Sri G. Raja Gopal

MV OP 510 of 2022 Injury

IN THE COURT OF THE MOTOR ACCIDENTS CLAIMS TRIBUNAL

[PRINCIPAL DISTRICT JUDGE] AT KHAMMAM

PRESENT: SRI G.RAJA GOPAL

PRINCIPAL DISTRICT JUDGE

Tuesday, May 5, 2026

MV OP No.510 of 2022

BETWEEN:

Guguloth Nethaji (Being minor represented by his father and natural guardian by name Guguloth Harisingh) … Petitioner

AND

1)Jarpula Sunil @ Banny (Being minor represented by his father and natural guardian by name Jarpula Sadar Lal)

2)Jarpula Sadar Lal … Respondents

Counsel for Petitioner:Sri M. Nagesh Babu Counsel for Respondents :Sri D. Prasad

This petition coming on 24.03.2026 for final hearing; upon hearing the counsel on record and considering the material on record and having stood over for consideration till this day, this Tribunal has made the following:

ORDER

This is a claim petition filed by the petitioner/claimant/injured (being minor represented by his father) under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 claiming compensation of Rs.5,00,000/- for the injuries sustained by him in a motor vehicle accident occurred on 30.08.2021.

May 5 1/14 PDJ, KMM

MV OP 510 of 2022 Injury

2.The brief averments of the claim petition is as under:

(i)That on 30.08.2021 at about 5.00 pm, while the claim petitioner/injured along with his friends boarded an auto bearing No.TS04UD0424 driven by respondent No.1; and that when they were returning to their village, on R & B road, at about 05.00 PM when the auto reached the transformer situated at the fields of respondent No.2, meantime the respondent No.1 drove the auto in a rash and negligent manner with high speed, in order to over take a trolley auto which was going ahead and lost control over the auto and auto fell down by the side of the road, as a result the minor petitioner sustained the following injuries i.e., 1) fracture of pelvis (interior and superior pubic injuries) and 2) injuries over abdomen, urinary bladder with distended bladder and multiple injuries all over the body. That the accident was occurred only due to the rash and negligent act of the driver of the offending vehicle Auto bearing

No.TS04UD0424.

(ii)That on a report, the police Raghunadhapalem have registered a case in crime No.58 of 2022 for the offence under Section 337 IPC against respondent No.1 and 2 herein being driver and owner of auto bearing

No.TS04UD0424.

(iii)Immediately, after the accident the claim petitioner was shifted to

Bhavani Hospital, Khammam, wherein he was admitted and treated for more than one week as an inpatient. During the course of treatment necessary

May 5 2/14 PDJ, KMM

MV OP 510 of 2022 Injury

tests were conducted, X-Rays were taken, abdomen scan was done and it was found fracture of right pelvic bone superior pubic ramus and injuries over abdomen, Urinary bladder with distended bladder and multiple injuries all over the body; and that a drain pipe was inserted and applied POP bandage to the right leg to set the hip bone fracture and also applied traction. The petitioner was discharged with an advice to take bed rest for about 3 to 4 months, with traction. Thereafter, as there is urinary infection, the petitioner was shifted to Asian Institute of Nephrology and Urology (AINU) at

Hyderabad, for urinary bladder treatment, wherein the petitioner was treated as an inpatient for 5 days. During the course of treatment in the said hospital, a major surgery was done on 11.01.2022 and the doctors advised to take complete rest for a period of one month and also to take follow up treatment.

In all the petitioner had spent more than Rs.3,00,000/- towards medical, investigation, treatment charges and other ancillary expenses.

(iv)That the claim petitioner was hale, healthy and was actively pursuing 10th class as on the date of accident and was aged about 17 years by the date of accident. Further due to the accident, the claim petitioner suffered a lot; and that he cannot become normal in future and cannot do hard work and he has to use medicines lifelong.

(v)That the respondent No.1 is the driver, respondent No.2 is the owner of offending vehicle Auto bearing No.TS04UD0424, there is no valid insurance

May 5 3/14 PDJ, KMM

MV OP 510 of 2022 Injury

policy to the crime vehicle and as the respondent No.1 being minor, hence, the respondent No.2 alone is liable to pay compensation of Rs.5,00,000/- to the petitioner/injured herein.

3.That the respondent Nos.1 and 2 made their appearance and filed counter denying the material averments of the claim petition including age, occupation, mode and manner of the accident and involvement of the offending vehicle in the said accident.

It is contended that the petitioner being relative to the respondents used to take the crime vehicle to go to their fields, but they did not make any complaint before the respondents, relatives and caste elders about the accident, but surprisingly after 6 months they lodged a criminal case by creating false story against the respondents and prayed this Court to dismiss the petition with exemplary costs.

4.Based on the above pleadings, the then presiding officer of this

Tribunal had framed the following issues for trial:

1)Whether the petitioner sustained injuries in the motor vehicle accident took place on 30.08.2021? If so, whether the accident was occurred due to rash and negligent driving by the driver of the auto bearing No.TS04UD0424 ?

2)Whether the petitioner is entitled to any compensation? If so, to what amount and from whom it should be collected?

3)To what relief?

May 5 4/14 PDJ, KMM

MV OP 510 of 2022 Injury

5.During the course of trial, PWs1 to 3 are examined and got marked

Exs.P1 to P19 on behalf of the claim petitioner. RW1 is examined and no documents marked on behalf of respondents.

6.Heard arguments of learned counsel for petitioner. Written arguments of respondent Nos.1 and 2 have been filed and this Tribunal has given thoughtful consideration to the said written arguments.

Issue No.1:

1)Whether the petitioner sustained injuries in the motor vehicle accident took place on 30.08.2021? If so, whether the accident was occurred due to rash and negligent driving by the driver of the auto bearing No.TS04UD0424 ?

7.In order to substantiate the case of the petitioner/injured, the father of minor petitioner/injured got himself examined as PW1 and filed an affidavit in lieu of chief examination as per the claim petition averments. Since the chief examination affidavit of PW1 is replica of claim petition pleadings, as such, the same is not extracted hereunder to avoid the repetition of facts. Besides oral evidence, the petitioner also relied on documentary evidence under

Exs.P1 to P19.

PW1 in his cross-examination initially admitted that he gave complaint after seven months of the accident and later he changed his version and admitted that he gave complaint after three months of the accident. PW1

May 5 5/14 PDJ, KMM

MV OP 510 of 2022 Injury

deposed that his son was in Bhavani hospital for one week and doctors suggested to take at least three months bed rest.

8.The treating doctor by name Ch.Ravi Kumar, Orthopedic Surgeon,

Bhavani Hospital, Khammam is examined as PW2. According to his testimony the minor petitioner came to their hospital with the history of RTA and he sustained the following injuries i.e., 1) Pain and swelling over right hip joint (superior and interior pubic rami fracture and 2) Swelling over abdomen (Urethral injury) which are grievous in nature; and that petitioner was undergone emergency SPC (Super Pubic Cystotomy) and fracture treated with conservative management with POP; and that Exs.P3, P13, P14 to 19 were issued by their hospital; and that petitioner may not be able to do his daily activities as before injury due to the accident.

