Sri M Venkata Harinath

1

OP No.28­17

IN THE COURT OF THE MOTOR ACCIDENT CLAIMS TRIBUNAL­CUM­

VIII ADDITIONAL DISTRICT JUDGE, CHITTOOR.

Present: Sri M.Venkata Harinath, Chairman­cum­I Additional District Judge, Chittoor FAC Chairman­cum­VIII Additional District Judge, Chittoor

Tuesday, the 26th (Twenty Sixth) day of November, 2019

MV OP No. 28 of 2017

A.Govindarajulu ….Petitioner

Vs.

1. A.Janakiraman 

2. M.Vasu Naidu

3. M/s United India Insurance Company Limited, rep., by its Branch Manager, Chittoor.

4. M.Vijaya. ….Respondents

This petition is coming on 05.11.2019 before me for final hearing in the presence of Sri M.Damodaram, Advocate for the petitioner and of Sri D.Rajendra Reddy, Advocate for 3rd respondent and Sri M.Papaiah, Advocate for the 4th respondent and the 1st respondent remained exparte and the 2nd respondent died and the matter is having stood over for consideration, this Court passed the following:­

O R D E R

This is a petition filed under Sec.166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (for short “M.V.Act”) claiming a compensation of Rs.10,00,000/­ with future interest at 18% p.a., for the injuries sustained by the petitioner

A.Govindarajulu in a motor vehicle accident. 

2. The averments of the petition, in brief, are as follows:­

a) The petitioner was living by running kirana shop on the way to foot path of Tirumala near Gali Gopuram and getting more than Rs.10,000/­ per month and contributing the same to the welfare of the family. On 11.12.2013 morning, the petitioner left Tirupathi on his motorcycle bearing registration No.AP 03 AD 5335 to go to his village Pachappavooru of 2

OP No.28­17

Yadamari Mandal. When he reached near Mungilipattu bridge on Tirupati –

Chittoor main road of Chandragiri Mandal at 11.30 AM towards Chittoor side on left side of the road very slowly and cautiously and at that time a motorcycle bearing registration No.AP 03 AH 5929 (herein after referred to as “the crime vehicle”) being driven by the 1st respondent in a rash and negligent manner, dashed the motorcycle of the petitioner, as a result, the petitioner sustained injuries all over the body and on his right hand and head. He was immediately shifted to SVRR Hospital, Tirupati in 108

Ambulance and from there to Rajarathnam Hospital, R.R.Colony, Tirupati and he was inpaitent for one week and from there to CMC Hospital, Vellore for better treatment. In this connection a case in Cr.No.254/2013 U/sec.338

IPC was registered against the 1st respondent.

b) The petitioner spent more than Rs.1,00,000/­ towards medical and other expenses. He underwent operation for his right shoulder and iron nail was inserted on the right shoulder and due to that his right hand is not functioning. Due to injuries, the right upper limb movements of the right shoulder elbow and wrist of the petitioner completely lost and he cannot attend his normal duties. He is still undergoing treatment at CMC Hospital,

Vellore. Due to the accident, the petitioner became permanently disabled person. Therefore, the petitioner is entitled to a compensation of

Rs.10,00,000/­.

3. The 3rd respondent filed a written statement, denying the petition averments and contending as follows:­ 3

OP No.28­17

 The petitioner had no valid driving licence as on the date of accident and so this respondent is not liable to pay any compensation. The petitioner has to prove the manner of the accident, that the crime vehicle had valid insurance policy, the rider of the crime vehicle had valid driving licence, age and earning of the petitioner and alleged disability sustained by him etc. The compensation claimed by the petitioner is excessive and exorbitant.

Therefore, the petition is liable to be dismissed with costs.

4. The 4th respondent filed a written statement, denying the petition averments and contending as follows:­

This respondent insured the motorcycle bearing No.AP 03 AH 5929 with the 3rd respondent, and it was valid from 26.11.2013 00.00 hours to 27.11.2014 and so the 3rd respondent is liable to pay compensation to the petitioner and that therefore, this respondent is not liable to pay compensation to the petitioner. Therefore, the petition is liable to be dismissed with exemplary costs.

5. On the basis of the above pleadings, the following issues are settled for trial.

1)  Whether the accident occurred due to rash and negligent riding of the rider of motorcycle bearing No.AP 03 AH 5929 or due to the negligence of the petitioner himself while riding his motorcycle bearing No.APA 03 AD 5335?

2) Whether the petitioner is entitled for any compensation ? if so, to what amount, and from whom?

3) To what relief?

6. During the course of trial, on behalf of the petitioner PW1 to PW3 were examined and Ex.A1 to Ex.A8 and Ex.X1 to Ex.X5 were marked. On behalf of 4

OP No.28­17

the respondents 1 and 4, RW1 to RW4 were examined and Ex.B1 true copy of policy was marked.

7. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner as well as the respondents.

8. ISSUE NO.1:­

 With regard to the accident, the petitioner who examined himself as

PW1, on oath deposed that on 11.12.2013 when he was going on motorcycle bearing No.AP 03 AD 5335 slowly and cautiously on the left side of the road near Mungilipattu bridge situated on Tirupati main road, the 1st respondent drove his motorcycle bearing No.AP 03 AH 5929 in a rash and negligent manner and dashed against the motorcycle of the petitioner, as a result the petitioner (PW1) sustained injuries all over his body including on his right hand and head and that immediately he was shifted to SVRRGG Hospital,

Tirupati.

9. The evidence of PW1 with regard to the manner of accident is supported by the contents of Ex.A1 and Ex.A2 documents i.e., certified copies of FIR and charge sheet. The 1st respondent, who examined himself as RW4 during chief examination by the 3rd respondent stated that he cannot say at whose fault the accident was occurred, but admitted that the criminal case was registered against him. The 1st respondent as RW4 never stated that the accident was due to rash/negligent driving of the motorcycle of the petitioner. Therefore, by the above evidence, the petitioner has successfully established that the accident in which he sustained injuries is only due to 5

OP No.28­17

rash and negligent riding of the crime vehicle by its rider (1st respondent).

The point is answered accordingly.

10. ISSUE No.2:­

 The petitioner has claimed a compensation of Rs.10,00,000/­ for the injuries sustained by him in the motor vehicle accident. With regard to his age as on the date of accident, the petitioner mentioned his age in the petition as 47 years. In Ex.A4 would certificate, his age was mentioned as 45 years, but in Ex.A6 consolidated bills and Ex.A7 discharge summary his age was mentioned as 48 years. With regard to the age of the petitioner, there is no serious dispute from the respondents. Therefore, the age of the petitioner can be taken as 48 years as on the date of accident to compute loss of earnings in this case.

11. With regard to the injuries sustained by him in the accident, the petitioner as PW1 deposed that he sustained injuries on his right hand and head and he was immediately shifted to SVRRGG Hospital for treatment, wherein he was treated as inpatient for one week and from there he was taken to CMC Hospital, Vellore, wherein he was treated as inpatient for 14 days. In Ex.A4 wound certificate the medical officer who examined him found the following injuries:­ (1) 4 x 1 cm laceration over right middle finger. (2) 4 x 1 cm laceration over right ring finger (3) 2 x 1 cm abrasion over right orbit.

The medical officer who examined the petitioner at CMC Hospital, Vellore is examined as PW3. PW3 Bindu Prathap Thomas deposed that he has been 6

OP No.28­17

working as Professor and Head of Hand Surgery Department in CMC

Hospital, Vellore from 2010; that the patient by name Govindarajulu was admitted on 18.12.2012 with alleged history of road traffic accident, who initially taken treatment in Tirupati and on examination he had injury to his right side brachial plexus injury and for this the patient underwent operation of his right upper right brachial plexus Neurotisation 1) Hemiaccessory to suprascapular, 2) 2nd Intercostal – Axillary and 3) 3rd, 4th and 5th intercostals nerve to musculocutaneous and the patient was discharged on 19.12.2012 and subsequently patient had taken follow up treatment. He also deposed that Ex.A7 is the discharge summary issued by the CMC Hospital, Vellore and

Ex.X1 and Ex.X2 are out patient and inpatient case records of the petitioner issued by the CMC Hospital, Vellore. During cross­examination he admitted that the petitioner taken follow up treatment on 24.12.2016 and he also admitted that even if any further operation was done in future, there is no chance for recovery. He denied a suggestion that the patient had taken proper treatment, he will have better recovery. PW3 did not dispute the injuries sustained by the petitioner and the operation conducted on him by the medical officer, as stated above. Therefore, the petitioner has proved that he sustained grievous injuries to his right hand and underwent surgeries.

12. It is also the case of the petitioner that due to accident he suffered permanent disability of 90%. In support of his case, he got examined the

Medical Officer as PW2 Dr P.Lakshmipathi, who deposed that the medical board assessed and issued permanent disability certificate in favour of the petitioner assessing his disability as 90% and Ex.A5 is the certificate issued by 7

OP No.28­17

them. He admitted that the petitioner cannot attend any labour works because of the injury to his right hand. During cross­examination he admitted that he did not treat the patient earlier to Ex.A5. However, stated that he verified the previous medical records of the petitioner. He denied a suggestion that they have assessed the permanent disability on higher side in order to help the injured and that the injured can attend his normal duties.

13. The evidence of PW2 is supported by the contents of Ex.A5 and also corroborated by the oral testimony of PW3, who treated the petitioner and who deposed that the petitioner cannot attend the normal activity of daily living with his right hand and cannot do any manual labour and he also specifically stated during cross­examination that if any further operation is done in future, there is no chance for recovery. This evidence of PW3 which came during cross­examination, remained unchallenged. Therefore, by the above evidence, the petitioner has proved that he sustained permanent disability and that the same was assessed by the medical board at 90%. 

14. With regard to his earnings, the petitioner as PW1 deposed that he is running Kirana shop on the way to foot path of Tirumala near Gali Gopuram and before the accident he was hale and healthy and earning more than

Rs.10,000/­ per month. During cross­examination he admitted that he did not file any documentary proof that he was doing kirana business and getting

Rs.10,000/­ per month before the date of accident. He also denied a suggestion that he is not doing any kirana business nor getting Rs.10,000/­ per month and the claim made by him is excessive.

8

OP No.28­17

15. A perusal of Ex.A1 first information report, which was given to the police immediately after the accident, discloses that the petitioner was doing kirana business on the way to foot path near Galigopuram leading to

Tirumala. Though PW1 deposed that he was earning Rs.10,000/­ per month by doing kirana business, it is not in his evidence that after the accident he stopped his business. It is in the evidence of PW2 that the petitioner can attend desk work with his left hand. The petitioner did not adduce any documentary evidence that he was earning Rs.10,000/­ per month prior to accident. In the circumstances and in the FIR it was specifically mentioned that the petitioner was running Kirana shop on the way to foot path leading to Tirumala, the case of the petitioner about his business can be believed as true. However, as PW1 did not depose that he stopped his business, it can be inferred that he has been continuing his business. It is also not in the evidence of PW1 that after the accident he engaged any assistant and paying any amount to him. The petitioner proved that he sustained permanent disability of 90% of his right hand. However, he can work and perform all duties with his left hand. Therefore, the permanent disability taken into consideration as 50%.

16. Since the petitioner has not produced any evidence that he was earning Rs.10,000/­ per month as on the date of accident and after the accident he engaged any assistant of his day to day needs. In the above circumstances, this court feels it is just and proper to assess the monthly income of the petitioner at Rs.6,000/­ per month and permanent disability at 50%. 

