Sri. K.suri Krishna

BEFORE THE CHAIRMAN, MOTOR ACCIDENTS CLAIMS TRIBUNAL-

CUM-COURT OF THE XXVII ADDITIONAL CHIEF JUDGE,

CITY CIVIL COURT, AT SECUNDERABAD.

Present: Sri.K.Suri Krishna

MACT-cum- XXVII Addl.Chief Judge

WEDNESDAY, THE 08 th DAY OF APRIL, 2026

M.V.O.P.No.233 OF 2020

Between :

K.Viresh, S/o.Late Anjaneyulu, aged about 23 years, Occ: Labour, Native Place, R/o.H.No.7-159, Shanthi Nagar, Tirumalagiri, Chandanagar, Hyderabad, presently R/o.H.No.11-23-596, Vaddera Basti, Secunderabad. … Petitioner

A N D

1. Mr.Odsu Kalyan, S/o.Masaiah, aged Major, Occ: Driver, R/o.LIG-145/1, Phase-1, KPHB Colony, Kukatpally, Medchal District – 500085.

2. M/s.Radhakumari Travels, Rep.by Smt.Daravath Sali, R/o.H.No.9-78/28, Badiya Thanda, Tanikella Village, Konijerla Mandal, Khammam District – 507305.

3. M/s.United India Insurance Company Ltd., Rep.by its Regional Manager, HUB Office, II Floor, Pashnate Bhavan, Near Church Building, Tilak Road, Hyderabad.

(Policy No.0505813119P110857888 valid from 17.11.2019 to 16.11.2020 pertaining to Car bearing NO.TS-04-UC-1199) … Respondents

Pg.No. 2 of 18 M.V.O.P.No.233 of 2020

This M.V.O.P is coming before me on 27.02.2026 for final hearing in the presence of Sri.Chintala Yadaiah, Counsel for the petitioner, Sri.K.S.N.Murthy, Counsel for Respondent No.3 and Respondent No.1 & 2 set exparte and the matter having been heard and stood over for consideration till this day, this Court delivered the following:

O R D E R

This Claim petition is filed under Sec.166 of M.V.Act, 1988 and

Rule 455 of M.V.Rules, 1989, R/w.Sec.140 of M.V.Act, 1988 seeking compensation of Rs.1,50,000/- with costs against the respondents, along with interest @ 18% per annum from the date of petition till realization towards for the injuries received by the petitioner in the accident took place on 14.03.2020.

2(i). The brief averments of the petition are that :

On 14.03.2020, at about 04.00 p.m., while the petitioner was proceeding in a car bearing No.TS-04-UC-1199 as a passenger along with his friends from Chinthalapally Village towards Amangal, on reaching near Chennakeshava Colony, Chintalapally Village, in the meantime, the driver of car bearing No.TS-04-UC-1199 drove the vehicle at high speed in a rash and negligent manner and lost control of the vehicle and dashed to ditch right side of road. Due to which the petitioner fell down on the road and received head injury, blunt chest injury, adbomen and pelvis and other injuries to all over the body.

Pg.No. 3 of 18 M.V.O.P.No.233 of 2020

Immediately, he was shifted to Government Hospital at Kalwakurty for first aid and later as his condition became very serious, he was shifted to Panacea Meridian Hospitals at RC Puram and admitted as in patient on 15.03.2020 and treated conservatively managed and discharged on 17.03.2020 with an advise of regular followups. The petitioner have incurred a sum of Rs.80,000/- so for for his medical and extra nourishment. That, P.S.Amangel of Cyberabad, had registered a case in Crime No.48/2020 U/s.337 of IPC and later altered under Sec.338 of

IPC.

(ii) At the time of accident, the petitioner was aged about 23 years, hale and healthy and was a Labour and he used to earn a sum of

Rs.15,000/- per month and contributing the same towards welfare of his family. Due to the said accidental injuries, Doctors advised the petitioner to take bed rest for 6 months. The petitioner is still suffering from severe pains and is unable to sit and squat and unable to move from the bed and restricted his moments totally and unable to do previous work as a Labour and lost future earnings and prospects.

Further the petitioner family borrowed huge sums from his friends and relatives towards his medical treatment. Hence this petition.

Respondent No.1 is the Driver, Respondent No.2 is the Owner and

Respondent No.3 is the Insurer of the offending vehicle.

Pg.No. 4 of 18 M.V.O.P.No.233 of 2020

3.Respondent No.1 who is the driver and Respondent No.2 who is the owner, did not choose to contest the case and as a result they were set exparte.

4.Respondent No.3 who is the Insurance Company filed counter denying the manner of accident and alleged rash and negligent driving of respondent No.1. Further, the Respondent No.3 does not admit the age, avocation and income of the injured/petitioner.

The Respondent No.3 does not admit the persons who droves the vehicles involved at the material time of accident was holding valid subsisting driving license. It is the contention of the Respondent No.3 that as per Sec.134(c) of M.V.Act, it is mandatory duty of the 1st and 2nd respondents and as well as the petitioner herein to furnish the particulars of the policy, date, time and place of the accident, and particulars of the deceased/injured and the name of the driver and driving license particulars etc., since the 1st and 2nd respondents did not complied the same, this respondent is not liable to pay any compensation to the claimant and the case is also liable to be dismissed against the respondent for non-compliance of the statutory demand. Further, as per Sec.158(6) of M.V.Act, it is mandatory duty of the concerned P.S., to forward all the relevant documents to the

Pg.No. 5 of 18 M.V.O.P.No.233 of 2020 concerned insurer within 30 days from the date of information, but the same was not done and did not complied with the statutory demand.

Further, the amount of compensation claimed by the petitioner is highly excessive, arbitrary and out of all proportions and the petitioner is not entitled for any amount and sought for dismissal of the same.

5.Basing on the above pleadings, the following issues were settled for trial by my learned predecessor-in-office :-

1. Whether the petitioner sustained injuries in the road traffic accident due to rash and negligent driving of car bearing No.TS-04-UC-1199 by its driver ?

2. Whether the petitioner is entitled for compensation on account of injuries sustained by him, if so, to what amount and against whom ?

3. To what relief ?

6.To substantiate the case of the Petitioner, the petitioner himself is examined as PW1 and got marked Ex.A1 to Ex.A8. On behalf of the contesting Respondent No.3, no oral evidence is adduced, however,

Ex.B1 Policy is marked with consent.

7. ISSUE NO.1:- Whether the petitioner sustained injuries

in the road traffic accident due to rash and negligent

driving of car bearing No.TS-04-UC-1199 by its driver ?

(i)It is well known fact that in a case relating to MV claims the claimants are not required to prove the case as it is required to be

Pg.No. 6 of 18 M.V.O.P.No.233 of 2020 done in a criminal trial. Since the claim petition is filed under

Sec.166 of MV Act 1988 the claimants are supposed to prove the rash and negligent act of the driver of the offending vehicle. It is well established principle of law that the roving inquiry, to prove rash and negligence act on the part of the driver is not required.

In Kaushnumma Begum and others Vs. New India Assurance

Company Limited 1, it was held that “the issue of wrongful Act or omission on the part of the motor vehicle involved has been left to a secondary importance and mere usage or involvement of Motor vehicle in causing bodily injuries or a death of human being or damage to property would make the petition maintainable under sec.166 and 140 of the Act.”

(ii). In this backdrop, now I shall appreciate the evidence on record. To substantiate his claim, the petitioner himself examined as PW1. In his examination-in-chief in the mode of affidavit, he reiterated the facts as averred in the claim petition, in respect of the manner of accident how it had taken place. In a nut shell, his testimony is to effect is that on 14.03.2020, at about 04.00 p.m., while the petitioner was proceeding in a car bearing No.TS-04-UC- 1199 as a passenger along with his friends from Chinthalapally

Village towards Amangal, on reaching near Chennakeshava Colony,

Pg.No. 7 of 18 M.V.O.P.No.233 of 2020

Chintalapally Village, in the meantime, the driver of car bearing

No.TS-04-UC-1199 drove the vehicle at high speed in a rash and negligent manner and lost control of the vehicle and dashed to ditch right side of road. Due to which the petitioner fell down on the road and received head injury, blunt chest injury, adbomen and pelvis and other injuries to all over the body. Immediately, he was shifted to Government Hospital at Kalwakurty for first aid and later as his condition became very serious, he was shifted to

Panacea Meridian Hospitals at RC Puram and admitted as in patient on 15.03.2020 and treated conservatively managed and discharged on 17.03.2020 with an advise of regular followups.

Through the petitioner Exs.A1 to A8 were marked that are relevant for consideration of this issue.

(iii)On perusal of the documents i.e., Ex.A1/FIR reveals that immediately, after the occurrence of the accident, a case was registered against the driver of the offending vehicle vide

FIR.No.48/2020 dated 14.03.2020 and after investigation, Charge

Sheet under Ex.A2 was filed against the Respondent No.1 by name

Odusu Kalyan, driver of the offending vehicle under Sec.304-A and 338 of IPC. Ex.A3 is the MLC Report, issued by Panacea Meridian

Hospitals, Sangareddy. On perusal of Ex.A3 MLC Report, it is

Pg.No. 8 of 18 M.V.O.P.No.233 of 2020 observed that on 15.03.2020, the petitioner admitted as in-patient in their hospital with the history of RTA and the injuries sustained by the petitioner are grievous in nature. It is evident from the above exhibits that, the accident occurred due to the rash and negligent driving of the driver of the offending vehicle and the same have not been rebutted by the respondents by producing any cogent evidence. As such, this Court hold that the petitioner sustained “grievous injuries” solely due to the rash and negligent driving of the driver of the crime vehicle.

8. ISSUE NO.2 :- Whether the petitioner is entitled for

compensation on account of injuries sustained by him, if so,

to what amount and against whom ?

(i).Now the quantum of compensation payable to the petitioner which is just and reasonable is to be assessed and fixed having regard to the nature of injuries and disability, if any suffered by the injured.

(ii). Just compensation is to be determined on the foundation of fairness, reasonableness and equitably on acceptable legal standards as loss of life and limb can never be compensated in an equal measure, but the provisions under the Motor Vehicles Act

Pg.No. 9 of 18 M.V.O.P.No.233 of 2020 are meant to compensate the claimant to a reasonable extent for the loss suffered by him.

(iii). At the outset, it is the specific contention of the petitioner that he sustained grievous injuries in the road traffic accident.

According to the PW1, he suffered (i) Blunt abdominal Injury (ii)

Head Injury and (iii) Blunt Chest Trauma. Immediately after the accident, he was shifted to Government Hospital, Kalwakurty where he was provided first aid. Thereafter, as his condition became serious, he was shifted to Panacea Meridian Hospitals,

R.C. Puram where he admitted as inpatient on 15.03.2020 and the patient was treated with IV Fluids, IV Atibiotics, Analgesics, PPI’s,

Antiemetics and other supportive medication and after the patient is in stable condition, discharged on 22.03.2020 with an advice of regular follow-ups and complete bed rest of 6 months.

(iv)However, it is pertinent to note that the petitioner has not examined the treating doctor or any medical officer to prove the nature of injuries, treatment and consequences thereof. The petitioner only filed the discharge summary issued by Panacea

Meridian Hospitals under Ex.A4 and Final Bill Summary under

Ex.A5 and a bunch of medical bills under Ex.A6 in support of his

Pg.No. 10 of 18 M.V.O.P.No.233 of 2020 claim. In the absence of examination of the doctor, the exact nature of the injuries, loss of income during the treatment period and loss of future income, if any, cannot be fully established.