Nothing worthwhile could be elicited in the cross examination of PW2 to disbelieve his version.

9.One Dr.K.Purna Chandra Reddy, Urologist, AINU, Hyderabad is examined as PW3. According to his testimony, the minor petitioner came to

AINU Hospital, Hyderabad with the history of RTA and previously he was admitted elsewhere and underwent SPC (super pubic cystotomy) for urinary diversion in the said hospital; and that after 4 months of the accident the petitioner came to AINU, Banjarahills, Hyderabad and on evaluation there was

May 5 6/14 PDJ, KMM

MV OP 510 of 2022 Injury

a closure of urinary passage due to fracture pelvis and surgery was done for the repair and continuity established; and that Exs.P6, P7 and P9 to P12 were issued by their hospital; and that petitioner was stable at the time of discharge and spent an amount of Rs.1,77,700/- for surgery and Rs.20,000/- for other OP bills. Though PW3 was subjected to cross examination but nothing worthwhile could be elicited from his mouth to disbelieve his version.

10.The documentary evidence filed on behalf of the petitioner goes to show that Ex.P1 is the certified copy of FIR in crime No.58 of 2022 dated 12.03.2022 of PS Raghunadhapalem for the offence under Sections 337 IPC and 181 of MV Act registered against respondent Nos.1 and 2 herein being driver and owner of the offending vehicle Auto on a report lodged by the father of the minor petitioner/PW1. After due investigation in the above crime, the police concerned have filed charge sheet against respondent No.2 herein under Ex.P2 for the offence under Section 338 IPC read with Sections 181 and 196 of Motor Vehicle Act, as he allowed respondent No.1 who is a minor to drive the same without holding valid licence and the vehicle has no insurance. In other words that the respondent No.1 was not holding valid driving licence to drive the class of vehicle, as such, a separate charge sheet has been filed against respondent No.1 under Ex.P5.

The recitals of Exs.P1 and P2 are corroborating with the pleadings and oral evidence of PW1 regarding mode and manner of accident, rash and

May 5 7/14 PDJ, KMM

MV OP 510 of 2022 Injury

negligent act of the driver of offending vehicle and causing accident and also receiving injuries by the petitioner owing to the above said accident. Further, the oral evidence of PWs2 and 3 is supported by Exs.P3, P6, P7 and P9 to 19.

There is no cogent evidence on behalf of respondents to disbelieve the oral and documentary evidence filed on behalf of the petitioner.

11.Further, in Ranjeet and another Vs. Abdul Kayam Neb and another in

SLP (civil) No.10351/2019, wherein the Hon’ble Apex Court held that; “It is settled in Law that once a charge sheet has been filed and the driver has been held negligent, no further evidence is required to prove that the vehicle was being negligently driven in a motor vehicle claim case. Even if the eye witnesses are not examined, that will not be fatal to prove the death of the deceased due to negligence of the driver of the vehicle.”

Thus, from the above pleadings and evidence available on record, this

Tribunal is of the considered opinion that the subject matter of the accident was occurred due to rash and negligent act of respondent No.1 in driving offending vehicle in a rash and negligent manner and caused the accident, as a result of which the petitioner has sustained above said injuries. Accordingly, these issues are answered in favour of the petitioner/injured.

May 5 8/14 PDJ, KMM

MV OP 510 of 2022 Injury

Issue No.2:

2)Whether the petitioner is entitled to any compensation? If so, to what amount and from whom it should be collected?

12. As per the decision of Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in Raj Kumar vs.

Ajay Kumar reported in (2011) 1 SCC 343, the petitioner being injured in a motor vehicle accident is entitled for compensation under following heads.

i) Pecuniary damages (Special damages) ii) Non-Pecuniary damages (General damages)

Besides the above said decisions of Raj Kumar v. Ajay Kumar, this

Tribunal also relies on the decisions of Hon’ble Supreme Court of India i.e.,

i) Pecuniary Damages (Special Damages):

a) Expenses relating to treatment, hospitalization, medicines, transportation, nourishing food and miscellaneous expenditure.

(i)It is pleaded in the claim petition that the father of minor petitioner had spent an amount of Rs.3,00,000/- towards medical, investigation, treatment charges and other ancillary expenses. But the petitioner has filed

Ex.P10 bills (7) for an amount of Rs.18,983/- issued by AINU Hospital,

Hyderabad, Ex.P11 bunch of Pharmacy bills (4) for Rs.2,590/-, Ex.P15 cash bill for Rs.2,000/- issued by Bhavani Lab, Khammam, and Ex.P17 bunch of bills (34) for Rs.92,261/- only.Therefore, the petitioner/injured is entitled for

May 5 9/14 PDJ, KMM

MV OP 510 of 2022 Injury

reimbursement of above said amountsunder Exs.P10, P11, P15 and P17 totalling to Rs.1,15,834/-.

Apart from this, the petitioner might have incurred some expenditure towards transportation from Khammam to Hyderabad for which an amount of

Rs.20,000/- is awarded towards transportation charges.

As could be seen from the record, the accident was occurred on 30.08.2021 and the petitioner got admitted in Bhavani Hospital, Khammam on 30.08.2021 and later he was admitted in AINU, Hyderabad for better treatment as an inpatient for five days. Therefore, he might have incurred expenditure towards miscellaneous, attendant charges and nourishing food.

Hence, by making guess work an amount of Rs.20,000/- is awarded towards attendant charges, nourishing food and miscellaneous expenses.

Thus, in total an amount of Rs.1,55,834/- (Rs.1,15,834/-+ Rs.20,000/- +

Rs.20,000/-) is awarded under the above sub- head.

b) Loss of earnings:

Since the petitioner was a 10th class student as per Ex.P2 charge sheet as on the date of accident, therefore, no compensation can be awarded under this head.

Thus, total an amount of Rs.1,55,834/- is awarded towards pecuniary damages.

May 5 10/14 PDJ, KMM

MV OP 510 of 2022 Injury

ii) Non pecuniary damages (General damages): Damages for pain,

suffering and trauma as a consequences of the injuries.

As per the evidence of PW2, the petitioner received two grievous injuries and as per Ex.P3 the minor petitioner received one grievous injury and one simple injury. Due to the said injuries, the petitioner might have suffered lot of pain and trauma. Therefore, an amount of Rs.30,000/- to the grievous injury and an amount of Rs.5,000/- to simple injury, totalling to an amount of

Rs.35,000/-is awarded towards pain, suffering and trauma.

The total compensation awarded towards pecuniary and non-pecuniary damages is Rs.1,55,834/- + Rs.35,000/- = Rs.1,90,834/- payable with interest at 7.5% per annum.

LIABILITY:

13.As per Ex.P2 charge sheet respondent No.2 is the owner of auto bearing No.TS04UD0424 and respondent No.1 is driver who is JCL (Juvenile

Conflict in law).