9

OP No.28­17

17. In the decision reported in National Insurance Company Limited

Vs., Pranay Sethi and others (2017 ACJ 2700)the Hon’ble Apex Court held that an addition of 25% of the established income of the injured towards future prospects where the injured was in the age group between 40 to 50 years, would be reasonable. At that rate, the income of the injured per month has to be taken as Rs.6,000/­ + Rs.1,500/­ = Rs.7,500/­.

18. In Sarla Verma and others Vs., Delhi Transport Corporation (2009

ACJ 1298), the Hon’ble Apex Court prescribed the multiplier for the age group of 46 to 50 years at 13. If we apply the multiplier of 13 and 50% permanent disability sustained by the petitioner, the total loss of earnings comes to Rs.7,500/­ x 12 x 13 x 50% = 5,85,000/­. Therefore, the petitioner is entitled to Rs.5,85,000/­ towards loss of future earnings for the disability sustained by him in the motor vehicle accident.

19. Admittedly the petitioner sustained grievous injuries to his right hand and even according to the evidence of PW3 and Ex.A6 and Ex.A7 discharge summary, he underwent surgery for the injuries sustained by him and also took up follow up treatment. The evidence of PW1 is supported by Ex.X1 and

Ex.X2 inpatient and outpatient records of the petitioner issued by the CMC

Hospital, Vellore. Apart from that the petitioner also filed and marked the treatment obtained by him from Dr Sanjivarayudu, Ortho dt.10.08.2014 and got marked the record as Ex.A8. In the circumstances, the petitioner is entitled for loss of earnings during the period under treatment for three months at Rs.6,000/­ per month, the total loss earning amount for the period under treatment comes to Rs.18,000/­.

10

OP No.28­17

20. It is further in the evidence of PW1 that he incurred huge expenditure towards medical expenses and other expenses. In support of his case, he placed reliance on Ex.A6 consolidated bills issued by CMC Hospital, Vellore for Rs.1,44,247/­. The medical officer who examined as PW3 deposed that

Ex.A6 is the consolidated medical bills for Rs.1,44,247/­. During cross­ examination he denied a suggestion that the medical bills are excessive.

Except denying the medical bills, the contesting 3rd respondent did not adduce any evidence to disprove the same. Therefore, the petitioner is entitled for reimbursement of the medical bills to the tune of Rs.1,44,247/­.

21. Apart from that as the petitioner sustained fracture to his right hand, he would have suffered huge pain and mental agony. Therefore, the petitioner is entitled for a sum of Rs.25,000/­ towards pain and suffering.

22. It is in the evidence of PW1 that he underwent treatment in CMC

Hospital, Vellore as inpatient and outpatient and taken follow up treatment.

This evidence of PW1 is also corroborated by the evidence of PW3. Therefore, petitioner is entitled for future treatment and extra­nourishment, which can be assessed at Rs.5,000/­.

23. If we sum up the entitlement of compensation under various heads as stated above, the total compensation to be awarded to the petitioner is as follows:­

01.Loss of earnings Rs. 5,85,000­00

02.Loss of earnings during the period under treatmentRs. 18,000­00

03.Medical expensesRs. 1,44,247­00

04.Loss of pain & sufferingRs. 25,000­00

05.Loss of future treatment and extra nourishmentRs. 5,000­00 Total Rs. 7,77,247­00 11

OP No.28­17

24. With regard to the liability of payment of compensation, the learned counsel for the 4th respondent firstly contended that the petitioner has no valid driving licence to drove the motorcycle and so the 4th respondent is not liable to pay any compensation. On the other hand the learned counsel for the petitioner argued that the petitioner has valid driving licence to drove the motorcycle and even if he has no driving licence, since he is a third party to the accident, he is entitled for compensation.

25. The 3rd respondent examined its Administrative Officer as RW1. RW1 deposed that the petitioner had no driving licence to drove motorcycle and as such there is violation on the part of the petitioner himself and that therefore, this respondent is not liable to pay any compensation. The 3rd respondent examined the Junior Assistant of RTC as RW3, who deposed that he was duly authorized to give evidence as per Ex.X3 authorization letter cum no license found letter, they have verified the two wheeler driving license particulars of

A.Govindarajulu (petitioner) in their record and found that there is no record about issuance of two wheeler licence to the petitioner in their record. During cross­examination he admitted that if the petitioner would have obtained driving licence from any other district, the same will not be visible in their district portal. He also admitted that they have not verified manual registers prior to 2012. He also admitted that they have not verified the record with the surname of the petitioner. By the admission made by PW3, it is clear that the evidence of PW3 about non issuance of driving licence to the petitioner was verified only after the year 2012 and without surname of the petitioner.

12

OP No.28­17

Therefore, this evidence of RW3 is not helpful to the 3rd respondent to prove its contention.

26. The 3rd respondent elicited during cross­examination of PW1 that he (petitioner) did not file his driving licence. Except putting that suggestion, the 3rd respondent did not put any suggestion to PW1 during cross­ examination that the petitioner has no driving licence to drive the motorcycle. Without putting any such suggestions toPW1 during his cross­ examination, now the 3rd respondent cannot contend for the first time in the evidence of RW1 that the petitioner has no driving licence to drive the motorcycle. Further the 3rd respondent also did not take such a plea in the written statement. Even admitting that the petitioner has no driving licence, the 3rd respondent cannot escape his liability, because the entire record clearly go to show that the accident occurred only due to rash and negligent driving of the crime vehicle by its driver i.e., the 1st respondent when the petitioner was going slowly and cautiously on the left side of the road. The evidence of PW1 during his cross­examination by the 3rd respondent that when he was going on the left side of the road, the crime vehicle came on the wrong side and dashed against his motorcycle, is not denied specifically. In the circumstances and since the petitioner is a third party to the crime vehicle, the belated version of 3rd respondent that the petitioner has no valid driving licence, cannot be accepted.

27. The learned counsel for the 3rd respondent nextly argued that the 1st respondent has no valid driving licence as on the date of accident and so it 13

OP No.28­17

amounts to violation of the policy conditions and that therefore, the 3rd respondent is not liable to pay any compensation. In support of its case, the 3rd respondent examined its Administrative Officer as RW1, who deposed that the 1st respondent had no valid driving licence to drive a motorcycle as on the date of accident. The evidence of RW1 is denied by the petitioner and 1st respondent. During cross­examination RW1 admitted that they have not pleaded in their written statement that the 1st respondent was not holding valid driving licence at the time of accident. RW1 denied a suggestion that the 1st respondent was holding valid driving licence. However, he admitted that the 1st respondent was having driving licence to drive four wheeler but not two wheeler.

28. In order to prove their case, the 3rd respondent also placed reliance on the oral testimony of RW2, the Junior Assistant of RTO, Vellore, who deposed that he was duly authorized by the RTO to give evidence as per Ex.X3 authorization letter dt.29.11.2018; that he brought the driving licence extract of G.Ogad Ram S/o Ghee Saram and it is Ex.X4. He also deposed that as per the summons received by their RTO, the driving licence number mentioned as TN 23 12 002 0000670 issued to A.Janakiraman S/o Armugam and the said number relates to the driving licence particulars of the G.Ogad Ram and not Janakiraman. During cross­examination he admitted that there is no code as TN 23 I 2002 in their RTO office and the “1” mentioned in the summon is a wrong number of driving licence furnished to them and the driving licence No.TN 23 T 20020000670 pertaining to A.Janakiraman maybe issued by the Gudiyatham Unit Office. Therefore, the evidence of 14

OP No.28­17

PW2 is not helpful to the 3rd respondent to prove that the 1st respondent had no valid driving licence as on the date of accident.

29. The 3rd respondent summoned the 1st respondent and examined him as

RW4. RW4 admitted that as on the date of accident he was driving the motorcycle bearing No.AP 03 AH 5929 and it was involved in the accident.

He also stated that he cannot say at whose fault the accident occurred. But admitted that the criminal case was registered against him and the said case was compromised in Lok Adalath. During cross­examination by the petitioner, he specifically stated that he had valid driving licence as on the date of accident. This evidence of PW4 remained unchallenged. The 3rd respondent did not put any suggestion to PW4 that he had no valid driving licence as on the date of accident. Further a perusal of Ex.A2 charge sheet also discloses that a case U/sec.338 of IPC was only charged against the 1st respondent/driver and no offence for violation of driving licence was charged against the 1st respondent/driver. Therefore, except taking a bald plea that the 1st respondent had no valid driving licence as on the date of accident, the 3rd respondent failed to prove the same beyond doubt. In view of my foregoing discussion, I find that the 3rd respondent failed to establish that the 1st respondent had no valid driving licence as on the date of accident.

30. Admittedly the 1st respondent is the driver, 2nd respondent is the owner of the crime vehicle, which was insured with the 3rd respondent insurance company. The 2nd respondent died during the course of trial, and his wife was brought on record as 4th respondent. Admittedly the crime vehicle was 15

OP No.28­17

insured with the 3rd respondent insurance company as per Ex.B1 insurance policy and it was existing and subsisting as on the date of accident.

Therefore, the respondents 1 and 3 are liable to pay the compensation with joint and several liability and the petitioner is also entitled to recover the compensation from out of the estate of the 2nd respondent, if any in the hands of 4th respondent. This issue is answered accordingly.

31.  ISSUE No.3:­

In the result, the petition is partly allowed by awarding a compensation of Rs.7,77,247/­ (Rupees seven lakhs seventy seven thousand two hundred and fourty seven only) with proportionate costs and with future interest at 7.5% per annum on the said sum from the date of the petition till the date of deposit, against the respondents 1 and 3 jointly and severally and from out of the estate of the 2nd respondent, if any in the hands of the 4th respondent. The respondents shall deposit the amount of compensation within two months from today, failing which the petitioner is entitled to interest at 9% p.a., on the awarded amount. The rest of the claim is dismissed without costs.

Out of the compensation amount, the petitioner is entitled to receive

Rs.5,77,247/­ together with interest and costs forthwith and the remaining amount of Rs.2,00,000/­ after 2 years, during which period the said amount shall be kept in Fixed Deposit in any Nationalized Bank.

The petitioner shall pay the Court fee, which was exempted by the

District Legal Services Authority, Chittoor within a month from today. The decree shall be executed only on payment of Court Fee.

16

OP No.28­17

The advocate fee is fixed at Rs.5,000/­.

Partly typed to my dictation and partly dictated to the Personal Assistant, transcribed by him, corrected and pronounced by me in the open court, this the 26th day of November, 2019. 

Sd/­M.Venkata Harinath Chairman, MACT­cum­I Additional District Judge, Chittoor. 

FAC Chairman, MACT­cum­VIII Additional District Judge,

 Chittoor.

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

WITNESSES EXAMINED

For the Petitioner:For the Respondents:

PW1: A.Govindarajulu RW1: L.C.Gopi Kesavan PW2: P.Lakshmipathi RW2: K.Vardhan PW3: Binu Prathap Thomas RW3: V.Ramu RW4: A.Janakiraman

EXHIBITS MARKED

For the Petitioner:

Ex.A1: Certified copy of First Information Report. Ex.A2: Certified copy of charge sheet. Ex.A3: Certified copy of Accident Information Report Ex.A4: Certified copy of Wound certificate Ex.A5: Permanent disability certificate issued by District Medical Board, Chittoor. Ex.A6: Consolidated bills issued by CMC Hospital, Vellore. Ex.A7: Discharge summary issued by CMC Hospital, Vellore Ex.A8: Treatment card issued by Dr Sanjivarayudu

Ex.X1: Out patient case record Ex.X2: Inpatient case record Ex.X3: Authorization letter dt.2911.2018 Ex.X4: Extract of driving licence of G.Ogad Ram Ex.X5: Authorization letter cum no license found letter

For the Respondents: 

Ex.B1: True copy of Insurance policy

Sd/­M.Venkata Harinath Chairman, MACT­cum­I Additional District Judge, Chittoor. 