Nevertheless, on perusal of the discharge summary under Ex.A4, issued by Panacea Meridian Hospitals, it clearly discloses that the petitioner sustained (i) Blunt abdominal Injury (ii) Head Injury and

(iii) Blunt Chest Trauma. Thus, the documentary medical evidence available on record would establish that the petitioner sustained grievous injuries in the accident and he underwent inpatient treatment. Hence, it can safely be concluded that the petitioner sustained grievous injuries due to the said accident.

(v)It is the further contention of the petitioner that he incurred

Rs.80,000/- towards his treatment. In support of the said claim,

PW1 relied on Ex.A5 Final Hospital Bill issued by Panacea Meridian

Hospital and Ex.A6 bunch of Medical Bills. On perusal of Ex.A5 bills, it is evident that the petitioner spent an amount of

Rs.42,000/- towards in-patient treatment during hospitalization and on further perusal of Ex.A6 bunch of medical bills reflects that the petitioner spent total amount of Rs.30,937/- towards medical expenses during the course of his treatment. Therefore, this Court is of the considered view that the petitioner is entitled to

Pg.No. 11 of 18 M.V.O.P.No.233 of 2020

Rs.72,937/- (total of Rs.42,000/- + 30,937/-) towards medical expenses incurred by him.

(vi)During cross-examination of PW1, some suggestions were put to PW1 that the at the time of accident himself and other occupants of the car along with driver are under influence of liquor and that Ex.A4 to Ex.A6 are false, fabricated and being filed for the purpose of this case and that the driver of crime vehicle was not having valid driving license, RC, permit and road worthiness to ply on the road at the time of accident, hence respondent No.3 is not liable to pay any compensation to the petitioner. However, those suggestions were denied by the witness. During the cross- examination of PW1 nothing substantial material was elicited by the Respondents to disprove the case of the petitioners. In fact the entire cross-examination of PW1 done by Respondent No.3 is mostly by way of suggestions. All the suggestions were denied by the witness. Suggestions do not hold any evidentiary value unless the fact suggested is proved. In this case, leave aside proving the facts suggested the respondents not even entered the witness box to depose their own case. There are number of Supreme Court

Judgments where the Hon’ble Court held that when a party fails to enter the witness box and deposed his case it is generally treated

Pg.No. 12 of 18 M.V.O.P.No.233 of 2020 that the defence set up by him is false. On perusal of Ex.A3 MLC,

Ex.A4 Discharge Summary, Ex.A5 Final Bill and Ex.A6 bunch of medical Bills, it reflects that the petitioner admitted in Panacea

Meridian Hospital on 15.03.2020 with RTA and multiple injuries and fractures and discharged on 22.03.2020. From the above, exhibits the petitioner proved that the injuries sustained by him are grievous in nature and the said accident is occurred due to rash and negligent driving of Respondent No.1.

9. Quantum of Compensation :- In the case of Raj Kumar

Vs. Ajay Kumar and Another reported in 2011 SCJ 11 wherein the Hon’ble Apex Court divided the damages into two categories - (1) Pecuniary damages and (2) Non-pecuniary damages.

In Pecuniary Damages the following reliefs can be granted:-

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

(ii) Loss of earnings during the period of treatment and also loss of future earnings on account of permanent disability if any.

(iii) Future medical expenses.

In Non-Pecuniary Damages the following reliefs can be granted:-

(i) Damages for pains, suffering and trauma.

(ii) Loss of amenities like prospects of marriage etc.

(iii) Loss of expectation of life.

Pg.No. 13 of 18 M.V.O.P.No.233 of 2020

10. Pecuniary Damages :-

(i)Expenses relating to treatment, hospitalization, medicine:-

As discussed above, the petitioner proved under Ex.A5 and

Ex.A6 that he spent Rs.72,937/- for his treatment. As such, the petitioner is entitled for Rs.72,937/- towards medical expenses.

(ii). Transportation :- No doubt that the petitioner undergone treatment due to the injuries suffered by him in the said accident and he had to make number of visits to the Hospital for his treatment and followup treatment. As such, it is just and proper to grant Rs.10,000/- towards transport and visits of the Hospital.

(iii). Extra-Nourishment :-It is just and proper to grant

Rs.10,000/- towards extra nourishment to the petitioner as he suffered fracture injuries which require extra care and nourishment.

(iv). Loss of earnings during the period of treatment and

also loss of future earnings on account of permanent

disability :-

Coming to the aspect of income, PW1 pleaded that he was aged about 23 years at the time of accident and was working as a

Pg.No. 14 of 18 M.V.O.P.No.233 of 2020 labourer and earning Rs.15,000/- per month. However, except the oral testimony of the petitioner, no independent witness has been examined nor any documentary evidence such as proof of income has been filed to substantiate the said claim. In the absence of any such evidence, the claimed income cannot be accepted.

However, this Court is inclined to take the notional income of the petitioner at Rs.10,000/- per month for the purpose of assessment of compensation. However, considering the nature of injuries and surgical treatment, the petitioner would have been unable to attend his work for a certain period during treatment and recovery. Therefore, the Court considers it reasonable to grant loss of earnings for a period of three months. Therefore, Loss of Income for a period of 3 months will be Rs.30,000/- (Rs.10,000/- x 3 months).

Accordingly, Rs.30,000/- is awarded towards loss of income for a period of three months.

It is further observed that, the petitioner has not suffered any permanent or functional disability in the above said accident.

Consequently, in the absence of disability, no amount can be awarded under the head of ‘loss of income or loss of earnings on account of disability’.

Pg.No. 15 of 18 M.V.O.P.No.233 of 2020

(v)Future Medical Expenses :-

The petitioner has not claimed any specific amount towards future medical expenses nor has he examined the treating doctor to establish the necessity of any further treatment in future. In the absence of such medical evidence and proof, this Court finds that there is no basis to award any amount under the head of future medical expenses. Hence, the petitioner is not entitled to any compensation under the said head.

11.Non-Pecuniary Damages:-

(i) Damages for pain, suffering and trauma :-

Since the petitioner sustained two fracture injuries as reflecting in

Ex.A4 Discharge Summary issued by Panacea Meridian i.e., (i) Head

Injury, (ii) Blunt Injury Chest, Abdomen and Pelvis, it is just and proper to grant Rs.50,000/- each to the above said two fracture injures and

Rs.50,000/- towards simple injuries under the head of ‘pain and suffering’. The total sum of Rs.1,00,000/- is awarded to the petitioner under the head of pain and suffering.

(ii) Loss of amenities like prospects of marriage etc. :-

In the present case on hand, owing to the said injuries, the petitioner was temporarily incapacitated from enjoying the normal amenities and pleasures of life during the period of treatment and

Pg.No. 16 of 18 M.V.O.P.No.233 of 2020 recovery. The injuries though not resulting in any permanent disability, however, caused hardship and deprivation of amenities for a considerable period. Hence, this Court finds it just and reasonable to award a sum of Rs.10,000/- towards loss of amenities.

12.Cumulatively, the petitioner is entitled for total compensation arrived is shown as follows:-

Sl.No.Calculation Head

1.Rs.30,000/- Loss of future income / Loss of earning capacity 2Rs.72,937/- Actual medical expenses incurred as inpatient 3Rs.1,00,000/- For pain, sufferance suffered by petitioner 4Rs.10,000/- Transportation 5Rs.10,000/- For extra nourishment 6Rs.10,000/- Loss of amenities

Rs.2,32,937/- Total compensation

Thus, the petitioner is entitled for compensation of

Rs.2,32,937/-, which is just and reasonable and the Respondents

No.1 to 3 are jointly and severally liable to pay the same.

Accordingly, Issue No.2 is answered in favour of Petitioner.

Pg.No. 17 of 18 M.V.O.P.No.233 of 2020

13. ISSUE NO.3 :- To what relief?

As Issues Nos.1 & 2 are decided in favour of the petitioner, the petitioner is entitled for compensation of Rs.2,32,937/- with interest @ 6% per annum, which is just and reasonable.

In the result,the petition is allowed by granting compensation of Rs.2,32,937/- (Rupees Two Lakhs Thirty Two

Thousand Nine Hundred and Thirty Seven only) with proportionate costs and interest @6% per annum from the date of filing of the petition till the date of realization.

i. The Respondents 1 to 3 are jointly and severally liable to pay compensation to the petitioners with accrued interest and costs.

ii. Respondents are directed to deposit the above said compensation with accrued interest and costs within 30 days from the date of this award.

iii. Upon such deposit, the petitioner is permitted to withdraw the entire compensation amount with accrued interest and costs.

iv. Advocate fee is fixed at Rs.10,000/-. Deficit Court Fee if any shall be paid within 10 days from the date of this award.

v. Decree shall be drawn after payment of the deficit court fee on the

additional compensation amount that was awarded than claimed in

Pg.No. 18 of 18 M.V.O.P.No.233 of 2020 the petition by the petitioners within one months from the date of this Order.

Typed to my dictation directly on the Computer by Stenographer corrected and pronounced by me in open Court on 08th day of April, 2026.

Sd/-

CHAIRMAN

MACT-CUM-XXVII ACJ, CCC, SECUNDERABAD

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

WITNESSES EXAMINED

FOR PETITIONER: FOR RESPONDENTS:

PW1 : K.Viresh- None -

EXHIBITS MARKED

FOR PETITIONER :

Ex.A1 : Certified copy of FIR along with complaint

Ex.A2 : Certified copy of Charge Sheet

Ex.A3 : Certified copy of MLC

Ex.A4 : Original Discharge Summary issued by Panacea Meridian Hospital

Ex.A5 : Original Final Bill for Rs.42,000/-

Ex.A6 : Bunch of Medical Bills of Rs.30,937/-

Ex.A7 : Bunch of diagnostic reports

Ex.A8 : X-Ray films

FOR RESPONDENTS :

Ex.B1 : Policy

Sd/-

CHAIRMAN

MACT-CUM-XXVII ACJ, CCC, SECUNDERABAD

BEFORE THE CHAIRMAN, MOTOR ACCIDENTS CLAIMS TRIBUNAL-

CUM-COURT OF THE XXVII ADDITIONAL CHIEF JUDGE,

CITY CIVIL COURT, AT SECUNDERABAD.

Present: Sri.K.Suri Krishna

MACT-cum- XXVII Addl.Chief Judge

MONDAY THE 04 th DAY OF MAY, 2026

M.V.O.P.No.160 OF 2020

Between :

1. Bathula Tirupayya, S/o.Muthaiah, aged about 58 years, Occ: Labour

2. Bathula Naramma W/o.Thirupaiah, aged about 53 years, Occ: Labour,

Both are R/o.H.No.6-1-190/11, Padmarao Nagar, Secunderabad, N/o.Jasthipalli Village, Kamepalli Mandal, Khammam District.

… Petitioners

A N D

1. Shaik Abbu, S/o.Khasim Saheb, aged about 38 years, Occ: Driver of Crime vehicle Appe Traly Auto bearing No.TS-04-UC-2823, R/o.Mucharla (V), Kamepally (M), Khammam District.

