DIST. JUDGE) AT NZAMABAD

Monday the 11th day of October, 2010 D/I: 12-9-2005. PRESENT: SRI M. LAXMAN, B.Sc., LL.M., Chairman, MACT (I ADJ), Nizamabad

O.P.No. 813 of 2005

BETWEEN:

1. Muthyam Baswaraj S/o Chen Basappa, aged 48 years, Occ: Agril., ,

2. Smt. Eramani W/o Baswaraj, aged 42 years, Occ: House-hold,

Both R/o Mardi village of Kallher (M), Dist. Medak.

.. Petitioners

A N D

1.S. Gangaram S/o S. Laxman, aged Major, R/o H.No. CT.261, Pochampad, Balkonda (M), Dist. Nizamabad (Owner of scooter bearing No. AP-25-E-512)

2. G. Pentaiah S/o Vittaiah, aged Major, R/o Bibipet, Kalher (M), Dist. Medak (Owner of the scooter bearing No. AP-23F-9915).

3.The United India Insurance Company Ltd., represented by its Br. Manager, Door No. 5-2-17/2, Main road, Near New bus stand, Sangareddy, Dist. Medak. (Vide policy No. 051403/31/04/01760 valid from 12-7-2004 to 11-7-2005).

.. Respondents

CLAIM:This petition is filed U/s 163 (a) of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 read with Rule 455 of A.P. Motor Vehicles Act, 1989 (for short the “Rules”) seeking compensation of Rs.5,00,000/- on the account of death of deceased Muthyam Ishwarppa s/o. Banswaraj in Motor accident took place on 18-8-2004 at about 5-00 p.m near Budmi Chowratha Banswada Mandal.

COURT Rs.4360/- is paid under rule 475 (i) (b) of APMV Rules. FEE:

This petition coming on 28-9-2010 for final hearing before me in the presence of M/s P. Anand Reddy & K. Shiva Kumar, Advocates for Petitioners, and respondent No. 1 & 2 set ex parte, and of Sri. Birla Rama Rao, Advocate

for respondent No. 3, and having stood over for consideration till this day, this

Tribunal DOTH ORDER AND DECREE AS FOLLOWS :-

The petition is partly allowed awarding a total compensation of Rs.

2,35,000/- [ Two Lakhs and thirty five thousand only] with proportionate costs and interest @ 7.5% per annum from the date of filing of Original Petition till

7609-10

date of deposit. The 1st to 3rd respondents are jointly and severally liable to pay the compensation to the petitioners. They are directed to deposit the compensation amount and interest thereon, with proportionate costs, within one month from date of award so as to make payment to the petitioners. The rest of the claim is dismissed. The awarded compensation amount is apportioned equally between the petitioners. Soon after the deposit, petitioners are permitted to withdraw their share of amount with proportionate costs and accrued interest.

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

That the Respondents are hereby directed do pay a sum of Rs.3368/- to the petitioner towards the costs of the petitioner.

-:: PARTICULARS OF COSTS ::-

For Petitioner For Respondent No.2

(Cost memo filed{) ( Costs memo not filed)

1. Stamp on petition Rs 1710/- Stamp on power: Rs 2-00

2. Stamp on powerRs. 2/-

3. Advocates FeeRs.1500/-

4. Stamp on exhibits Rs. 6/-

5. Service of process Rs. 100/-

6. Misc.Rs. 50/- ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ Total Rs.3360/- Rs. 2-00 -----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

GIVEN under my hand and seal of the Court on this the 11th day of October, 2010.

CHAIRMAN

MACT(I Addl. Dist. Judge), Nizamabad

8609-10

12. The oral testimony of the petitioner shows that he sustained fracture of left scapula, left side ribs, severe head injuries and other injuries. However, the testimony of PW-2 the doctor who treated the petitioner shows that the petitioner sustained laceration on the left scapula and fracture of 11th and 12th ribs. This testimony of PW-2 has been substantiated by the certificate issued under Ex. A3. This part of evidence was also unchallenged. As such, I have no hesitation to hold that petitioner sustained simple injuries on the left side scapula and fracture of 11th and 12th ribs which are grievous in nature.

13. As per the testimony of PW-2, petitioner was admitted in the hospital on 13-10-2004 and he was discharged on 18-10-2004 and he was treated conservative manner. However, petitioner claimed that he underwent operation and steel rods and plates were implanted by the doctor. This statement has not been supported by PW-2. Considering the kind of injuries sustained by the petitioner, the temporary loss of earning capacity of the petitioner is taken for three months. Accordingly, a sum of

Rs. 2,600 x 3 = 7,800/- is awarded towards temporary loss.

14.The petitioner claimed that he incurred Rs. 1,00,000/- towards medical expenses. No bills were produced, as such, his claim for medical expenses has been rejected. However, keeping the testimony of PW-2 who stated that the petitioner was treated for six days as inpatient, as such, a sum of Rs. 5,000/- is awarded towards medical expenses. There is no evidence from the petitioner to show that as a result of injuries the petitioner sustained any disability. Taking injuries sustained by the petitioner, I deem it appropriate to award a sum of Rs. 10,000/- for the injuries sustained by the petitioner which includes compensation for pain and suffering.

15.In the result, the petition is partly allowed awarding a total compensation of Rs.22,800/-[Rupees Twenty two Thousand, and eight

9609-10

hundred only] with proportionate costs and interest @ 7.5% per annum from the date of filing of Original Petition till date of deposit is awarded.

The respondent is liable to pay the compensation to the petitioner. He is directed to deposit the compensation amount and interest thereon, with proportionate costs, within one month from date of award. The rest of the claim of petitioner is hereby dismissed. Advocate fee is fixed at Rs.1000/- (Rs. One thousand only).

Dictated to P.A., transcribed by him, corrected and pronounced

by me in open Court, this the 3rd day of August, 2011.

Chairman, MACT(IADJ), Nizamabad.

Appendix of Evidence (witnesses examined for)

For Petitioner: For Respondents:

PW1: S. SrinivasNone PW2: Dr. G. Kaulaiah

Exhibits marked Ex A1: Certified copy of FIR Ex A2: Certified copy of charge-Nil sheet Ex A3: Certified copy of Injury certificate. Ex A4: Xerox copy of R.C. of crime vehicle.

Chairman, MACT (I ADJ), Nizamabad.

10609-10

DECREE

IN THE COURT OF THE MOTOR ACCIDENTS CLAIMS TRIBUNAL

(I ADDL. DIST. JUDGE) AT NZAMABAD

Monday this the 19th day of March, 2012 D/I: 5-10-2010 Present: G. Prathap Kumar, B.A., B.L., Spl. Sessions Judge for trial of cases under SCs & STs (PoA) Act-cum-VIII A.D.J., Nizamabad. FAC: I Addl. Dist. Judge, Nizamabad.

O.P.No. 609 of 2010

BETWEEN:

1. Pandhiri Dhavu S/o Shivaiah, age 48 years, Occ: Coolie

2. Pandhiri Dhondubai W/o Dhavu, age 40 years, Occ: Housewife, Both R/o 50 quarters, I-2, Room No. 001, Nagaram, Nizamabad.