FAC Chairman, MACT­cum­VIII Additional District Judge,

Chittoor.

Fair Order in MVOP No.28/2017, dt.26.11.2019 of VIII ADJ, CTR 17

OP No.28­17

1

IN THE COURT OF THE VIII ADDITIONAL DISTRICT & SESSIONS JUDGE,

CHITTOOR.

Present : Sri M.Venkata Harin ath I Additional District & Sessions Judge, FAC VIII Additional District & Sessions Judge,

Thursday, the 31st (Thirty First) day of October, 2019

CRIMINAL APPEAL No. 225 of 2018

(C.C.No.524/2013 on the file of Special Judicial Magistrate of I Class, Prohibition and Excise, Chittoor)

01.Name and description of1. K.B.Munikanna Yadav, S/o late Bodenna, the appellants/accused Hindu, aged about 61 years.

2. K.M.Rajachandra Yadav, S/o Munikanna Yadav, Hindu, aged about 36 years. Both are R/at D.No.18­952, High Rolad, Chittoor Town and District.

02.Name and description ofThe State of AP, rep. by the Sub­Inspector of respondent/Complainant Police, I Town P.S., Chittoor. 

03.Sentence and order and The appellants/A1 & 2 were convicted the Law under which itU/sec.248 (2) Cr.P.C and sentenced to pay a was imposed.fine of Rs.10,000/­ each for the offence U/sec.324 r/w 34 IPC and in default, they shall undergo simple imprisonment for a period of two months each, vide judgment in

CC.No.524/2013 dt.10.08.2018 on the file of

the Special Judicial Magistrate of I Class for Prohibition and Excise, Chittoor. 

04.Whether modified, CONFIRMED. confirmed, or reversed,. If modified, the details of modification.

05.Presentation of Appeal10.08.2018

06.Filing of the appeal10.08.2018

07.Date of hearing24.10.2019

08.Date of Judgment31.10.2019

This Criminal Appeal coming on before me for final hearing on 24.10.2019, upon perusing the grounds of appeal and other connected papers on record and upon hearing the arguments of Sri N.Viswanadha

Reddy, Advocate for appellants/A1 & A2 and of Sri K.Rajendra, Additional 2

Public Prosecutor, for the respondent/State and having stood over for consideration till this day, this court delivered the following:­

J U D G M E N T

The appellants who are the accused in C.C.No.524/2013 on the file of

Court of Judicial Magistrate of Ist Class, Excise Court, Chittoor, preferred this appeal being aggrieved by the Judgment dt.10.08.2018 passed by the learned

Special Judicial Magistrate of Ist Class for Prohibition and Excise, Chittoor, convicting them for the offence U/sec.324 r/w 34 of IPC.

2. The parties to the appeal will be referred to as per their array in the main calender case.

3. The facts leading to the filing of this appeal, are as follows:­

a) The State represented by the Sub­Inspector of Police, Chittoor I

Town P.S., filed charge sheet against the accused for the offence punishable

U/sec.324 r/w 34 of IPC alleging as follows:­

The complainant K.Bhaskar (PW1) is a resident of Yadamari Mandal and lives by cultivation; that he had dispute with the accused with regard to their landed property since 1996; that the said case is pending in the Court of

II Additional Junior Civil Judge, Chittoor; that while PW1 was passing in front of the Court of Ist Additional District Judge, Chittoor, near a current pole to know the date of adjournment of his case, A1 hurled a brick on his head and when he turned back to know what happened, A1 caught hold of his shirt and meanwhile A2 fisted with a brick on his right eye brow and 3 caused bleeding injuries, as a result PW1 fell unconscious and thereupon somebody shifted him to Government Hospital, Chittoor for treatment and basing on the statement given by PW1 a case in Cr.No.69/2011 was registered and invested. The investigation reveals that the accused have committed an offence punishable U/sec.324 r/w 34 of IPC.

4. The learned IV Additional Judicial Magistrate of Ist Class, Chittoor, took cognizance for the offence punishable U/Sec.324 r/w 34 of IPC and numbered the charge sheet as C.C.No.518/2011 on the file of IV Addl.

Judicial Magistrate of Ist Class, Chittoor.

5. On appearance of the accused and after furnishing copies of documents to them as contemplated U/Sec.207 of Cr.P.C, the learned Magistrate examined the accused U/sec.239 Cr.P.C and framed charges U/sec.324 r/w 34 of IPC. The accused denied the substance of accusation, pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried. Later the said case was transferred to Special

Judicial Magistrate of Ist Class for Prohibition and Excise, Chittoor.

6. During the course of trial, the prosecution examined PW1 to PW6 and got marked Ex.P1 to P10 and MO1.

7. After closure of the prosecution evidence, the accused were examined

U/sec.313 Cr.P.C complaining the incriminating circumstances appearing against them in the evidence of the prosecution witnesses. They denied the same, pleaded not guilty and reported no defence.

4

8. After hearing the learned Assistant Public Prosecutor as well as the learned counsel for the accused and after perusing the entire record, the learned Magistrate convicted both the accused U/sec.248(2) Cr.P.C for the charge U/sec.324 r/w 34 of IPC and sentenced each of them to pay a fine of

Rs.10,000/­, in default to undergo simple imprisonment for a period of two months each.

9. Being aggrieved bythe Judgment dt.10.08.2018 passed by the learned

Special Judicial Magistrate of Ist Class for Prohibition and Excise, Chittoor in

C.C.No.524/2013, the accused have preferred this appeal contending as follows:­

The lower court failed to observe that there is no incriminating material against the accused to convict them; that there is no date and time in the alleged complaint statement Ex.P1; that PW3 is an interested witness; that the investigating officer failed to note the exact location of the scene of offence in the rough sketch and failed to seize the alleged weapon; that there are number of inconsistencies in the evidence of prosecution witnesses and the lower court ought to have acquitted the appellants.

10. Heard the learned counsel for the appellants/A1 & A2 as well as the

Additional Public Prosecutor.

11. The points that arise for consideration are:

1. Whether the appellants/accused caused simple hurt to PW1 K.Bhaskar by beating him with brick stone on 24.05.2011 at the Court premises?

5

2. Whether the prosecution has proved the charge U/sec.324 r/w

34 of IPC against A1 and A2 beyond all reasonable doubt?

3. Whether the conviction and sentence passed by the lower court in

CC.No.524/2013 dt.10.08.2018 was on proper appreciation of

evidence in correct lines and requires any interference of this Court?

12. POINT Nos.1 and 2:

 According to the prosecution case, due to previous disputes between the accused and the defacto complainant K.Bhaskar, when the defacto complainant went to the District Court premises on 24.05.2011 at about 10.40 AM, to know the date of adjournment of his case, A1 and A2 assaulted him with brick stones and caused injuries to him. In order to prove the said case against the accused, the prosecution has placed reliance on the oral testimony of PW1 toPW6 and Ex.P1 to Ex.P10 documents and MO1 material object.

13. PW1 is the injured and defacto complainant. PW2 is wife of PW1.

PW3 is an alleged direct witness to the occurrence. PW4 is the medical officer who treated PW1 immediately after the incident. PW5 and PW6 are the investigating officers in this case.

14. The learned counsel for the appellants argued that there are number of inconsistencies and contradictions between the evidence of prosecution witnesses and their oral testimony is not supported by the contents of sec.161 Cr.P.C statement given by them before the police; that the prosecution failed to locate the exact scene of offence in the rough sketch 6 and did not seize the crime weapon; that only alleged eye witness is a worker under PW1 and in the circumstances, the accused are entitled for benefit of doubt and acquittal.

15. On the other hand the learned Additional Public Prosecutor argued that the oral testimony of PW1 to PW6, which is duly supported by the contents of Ex.P1 to Ex.P10 documents and MO1 amply proved the charge and there are no ground to acquit the accused.

16. With regard to the incident, the defacto complainant, who examined himself as PW1, on oath deposed that there are land dispute between himself and the accused from the year 1996 and he filed a suit against the accused on the file of the Court of II Additional Junior Civil Judge, Chittoor with regard to the said land dispute, wherein the suit is pending; that on 24.05.2011 he came to the court to know the date of next adjournment and while he was going to II Additional Junior Civil Judge, Chittoor and reached near Ist Additional District Judge Court, Chittoor, A1 threw a stone on his head, as a result he sustained bleeding injury and when he questioned A1 about his behaviour, he caught hold of his shirt, meanwhile A2 came there and beat PW1 with stone near his right eye, due to which he sustained bleeding injuries and became unconscious and later the public gathered ,

PW3 and another took him to Government Hospital, Chittoor and waited till the arrival of his wife i.e., PW2. He also deposed that police came and 7 recorded his statement, which is Ex.P1, in which he affixed his signature which is Ex.P2.

17. The oral evidence of PW1 with regard to the incident is supported by the contents of Ex.P1 complaint statement given by him to the police immediately after the occurrence. Further the oral testimony of PW1 is duly corroborated by the oral testimony of PW2 K.Jyothi who is no other than the wife of PW1. PW2 deposed that on 24.05.2011 her husband (PW1) informed her that he was going to the Court to know about the date of adjournment and later at about 12.30 or 1 PM she came to know that her husband was beaten by somebody and admitted in the Government

Hospital, Chittoor and immediately she rushed to the Government Hospital and found PW3 and another and on enquiry her husband informed about the incident. 

18. The oral evidence of PW1 and PW2 in this regard is also corroborated by the direct evidence of PW3 J.Yesupadam, who deposed that on 24.05.2011 he came to the Court for his case and at about 10.30 AM he observed A1 throwing a stone on the head of PW1, due to which PW1 sustained bleeding injury and when PW1 turned back as to who threw the stone, A1 caught hold of the shirt of PW1 and in the meanwhile A2 came there and beat PW1 with a brick stone on his eye and then himself and one

J.Rathnam, who is no more, rescued PW1 from the hands of the accused and admitted him in Government Hospital, Chittoor and waited till arrival of the 8 wife of PW1. This evidence of PW3 amply corroborates the oral testimony of PW1 and PW2 with regard to the manner of incident.

19. The evidence of PW1 to PW3 with regard to sustaining injuries by

PW1 in the hands of the accused is supported by the oral testimony of PW4

Dr V.Vinayak and Ex.P3 and Ex.P4 documents. PW4 deposed that on 24.05.2011 at about 12.45 PM he examined PW1, who was accompanied by

Yesu.P from the court campus and found the following injuries:­

1. 3 CM lacerated wound over vertex region of head

2. 1 CM lacerated wound over right frontal head.

20. He also deposed that X­Ray No.3486/MLC number 495 dt.

27.05.2011 skull A.P lateral view/no bone injury; that PW1 was admitted on 24.05.2011 at 12.45 PM and discharged on 08.06.2011 at 2 PM and that the injuries sustained by PW1 are simple in nature. He also deposed that Ex.P3 is wound certificate andEx.P4 is the radiologist certificate.