2. Anumolu Rambhadra Rao, S/o.Rajaiah, aged Major, Occ: Owner of the Crime Vehicle AppeTraly Auto bearing No.TS-04-UC-2823 R/o.H.No.2-64. Mucharla Village, Kamepally Mandal, Khammam District.

3. Cholamandalam MS General Insurance Co.Ltd., Rep.by its Branch Manager, Vijayawada Branch Office, Door No.40-1-48/1, 2nd floor, Behind Kotak Mahindra Bank, M.G.Road, Venkateshwarapuram S.o.Krishna, Andhra Pradesh.

Pg.No. 2 of 18 M.V.O.P.No.160 of 2020 (Policy No.3379/02236595/000/00 valid from 06.01.2019 to 05.01.2020) … Respondents

This M.V.O.P is coming before me on 06.03.2026 for final hearing in the presence of Sri.Prem Kumar, Counsel for the petitioners, Sri.N.Ramachandraiah, Counsel for Respondent No.2 and Sri.M.K.Rajasekhar,Counsel for Respondent No.3 and Respondent No.1 was set exparte and the matter having been heard and stood over for consideration till this day, this Court delivered the following:

O R D E R

This Claim petition is filed under Sec.166 of M.V.Act, 1988 and

Rules 475/1B of M.V.Rule, 1989, R/w.Sec.163A, 140(C) of M.V.Act., seeking compensation of Rs.20,00,000/- with costs against the respondents, along with interest @ 18% per annum from the date of this petition till realization for the death of Bathula Krishna referred to as (“the deceased”) in the motor vehicle accident that occurred on 06.04.2019.

2.The brief averments of the petition are that :

On 06.04.2019, at about 19.30 hrs while the deceased was proceeding from his house at Jasthipalli to Kamepalli Mandal on his motorcycle bearing No.TS-26-6729, on reaching near outskirt of Mondichintha

Village, Kamepalli Mandal, in the meantime, the driver of AppeTraly Auto bearing No.TS-04-UC-2823 drove the vehicle at high speed in a rash and

Pg.No. 3 of 18 M.V.O.P.No.160 of 2020 negligent manner and dashed to the deceased proceeding motorcycle in opposite direction. Due to which the deceased fell down on the road and received injuries on his head, immediately, he was shifted to

Govt.Hospital, Khammam for treatment by 108 Ambulance, but the deceased succumbed to his injuries on the same day while undergoing treatment.

(ii)Prior to the accident the deceased was aged about 28 years, hale and healthy and working as a Mason and agriculturist and used to earn

Rs.15,000/- per month. The deceased was only earning person in their family and his total income was contributed to maintain his family. Due to the sudden death of the deceased, the petitioners lost their love and affection and facing lot of financial problems. Respondent No.1 is the

Driver and Respondent No.2 is the owner, Respondent No.3 is the Insurer of the offending vehicle. That, P.S.Kamepalli had registered a case in

Crime No.64/2019 U/s.304-A of IPC. Hence this petition.

3.Respondent No.1 who is the driver did not choose to contest the case and as a result he was set exparte.

4.Respondent No.2 who is the Owner of the offending vehicle filed counter by denying the averments in the claim petition and contending that the he is the owner of the alleged offending vehicle and

Pg.No. 4 of 18 M.V.O.P.No.160 of 2020 also driving the vehicle at the relevant point of time. The name of the

Respondent No.1 is wrongly mentioned as driver by the petitioners and also in the criminal case/FIR for the reasons best known to them. The

Respondent No.2 who is the owner and also the driver has got a valid driving license. It is further contended by Respondent No.2 that the deceased was driving motorcycle bearing No.TS-26-6729 without driving license and also in drunken condition in a rash and negligent manner without wearing helmet. The respondent No.2 obtained an insurance policy from Respondent No.3 Company which is valid from 06.01.2019 to 05.01.2020 duly covering the alleged date of accident. Since the said policy covers third party liability, the respondent No.2 is not liable to pay any compensation to the petitioner. Further, the Respondent No.2 denies the income, avocation and earnings of the deceased. Hence sought to dismiss the petition.

5.Respondent No.3 who is the owner filed counter denying the legal heirship of the petitioners with the deceased and age, avocation and income of the deceased. Respondent No.3 further contended that the alleged accident occurred due to the sheet negligence on the part of the deceased who was instrumental in occurrence of the accident as he drove the vehicle without following any traffic rules in a rash and negligent manner and caused the alleged accident. The further

Pg.No. 5 of 18 M.V.O.P.No.160 of 2020 contention of the respondent No.3 is that rider who drove the motor cycle No.TS-36-C-6466, was not holding valid and effective driving license at the time of accident and thereby contravened the provisions of

MV Act as well as MV Rules. The Respondent No.2 willfully and knowingly has handedover the possession of the vehicle to the said driver who had not possess valid and effective driving license as on the date of accident. Hence the respondent No.3 company is not liable to pay any compensation to the petitioners. As per section 134 [C] of M.V.

1988, it is the mandatory duty of the insured/respondent No.2 herein to furnish the particulars of policy, date, time and place of accident, particulars of injured, but the insured/respondent No.2 herein has not complied with statutory demand. As per Section 158 [6] of M.V. Act, 1988, it is a mandatory duty of the concerned Police station to forward all the relevant documents to the concerned insurer within 30 days from the date of the information, but the Police failed to the same. The compensation claimed by the petitioners is highly excessive. Further the compensation claimed by the petitioners is highly exorbitant and excessive which is quite against the law. Hence, sought to dismiss the petition against the Respondent No.3 Insurance Company.

6.Basing on the above pleadings, the following issues were settled for trial by my learned predecessor-in-office :-

Pg.No. 6 of 18 M.V.O.P.No.160 of 2020

1. Whether Bathula Krishna died in the road traffic accident due to rash and negligent riding of AppeTraly Auto bearing No.TS-04-UC-2823 by its driver ?

2. Whether the petitioners are entitled for compensation on account of death of Bathula Krishna, if so, to what amount and against whom ?

3. To what relief ?

7.To prove the respective contentions, Petitioner No.2 herself examined as PW1. In support of the case of petitioners, they also got examined one B.Laxmaiah and Bujji Venkanna eye witnesses as PW2 and PW3 respectively. Through PW1, Ex.A1 to Ex.A11 documents are marked. On behalf of contesting Respondent No.3, its Deputy Legal Manager is examined as RW1 and got marked

Ex.B1.

8.Heard arguments of both the learned counsels. Perused the

Written Arguments filed by the Counsel for Petitioners and

Respondents and also citations filed by the counsel for petitioners.

9. ISSUE NO.1 :- Whether Bathula Krishna died in the road

traffic accident due to rash and negligent riding of

AppeTraly Auto bearing No.TS-04-UC-2823 by its driver ?

Pg.No. 7 of 18 M.V.O.P.No.160 of 2020

(i)To prove the said Issue, Petitioner No.2 is examined herself as

PW1.In her examination-in-chief in the mode of affidavit, she reiterated the facts as averred in the claim petition, in respect of the manner of accident how it had taken place. In support of her case she got marked Ex.A1 to Ex.A11.

(ii)In corroboration of the said evidence, the eye-witnesses is examined as PW2 and PW3 and filed their chief affidavits. In a nut- shell of their testimony is to effect is that, on 06.04.2019 while Bathula

Krishna was proceeding on his motorcycle at Modichinta Village outskirts,

Kamepally Mandal, in the meantime, the respondent No.1 drove the

AppeTrolly bearing No.TS-04-UC-2823 in a rash and negligent manner and dashed the deceased proceeding motorcycle, due to which the deceased well down on the road and received severe injuries on his head and face and became unconscious state with a pool of blood.

Immediately, they took the deceased in an auto and shifted him into an

Ambulance near Manchukonda and admitted him at Government

Hospital, Khammam for treatment, but he died on the same day while undergoing treatment. The Police Kamepally, had registered case in

Crime No.64/2019 under Sec.304-A of IPC against the driver of the

AppeTrolly Auto.

Pg.No. 8 of 18 M.V.O.P.No.160 of 2020

(iii)On perusal of Ex.A1 FIR and Ex.A2 Charge Sheet, it is observed that FIR No.64/2019 was lodged on 07.04.2019 and the Police swung into action and did investigation and found that the Respondent No.1 by name Shaik Abbu, S/o.Khasim Saheb who is the driver of crime

AppeTrolly Auto bearing No.TS-04-UC-2823 has committed an offence punishable U/s.304A of IPC. Further, the evidence of PW1 to

PW3 is corroborated with Ex.A3 Inquest and Ex.A4 PME Reports showing that the cause of death of the deceased is due to injuries sustained by him in the said accident. The above documents clearly establishes that road accident occurred only due to the rash and negligent driving of the driver of the crime vehicle and charge sheet was filed against the driver of the crime vehicle i.e. Respondent No.1 for the offence under

Section 304A of IPC. Hence Ex.A1 and Ex.A2 lends support to the testimony of PW1 to PW3. Whereas, Ex.A3, Ex.A4 and Ex.A5 probablizes the death of the deceased due to the rash and negligent driving of the driver of the crime vehicle.

(iv)During the cross-examination of PW1, it is elicited and admitted that the deceased was married and divorcee and the said fact was not disclosed in the claim petition, though she denied that such omission was intentional to exclude his wife from compensation. Despite these admissions, she consistently denied the suggestions that the accident

Pg.No. 9 of 18 M.V.O.P.No.160 of 2020 occurred due to the sole negligence of the deceased, that the driver of the offending auto lacked a valid license, and that the respondents are not liable to pay compensation. She further denied that the claim is excessive and that the petitioners are not dependents of the deceased.

(v)During the cross-examination of PW2 and PW3 by the counsel for

Respondent No.2, the witnesses firmly denied the suggestion that

Shaik Abbu was not driving the AppeTrolley at the time of the accident and it was driven by Ram Bhadraiah who is the owner of the vehicle.

Except formal cross-examination of PWs 2 and 3, no material was elicited so as to discredit their testimony and there is nothing on record to show that PW2 and PW3 are interested witnesses. Hence, evidence of PWs 2 and 3 is reliable.

(vi)In the present case on hand, the contention of respondent

No.3 Insurance Company is that the driver of crime vehicle is not having valid and effective driving license as on the date of the accident and as such there is breach of the terms and conditions of the policy and its liability does not arise. Therefore, it is for the

Respondent No.3/Insurance company to prove the same in terms of Sec.149 of Motor Vehicles Act 1988 to disown its liability.

Though, Respondent No.3/Insurance Company examined its

Pg.No. 10 of 18 M.V.O.P.No.160 of 2020

Deputy Legal Manager as RW1, did not choose to adduce any documentary evidence on its behalf except marking Ex.B1 Policy.

On perusal of Ex.B1 Policy, the period of insurance policy was from 06.01.2019 ends in the mid night of 05.01.2020. On the other hand, the accident was taken place on 06.04.2019 which is covered in the period of insurance.

