Sri M.Ramakrishnaiah

1 SC.No.584 of 2011

IN THE COURT OF THE I ADDL. SESSIONS JUDGE AT

KARIMNAGAR

PRESENT: Sri M.RAMA KRISHNAIAH, B.Sc., B.L.,Sri M.RAMA KRISHNAIAH, B.Sc., B.L.,

I ADDL. SESSIONS JUDGE,

KARIMNAGAR.

Tuesday, this the 02nd day of April, 2013

SESSIONS CASE No. 584 of 2011

(On the committal made by Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Vemulawada in PRC No.17/2011, dt.12.09.2011)

Nameofthe :The State through Sub-Inspector of Complainant/StatePolice, Vemulawada P.S. (Crime No.69 of 2011)

Nameofthe :1.Mohd. Ayubh S/o Shaboddin, aged Accused26 years, Muslim, R/o Subhashnagar, Vemulawada.

2.Mohd. Shaboddin S/o Madarshab, aged60years,Muslim,R/o Subhashnagar, Vemulawada.

3.Shameen Begum W/o Shaboddin, aged55years,Muslim,R/o Subhashnagar, Vemulawada.

4.Mohd. Areef S/o Shaboddin, aged 24 years, Muslim, R/o Subhashnagar, Vemulawada, now at H.No.17-1- 182/M/57,Madannapetstreet, Santhoshnagar, Hyderabad.

5.Thasleem Begum W/o Mohd. Khaleel, aged 35 years, Muslim, R/o H.No.17-1-182/M/57,Madannapet street, Santhoshnagar, Hyderabad.

6.Shameena Begum W/o Mohd. Moshin, age 30 years, Muslim, R/o Saidabaigh, Khaja Bagh colony, Hyderabad now at Subhashnagar, Vemulawada.

Charges:U/s 302, 304-B, 498-A IPC and Sec. 3 :and 4 of Dowry Prohibition Act.

Plea of the Accused: “Not guilty”. : Finding of the Court: Not guilty.

2 SC.No.584 of 2011 Sentence or order:Accused Nos.1 to 6 found not guilty for the charges U/s 302, 304-B, 498-A IPC and Sec. 3 and 4 of Dowry Prohibition Act and they are acquitted U/s 235(1) of Cr.P.C for the said charges. Their bail bonds shall stand cancelled. The unmarked case property, if any, shall be destroyed after the expiry of appeal time. Prosecution :Additional Public Prosecutor, conducted by:Karimnagar.

Accused defended :Sri E. Madhusudhan Rao, Advocate, by:Karimnagar.

This coming before me on 21-03-2013 for final hearing in the presence of Addl. Public Prosecutor, for the State- complainant and of Sri E. Madhusudhan Rao, Advocate for the accused, upon perusing the material papers on record, having heard and having stood over for consideration till this day, the Court delivered the following:-

:: J U D G M E N T ::

The Sub-Inspector of Police, Vemulawada P.S. filed charge sheet against the accused in Crime No.69/2011 for the offence punishable U/s 302, 304-B, 498-A IPC and Sec. 3 and 4 of Dowry

Prohibition Act before the learned Judicial Magistrate of First

Class, Vemulawada .

The prosecution is that on 03-03-2011 at about 1030 hours

PW-1 Mohd. Aktar came to police station and lodged a complaint stating that they performed the marriage of his sister Shameena

Begum with A1 on 28.2.2011. reception was held on 1.3.2011 at the house of accused in Subashnagar, Vemulawada. On the date of reception A1 and his family members demanded additional dowry of Rs.1,50,000/- and two tulas of gold, for which PW-1 and 3 SC.No.584 of 2011 his family members requested A1 and his family members that the matter will be discussed later and left the house of accused.

On 03.03.2011 at about 03-30 a.m. Relatives of A1 informed

PW-1 that his sister Shameena Begum died. Immediately Pw-1 along with his family members rushed to the house of accused at

Vemulawada and found the dead body of Shameena Begum.

They also observed injuries on the neck, legs and other parties of the body of Shameena Begum and requested the police to take action against the accused Nos. 1 to 6.

On the basis of said complaint a case in Crime No.69 of 2011 u/s 302, 304-B IPC has been registered and submitted First

Information Reports (ExP-15) to all the concerned. PW-13 M.

Venkata Narsaiah, Sub-Inspector of Police, visited the scene of offence at Subhashnagar, Vemulawada. He sent a requisition to the Tahsildar, Vemulawada to conduct inquest over the dead body of Shameena Begum. Accordingly, PW-11 P. Srinivas

Reddy, Tahsildar, Vemulawada held inquest in the presence of

PW-10 (Aneesha Begam) and Lw-11 (Md. Shafee Qureshi) and submitted the inquest report under Ex P14. He also got the dead body photographed with the help of Lw-9 Musuku Ananda Reddy.

Later, the dead body was sent to autopsy. PW-13 Dr. Thirupathi,

Civil Assistant Surgeon and Lw-17 Dr. Muralidhar Rao, Civil

Assistant Surgeon, have conducted autopsy at Area Hospital,

Sircilla and issued postmortem examination report under Ex P16 4 SC.No.584 of 2011 opining that the cause of death is due to “Vagal Inhibition

Secondary to Throttling.” PW-14 R.Bhaskar, Sub-Divisional Police

Officer, visited the scene of offence and prepared crime details form under Ex P13 along with rough sketch of scene of offence in the presence of mediators LW-13 (Annarapu Nagabushanam) and LW-14 (Chennadi Madhava Reddy). He also seized the broken bungle pieces (two red colour, one yellow colour and five white glass colour bangle pieces) from the scene of offence. PW- 14 R. Bhaskar, S.D.P.O. arrested A1 and A2 on 09.03.2011 at about 12-00 noon. On interrogation in the presence of LW-13 (Annarapu Nagabushanam) and LW-14 (Chennadi Madhava

Reddy), A1 and A2 confessed the commission of offence.

Subsequently he also arrested A3 to A6. The investigation reveals that A1 to A6 are responsible for the death of Shameena

Begum, hence the charge sheet.

The learned Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Vemulawada has taken the cognizance of the offence U/s 302, 304-B, 498-A

IPC and Section 3 and 4 of Dowry Prohibition Act against A1 and u/s 304-B, 498-A IPC and Section 3 and 4 of Dowry Prohibition

Act against A2 to A6 and registered same as PRC.No.17 of 2011 as the accusation is exclusively triable by the court of Sessions.

The case was committed to the District and Sessions Court,

Karimnagaraspercommittalproceedingsdated 13-06-2011 in PRC.No.17/2011. The District and Sessions Judge, 5 SC.No.584 of 2011 Karimnagar took the case on file and registered the same as

Sessions Case No.584/2011 and made over the same to this

court for disposal according to law.

After the case records were received, on appearance of A1 to A6 and upon hearing the learned Addl. Public Prosecutor for the State and defence counsel, charges U/s 302, 304-B, 498-A

IPC and Section 3 and 4 of Dowry Prohibition Act was framed against A1 and u/s 304-B, 498-A IPC and Section 3 and 4 of

Dowry Prohibition Act was framed against A2 to A6, read over and explained to them in Telugu, for which, they pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried.

In support of the case of the prosecution, P.Ws.1 to 14 were examined and got marked Exs.P.1 to P.17. The evidence of LW-9 (Gongalla Ravi Kumar), LW-12 (Md. Shafee Qureshi), LW-13 (Annarapu Nagabushanam),LW-14 (Chennadi Madhava Reddy),

LW-17 (Dr.Muralidhar Rao, CAS) and LW-18 (Saroja, WPC 3082) was given up by the prosecution.

