M. Venkata Ramana

IN THE COURT OF THE SPL.SESSIONS JUDGE FOR THE TRIAL OF

CASES UNDER S.Cs. and S.Ts. (P.O.A.) ACT-CUM-VII ADDL., DISTRICT

AND SESSIONS JUDGE AT KHAMMAM.

Dated this 16th day of November, 2018.

Present: Sri M.Venkata Ramana Spl.Sessions Judge for trial of cases under S.Cs., and S.Ts., (P.O.A.) Act-cum-VII Addl., District and Sessions Judge, Khammam

SESSIONS CASE No. 27 OF 2017

==========================================================

1.Name of the Complainant:Sub-Divisional Police Officer, Mahaboobabad

2.Name of the accused:A.1 Rudra Venkaiah, s/o.Mallaiah, 40 years, Agrl., Pulluru village, Garla Mandal A.2RudraAmruthamma, w/o.Venkaiah, 35 years, Agrl., r/o.Pulluru village, Garla Mandal A.3 Kambala Venkateswarlu, s/o.Govindaiah, 45 years, Agrl., R/o.VanamvariKistapuram, Mudigonda Mandal A.4 Siddam Ushamma, w/o.Srinu, 44 years, Agrl., R/o.Pulluru village, Garla Mandal.

3.Crime Number :6 of 2016

4.P.R.C.Number:--

5.Name of the Officer who:--- committed this case.

6.Section of law:452, 323, 324 and 354 IPC and Sec.3(1)

(s) of S.Cs. and S.Ts. (P.O.A.) Act, 1989

7.Prosecution conducted by:Sri R.Upender Rao,

Additional Public Prosecutor.

8.Defence conducted by:Sri T.Ramesh Babu and G.Venkateswarlu

9.Plea of the accused:Not guilty.

10.Finding of the Court:Found not guilty.

11.Sentence or order :In the result, A.1 to A.4 are found not guilty for the offences punishable under Section 452, 323, 324 and 354 IPC and Sec.3(1)(s) of S.Cs. and S.Ts. (P.O.A.) Act, 1989 and accordingly they are acquitted under Section 235 (1) Cr.P.C. for the said offences. The bail bonds of accused shall stand cancelled.

2 ============================================================

This case coming before me for final hearing on 13-11-2018 in the presence of Additional Public Prosecutor for the State and of Sri T.Ramesh bau, Advocate for A.1 and A.2 and of Sri G.Venkateswarlu, Advocate for A.3 and A.4; upon perusing the material papers on record; upon hearing the arguments of both sides and having stood over for consideration till this day, the Court delivered the following:

J U D G M E N T

1. Charges stand against A.1 to A.4 are for the offences punishable under Section 452, 323, 324 and 354 IPC and Sec.3(1)(s) of

S.Cs. and S.Ts. (P.O.A.) Act, 1989. The Station House Officer, Garla Police

Station filed charge sheet against A.1 to A.4 in Cr.No.6/2016 for the offences punishable u/sec. 452, 294(b), 324, 354 and 506 r/w.34 IPC and

Sec.3(1) (r) (s) and 3 (2) (va) of S.Cs. and S.Ts. (P.O.A.) Act,

2. The case of prosecution is as follows:

That all the accused and Pw.5 are residents of Pulluru village of

Garla Mandal. The accused suspected the ilicit intimacy between PW.5 and father of A.2. As such, they nursed grudge against her. Keeping said grudge in mind on 22-1-2016 all the accused trespassed into the house of

PW.5 abused her touching her caste as “Lambadi Lanjamunda nee kulam endi maa kulam endi” and A.2 and A.4 caught hold tuft of hair and brought her to outside . A.1 and A.3 beat her with sticks on her head and right elbow.

As such, she fell unconscious and incident was witnessed by PWs.1 to 4. 1 ½ hours after she regained conscious and went to the government hospital and on the next day she went to Garla Police Station and gave report to

PW.9 who registered a case and handed over the C.D., file of this case to

PW.10 who conducted part of investigation. Subsequently due to bifurcation 3 of Districts in Telangana State, the Garla Police Station is tagged to Sub-

Divisional Police Officer, Mahaboobabad. As such, the C.D., file was handed over to PW.11 who to took up further investigation. During the course of investigation, PWs.10 and 11 examined the witnesses, examined the scene of offence, arrested the accused and produced them before the court for seeking for judicial remand and obtained caste certificates of all accused and

P.W.5. After completion of investigation, PW.11 filed charge sheet.