(vii)On the other hand, the petitioner relying upon

Ex.A2/Certified copy of charge sheet wherein the concerned police after completion of investigation filed the charge sheet only for the offence under section 304-A of IPC and the driver of the crime vehicle was not charge sheeted for the offence under Sec.181 of

Motor Vehicle Act, 1988. If at all the driver of the crime vehicle was not having valid driving license as on the date of the accident certainly the charge sheet, would have been filed by the concerned police U/s.181 of Motor Vehicle Act also. Therefore, it is not open to Respondent No.3/Insurance company to evade its liability to pay compensation as there is no breach of terms and conditions of

Ex.B1/Policy which is in force as on the date of the accident.

Hence, the liability of the Respondent No.3/Insurance Company arises to pay compensation to the petitioners for the reason of causing death of deceased in the accident.

Pg.No. 11 of 18 M.V.O.P.No.160 of 2020

(viii)Further, the contention of the Respondent No.2 who is the owner of the crime vehicle is that the AppeTrolly bearing

No.TS-04-UC-2823 was driven by Respondent No.2 at the time of accident but the name of Respondent No.1 is wrongly shown and mentioned as driver in the present petition. It was further contended that as per MVI Report under Ex.A5, it is clearly mentioned that no damages caused to the vehicle bearing No.TS- 04-UC-2823 at the time of accident. As such, the claim of the petitioners is incorrect and denied. However, except making such assertions, Respondent No.2 has not placed any documentary evidence on record by entering into the witness box to establish that he himself was driving the vehicle at the relevant time. In the absence of proof, the plea of Respondent No.2 remains unsubstantiated. Further, though reliance is placed on the MVI

Report under Ex.A5 stating that no damages were noted on the vehicle, the same by itself is insufficient to discredit the case of the petitioners or to prove that Respondent No.2 was the driver at the time of the accident. Therefore, the contention of Respondent

No.2 cannot be accepted.

Pg.No. 12 of 18 M.V.O.P.No.160 of 2020

(ix)Thus, as per the above discussion and testimony of PW1 to PW3, this Court concludes that, the death of the deceased occurred solely as a result of the accident that took place on 06.04.2019 due to the rash and negligent driving of the offending vehicle by its rider i.e.,

Respondent No.1. Accordingly, Issue No.1 is answered in favour of

Petitioners.

10. ISSUE NO.4 :- Whether the petitioners are entitled for

compensation on account of death of Bathula Krishna, if so,

to what amount and against whom ?

(i)In the present case, there is no dispute with regard to the relationship of the petitioners with the deceased. The identity as well as the relationship of the petitioners with the deceased established through Ex.A8 and Ex.A9, copies of Aadhar Cards.

Further, during the cross-examination of PW1, it was elicited that the deceased was married and subsequently divorced. The said fact is corroborated by Ex.A11, which clearly evidences that the marriage between the deceased and his wife, Bathula Pujitha, was dissolved by way of Order and Decree in FCOP No.241 of 2018,

dated 25.10.2018. Therefore, it is evident that, as on the date of

the accident, the deceased was not having a subsisting marital

Pg.No. 13 of 18 M.V.O.P.No.160 of 2020 relationship. Hence, the petitioners, being the legal representatives of the deceased, are entitled to claim compensation for his death.

11. Assessment of compensation :-

(a) Income of the deceased :- PW1 stated that the deceased was working as mason and agriculturist and earning Rs.15,000/- per month.

But no documentary evidence has been produced in support of the said contention. As such, this Court is inclined to take the notional income of the deceased as Rs.10,000/- per month.

(b) Age of the deceased :- The age of the deceased is shown

as 28 years in the petition. Hence, this Court is considering the

age of the deceased as 28 years.

In the case of P.Sarala Varma Vs. Delhi Transport

Corporation reported in 2009 (6) SCC 121 the Hon’ble Apex

Court fixed the multiplier of the persons in between the age group of 26 to 30 years as ‘17’. In the present case, the deceased is aged about 28 years, so the multiplier is ‘17’.

(c) Additions to Income towards future prospects:- As per the decision of the Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of National

Pg.No. 14 of 18 M.V.O.P.No.160 of 2020

Insurance Company Ltd., Vs. Pranaya Sethi and Others

reported in 2017 ACJ 2700, if a person is self employed and between the age group of below 40 years, 40% of income should be added towards future prospects and the said principle is applied to this case on hand. 40% monthly income of the deceased comes to Rs.4,000/-, then the total monthly income of the deceased comes to Rs.14,000/- i.e. (Rs.10,000 + 4,000 = 14,000/-), it is net income of the deceased.

(d) Deductions:-As per the case law of Hon’ble Supreme Court in

National Insurance Company Ltd. vs. Pranaya Sethi and Others

(2017 ACJ 2700), when there are 2 to 3 dependents, 1/3 should be deducted towards personal and living expenses of the deceased. In the present case there are 2 dependents. Therefore, after 1/3 of the deductions in the monthly income of the deceased comes to

Rs.9,333/- i.e. (Rs.14,000/– Rs.4,667/- = Rs.9,333/-).

(e) Total Compensation:- As discussed supra, after making deductions and additions, the income of the deceased comes to

Rs.9,333/- and the multiplier is ‘17’, then the total compensation comes to Rs.9,333/- x 12 x 17 = Rs.19,03,932/-.

Pg.No. 15 of 18 M.V.O.P.No.160 of 2020

12. General and Non-Pecuniary Damages :-

Under the given circumstances of the case it is just and proper to grant following compensation :-

Loss of EstateRs.16,500/-

Funeral Expenses Rs.16,500/-

Parental Consortium to Petitioner No.1Rs.1,00,000/- & 2 Rs.50,000/- each

TOTAL Rs.1,33,000/-

In view of my aforesaid discussion, the petitioners are entitled for total compensation of Rs.20,36,932/-.

For brevity and better understanding, the compensation awarded under the different heads is shown in the table below:- 1Loss of DependencyRs.19,03,932/- 2Loss of EstateRs.16,500/- 3Funeral Expenses Rs.16,500/- 5Parental Consortium to Petitioners No.1Rs.1,00,000/- & 2 Rs.50,000/- each

TOTAL Rs.20,36,932/-

13. Against whom :-

Admittedly, in this case, Respondent No.1 is driver, Respondent

No.2 is owner, Respondent No.3 is the Insurer of the offending vehicle.

As such, Respondent No.1 to 3 becomes jointly and severally liable to pay compensation to the petitioners. Accordingly, Issue No.2 is answered.

Pg.No. 16 of 18 M.V.O.P.No.160 of 2020

14. ISSUE NO.3 :- To what relief ?

As Issue Nos.1 & 2 are decided in favour of the petitioners, the petitioners are entitled for compensation of Rs.20,36,932/- with interest @ 6% per annum, which is just and reasonable.

In the result, the petition is allowed and award is passed, granting compensation of Rs.20,36,932/- (Rupees Twenty Lakhs

Thirty Six Thousand Nine Hundred and Thirty Two Only) along with costs and accrued interest @ 6% per annum from the date of filing of the petition till the date of deposit with costs as follows:- i.Respondents No.1 to 3 are jointly and severally liable to pay compensation to the petitioners with accrued interest and costs.

ii.Respondents are directed to deposit the above said compensation with accrued interest and costs within 30 days from the date of this award.

iii.Upon such deposit, the Petitioners are permitted to withdraw the entire compensation amount at once along with accrued interest and costs thereon.

iv.Advocate fee is fixed at Rs.10,000/-.

v.Decree shall be drawn after payment of the deficit court fee on the additional compensation amount that was awarded

Pg.No. 17 of 18 M.V.O.P.No.160 of 2020 than claimed in the petition by the petitioners within one months from the date of this Order.

Typed to my dictation directly on the Computer by Stenographer corrected and pronounced by me in open Court on 04th day of May, 2026.

CHAIRMAN

MACT-CUM-XXVII ACJ, CCC, SECUNDERABAD

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

WITNESSES EXAMINED

FOR PETITIONERS: FOR RESPONDENTS:

PW1 : Bathula Naramma RW1 : D.Chandrashekar

PW2 : Bathula Laxmaiah

PW3 : Bathula Venkanna

EXHIBITS MARKED

FOR PETITIONERS :

Ex.A1 Certified copy of FIR along with Complaint

Ex.A2 Certified copy of Charge sheet

Ex.A3 Certified copy of Inquest report

Ex.A4 Certified copy of PME Report

Ex.A5 Certified copy of MVI Report

Ex.A6 Certified copy of Crime Detail Form

Ex.A7 Certified copy of Form 57

Ex.A8 True copy of Aadhar Card of Petitioner No.1 (verified with original)

Ex.A9 True copy of Aadhar Card of Petitioner No.2 (verified with original)

Pg.No. 18 of 18 M.V.O.P.No.160 of 2020

Ex.A10 Certified copies of 161 Statements from LW1 to LW7

Ex.A11 Certified copy of Order and Decree passed in FCOP.No.241/2018 dated 25.10.2018.

FOR RESPONDENTS:

Ex.B1 : Policy

CHAIRMAN

MACT-CUM-XXVII ACJ, CCC, SECUNDERABAD

Page No. 1 of 15 C.C.No. 10691 of 2020

IN THE COURT OF XVII ADDL. CHIEF METROPOLITAN

MAGISTRATE, HYDERABAD

PRESENT:: SRI. K. SURI KRISHNA,

XVII Addl. Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Hyderabad.

DATED: THE 29 th DAY OF July, 2022

C.C. No. 10691 OF 20 20

Between: The State through the Sub-Inspector of Police, P.S. Jubilee Hills

Hyderabad. ...Complainant

And

R. Naveen Kumar, S/p Pandu Ranga Rao, Age- 36 years, R/o H.No- 8-3-229/E/77, Venkatagiri, Yousufguda,Hyd

....Accused

This case is coming before me on 29-07-2022 for final hearing in the presence of Asst. Public Prosecutor for the State andSri. K.Anand Goud, Legal Aid Counsel for the accused and after perusing the entire case record and after having stood over the matter for consideration, this court made the following:

J U D G M E N T

1. The Sub-Inspector of Police, P.S.Jubilee Hills has filed

Chargesheet against accused in Crime No.542/2020 for the offence committed U/sec.354,323,504,448 of Indian Penal Code.

2.The Brief facts of the case as per Charge-sheet are as follows:

On 01.11.2020 at about 5.00 PM the complainant/

Page No. 2 of 15 C.C.No. 10691 of 2020

Renigunta Vennela came to PS and lodged a report stating that on 31.10.2020 at about 18.00 hours her brother-in-law/accused came to her house in an intoxicate state and asked LW1 whether his wife was there in her house, for which she replied no. Then suddenly accused outraged her modesty by beating her and also by misbehaving with her by holding hand and dragged her out.

Due to which her bangles were broken and she sustained injury on her hand. Further accused also asked LW1 to come to him as his wife left him. Hence she prayed police to take necessary legal action against accused.

3.Basing on the strength of the report, LW9/Ch Naresh registered a case in crime No.542/2020, P.S. Jubilee Hills, under section. 354,323,448,504 of IPC against the accused and examined and recorded the statements of witnesses

4.After completion of the investigation, LW9 filed Charge sheet before the Court for the offence U/sec. 354,323,448,504 of

IPC against the accused. This court has taken the cognizance for the offence committed u/s. 354,323,448,504 of IPC against accused.

Page No. 3 of 15 C.C.No. 10691 of 2020

5.On appearance of the accused person, copies of the documents were furnished to him as required U/s.207 CrPC.