After closure of prosecution evidence, the accused were examined U/s 313 Cr.P.C., for which, they denied the incriminating evidence on record and claimed no defence. Thus, prosecution evidence is closed.

6 SC.No.584 of 2011 Heard the learned Additional Public Prosecutor for the State and the defence counsel.

The point for consideration is:- “Whether the prosecution bring home the guilt of A1 to A6 beyond reasonable doubt?”

It is pertinent to mention the charges that were framed against the accused and the charges U/ss 498-A, 302, 304-B IPC and Sections 3 and 4 of Dowry Prohibition Act were framed against A1 and charges u/ss 498-A, 304-B IPC and Sections 3 and 4 of Dowry Prohibition Act were framed against A2 to A6.

In order to prove the above charges against the accused

Nos. 1 to 6, the prosecution has to prove that there is physical or mental harassment against the deceased Shameena Begum by

A1 to A6 demanding additional dowry of Rs.1,50,000/- and also two tulas of gold. That the prosecution also has to prove that the accused Nos. 1 to 6 meted out cruelty or physical or mental harassment against the deceased Shameena Begum just before her death. That the prosecution also has to prove that the death of Shameena Begum was taken place within 7-years of her marriage in order to attract the provisions of Section 304-B IPC.

No doubt the death of Shameena Begum was occurred within 3-days after the marriage i.e., marriage of Sameena

Begum with A1 on 28.2.2011 and on 1.3.2011 volima function 7 SC.No.584 of 2011 was celebrated in the house of A1 at Subhashnagar,

Vemulawada. On 3.3.2011 at about 03-30 a.m. PW-1 received a phone call from one of the relatives of A1 that Shameena Begum died. But the death must be due to the harassment of either from A1 or the family members of A1. The prosecution also has to prove that A1 or A2 to A6 are demanded dowry or additional dowry of Rs.1,50,000/- and also two tulas of gold from the parents of deceased Shameena Begum, but though the prosecution examined PWs. 1 to 14, none of them spoken to the allegation made to the accused.

Out of the witnesses examined on behalf of prosecution,

PW-1 Mohammed Akthar is the brother of deceased Shameena

Begum, though he has lodged a complaint according to the prosecution. He denied the complaint to state that police obtained his signature on a written document and his signature was marked as EX P1. PW1 during his chief-examination, deposed that the marriage of his sister Shameena Begum was celebrated on 28.2.2011 at Bhiknur village. At the time of marriage “Passion Pro” motorcycle, 4 ½ tols of gold and other house-hold articles were given to A1 towards dowry. 'Volima' ceremony was celebrated at the house of A1 at Vemulawada on 1.3.2011. On the date of Volima A1 demanded additional dowry and gold ornaments on the ground that the dowry already given is insufficient. On that PW-1 replied that it will be discussed one 8 SC.No.584 of 2011 week thereafter and went to Bhiknur village. On 03-03-2011 he received information that his sister Shameena Begum was murdered. Immediately, himself and his family members rushed to Vemulawada to the house of A1 and from there they went to hospital and found the dead body of his sister. From the hospital he has taken the dead body of his sister along with her belongings and articles to Bhiknur. He did not lodge any complaint before the police. On request of police he signed on a written document. Ex P1 is his signature. He does not know the contents of complaint. While the dead body was in hospital at

Vemulawada, the M.R.O., Vemulawada held inquest over the dead body of his sister Shameena Begum. At the time of inquest he was not examined by either police or M.R.O. He does not know the cause of death of his sister. He did not enquiry anybody either at hospital or any family members of A1 including A1 to ascertain the cause of death of his sister. Thus, he remained hostile and did not support the case of prosecution.

During the cross-examination by learned defence counsel,

PW-1 further stated that nearly 100 people were gathered for

Volima function. It is not true to suggest that A1 did not demand

additional dowry at the time of Volima. Thus, he has given go by

to his statement u/s 161 Cr.P.C.

PW-2 Mohammed Shaboddin, father of PW-1 and deceased

Shameena Begum. He deposed about the marriage that was 9 SC.No.584 of 2011 celebrated between A1 and Shameena Begum on 28.2.2011 and also stated that at the time of marriage, house-hold articles and a motorcycle were given to A1 towards dowry. On the next day of marriage Volima was celebrated in the house of A1 at

Vemulawada. On the next day the neighbours of A1 informed through phone that her second daughter Sameena Begum fell down all of a sudden, and lost consciousness. Immediately himself and his family members rushed to the house of A1 at

Vemulawada from there they went to Government Hospital and found the dead body of his second daughter Shameena Begum.

Later, he took the dead body of his daughter and along with motorcycle and other articles and he does not know the cause of death of his daughter. Thus he also remained hostile and he did not support the case of prosecution.

PW-3 Kashim Bee, mother of deceased Shameena Begum, she also spoke to the marriage between A1 and Shameena Beum and also presenting motorcycle and house-hold articles to A1 at the time of marriage towards dowry. That after completion of

Volima they left Bhiknur village. On the next day morning neighbours of A1 informed them over telephone that her daughter died. Immediately, herself and her family members went to Vemulawada, from there to hospital and found the dead body of Shameena Begum. She did not observe whether inquest was held by M.R.O. Over the dead body of her daughter. She 10 SC.No.584 of 2011 does not know the cause of death of her daughter Shameena

Begum. She was also declared hostile, when the Addl. Public

Prosecutor cross-examined PWs 1 to 3, they stated that they denied the suggestion that A1 to A6 harassed Shameena Begum by demanding additional dowry and that also denied A1 killed his daughter on the abatement by A2 to A6.

PW-4 Mohd. Abubakkar, resident of Narsing village. He deposed that he does not know the cause of death of Shameena

Begum. PW-5 Shaik Riyaz, resident of Vemulawada village. He deposed that about 2 or 3 days thereafter the marriage of

Shameena Begum died. A1 and his wife Shameena Begum used to reside in the house of PW-5 as tenant. About 2-years ago at about 10-30 or 11-00 p.m. he heard a sound (indicating that somebody fell down). Then himself and PW-6 Sk. Shareef went to upstairs and found Shameena Begum fell on the floor and immediately they informed the same to A1, who is attending at her ailing mother at Dr. Ananda Reddy hospital. When himself and PW-6 Sk. Shareef took Shameena Begum to Amrutha

Nursing Home, Vemulawada. The doctors who examined

Shameena Begum declared that she died. He does not know the cause of death of Shameena Begum.

11 SC.No.584 of 2011 PW-6 Sk. Shareef, resident of Vemulawada also deposed similar to that the evidence of PW-5 and further he stated that he does not know the cause of death of Shameena Begum.

PW-7 Mohammed Kadheer, also deposed that he does not know the the reason as to why his sister Shameena Begum died.

He does not know whether A1 to A6 harassed his sister for

additional dowry. He denied the suggestion by Additional Public

Prosecutor that he stated before the police that A2 to A6 instigated A1 on that A1 killed Shameena Begum by throttling.

Thus he also remained hostile and did not support the prosecution case.

PW-8 Mohammad Khaja Miya, resident of Sircilla, deposed that he do not know the cause of death of Shameena Begum.