21. The oral testimony of PW1 with regard to giving complaint statement to the police in the hospital is supported by the oral testimony of PW5

M.P.Rajasekhar, the then Head Constable of Chittoor I Town P.S., who deposed that on 24.05.2011 at about 2 PM he received hospital intimation and went to the Government Hospital, Chittoor and recorded the statement of PW1, came to police station and registered the statement as FIR at about 3.30 PM as Cr.No.69/2011 U/sec.324 of IPC, examined PW1 and PW2 and 9 recorded their statements. He also deposed that he along with PW2 went to the scene of offence and prepared rough sketch and later secured the presence of LW3 (Rathnam) and PW3 (Yesupadam) examined them and recorded their statements, later on the same day at 5.30 PM he seized the blood stained shirt of PW1 under cover of police proceedings; that Ex.P5 is the hospital intimation, Ex.P6 is FIR, Ex.P7 is rough sketch, Ex.P8 is the police proceedings, Ex.P9 is list of property produced before the court and

MO1 is blood stained shirt of PW1. The oral testimony of PW1 in this regard is duly supported by the contents of Ex.P1, Ex.P5 to Ex.P9 documents and

MO1.

22. PW6 Sri S.Vamsidar, is the then Probationer Sub­Inspector of Police, I

Town P.S., Chittoor. His evidence is only to the effect that A1 and A2 surrendered before the court and obtained bail, he verified the investigation done by PW5 and found it on proper lines and filed charge sheet in this case and that Ex.P10 are the photos (3 in number) of PW1 along with CD.

23. It is firstly contended by the learned counsel for the appellants that there is no date and time in the complaint and that itself is sufficient to give benefit of doubt to the accused.

24. It is true that there is no date and time of incident in the complaint statement given by PW1 to the police. However, a perusal of the oral evidence of PW1 to PW5 establishes the series of offence, time of 10 occurrence, time of admission of PW1 in the hospital, recording of his statement by the police etc. PW1 deposed that on 24.05.2011 when he went to the Court to know the date of adjournment, the incident occurred and immediately after the occurrence he was taken to Government Hospital,

Chittoor by PW3 and another. PW3 an eye witness to the occurrence stated the time of occurrence as 10.30 AM. The Medical Officer who examined

PW1 deposed that he gave treatment toPW1 on 24.05.2011 at 12.45 PM.

Though the prosecution marked Ex.P5 as intimation to the police, a perusal of it discloses that it is an indent to the contractor for supply food to the injured i.e., PW1. It appears that PW1 was admitted in the hospital before 11 AM on 24.05.2011 as indent for his food was made at 11 AM on that day.

In Ex.P5 there is also clear recital that the complainant was admitted in the hospital at 10.40 AM as he alleged to have sustained injuries due to assault by known person. PW5, the then Head Constable of I Town P.S., though deposed that he received hospital intimation at 2 PM on 24.05.2011, he did not mention the date and time in the statement of PW1, which is marked as

Ex.P1. However, he deposed that immediately after recording the statement of PW1 (Ex.P1) he returned to police station and registered it as case in

Cr.No.69/2011 and submitted FIR to the court which is marked as Ex.P6. In

Ex.P6 it was clearly mentioned about the date and time of the incident and information received by him. A perusal of Ex.P6 FIR reveals that it was received by Jurisdictional Magistrate on the very same day at 9 PM. These circumstances, clearly establishes that the incident occurred at 10.40 AM 11 and immediately after the occurrence PW1 was admitted to hospital, where

PW5 recorded the complaint statement of PW1. Simply because PW5, the then Head Constable did not note the date and time in the complaint statement marked as Ex.P1, it cannot go in favour of the accused to give benefit of doubt, because the oral testimony of PW1 with regard to the incident is supported by PW2 and PW3. Though it is the contention of the learned counsel for the appellants that PW3 is a worker under PW1, it is not proved by the appellants. PW1 during cross­examination stated that he got acquaintance with PW3 during the court visits. He denied a suggestion that

LW3 (J.Rathnam) is the relative of his wife. No specific suggestion was put to PW1 during his cross­examination that PW3 has any relationship with him, close acquaintance with him or a worker under him. Similarly no such suggestion was put to PW2 during her cross­examination. Therefore, the suggestions put to PW3 during his cross­examination that he is a worker under PW1 which was denied by him, is not proved by the appellants.

Though PW1 to PW3 were cross­examined at length, nothing incriminating is found during their cross­examination to disbelieve or distrust their testimony with regard to the manner of the incident. Further this court does not find anything in the cross­examination of PW3 that he has any favoritism to the defacto complainant and animosity against the accused. In the circumstances, the arguments of the learned counsel for the appellants is refused. 

12

25. The learned counsel for the appellants nextly contended that there are number of contradictions between the evidence of PW1 to PW5 and they are sufficient to acquit the accused.

26. During cross­examination of PW1, he denied a suggestion that he did not state in his complaint statement and Sec.161 Cr.P.C statement that A1 beat him with a stone, LW3 (Rathnam) and PW3 admitted him in the hospital and stayed there till his wife came. The investigating officer in this case, who is examined as PW5 admitted that PW1 did not state that A1 threw brick stone on him in Ex.P1 and also in Sec.161 Cr.P.C statement and he also stated that he himself joined in Government Hospital, did not state that LW3 (Rathnam) and PW3 admitted in the hospital. A perusal of Ex.P1 complaint statement of PW1 reveals that after the incident PW1 fell on the ground and somebody rendered first aid to him and thereupon he went to

Government Hospital, Chittoor for treatment. However, there is no recital in

Ex.P1 that LW3 (Rathnam) and PW3 did not accompany him to Government

Hospital. According to PW1 though he has acquaintance with LW3 (Rathnam) and PW3 Yesupadam, it is not his specific case that he knows their names and addresses, therefore, non mentioning their names in

Sec.161 Cr.P.C statement is not fatal. In view of the cogent and convincing evidence of PW1 to PW3 with regard to the manner of incident, the above contradictions in the evidence of PW1 can be treated as minor in nature.

13

27. The learned counsel for the appellants nextly contended that the prosecution has not mentioned the exact location of the scene of offence and did not seize the alleged weapon i.e., brick/stone and that itself is sufficient to give benefit of doubt and acquittal to the accused.

28. It appears from the record that major portion of investigation was done by Head Constable. It is not known what is his experience in investigation of cases. Admittedly PW5, who examined the scene of offence and prepared Ex.P7 rough sketch, did not mention the exact location of the scene of offence in the rough sketch, except mentioning of details of the court premises. Similarly he admitted that he did not seize the crime weapon i.e., brick at the scene of offence. Though PW5 did not mention the exact location of the scene of offence in Ex.P7 rough sketch, the evidence of

PW1 and PW3 is cogent and convincing that the scene of offence is in front of the court of Ist Additional District Judge, Chittoor at electrical pole. It is not the case of the appellants that there is no electric pole in front of court of Ist Additional District Judge, Chittoor. Simply because, the investigating officer did some mistake, it will not go in favour of the appellants to give benefit of doubt, since the evidence of PW1 and PW3 with regard to the manner of the incident is cogent and convincing and it further gains support from the admission of PW1 in the hospital immediately after the occurrence.

29. The evidence of PW1 to PW3 further gains support from the motive for the occurrence, which according to PW1 is that there were land disputes 14 between the accused and PW1 from 1996 and a case is pending in that regard on the file of II Addl.Junior Civil Judge, Chittoor. During cross­ examination PW1 stated that though there were disputes with the accused since 1996, but he did not file any case against them due to fear, but filed case against them in the year 2007. This evidence of PW1 which came during his cross­examination, remained unchallenged. Therefore, the oral testimony of PW1 with regard to the incident gains support from the motive that there were long standing land disputes between him and the accused from the year 1996.

30. The learned counsel for the appellants nextly contended that Ex.P10 photos reveals that right hand of PW1 was tied to the neck and it clearly proves that he sustained fracture to his right hand and that PW1 having sustained injuries in a motor vehicle accident, filed a false case against the accused.

31. Ex.P10 three photos of PW1 with CD were marked by the investigating officer at the fag end of trial on 26.07.2018. However, those photos were not confronted to PW1 to get any explanation from him with regard to tying of his right hand to his neck. Even according to the evidence of PW1 and PW3, in the incident PW1 fell down. In the circumstances, it can be inferred that he might have sustained some pain in his hand and so his right hand might have been tied to his neck. According to the evidence of PW4 Dr V.Vinayak, who treated PW1 immediately after the occurrence, 15 did not find any fracture to the right hand of PW1. If really PW1 would have sustained any fracture injury and if really he would have foisted this case against the accused after sustaining some injuries in the motor vehicle accident, he would have stated the alleged fracture before the medical officer and would have created some other story in that regard, if his case is false. Further during cross­examination PW1 denied a suggestion that after quarrel with A1 and A2 while he was going in the bike he met with an accident and sustained injuries. This suggestion put to PW1 during his cross­examination establishes that a quarrel took place between PW1 and A1 and A2. Though the appellants have taken a plea that PW1 sustained the injuries in motor vehicle accident, which was denied by PW1, they failed to prove the same. If really PW1 would have sustained fracture in the motor vehicle accident, the appellants would have summoned the case sheet of

PW1 maintained by the hospital authorities to prove whether PW1 really sustained any fracture to his right hand. Simply making a bald allegation that PW1 might have sustained injuries in a motor vehicle accident and foisted this case against the accused, which was denied by PW1, the appellants could not prove the same.

32. A perusal of the entire evidence available on record clearly establishes that A1 and A2 have assaulted PW1 on the date of incident and caused injuries to him with a brick stone due to previous disputes between them.

However, there are some minor contradictions in the evidence of 16 prosecution witnesses, which are very trivial in nature and in view of the cogent and convincing evidence of PW1 to PW5, it can safely be held that the prosecution has successfully established the guilt for the charge

U/sec.324 r/w 34 of IPC against the accused beyond all reasonable doubt.

The points are answered accordingly.

33. Point No.3:­

The trial Judge after appreciating the oral and documentary evidence available on record came to a correct conclusion and rightly convicted A1 and A2. I do not find any reason to interfere with the findings of the learned trial Judge. The appeal is devoid of merits and is liable to be dismissed. The point is answered accordingly.

34.In the result, the appeal is dismissed by confirming the conviction and sentence passed in C.C.No.524/2013 dt.10.08.2018 by the learned

Special Judicial Magistrate of Ist Class for Prohibition and Excise, Chittoor.

Dictated to the Personal Assistant, transcribed by him, corrected and

pronounced by me in open court, this the 31st day of October, 2019.

Sd/­ M.Venkata Harinath

I ADDL. DISTRICT & SESSIONS JUDGE, CHITTOOR.

FAC VIII ADDL. DISTRICT & SESSIONS JUDGE, CHITTOOR.

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

No additional evidence adduced on either side. 

Sd/­ M.Venkata Harinath

I ADDL. DISTRICT & SESSIONS JUDGE, CHITTOOR.

FAC VIII ADDL. DISTRICT & SESSIONS JUDGE, CHITTOOR.

17

Fair Judgment in CA.255/2018, Dt.31.10.2019 of VIII ADJ, CTR.

1

IN THE COURT OF THE VIII ADDITIONAL DISTRICT & SESSIONS JUDGE,

CHITTOOR.

Present : Sri M.Venkata Harin ath I Additional District & Sessions Judge, FAC VIII Additional District & Sessions Judge,

Thursday, the 24th (Twenty Fourth) day of October, 2019

CRIMINAL APPEAL No. 146 of 2018

(CC.No.44/2016 on the file of Judicial Magistrate of Ist Class for Special Mobile Court, Chittoor)

01.Name and description of theP.Purushotham Reddy, S/o P.Govinda Reddy, appellant/Accused aged about 53 years, Hindu, residing at D.No.9­81, Chittoor Road, Damarakuppam village, Kummaragunta Post, Vedurukuppam Mandal, Chittoor District. 