6.The accused person was examined U/s.239 Criminal

Procedure Code, 1973 for which he denied the commission of offence and a charge U/secs. 354,323,448,504 of IPC has been framed, read over and explained to him in vernacular language for which he pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried.

7.In order to prove the guilt of accused, the prosecution has examined PW1 to PW7 and marked Ex.P1 & Ex.P5. The Lr.

APPO has given up the evidence of Lws.4 & 7. After closure of the prosecution side evidence, the accused was examined u/s.313 CrPC for the incriminating material appearing against him, but he denied the same and reported no defence evidence.

8.Heard both sides and perused the material available on record.

9.Now the points for determination are:

(i). Whether the prosecution could able to prove the guilt of

accused for the offence committed u/s. 354,323,448,504 of

Page No. 4 of 15 C.C.No. 10691 of 2020

IPC beyond all reasonable doubt ?

(ii). To What result ?

Point No.1 :

10.In order to prove the case of prosecution, the prosecution examined PWs1 to 7 and marked Ex. P1 to P5. The learned APPO has given up the evidence of LW4 as one of eye witnesses supported the case of prosecution. Further she also given up the evidence of LW7 as one of the panchayatdars for crime details form supported the case of prosecution. In total the prosecution examined seven witnesses and out of them victim/PW1 deposed that accused is none other than her brother-in-law i.e., brother of her husband. She further deposed that the accused is married and residing at her adjacent portion. On 31.10.2020 at about 6.00 PM while she was in her house, the accused trespassed into her house and asked about his wife. For which, she informed that his wife is not there in her house. Later the accused searched LW1’s house for his wife and started abusing PW1 in filthy language stating that she made his wife to go out of the house. She further deposed that the accused caught hold her hand and dragged her out due to which her bangles were broken and she sustained injuries to her hand. Further she deposed

Page No. 5 of 15 C.C.No. 10691 of 2020 that, since his wife left his company he asked PW1 to come to him. Immediately after this incident PW1 went to Jubliee Hills police station and lodged a report against accused and later as per the advice of the police she went to Osmania General hospital for treatment. Again on the next day she went to Jubilee

Hills police station and lodged a report under Ex.P1. She was examined by police and her statement was recorded.

11.PW2 who is husband of PW1 deposed that on 31.10.2020 at about 6.00 PM while he was attending work at Chintal, PW1 called him over phone and informed that the accused came to their house and picked up a quarrel with her. Further she informed to PW1 that the accused misbehaved with her.

Immediately PW2 came to the house and noticed injuries on

PW1’s hand and her bangles were broken. Immediately he along with PW1 went to Jubilee Hills police station and there the police advised them to go to OGH for treatment. Accordingly, he along with PW1 went to Osmania General hospital for treatment. On the next day PW1 lodged a report before the police against accused.

Page No. 6 of 15 C.C.No. 10691 of 2020

12.PW3 who is father of accused deposed that accused is his third son, and on 31.10.2020 the accused quarreled with his wife due to which the accused wife left his house. On the same day he went to the house of PW1 and enquired about his wife. Then

PW1 said to him that she is not there in her house. For which the accused abused PW1 in filthy language and dragged her by pulling her hand. When he tried to interfere, the accused pushed him aside. Thereafter, PW1 went to the police station and lodged a report against accused. Since PW3 did not state the correct date of incident, the learned APPO declared the witness as hostile and put suggestion that the incident was occurred on 31.10.2020 at 6.00 PM and on the next day PW1 lodged compliant before the police against the accused for which PW1 said it is true.

13.Coming to the evidence of PW4 who was tenant in the house of PW3 deposed that on 31.10.2020 at 6.00 PM while he was present in his portion he heard some hues and cries from the ground floor. He further deposed that the portion in which he is staying on rent belongs to PW3. After hearing hues and cries immediately he came down and noticed that the accused caught hold the hand of PW1, saying that his wife left his company

Page No. 7 of 15 C.C.No. 10691 of 2020 because of PW1 and asked PW1 to come with him in the place of his wife. At that time PW3 came to rescue PW1 but the accused pushed him aside and he fell down. Further the accused also abused him in filthy language. Later PW1 and PW2 went to police station and lodged a report against accused. He was examined and his statement was recorded by the police. PW4 categorically identified the accused in the court hall.

14.Coming to the evidence of PW5 who is doctor she deposed that on 2.11.2020 at about 11.00 AM while she was present in the Osmania General Hospital PW1 came to her along with her husband i.e., PW2, and informed to her that on 31.10.2020 at about 6.00 PM some unknown persons beat her. The PW5 examined her and found no external injuries. She opined that the injuries sustained by PW1 are simple in nature and accordingly she issued MLC under EXP2.

15.Coming to the evidence of PW6 he deposed that he and

LW7 acted as panch witness for CDF. He further deposed that the police Jubilee Hills called him and LW7 to the scene of offence and obtained their signatures on some papers, but he do not know the contents of the said papers. Ex.P3 is his signature.

Page No. 8 of 15 C.C.No. 10691 of 2020

He denied that the police never visited the scene of offence but only at the instance of police they signed on some papers in the

Jubilee Hills police station.

16.Coming to the evidence of PW7 who is an investigating officer deposed that on 01.11.2020 at about 5.00 PM while he was present in the police station. PW1 and her father in law came to the police station and lodged a report against the accused. Basing on the strength of report he registered a case in crime no. 542/2020 for the offence committed under sec.

354,323,448 IPC Ex.P4 is FIR. Later he recorded the statement of

PW1 and then proceeded to the scene of offence. At the scene of offence he secured the presence of LW2 to LW5, examined them and recorded their statements. After that he conducted scene observation panchanama in the presence of PW6 and LW7 and

Ex.P5 is the CDF and thereafter he referred PW1 to the hospital for medical examination. On the next day on reliable information he proceeded to the house of accused and apprehended him.

Later he brought the accused to the police station and after completion of arrest formalities he was remanded into judicial custody. Subsequently he collected MLC report from PW5 and after completion of investigation he filed charge sheet.

Page No. 9 of 15 C.C.No. 10691 of 2020

17. Basing on the incriminating evidence available on record the prosecution prayed the court to convict the accused.

18.On careful examination of the evidence of PWs1 to 7, it is crystal clear that the accused misbehaved with PW1 by holding and dragging her hand. In support of PW1’s evidence, the evidence of PWs2 &PW3 who are husband and father in law respectively supported the evidence of PW1. However PW2 is circumstantial evidence and PW3 is none other than the own father of accused and eye witness. The evidence of PW3 even though declared as hostile because of deposing wrong date the other facts and circumstances of the case are absolutely corroborating with the evidence of PW1. Mainly being the father of accused he deposed against the accused being an eye witness.

During the course of cross examination he denied that he was not at all present at the scene of offence at the time of incident.

He admitted that his three sons are residing in the same plot in their respective portions. He further deposed that he is residing in the portion of accused only. Apart from these three portions some others also staying as tenants in their house. Further he denied that PW2 used to quarrel with accused with an intention

Page No. 10 of 15 C.C.No. 10691 of 2020 to grab his property. The evidence of PWs 1 to 3 goes in the same similar lines except tiny contradictions and omissions. Further the evidence of PWs1 to 3 gives a clear picture that the accused committed offence against PW1.

19.PW4 who is tenant of their house also categorically deposed that he saw while the accused was catching the hand of

PW1 stating that his wife left him because of PW1 and asked

PW1 to come with him in place of his wife. At that time PW3 who is father of accused came to the rescue of PW1 but accused pushed him aside and he fell down. Further he deposed that the accused also abused him in filthy language. Later PW1 and PW2 went to the police station and lodged a report against accused.

He particularly identified the accused who committed the offence against PW1 in the court hall.

20.The evidence of doctor goes to show that the victim came to the hospital along with her husband but the police did not accompain them. She denied that on 2.07.2020 she did not examine PW1 and at the instance of police she issued MLC. The evidence of LW7 who is panch witness for CDF deposed that police came to the scene of offence and summoned him and LW7

Page No. 11 of 15 C.C.No. 10691 of 2020 to act as panch witnesses for CDF. Thereafter, the police asked them to sign on the said papers and accordingly they signed.

During the course of cross examination he deposed that it is not correct to say that the police never visited the scene of offence and at the instance of police they signed on some papers without knowing its contents.

21.According to the evidence of Investigating officer there are property disputes existing between the brothers. He admitted that there is delay of one day in lodging the report. He further admitted that on the second day of the incident he sent PW1 for medical examination. He further denied that PW6 who is panch witness is none other than planted witness by the police. He further denied that he never visited scene of offence nor recorded the statements of witnesses. He further denied that no incident ever been occurred but only to support the case of prosecution he is deposing false.

22.As seen from the above evidence except the evidence of

PW3 all the other witness have strongly supported the case of prosecution. Further I have not found a reason to discard the entire evidence of PW3 who is own father of accused and except

Page No. 12 of 15 C.C.No. 10691 of 2020 deposing wrong date all others things deposed by him have supported the case of prosecution. Further PW4 who is tenant also has nothing to do with the family of accused and he is only the tenant and he deposed that he is the eye witness to the case of prosecution. The cross examination done by the learned legal aid counsel did not shake the case of the prosecution and the evidence is very natural, cogent and corroborative with each other. Further small omissions and contradictions are bound to occur in every case. More particularly PW3 who is father of accused also deposed against his own son which gives more strength to the case in bringing home the guilt of the accused.

There are no major lacunas in the entire evidence which helps the accused to come out of the case. The accused absolutely committed the offence against PW1 and the evidence of other witness are cogently supporting the case of PW1. Under the above said circumstances the accused cannot take any chance to jump out of the case, as such the case of the prosecution has absolutely succeeded in proving the case against the accused therefore the accused person is entitled for conviction for the offences under secs. 354,323 &448 IPC.

Page No. 13 of 15 C.C.No. 10691 of 2020

Point No.2 :

23.In the result, the accused is found not guilty for the offence under sec.504 of Indian Penal Code as such he acquitted under sec. 248(1) of Cr.P.C. Where as the accused is found guilty for the offences under sec.354,323,448 of Indian Penal Code. As such he is convicted under sec. 248(2) Criminal Procedure Code.

Dictated to the Stenographer G-II, transcribed and typed by her, corrected and

pronounced by me in the open court, on this the 29 th day of July, 2022.

XVII ADDL. CHIEF METROPOLITAN MAGISTRATE

HYDERABAD

Heard to the accused with regard to the quantum of sentence.

Theaccusedstated that_____________________________________________. He prayed this court to take lenient view in respect of passing sentence but in view of the severity of the offence, he is entitled to get any lenient view either under sec. 360 of Cr.P.C or under the provisions of PO Act.

After hearing the accused with regard to the quantum of sentence and considering the facts and circumstances of the case. I convict the accused under sec. 248(2) of Cr.P.C for the offence under sec. 354 of IPC and he shall under go simple imprisonment for a period of 1 Year 9 Months for the offence under sec. 354 IPC and shall also pay a fine of Rs. 100/- and in

Page No. 14 of 15 C.C.No. 10691 of 2020 default to suffer simple imprisonment for a period of 7 days.

Further he shall under go simple imprisonment for a period of

One Year for the offence under sec. 323 IPC and shall also pay a fine of Rs.100/- and in default to suffer simple imprisonment for a period of 7 days. Further he shall under go simple imprisonment for a period of 6 Months for the offence under sec.