PW-9 Gongalla Ravi Kumar, stated that he has a photographer by profession maintaining a photo studio in the name and style of Surya Digital Photo-studio at Vemulawada since last 20-years. About 2-years ago on the request of

Vemulawada police, he went to Subhashnagar, Vemulawada to the house of A1 and taken photographs of deceased women by name Shameena Begum and handed over the photographs to police. Ex P11 is the photographs (4) in numbers.

12 SC.No.584 of 2011 PW-10 Aneesha Begum, deposed that about 2-years ago in her presence and in the presence of LW-12 Shafee Qureshi police held inquest over the dead body of Shameena Begum at the house of A1 at Vemulawada and obtained her signature on the inquest. Police also prepared crime details form in the presence of herself and LW-12 Shafee Qureshi under Ex P13. As per evidence available on record, the Tahsildar, Vemulawada held inquest but not the police. However, holding inquest either by police or by Thasildar is not criteria here as the evidence of

PW-10 is not supporting to prove any of the charges that levelled against A1 to A6.

PW-11 P. Srinivas Reddy, Tahsildar, Vemulawada, deposed that on the requisition of police on 3.3.2011 he went to the house of A1 at Subhashnagar, Vemulawada and held inquest over the dead body of Shameena Begum in the presence of

PW-10 and LW-12 Shafee Qureshi under Ex P14. He obtained the signatures of PW-10 and LW-12 Shafee Qureshi on the inquest report. At the time of inquest, he examined PWs 1 to 6. On seeing the dead body himself and the inquest panchayatdar came to an opinion that Shameena Begum might have died of strangulation. The blood relatives of deceased suspected the involvement of A1 for the death of Shameena Begum.

13 SC.No.584 of 2011 PW-12 M. Venkat Narsaiah, Inspector of police Spl. Branch II

Karimnagar. Previously who worked as Sub-Inspector of Police,

Vemulawada police station, deposed that on 3.3.2011 at about 10-30 a.m., while he was present in the police station Pw-1 came to police station and lodged a complaint. On the basis of which he registered a case in Cr.No.69 of 2011 u/s 302, 304-B IPC and submitted First Information Report under Ex P15 to all concerned. He sent a requisition to PW-11 to held inquest over the dead body of Shameena Begum. PW-14 took up further investigation.

PW-13 Dr. R. Thirupathi, Civil Assistant Surgeon, who held autopsy over the dead body of Shameena Begum on 03.03.2011, deposed that on 3.3.2011 he conducted autopsy over the dead body of Shameena Begum between 5 p.m. and 6 p.m. along with his colleague LW-17 Dr. Muralaidhar Rao and found the following external injuries:-

1. A single finger nail abrasion over right side of middle neck.

2. Two finger nail abrasion over left side of upper neck.

3. Multiple small contusion surround the neck except back of neck.

4. Abrasion latter side of left knee measuring 1x1/4th inch.

5. Abrasion latter side of right knee measuring 2x1 inch.

14 SC.No.584 of 2011 He found the following internal injuries:-

1. Contusion of anterior and side muleculture of neck.

2. Contusion and congestion of carotid and jugular vascular system.

3. No fracture of cartilages of neck.

4. Contusion under small hemorrhages seen in upper lobes of lung and brain.

He opined that all the injuries are anti-mortem in nature and cause of death of deceased is due to vagal inhibition. Secondary to throttling. Time of death is about 12 to 14 hours prior to postmortem examination report. Ex P6 is the postmortem examination report.

The another witness PW-14 R. Bhaskar, the Investigating Officer, who worked as earlier as S.D.P.O. Sircilla, deposed that on 3.3.2011 he received copy of First Information Report in Crime No.69 of 2011 from PW-12 at about 1345 hours. Immediately he rushed to the scene of offence i.e., house of A1 situated at

Subhashnagar, Vemulawada and observed the dead body of

Shameena Begum, inspected the scene of offence, secured the presence of PW-10 and LW-12 Mohd. Safiqureshi and in their presence he prepared crime details form under Ex P13 and obtained their signatures. At the time of observation of scene of offence, he collected and seized the broken bungles of the deceased in the presence of PW-10 and LW-12 Mohd.

Safiqureshi. At the time of scene of offence observation, he also 15 SC.No.584 of 2011 examined PWs 1 to 8 and LW-9 Musuku Ananda Reddy and recorded their statements. On 09.3.2011 during the course of investigation he arrested A1 and A2 at Subhashnagar,

Vemulawada in the presence of LW-13 (Annarapu

Nagabhushanam) and LW-14 (Ch. Madhava Reddy) respectively.

A1 and A2 confessed that they have committed the offence. To that effect he recorded the confession statement of A1 only.

Then he sent both A1 and A2 for remand after effecting their arrest. On 16.3.2011 at about 8-00 hours he arrested A3 to A6 at

Subhashnagar, Vemulawada at their house. On interrogation A3 to A6 voluntarily confessed the commission of offence and after observing the formalities he arrested A3 to A6 and sent them for remand. He also collected Ex P3 and Ex P17 wedding card and marriage photos 3-in number. During the course of investigation and after completion of investigation, he filed the charge sheet.

So by virtue of the evidence of PWs 1 to 14 it can be said that the prosecution bring home the guilt of the accused.

In view of the hostile evidence of PWs 1 to 11, it can safely held that the prosecution failed to prove the ingredients for any of the charges that was framed against A1 and also A2 to

A6. The prosecution failed to prove that the A2 to A6 instigated

A1 to kill Shameena Begum. Similarly the prosecution failed to prove that the accused harassed Shameena Begum (deceased) either mentally or physically demanding additional dowry. As per 16 SC.No.584 of 2011 Section 498-A and 304-B IPC necessarily there should be demand for dowry or additional dowry. Simply because PW-1 stated that on the date of Volima function on 1.3.2011 A1 demanded additional dowry of Rs.1,50,000/- and two tulas of gold and did not deposed that A1 to A6 have harassed

Shameena Begum at any point of time for additional dowry or otherwise. That apart PW-1 has given go by to the contents of his statement u/s 161 Cr.P.C. and also he bluntly denied lodging complaint before the police. Unfortunately the prosecution failed to mark the complaint as exhibit. The signature of PW-1 on the complaint only marked as Ex P1. The prosecution ought to have got the complaint marked through PW-12 or PW-14, that it did not do so.

The learned Additional Public Prosecutor fairly considered that the prosecution failed to establish any of the charges against either of accused as the witnesses turned hostile and did not support the case of prosecution.

Under the above circumstances, I am of the opinion that though PWs 1 and 7 are the brothers of deceased and PWs 2 and 3 are parents of deceased, they also did not support the case of prosecution. They remained hostile. In view of the hostile evidence of PWs 1 to 10 I am unable to convince with the case of prosecution and I hold that the prosecution failed to prove the 17 SC.No.584 of 2011 charges U/ss 302, 498-A, 304-B IPC and also u/s 3 and 4 of

Dowry Prohibition Act against either A1 or A2 to A6. Therefore,

A1 to A6 are found not guilty for the above said charges and they are entitled to acquittal.

In the result, A1 to A6 are found not guilty for the charges

U/ss 302, 304-B, 498-A IPC and u/s 3 and 4 of Dowry Prohibition

Act and they are acquitted U/s 235(1) of Cr.P.C. for the said charges. Their bail bonds shall stand cancelled. The unmarked case property, if any, shall be destroyed after expiry of appeal time.

Dictated to the Shorthand Writer, transcribed by him and

corrected and pronounced by me in the Open Court, on this the 02 nd day of April, 2013.

I ADDL. SESSIONS JUDGE,

KARIMNAGAR.