On behalf of respondents, the respondent No.2 is examined as RW1 and he filed an affidavit in lieu of his chief examination reiterating the counter averments. In his cross examination he deposed that respondent No.1 is his younger son and that the police Raghunadhapalem registered a case against him and his son for causing the accident to the minor petitioner.

May 5 11/14 PDJ, KMM

MV OP 510 of 2022 Injury

14.After careful examination of entire material available on record it is crystal clear that the offending vehicle auto has no valid insurance and respondent No.2 allowed respondent No.1 without having driving licence.

Further, it is established that respondent No.1 being Juvenile was not holding driving licence at the time of accident. In this context this Tribunal relied on the decision of Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in Sachin Yallappa

Usulkar and others Vs. Vijayata (2025) INSC 290, “a minor cannot be held personally liable to pay compensation in a motor accident case”. As such, respondent No.1 is not liable to pay compensation under motor vehicles act, 1988. Vehicle owner/respondent No.2 bear vicarious liability regardless of age of driver. Therefore, claim petition against respondent No.1 is liable to be dismissed. Accordingly, this issue is answered.

Issue No.3: To what relief?

15.As a result, the claim petition is partly allowed against respondent No.2 only awarding compensation of Rs.1,90,834/- with proportionate costs.

Interest is awarded at 7.5% per annum from the date of petition till realisation.

That the respondent No.2 is liable to pay the above compensation amount and he is directed to deposit the compensation amount to the credit of above OP within 30 days from the date of this order.

May 5 12/14 PDJ, KMM

MV OP 510 of 2022 Injury

The case against respondent No.1 is dismissed with costs.

On such deposit, the entire compensation awarded to the minor petitioner shall be kept in FDR in any nationalized bank till the minor petitioner attains majority. However, the father of the minor petitioner is permitted to receive interest amount quarterly.

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

Typed to my dictation by the Stenographer, corrected and pronounced by me in the open Court on this the 5th day of May, 2026.

CHAIRMAN

M.A.C.T-CUM-PRL.DISTRICT

JUDGE, KHAMMAM

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

WITNESSES EXAMINED

FOR PETITIONERFOR RESPONDENTS

PW1Sri Guguloth Hari Singh RW1Sri Jarpula Sadar Lal

PW2Dr.Ch.Ravi Kumar

PW3Dr.K.Purna Chandra Reddy

EXHIBITS MARKED FOR PETITIONER

Ex.P1CC of FIR in Crime No.58 of 2022 of PS Raghunadhapalem

Ex.P2CC of Charge-sheet

Ex.P3CC of Medical certificate

Ex.P4Docket order dated 26.06.2022 in CC No.963 of 2022 on the file of III Addl.JFCM, Khammam

May 5 13/14 PDJ, KMM

MV OP 510 of 2022 Injury

Ex.P5CC of Charge-sheet on the file of JJB, Khammam

Ex.P6Medical certificate issued by AINU Hospital, Hyderabad

Ex.P7Outpatient record of AINU Hospital, Hyderabad

Ex.P8Radiology report

Ex.P9ECG report

Ex.P10Bunch of medical bills (07 Nos.) for Rs.18,983/- issued by AINU Hospital, Hyderabad

Ex.P11Bunch of Pharmacy bills (04 Nos.) for an amount of Rs.2,590/-

Ex.P12Ultrasound report dated 24.03.2022 issued by Divya Diagnostic Centre, Khammam

Ex.P13Pathology report dated 24.03.2022 issued by Bhavani Diagnostic Centre, Khammam

Ex.P14Prescription dated 24.03.2022 of Dr.Ch.Ravi Kumar

Ex.P15Cash bill for an amount of Rs.2,000/- issued by Sri Bhavani Lab, Khammam

Ex.P16X-Ray film (02 Nos.)

Ex.P17Bunch of bills (34 Nos.) for Rs.92,261/-

Ex.P18Bunch of medical prescriptions (07 Nos.)

Ex.P19Bunch of lab reports (11 Nos.)

EXHIBITS MARKED FOR RESPONDENTS

-Nil-

CHAIRMAN

M.A.C.T-CUM-PRL.DISTRICT

JUDGE, KHAMMAM

May 5 14/14 PDJ, KMM

MV OP 474 of 2024 Death

IN THE COURT OF THE MOTOR ACCIDENTS CLAIMS TRIBUNAL

[PRINCIPAL DISTRICT JUDGE] AT KHAMMAM

PRESENT: SRI G.RAJA GOPAL

PRINCIPAL DISTRICT JUDGE

Wednesday, May 6, 2026

MV OP No.474 of 2024

Between:

1.Kotte Uma

2.Kotte Surya ... Claim petitioners

And

1.Bhukya Ramu @ Ramulu

2.Go Digit General Insurance Limited

... Respondents

Counsel for Petitioners: Kum.D.Alekhya Counsel for Respondent No.1: Sri O.Seshagiri Rao Counsel for Respondent No.2: Sri B.Gangadhar

This petition coming on 27.04.2026 for final hearing; upon hearing the counsel on record and considering the material on record and having stood over for consideration till this day, this Tribunal has made the following:

ORDER

This is a claim petition filed by the petitioners/claimants under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 for grant of compensation of Rs.35 lakhs on account of death of the deceased by name Kotte Veeraiah in a motor vehicle accident occurred on 10.09.2024.

2.The brief averments of the claim petition are as under:

May 6 1/14 PDJ, KMM

MV OP 474 of 2024 Death

(i)That the claim petitioner No.1 is the wife, petitioner No.2 is son of deceased Kotte Veeraiah, who died in a motor vehicle accident occurred on 10.09.2024. Except claim petitioners, there are no other legal heirs to the deceased.

(ii)That on 10.09.2024 in the evening hours, while the deceased was returning home, after completion of his work on his HF Deluxe motor cycle bearing No.TS04FG0575, on the way when he reached near Maremma Temple, meantime the rider of Hero Honda Splendor Plus motorcycle bearing

No.AP20P5941 drove his motor cycle in a rash and negligent manner at high speed and dashed against the deceased motorcycle in opposite direction, due to which the deceased fell down on the road and sustained severe bleeding injuries on vital parts of the body. Immediately after the accident, the deceased was shifted to Mamata General and Super Specialty Hospital,

Khammam for treatment, wherein doctors examined and provided necessary treatment. That on 11.09.2024 at about 04.00 hours, the doctors declared that the death of the deceased due to brain dead. Thereafter, he was shifted to Government Hospital, Khammam wherein the doctors confirmed the death of the deceased, on the same day at about 05.00 PM. The accident was occurred only due to rash and negligent act of rider of Hero Honda Splendor

Plus motorcycle bearing No.AP20P5941 i.e., respondent No.1 herein.