.. Petitioners

A N D

1. Kummathe Ashok S/o Ramkishan, aged 50 years, Occ: Business, driver of auto bearing No. AP-23U-3942, R/o H.No. 1-12-5/M, Jammikunta, Near Sai Baba Temple, Medak.

2. Kummathe Santosh S/o Ashok, aged 30 years, Occ: owner of auto bearing No. AP-23U-3942, R/o H.No. 1-12-5/M, Jammikunta, Near Sai Baba Temple, Medak.

.. Respondents

Claim:This petition is filed U/s 166(1)(c)of M.V. Act read with Rule 455 of A.P. Motor Vehicles Rules, 1989 seeking compensation of Rs.3,50,000/- for the death of Pandhiri Arjun in the motor vehicle accident that occurred on 12-7-2010 at about 10.30 a.m. in the shivar of Medak.

Court Rs.2,860/- is paid under rule 475 (i) (b) of APMV Rules. FEE:

This petition coming on 16-3-2012 for final hearing before me in the presence of Sri Yerram Ganapathi, Advocate for Petitioners and respondents set ex parte, having stood over for consideration till this day, this Tribunal DOTH ORDER AND DECREE AS FOLLOWS:

In the result, the petition is partly allowed awarding a total compensation of

Rs. 1,50,000/- [ One Lakh and fifty thousand only] with proportionate costs and interest @ 7.5% per annum from the date of filing of Original Petition till date of deposit. The 1st & 2nd respondents are jointly and severally liable to pay the compensation to the petitioners. They are directed to deposit the compensation amount and interest thereon, with proportionate costs, within one month from date of award so as to make payment to the petitioners. The rest of the claim is dismissed.

Out of the awarded compensation amount, 1st petitioner is apportioned Rs. 50,000/-

11609-10

(Rs. Fifty thousand only) and second petitioner is apportioned Rs. 1,00,000/- (Rs.

One lakh only). Soon after the deposit, petitioners are permitted to withdraw their share of amount with proportionate costs and accrued interest.

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

The Court further order that the respondents do pay a sum of Rs.2,019/- to the petitioners towards costs of the petition.

::PARTICULARS OF COSTS::

For Petitioners For Respondent No.2

(Cost memo filed) ( Costs memo not filed)

1. Stamp on petition Rs. 860-00 ex parte

2. Stamp on power Rs. 2-00

3. Advocates Fee Rs.1,000-00

4. Stamp on exhibits Rs. 7-00

5. Service of process Rs. 100-00

6. Misc. Rs. 50-00 -------------------------------------------------------------------------- Total Rs 2,019-00 ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- GIVEN under my hand and seal of the Court on this the 19th day of March, 2012.

CHAIRMAN

(FAC) MACT(I Addl. Dist. Judge), Nizamabad

IN THE COURT OF THE MOTOR ACCIDENT CLAIMS TRIBUNAL (I

ADDL.DIST. JUDGE) AT NIZAMABAD

Present:- G. Pratap Kumar, B.A., B.L., Chairman, MACT (VIII ADJ), Nizamabad. FAC: I ADJ, Nizamabad.

Friday, the 16th day of March, 2012

OP No. 771 of 2008

Between:

1. Smt. Ajmeera Bhooli w/o. Ajmeera Hekna, aged 38 years, occu: Household, r/o. Mettumar thanda of Musheeranagar village, Sirikonda Mandal, Dist. Nizamabad.

2. Ajmeera Hekna s/o. Laxman, aged 45 years, occ: Labour, r/o. Mettumar thanda of Musheeranagar village, Sirikonda Mandal, Dist. Nizamabad. … Petitioners.

And

1. Smt. Neelam Soin w/o. Avinash soin, aged major, occu: owner of the lorry bearing No. HR 63 9178, r/o. No.70/A, GCR Enclave, Faridabad, New Delhi.

2. The National Insurance Company Ltd., Divisional Office – 28, Scope Minar, 11th floor, Core – 2, District Centre, North Tower, Laxminagar, Delhi – 11, represented by its Branch Manager, Branch Office: B. Laxmirajam Complex, Jawahar road, Nizamabad. (Vide Policy No.361700/31/07/6366643533, valid from 26.8.2007 to 25.8.2008) … Respondents.

This petition coming on this day before me for hearing in the presence of Sri Ega Gangareddy, Advocate for the petitioners and Sri K. Ashok, Advocate for the second respondent and the first respondent remained exparate and the matter having stood over for consideration till this day, this Tribunal made the following:

O R D E R

This is a petition filed by the dependents U/s.166(1) (c) of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (for short “the Act”) read with

Rule 455 of A.P. Motor Vehicles Rules, 1989 (for short ‘the 2OP 771-08

Rules’) seeking compensation of Rs.10,00,000/- for the death of Ajmeera Ravi (hereinafter called as deceased) in automobile accident dated 130.7.2008.

2.Briefly stated the case of the petitioners as follows:-

The petitioners are the parents of the deceased. On 30.7.2008 at about 11.30 p.m. while the deceased along with one Kethavath Balsingh were going on motorcycle bearing No.

AP 25C 9162 from Mettumar thanda of Musheernagar village of Sirikonda Mandal to Nizamabad and the said Kethavath

Balsingh was riding the motorcycle in a slow and cautious manner and on the way when they crossed Eenadu New paper office at Bardipur village shivar, one lorry bearing No. HR 63 9178 came from opposite direction, driven by its driver in a rash and negligent manner and at high speed and gave dash to the motorcycle, due to which the deceased fell down and died on the spot. By the date of accident the deceased was aged about 20 years and was studying B.Tech 2nd year and was conducting tuitions to 10th class and intermediate students and was earning Rs.10,000/- per month. The accident occurred only on account of rash and negligent driving of the lorry. The respondents 1 and 2 being the owner and insurer of the vehicle are jointly and severally liable to pay the compensation.

3.The first respondent remained exparte and second respondent filed written statement.

3OP 771-08

4.The second respondent in his written statement denied all the allegations as to the occurrence of the accident and disputed the claim of the petitioners for compensation. He submitted that the insured has to intimate the matter of the accident soon after its occurrence to the company, but the insured did not do so. He also contends that as per the contents of the petition and the FIR two vehicles i.e. lorry and motorcycle were involved in the accident and so there is every possibility of contributory negligence on the part of the rider of the motorcycle. As such, the owner and insurance company of the motorcycle bearing No. AP 25C 9162 are necessary parties to the petition to decide on whose rash and negligent driving, the alleged accident has occurred. As they were not made parties to the case, the petition is not maintainable and fit to be dismissed.

5.On the basis of the above pleadings, the following issues were framed:- 1- Whether the accident occurred on 30.7.2008 at about 11.30 p.m. due to rash and negligent driving of lorry bearing No. HR 63 9178 driven by its driver?

2- Whether the petitioners are entitled to compensation. If so, to what amount and from whom?

3- To what relief?

6.The second respondent filed IA 438 of 2011 U/s.170 of the Act and it was allowed.

4OP 771-08

7.The petitioners in proof of their case examined the second of them as PW1 and one independent witness as PW2 and got marked (13) documents. The second respondent did not adduce any oral evidence, but he got marked the copy of the insurance policy by consent as Ex.B1.