3. Basing on the material available on record, cognizance was taken for the offences punishable u/sec.452, 294(b), 324, 354, 506 r/w.34

IPC and Sec.3(1) (r) (s) and 3 (2) (v) of S.Cs., and S.Ts., (P.O.A.) Act, and charge sheet is registered as S.C.No.27/2017.

4. On appearance of the accused 1 to 4 before this court, charges under Sections 452, 323, 324 and 354 IPC and Sec.3(1)(s) of S.Cs. and

S.Ts. (P.O.A.) Act, 1989 were framed and the same were read over and explained to them in Telugu. They pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried.

5. To prove the guilt of the accused, prosecution examined P.Ws.1 to 11 and Exs.P1 to 12 are marked.

6. P.Ws.1 to 4 are said to have eye witnesses to the incident. PW.5 is victim of the offence. P?W.6 is doctor who treated PW.5 for her injuries.

PW.7 is mediator for scene observation, PW.8 is Tahsildar, who issued report showing the castes of all the accused and PW.5. PW.9 is Asst.Sub-Inspector of Police, who registered a case, PW.10 and 11 are Investigating Officers.

7.Ex.P.1 is 161 Cr.P.C., statement of PW.1, Ex.P.2 is 161 Cr.P.C., statement of PW.2, Ex.P.3 is 161 Cr.P.C., statement of PW.3, Ex.P.4 is 161

Cr.P.C., statement of PW.4, Ex.P.5 is report, Ex.P.6 is requisition-cum-wound 4 certificate, Ex.P.7 is Signature of PW.7 in crime details form., Ex.P.8 is Report of caste certificates of PWs.1 and A.1 to A.4, dt.4-2-2016, Ex.P.9 is F.I.R.,

Ex.P.10 is photostat copy of proceedings of the S.P. Khammam, Ex.P.11 is

Crime details form and Ex.P.12 is Appointment letter, dt.1-12-2016

8. P.Ws.1 to 4 and PW.7 not deposed anything against the accused and they have not supported the case of prosecution on any aspect. PWs.5,6 and 8 to 11 deposed in support of entire case of the prosecution. PW.5 deposed that on the date of incident at about 10-00 a.m., A.1 to A.4 trespassed into her house, abused her in filthy language by touching her caste. She further deposed that A.2 and A.4 caught hold her tuft and brought her to outside the house and A.1 and A.3 beat her with sticks on her head and right elbow. She further stated about the loss of conscious by her, injuries sustained by her, her going to the hospital on the same, her going to the police station on the next day and giving of report. She further stated that

A.1 to A.4 suspected illicit intimacy between herself and father of A.2 and A.4.

Because of that reason they committed offence against her. Pw.6 deposed that on 23-1-2016 at about 2-00 p.m., PW.1 was brought by constable to the hospital and he examined her and found two injuries mentioned in the wound certificate.

9. PW.8 deposed about the requsition given by Sub-Divisional

Officer requesting him to issue caste certificates of PW.5 and A.1 to A.4. He further stated that he issued report to the Sub-Divisional Officer, Yellandu showing the caste of PW.5 being Lambada and A.1 to A.4 being Telaga.

5

10. PW.9 deposed about the report given by PW.5, basing on which he registered a case and issued F.I.R. He further stated that he handed over C.D., file to PW.10 who took up further investigation.

11.PW.10 deposed about handing over of C.D., file by PW.9 to him and investigation conducted by him which includes examination of witnesses, examination of scene of offence, arrest of A.1 and A.2, production of A.1 and

A.2 before the court seeking for judicial remand, seeking report of PW.8 vis- a-vis castes of PW.5 and A.1 to A.4 and submission of report by PW.8, bifurcation of Districts, tagging of this police station to Mahaboobabad Dist., and handingover of C.D., file to PW.11 by him.

12.PW.11 deposed about the handing over of C.D., file by PW.10 to him and investigation conducted by him which includes arrest of A.2 and A.4 and production of accused before this court. He further stated about filing of charge sheet by him.