May 6 2/14 PDJ, KMM

MV OP 474 of 2024 Death

(iii)Basing on a report, the police Khammam Rural have registered a case in Crime No.436 of 2024 under Section 106 (1) of BNS against the respondent

No.1 herein being driver of offending vehicle motorcycle bearing

No.AP20P5941.

(iv)Prior to the accident, the deceased was hale, healthy and aged about 49 years. He is a mason by profession and used to earn Rs.1,200/- per day and also used to take contracts of construction of new houses, upon which he used to earn Rs.2,00,000/- per annum and used to contribute his entire earnings for the welfare of his family consisting of claim petitioners.

(v)The respondent No.1 is the owner-cum-driver, respondent No.2 is insurer of offending vehicle motorcycle bearing No.AP20P5941, as such, both the respondents are jointly and severally liable to pay compensation of

Rs.35,00,000/- to the claim petitioners with costs and interest, in the interest of justice.

3.That the respondent No.1 made his appearance and filed counter denying the material averments of the claim petition, including the mode and manner of the accident.

(i)It is contended that there was no negligence on his part in riding the said motorcycle; and that the offending vehicle motorcycle is having valid insurance and the same is in force at the time of alleged accident, as such,

May 6 3/14 PDJ, KMM

MV OP 474 of 2024 Death

respondent No.2 alone is liable to pay compensation, if any; and that the driver of offending vehicle i.e., respondent No.1 was holding valid and effective driving licence at the time of accident; and that there is no cause of action against this respondent, as such, the petition is not maintainable and liable to be dismissed against this respondent No.1.

4.The respondent No.2 insurance company also filed its counter denying the material averments of the claim petition including the mode and manner of accident, rash and negligence of respondent No.1 in driving the offending vehicle.

(i) It is contended that at the time of accident, the respondent No.1 who is the rider-cum-owner of motorcycle bearing No.AP20P5941 was not holding valid and effective driving licence to drive the said motorcycle, as such, the respondent No.1 has not satisfied the requirements of rule No.3 of Central

Motor Vehicle rules, 1989 and he willfully and knowingly drove the offending vehicle without holding a valid and effective driving licence. Therefore, contravened the provisions of MV Act and rules framed thereunder and also committed breach of terms and conditions of the policy. The respondent No.1 alone is liable to pay compensation to the petitioners.

(ii)It is further contended that at the time of accident, the deceased drove his HF Deluxe motorcycle bearing No.TS04FG0575 in a rash and negligent manner at high speed, without holding valid and effective driving licence and

May 6 4/14 PDJ, KMM

MV OP 474 of 2024 Death

due to his inefficiency in driving, lost control on the vehicle and fell down on the road and caused the alleged accident and there was no negligence on the part of rider of offending vehicle involved in the alleged accident. As such, the insured and insurer of motorcycle bearing No.TS04FG0575 are the necessary parties to the case proceedings. But the claim petitioners did not made them as parties to the case proceedings. Therefore, the petition is liable to be dismissed for non-joinder of necessary parties.

(iii)It is further contended that at the time of accident, the deceased drove his motorcycle without wearing helmet and without taking minimum precautions and caused the said accident, thereby, the deceased violated the mandatory provisions of MV Act. Hence, the respondent No.2 insurance company is not liable to pay any compensation to the claim petitioners; and that the amount of compensation of Rs.35,00,000/- claimed by the petitioners is excessive, exorbitant and exaggerated and therefore, prayed to dismiss the claim petition, in the interest of justice.

5.Based on the above pleadings, this Tribunal had framed the following issues for trial:

1.Whether accident occurred on 10.09.2024 at 18.30 hours, near Maremma Temple, Reddipalli Village, Khammam Rural Mandal, Khammam District, due to rash and negligent driving of Hero

Honda Splendor Plus motorcycle bearing No.AP20P5941 by the 1st

respondent?

May 6 5/14 PDJ, KMM

MV OP 474 of 2024 Death

2.Whether Kotte Veeraiah received injuries in that accident and died of the injuries?

3.Whether petitioners are entitled to claim compensation? If so, to what amount and from which of the respondents?

4.To what relief?

6.During the course of trial, PWs 1 and 2 are examined, Exs.P1 to P5 have been marked on behalf of the petitioners/claimants. On the other hand, RW1 is examined and Ex.R1 attested copy of insurance policy is marked on behalf of respondent No.2 insurance company.

7.The respondent No.2 has filed a petition under Section 170 of MV Act vide IA No.3 of 2026 with a prayer to take all or any of the defences that are available to the insured and accordingly the said petition was allowed.

8.Heard learned counsel for the petitioners. Written arguments of respondent No.2 have been filed and this Tribunal has given thoughtful consideration to the said written arguments. Inspite of granting sufficient time the respondent No.1 failed to submit his arguments. Hence, the arguments of respondent No.1 are treated as heard and matter is posted for orders on merits.

Issue Nos.1 and 2:

1.Whether accident occurred on 10.09.2024 at 18.30 hours, near Maremma Temple, Reddipalli Village, Khammam Rural Mandal, Khammam District, due to rash and negligent driving of Hero

Honda Splendor Plus motorcycle bearing No.AP20P5941 by the 1st

respondent?

May 6 6/14 PDJ, KMM

MV OP 474 of 2024 Death

2.Whether Kotte Veeraiah received injuries in that accident and died of the injuries?

Both these issues are inter-related with each other, as such these issues have been taken up together for the sake of convenience.

9.In order to substantiate the case of the claimants, the claim petitioner

No.1 who is wife of the deceased got herself examined as PW1 and filed an affidavit in lieu of chief examination as per the pleadings of the claim petition.

Since the chief examination of PW1 is replica of claim petition pleadings, as such, the same is not extracted hereunder in order to avoid repetition of facts. Besides that the claimants also relied on documentary evidence under

Exs.P1 to P5.

During the cross examination by respondent Nos.1 and 2, PW1 admits that her son lodged a report before Police Khammam Rural on the next day of accident; and that she has not filed any proof of documents to show that the deceased working as Tapi Mestry and earning Rs.1,200/- per day.

10.The eye witness to the occurrence by name Chinthala Vijay is examined as PW2. He deposed corroborating the pleadings of the claim petition regarding the mode and manner of the accident, rash and negligent riding of rider of offending vehicle motorcycle and dashing the motor cycle of the deceased, as a result of which the deceased by name Kotte Veeraiah sustained severe injuries and died.

May 6 7/14 PDJ, KMM

MV OP 474 of 2024 Death

During the cross examination of PW2 nothing could be elicited and there is nothing on record to disbelieve the version of PW2 regarding witnessing the accident as deposed by him.

On perusal of charge sheet under Ex.P2 it is found that his name is shown as LW4, as an eyewitness.

11.On the other hand one Duggu Sandeep Kumar, Assistant Manager

Legal in Respondent No.3 insurance company is examined as RW1 and he filed an affidavit in lieu of his chief examination as per the counter averments.

According to his testimony there was no negligence on the part of respondent

No.1/driver and that the offending vehicle is having valid insurance policy at the time of alleged accident vide policy No.D142016115/29032024, valid from 30.03.2024 to 29.03.2025.