02.Name and description of the1. S.Uday Kumar, S/o late M.Shanmugam, respondents/ Complainant aged about 53 years, Hindu, Business, residing at D.No.4­732, Bound Street, Greamspet, Chittoor Town and District.

2. The State rep., by the Public Prosecutor, Chittoor. 

03.Sentence and order and the The appellant/accused is convicted under Law under which it wasSec.255(2) of the Cr.P.C for the offence imposed.U/sec.138 r/w 142 of the Negotiable Instruments Act and sentenced to undergo simple imprisonment for a period of six months and to pay compensation of Rs.2,50,000/­ (Rupees two lakhs and fifty thousand only) to the complainant within one month in default to undergo simple imprisonment for a period of two months vide judgment in CC.No.44/2016 dt.14.06.2018 on the file of the Judicial Magistrate of Ist Class for Spl.Mobile Court, Chittoor.

04.Whether modified, Confirmed. confirmed, or reversed. If modified, the details of modification.

05.Presentation of the Appeal06.07.2018

06.Filing of the appeal06.07.2018

07.Date of hearing18.10.2019

08.Date of Judgment24.10.2019 2

This Criminal Appeal coming on before me for final hearing on 18.10.2019, upon perusing the grounds of appeal and other connected papers on record and upon hearing the arguments of Sri B.Eswar Reddy, Advocate

for appellant/accused and of Sri S.Balaiah, Advocate for 1st

respondent/complainant and the learned Additional Public Prosecutor for the 2nd respondent and having stood over for consideration till this day, this court delivered the following:­

JUDGMENT

The appellant is the accused in C.C.No.44/2016 on the file of Judicial

Magistrate of Ist Class for Special Mobile Court, Chittoor. He filed this appeal

being aggrieved by the conviction and sentence passed by the Judicial

Magistrate of Ist Class for Special Mobile Court, Chittoor against him by

Judgment dt. 14.06.2018 in C.C. No.44/2016.

2. The parties to the appeal will be referred to as per their array in the main calender case. 

3. The facts leading to the filing of this appeal are as follows:­ 

a) The complainant and accused are close associates and they are doing business in Mines, excavating Black Granite from quarries. On 17.12.2012, at the request of the accused the complainant gave hand loan of

Rs.2,00,000/­ to the accused in the presence of their friends I.K.Rajasekhar

Reddy and P.Suryanarayana Reddy. Later, on repeated demands the accused issued post dated cheque dt.18.03.2013 in the first week of March 2013 for a

Rs.2,00,000/­. The complainant presented the said cheque for collection on 18.03.2013 and it was dishonoured and again he presented the cheque for 3 collection on 27.05.2013 in State Bank of India, Chittoor, again it was dishonoured on 05.06.2013 with endorsement that balance in the account is insufficient. The banker of the complainant informed the same on 19.06.2013.

b) The complainant issued legal notice dt.04.07.2013 demanding the accused to pay the cheque amount. It was returned on 12.07.2017 with endorsement that the addressee is out of station for 7 days. Hence the complaint.

4. Upon perusing the complaint and Sworn Affidavit of the complainant, the Judicial Magistrate of 1st Class for Special Mobile Court, Chittoor took cognizance of the offence against the accused for the offence punishable

U/sec.138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act (for the short ‘the N.I.Act’).

5. On appearance of the accused before the Judicial Magistrate of First

Class for Special Mobile Court, Chittoor, copies of documents as contemplated under Sec.207 of Cr.P.C were furnished to him. He was examined under Sec.251 of Cr.P.C with regard to the accusation made against him for the offence under Sec.138 of the N.I. Act, for which he denied the offence and claimed to be tried.

6. The case was firstly registered on the file of IV Addl.Judicial Magistrate of Ist Class, Chittoor and later it was transferred to the Judicial Magistrate of

Ist Class for Special Mobile Court, Chittoor as per the orders of the Hon’ble 4

Principal District Judge, Chittoor and it was renumbered as S.T.C

No.27/2016 and subsequently as per the docket order of the lower court dt.02.08.2016 the STC No.27/2016 was closed and numbered as

C.C.No.44/2016.

7. During the course of trial, the complainant examined himself as PW1 and he got examined PW2 on his behalf and got marked Ex.P1 to Ex.P7.

8. After closure of complainant’s evidence, the accused was examined under Sec.313 of Cr.P.C explaining the incriminating circumstances appearing against him in the evidence of complainant as PW1 and PW2. The accused denied the same.

9. During the course of defence, the accused examined himself as DW1.

However, he did not mark any documents on his behalf.

10. After hearing both the parties and after appreciating the oral and documentary evidence adduced by both the parties, the learned Judicial

Magistrate of Ist Class for Special Mobile Court, Chittoor passed the judgment

on 14.06.2018 finding the accused guilty for the offence U/sec.138 r/w 142 of the N.I.Act and convicted him U/sec.255(2) of the Cr.P.C and sentenced to undergo simple imprisonment for a period of 6 months and to pay compensation of Rs.2,50,000/­ to the complainant within one month, in default to undergo simple imprisonment for a period of two months. 

5

11. Being aggrieved by the Judgment dt.14.06.2018 passed by the learned

Judicial Magistrate of Ist Class for Special Mobile Court, Chittoor, the accused

preferred this appeal contending as follows:­

The trial court without considering the cross­examination of PW1 and

PW2 with regard to the legally enforceable debt, passed the judgment. The trial court failed to summon the Branch Manager of the complainant bank and the accused bank even though the complainant quoted them in the list of witnesses. The trial court failed to consider that Ex.P2 toEx.P7 are manipulated and created documents. The complainant has not issued mandatory notice to the accused within the stipulated time. Therefore, the judgment rendered by the lower court is liable to be dismissed.

12. Heard the learned counsel for the appellant/accused as well as respondent/complainant.

13. Now the points for consideration are:

1. Whether the cheque was issued by the accused for legally enforceable debt?

2. Whether the cheque was dishonoured for insufficiency of the funds in the account of the accused?

3. Whether the complainant has issued mandatory notice to the accused demanding the cheque amount within time?

4. Whether the complaint has established the guilt for the offence punishable U/sec.138 r/w 142 of the N.I.Act against the accused beyond reasonable doubt?

5. Whether the conviction and sentence passed by the lower court against the accused suffers from any irregularity or illegality and is liable to be set aside.?

6

14.POINT No.1:

The learned counsel for the complainant argued that he gave hand loan to the accused in the presence of two friends of the accused on 17.12.2012, for which the accused issued Ex.A1 cheque on repeated demands in the first week of March 2013 and since the accused admitted execution of Ex.P1 cheque, the complainant has proved that there is legally enforceable debt.

15. On the other hand the learned counsel for the appellant/accused argued that the accused issued the said cheque to PW2 Suryanarayana

Reddy as security and it was mis­utilized by PW2 and that there is no legally enforceable debt.

16. In order to prove that there is legally enforceable debt for which the accused issued Ex.P1 cheque the complainant examined himself as PW1. On oath he deposed that on 17.12.2012 he gave hand loan of Rs.2,00,000/­ to the accused in the presence of two friends of the accused by name

I.K.Rajasekhar Reddy and P.Suryanarayana Reddy and later on repeated demands the accused issued Ex.P1 cheque in the first week of March 2012 by putting the date as 18.03.2013. The evidence of PW1 in this regard is duly supported by the contents of Ex.P1 and also corroborated by the oral testimony of PW2 Suryanarayana Reddy in toto. The accused who examined himself as DW1 during cross­examination also admitted that he 7 himself signed in Exl.P1 cheque and also filled all the columns of Ex.P1 except the name of the complainant.

17. In view of the cogent and convincing evidence of PW1 and PW2 that the accused issued Ex.p1 cheque for legally enforceable debt and since the accused has admitted about issuance of Ex.P1 cheque by duly signing it, the complainant is entitled for the presumption U/sec.118 and 139 of the

N.I.Act.

18. In this connection the learned counsel for the complainant placed reliance on the decisions of the Hon’ble Apex Court reported in Maruthi

Udyog Ltd., Vs., Narender (1999 (1) STC 113) and also K.N.Beena Vs.,

Muniappa (2001 SC 1895), wherein it was held that when once the

complainant proves issuance of cheque by the accused by cogent and convincing

evidence, he is entitled for the presumption U/sec.118 and 139 of the N.I.Act

that the cheque was issued by the accused in discharge of his liability towards

the complainant. 

19. By virtue of the oral evidence of PW1 and PW2 which is supported by the contents of Ex.P1 and the admissions made by the accused that he himself issued Ex.P1 cheque, a presumption U/sec.118 (a) and 139 of the

N.I.Act is drawn in favour of the complainant that the accused issued Ex.P1 cheque to him towards legally enforceable debt. However, the presumption is rebuttable one and the burden is on the accused to rebut the same.

8

20. In order to rebut the presumption drawn in favour of the complainant, the accused examined himself as DW1. He deposed that he issued Ex.P1 cheque to PW2 Suryanarayana Reddy in connection with the business transaction only as security and it was mis­utilized by him. However, this defence of the accused is denied by the complainant. The accused as DW1 during cross­examination admitted that PW2 used to purchase Raw Granite

Blocks from him and he has such business transaction from the year 2010.

He also admitted that there are occasions PW2 falling due to him with regard to the said business transaction; that PW2 did not issue any cheque or other documents to him with regard to those transactions and he (accused) did not use to purchase any quarry material from PW2. By these admissions, it is clear that PW2 himself was indebted to the accused several times and the accused failed to establish that there was any occasion for

PW2 to supply any material to the accused and in that regard the accused issued cheque to PW2 as security. Further, the accused did not mention the date on which PW2 fell in due to him and on which date he issued Ex.P1 cheque to PW2. Though the accused as DW1 stated that even after repayment of the debts to PW2, he did not return the cheque and postponed the same, admitted that he did not issue any legal notice to PW2 in that regard. Surprisingly the accused as DW1 did not state on which date he fell in due to PW2, how much amount he had fallen due to PW2, when he paid the amount and how much amount he paid to PW2. These circumstances, clearly establishes that the accused had taken a bald plea and failed to prove 9 the same. Therefore, it can safely be held that the accused failed to rebut the presumption drawn in favour of the complainant U/sec.118 and 139 of the N.I.Act.

21. In the circumstances, it is found that the complainant has successfully proved that the accused issued Ex.P1 cheque to him for legally enforceable debt. The point is answered accordingly. 

22. Point No.2:­

It is in the evidence of PW1 that he presented Ex.P1 cheque for collection firstly on 18.03.2013 and it was dishonoured on 19.03.2013 for insufficiency of funds and later he again filed the said cheque for collection on 27.05.2013 in his Bank i.e., State Bank of India, Chittoor and it was dishonoured as per return memo dt.05.06.2013 issued by the Indian Bank,

Pachikapallam Branch i.e., the banker of the accused, due to insufficiency of funds. In this regard the complainant got marked Ex.P2 to Ex.P5 counter foils and cheque return memos. The evidence of PW1 in this regard is cogent and convincing and duly supported by the contents of Ex.P2 to Ex.P5 documents. Except denying the case of the complainant, the accused did not disprove Ex.P2 to Ex.P5 documents. In this connection the arguments of the learned counsel for the appellant that non examination of the Branch

Managers of Pachikapallam as well as Chittoor by the complainant is fatal to the case of the complainant cannot be accepted as the complainant proved 10 his case and the burden is now shifted to the accused, which he failed to discharge.

23. In the circumstances, it is found that the complainant has successfully proved that Ex.P1 cheque issued by the accused was dishonoured due to insufficiency of funds in his account.