8.Heard the arguments of both the counsel

9.ISSUE NO.1: PW2-Kethavath Balsingh is said to be the eye witness to the accident and the rider of the motorcycle at the time of accident. He says that on 30.7.2008 at about 11.30 p.m. himself and the deceased were going on a motorcycle bearing No. AP 25C 9162 from Mettumar thanda to

Nizamabad and when they crossed Eenadu Office, Bardipur village shivar, a lorry bearing No. HR 63 9178 came from opposite direction being driven by its driver in a rash and negligent manner and at high speed and gave dash to their motorcycle, due to which, himself and the deceased fell down on the road and the deceased sustained grievous injuries and died on the spot and the said accident took place due to rash and negligent driving of the lorry by its driver and that he lodged the complaint before Dichpally police. In the cross examination, he denied that the accident occurred due to sudden turning of the motorcycle and not due to any negligence on the part of the driver of the lorry. He also denied that the accident occurred only on account of his own negligence as such the second respondent is not liable to pay 5OP 771-08 any compensation. Except the above suggestions, there is no any other worthwhile material elicited to show that his version about the manner of the accident is not true. Apart from that oral evidence, in Col.No.7 of FIR under Ex.A1 shows the allegation that on that day the driver of the lorry bearing No.

HR 63 9178 drove the vehicle rashly and negligently and gave dash to the deceased. Further, the police investigated into the crime of the accident and filed charge sheet under Ex.A2 alleging that on that day Rajesh, driver of the lorry drove the vehicle rashly and negligently and caused the accident. More over, PW2 is shown as complainant and injured in Ex.A2 charge sheet. Besides, Ex.A5 MVI report shows that the accident occurred not on account of any mechanical defects in the vehicle. So, the evidence of PW2 coupled with Exs.A1, A2 and A5 would amply prove that the driver of the lorry had caused the accident by driving the vehicle rashly and negligently. Hence, I hold that the accident occurred only on account of the rash and negligence of the lorry belonging to the first respondent. This issue is answered accordingly

10.ISSUE No.2: The petitioners claim that the deceased was 20 years old, he was Engineering student and also giving tuitions to 10th class and intermediate students and was earning Rs.10,000/- per month and used to contribute all his earnings to his family members. Further submitted that after the death of the deceased the lives of the petitioners became gloomy and miserable and they are leading their lives with 6OP 771-08 great difficulty and facing hardship and they are suffering from mental agony and they lost their only son. It is a fact that only son of the deceased died in the motor vehicle accident. It is also not in dispute that the deceased was second year

Engineering student. It is not known the future prospects of the deceased and we cannot expect that he would have earned Rs.10,000/- per month or he would have earned more than Rs.10,000/- per month. Had he been alive he would have completed his B.Tech. but at present, what would be the reasonable amount that can be awarded as reasonable compensation in favour of the petitioners? Taking into consideration of the fact that the deceased was only the son to the petitioners and he was Engineering student studying second year and taking into consideration the future prospects of the deceased, the notional income of the deceased is arrived at Rs.5,000/- per month or Rs.60,000/- per annum.

11.The deceased was unmarried. As per the principles enunciated in the decision in Sarla Verma and others Vs. Delhi

Transport Corporation and another reported in 2009 ACJ 1298, since the deceased was unmarried at the time of accident, after deducting 50% of his income towards his personal expenditure, his contribution to the family would be

Rs.30,000/- per annum.

The deceased was unmarried. Therefore, the age of the parents of the deceased shall be taken into consideration for 7OP 771-08 assessing the loss of dependency. As per the claim petition, the petitioner No.1/mother of the deceased was 38 years old.

Therefore, her age is taken as 38 years for the purpose of determining loss of dependency.

12.In a decision in Supe Dei and others Vs. National

Insurance Company Ltd., and others reported in ACJ 2002 SC page 1166, the Apex Court held that:

“Quantum – Fatal accident – Principles of assessment-Multiplier-Choice of – Deceased 32 years –

Tribunal adopted multiplier of 15 and it was maintained by the High Court in appeal. No claim under Section 163-A of Motor Vehicle Act, 1988, but Second Schedule can be taken as guideline – Whether appropriate multiplier would be 17. Held: Yes.

While considering the question of just compensation payable in a case all relevant factors including the appropriate multiplier are to be kept in mind. The position is well settled that Second Schedule under Section 163-A to the act which gives amount of compensation to be determined for the purpose of claim under the Section can be taken as guide line while determining the compensation under Section 166 of the Act. In that view of the matter, there is no reason why multiplier of 17 should not be taken as the appropriate multiplier in this case.”

13.The case on hand also stands on the same footing.

Therefore, relying on the guidelines of the Hon’ble Apex Court in the above decision, this Court does not see any reason as to why the multiplier contained in Second Schedule of Sec.

8OP 771-08 163-A of Motor Vehicles Act should not be applied. As per

Second Schedule of Sec. 163-A of Motor Vehicle Act, 1988, the appropriate multiplier to the person aged 38 years is 16.

Applying the said multiplier the present value of the future contribution of the deceased or in other words the loss of dependency comes to Rs.30,000/- x 16 = Rs.4,80,000/-. The petitioners are further awarded a sum of Rs.2,000/- towards transportation charges and another sum of Rs.2,000/-towards funeral expenses of the deceased.

As regards the liability to pay the compensation, the first respondent being the owner of the vehicle is liable to pay compensation. Admittedly, the offending vehicle was duly insured with the second respondent and the insurance was valid under Ex.A12 and Ex.B1 as on the date of accident i.e.

from 26.8.2007 to 25.08.2008. So, the insurance was in force by the date of accident which occurred on 30.7.2008. The second respondent being the insurer has contractual liability to indemnify the first respondent against the liability incurred by him. Therefore, the second respondent is also liable to pay the compensation.

14.The petitioners are wife and husband held entitled to total compensation of Rs.4,80,000/- + Rs.2,000/- + Rs.2,000/- = Rs.4,84,000/- (Rupees four lakhs eighty four thousands only) payable by the respondents with proportionate costs, and interest at the rate of 7.5% per annum, from the date of 9OP 771-08 petition till the date of realization. This issue is decided accordingly in favour of the petitioners.

15.ISSUE NO.3: In the result, the petition is allowed in part as follows:- 1That the first and second respondents shall jointly and severally pay the compensation of Rs.4,84,000/- (Rupees . four lakhs eighty four thousands only) with interest thereon at 7.5% per annum from the date of filing of the petition till the date of payment or deposit.

2That the first and second respondents shall pay costs of the petition proportionately. .

3That the respondents shall deposit the compensation amount within ( 60 ) days from today. .

4That the petitioner No.1 shall receive the compensation amount of Rs.1,00,000/- and the petitioner No.2 shall . receive the compensation amount of Rs.3,84,000/-.

5That on such deposit by the respondents, the first petitioner is permitted to withdraw her share of . compensation along with accrued interest.

6That the second petitioner is permitted to withdraw Rs.1,00,000/- along with accrued interest and the . remaining amount of Rs.2,84,000/- shall be deposited in any nationalized bank for a fixed term of five years.

7That the Advocate fee is fixed at Rs.5,000/-.

. Typed to my dictation, corrected and pronounced by me in open court this the 16 th day of March, 2012.