RW1 in his cross examination by claim petitioners admits that at the time of accident Ex.R1 policy was in force.

12.The documentary evidence produced on behalf of the petitioners/claimants goes to show that Ex.P1 is the certified copy of FIR in crime No.436 of 2024 dated 11.09.2024 of PS Khammam Rural for the offence under Section 106(1) BNS against respondent No.1 basing on a report lodged by the son of the deceased who is petitioner No.2 herein. After due investigation, the police concerned have filed charge sheet under Ex.P2

May 6 8/14 PDJ, KMM

MV OP 474 of 2024 Death

against respondent No.1 herein being rider of the offending vehicle motorcycle bearing No.AP20P5941 for the offence under Section 106(1) of

BNS. The recitals of Exs.P1 to P2 are corroborating with the claim petition pleadings with regard to mode and manner of the accident, rash and negligent act of respondent No.1 in driving the offending vehicle and causing the accident. During the course of investigation, the investigating officer examined the witnesses, held inquest over the dead body of the deceased under Ex.P4, got conducted post mortem examination over the dead body of the deceased under Ex.P3 which discloses the cause of the death is due to “head injury sustained“. Ex.P5 is certified copy of Motor Vehicle Inspector

Report, according to which the Motor Vehicle Inspector opined that “the accident was occurred not due to any mechanical defects of the crime vehicle”.

As above said no evidence is produced on behalf of respondents to prove their counter averments with regard to the manner of the accident and rash and negligent act of respondent No.1.

13. Having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case and in view of the evidence available on record, this Tribunal has no hesitation to hold that the subject matter of the accident was occurred due to rash and negligent act of respondent No.1 in driving offending vehicle in a rash and negligent manner and caused the accident, as a result of which, the deceased sustained injuries and succumbed to injuries. Accordingly, these issues are answered in favour of the petitioners/claimants.

May 6 9/14 PDJ, KMM

MV OP 474 of 2024 Death

Issue No.3:

3.Whether petitioners are entitled to claim compensation? If so, to what amount and from which of the respondents?

14.As per the pleadings the deceased was 49 years old as on the date of accident. But the petitioners have not filed any documentary evidence to prove the age of the deceased. Therefore, there is no alternative left to this

Tribunal except to rely on Exs.P1 to P4. According to these documents, the age of the deceased is recorded as 49 years. There is no serious dispute regarding the age of the deceased from the respondents. Therefore, this

Court is inclined to fix the age of the deceased as 49 years old as on the date of the accident.

(i)With regard to income of the deceased, the petitioners/claimants pleaded that the deceased was a mason and used to earn Rs.1,200/- per day.

Absolutely there is no income proof filed by the petitioners to substantiate the earnings of the deceased. In Exs.P1, P2 and P4, the occupation of the deceased is shown as mason. Thus, by treating the deceased as a mason his income is notionally fixed at Rs.10,000/- per month, which is reasonable income of a mason.

(ii) There are two dependents on the deceased who are claim petitioners herein. As per the decision of Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in Sarla

May 6 10/14 PDJ, KMM

MV OP 474 of 2024 Death

Verma and others v. Delhi Transport Corporation and another reported in

2009 ACJ 1298, 1/3rd of income of the deceased is liable to be deducted towards his personal and living expenses of the deceased. Therefore, an amount of Rs.3,333/- is liable to be deducted. Now the net income of the deceased would be Rs.10,000/- (-) Rs.3,333/- = Rs.6,667/-.

(iii)Since the deceased was below 50 years old as on the date of the accident and he was a mason, an addition of 25% of the income should be added towards future prospects as per the decision of Hon’ble Supreme

Court of India in National Insurance Company Limited v. Pranay Sethi and

others reported in 2017 ACJ 2700. Thus, an amount of Rs.1,667/- is liable to be added towards future prospects being 25% of the net income of the deceased. Now, the income of the deceased would be Rs.6,667/- (+)

Rs.1,667/- = Rs.8,334/- per month.

(iv)As per the decision of Sarla Verma referred above, the appropriate multiplier is ‘13’ since the deceased was 49 years old as on the date of the accident. The following calculation is made for arriving dependency is

Rs.8,334/- x 12 x 13 = Rs.13,00,104/-.

(v)In addition to that, the claimants also entitled for reasonable figures under conventional heads namely loss of consortium and funeral expenses etc.

May 6 11/14 PDJ, KMM

MV OP 474 of 2024 Death

On the basis of judgment referred in National Insurance Company

Limited v. Pranay Sethi (supra) and Magma General Insurance Company

Limited v. Nanu Ram and others reported in (2018) ACJ 2782, the following amounts are awarded under the conventional heads:

S.No.Head Amount in Rs. (1)Loss of estate18,000=00 (2)Spouse consortium for petitioner No.148,000=00 being wife of the deceased (3)Filial consortium for petitioner No.248,000=00 being son of the deceased (4)Funeral Expenses18,000=00 Total1,32,000=00

The total amount payable under conventional heads is Rs.1,32,000/-.

15.Thus, the total dependency arrives at Rs.13,00,104/- + Rs.1,32,000/- =

Rs.14,32,104/-.

LIABILITY:

16.As per Ex.R1 Policy, the respondent No.1 is insured and respondent

No.2 is insurer and the policy was in force as on the date of the accident. As such, both the respondents are jointly and severally liable to pay compensation to the claimants/petitioners with costs and interest.

Accordingly, this issue is answered in favour of the claim petitioners.

May 6 12/14 PDJ, KMM

MV OP 474 of 2024 Death

Issue No.4: To what relief?

17.As a result, the claim petition is allowed partly awarding compensation of Rs.14,32,104/- with proportionate costs. Interest is awarded at 7.5% per annum from the date of the petition till realization.

The respondent Nos.1 and 2 are jointly and severally liable to pay compensation and they are directed to deposit the same to the credit of above OP within 30 days from the date of this order.

Apportionment: The petitioner No.1 being mother and petitioner

No.2 being son of the deceased are entitled compensation at the ratio of 70 :

30 with accrued interest and costs.

On such deposit, an amount of Rs.2,00,000/- each from the compensation awarded to petitioner Nos.1 and 2 shall be kept in FDR in any nationalized bank for a period of 2 years and they are permitted to withdraw the remaining amount.

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

Typed to my dictation, corrected and pronounced by me in the open Court on this the 6th day of May, 2026.