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

WITNESSES EXAMINED

FOR THE PROSECUTION:FOR THE DEFENCE:

PW-1. Md. Akthar - None - PW-2. Md. Shaboddin PW-3. Kashim Bee PW-4. Md. Abubakkar PW-5. Shaik Riyaz PW-6. Sk. Shareef PW-7. Mohd. Kadheer PW-8. Mohd. Khaja Miya PW-9. Gongalla Ravi Kumar PW-10 Aneesha Begum PW-11 P. Srinivas Reddy, R.D.O. PW-12:M. Venkat Narsaiah, Inspector of Police PW-13: Dr. R. Thirupathi, C.A.S. PW-14: R. Bhaskar, SDPO.

18 SC.No.584 of 2011

EXHIBITS MARKED.

FOR THE PROSECUTION:

Ex.P-1. Signature of PW-1 on the complaint. Ex.P-2. S. 161 Cr.P.C., statement of PW-1 Ex.P-3. Wedding card Ex.P-4. S. 161 Cr.P.C., statement of PW-2 Ex.P-5. S. 161 Cr.P.C., statement of PW-3 Ex.P-6. S. 161 Cr.P.C., statement of PW-4 Ex.P-7. S. 161 Cr.P.C., statement of PW-5 Ex.P-8. S. 161 Cr.P.C., statement of PW-6 Ex.P-9. S. 161 Cr.P.C., statement of PW-7 Ex.P10. S. 161 Cr.P.C., statement of PW-8 Ex.P-11. Photographs 4-in numbers Ex.P-12. Signature of PW-10 on inquest report Ex.P-13. Crime details form along with rough sketch Ex.P-14. Inquest report Ex.P-15. First Information Report Ex.P-16. Postmortem examination report Ex.P-17. Marriage photos 3-in number.

FOR THE DEFENCE: --NiL--

MATERIAL OBJECTS MARKED

- Nil -

I ADDL. SESSIONS JUDGE,

KARIMNAGAR.

1

BEFORE THE CHAIRMAN, MOTOR VEHICLE ACCIDENTS CLAIMS TRIBUNAL-

CUM-I-ADDITIONAL DISTRICT JUDGE AT GODAVARIKHANI.

PRESENT: Sri M.Ramakrishnaiah, B.Sc.,B.L.,Sri M.Ramakrishnaiah, B.Sc.,B.L., Chairman, Motor Vehicle Accidents Claims Tribunal-cum-I Addl. District Judge, Karimnagar.

Wednesday, this the 13th day of March, 2013.

M.V.O.P.No.678 of 2009.

Between:-

1. Mukkera Balavva W/o Late Mallaiah, aged 39 years, Occ:

House-hold, R/o Husnabad village and mandal in Karimnagar District.

2. Karne Rajitha W/o Swamy, aged 22 years, Occ: House-hold, R/o Bommenapally village of Chigurumamidi, Karimnagar District.

..... Petitioners.

And

1. Madugual Ramaiah S/o Pedda Mallaiah, age 41 years, Occ:

Driver of Van bearing No.AP-15-T-7964, R/o Mulkanoor village of Bheemadevarapally mandal in Karimnagar District.

2. Bollampally Ilaiah S/o Kanakaiah, age Major, Occ: Owner of

Van bearing No.AP-15-T-7964, R/o H.No.2-10-378, Jyothinagar, Karimnagar.

3. The National Insurance Company Limited, Represented by its Branch Manager, Karimnagar.

(Insurance Policy No.551300/31/07/01/6700001388, valid from 18.12.2007 to 17.12.2008)

...Respondents.

Sub:- Petition filed under Sec.163 (1)(a) of Motor Vehicles Act, by the petitioners claiming compensation of Rs.5,00,000/-

This petition coming before me on 21.02.2013 for final hearing in the presence of Sri P. Ram Mohan Yadav, Advocate for the petitioners and of Sri G. Satyanarayana Reddy, Advocate for R-1 and R-2, and Sri Ch. Venkateshwar Rao, Advocate for R-3, upon perusing the material papers on record, having heard and having stood over for consideration till this day, the court delivered the following:- 2 :: O R D E R ::

This petition is filed under Sec.163 (1)(a) of Motor Vehicles Act, by the petitioners 1 and 2 claiming compensation of Rs.5,00,000/- for the death of Mukkera Mallaiah in the accident dated 24.10.2008 at about 1100 hours at the outskirts of Pandilla village.

2. The brief averments of the petition are that, on 24.10.2008 the deceased Mukkera Mallaiah left the house on his cycle for purchase of scrap and empty bottles at Pandilla. Later at about 1100 hours when he reached the outskirts of Pandilla villabe on Siddipet high way, the Van bearing No.AP-15-T-7964 came from Huzurabad being driven by the 1st respondent in a rash and negligent manner in high speed dashed against the deceased, as a result deceased Mallaiah died on the spot. On complaint a case in Cr.No.173 of 2008 u/s 304-

A IPC was registered and the 1st respondent was charge sheeted in that regard.

3. That the deceased was aged about 47 years, hail and healthy and was maintaining his family with his earnings and looking after the welfare of the petitioners 1 and 2, who are wife and married daughter. Due to the sudden demise of Mukkura Mallaiah, the first petitioner being the wife of deceased became widow lost the love and affection and estate. That the petitioner No.2 being the only daughter of the deceased Mallaiah, lost her father love and affection. The petitioners are depending on the earnings of the deceased Mallaiah. Because of the accident they lost their dependency and future supports and guidance. They also suffered 3 great mental shock and agony by leading miserable life and facing lot of difficulties for their livelihood.

4.The accident was occurred only due to the rash and negligent driving of the offending vehicle by its driver the first respondent.

Therefore, the first respondent is being driver of the offending vehicle and the second respondent is being the owner of the offending vehicle bearing No.AP-15-T-7964 and the third respondent insurance company with which the offending was insured are jointly and severally liable to pay compensation to the petitioners. That the deceased was earning Rs.40,000/- per annum by doing scrap business, who was aged about 47-years by the date of accident and prays the Court to award compensation as prayed for.

5.The respondents 1 and 2 filed their common counter denying the petition averments and further contending that the petitioners have to prove the age, occupation and monthly income of the deceased and that he was doing scrap business prior to the date of accident. First respondent is the driver of the offending vehicle, second respondent is the owner of the vehicle, but the vehicle was insured with the third respondent. That the insurance policy was in force on the date of accident. That the first respondent is having valid driving licence, as such respondent No.3 is liable to pay compensation to the petitioners, if at all the petitioners are entitled any such compensation. That the quantum of compensation claimed is excessive and exorbitant and prays the court to dismiss the petition against respondents 1 and 2.

4

6. The third respondent insurance company filed his counter denying the petition averments and further contending that the petitioners have to prove that the accident was occurred due to rash and negligent driving of the Van bearing No.AP-15-T-7964 by its driver the first respondent in a rash and negligent manner in high speed on 24.10.2008. The petitioner have to prove the age, business and monthly earnings of the deceased Mallaiah. The petitioners have to further prove that they are only legal heirs of the deceased. The petitioners are not dependents on the deceased and all the legal heirs of the deceased are not shown in the petition.

The quantum of compensation claim by the petitioners is highly excessive and exorbitant. That the first respondent was not holding valid driving licence as on the date of accident. Therefore, the third respondent insurance company is snot liable to pay any compensation. That the owner of the Van (R2) or the police did not inform the insurance company about the accident and registering the criminal case against respondent No.1 as contemplated U/s 158 (6) of M.V. Act and prays the Court to dismiss the O.P. Against respondent No.3.