448 IPC and shall also pay a fine of Rs.100/- and in default to suffer simple imprisonment for a period of 7 days. The remand period from 03.11.2020 to till date shall be set off as per sec. 428 of Cr.P.C. All the sentences shall run concurrently and the sentences imposed for the default of fine shall run consequently.

The accused is informed about his right to appeal to the Hon’ble

Metropolitan Sessions Judge, Hyderabad against the judgment passed by this court and also he is informed about his right to take free legal aid in preferring to appeal and free copy of judgment is furnished to him.

XVII ADDL. CHIEF METROPOLITAN MAGISTRATE

HYDERABAD

:APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE:

: WITNESSES EXAMINED:

FOR PROSECUTION: PW1 : R.Vennela PW2 : R. Vijay Kumar PW3: R. Pandurangam

Page No. 15 of 15 C.C.No. 10691 of 2020

PW4: P.simhadri PW5:Dr. G. Pranitha PW6:N.Sai Venkata Gopal PW7: CH Naresh FOR DEFENCE: NIL

EXHIBITS MARKED

FOR PROSECUTION: Ex.P1 : complaint Ex.P2 : medical certificate Ex.P3 : is signature of PW6 Ex.P4 : FIR Ex.P5 : is the CDF FOR DEFENCE: NIL

MATERIAL OBJECTS MARKED

XVII ADDL. CHIEF METROPOLITAN MAGISTRATE

HYDERABAD

BEFORE THE CHAIRMAN, MOTOR ACCIDENTS CLAIMS TRIBUNAL-

CUM-COURT OF THE XXVII ADDITIONAL CHIEF JUDGE,

CITY CIVIL COURT, AT SECUNDERABAD.

Present: Sri.K.Suri Krishna

MACT-cum- XXVII Addl.Chief Judge

TUESDAY, THE 07 th DAY OF APRIL, 2026

M.V.O.P.No.232 OF 2020

Between :

Smt.J.Pentamma, W/o.Late Yadaiah, aged about 50 years, Occ: Housewife, Native Place R/o.H.No.7-187, Shanti Nagar, Chandanagar, Hyderabad. Presently R/o.H.No.1-11-349/22, Manikeshwar Nagar, Vaddera Basti, Secunderabad. … Petitioner

A N D

1. Mr.Odsu Kalyan, S/o.Masaiah, aged Major, Occ: Driver, R/o.LIG-145/1, Phase-1, KPHB Colony, Kukatpally, Medchal District – 500085.

2. M/s.Radhakumari Travels, Rep.by Smt.Daravath Sali, R/o.H.No.9-78/28, Badiya Thanda, Tanikella Village, Konijerla Mandal, Khammam District – 507305.

3. M/s.United India Insurance Company Ltd., Rep.by its Regional Manager, HUB Office, II Floor, Pashnate Bhavan, Near Church Building, Tilak Road, Hyderabad.

(Policy No.0505813119P110857888 valid from 17.11.2019 to 16.11.2020 pertaining to Car bearing NO.TS-04-UC-1199) … Respondents

Pg.No. 2 of 15 M.V.O.P.No.232 of 2020

This M.V.O.P is coming before me on 27.02.2026 for final hearing in the presence of Sri.Chintala Yadaiah, Counsel for the petitioner, Sri.K.S.N.Murthy, Counsel for Respondent No.3 and Respondent No.1 & 2 set exparte and the matter having been heard and stood over for consideration till this day, this Court delivered the following:

O R D E R

This Claim petition is filed under Sec.166 of M.V.Act, 1983 and

Rules 455 of M.V.Rule, 1989, R/w.Sec.140 of M.V.Act., seeking compensation of Rs.10,00,000/- with costs against the respondents, along with interest @ 18% per annum from the date of this petition till realization for the death of J.Srinivas @ Srinu, S/o.Late Yadaiah referred to as (“the deceased”) in the motor vehicle accident that occurred on 14.03.2020.

2.The brief averments of the petition are that :

On 14.03.2020, at about 04.00 p.m., while the deceased was proceeding in a car bearing No.TS-04-UC-1199 as a passenger along with his friends from Chinthalapally Village towards Amangal, on reaching near Chennakeshava Colony, Chintalapally Village, in the meantime, the driver of car bearing No.TS-04-UC-1199 drove the vehicle at high speed in a rash and negligent manner and lost control of the vehicle and dashed to ditch right side of road. Due to which the deceased fell down on the road and received severe head injury and

Pg.No. 3 of 15 M.V.O.P.No.232 of 2020 other grievous internal injuries to all over the body and succumbed to his injuries on the spot.

(ii)Prior to the accident the deceased was aged about 19 years, hale and healthy and working as a worker at M/s.Jyothi Medical Hall at

Chandanagar, Hyderabad and used to earn Rs.12,000/- per month and contribute the same towards welfare and maintenance of the petitioner.

The petitioner do not have any other source of income to maintain herself except the income of the deceased and that she became destitute in her life. The father of the deceased was also died long back and he was only the son to lookafter welfare of the petitioner.

Further the petitioner is totally dependent upon the income of the deceased and that due to the sudden and accidental death of the deceased, the petitioner future hopes were shuttered down.

Respondent No.1 is the Driver and Respondent No.2 is the owner,

Respondent No.3 is the Insurer of the offending vehicle. That,

P.S.Amangel of Cyberabad, had registered a case in Crime No.48/2020

U/s.337 of IPC and later altered under Sec.338 of IPC. Hence this petition.

Pg.No. 4 of 15 M.V.O.P.No.232 of 2020

3.Respondent No.1 who is the driver and Respondent No.2 who is the owner, did not choose to contest the case and as a result they were set exparte.

4.Respondent No.3 who is the Insurance Company filed counter denying the manner of accident and alleged rash and negligent driving of respondent No.1. The respondent No.3 further denied the age, avocation, earnings of the deceased and dependency of the petitioner on the deceased. The Respondent No.3 does not admit the persons who droves the vehicles involved at the material time of accident was holding valid subsisting driving license. It is the contention of the Respondent No.3 that as per Sec.134(c) of M.V.Act, it is mandatory duty of the 1st and 2nd respondents and as well as the petitioner herein to furnish the particulars of the policy, date, time and place of the accident, and particulars of the deceased and the name of the driver and driving license particulars etc., since the 1st and 2nd respondents did not complied the same, this respondent is not liable to pay any compensation to the claimant and the case is also liable to be dismissed against the respondent for non-compliance of the statutory demand. Further, as per Sec.158(6) of M.V.Act, it is mandatory duty of the concerned P.S., to forward all the relevant

Pg.No. 5 of 15 M.V.O.P.No.232 of 2020 documents to the concerned insurer within 30 days from the date of information, but the same was not done and did not complied with the statutory demand. Further, the amount of compensation claimed by the petitioner is highly excessive, arbitrary and out of all proportions and the petitioner is not entitled for any amount and sought for dismissal of the same.

5.Basing on the above pleadings, the following issues were settled for trial by my learned predecessor-in-office :-

1. Whether Late J.Srinivas @ Srinu died in the road traffic accident due to rash and negligent riding of Car bearing No.TS-04-UC-1199 by its driver ?

2. Whether the driver of the offending vehicle was not holding valid driving license as on the date of accident?

3. Whether there is any breach of the terms and conditions of the policy in respect of the offending vehicle ?

4. Whether the petitioner is entitled for compensation on account of death of Late J.Srinivas @ Srinu, if so, to what amount and against whom ?

5. To what relief ?

6.To prove the respective contentions, Petitioner herself examined as PW1 and one E.Balu Kumar, eye witness is examined as PW2. Through PW1 Ex.A1 to Ex.A5 documents are marked. On behalf of contesting Respondent No.3, no oral evidence is adduced, however, Ex.B1 is marked with consent

Pg.No. 6 of 15 M.V.O.P.No.232 of 2020

7.Heard arguments of both the learned counsels. Perused the

Written Arguments and Citations filed by the learned Counsel for

Petitioner.

8. ISSUE NO.1 :- Whether Late J.Srinivas @ Srinu died in

the road traffic accident due to rash and negligent riding

of Car bearing No.TS-04-UC-1199 by its driver ?

(i)To prove the said Issue, Petitioner herself is examined as PW1.

In her examination-in-chief in the mode of affidavit, she reiterated the facts as averred in the claim petition. In support of her case she got marked Ex.A1 to Ex.A5. On perusal of Ex.A1 FIR and

Ex.A2 Charge Sheet, it is observed that FIR No.48/2020 was lodged on 14.03.2020 after the accident and the Police swung into action and did investigation and found that the Respondent No.1 has committed an offence punishable U/s.304A and Sec.338 of IPC. Further, the evidence of PW1 is corroborated with Ex.A3 Inquest and Ex.A4 PME

Reports showing that the deceased succumbed to injuries sustained by him in the said accident.

(ii)In support of the case of the petitioner, one E.Balu Kumar,

S/o.Yellaiah, who is an eye witness to the accident is examined

Pg.No. 7 of 15 M.V.O.P.No.232 of 2020 as PW2. In a nut shell, his testimony is to effect is that on 14.03.2020, at about 04.00 p.m., while he along with the petitioner and other friends were proceeding in a car bearing No.TS-04-UC- 1199 from Chinthalapally Village towards Amangal, on reaching near Chennakeshava Colony, Chintalapally Village, in the meantime, the driver of car bearing No.TS-04-UC-1199 drove the vehicle at high speed in a rash and negligent manner and lost control of the vehicle and dashed to ditch right side of road. Due to which the petitioner fell down on the road and received severe head injury and other grievous internal injuries to all over the body and succumbed to his injuries on the spot. PW2 further deposed that the accident occurred only due to rash and negligent driving of the driver of

Car bearing No.TS-04-UC-1199.

(iii)This evidence of PW1 & PW2 was challenged by the contesting

Respondent No.3 by giving suggestions that the deceased did not die in the accident but he involved in some other accident and that there is no document to prove the age, occupation, income of the deceased and that the driver of the crime vehicle did not have valid driving license,

RC, fitness and permit to move on the road at the time of accident hence, respondent No.3 is not liable to pay any compensation. But

Pg.No. 8 of 15 M.V.O.P.No.232 of 2020 those suggestions were denied by the witnesses. In fact the entire cross-examination of PW1 done by Respondent is mostly by way of suggestions. All the suggestions were denied by the witnesses.

Suggestions do not hold any evidentiary value unless the fact suggested is proved. In this case, leave aside proving the facts suggested the respondents not even entered the witness box to depose their own case. There are number of Supreme Court Judgments where the Hon’ble Court held that when a party fails to enter the witness box and deposed his case it is generally treated that the defence set up by him is false. Hence we hold that petitioner proved the fact that due to the rash and negligent driving of the offending vehicle by Respondent

No.1, the accident occurred and the deceased succumbed to injuries sustained by him in the accident. Accordingly, Issue No.1 is answered.

9. ISSUE NO.2 & 3 :-

2. Whether the driver of the offending vehicle was

not holding valid driving license as on the date

of accident?

3. Whether there is any breach of the terms and

conditions of the policy in respect of the

offending vehicle ?