CHAIRMAN

M.A.C.T-CUM-PRL.DISTRICT

JUDGE, KHAMMAM

May 6 13/14 PDJ, KMM

MV OP 474 of 2024 Death

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

WITNESSES EXAMINED

FOR PETITIONERSFOR RESPONDENTS

PW1Smt.Kotte UmaRW1Sri D.Sandeep Kumar

PW2Sri Chinthala Vijay

EXHIBITS MARKED FOR PETITIONERS

Ex.P1CC of FIR in crime No.436 of 2024 of PS Khammam Rural Ex.P2CC of Chargesheet Ex.P3CC of PME report Ex.P4CC of Inquest report Ex.P5CC of MVI report

EXHIBITS MARKED FOR RESPONDENTS

Ex.R1Attested copy of insurance policy

CHAIRMAN

M.A.C.T-CUM-PRL.DISTRICT

JUDGE, KHAMMAM

May 6 14/14 PDJ, KMM

Crl MP 517 of 2026 Bail

IN THE COURT OF PRINCIPAL DISTRICT AND SESSIONS JUDGE AT

KHAMMAM

PRESENT: SRI SREENAIAH VASUKULA

V ADDITIONAL SESSIONS JUDGE

I/C PRINCIPAL SESSIONS JUDGE

Friday, May 15, 2026

Crl MP No.517 of 2026

in Crime No.273 of 2024 of PS Madhira Town

BETWEEN:

Perala Srividya W/o Perala Srinivasarao, 43 years, Ex Director in Akshara Chits Private Limited, SBH Colony, Subedari, Hanamkonda … Petitioner/Accused No.2

AND

The State of Telangana represented by the Public Prosecutor, Khammam … Respondent/Complainant

Counsel for Petitioner: Sri K.Madhu Sarma, Advocate : Sri J.Sarat Kumar Reddy, Public Prosecutor, Counsel for Respondent

This petition coming on 13.05.2026 for counter and hearing; upon hearing the counsel on record and considering the material on record and having stood over for consideration till this day, this Court has made the following:

ORDER

1.This is a 2nd bail petition filed by the petitioner/Accused No.2 under

Section 483 of BNSS for grant of bail in Crime No.273 of 2024 of PS Madhira

Town for the offence under Section 420, 406 IPC, Section 5 of the Telangana

Protection of Depositors of Financial Establishments Act, 1999 and Section 4 of Prize Chits and Money Circulation Schemes (Banning) Act, 1978.

May 15 1 I/c: PSJ, KMM

Crl MP 517 of 2026 Bail

2.Notice was given to the learned Public Prosecutor. The learned Public

Prosecutor filed counter and opposed the petition.

3.Heard arguments from both sides. Perused the petition, counter, remand material and the material placed before this Court.

4.Now, the point for consideration in this petition is:

1) Whether the petitioners/Accused No.2 is entitled for grant of bail as prayed for?

2) To what relief?

POINT No.1:

5.It is not in dispute that this is a successive bail petition. The earlier bail petition filed by the petitioner was dismissed by this Court in Crl. MP No.408 of 2026 dated 29.04.2026. Therefore, while considering the present bail petition, this Court is required to examine whether any substantial change of circumstances or fresh ground is made out after dismissal of the earlier bail petition. It is settled that though successive bail applications are maintainable, the Court must keep in view the reasons for earlier rejection and record what fresh grounds justify taking a different view.

6.The brief case of the prosecution is that the complainant joined

Akshara Chit Fund Private Limited, Madhira Branch, in a chit of Rs.10,00,000/- on 22.08.2021 and paid monthly installments of Rs.20,000/-. According to the complainant, after he became the successful/prized subscriber, the company failed to pay the chit amount of Rs.8,19,900/-. It is further alleged that

May 15 2 I/c: PSJ, KMM

Crl MP 517 of 2026 Bail

amounts of Rs.6,00,000/-, Rs.8,00,000/- and Rs.5,00,000/-, totalling

Rs.19,00,000/-, were collected from the complainant in the name of Akshara

Township Private Limited by promising returns and by issuing certificates/bonds, but the said amounts were not repaid. It is also alleged that similar collections were made from several chit members and depositors.

Further, the allegation of the prosecution is not confined to one isolated private money transaction. The prosecution asserts that Akshara Chit

Fund and its connected/affiliated concerns collected huge amounts from members and depositors, persuaded prized subscribers to convert their chit amounts into deposits, issued certificates showing alleged undivided shares in lands, initially paid interest for some time and thereafter stopped repayment.

The prosecution further alleges that the accused and other directors closed branches, avoided depositors, and thereby caused serious loss to a large number of members of the public.

7.The learned counsel for the petitioner contended that the petitioner had resigned from the directorship and that the Registrar of Companies records would show that she was not in charge of the affairs of the company on the relevant dates. It is also contended that the transaction is purely civil in nature, that the document relied upon by the complainant is only a certificate for advance for purchase of undivided share in land and not a deposit receipt, and that Sections 420 and 406 IPC cannot be simultaneously invoked and prayed to enlarge the petitioner on bail.

May 15 3 I/c: PSJ, KMM

Crl MP 517 of 2026 Bail

8.The submission of the learned Public Prosecutor is that if the petitioner/A2 released on bail she will continue her attitude and may commit further offences i.e., cheating the public on the name of Chit Fund Company and there is a scope to escape from the village and it will be difficult to apprehend her and urged to dismiss the petition.

9.At the stage of bail, this Court is not expected to conduct a mini trial or record conclusive findings regarding the genuineness, effect and evidentiary value of the documents relied upon by either side. The plea based on resignation from directorship, the effect of Form DIR-12, the nature of the certificates issued, the question whether the transaction is purely civil or contains criminality, and the role played by the petitioner in the affairs of the companies are all matters which require deeper investigation and appreciation of evidence. Such disputed questions cannot be finally decided in a bail petition.

10.The contention that the transaction is only civil in nature cannot be accepted at this stage. The allegations prima facie disclose inducement of members/depositors, collection of money, failure to repay the amounts, conversion of chit amounts into deposits, issuance of alleged bonds/certificates and closure of branches. Merely because civil remedies may also be available to depositors, the criminal law is not excluded where the allegations prima facie disclose dishonest inducement, breach of trust, diversion of funds and cheating of several members of the public.

May 15 4 I/c: PSJ, KMM

Crl MP 517 of 2026 Bail

11.The contention that Sections 420 and 406 IPC cannot stand together is also not a ground for grant of bail at this stage. During investigation, if the material discloses different facets of the transaction, namely dishonest inducement at inception as well as subsequent entrustment and misappropriation, the Investigating Officer is not precluded from invoking the relevant penal provisions. Whether the ingredients of each offence are ultimately proved is a matter for trial.

12.The learned counsel for the petitioner further contended that Section 4 of the Prize Chits and Money Circulation Schemes (Banning) Act, 1978 was not originally mentioned and that the earlier order referred to the said offence.

However, the prosecution counter states that after further investigation and examination of witnesses, Sections 406 IPC, Section 5 of the TSPDFE Act and

Section 4 of the Prize Chits and Money Circulation Schemes (Banning) Act were added. At the bail stage, the Court has to consider the material now placed before it and not merely the sections mentioned in the original FIR.

The addition of sections during investigation, if supported by prima facie material, cannot by itself be treated as malafide so as to grant bail.