7.On the basis of the above pleadings, the following issues were settled for trial:- 1)Whether the accident took place due to rash and negligent driving of the motor vehicle i.e., Van bearing No.AP-15-T- 7964 by its driver respondent No.1 ?

2)Whether the petitioners are entitled to compensation, if so, to what amount and from whom ?

3)To what relief?

5

8.In support of the case of the petitioners, PW. 1 Karne Rajitha, the second petitioner was alone examined and got marked Exs A1 to A7. For the respondent No. 3, Rw-1 Surya Prakash was examined and got marked Ex B1.

9.The learned counsel for the petitioners argued that the petitioners have proved the accident by producing the documentary evidence under Exs A1 to A4. The age of Mukkera Mallaiah (deceased) was 47 years as on the date of accident. He was earning

Rs.40,000/- per annum by doing scrap business. The first petitioner is legally wedded wife of deceased Mallaiah. PW-1 is married daughter of deceased. The accident was occurred due to the rash and negligent driving of the offending vehicle by the first respondent. Due to the death of Mukkera Mallaiah, the petitioners suffered lot of mental agony and they lost the source of income, live and affection and it is a great loss to their estate. The first petitioner became widow and both the petitioners have lost their dependency and prays the court to grant compensation to the petitioners.

10.The learned counsel for the insurance company argued that the first petitioners is not the legally wedded wife of the deceased

Mukkera Mallaiah. One Laxmi is legally wedded wife of the deceased

Mallaiah, but she was not shown as party to the proceedings. The deceased got three wives in total. There is no document to show that the deceased was doing scrap business and earnings

Rs.40,000/- per annu. That the first respondent has not having valid 6 driving licence as on the date of accident. Thus, both first and second respondents has violated the terms and conditions of insurance policy, as such if the petit6ioners are entitled to any compensation the first and second respondents are alone liable to pay compensation and the third respondent is not liable to pay any compensation to the petitioners and prays the court to dismiss the petition against respondent No.3.

11.ISSUE No.1:

In order to prove this issue the second petitioner Karne Rajitha examined as PW-1. She deposed that she is the daughter of deceased Mukkera Mallaiah and first petitioner is the wife of deceased Mukkera Mallaiah. That herself and first respondent are the legal heirs and representatives as well as dependents on the deceased. The parents of the deceased predeceased to him. That the Pw-1 and first petitioner have filed the O.P. For compensation on the death of Mukkera Mallaiah. That the deceased was aged about 47 years as on the date of accident, he was hail and healthy, used to do scrap business i.e., purchase and selling of plastic goods, empty bottles and iron scrap from which he was earning Rs.40,000/- per annum. That the deceased Mallaiah used to maintain his family with his earnings, due to unfortunate death of Mallaiah, petitioners suffered a lot of mental agony and lost their dependency. Hence, both the petitioners are entitled compensation. During cross- examination, PW-1 deposed that her marriage was performed about 7-years back. Her elder daughter is aged about seven years. PW-1 is residing with her husband at Bommenapalli village. It is not true to 7 suggest that the age of deceased Mallaiah was more than 60-years and he was not doing any work and no earnings for him. PW-1 admitted that she is she is not an eye witness to the accident. She denied the suggestion that there is no negligence on the part of driver of the offending vehicle and the accident occurred due to the negligence of the deceased. She does not know Mukkera Laxmi and

Palkula Chandra Kala. She denying the suggestion that the first petitioner is legally wedded wife of the deceased Mallaiah. She also denied the suggestion that the petitioners are not the legal heirs of deceased, that they are not entitled to claim compensation and that one Mukkera Laxmi is the wife of the deceased Mallaiah.

12.In order to prove the issue No.1, the petitioners have to prove that the accident was occurred due to the rash and negligent driving of the offending vehicle by its driver the first respondent.

That there is no negligent on the part of deceased Mukkera

Mallaiah. No eye witnesses were examined to prove has to who was at fault and because of there is negligence the accident was occurred. Out of exhibits marked, Ex A1 First Information Report, Ex

A2 is charge sheet. According to which, the age of the deceased was shown as 47 years. The first respondent was charge sheeted u/s 304-A IPC. As per Ex A3 inquest report also the age of the deceased was shown as 47 years. As per Postmortem Report in Ex

A4, the age of the deceased was shown as 60 years. In the counter filed by respondents 1 and 2 itself, they have admitted that the first respondent is the driver of the offending vehicle at the time of accident. Respondents 1 and 2 did not contain that there is no 8 negligent on the part of first respondent and he did not drove the offending vehicle either in rash or in negligent manner as alleged by the petitioners. What their contention is, the offending vehicle was already insured with the third respondent and the insurance policy was in force as on the date of accident. That the first respondent is also having valid driving licence as on the date of accident.

Therefore, if at all the petitioners are entitled to compensation, the third respondent alone is liable to pay such compensation which implies that they are admitting the accident and also that the accident was occurred due to the rash and negligent driving of the offending vehicle by its driver the first respondent. By virtue of the admission made in the counter of respondents 1 and 2, Exs A1 to A4 the petitioners have proved that the accident was occurred due to the rash and negligent driving of the Van bearing No.AP-15-T-7964 by its driver the first respondent on 24.10.2008 at about 11-00 a.m., at the outskirts of Pandilla village. Accordingly this issue is answered.

13.ISSUE NO.2 :

To answer this issue, the burden heavily lies on the petitioners, they have to prove the age of the deceased, occupation of the deceased and earnings of the deceased per month or per annum.

According to the petition averments the deceased Mallaiah was aged about 47 years by doing scrap business and earning

Rs.40,000/- per annum. The same think was reiterated by PW-1 in her chief-affidavit, but no scrap of paper is filed to prove that the deceased Mallaiah doing scrap business and earning Rs.40,000/- per 9 annum. Apart from it, the third respondent is specifically contended that the age of the deceased Mallaiah was aged about 60 years or more by the date of accident and he was not doing any business much less scrap business and that he was not earning Rs.40,000/- per annum. To over come this contention except the oral evidence of PW-1, no other evidence is placed by the petitioners. On the other hand, Ex A4 the postmortem report shows that the deceased

Mallaiah was aged about 60 years by the date of accident. Basing on this evidence whatever the age mentioned in Ex A4 postmortem report can be taken into consideration for competition of compensation.

14.As per the evidence of RW-1, the deceased Mukkera Mallaiah got totally three wives and one Mukkera Laxmi was the legally wedded wife of deceased Mukkera Mallaiah. The wife of the deceased Mukkera Laxmi and her children were not made as parties in this case, though they were legal heirs of the deceased Mukkera

Mallaiah. The petitioners 1 and 2 are not the legal heirs of deceased

Mallaiah. In support of this contention no document is filed and no other evidence is placed before this Court. Even the said Mukkera

Laxmi and her children were not approached this court to bring them on record. Nor they made any claim over the death of

Mallaiah. During the cross-examination, Rw-1 stated that he did not file any document to prove that Mukkera Laxmi is residing at

Hyderabad and she is legally wedded wife of deceased Mallaiah and also no document is filed that one Chandra Kala is another wife deceased Mallaiah. Ex A7 ration card issued on 12.4.2006 shows 10 that first petitioner is the wife of late Mukkera Mallaiah. As such, it can be said that the first petitioner is the wife of late Mukkera

Mallaiah.