(i)In the present case on hand, the contention of respondent

No.3 Insurance Company is that the driver of crime vehicle not

Pg.No. 9 of 15 M.V.O.P.No.232 of 2020 having valid and effective driving license as on the date of the accident and as such there is breach of the terms and conditions of the policy and its liability does not arise. Therefore, it is for the Respondent No.3/Insurance company to prove the same in terms of Sec.149 of Motor Vehicles Act 1988 to disown its liability. Respondent No.3/Insurance Company did not choose to adduce any evidence on its behalf except marking Ex.B1 Policy and thereby failed to prove its plea. Thus, there is no breach (or) violation of the terms and condition of Ex.B1/Policy (marked with consent).

(ii). On the other hand, the petitioner relying upon

Ex.A2/Certified copy of charge sheet wherein the concerned police after completion of investigation filed the charge sheet only for the offence under section 304-A and 338 of IPC and the driver of the crime vehicle was not charge sheeted for the offence under Sec.181 of Motor Vehicle Act, 1988. If at all the driver of the crime vehicle was not having valid driving license as on the date of the accident certainly the charge sheet, would have been filed by the concerned police U/s.181 of Motor Vehicle

Act also. Therefore, it is not open to Respondent No.3/Insurance

Pg.No. 10 of 15 M.V.O.P.No.232 of 2020 company to evade its liability to pay compensation as there is no breach of terms and conditions of Ex.B1/Policy which is in force as on the date of the accident. Hence, the liability of the

Respondent No.3/Insurance Company arises to pay compensation to the petitioners for the reason of causing death of deceased in the accident. Accordingly, Issue No.2 and 3 are answered in favour of petitioner.

10. ISSUE NO.4 :- Whether the petitioner is entitled for

compensation on account of death of Late J.Srinivas @

Srinu, if so, to what amount and against whom ?

(i)In the present case in hand, the Respondent No.3 who is the insurance company filed Ex.B1/Insurance policy and marked with consent of respondent No.3. The period of insurance policy was from 17.11.2019 ends in the mid night of 16.11.2020. On the other hand, the accident was taken place on 14.03.2020 which is covered in the period of insurance.

11. Assessment of compensation :-

Pg.No. 11 of 15 M.V.O.P.No.232 of 2020

(a) Income of the deceased :- PW1 stated that the deceased was working as worker at M/s.Jyothi Medical Hall at Chandanagar,

Hyderabad and earning Rs.12,000/- per month. But no documentary evidence has been produced in support of the said contention.

As such, this Court is inclined to take the notional income of the deceased as Rs.10,000/- per month.

(b) Age of the deceased :- The age of the deceased is shown

as 19 years in the petition, but, no document filed by the

petitioner in proof of the age of deceased as on the date of accident. However, this Court relied on Ex.A3 Inquest and Ex.A4

PME Report showing the age of the deceased as 19 years.

Hence, this Court is considering the age of the deceased as 19 years.

In the case of P.Sarala Varma Vs. Delhi Transport

Corporation reported in 2009 (6) SCC 121 the Hon’ble Apex

Court fixed the multiplier of the persons in between the age group of 15 to 20 years as ‘18’. In the present case, the deceased is aged about 19 years, so the multiplier is ‘18’.

Pg.No. 12 of 15 M.V.O.P.No.232 of 2020

(c) Additions to Income towards future prospects:- As per the decision of the Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of National

Insurance Company Ltd., Vs. Pranaya Sethi and Others

reported in 2017 ACJ 2700, if a person is self employed and between the age group of below 40 years, 40% of income should be added towards future prospects and the said principle is applied to this case on hand. 40% monthly income of the deceased comes to Rs.4,000/-, then the total monthly income of the deceased comes to Rs.14,000/- i.e. (Rs.10,000 + 4,000 = 14,000/-), it is net income of the deceased.

(d) Deductions:-As per the case law of Hon’ble Supreme Court in National Insurance Company Ltd. vs. Pranaya Sethi and

Others (2017 ACJ 2700), when the deceased was a bachelor, 1/2 should be deducted towards personal and living expenses of the deceased. In the present case the deceased was a bachelor.

Therefore, after 1/2 of the deductions in the monthly income of the deceased comes to Rs.7,000/- i.e. (Rs.14,000/– Rs.7,000/- = Rs.7,000/-).

(e) Total Compensation:- As discussed supra, after making deductions and additions, the income of the deceased comes to

Pg.No. 13 of 15 M.V.O.P.No.232 of 2020

Rs.7,000/- and the multiplier is ‘18’, then the total compensation comes to Rs.7,000/- x 12 x 18 = Rs.15,12,000/-.

12. General and Non-Pecuniary Damages :-

Under the given circumstances of the case it is just and proper to grant following compensation :-

Loss of EstateRs.16,500/-

Funeral Expenses Rs.16,500/-

Parental Consortium to Petitioner Rs.50,000/-

TOTAL Rs.83,000/-

In view of my aforesaid discussion, the petitioners are entitled for total compensation of Rs.15,95,000/-.

For brevity and better understanding, the compensation awarded under the different heads is shown in the table below:- 1Loss of DependencyRs.15,12,000/- 2Loss of EstateRs.16,500/- 3Funeral Expenses Rs.16,500/- 5Parental Consortium to PetitionerRs.50,000/-

TOTAL Rs.15,95,000/-

13. Against whom :-

Admittedly, in this case, Respondent No.1 is driver, Respondent

No.2 is owner, Respondent No.3 is the Insurer of the offending vehicle.

Pg.No. 14 of 15 M.V.O.P.No.232 of 2020

As such, Respondent No.1 to 3 becomes jointly and severally liable to pay compensation to the petitioners. Accordingly, Issue No.2 is answered.

14. ISSUE NO.5 :- To what relief ?

As Issue Nos.1 to 4 are decided in favour of the petitioner, the petitioner is entitled for compensation of Rs.15,95,000/- with interest @ 6% per annum, which is just and reasonable.

In the result, the petition is allowed and award is passed, granting compensation of Rs.15,95,000/- along with costs and accrued interest @ 6% per annum from the date of filing of the petition till the date of deposit with costs as follows:- i.Respondents No.1 to 3 are jointly and severally liable to pay compensation to the petitioner with accrued interest and costs.

ii.Respondents are directed to deposit the above said compensation with accrued interest and costs within 30 days from the date of this award.

iii.Upon such deposit, the Petitioner is permitted to withdraw the entire compensation amount at once along with accrued interest and costs thereon.

iv.Advocate fee is fixed at Rs.10,000/-.

Pg.No. 15 of 15 M.V.O.P.No.232 of 2020 v.Decree shall be drawn after payment of the deficit court fee on the additional compensation amount that was awarded than claimed in the petition by the petitioner within one months from the date of this Order.

Typed to my dictation directly on the Computer by Stenographer corrected and pronounced by me in open Court on 07th day of April, 2026.

Sd/-

CHAIRMAN

MACT-CUM-XXVII ACJ, CCC, SECUNDERABAD

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

WITNESSES EXAMINED

FOR PETITIONERS: FOR RESPONDENTS:

PW1 :Smt.J.Pentamma - None -

PW2 : E.Balu Kumar

EXHIBITS MARKED

FOR PETITIONERS :

Ex.A1 : Certified copy of FIR along with Complaint

Ex.A2 : Certified copy of Charge sheet

Ex.A3 : Certified copy of Inquest report

Ex.A4 : Certified copy of PME Report

Ex.A5 : Certified copy of MVI Report

FOR RESPONDENTS:

Ex.B1 : Policy

Sd/-

CHAIRMAN

MACT-CUM-XXVII ACJ, CCC, SECUNDERABAD

Page No. 1 of 13 C.C.No. 781 of 2017

IN THE COURT OF XVII ADDL. CHIEF METROPOLITAN

MAGISTRATE, HYDERABAD

PRESENT:: SRI. K. SURI KRISHNA, XVII Addl. Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Hyderabad.

DATED: THE 08 th DAY OF AUGUST, 2022

C.C. No. 781 OF 2017

Between: The State through the Sub-Inspector of Police,

P.S.Golconda,Hyderabad. ...Complainant

And

Syed Masood Ali, S/o Gulam Ali, Age- 37 years, R/o 9-10-68/A/334&3345, Reshambagh,

Golconda, Hyderabad ....Accused

This case is coming before me on 08-08-2022 for final hearing in the presence of Asst. Public Prosecutor for the State and Sri. Syed Osman, Counsel for the Accused person and after perusing the entire case record and after having stood over the matter for consideration, this court made the following:

J U D G M E N T

1. The Sub-Inspector of Police, P.S.Golconda has filed

Chargesheet against accused in Crime No.209/2017 for the offence committed u/s.304-A of Indian Penal Code.

2.The Brief facts of the case as per Charge-sheet are as follows:

On 05-08-2017 at 1700 hrs, the Station House

Officer,Golconda has received a report from LW1/Mohd Imran Ali against accused/Syed Masood Ali alleging that his brother by name

Ghouse Pasha/deceased went for glass fitting work at the house of

Page No. 2 of 13 C.C.No. 781 of 2017 one Babloo Bhai, at Katore House, Golconda, Hyderabad and at about 1430 hours while his brother was in work at 1st floor he came into contact with high tension wires and died on the spot.

The incident occurred due to lack of precautionary measures and negligence of the accused. Hence LW1 prayed police to take necessary legal action against accused.

3.Basing on the strength of the report, LW10/V.Sundaraiah, registered a case in crime No.209/2017, P.S. Golconda under section.304-A of IPC.

4.After completion of the investigation, LW10 filed Charge sheet

before the Court for the offence U/sec.304-A of IPC against the

accused. This court has taken the cognizance for the offence committed u/s. 304-A of IPC against accused.

5.On appearance of the accused person, copies of the documents were furnished to him as required U/s.207 CrPC.

6.The accused person was examined U/s.251 Criminal

Procedure Code, 1973 for which he denied the commission of the offence u/s. 304-A of IPC, read over and explained the accusation to him in his vernacular language for which he pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried.

Page No. 3 of 13 C.C.No. 781 of 2017

7.In order to prove the guilt of accused, the prosecution has examined PW1 to PW9 and marked Ex.P1 to Ex.P7. The Lr. APPO has given up the evidence of Lw4. After closure of the prosecution side evidence, the accused was examined u/s.313 Cr.P.C for the incriminating material appearing against him, but he denied the same and reported no defence evidence.

8.Heard both sides and perused the material available on record.

9. Now the points for determination are:

(i). Whether the prosecution could able to prove the guilt of

accused for the offence committed u/s.304-A, of IPC beyond all

reasonable doubt ?

(ii). To What result ?

Point No.1 :

10.In order to prove the case of the prosecution, the prosecution has examined Pws 1 to 9 and marked Ex,.P1 to 7, out of them the brother of the deceased/Ghouse Pasha namely Imran Ali was examined as PW1, he deposed that on 05.08.2017 at about 2.30

PM while his brother was fitting glass on the elevation of the house which belongs to one Babloo Bhai he came into contact with high

Page No. 4 of 13 C.C.No. 781 of 2017 tension wires and died on the spot. The factum of the incident was informed to him by PW2 and immediately he went to the hospital and came to know that his brother was no-more. He particularly deposed that the accused/Syed Masood Ali instructed his brother to do the said work. He further deposed that due to negligence of accused his brother met with electric shock. On the same day he lodged a report in the police station and through him Ex.P1 is marked.