Chairma n, Motor Accident Claims Tribunal,

(I ADJ),

Nizamabad. -:: APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE ::-

FOR PETITIONER FOR

RESPONDENTS

PW1: Smt.Ajmeera Henka -None- PW2: Kethavath Balsingh 10OP 771-08 -:: Exhibits marked ::-

Ex.A1: CC of FIR Ex.B1: Copy of policy Ex.A2: CC of charge sheet Ex.A3: CC of PME report Ex.A4: CC of Inquest report Ex.A5: CC of MVI report Ex.A6: Xerox copy of SSC Certificate Ex.A7: Xerox copy of Intermediate certificate Ex.A8: Xerox copies of memorandum of marks Ex.A9: Bonafide certificate of Engineering Ex.A10: Identity card of Engineering college Ex.A11: Xerox copy of driving licence of crime vehicle Ex.A12: Xerox copy of insurance policy Ex.A13: Xerox copy of Permit. Chairman, Motor Accident Claims Tribunal,

(I ADJ),

Nizamabad.

DECREE

IN THE COURT OF THE MOTOR ACCIDENT CLAIMS TRIBUNAL (I

ADDL.DIST. JUDGE) AT NIZAMABAD

Present:- G. Pratap Kumar, B.A., B.L., Chairman, MACT (VIII ADJ), Nizamabad. FAC: I ADJ, Nizamabad. D/I:22-09- 2008 Friday, the 16th day of March, 2012

OP No. 771 of 2008

Between:

3. Smt. Ajmeera Bhooli w/o. Ajmeera Hekna, aged 38 years, occu: Household, r/o. Mettumar thanda of Musheeranagar village, Sirikonda Mandal, Dist. Nizamabad.

4. Ajmeera Hekna s/o. Laxman, aged 45 years, occ: Labour, r/o. Mettumar thanda of Musheeranagar village, Sirikonda Mandal, Dist. Nizamabad. … Petitioners.

And

11OP 771-08

3. Smt. Neelam Soin w/o. Avinash soin, aged major, occu: owner of the lorry bearing No. HR 63 9178, r/o. No.70/A, GCR Enclave, Faridabad, New Delhi.

4. The National Insurance Company Ltd., Divisional Office – 28, Scope Minar, 11th floor, Core – 2, District Centre, North Tower, Laxminagar, Delhi – 11, represented by its Branch Manager, Branch Office: B. Laxmirajam Complex, Jawahar road, Nizamabad. (Vide Policy No.361700/31/07/6366643533, valid from 26.8.2007 to 25.8.2008) … Respondents.

Claim:This petition is filed U/s 166(1)(c)of M.V. Act read with Rule 455 of A.P. Motor Vehicles Rules, 1989 seeking compensation of Rs.10,00,000/- for the death of Ajmeera Ravi in the motor vehicle accident that occurred on 30-7-2008 at about 11.30 p.m.Bardipur village shivar.

Court Rs.9,360/- is paid under rule 475 (i) (b) of APMV Rules. FEE:

This petition coming on 10-2-2012 in the presence of Sri Ega Gangareddy, Advocate for the petitioners and Sri K. Ashok, Advocate for the second respondent and the first respondent remained exparate and the matter having stood over for consideration till this day, the Court doth order and decree:

In the result, the petition is allowed in part as follows:- 1That the first and second respondents shall jointly and severally pay the compensation of Rs.4,84,000/- (Rupees . four lakhs eighty four thousands only) with interest thereon at 7.5% per annum from the date of filing of the petition till the date of payment or deposit.

2That the first and second respondents shall pay costs of the petition proportionately. .

3That the respondents shall deposit the compensation amount within ( 60 ) days from today. .

4.That the petitioner no.1 shall receive the compensation amount of Rs.1,00,000/- and the petitioner no.2 shall receive the compensation amount of Rs.3,84,000/-.

5That on such deposit by the respondents, the first petitioner is permitted to withdraw her share of . compensation along with accrued interest.

6That the second petitioner is permitted to withdraw Rs.1,00,000/- along with accrued interest and the .

12OP 771-08 remaining amount of Rs.2,84,000/- shall be deposited in any nationalized bank for a fixed term of five years.

That the Advocate fee is fixed at Rs.5,000/-.

7 The Court further orders that the respondents do pay a sum of Rs.9,365/-to the petitioners towards costs of the petition.

::PARTICULARS OF COSTS::

For Petitioners For Respondent No.2

(Cost memo filed) (Costs memo not filed)

1. Stamp on petition Rs. 4,200-00 Stamp on power Rs.2-00

2. Stamp on power Rs. 2-00

3. Advocates Fee Rs. 5,000-00

4. Stamp on exhibits Rs. 13-00

5. Service of process Rs. 100-00

6. Misc. Rs. 50-00 -------------------------------------------------------------------------- Total Rs 9,365-00 Total Rs.2-00 --------------------------------------------------------------------------- - GIVEN under my hand and seal of the Court on this the 16th day of March, 2012.

CHAIRMAN

(FAC) MACT(I Addl. Dist. Judge), Nizamabad presence of Sri Ega Gangareddy, Advocate for the petitioners and Sri K. Ashok, Advocate for the second respondent and the first respondent remained exparate and the matter having stood over for consideration till this day, this Tribunal made the following:

13OP 771-08

IN THE COURT OF THE MOTOR ACCIDENTS CLAIMS TRIBUNAL

(VIII ADJ) NIZAMABAD.

NOTICE

Between: D. Pedda Nagagonda and another … Petitioners.

And

Gouraji Raghavender and another … Respondents.

Take notice that the order in OP 311 of 2008 is going to be pronounced today i.e. on 19.1.2012.

To 1Sri P. Hanmanth Reddy, Advocate for petitioners 2Sri I. Gopal Sharma, Advocate for R2. 3 Notice Board

IN THE COURT OF THE MOTOR ACCIDENTS CLAIMS TRIBUNAL

(VIII ADJ) NIZAMABAD.

NOTICE

Between: D. Pedda Nagagonda and another … Petitioners.

And

Gouraji Raghavender and another … Respondents.

Take notice that the order in OP 311 of 2008 is going to be pronounced today i.e. on 19.1.2012.

To 14OP 771-08 1Sri P. Hanmanth Reddy, Advocate for petitioners 2Sri I. Gopal Sharma, Advocate for R2. 3 Notice Board

IN THE COURT OF THE I ADDL. SESSIONS JUDGE AT NIZAMABAD

Saturday this the 17th day of March 2012

Present: G. Prathap Kumar, B.A., B.L., Spl. Sessions Judge for trial of cases under SCs & STs (PoA) Act, Nizamabad. FAC: I Addl. Sessions Judge, Nizamabad.

NDPS SESSIONS CASE No. 13 of 2011

(FIR No. 33 of 2011 of Police Station Town-III, Nizamabad)

Between: The State through Sub-Inspector of Police, P.S. Town-III Nizamabad.

.. Complainant

AND

1. Mohd. Rasheed Khan S/o Mohd. Khan, age 40 years, R/o Autonagar, Nizamabad, now R/o at Gouthamnagar Nizamabad.

2. Shaik Shafiuddin S/o Shaik Mohinuddin, age 67 years, Occ: Herbal medicine selling, R/o H.No. 6-23-334, Gouthamnagar Nizamabad.