15.In view of the age of deceased as 60-years as on the date of accident, his income can be taken at Rs.2,000/- per month which comes to Rs.24,000/- per annum. Rs.24,000x1/3=8,000, Rs.24,000- 8,000=16,000. The multiplier applicable to the deceased who was aged about 60 years as per the postmortem report (Ex A4) is 7, 16,000x7=1,12,000 +15,000 towards consortium, Rs.10,000/- loss of love and affection, Rs.10,000/- towards loss of estate, Rs.2,500/- towards funeral expenses and Rs.1,000/- towards transportation charges which comes to Rs.1,50,500/- with proportionate costs and interest at 7.5% from the date of petition till realization. The first respondent being the driver of the offending vehicle, the second respondent is owner of the offending vehicle, the third respondent insurance company with which the offending vehicle was insured are jointly and severally liable to pay compensation to the petitioners. Ex B1 insurance policy was in force from 18.12.2007 to midnight of 17.12.2008. The accident was occurred on 24.10.2008.

Therefore, the insurance policy is in force as on the date of accident and the petitioners 1 and 2 are entitled to get the compensation amount from the third respondent insurance company. Accordingly this issue is answered.

11

16.ISSUE NO.3:

In view of my holding on issue Nos. 1 and 2, I am to state that the petitioners 1 and 2 are entitled to a compensation of

Rs.1,50,500/- along with proportionate costs and interest at 7.5% per annum from the date of petition till realization. The 3rd respondent the insurance company is liable to pay compensation amount awarded, and the petition is partly allowed.

17.In the result, petition is partly allowed awarding compensation of Rs.1,50,500/- (Rupees one lakh fifty thousand five hundred only) to the petitioners with proportionate costs and interest at 7.5% per annum from the date of petition till realization. The third respondent is directed to deposit the compensation amount of Rs.1,50,500/- with proportionate costs and interest as mentioned supra within one month from the date of receipt of copy of this order. Out of the said compensation amount, the first petitioner Mukkera Balavva wife of deceased Mukkera Mallaiah is entitled to Rs.1,25,500/- (Rupees one lakh twenty five thousand five hundred only) with proportionate costs and interest and the second petitioner the daughter of deceased Mukkera Mallaiah is entitled to Rs.25,000/- (Rupees twenty five thousand only) with proportionate costs and interest.

After depositing the award amount, both the petitioners are permitted to withdraw the total compensation amount awarded to their respective apportionments along with proportionate costs and interest at 7.5% per annum from the date of petition till realization 12 by following due process of law. Advocate's fee is fixed at Rs.2,000/- (Rupees two thousand only).

Dictated to the Shorthand Writer, transcribed by him, corrected

and pronounced by me in the open Court on this the 13 th day of March, 2013.

CHAIRMAN, M.A.C.T-cum-

I ADDL. DISTRIC JUDGE,

KARIMNAGAR.

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

WITNESSES EXAMIEND

FOR THE PETITIONERS: FOR THE RESPONDENTS:

PW.1: Karne Rajitha RW.1:Surya Prakash

EXHIBITS MARKED

FOR THE PETITIONER:-

Ex.A-1:C.C. of FIR in Cr.No.173 of 2008 of P.S. Husnabad. Ex.A-2: C C.C. of charge sheet Ex.A-3:CC . Of inquest report Ex.A-4: C.C. of postmortem examination report Ex.A-5:C.C. of M.V.I. Report dated 07-02-1994 . Ex.A-6C.C. Form No.54 Ex.A-7Copy of Ration Card

FOR THE RESPONDENTS:-

Ex.B-1Copy of Insurance Policy

CHAIRMAN, M.A.C.T-cum-

I ADDL. DISTRIC JUDGE,

KARIMNAGAR.

1

BEFORE THE CHAIRMAN, MOTOR VEHICLE ACCIDENTS CLAIMS TRIBUNAL-

CUM-I-ADDITIONAL DISTRICT JUDGE AT GODAVARIKHANI.

PRESENT: Sri M.Ramakrishnaiah, B.Sc.,B.L.,Sri M.Ramakrishnaiah, B.Sc.,B.L., Chairman, Motor Vehicle Accidents Claims Tribunal-cum-I Addl. District Judge, Karimnagar.

Wednesday, this the 13th day of March, 2013.

M.V.O.P.No.678 of 2009.

Between:-

1. Mukkera Balavva W/o Late Mallaiah, aged 39 years, Occ:

House-hold, R/o Husnabad village and mandal in Karimnagar District.

2. Karne Rajitha W/o Swamy, aged 22 years, Occ: House-hold, R/o Bommenapally village of Chigurumamidi, Karimnagar District.

..... Petitioners.

And

1. Madugual Ramaiah S/o Pedda Mallaiah, age 41 years, Occ:

Driver of Van bearing No.AP-15-T-7964, R/o Mulkanoor village of Bheemadevarapally mandal in Karimnagar District.

2. Bollampally Ilaiah S/o Kanakaiah, age Major, Occ: Owner of

Van bearing No.AP-15-T-7964, R/o H.No.2-10-378, Jyothinagar, Karimnagar.

3. The National Insurance Company Limited, Represented by its Branch Manager, Karimnagar.

(Insurance Policy No.551300/31/07/01/6700001388, valid from 18.12.2007 to 17.12.2008)

...Respondents.

Sub:- Petition filed under Sec.163 (1)(a) of Motor Vehicles Act, by the petitioners claiming compensation of Rs.5,00,000/-

This petition coming before me on 21.02.2013 for final hearing in the presence of Sri P. Ram Mohan Yadav, Advocate for the petitioners and of Sri G. Satyanarayana Reddy, Advocate for R-1 and R-2, and Sri Ch. Venkateshwar Rao, Advocate for R-3, upon perusing the material papers on record, having heard and having stood over for consideration till this day, the court delivered the following:- 2 :: O R D E R ::

This petition is filed under Sec.163 (1)(a) of Motor Vehicles Act, by the petitioners 1 and 2 claiming compensation of Rs.5,00,000/- for the death of Mukkera Mallaiah in the accident dated 24.10.2008 at about 1100 hours at the outskirts of Pandilla village.

2. The brief averments of the petition are that, on 24.10.2008 the deceased Mukkera Mallaiah left the house on his cycle for purchase of scrap and empty bottles at Pandilla. Later at about 1100 hours when he reached the outskirts of Pandilla villabe on Siddipet high way, the Van bearing No.AP-15-T-7964 came from Huzurabad being driven by the 1st respondent in a rash and negligent manner in high speed dashed against the deceased, as a result deceased Mallaiah died on the spot. On complaint a case in Cr.No.173 of 2008 u/s 304-

A IPC was registered and the 1st respondent was charge sheeted in that regard.

3. That the deceased was aged about 47 years, hail and healthy and was maintaining his family with his earnings and looking after the welfare of the petitioners 1 and 2, who are wife and married daughter. Due to the sudden demise of Mukkura Mallaiah, the first petitioner being the wife of deceased became widow lost the love and affection and estate. That the petitioner No.2 being the only daughter of the deceased Mallaiah, lost her father love and affection. The petitioners are depending on the earnings of the deceased Mallaiah. Because of the accident they lost their dependency and future supports and guidance. They also suffered 3 great mental shock and agony by leading miserable life and facing lot of difficulties for their livelihood.

4.The accident was occurred only due to the rash and negligent driving of the offending vehicle by its driver the first respondent.