11.During the course of cross examination PW1 admitted that, he did not drafted Ex.P1 and he do not remember the name of the person who drafted Ex.P1. Further he admitted that after preparation of Ex.P1 he was asked to sign on Ex.P1 and accordingly he signed Ex.P1. He further admitted that the contents of Ex.P1 was not read over and explained to him. He further categorically admitted that he is not an eye witness to the incident.

Further he deposed that his mother/Ayesha Bee received Rs.4

Lakhs from electricity department towards compensation. Further he admitted that the accused is petty vegetable vendor. But he denied that the accused never worked as supervisor in the house of one Babloo at Golconda. He denied that the accused is noway responsible for electric shock of his brother. He further admitted that as per Ex.P1 he lodged a report against the owner of the house

Babloo but not the accused person. Further he admitted that as

Page No. 5 of 13 C.C.No. 781 of 2017 per Ex.P1 no allegation was made against the accused and his name was also not mentioned in his report. He denied that the accused never worked in the house of Babloo as a contractor or supervisor and that he is deposing false.

12.Coming to the evidence of PW2, he deposed that the deceased/Ghosue Pasha is his friend and he used to do glass fitting work. On 05.08.2017 at about 2.30 PM while the deceased was fitting the glass on the elevation of the house which belongs to one Babloo he came into contact with high tension wires which were passing in front of the house of Babloo. He further deposed that the deceased was doing the said work upon the instructions of the accused and due to negligence of the accused as he has not taken any precautions his friend Ghouse Pasha met with electric shock and died.

13.During the course of cross examination he admitted that he is not an eye witness to the incident and he is friend of PW1. He further admitted that the owner of the house is still residing at

Golconda. He further admitted that after the incident he never visited the police station. He denied that the accused is not responsible for the death of the deceased. He denied that since

PW1 is his friend he is deposing in their favour.

Page No. 6 of 13 C.C.No. 781 of 2017

14.Coming to the evidence of PW3 who is relative of Ghouse

Pasha deposed that on 05.08.2017 at about 2.30 PM while the deceased Ghouse Pasha was fitting glass on the elevation of the house belonging to one Babloo he came into contact with high tension wires and died due to electric shock on the spot. He came to know about the incident through his relative. Further he deposed that he came to know that the deceased was working in the said building as per the instructions of the accused.

15.During the course of cross examination, he deposed that PW1 is his relative further he admitted that he is not an eye witness to the incident. Further he also admitted that after the incident he never visited the police station. He categorically admitted that after the death of the deceased, his family received Rs. 4 Lakhs compensation from electricity department. He further categorically admitted that accused is not responsible for the death of the deceased, but he denied that the accused never worked as supervisor in the house of one Babloo.

16.PWs4 & 5 who are panch witnesses for scene observation panchanama turned hostile stating that they did not know anything about this case and they do not remember whether they signed on written papers or blank papers through them Exs. P2 and P3 i.e., signatures of Pws 4 & 5 marked respectively.

Page No. 7 of 13 C.C.No. 781 of 2017

17.Coming to the evidence of PW6 and PW7 who are panch witnesses for the inquest panchanama deposed the same and similar lines stating that the police Golconda asked them to act as mediators for inquest panchanama accordingly both of them saw dead body of the deceased who died due to electric shock. The panch witnesses deposed that the deceased received electric injuries on his back and left ribs. They categorically deposed that the inquest panchanama was read over and explained to them and after understanding the same they contributed their signatures.

Ex.P4 is inquest panchanama.

18.Coming to the evidence of Pw8 who is doctor and conducted post mortem of the deceased deposed that on 06.08.2017 he received a requisition from SHO Golconda to conduct autopsy over the dead body of the deceased namely Ghouse pasha. Accordingly he conducted post mortem examination on the same day between 11.35 AM to 12.10 PM during the course of post mortem he noted the following antemortem injuries:- 1) Abrasion 2x1 cm, oblique on left side of fore head 2cms above the inner end of left eyebrow, abrasion 0.75x0.5 cm on medial end of left eyebrow, abrasion 1x0.5 cm on left side of bridge of nose. 2) Abrasion 5x1 cm overlying manubrial region of sternum, grazed abrasion 15x10 cm on left side of chest 5cm below the level of left nipple, grazed abrasion 14x7cm on front outer part of right arm, upper part. 3) Electrical

Page No. 8 of 13 C.C.No. 781 of 2017 entry wound 17x6 cm x muscle deep (4cm) with oval pattern over left scapular region, horizontal extending from posterior axillary line to 3 cm before mid -part back of chest, antimortem flash burn of 60x43 cm on entire back of chest and abdomen, edges and surrounding skin burnt. 4) Electrical exit wound 2x2 cm x muscle deep rounded with burnt edges, blackened surrounding superficial burns of 5cm around it outer part of right side wrist, 3cm above base of right hand. 5) Electrical exit wound 8x5 cm x muscle deep with surrounding burns of 10 cm around back of right thigh 10cm below lower gluteal fold, 19x7 cm x skin deep with surrounding burns over back of left thigh. 6)Electrical exit wound 2x2 cm on outer part of left arm, 11 cm above left elbow, electrical exit wound over outer part of back of left fore arm.7) Electrical exit wound 12x7 cm on outer part of left thigh 10 cm below anterior superior iliac spine. 8)Contusion 5x3 cm on back of left leg 5 cm below back of knee, grazed abrasion 14x8 cm on back of mid part of right leg. All internal organs were grossly congested. The deceased might have died 18 to 24 hours prior to postmortem examination. He have opined that the cause of death is due to electrocution, and he issued post mortem under Ex.P5.

19.Finally the investigating officer is examined as PW9 and he deposed that on 05.08.2017 at about 5.00 PM while he was present in the police station he received an English written complaint from

Page No. 9 of 13 C.C.No. 781 of 2017

PW1 basing on the strength of the report he registered a case in

Cr.No. 209/2017 under sec. 304-A IPC, Ex.P6 is FIR. Later he examined and recorded the statement of PW1. Thereafter he and

PW1 went to the scene of offence and conducted scene of offence panchanama in the presence of PWs4 & 5. Ex.P7 is scene observation panchanama. Later at the scene of offence itself he secured the presence of PW2 and examined him and recorded his statement. On the next day he proceeded to the Osmania General

Hospital and conducted inquest over the dead body of the deceased in the presence of Pws 6& 7. On the next day he secured the presence of PWs3 & LW4 examined them and recorded their statements. On 09.08.2017 he served 41-A Cr.P.C notice on accused and after collecting post mortem report and after completion of investigation he filed charge sheet.

20.During the course of cross examination, he admitted that he did not obtain the signature of complainant in column no.14 of

FIR. Further he admitted that as per FIR and complaint the accused is noway concerned with alleged offence. He also admitted that the PW1 lodged report against one Babloo but not accused herein. Further he admitted that he has not examined the mother of the deceased. Further he also admitted that he has also not examined the neighbors of the scene of offence. He further admitted that he has not filed any kind of proof to show that the accused

Page No. 10 of 13 C.C.No. 781 of 2017 was supervisor of the said building. Further he admitted that the high tension wires passing in front of the house of Babloo belongs to electricity department. He deposed that he do not know about the compensation paid by the electricity department to the family of the deceased. Further he denied that due to negligence of electricity department the deceased died as such they paid compensation. He further denied that the accused never worked as supervisor of the building which belongs to Babloo and the accused is not responsible to the death of the deceased.

21.On conglomeration of the above evidence it is disclosed that the prosecution has examined nine witnesses out of ten, the evidence of LW4 was given up by the learned APPO as PWs1 to 3 supported their case. As seen from the evidence of 9 witnesses it is an undisputed fact that no one directly witnessed the incident.

Admittedly there is no eye witness to the case of prosecution.

Further as seen from Ex.P6 FIR, PW1 lodged a report against the owner of the house Babloo and requested the police to take action against the owner of the house but police did not initiate any action against the said Babloo who is responsible for the death of the deceased/Ghouse Pasha. For the reasons best known to the police they did not conduct any investigation in that lines against the said

Babloo against whom the complaint was lodged. Further the investigating officer/PW9 did not offer any explanation for not

Page No. 11 of 13 C.C.No. 781 of 2017 conducting investigation basing upon the Ex.P6 FIR and Ex.P1 report. Further the PW9/investigating officer did not collect any evidence to show that the accused was the supervisor of the building and upon his instructions the deceased was working.

Further the PW7/investigating officer did not examine the mother of the deceased for the reasons best known to him. It is an admitted fact by the Pws 1 & 3 that mother of the deceased has received Rs. 4 Lakhs from electricity department towards compensation for death of the deceased.

22.In view of the above discussion, it is crystal clear that the accused herein is a planted one to skip the house owner or electricity department from this case. The investigating officer did not make any effort to examine the electricity department officials to know about the high tension wires passing in front of the house of Babloo and about compensation given by the electricity department to the Mother of deceased. It appears that the investigating officer did not conduct investigation under proper lines and only to shift responsibility on accused this case was foisted against him. Further the factum of giving compensation by the electricity department to the mother of the deceased that itself shows that it is the negligent act on part of electricity department.

Further the owner of the house Babloo Bhai upon whom the FIR issued was deleted without offering any reasons in the charge

Page No. 12 of 13 C.C.No. 781 of 2017 sheet. The FIR is the prima facie evidence which set the criminal law into motion. But in the present case there is no nexus between

FIR and charge sheet. Therefore convicting accused is nothing but abuse of process of law. Therefore this court is not inclined to convict the accused in the absence of cogent and corroborative evidence of witnesses and improper investigation done by PW7.

Therefore the accused is not liable for conviction and entitle for acquittal.

Point No.2 :

23.In the result, accused is found not guilty for the offence

U/sec.304-A of Indian Penal Code. As such, he is acquitted under section 255(1) Criminal Procedure Code. The bail bonds of accused shall stands in force for a period of six months as contemplated under sec. 437-A Cr.P.C.

Dictated to the Stenographer G-II, transcribed and typed by her, corrected and

pronounced by me in the open court, on this the 08 th day of August, 2022.

XVII ADDL. CHIEF METROPOLITAN MAGISTRATE

HYDERABAD

:APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE:

: WITNESSES EXAMINED:

FOR PROSECUTION: PW1 : Mohd Imran Ali PW2 : Shaik Aslam Ali PW3 : Mohd Yousuf PW4: Mohd Ateequddin PW5: Syed Safder

Page No. 13 of 13 C.C.No. 781 of 2017

PW6: Khaja Asghar Ali Siddique PW7: Shaik Parveez PW8: Dr Mohd Taqiuddin Khan PW9: V.Sundaraiah FOR DEFENCE: NIL

EXHIBITS MARKED

FOR PROSECUTION: Ex.P1 : Report Ex.P2 : Signature of PW4 Ex.P3 : signature of PW5 Ex.P4 : Inquest panchanama Ex.P5: post mortem report dt 06-08-2017 Ex.P6: FIR Ex.P7 : Scene observation panchanama

FOR DEFENCE: NIL

MATERIAL OBJECTS MARKED

NIL

XVII ADDL. CHIEF METROPOLITAN MAGISTRATE

HYDERABAD