3. Shaik Azgar Moinuddin S/o Shaik Shafiuddin, age 22 years, Occ: Rezwana steel shop salesman, R/o H.No. 6-23-334, Gouthamnagar Nizamabad.

.. Accused

This case coming on this the 15-3-2012 before me for final hearing and disposal in the presence of Addl. Public Prosecutor for the State, and of Sri G.Younus Khan,Advocate for Accused No.1 and Sri Surya Chary, Advocate for accused No. 2 and 3, having stood over for consideration, till this day the Court delivered the following:

J U D G M E N T

The Sub-Inspector of Police, P.S. Town-III, Nizamabad, filed a charge-sheet in FIR No.33/2011for the offence under Section 8© r/w 20(b)(i) of NDPS Act 1985 against the accused alleging as follows:-

2. The case of the prosecution in a nutshell is that on 3-2-2011 at 0430 PW-5 P. Srishylam, S.I. of Police (PW-5) along with his constables while performing night patrolling, reached near flyover bridge,

Namdevwada, Nizamabad, in the meantime 3 persons were found under suspicious circumstances and started running towards Namdevwada,

Nizamabad, along with two bags. Upon which, police party suspected them and chased and apprehended two persons and one person escaped with one bag. During search of the bag, they found at one person and the bag contained ganja and found net cash of Rs. 20,900/- and on enquiry with him, he revealed his identity as A-2 and also confessed that A-1 is his son-in-law and running Matka game, and A-3 is his son and that he and his son support A-2. According to plan of accused No. 1 to 3, they went to 213-11 Dichpally Railway Station and purchased 6 kgs. of ganja from one unknown person at Rs. 350/- per kg., to sell at higher price at their house and packed ganja in two bags and came to Nizamabad in the auto and they got down at RTC bus-stand, Nizamabad. Thereafter, while they were coming towards Gouthamnagar on foot, and they reached at the flyover bridge, at the same time , police apprehended A-2 & A-3. Immediately

PW-5 sent requisition to PW-4 K.V.V. Ravi Kumar, Tahsildar, Nizamabad, who came and conducted confession and recovery panchanama of A-2 in the presence of respectable mediators PWs 2 & 3 and seized 100 grams of ganja and net cash of Rs. 20,900/- from the possession of A-2 under cover of panchanama and remaining ganja was burnt and PW-5 took the custody of A-2 & A-3 and registered a suo-motu case in Cr. No. 33/2011 under

Sec. 8© r/w 20(b)(i) of NDPS Act. Later the samples were drawn from the contraband and deposited in the court with a letter of advice to forward the same to the Chemical Examiner. The Chemical Examiner forwarded the samples and report opining that the forwarded substance is ganja. After completion of investigation, filed the present charge-sheet.

3. On appearance of the accused persons, copies of charge-sheet and other connected documents were furnished to accused as required u/s 207

Cr.P.C.

4. Charge for the offence punishable u/s 8(c) r/w 20(b)(ii)(C) of NDPS

Act was read over and explained to the accused, for which, they pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried.

5. The prosecution to bolster up its case examined PWs 1 to 5. PW-1 assisted the Investigating Officer, PWs 2 & 3 panch witnesses for confessional and recovery, PW-4 conducted confession and recovery panchanama, PW-5 Investigating Officer, who filed charge-sheet and got marked Ex. P1 to P5 and M.Os. 1 & 2.

313-11

6. The accused when examined U/s. 313 Cr.P.C. denied the truth of the incriminating evidence appearance against them and stated no defence.

7. In the light of above evidence, now the points for determination are,

1) Whether the prosecution proved the guilt of the accused u/s u/s 8(c) r/w 20(b)(ii)(C) of NDPS Act beyond all reasonable doubt?

2) To what relief?

8. PW-1 Banthilal, Home guard, says that on 3-2-2011 at about 4.30 p.m. he accompanied his S.I. and other staff member and while they were on patrolling duty at Namdevwada Railway over bridge, they spotted 3 persons started running away on seeing them, but they chased and apprehended A-1 & A-2 with a bag containing ganja and one person escaped holding a bag and they also found Rs. 20,900/- with A-1 & A-2 and they both confessed that they purchased 6 kgs. ganja from unknown persons at Dichpally railway station and equally filled in two bags. Later accused were taken to police station and M.R.O. arrived to police station and seized bag containing 3 kgs. Ganja and drawn two samples of 100 grams each under cover of panchanama. In the cross-examination, he stated that the panchanama was scribed by the S.I. of Police.

9. PW-4 K.V. Ravi Kumar, Tahsildar, Nizamabad, says that he received oral information from Police Town-III, Nizamabad, to come to police station and at their request he went to said police station and police secured two panchas and A-2 was present and at his instance, panchas enquired with A-2 as to his presence in police station and A-2 confessed about the commission of offence and shown the bags containing 6 kgs.

ganja and the same was seized by police in my presence and also drawn two samples weighing about 100 grams each sample and they also seized

Rs. 20,900/- from you A-2, later panchanama was drafted by a Station

Writer and he signed on the panchanama and remaining ganja was destroyed by setting fire. In the cross-examination, he stated that on 8-2- 413-11 2011 he received phone call from police station Town-III Nizamabad, and no where in Ex. P3 he has endorsed that the panchanama was scribed at his dictation by the Station Writer.

10. PW-5 P. Srisailam, S.I. of Town-III, Nizamabad, on 3-2-2011 while he along with his staff were on patrolling duty at Namdevwada Railway over bridge, they spotted 3 person started running away on seeing them, but they chased and apprehended two persons with a bag containing ganja and cash of Rs. 20,900/-, then he sent requisition to the Tahsildar,

Nizamabad, who visited the scene of offence and secured two mediators and the Tahsildar seized ganja and Rs. 20,900/- in the presence of mediators. Tahsildar taken two samples from the seized property and remaining ganja was burnt and after completion of panchanama accused were taken into custody and basing on panchanama he registered a case in Cr. No. 32/2011 under Sec. 8© r/w 20(b) of NDPS Act, and they were arrested and remanded them to judicial custody and after completion of investigation, he filed charge-sheet.

11. As seen from the evidence of PWs 1 & 5, they stated that on 3-2- 2011 while they were on patrolling duty, at about 4.30 a.m. they spotted the accused persons, but in the cross-examination PW-4 Tahsildar stated that he received phone call from the S.I. on 8-2-2011 and also stated that panchanama was drafted to his dictation by a Station Writer and they have drawn two samples of 100 grams each, whereas PW-1 in his cross- examination stated that S.I. has scribed the panchanama. As such, there is no corroboration among the official witnesses, which gives a doubt as to the case of prosecution. Moreover, as seen from Ex. P5 C.E. report wherein it is stated that they have received 50 grams gross in cloth bag stitched and sealed. It is not known what happened to other 50 grams of sample. PWs 2 & 3 alleged panchas for confession and recovery, not supported the case of prosecution. The testimony of PWs 1,4 & 5 is inconsistence and their evidence must be above suspicion. A little suspicion of their testimony must be corroborated. However, the 513-11 prosecution not placed any evidence to show that such information was reduced into writing either before starting the vehicle check or subsequent to vehicle check as mandatory u/s 42 of NDPS Act. There is violation of even substantial compliance of said procedure. All these circumstances and lack of corroboration gives the prosecution case doubtful. Hence benefit of doubt shall be given to the accused.