24. Point No.3:­

With regard to the issuance of legal notice, the complainant as PW1 deposed that on 04.07.2013 he issued legal notice to the accused, but it was returned unserved on 12.07.2013 with endorsement that “the addressee is out of station for 7 days”. In this connection the complainant marked the office copy of legal notice as Ex.P6 and unserved postal cover Ex.P7. The accused who examined himself as DW1 during cross­examination admitted that in the month of July 2013 he had occasion to leave the house more than a week days. Therefore, it is found that the complainant has established that he issued a mandatory notice to the accused demanding him to pay the cheque amount.

25. In this connection the learned counsel for the appellant/accused argued that according to the complainant the cheque was dishonoured on 05.06.2013 and legal notice was issued on 04.07.2013, but postal receipt and returned postal cover reveals that the legal notice was sent only on 05.07.2013 i.e., beyond the period of limitation and so the complaint is liable to be dismissed. In this connection the learned counsel for the 11 appellant placed reliance on the decision of the Hon’ble Apex Court reported in Kamlesh Kumar Vs., State of Bihar & Another (2014 AIAR (Criminal) 170).

26. On the other hand the learned counsel for the complainant argued that though the cheque was dishonoured on 05.06.2013, it was received by the banker of the complainant only on 07.06.2013 and intimation was given to the complainant on 19.06.2013 and since the complainant issued legal notice on 05.07.2013, it is within the period of limitation. 

27. To appreciate the facts with regard to the limitation in giving legal notice, I think it just and proper to extract Sec.138 and 142 of the N.I.Act, which are as follows:­ “138. Dishonour of cheque for insufficiency,etc. of funds in the

account.­Where any cheque drawn by a person on an account

maintained by him with a banker for payment of any amount of money

to another person from out of that account for the discharge, in whole

or in part, of any debt or other liability, is returned by the bank

unpaid, either because of the amount of money standing to the credit of

that account is insufficient to honour the cheque or that it exceeds the

amount arranged to be paid from that account by an agreement made

with that bank, such person shall be deemed to have committed an

offence and shall, without prejudice to any other provision of this Act,

be punished with imprisonment for a term which may be extended to

two years, or with fine which may extend to twice the amount of the

cheque, or with both: 

Provided that nothing contained in this section shall apply unless­ 

12

(a) the cheque has been presented to the bank within a period of six

months from the date on which it is drawn or within the period of its

validity, whoever is earlier; 

(b) the payee or the holder in due course of the cheque, as the case

may be , makes a demand for the payment of the said amount of

money by giving a notice in writing, to the drawer of the cheque,

[within thirty days] of the receipt of information by him from the

bank regarding the return of the cheque as unpaid; and 

(c) the drawyer of such cheque fails to make the payment of the said

amount of money to the payee or, as the case may be, to the holder in

due course of the cheque, within fifteen days of the receipt of the said

notice. 

142. Cognizance of offences.­ Notwithstanding anything contained in the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974)­ 

(a) no court shall take cognizance of any offence punishable under

section 138 except upon a complaint, in writing, made by the payee

or, as the case may be. The holder in due course of the cheque; 

(b) such complaint is made within one month of the date on which

the cause of action arises under clause (c) of the proviso to Section

138 : 

[Provided that the cognizance of a complaint may be taken by the

Court after the prescribed period, if the complainant satisfies the

Court that he had sufficient cause for not making a complaint within

such period.] 

(c) no court inferior to that of a Metropolitan Magistrate or a

Judicial Magistrate of the first class shall try any offence punishable

under section 138 .]” 

28. According to Sec.138(b) of the N.I.Act, the holder in due course of the cheque, has to give notice in writing to the drawer of the cheque within thirty days of the receipt of information by him from the bank. In this regard the complainant as PW1 deposed that though the cheque was dishonoured on 05.06.2013 his banker informed him only on 19.06.2013.

In this regard the lower court observed that though the complainant filed 13 the intimation letter of the banker of the complainant which contains the date as 19.06.2013, the complainant did not mark the said document.

However, a perusal of Ex.P5 cheque return memo issued by the Indian Bank,

Pachikapallam Bank, in which the accused has account, discloses that the cheque was dishonoured on 05.06.2013 and that it was received by the banker of the complainant on 07.06.2013. Admittedly both the banks are not at one and the same place and it would take some time to reach the cheque return memo to the banker of the complainant and to give information to the complainant by the banker. The recitals of Ex.P5 clearly discloses that the cheque return memo was received by the banker of the complainant only on 07.06.2013 and since the complainant had issued legal notice on 05.07.2013, which is very much within the period of limitation as shown in Sec.138 (b) of the N.I.Act. Even if the case of the accused is believed that cheque was dishonoured on 05.06.2013 and legal notice was issued on 05.07.2013, according to Sec.12 (1) of the Limitation Act, the limitation starts from 06.06.2013 as either the commencing date or ending date has to be excluded. In that view of the matter also the notice is within the period of limitation as provided U/sec.138(b) of the N.I.Act. 

29. I have perused the decision relied upon by the learned counsel for the appellant/accused and found that in the said case there is a gap of 7 days after 30 days in giving legal notice, therefore, the ratio laid down in the above decision is not applicable to this case.

14

30. In view of my forgoing discussion, I find that the complainant has successfully proved that he issued mandatory legal notice within a period of limitation. The point is answered accordingly.

31. Point No.4:­

In view of my findings on point No.1 to 3, I find that the complainant has successfully proved his case that the appellant/accused issued Ex.P1 cheque towards discharge of legally enforceable debt and the appellant/accused failed to rebut the presumption drawn in favour of the complainant U/sec. 139 and 142 of the N.I.Act, by adducing cogent and convincing evidence. Further, the complainant also proved that the cheque filed by him for collection was dishonoured and he issued mandatory legal notice to the accused and in spite of that the accused did not pay the cheque amount. Therefore, the complainant has proved the guilt U/sec.138 of the

N.I.Act against the accused beyond reasonable doubt.

32. Point No.5:­

The learned Magistrate after appreciating the oral and documentary evidence available on record came to a correct conclusion and rightly convicted the accused. The learned Magistrate after going through the record and taking into consideration the plea of mercy by the accused, rightly sentenced him to undergo simple imprisonment for a period of six months and to pay compensation of Rs.2,50,000/­. I do not find any reason to interfere with the findings and sentence passed by the learned trial 15

Magistrate. The appeal is devoid of merits and is liable to be dismissed. The

point is answered accordingly.

33. In the result, the appeal is dismissed by confirming the conviction and sentence passed in C.C.No.44/2016 dt.14.06.2018 on the file of Judicial

Magistrate of Ist Class for Special Mobile Court, Chittoor. Issue committal

warrant against the accused to serve the sentence.

Dictated to the Personal Assistant, transcribed by him, corrected and

pronounced by me in open court, this the 24th day of October, 2019.

Sd/­ M.Venkata Harinath

I ADDL. DISTRICT & SESSIONS JUDGE, CHITTOOR.

FAC VIII ADDL. DISTRICT & SESSIONS JUDGE, CHITTOOR.

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

No additional evidence adduced on either side. 

Sd/­ M.Venkata Harinath

I ADDL. DISTRICT & SESSIONS JUDGE, CHITTOOR.

FAC VIII ADDL. DISTRICT & SESSIONS JUDGE, CHITTOOR.

16

Fair Judgment in CA.146/2018, dt.24.10.2019.

1

IN THE COURT OF THE IX ADDL. DISTRICT JUDGE,

CHITTOOR

Present: Sri M. VENKATA HARINATH, VIII Addl. District Judge.

FAC-IX ADDL. DISTRICT JUDGE.

Wednesday, the 11th (Eleventh) day of September, 2019

C.M.A. No. 5 of 2019

Between:

1. P. Murugan

2. M. Priya

3. Smt. Neelamma

4. Smt. Nageswari

5. Ramakrishna

6. S. Muthu..Appellants

And:

1. Bheemarajulu

2. P. Subramanyam

3. P.Subramanyam

4. Smt. Sasi

5. P. Kubendra

6. Smt. Latha..Respondents

On appeal against the order and decretal order dated 19.07.2018 of Prl. Junior Civil Judge, Chittoor made in:

I.A. No. 432 of 2017

O.S. No. 387 of 2017

Between:

1. Bheemarajulu

2. P. Subramanyam..Petitioners/

Plaintiffs And:

1. P. Murugan

2. M. Priya

3. Smt. Neelamma

4. Smt. Nageswari

5. Ramakrishna

6. S. Muthu

7. P. Subramanyam

8. Smt. Sasi

9. P. Kubendra

10.Smt. Latha..Respondents

Defendants

This Civil Miscellaneous Appeal coming on for hearing before me on 21.08.2019 and upon perusing material papers on record, order and decretal order of lower court and the grounds of appeal, and upon hearing the arguments of Sri S. Sankara Naidu, Advocate for appellants and of Smt. A. Indira, Advocate for respondents 1 and 2 and the respondents 3 to 6 having remained exparte, and the matter having stood over for consideration till this day, this Court delivered the following:

2

J U D G M E N T

The appellants are the unsuccessful respondents in I.A. No. 432 of 2017 in O.S. No. 387.17 on the file of Prl. Junior Civil Judge, Chittoor. They filed this appeal being aggrieved by the order dated 19.07.2018 passed by the learned Prl. Junior Civil Judge, Chittoor in I.A. No.432/2017 in O.S. No.

387/2017 praying to set aside the same.

2. The parties to the appeal will be referred to as per their array in the main Interlocutory Application.

3. The facts leading to the filing of the main I.A. are as follows:

a) The petitioners/plaintiffs filed I.A. No. 432/2017 against the respondents under Order 39, Rules 1 and 2 CPC to restrain them from interfering with the petitioners peaceful possession and enjoyment of the suit schedule property, i.e., land in S.No.378/2 in an extent of Ac.4.71 cents situated in Kalikiri revenue village in Chinna Kalikiri Panchayat.

b) The petitioners filed affidavit in support of the petition averring as follows:

c) The petitioners have purchased an extent of Ac. 2.02 cents in

S.No.378/2 from the 1st respondent through a registered sale deed dated 28.07.2009. The petitioners have also purchased another extent of Ac.2.02 cents of the suit schedule property from one Munaswamy and others through a registered sale deed dated 23.09.2009. The petitioners have purchased an extent of Ac.0.42 cents of the suit schedule property from one

P. Arjun Reddy through a registered sale deed dated 30.11.2009. The petitioners have been in possession and enjoyment of the above said property as absolute owners. In the year 1987 the 2nd petitioner and his brothers had a partition in which the 2nd petitioner got Ac.0.20 cents in

S.No.378/2. In all, the petitioners have been in possession and enjoyment of

Ac.4.71 cents in S.No.378/2 i.e., the suit schedule property. The petitioners have also got surveyed the suit schedule property through revenue officials 3 by paying Challan to the Government. The petitioners have also dug a bore well in the suit schedule property and obtained electric service connection, fixed motor to the bore well. The petitioners have been cultivating the suit schedule land by raising sugar cane crop. They have also planted 60 mango saplings, 30 Nilgiri plants in the suit schedule property.

d) In the last week of July,2017 the respondents tried to occupy the southern portion of the suit schedule property where mango and Nilgiri plants are situated with an intention to pluck the mangos and to occupy the suit schedule property, but with the help and support of neighbors, the petitioners averted the same. While so, on 29.07.2017 at 10 am the respondents again tried to disturb the possession and enjoyment of the suit schedule property by the petitioners and thereupon the petitioners and villagers have resisted the same. While going away the respondents proclaimed that they will renew their attempts in future.

e) The petitioners have prima-facie case and balance of convenience in their favour and if temporary injunction is not granted they will suffer irreparable loss and injury. Hence the petition.