13.The petitioner also raised an objection regarding the remand/PT warrant proceedings before the learned JFCM, Madhira, by contending that in view of the provisions of the TSPDFE Act, only the Special Court has jurisdiction. This contention also does not advance the case of the petitioner for bail. The present petition is being considered by this Court on merits. Any

May 15 5 I/c: PSJ, KMM

Crl MP 517 of 2026 Bail

alleged irregularity in production or remand, unless shown to have vitiated the custody in a manner recognized by law, cannot automatically result in grant of bail, particularly when the allegations disclose serious economic offences affecting several depositors.

14.The prosecution has specifically contended that the petitioner was apprehended only after she was intercepted by the immigration authorities at

Bengaluru Airport. The counter further alleges that she had gone abroad and stayed in the USA, Malaysia and other countries to evade arrest, and that her passport and travel material were seized. These allegations, if accepted prima facie at this stage, indicate a serious risk of absconding. The apprehension of the prosecution that the petitioner may not be available for investigation and trial, if released on bail, cannot be brushed aside lightly.

15.The magnitude of the alleged offence is also a relevant consideration.

The prosecution alleges that the accused and other persons operated several branches in different districts, collected amounts from a large number of chit subscribers and depositors, and that several crimes were registered in different police stations. It is further alleged that the total chit value and default amount run into several crores. Economic offences affecting large sections of the public stand on a different footing because they involve public confidence, financial discipline and the savings of ordinary depositors.

16.The Hon’ble Supreme Court in Nimmagadda Prasad v. CBI, Hyderabad, (2013) 7 SCC 466, held that economic offences constitute a class apart and

May 15 6 I/c: PSJ, KMM

Crl MP 517 of 2026 Bail

are required to be viewed seriously in bail matters, particularly where they involve deep-rooted conspiracy and huge loss of public funds. The Court also emphasized that while considering bail, the Court must keep in mind the nature of accusation, nature of evidence, severity of punishment, possibility of securing the presence of the accused, apprehension of tampering with witnesses and larger public interest.

17.Applying the above principles to the present case, this Court finds that the present petition does not disclose any substantial change of circumstance after dismissal of the earlier bail petition dated 29.04.2026. The grounds now urged, namely resignation from directorship, civil nature of dispute, alleged non-applicability of TSPDFE Act, objection regarding addition of Section 4 of the Prize Chits Act and alleged irregularity in remand, are either grounds already available to the petitioner earlier or matters requiring detailed appreciation during investigation/trial. They do not constitute such fresh circumstances as would justify a different view in a successive bail petition.

18.The petitioner relied upon the fact that the Hon’ble High Court granted bail to her in other similar crimes. However, grant of bail in other crimes does not automatically entitle the petitioner to bail in the present crime. Each crime has to be considered on its own facts, the role attributed to the accused, the nature of transaction, the amount involved, the stage of investigation, the possibility of tampering and the risk of absconding. The doctrine of parity or sameness cannot be mechanically applied when the

May 15 7 I/c: PSJ, KMM

Crl MP 517 of 2026 Bail

prosecution asserts distinct transactions and separate victims.

19.The apprehension of the prosecution regarding tampering with witnesses also cannot be ignored. The witnesses in the present case are stated to be depositors, chit subscribers, agents, branch staff and persons connected with the financial transactions of the companies. If the petitioner is released at this stage, there is a reasonable apprehension that she may influence witnesses or hamper the investigation, particularly when the alleged transactions are spread over different branches and involve collection, diversion and non-repayment of money.

20.The prosecution has also expressed apprehension that the petitioner may commit similar offences or may evade the process of law. In view of the allegation that she had earlier left the country and was apprehended only after being intercepted at the airport, such apprehension cannot be treated as imaginary. Mere offer to abide by conditions is not sufficient in the facts of this case, because the alleged offence is of large magnitude, investigation appears to be continuing, and several depositors are stated to be involved.

21.It is true that bail is the rule and jail is an exception, and the presumption of innocence continues in favour of the accused till conviction.

However, the said principle does not mean that bail must be granted in every non-bailable offence. The Court has to balance individual liberty with the nature and gravity of accusation, larger public interest, possibility of

May 15 8 I/c: PSJ, KMM

Crl MP 517 of 2026 Bail

absconding, possibility of tampering with evidence and the need for fair investigation and trial.

22.Having regard to the nature of allegations, the amount involved, the number of alleged victims, the addition of special enactments relating to protection of depositors and prize chits, the alleged role of the petitioner, the previous dismissal of bail, absence of substantial changed circumstances, and the serious apprehension of absconding and tampering, this Court is of the considered view that this is not a fit case to grant regular bail to the petitioner/Accused No.2 at this stage.

23.It is made clear that the observations made in this order are only for the purpose of deciding this bail petition. They shall not influence the investigation or trial, and the trial Court shall decide the matter independently on the basis of evidence adduced before it. Accordingly, the point No.1 is answered.

POINT No.2: To what relief?

24. In the result, this Criminal Miscellaneous Petition is dismissed.

Typed to my dictation by the Stenographer, corrected and pronounced by me in the open Court on this the 15th day of May, 2026.

I/c:PRINCIPAL SESSIONS JUDGE

KHAMMAM

May 15 9 I/c: PSJ, KMM

Crl MP 462 of 2026 Bail

IN THE COURT OF PRINCIPAL DISTRICT AND SESSIONS JUDGE AT

KHAMMAM

PRESENT: SRI G.RAJA GOPAL

PRINCIPAL SESSIONS JUDGE

Tuesday, May 5, 2026

Crl MP No.462 of 2026

in Crime No.01 of 2026 of PS Central Crime Station, Khammam

BETWEEN:

Tejavath Upender S/o Nageswara Rao, 37 years, Private Employee, R/o Kaikondaigudem, Khammam City and District … Petitioner/Accused No.1

AND

The State of Telangana represented by the Public Prosecutor, Khammam … Respondent/Complainant

Counsel for Petitioner: Sri T.Aravind Jaideep, Advocate : Sri J.Sarat Kumar Reddy, Counsel for Respondent Public Prosecutor,

This petition coming on 04.05.2026 for counter and hearing; upon hearing the counsel on record and considering the material on record and having stood over for consideration till this day, this Court has made the following:

ORDER

1.This is a 2nd bail petition filed by the petitioner/Accused No.1 under

Section 483 of BNSS for grant of bail in Crime No.01 of 2026 of PS Central

Crime Station, Khammam for the offence under Sections 318(4) read with 3(5) of BNS, 2023, Section 5 of the Telangana Protection of Depositors of Financial

Establishments Act, 1999 and Section 66-D of I.T. Act, 2008 .

2.Notice given to the learned Public Prosecutor, who filed counter and opposed the petition.

May 5 1 PSJ, KMM

Crl MP 462 of 2026 Bail

3.Heard arguments from both sides.

4.Now, the point for consideration in this petition is:

1) Whether the petitioners/Accused No.1 is entitled for grant of bail as prayed for?

2) To what relief?