12. In the result, accused No. 1 to 3 are found not guilty of the offence under Sec.

8(c) r/w 20(b)(ii)(C) of NDPS Act and accordingly they are acquitted u/s 235(1)

Cr.P.C. Their bail bonds, if any, shall stand cancelled. M.O. 1 sample shall be destroyed M.O. 2 cash of Rs. 20,900/- shall be confiscated to the State after expiry of appeal time.

Typed to my dictation corrected and pronounced by me in open court on this the 17 th day of March, 2012.

FAC: I Addl. Sessions Judge Nizamabad.

APPENDIX OF EVIDNECE

Witnesses Examined For Prosecution For Defence PW1: Banthilal None PW2: G. Satyanarayana PW3: K. Gangadhar PW4: K.V.V. Ravi Kumar PW5: P. Srisailam

For Prosecution For Defence Exhibits marked Ex.P1: Signature of PW2 on panchanama Ex.P2: Signature of PW3 on panchanama Ex.P3: Panchanama Nil Ex.P4: FIR Ex.P5: C.E. report M.Os. Marked: M.O. 1: Sample M.O. 2: Cash of Rs. 20,900/- FAC: I Addl. Sessions Judge Nizamabad.

613-11

CALENDER AND JUDGMENT

IN THE COURT OF THE I ADDL. SESSIONS JUDGE AT NIZAMABAD

Saturday this the 17th day of March 2012

Present: G. Prathap Kumar, B.A., B.L., Spl. Sessions Judge for trial of cases under SCs & STs (PoA) Act, Nizamabad. FAC: I Addl. Sessions Judge, Nizamabad.

NDPS SESSIONS CASE No. 13 of 2011

(FIR No. 33 of 2011 of Police Station Town-III, Nizamabad)

Between: The State through Sub-Inspector of Police, P.S. Town-III Nizamabad.

.. Complainant

AND

1. Mohd. Rasheed Khan S/o Mohd. Khan, age 40 years, R/o Autonagar, Nizamabad, now R/o at Gouthamnagar Nizamabad.

2. Shaik Shafiuddin S/o Shaik Mohinuddin, age 67 years, Occ: Herbal medicine selling, R/o H.No. 6-23-334, Gouthamnagar Nizamabad.

3. Shaik Azgar Moinuddin S/o Shaik Shafiuddin, age 22 years, Occ: Rezwana steel shop salesman, R/o H.No. 6-23-334, Gouthamnagar Nizamabad.

.. Accused

1 Date of offence 3-2-2011 2 Date of report or complaint 3-2-2011 3 Date of apprehension of accused 3-2-2011 4 Date of release on bail 26-2-2011 5 Date of commitment -- 6 Date of commencement of trial 9-1-2012 7 Date of close of trial 14-3-2012 8 Date of Judgment 17-3-2012 9 Explanation of delay and remarks --

Encl: Copy of Judgment FAC: I Addl. Sessions Judge, Nizamabad.

To The Hon’ble Registrar (Judl.) High Court of A.P. Hyderabad.

713-11

IN THE COURT OF THE I ADDL. SESSIONS JUDGE AT NIZAMABAD

Saturday this the 17th day of March 2012

Present: G. Prathap Kumar, B.A., B.L., Spl. Sessions Judge for trial of cases under SCs & STs (PoA) Act, Nizamabad. FAC: I Addl. Sessions Judge, Nizamabad.

NDPS SESSIONS CASE No. 11 of 2009

(COR No. 79 of 2007-08 of Proh. & Excise Station, Yellareddy)

Between: The State through Asst. Proh. & Excise Inspector, SHO, Yellareddy.

.. Complainant

AND

1. Chukka Srinivasa Goud S/o Ramagoud, Age:40 years,Occ: Business, R/o H.No. 358, Kalyana Basthi, near Police Station, Yellareddy.

2. Madduri Ramulu S/o Penchulaiah, age 30 years, Caste: Vishwabrahmin, Occ: Business, R/o H.No. 4-4-44, Yerramannugucha, Yellareddy.

.. Accused No. 1 & 2

This case coming on this the 15-3-2012 before me for final hearing and disposal in the presence of Addl. Public Prosecutor for the State, and of Sri G.V. Krupakar Reddy, Advocate for accused No. 1 & 2, having stood over for consideration, till this day the Court delivered the following:

J U D G M E N T

The Asst. Proh. & Excise Inspector, Yellareddy, filed a charge-sheet in COR No.79/2007-08 against the accused persons for having committed the offence punishable U/s. 8 & 22 of NDPS Act.

2. Briefly stated the case of the prosecution as follows:

i) On 5-9-2007 on reliable information regarding illegal transportation of psychotropic substance by some persons, PW-2 R.S.

Kumareshwaran, Proh. & Excise Inspector along with his staff and by securing two mediators LW-1 B. Mallesh and PW-1 M. Kishan, proceeded to near Saibaba temple, Nizamsagar road, Yellareddy, and conducted route watch and they found two persons coming on a scooter towards them with registration No. AP-23B-4565 from Yellareddy side and proceeding towards Nizamsagar with two gunny bags, one on the front foot rest and the other on the lap of the pillion rider. On suspicion, the excise officials stopped the said scooter and on enquiry the rider of scooter disclosed his identity as A-1 and on enquiry with pillion rider he disclosed 211-09 his identity as A-2 and on opening the said bags, they found diazepam and on weighing the bags they found 37.315 kgs. And 26.930 kgs., respectively and they drew two samples of 50 grams of diazepam from each bag and sealed them in the prescribed manner. Later PW-3 R.

Nagendra Rao, Proh. & Excise Inspector, effected the arrest of accused and PW-4 K. Peersingh, Proh. & Excise Sub-Inspector, registered a case in

COR. No. 79/2007-08 under Sec. 8 and Sec. 22 of NDPS Act and the samples were sent to Chemical Examiner, who opined that the sample sent to him is Diazepam. After concluding the investigation, the present charge-sheet has been filed.

3. On appearance of the accused persons copies of charge-sheet and other connected documents were furnished to accused persons as required u/s 207 Cr.P.C.

4. Charge for the offence punishable u/s 8 and 22 of NDPS Act was read over and explained to the accused persons, for which, they pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried.

5. The prosecution to bolster up its case examined PWs 1 to 4. PW-1 is a panch witness, PWs 2 to 4 are Investigating Officers and got marked

Ex. P1 to P4 and M.Os. 1 to 3. Rest of the witnesses were given up by the

Addl. Public Prosecutor.

6. The accused when examined U/s. 313 Cr.P.C. denied the truth of the incriminating evidence appearance against them and stated no defence.

7. The learned counsel for the accused has vehemently argued that non-compliance of Sec. 42 of NDPS Act is fatal to the case of prosecution and mere oral evidence of police officer that requirement of Sec. 42(2) of the Act were complied with is not sufficient, when it is not the case of prosecution that sufficient time was not available to record information in writing and send it to superior officer and that independent mediator has 311-09 not supported the prosecution case and the other mediator has not been examined without any reason, as such, prayed to acquit the accused persons.