Therefore, the first respondent is being driver of the offending vehicle and the second respondent is being the owner of the offending vehicle bearing No.AP-15-T-7964 and the third respondent insurance company with which the offending was insured are jointly and severally liable to pay compensation to the petitioners. That the deceased was earning Rs.40,000/- per annum by doing scrap business, who was aged about 47-years by the date of accident and prays the Court to award compensation as prayed for.

5.The respondents 1 and 2 filed their common counter denying the petition averments and further contending that the petitioners have to prove the age, occupation and monthly income of the deceased and that he was doing scrap business prior to the date of accident. First respondent is the driver of the offending vehicle, second respondent is the owner of the vehicle, but the vehicle was insured with the third respondent. That the insurance policy was in force on the date of accident. That the first respondent is having valid driving licence, as such respondent No.3 is liable to pay compensation to the petitioners, if at all the petitioners are entitled any such compensation. That the quantum of compensation claimed is excessive and exorbitant and prays the court to dismiss the petition against respondents 1 and 2.

4

6. The third respondent insurance company filed his counter denying the petition averments and further contending that the petitioners have to prove that the accident was occurred due to rash and negligent driving of the Van bearing No.AP-15-T-7964 by its driver the first respondent in a rash and negligent manner in high speed on 24.10.2008. The petitioner have to prove the age, business and monthly earnings of the deceased Mallaiah. The petitioners have to further prove that they are only legal heirs of the deceased. The petitioners are not dependents on the deceased and all the legal heirs of the deceased are not shown in the petition.

The quantum of compensation claim by the petitioners is highly excessive and exorbitant. That the first respondent was not holding valid driving licence as on the date of accident. Therefore, the third respondent insurance company is snot liable to pay any compensation. That the owner of the Van (R2) or the police did not inform the insurance company about the accident and registering the criminal case against respondent No.1 as contemplated U/s 158 (6) of M.V. Act and prays the Court to dismiss the O.P. Against respondent No.3.

7.On the basis of the above pleadings, the following issues were settled for trial:- 1)Whether the accident took place due to rash and negligent driving of the motor vehicle i.e., Van bearing No.AP-15-T- 7964 by its driver respondent No.1 ?

2)Whether the petitioners are entitled to compensation, if so, to what amount and from whom ?

3)To what relief?

5

8.In support of the case of the petitioners, PW. 1 Karne Rajitha, the second petitioner was alone examined and got marked Exs A1 to A7. For the respondent No. 3, Rw-1 Surya Prakash was examined and got marked Ex B1.

9.The learned counsel for the petitioners argued that the petitioners have proved the accident by producing the documentary evidence under Exs A1 to A4. The age of Mukkera Mallaiah (deceased) was 47 years as on the date of accident. He was earning

Rs.40,000/- per annum by doing scrap business. The first petitioner is legally wedded wife of deceased Mallaiah. PW-1 is married daughter of deceased. The accident was occurred due to the rash and negligent driving of the offending vehicle by the first respondent. Due to the death of Mukkera Mallaiah, the petitioners suffered lot of mental agony and they lost the source of income, live and affection and it is a great loss to their estate. The first petitioner became widow and both the petitioners have lost their dependency and prays the court to grant compensation to the petitioners.

10.The learned counsel for the insurance company argued that the first petitioners is not the legally wedded wife of the deceased

Mukkera Mallaiah. One Laxmi is legally wedded wife of the deceased

Mallaiah, but she was not shown as party to the proceedings. The deceased got three wives in total. There is no document to show that the deceased was doing scrap business and earnings

Rs.40,000/- per annu. That the first respondent has not having valid 6 driving licence as on the date of accident. Thus, both first and second respondents has violated the terms and conditions of insurance policy, as such if the petit6ioners are entitled to any compensation the first and second respondents are alone liable to pay compensation and the third respondent is not liable to pay any compensation to the petitioners and prays the court to dismiss the petition against respondent No.3.

11.ISSUE No.1:

In order to prove this issue the second petitioner Karne Rajitha examined as PW-1. She deposed that she is the daughter of deceased Mukkera Mallaiah and first petitioner is the wife of deceased Mukkera Mallaiah. That herself and first respondent are the legal heirs and representatives as well as dependents on the deceased. The parents of the deceased predeceased to him. That the Pw-1 and first petitioner have filed the O.P. For compensation on the death of Mukkera Mallaiah. That the deceased was aged about 47 years as on the date of accident, he was hail and healthy, used to do scrap business i.e., purchase and selling of plastic goods, empty bottles and iron scrap from which he was earning Rs.40,000/- per annum. That the deceased Mallaiah used to maintain his family with his earnings, due to unfortunate death of Mallaiah, petitioners suffered a lot of mental agony and lost their dependency. Hence, both the petitioners are entitled compensation. During cross- examination, PW-1 deposed that her marriage was performed about 7-years back. Her elder daughter is aged about seven years. PW-1 is residing with her husband at Bommenapalli village. It is not true to 7 suggest that the age of deceased Mallaiah was more than 60-years and he was not doing any work and no earnings for him. PW-1 admitted that she is she is not an eye witness to the accident. She denied the suggestion that there is no negligence on the part of driver of the offending vehicle and the accident occurred due to the negligence of the deceased. She does not know Mukkera Laxmi and

Palkula Chandra Kala. She denying the suggestion that the first petitioner is legally wedded wife of the deceased Mallaiah. She also denied the suggestion that the petitioners are not the legal heirs of deceased, that they are not entitled to claim compensation and that one Mukkera Laxmi is the wife of the deceased Mallaiah.

12.In order to prove the issue No.1, the petitioners have to prove that the accident was occurred due to the rash and negligent driving of the offending vehicle by its driver the first respondent.

That there is no negligent on the part of deceased Mukkera

Mallaiah. No eye witnesses were examined to prove has to who was at fault and because of there is negligence the accident was occurred. Out of exhibits marked, Ex A1 First Information Report, Ex

A2 is charge sheet. According to which, the age of the deceased was shown as 47 years. The first respondent was charge sheeted u/s 304-A IPC. As per Ex A3 inquest report also the age of the deceased was shown as 47 years. As per Postmortem Report in Ex

A4, the age of the deceased was shown as 60 years. In the counter filed by respondents 1 and 2 itself, they have admitted that the first respondent is the driver of the offending vehicle at the time of accident. Respondents 1 and 2 did not contain that there is no 8 negligent on the part of first respondent and he did not drove the offending vehicle either in rash or in negligent manner as alleged by the petitioners. What their contention is, the offending vehicle was already insured with the third respondent and the insurance policy was in force as on the date of accident. That the first respondent is also having valid driving licence as on the date of accident.

Therefore, if at all the petitioners are entitled to compensation, the third respondent alone is liable to pay such compensation which implies that they are admitting the accident and also that the accident was occurred due to the rash and negligent driving of the offending vehicle by its driver the first respondent. By virtue of the admission made in the counter of respondents 1 and 2, Exs A1 to A4 the petitioners have proved that the accident was occurred due to the rash and negligent driving of the Van bearing No.AP-15-T-7964 by its driver the first respondent on 24.10.2008 at about 11-00 a.m., at the outskirts of Pandilla village. Accordingly this issue is answered.

13.ISSUE NO.2 :

To answer this issue, the burden heavily lies on the petitioners, they have to prove the age of the deceased, occupation of the deceased and earnings of the deceased per month or per annum.