5. The 4th respondent filed a counter which is duly adopted by the respondents 1 to 3, 5 and 6, denying the petition averments and contending as follows:

a) Entire suit schedule property of Ac.4.71 cents was jointly purchased by (1) P. Arjun, (2) P. Govindaswamy and (3) P. Munaswamy about 70 years ago. They divided their shares equally and have been enjoying the same uninterruptedly. Govindaswamy has got 1/3rd share. He had a son and four daughters namely defendants 1 to 4 and Alimelu. The 1st defendant became vagabond, having addicted to vices like drinking, etc..

On seeing the attitude of the 1st respondent, his father Govindaswamy allotted his share of property in the suit schedule property, i.e. Ac.1.57 cents to the 4th respondent Nageswari. Therefore, the 4th respondent has been in possession and enjoyment of Ac.1.57 cents of land in S.No.387/2. Her father dug an open well about 50 feet depth and obtained service connection, 4 planted mango saplings and Nilgiri plants in it. Therefore, the 6th respondent is a co-owner to the petitioners in the suit schedule property.

b) The 1st respondent purchased Ac.1.45 cents from one Arjun through a registered sale deed and he sold the same to the 1st petitioner, but the 1st petitioner wrongly obtained the sale deed for Ac.2.02 cents by playing fraud and to knock away the petition schedule property. The case of the petitioners that the petitioners purchased Ac.2.02 cents from

Munaswamy is not true and correct as the said Munaswamy has right to sell only Ac.1.57 cents. The vendors of the petitioners did not have any title to sell Ac.2.02 cents through the alleged registered sale deed dated 28.07.2009 and 23.09.2009.

c) The further allegation that the 1st petitioner purchased Ac.0.42 cents from Arjun Reddy is not true and correct as the said Arjun Reddy has no such right to execute the said sale deed. The case of the petitioners that the 2nd petitioner got a share of 0.20 cents in the suit schedule property through oral partition among his brothers is not true and correct.

d) The father of the respondent Govindaswamy died on 29.07.2007.

The said Govindaswamy and the 4th respondent planted about 500 mango saplings and 1000 Nilgiri plants in the suit schedule property. Therefore, this respondent has been in possession and enjoyment of Ac.1.57 cents on the southern side in the suit schedule property. Therefore, the petitioners have no manner of right and title over Ac.1.57 cents in the suit schedule property, which is in the northern side of the petition schedule property.

Therefore, the petitioners are not entitled for any temporary injunction as prayed for.

6. During the course of enquiry Exs.A1 and 14 were marked on behalf of the petitioners. Exs.B1 and B2 were marked on behalf of the respondents.

7. After appreciating the contents of the affidavit filed in support of the petition and the counter filed by the respondents, and the documentary evidence filed by both the parties, the learned Prl. Junior Civil Judge,

Chittoor, allowed the petition by order dated 19.07.2018.

5

8. Aggrieved by the decree and order passed in I.A. No.432/2017 in

O.S. No. 387 of 2017, the appellants who are respondents in the said I.A.

preferred this appeal contending as follows:

a) The lower court failed to observe that the father of the 4th appellant was enjoying 1/3rd share in the suit schedule property.

b) The lower court failed to consider the documentary evidence adduced by the respondents which clearly establishes that the land of the 1st respondent is in existence on the southern side of the suit schedule property.

c) In the circumstances the order and decretal order passed by the lower court dated 19.07.2018 is liable to be set aside.

9. Heard the learned counsel for either side.

10. The points that arise for consideration are:

1) Whether the petitioners have proved that they have prima- facie case, balance of convenience in their favour and if temporary injunction is not granted whether they will surfer irreparable loss and hardship?

2) Whether the order and decretal order dated 19.07.2018 passed in I.A. No.432 of 2017 in O.S.No. 387/2017 suffers from any irregularity or illegality and requires interference by this court and is liable to be set aside?

11. POINTS 1&2: The grant of temporary injunction is a discretionary relief. The object of granting temporary injunction is to preserve the matters in status quo until the case is finally decided. In catenna of decisions it was held that three essentials are necessary for grant of temporary injunction and they are: (1) prima-facie case, (2) balance of convenience in favour of the petitioner and (3) if the temporary injunction is refused, they will suffer an irreparable injury. So, keeping the above three essentials in view, it has to be seen whether the petitioner is entitled for the relief as prayed for.

12. According to the case of the petitioners, they purchased an extent of Ac.2.02 cents out of the suit schedule property consisting of Ac.4.71 cents from the 1st respondent through a registered sale deed dated 28.7.2009, certified copy of it is marked as Ex.A1. It is the case of the respondents 6 that when the 1st respondent has got only Ac.1.57 cents, how the petitioners obtained the registered sale deed for Ac.2.02 cents. Even according to the documents filed by the respondents and marked as Exs.B1 and B2 the 1st respondent purchased Ac.1.45 cents through Ex.B1 registered sale deed

dated 05.08.2000 and Ac. 0.57 cents through Ex.B2 sale deed dated

05.08.2000, totaling to Ac. 2.02 cents from the original owner and by virtue of Exs.B1 and B2 he sold Ac.2.02 cents to the 1st petitioner on 28.07.2009.

Except contending that the 1st respondent has no title over Ac.2.02 cents, through Exs.B1 and B2 filed by them, the respondents did not adduce any other evidence to prove the same.

13. It is the further case of the petitioners that the 1st respondent purchased an extent of Ac. 2.02 cents in the suit schedule property through one P. Munaswamy and others under Ex.A2 registered sale deed dated 23.09.2009. It is the case of the respondents that the said Munaswamy did not possess and enjoy Ac.2.02 cents and he has no right to sell the said extent of land to the 1st petitioner. Except contending as such, the respondents did not adduce any evidence to prove the same.

14. It is the further case of the petitioners that the 1st petitioner purchased an extent of Ac. 0.42 cents in the suit schedule property from its original owner namely P. Arjun Reddy through a registered sale deed dated 03.11.2009. The petitioners got marked the certified copy of the sale deed as Ex.A3. Except contending that the said Arjun Reddy did not possess and enjoy Ac.0.42 cents, the respondents did not adduce any contra evidence.

15. It is the further case of the petitioners that apart from the above said registered sale deeds, in the oral partition that took place between the petitioners in the year 1987, the 2nd petitioner got an extent of Ac. 0.20 cents in the suit schedule property. The petitioners have got marked the

Encumbrance Certificate pertaining to the suit schedule property as Ex.A10, and it supports the case of the petitioners in respect of Exs.A1 toA3 sale deeds pertaining to the suit schedule property. It is also the case of the petitioners that recognizing their right of possession over the suit schedule property, the Government issued Exs.A8 and A9 1-B Namoona and Ex.A7 7

Adangal/pahani in respect of the suit schedule property and the case of the petitioners in this regard is supported by the contents of Exs.A7 to A9 documents.

16. It is the further case of the petitioners that they dug bore well in the suit schedule property and obtained electricity service connection and fixed a motor to the bore well and got planted mango and Nilgiri plants. To prove about obtaining of electricity service connection and its use, the case of the petitioners is supported by Ex.A4 and Ex.A6 electricity bills and receipts. The further case of the petitioners that they got surveyed the property is supported by Ex.A5 notice issued by the RDO, Chittoor informing that the suit schedule property will be surveyed on 17.08.2011. The further case of the petitioners that recognizing their right and possession over the suit schedule property, the revenue officials issued pattadar pass book and title deeds in their favour is supported by the contents of Ex.A11 and Ex.A14 pattadar pass books. The petitioners have also filed photos with CD showing the suit schedule property and trees therein. By filing Exs.A1 to A14 documents the petitioners have successfully established their prima-facie case and possession and enjoyment over the suit schedule property.

17. The case of the respondents that originally the suit schedule property was purchased about 70 years ago jointly by P. Arjun and

Govindaswamy, i.e., father of the respondents 1 to 4 and one P. Munaswamy and in the oral partition each got Ac.1.57 cents and in Ex.B1 and B2 there is specific recital that the 1st respondent was the southern boundary owner; the lower court failed to observe the same and allowed the petition. Simply because one of the boundaries was shown as the land of 1st respondent, in some document pertaining to the year 2001 it cannot be held that the respondents have been in possession and enjoyment of the suit schedule property as on the date of filing of the suit.

18. The respondents have filed a petition I.A. No. 7/2019 praying this court to receive the certified copy of sale deed dated 05.05.1947. Even if the said petition is allowed, the petitioners at the most could establish that the suit schedule property consisting of Ac.4.71 cents in S.No.378/2 was 8 purchased by Govindappa, Munaswamy and Govindaswamy. The said document by itself will not prove the possession and enjoyment of the suit property by the respondents as on the date of filing the suit. Except contending that Ac.1.57 cents out of the suit schedule property consisting of

Ac.4.71 cents in S.No.378/2 was possessed by the father of the respondents 1 to 4, their father Govindaswamy allotted his share of property in the suit schedule property, i.e. Ac.1.57 cents to the 4th respondent Nageswari as the 1st respondent was a vagabond and after the death of Govindaswamy in the year 2007, the 4th respondent has been in possession and enjoyment of

Ac.1.57 cents in the suit schedule property. Except a mere allegation in the counter, the respondent did not file any documentary evidence to establish that the respondents having been in possession and enjoyment of Ac.1.57 cents in the suit schedule property at any point of time before filing of the suit. Therefore, a bald allegation made by the respondents without any documentary proof about their possession and enjoyment over the suit schedule property cannot be believed and accepted.

19. In view of my foregoing discussion I find that the petitioners have successfully established their prima-facie case and possession over the suit schedule property by adducing Exs.A1 to A14 documents. The petitioners have also proved their possession and enjoyment over the suit schedule property and the respondents have interfered with the possession of the plaintiffs before filing of the suit. Since the petitioners have proved their prima-facie case over the suit schedule property, and balance of convenience is in their favour and if temporary injunction is not granted, they will suffer irreparable loss and injury. I have perused the orders passed by the learned Prl. Junior Civil Judge, Chittoor and found that the learned

Judge after appreciating the pleadings and the documentary evidence

adduced by both the parties came to correct conclusion which does not require any interference by this court. Points 1 and 2 are answered accordingly.

9

20. In the result, the C.M.A. is dismissed by confirming the order and decretal order dated 19.07.2018 of the Prl. Junior Civil Judge, Chittoor made in I.A.No. 432 of 2017 in O.S. No. 387 of 2017.

Dictated to the Personal Assistant, transcribed by him, corrected by

me and pronounced in Open Court, this the 11 th day of September, 2019.

VIII ADDITIONAL DISTRICT JUDGE,

FAC-IX ADDL. DISTRICT JUDGE,

CHITTOOR

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

-NIL-

VIII ADJ,CTR

FAC-IX ADJ,CTR.

1

OP No.289­16

IN THE COURT OF THE MOTOR ACCIDENT CLAIMS TRIBUNAL­CUM­

VIII ADDITIONAL DISTRICT JUDGE, CHITTOOR.

Present: Sri M.Venkata Harinath, Chairman­cum­I Additional District Judge, Chittoor FAC Chairman­cum­VIII Additional District Judge, Chittoor

Friday, the 1st (First) day of November, 2019

MVOP No. 289 of 2016

S.Saraswathi ….Petitioner

Vs.