8. Heard. Perused the record.

9. In the light of above evidence, now the points for determination are,

1) Whether the prosecution proved the guilt of the accused u/s u/s 8 and 22 of NDPS Act beyond all reasonable doubt?

2) To what relief?

10. PW-1 M. Kishan, who is a the panch witness has not supported the prosecution case and turned hostile. So, the prosecution has relied upon the case on the evidence of PWs 2 to 4 who are investigating officers.

11. PW-2 R.S. Kumareswaran, Proh. & Excise Inspector, State Task

Force, Hyderabad, says that on 5-9-2007 at about 4.30 p.m. on reliable information, he along with his staff and two panch witnesses proceeded to

Nizamsagar road and found A1 & A2 carrying psychotropic substance by a scooter bearing No. AP-23-B-4565 and on search of the scooter they found a small gunny bag on the right side foot board of the scooter and another small gunny bag on the lap of A-2, and he opened both the bags and PW-3 conducted spot test of the substance and he confirmed that the substance is diazepam. LW-6 Madusudhan Rao, P&ESI, got weighed both the bags and the weights of the bags were 37.315 and 26.930 respectively.

Thereafter drawn two samples of 50 grams each from each bag and sealed them in the prescribed manner. In the cross-examination he admitted that he got the information from A.C. but he does not know whether the information has been reduced into writing or not and apprised to superior officer.

12. PW-3 R. Nagendar, Proh. & Excise Inspector, STF, says that on 5-9- 2007 he accompanied PW-2 and they secured panchas at the local bus station and proceeded to Saibaba temple at Nizamsagar road at 4.30 p.m.

and one scooter was coming from Yellareddy bearing No. AP-23B-4565 411-09 and they found two persons coming on scooter and the scooter was stopped and found two gunny bags one at the foot rest of the scooter and another on the lap of pillion rider, then they served search memo on them and opened two bags and found substance in the bags and he conducted spot test by taking little quantity of the substance and he confirmed that the substance is diazepam. Later, the bags were got weighed and the weights of the bags were 37.315 and 26.930 respectively. Thereafter drawn two samples of 50 grams each from each bag and sealed them in the prescribed manner. In the cross-examination he admitted that the

S.I. who went for weighing the contraband noted the weight on a slip and the person who weighed did not give any weight particulars. So, when the weight particulars have not been provided by the person who weighed the contraband, how could they say that the weights of the bags were 37.315 and 26.930 respectively, which gives suspicion.

13. PW-4 K. Peer Singh, P&ESI, SHO, Yellareddy, received case papers and basing on the same he registered a case in Cr. No. 79/2007-08 and remanded the accused persons to judicial custody.

14. So, the entire case of the prosecution is that excise officials while conducting route watch near Saibaba temple, Nizamsagar road, and conducted panchanama and recovered contraband in the presence of mediators PW-1 & LW-1 B. Mallesh. But, the mediators PW-1 has not supported the panchanama and seizure and he turned hostile, and the other mediators was not examined and no reasons were assigned for his non-examination. Moreover, PW-2 in his cross-examination admitted that the information received by him was not reduced into writing and send it to superior officer, which is mandatory under Sec. 42 of NDPS Act, but the prosecution absolutely failed to follow the mandatory provision under Sec.

42 of NDPS Act. PWs 2 to 4 are the excise officials and except these witnesses, no independent witness supported the prosecution case. The 511-09 above cumulative reasons go to show that prosecution failed to prove the charged offence against the accused beyond all reasonable doubt.

15. In the result, accused 1 & 2 are found not guilty of the offence u/s 8 r/w 22 of

N.D.P.S. Act and accordingly, they are acquitted u/s 235(1) Cr.P.C. Their bail bonds shall stand cancelled. M.Os.1 & 2 shall be destroyed and M.O.3 scooter shall be confiscated to the State after expiry of appeal time.

Dictated to personal Asst., transcribed by him, corrected and pronounced by me in

open court on this the 17 th day of March, 2012.

FAC: I Addl. Sessions Judge Nizamabad.

APPENDIX OF EVIDNECE

Witnesses Examined For Prosecution For Defence PW1:M. Kishan None PW2:R.S. Kumareshwaran PW3:R. Nagendra Rao PW4:L. Peer Singh.

Exhibits marked

Ex.P1: Search Memo Ex.P2: Panchanama Nil Ex.P3: COR Ex.P4: C.E. report

M.Os. Marked: M.O. 1: Sample M.O. 2: Contraband M.O. 3: Scooter

FAC: I Addl. Sessions Judge Nizamabad.

611-09

CALENDER AND JUDGMENT

IN THE COURT OF THE I ADDL. SESSIONS JUDGE AT NIZAMABAD

Saturday this the 17th day of March 2012

Present: G. Prathap Kumar, B.A., B.L., Spl. Sessions Judge for trial of cases under SCs & STs (PoA) Act, Nizamabad. FAC: I Addl. Sessions Judge, Nizamabad.

NDPS SESSIONS CASE No. 11 of 2009

(COR No. 79 of 2007-08 of Proh. & Excise Station, Yellareddy)

Between: The State through Asst. Proh. & Excise Inspector, SHO, Yellareddy.

.. Complainant

AND

1. Chukka Srinivasa Goud S/o Ramagoud,Age:40 years, Occ: Business, R/o H.No. 358, Kalyana Basthi, near Police Station, Yellareddy.

2. Madduri Ramulu S/o Penchulaiah, age 30 years, Caste: Vishwabrahmin, Occ: Business, R/o H.No. 4-4-44, Yerramannugucha, Yellareddy.

.. Accused No. 1 & 2

1 Date of offence 5-9-2007 2 Date of report or complaint 5-9-2007 3 Date of apprehension of accused 5-9-2007 4 Date of release on bail 8-10-2007 5 Date of commitment -- 6 Date of commencement of trial 25-11-2011 7 Date of close of trial 14-3-2012 8 Date of Judgment 17-3-2012 9 Explanation of delay and remarks --

Encl: Copy of Judgment FAC: I Addl. Sessions Judge, Nizamabad.

To The Hon’ble Registrar (Judl.) High Court of A.P. Hyderabad.

711-09

IN THE COURT OF THE I ADDL. SESSIONS JUDGE AT NIZAMABAD

Friday this the 16th day of March 2012

Present: G. Prathap Kumar, B.A., B.L., Spl. Sessions Judge for trial of cases under SCs & STs (PoA) Act, Nizamabad. FAC: I Addl. Sessions Judge, Nizamabad.

NDPS SESSIONS CASE No. 8 of 2004

(FIR No. 160 of 2003-04 of Excise Station Bodhan)

Between: The State through Proh. & Excise Inspector, SHO, Bodhan.