13.After completion of recording of evidence of P.Ws.1 to 11, accused were examined under Section 313 Cr.P.C. and they were put to all incriminating material appearing against them. They denied the same.

14. Now the point for consideration is:

Whether the prosecution proved all the charges against the accused ? POINT:

15. Heard the learned Spl. Public Prosecutor and the counsel for defence. The Spl.Public prosecutor contended that the evidence of PWs.5,6 and 8 to 9 categorically and successfully establishes the guilty of the accused beyond all reasonable doubt. He further contended that though PWs.1 to 4 eye witnesses not supported the case of the prosecution, the prosecution 6 proved the guilty of all the accused and all the accused are liable for punishment.

16.On the other hand, the counsel for the defence vehemently opposed the contention of learned Spl.Public Prosecutor. He mainly contended that there are several grave and glaring discrepancies and infirmities in the case of prosecution and in the evidence of PW.5 and PWs.8 to 11 and prosecution failed to prove the guilt of the accused. He further contended that as PWs.1 to 4 the alleged eye witnesses not supported the case of the prosecution, the sole testimony of pW.5 cannot be based to say that the prosecution proved the guilt of the accused. He nextly contended that there is inordinate delay of 28 hours in giving report by PW.1 and it is fatal to the case of the prosecution. He further contended that the evidence of PW.5 is contradicted by the doctor on material aspect and prosecution failed to prove the guilt of the accused beyond all reasonable dount and accused are entitled for benefit of doubt.

17.Perused the entire material on record consisting of oral evidence and documentary evidence adduced by prosecution. The arguments of learned Spl.Public Prosecutor and counsel for the defence are taken into consideration. After careful and cautious examination and scrutiny of the entire material on record and after considering the arguments of both the sides, I am of the view there is sufficient force in the contention of the counsel for the defence. As rightly contended by the counsel for the defence there are several grave and glaring discrepancies and infirmities in the case 7 of prosecution and in the evidence of PW.5. Admittedly PWs.1 to 4 the alleged eye witnesses not supported the case of the prosecution. As such, the evidence of PW.5 has to be carefully scrutinized. Admittedly there is delay of 28 hours in giving report by PW.1 to the police. As per the case of the prosecution the alleged offence took place at 10-00 a.m., on 22-1-2016 and PW.1 gave report to the police on 23-1-2016 at 2-00 p.m. PW.1 has not given any explanation in chief examination regarding delay in giving report. It may be true she mentioned the some explanation in Ex.P.1. Ex.P.1 is not substantial piece of evidence, it can be used only for corroboration purpose.

Since PW.1 in her evidence failed to give explanation for delay of 28 hours in giving report, I am of the view, such delay can be termed as un-explained and inordinate delay. The un-explained and inordinate delay is fatal to the case of the prosecution. Such inordinate delay gives scope for concoction and fabrication of the facts. PW.1 failed to give explanation for not giving report during the morning time of 23-1-2016. After considering all the facts and circumstances, I hold that such inordinate delay is certainly fatal to the case of the prosecution.

18. Further there is grave contradiction between the evidence of

PW.5 on one hand, PW.6 doctor on the other regarding age of the injuries.

As per the evidence of PW.5 she went to the hospital on her own on the date of incident itself and got treatment for injuries allegedly caused by the accused. But her evidence is vertically contradicted by PW.6 the doctor who deposed that the injuries were fresh in nature and could have been caused 8 within six hours prior to he examined her. As per the evidence of PW.6, PW.5 was brought to the hospital by a Police Constable No.2101 to him on 23-1-2016. But PW.5 never deposed that she was taken to the hospital on the next date of incident i.e., 23-1-2016 by any police person. According to her evidence she went to the hospital on her own accord on the date of incident i.e., 22-1-2016. On this aspect also PW.6 vertically contradicted the evidence of PW.5. He deposed in cross examination that he found no marks of previous treatment on the injuries of PW.1. As already mentioned supra,

PW.6 further stated in the cross examination that the injuries could have been caused within six hours prior to he examined PW.5. If grave contradiction in the evidence of PWs.5 and 6 is taken into consideration, a grave doubt arises about the version of PW.5 that she received injuries at the hands of accused on 22-1-2016. In view of the grave contradictions in the evidence of PWs.5 and 6 and in view of the inordinate delay in giving report by PW.5 to the police, I am of the view, it is not at all safe to base the evidence of PW.5 to say that the prosecution proved the guilt of the accused beyond all reasonable doubt.