According to the petition averments the deceased Mallaiah was aged about 47 years by doing scrap business and earning

Rs.40,000/- per annum. The same think was reiterated by PW-1 in her chief-affidavit, but no scrap of paper is filed to prove that the deceased Mallaiah doing scrap business and earning Rs.40,000/- per 9 annum. Apart from it, the third respondent is specifically contended that the age of the deceased Mallaiah was aged about 60 years or more by the date of accident and he was not doing any business much less scrap business and that he was not earning Rs.40,000/- per annum. To over come this contention except the oral evidence of PW-1, no other evidence is placed by the petitioners. On the other hand, Ex A4 the postmortem report shows that the deceased

Mallaiah was aged about 60 years by the date of accident. Basing on this evidence whatever the age mentioned in Ex A4 postmortem report can be taken into consideration for competition of compensation.

14.As per the evidence of RW-1, the deceased Mukkera Mallaiah got totally three wives and one Mukkera Laxmi was the legally wedded wife of deceased Mukkera Mallaiah. The wife of the deceased Mukkera Laxmi and her children were not made as parties in this case, though they were legal heirs of the deceased Mukkera

Mallaiah. The petitioners 1 and 2 are not the legal heirs of deceased

Mallaiah. In support of this contention no document is filed and no other evidence is placed before this Court. Even the said Mukkera

Laxmi and her children were not approached this court to bring them on record. Nor they made any claim over the death of

Mallaiah. During the cross-examination, Rw-1 stated that he did not file any document to prove that Mukkera Laxmi is residing at

Hyderabad and she is legally wedded wife of deceased Mallaiah and also no document is filed that one Chandra Kala is another wife deceased Mallaiah. Ex A7 ration card issued on 12.4.2006 shows 10 that first petitioner is the wife of late Mukkera Mallaiah. As such, it can be said that the first petitioner is the wife of late Mukkera

Mallaiah.

15.In view of the age of deceased as 60-years as on the date of accident, his income can be taken at Rs.2,000/- per month which comes to Rs.24,000/- per annum. Rs.24,000x1/3=8,000, Rs.24,000- 8,000=16,000. The multiplier applicable to the deceased who was aged about 60 years as per the postmortem report (Ex A4) is 7, 16,000x7=1,12,000 +15,000 towards consortium, Rs.10,000/- loss of love and affection, Rs.10,000/- towards loss of estate, Rs.2,500/- towards funeral expenses and Rs.1,000/- towards transportation charges which comes to Rs.1,50,500/- with proportionate costs and interest at 7.5% from the date of petition till realization. The first respondent being the driver of the offending vehicle, the second respondent is owner of the offending vehicle, the third respondent insurance company with which the offending vehicle was insured are jointly and severally liable to pay compensation to the petitioners. Ex B1 insurance policy was in force from 18.12.2007 to midnight of 17.12.2008. The accident was occurred on 24.10.2008.

Therefore, the insurance policy is in force as on the date of accident and the petitioners 1 and 2 are entitled to get the compensation amount from the third respondent insurance company. Accordingly this issue is answered.

11

16.ISSUE NO.3:

In view of my holding on issue Nos. 1 and 2, I am to state that the petitioners 1 and 2 are entitled to a compensation of

Rs.1,50,500/- along with proportionate costs and interest at 7.5% per annum from the date of petition till realization. The 3rd respondent the insurance company is liable to pay compensation amount awarded, and the petition is partly allowed.

17.In the result, petition is partly allowed awarding compensation of Rs.1,50,500/- (Rupees one lakh fifty thousand five hundred only) to the petitioners with proportionate costs and interest at 7.5% per annum from the date of petition till realization. The third respondent is directed to deposit the compensation amount of Rs.1,50,500/- with proportionate costs and interest as mentioned supra within one month from the date of receipt of copy of this order. Out of the said compensation amount, the first petitioner Mukkera Balavva wife of deceased Mukkera Mallaiah is entitled to Rs.1,25,500/- (Rupees one lakh twenty five thousand five hundred only) with proportionate costs and interest and the second petitioner the daughter of deceased Mukkera Mallaiah is entitled to Rs.25,000/- (Rupees twenty five thousand only) with proportionate costs and interest.

After depositing the award amount, both the petitioners are permitted to withdraw the total compensation amount awarded to their respective apportionments along with proportionate costs and interest at 7.5% per annum from the date of petition till realization 12 by following due process of law. Advocate's fee is fixed at Rs.2,000/- (Rupees two thousand only).

Dictated to the Shorthand Writer, transcribed by him, corrected

and pronounced by me in the open Court on this the 13 th day of March, 2013.

CHAIRMAN, M.A.C.T-cum-

I ADDL. DISTRIC JUDGE,

KARIMNAGAR.

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

WITNESSES EXAMIEND

FOR THE PETITIONERS: FOR THE RESPONDENTS:

PW.1: Karne Rajitha RW.1:Surya Prakash

EXHIBITS MARKED

FOR THE PETITIONER:-

Ex.A-1:C.C. of FIR in Cr.No.173 of 2008 of P.S. Husnabad. Ex.A-2: C C.C. of charge sheet Ex.A-3:CC . Of inquest report Ex.A-4: C.C. of postmortem examination report Ex.A-5:C.C. of M.V.I. Report dated 07-02-1994 . Ex.A-6C.C. Form No.54 Ex.A-7Copy of Ration Card

FOR THE RESPONDENTS:-

Ex.B-1Copy of Insurance Policy

CHAIRMAN, M.A.C.T-cum-

I ADDL. DISTRIC JUDGE,

KARIMNAGAR.

IN THE COURT OF THE I Addl District and Sessions Judge: KARIMNAGAR

Present:

I Addl District and Sessions Judge,

KARIMNAGAR.

17-04-2013

OS/100079/2012

TSKA000016312012

Between:-

Irukula Hanumandlu Address: H.No.1-17, vattimala village, Konaraopet mandal, Karimnagar district

ADVOCATE: R. Shyam Sunder Reddy. … Plaintiff/Petitioner

AND

P.K.Uma Address: 21-2-208, Railwary Quarters, Khajipet, Warangal

ADVOCATE: … Defendant/Respondent

ORDER

This suit is filed on the basis of promissory note dt.27.2.2007 for recovery of a sum of Rs.17,50,000/- along with interest 12 percent p.a. The defendants 1 and 2 remained ex parte, though summons were served by substitute service. Plaintiff present, proof of affidavit of PW1 filed and got marked Exs.A1 to A4. Perused the plaint and its contents and Ex.A1 to A4. By virtue of proof of affidavit the plaintiff is proved the suit claim for Rs.17,50,000/- as such the suit is decreed for Rs.17,50,000/- along with interest at 12 percent p.a. from the date of plaint till the date of decree and there after at 6 percent p.a. till realization.

I Addl District and Sessions Judge

KARIMNAGAR

IN THE COURT OF THE III Addl District and Sessions Judge: KARIMNAGAR

15-11-2012

OS/200039/2010

TSKA000000332008

Between:-

Gundlapelli Srinivas Address: Gandhinagar locality, Sircilla ADVOCATE: K. Suresh … Plaintiff/Petitioner

AND

Kola Lachaiah Address: ro Sarampalli 2:Kola Sathamma 3:Kola Balamallu 4:Rangu Yellavva @ Singavva 5:Rangu Buchaiah 6:Kokirala Sagar Rao 7:Kola Mallaiah 8:Kola Narayana 9:Guggilla Sunith

ADVOCATE: A. Madhavi … Defendant/Respondent

JUDGMENT

Dismissed on not pressed

III Addl District and Sessions Judge

KARIMNAGAR