.. Complainant

AND

P. Shankaraiah S/o Mallaiah, age 30 years, R/o Ranganpet village, Mandal Yellareddypet, Dist. Kareemnagar Dist.

.. Accused

This case coming on this the 15-3-2012 before me for final hearing and disposal in the presence of Addl. Public Prosecutor for the State, and of Sri A.M. Ansari, Advocate for accused, having stood over for consideration, till this day the Court delivered the following:

J U D G M E N T

The Proh. & Excise Inspector, SHO, Bodhan, filed a charge-sheet in FIR No.160/2003-04for the offence under Section 8© r/w 20(b) of NDPS

Act 1985 against the accused alleging as follows:-

2. The case of the prosecution in a nutshell is that on 5-9-2003 PW-3

Venkataiah, Proh. & Excise Inspector, and PW-4 H. Sanjeeva Rao, Proh. &

Excise Sub-Inspector, while conducting vehicle check, passengers etc. at

Saloora Integrated check-post and at about 4.15 p.m. one bus bearing No.

AP-11Z-911 came to Saloora Check-Post point which was proceeding to

Bhivandi, they inspected the said bus in the presence of conductor and bus driver, and while checking, one person found suspiciously at seat No. 26, who possessed one bag and on enquiry he stated that the said bag belongs to him and on opening the bag, they found 5 kgs. of dry ganja and on enquiry, he disclosed his identity as accused and he failed to produce any valid licence or permit for possession, transportation and sale of ganja, and said officers secured the bus conductor and driver as panchas and seized the said contraband under cover of panchanama and also seized the bus tickets from the possession of accused, and drawn 2 samples of 50 grams each from the bag and sealed them in the prescribed 28-04 manner. Later the samples were deposited in the court to forward the same to the Chemical Examiner. The Chemical Examiner forwarded the samples and report opining that the forwarded substance is ganja. After completion of investigation, filed the present charge-sheet.

3. On appearance of the accused copies of charge-sheet and other connected documents were furnished to accused as required u/s 207

Cr.P.C.

4. Charge for the offence punishable u/s 8(c) r/w 20(b)(ii)(A) of NDPS

Act was read over and explained to the accused, for which, he pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried.

5. The prosecution to bolster up its case examined PWs 1 to 5. PWs 1 & 2 are panch witnesses, PWs 3 & 4 conducted panchanama and PW-5 issued COR, and got marked Ex. P1 to P6 and M.O. 1.

6. The accused when examined U/s. 313 Cr.P.C. denied the truth of the incriminating evidence appearance against him and stated no defence.

7. In the light of above evidence, now the points for determination are,

1) Whether the prosecution proved the guilt of the accused u/s u/s 8(c) r/w 20(b)(ii)(A) of NDPS Act beyond all reasonable doubt?

2) To what relief?

8. PW-3 Venkataiah, C.I. of Police, Saloora Check Post, deposed that on 5-9-2003 at about 4.15 p.m. while he along with his staff checking the bus bearing No. AP-11Z-911, found the accused in possession of a bag containing 5 kgs. of dry ganja and on enquiry he disclosed his identity and he confessed that he purchased dry ganja at Rangampet thanda of Sircilla

Mandal @ Rs. 200/- per kg., to sell the same at higher rate in

Maharashtra. He further deposed that he has drawn two samples of 50 grams each and in the presence of mediators PWs 2 & 3 he seized contraband under cover of panchanama and after conducting panchanama, he arrested the accused and seized bus tickets from him.

38-04

9. PW-4 H. Sanjeeva Rao, P&ES.I., Saloora Check-Post, deposed that on 5-9-2003 at about 4.15 p.m. they received credible information about illegal transportation of ganja, as such, they searched the bus bearing No.

AP-11Z-911 of Sircilla depot, PW-3 served search memo on the accused at seat No. 26 and on search found 5 kgs. of dry ganja in a green colour bag and on enquiry the accused disclosed his identity and he confessed that he purchased dry ganja at Rangampet village to sell the same at higher rate in Maharashtra.

10. PW-5 D. Dhanraj Goud, S.I., Bodhan, deposed that on 5-9-2003 at about 4.15 p.m. on the basis of panchanama he registered a case in COR

No. 160/2003-04 under Sec. 8© read with 20 of NDPS Act, later the accused was remanded to judicial custody.

11. As seen from the evidence of PW-3 C.I. of Police deposed that while he along with his staff checking the bus bearing No. AP-11Z-911, found the accused in possession of a bag containing 5 kgs. of dry ganja and he seized the same in the presence of two mediators PWs 1 & 2 who are conductor and bus driver. But, the said mediators clearly deposed that no seizure was made in their presence and no samples were drawn. As such, they turned hostile and no incriminating evidence is found in their cross- examination against the accused. The evidence of PW-4 who is excise official also deposed in the same lines as that of PW-3. Though the testimony of PWs 3 & 4 is consistence with the investigation but their status is interested witnesses and their evidence must be above suspicion.

A little suspicion of their testimony must be corroborated. There is no whisper regarding the remaining contraband. As seen from the C.E.

report, there is no mention of weight of samples. All these circumstances and lack of corroboration gives the prosecution case doubtful. Hence benefit of doubt shall be given to the accused.

48-04

12. In the result, accused is found not guilty of the offence u/s 8(c) r/w 20(b)(ii)(A) of N.D.P.S. Act and accordingly, he is acquitted u/s 235(1) Cr.P.C. He is ordered to be released forthwith if he is not required in any other case. M.O.1 shall be destroyed after expiry of appeal time.

Typed to my dictation corrected and pronounced by me in open court on this the 16 th day of March, 2012.

FAC: I Addl. Sessions Judge Nizamabad.

APPENDIX OF EVIDNECE

Witnesses Examined For Prosecution For Defence

PW1: M. Laxman None PW2: R. Chandraiah PW3: Venkataiah PW4: H. Sanjeeva Rao PW5: Dhanraj Goud

For Prosecution For Defence Exhibits marked Ex.P1: Signature of PW-1 on panchanama Ex.P2: Signature of PW-2 on panchanama Ex.P3: Panchanama Nil Ex.P4: Bus tickets Ex.P5: C.E. report Ex.P6: COR M.Os. Marked: M.O. 1: Sample

FAC: I Addl. Sessions Judge Nizamabad.

58-04

CALENDER AND JUDGMENT

IN THE COURT OF THE I ADDL. SESSIONS JUDGE AT NIZAMABAD

Friday this the 16th day of March 2012

Present: G. Prathap Kumar, B.A., B.L., Spl. Sessions Judge for trial of cases under SCs & STs (PoA) Act, Nizamabad. FAC: I Addl. Sessions Judge, Nizamabad.

NDPS SESSIONS CASE No. 8 of 2004

(FIR No. 160 of 2003-04 of Excise Station Bodhan)

Between: The State through Proh. & Excise Inspector, SHO, Bodhan.

.. Complainant

AND

P. Shankaraiah S/o Mallaiah, age 30 years, R/o Ranganpet village, Mandal Yellareddypet, Dist. Kareemnagar Dist.

.. Accused

1 Date of offence 5-9-2003 2 Date of report or complaint 5-9-2003 3 Date of apprehension of accused 5-9-2003 4 Date of release on bail 15-9-2003 5 Date of commitment -- 6 Date of commencement of trial 13-3-2012 7 Date of close of trial 15-3-2012 8 Date of Judgment 16-3-2012 9 Explanation of delay and remarks --

Encl: Copy of Judgment FAC: I Addl. Sessions Judge, Nizamabad.

To The Hon’ble Registrar (Judl.) High Court of A.P. Hyderabad.