POINT No.1:

[

5.The case of the prosecution is that the accused No.1 along with accused

No.2 lured the defacto complainant/Shaik Abdul Muktadir on the name of high profits, by making him to invest in ‘BotBro website’ stating that he would get 6-8% profits per month in return, by believing their false promises, on 01.10.2024 he invested Rs.90,000/- through phone pay and Rs.3,40,000/- by way of cash and he assigned with an ID number i.e., #ROBO079097 in the said website. Further the case of prosecution is that after creating IDs the defacto complainant got profits for 03 months and later he did not get any profits and did not get opportunity to withdraw his amount, as such, he realized that he has been cheated by them.

6.The submission of the learned counsel for the petitioner/A1 is that the entire allegations levelled against him by the prosecution are utterly false and baseless and self invented only for the purpose of implicating the petitioner into a false case; and that even as per the remand report, the amounts invested by the defacto complainant and others were transferred to the company/website account not to the personal bank account of the petitioner/

May 5 2 PSJ, KMM

Crl MP 462 of 2026 Bail

A1; and that the petitioner/A1 is a private employee and he is the sole breadwinner of his family and his further detention would effect badly to his business; and that petitioner/A1 herein was granted bail by this Court in another crime i.e., Cr.No.57 of 2026 vide Crl MP No.310 of 2026 dated 21.04.2026; and that petitioner/A1 undertakes to cooperate with the investigation and to abide by any conditions imposed by the Court and urged to enlarge the petitioner/A1 on bail .

7.The submission of the learned Public Prosecutor is that bank transaction statements of petitioner/A1 and the victims are yet to be collected; and that if the petitioner/A1 is released on bail he may commit such type of offences and cause hurdle for further investigation; and that investigation is not yet completed and petitioner/A1 is an habitual offender and urged to dismiss the petition.

8.On perusal of the record, it reveals that the earlier bail petition of petitioner/A1 was dismissed by this Court vide Crl MP No.347 of 2026 dated 21.04.2026. The record further reveals that the petitioner/A1 was remanded to judicial custody on 06.03.2026 i.e, 60 days remand period was already completed. It appears that by this time major part of the investigation is completed by examining material witnesses. The alleged offences are not punishable with death or imprisonment for life. The petitioner/A1 is having fixed abode and his presence can be secured at any time. Hence, considering the facts and circumstances of the case, this Court is of the considered

May 5 3 PSJ, KMM

Crl MP 462 of 2026 Bail

opinion that the judicial custody of the petitioner/accused No.1 is no more required. As such, this Court is inclined to grant bail to petitioner/accused

No.1. Accordingly, the point No.1 is answered.

POINT No.2: To what relief?

9. As a result, the petition is allowed and the petitioner/accused No.1 is ordered to be released on bail on his executing a bond for Rs.1,00,000/- (Rupees One Lakh only) together with two sureties for a like sum. After release, the petitioner/accused No.1 shall appear before SHO concerned on every Sunday between 10.00 AM to 04.00 PM until further orders.

Typed to my dictation by the Stenographer, corrected and pronounced by me in the open Court on this the 5th day of May, 2026.

PRINCIPAL SESSIONS JUDGE

KHAMMAM

Copy to:

The Station House Officer, PS Central Crime Station, Khammam

May 5 4 PSJ, KMM

Crl TP 1 of 2026 1 / 3

IN THE COURT OF PRINCIPAL DISTRICT AND SESSIONS JUDGE AT

KHAMMAM

PRESENT: SRI SREENAIAH VASUKULA

V ADDITIONAL SESSIONS JUDGE

I/C PRINCIPAL SESSIONS JUDGE

Friday, May 15, 2026

Crl TP No.1 of 2026

BETWEEN:

Chittaru Indumathi … Petitioner/Complainant

AND

Chittaru Vishwanadham … Respondent/Accused

Counsel for Petitioner:Sri K.Srinivasa Rao

Respondent remained ex parte

This petition coming on 13.05.2026 for final hearing; upon hearing the counsel on record and considering the material on record and having stood over for consideration till this day, this Court has made the following:

ORDER

1.This is a transfer petition filed by the petitioner/complainant under

Section 448 of BNSS seeking transfer of CC No.2930 of 2020 pending on the file of II Additional District and Sessions Judge, Khammam to any of the Court of Judicial Magistrate of First Class at Khammam.

2.The case of the petitioner in nutshell is that she is the complainant and respondent is the accused in CC No.2930 of 2020 on the file of II Additional

Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Khammam; and that the said case is at the

May 15 I/c: Prl.SJ, KMM

Crl TP 1 of 2026 2 / 3

state of defense evidence. It is contended that the learned Magistrate has shown undue indulgence towards the accused and adopted a lenient approach repeatedly causing serious prejudice to the petitioner; and that the conduct and observation during the proceedings created a genuine apprehension in the mind of the petitioner that the accused is being favoured; and that the petitioner has lost confidence in receiving fair adjudication before the present

Court and continuation of proceedings before the same Court would seriously prejudice the petitioner’s rights, hence, prayed to transfer the case vide

CC No.2930 of 2020 pending on the file of II Additional Judicial Magistrate of

I Class, Khammam to any of the Court of Judicial Magistrate of First Class at

Khammam.

3.That the respondent had chosen to remain ex parte.

4.Learned counsel for the petitioner has filed written arguments and this

Court has given thoughtful consideration to the said written arguments.

Perused the record.

5.Now, the point for consideration in this petition is:

Whether the petitioner has made out any ground seeking transfer 1) of CC No.2930 of 2020 pending on the file of the learned II Additional Judicial Magistrate of I Class, Khammam to any of the Court of Judicial Magistrate of I Class, Khammam?

2)To what relief?

POINT No.1:

6.The main reason seeking transfer of CC No.2930 of 2020 from the file

May 15 I/c: Prl.SJ, KMM

Crl TP 1 of 2026 3 / 3

of the learned II Additional Judicial Magistrate of I Class, Khammam is that the petitioner is apprehending justice may not be done in the present case, except that she has not assigned any other reason or ground.

7.On perusal of the entire material available on the record, it is observed that the petitioner has made vague allegations in this petition without citing any specific instance or incident that occurred during the course of trial

before the trial Court and also said allegations lack concrete particulars and

does not disclose any substantive grounds.

8.Having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case and viewing from any angle, this Court is of the considered opinion that the petitioner has not shown any sufficient ground to seek transfer of CC No.2930 of 2020 from the file of the learned II Additional Judicial Magistrate of I Class, Khammam to any of the Court of Judicial Magistrate of First Class at Khammam.

Accordingly, this point is answered.

POINT No.2: To what relief?

9.In the result, the Criminal Transfer Petition is dismissed.

Typed to my dictation by the Stenographer, corrected and pronounced by me in the open Court on this the 15th day of May, 2026.

I/c:PRINCIPAL SESSIONS JUDGE

KHAMMAM

May 15 I/c: Prl.SJ, KMM