1. M.Meghanatha Reddy (driver)

2. Y.Uthama Reddy (Owner)

3. M.Ravi Kumar (owner of two wheeler)

3. National Insurance Company Ltd., Rep., by its Branch Manager, Chittoor. ….Respondents This petition is coming for final hearing before me on 17.10.2019 in the presence of Sri V.Jayakumar, Advocate for the petitioner and of Sri Mogili Subramanyam Reddy, Advocate for the 4th respondent and the respondents 1 to 3 remained exparte and upon hearing their arguments and perusing the other material on record and the matter is having stood over for consideration, this Court passed the following:­

O R D E R

This is a petition filed under Sec.166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (for short “M.V.Act”) claiming a compensation of Rs.10,00,000/­ with future interest at 18% p.a., for the death of the deceased S.Karthik (hereinafter referred to as the deceased) in a motor vehicle accident. 

2. The averments of the petition, in brief, are as follows:

a) The petitioner is the mother of the deceased Karthik. On 01.03.2016 at about 8.15 PM while the deceased Karthik was going on a motorcycle bearing No.AP 03 BL 1558 near Pilligundla Palle cross on Devalampet main road, the tractor bearing No.ap 27 T 6512, (hereinafter referred to as the crime vehicle) being driven by the 1st respondent in a rash and negligent 2

OP No.289­16

manner, dashed on the back side of the motorcycle, as a result the deceased

Karthik fell down, sustained bleeding injuries on his head and died on the spot. In this connection a case in Cr.No.18/2016 U/sec. 304 (A) of IPC of

P.S., G.D.Nellore was registered.

b) The deceased Karthik was working as electrician and getting monthly income of Rs.20,000/­. Apart from that, he used to attend agricultural works and getting Rs.1 lakh per annum. He was contributing his entire earnings for the welfare of the petitioner. The petitioner did ITI in electric field and has bright future. Due to sudden death of the deceased, the petitioner lost her bread winner and life supporter. Therefore, the petitioner is entitled to a compensation of Rs.10,00,000/­.

c) The 1st respondent being the driver, 2nd respondent being owner of the crime vehicle, the 3rd respondent is the owner of the motorcycle, which was insured with the 4th respondent insurance company are jointly and severally liable to pay the compensation.

3. The respondents 1 to 3 remained exparte.

4. The 4th respondent filed a written statement, denying the petition averments and contending as follows:­

According to the case of the petitioner, the accident occurred due to rash and negligent driving of the tractor by its driver. Therefore, this respondent, who is the insurance company of the motorcycle in which the deceased was travelling, is not liable to pay any compensation. Therefore, the OP against this respondent is liable to be dismissed. 

3

OP No.289­16

5. On the basis of the above pleadings, the following issues are settled for trial.

1)  Whether the accident was occurred due to rash and negligent driving of the driver of crime vehicle bearing No.AP 27 T 6512 or the

deceased to his motorcycle bearing No.AP 03 BL 1558?

2) Whether the petitioner is entitled for grant of compensation, If so, to what amount, and from whom?

3) To what relief?

6. During the course of trial, the petitioner examined herself as PW1 and she got marked Ex.A1 to Ex.A6 in support of her case. She got examined an eye witness to the occurrence as PW2. No witnesses were examined and no documents were marked on behalf of the contesting 4th respondent.

7. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner as well as the 4th respondent.

8. ISSUE No.1:­

To prove the accident, the petitioner, who examined herself as PW1, on oath deposed that the deceased is her son and he died on 01.03.2016 at about 8.15 PM due to hit by a tractor near Palligundla palle cross on

Devalampeta main road. She got marked Ex.A1 to Ex.A6 documents to prove the death of the deceased and manner of accident. Ex.A1 certified copy of

FIR and Ex.A4 certified copy of charge sheet establishes the manner of accident. Ex.A2 certified copy of inquest report and Ex.A6 certified copy of postmortem certificate establishes that the death of the deceased was due to the injuries sustained by him in the motor vehicle accident. Ex.A3 and Ex.A5 certified copies of Motor Vehicle Report and Accident Information report, 4

OP No.289­16

establishes that the accident was not due to any mechanical defect in the crime vehicle i.e., Tractor. Therefore, by the oral evidence of PW1 and Ex.A1 to Ex.A6 documents, the petitioner has proved that the deceased met with road accident and succumbed to the injuries on the spot.

9. With regard to the manner of the accident, the petitioner placed reliance on the oral testimony of PW2, an eye witness to the occurrence.

PW2 deposed that on the date of accident he was travelling along with the deceased as pillion rider and when they were going near Davelampeta main road, the tractor being driven by the 1st respondent in a rash and negligent manner, hit their motorcycle on the back side, as a result, the deceased fell down and sustained severe bleeding injuries on his head and died on the spot. This evidence of PW2 gains support from the recitals of Ex.A4 charge sheet in which the investigating officer after due investigation found that the accident was only due to rash and negligent driving of the tractor by its driver. The evidence of PW2 in this regard remained unchallenged .

Therefore, by the above evidence, the petitioner has proved that the death of the deceased was due to rash and negligent driving of the crime vehicle i.e., tractor by its driver. This issue is answered accordingly.

10. ISSUE No.2:­

The petitioner is the widowed mother of the deceased Karthik. She claimed compensation of Rs.10,00,000/­. With regard to the age of the deceased Karthik, the petitioner as PW1 got mentioned his age as 25 years in the petition. In the documents filed and marked by her as Ex.A1, Ex.A2 and 5

OP No.289­16

Ex.A6, the age of the deceased was mentioned as 23 years. This case of the petitioner is not challenged specifically by the respondents. Therefore, the age of the deceased Karthik can be taken as 25 years to compute the loss of earnings in this case.

11. With regard to the earnings of the deceased, the petitioner as PW1 deposed that he was working as electrician and getting a monthly income of

Rs.20,000/­. She also deposed that apart from that the deceased was also attending the agricultural work and earning Rs.1 lakh per annum. However, in support of her version, she did not adduce any evidence in this regard. In the First Information Report, the avocation of the deceased was not mentioned. However, in Ex.A2 inquest report it was specifically mentioned that the deceased was a student and unmarried. Though it is the case of the petitioner as PW1 that the deceased did ITI in electrical field and had bright future, did not file any documentary evidence to prove the same. Therefore, except alleging that the deceased is an electrician and earning Rs.20,000/­ per month and also used to attend agricultural work and earning Rs.1 lakh per annum, the petitioner failed to prove the same by adducing cogent and convincing evidence. Since in Ex.A2 inquest report it was specifically mentioned that the deceased was a student, the case of the petitioner that the deceased was earning member cannot be believed and accepted.

12. However, the fact remains that the petitioner is the mother of the deceased Karthik and she is depending on him. By taking into consideration, the age of the petitioner, that he would have supported the petitioner who is a widowed mother, during her old age had he been alive, by securing some 6

OP No.289­16

job or by working as daily wager, this court feels it just and proper to assess the monthly income of the deceased at Rs.5,000/­ notionally.

13. In the decision reported in National Insurance Company Limited

Vs., Pranay Sethi and others (2017 ACJ 2700)the Hon’ble Apex Court held that an addition of 40% of the established income of the deceased towards future prospects where the deceased was below 40 years would be reasonable. At that rate the total income of the deceased per month has to be taken as Rs.5,000/­ + Rs.2,000/­ = Rs.7,000/­ (Rs.5,000/­x 40% =Rs.2,000/­). Admittedly the deceased was a bachelor as on the date of accident. In the above judgment the Hon’ble Apex Court held that if the deceased is a bachelor half of his earnings have to be deducted towards his personal expenses. If we deduct half of Rs.7,000/­ the net monthly income of the deceased comes to Rs.3,500/­ (Rs.7,000/­ ­ Rs.3,500/­).

14. In Sarla Verma and others Vs., Delhi Transport Corporation (2009

ACJ 1298), the Hon’ble Apex Court prescribed the multiplier for the age group of 21 to 25 years at 18. If we apply the multiplier, the total loss of earnings in this case comes to Rs.3,500/­ X 12 X 18= Rs.7,56,000/­.

15. In addition, the petitioner is also entitled to a sum of Rs.30,000/­ towards loss of estate and funeral expenses at Rs.15,000/­ and Rs.15,000/­ respectively as per the decision of the Hon’ble Apex Court reported in Pranay

Sethi’s case (cited supra). Thus, the total compensation that can be 7

OP No.289­16

awarded to the petitioner for the death of the deceased is Rs.7,86,000/­ (Rs.7,56,000 +Rs.30,000/­).

16. In this connection the learned counsel for the 4th respondent argued that since the accident occurred due to rash and negligent driving of the driver of the crime vehicle i.e., tractor, the 4th respondent, who is the insurance company of the motorcycle, in which the deceased was travelling at the time of accident, is not liable to pay any compensation. While answering issue No.1, this court held that the accident was only due to rash and negligent driving of the driver of crime vehicle i.e., tractor. Therefore, the owner of the motorcycle who arrayed as 3rd respondent and its insurance company i.e., 4th respondent are not liable to pay any compensation to the petitioner.

17. It is not in dispute that the 1st respondent is the driver and the 2nd respondent is the owner of the crime vehicle i.e., tractor bearing No.AP 27 T 6512. Admittedly the crime vehicle was not insured as on the date of accident. Therefore, the respondents 1 and 2 are liable to pay the compensation to the petitioner with joint and several liability. This issue is accordingly answered.

18. ISSUE No.3:­

In the result, the petition is partly allowed by awarding a compensation of Rs.7,86,000/­ (Rupees seven lakhs eighty six thousand only) with proportionate costs and with future interest at 7.5% per annum on the said sum from the date of the petition till the date of deposit against the 8

OP No.289­16

respondents 1 and 2 with joint and several liability. The respondents 1 and 2 shall deposit the amount of compensation within two months from today, failing which the petitioner is entitled to interest at 9% p.a., on the awarded amount. The rest of the claim is dismissed without costs.

As and when the amount is deposited, the petitioner is permitted to withdraw half of her share amount forthwith and the remaining half after two years, during which period the amount shall be kept in fixed deposit in any nationalized bank.

The petition against the respondents 3 and 4 is dismissed, without costs. 

The petitioner shall pay the Court fee, which was exempted by the

District Legal Services Authority, Chittoor within a month from today. The decree shall be executed only on payment of Court Fee.

The advocate fee is fixed at Rs.5,000/­.

Dictated to the Personal Assistant, transcribed by him, corrected and

pronounced by me in the open court, this the 1st day of November, 2019. 

Sd/­M.Venkata Harinath Chairman, MACT­cum­I Additional District Judge, Chittoor. 

FAC Chairman, MACT­cum­VIII Additional District Judge,

 Chittoor.

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

WITNESSES EXAMINED

For the Petitioner:For the Respondents:

PW1: S.Saraswathi­ Nil ­ PW2: C.Giri

EXHIBITS MARKED

For the Petitioner:

Ex.A1: Certified copy of First Information Report Ex.A2: Certified copy of inquest report 9

OP No.289­16

Ex.A3: Certified copy of MVI report Ex.A4: Certified copy of charge sheet Ex.A5: Certified copy of Accident information report Ex.A6: Certified copy of postmortem certificate.

For the Respondents: ­ Nil ­

 Sd/­M.Venkata Harinath Chairman, MACT­cum­I Additional District Judge, Chittoor.

FAC Chairman, MACT­cum­VIII Additional District Judge,

Chittoor.

10

OP No.289­16

Fair Order in MVOP No.289/2016, dt.01.11.2019 of VIII ADJ, CTR.