19.In view of the foregoing discussion and in view of the grave and glaring discrepancies and informities in the evidence of PWs.5 and 6, I am of the view the prosecution failed to prove the guilt of the accused beyond all reasonable doubt. As such accused can be given benefit of doubt.

20. In the result, A.1 to A.4 are found not guilty for the offences punishable under Section 452, 323, 324 and 354 IPC and Sec.3(1)(s) of

S.Cs. and S.Ts. (P.O.A.) Act, 1989 and accordingly they are acquitted under 9

Section 235 (1) Cr.P.C. for the said offences. The bail bonds of accused shall stand cancelled.

Dictated to the Stenographer Grade- I, transcribed by him, corrected

and pronounced by me in the open court on this the 16th day of November, 2018.

Spl.Sessions Judge for trial of cases under SCs and STs (POA) Act-cum- VII Addl., District and Sessions Judge, Khammam.

-APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE-

WITNESSES EXAMINED

For Prosecution:For Defence: PW.1 G.Satyanarayana PW.2 G.Mamdatha -none- PW.3 Ch.Narasamma PW.4 G.Kotamma PW.5 I.Kanthi PW.6 Dr.G.Ranapratap PW.7 M.Mohan Rao PW.8 P.Thata Rao. PW.9 Md.Yakub Pasha PW.10 R.Veereswar Rao Pw.11 B.Raja Mahindra Nayak.

EXHIBITS MARKED

For Prosecution: Ex.P.1 161 Cr.P.C., statement of PW.1 Ex.P.2 161 Cr.P.C., statement of PW.2 Ex.P.3 161 Cr.P.C., statement of PW.3 Ex.P.4 161 Cr.P.C., statement of PW.4 Ex.P.5 report Ex.P.6 requisition-cum-wound certificate Ex.P.7 Signature of PW.7 in crime details form. Ex.P.8 Report of caste certificates of PWs.1 and A.1 to A.4, dt.4-2-2016. Ex.P.9 F.I.R. Ex.P.10 photostat copy of proceedings of the S.P. Khammam Ex.P.11 Crime details form. Ex.P.12 Appointment letter, dt.1-12-2016 For Defence:- -nil-

Spl.Sessions Judge for trial of cases under SCs and STs (POA) Act-cum- VII Addl., District and Sessions Judge, Khammam. Corrections carried out by:- 10

IN THE COURT OF THE MOTOR ACCIDENTS CLAIMS TRIBUNAL-CUM-

VII ADDL.DISTRICT JUDGE AT KHAMMAM.

Dated this, the 31st day of December, 2018.

Present:- Sri M.Venkata Ramana, Chairman, M.A.C.T-cum- VII Addl., District Judge, Khammam.

M.V.O.P.No.735 of 2016

Between :

Challagundla Rama Rao, s/o. Jaggaiah, age 47 years, occ: Watchman, in New Generation School, Khammam, R/o. Mustafanagar, Khammam City and Khammam Dist., ..........Claim Petitioner

And

1. Alasyam Harish, s/o.Venkateswarlu, age:29 years, occ: Driver of Hero

Honda (Passion pro), Motor Cycle No. AP20 AE 4938, R/o. Nereda Village,

Chinthakani Mandal, Khammam District.

2. Alasyam Prasada Rao, s/o.Venkaeswarlu, age:28 years, occ: Owner of Motor Cycle No. AP20 AE 4938, R/o. Nereda Village, Chinthakani Mandal, Khammam District

...Respondents.

This petition coming before me on 28-11-2018 for final hearing in the presence of Sri Y. Ravi Kumar, Advocate for the Claim Petitioner and of Sri K. Babji, Advocate for the Respondent No.1 and 2;upon perusing the material papers on record, on hearing both sides and having stood over for consideration till this day, the Court passed the following :-

O R D E R

1.This petition is filed u/sec.166 of Motor Vehicles Act claiming compensation of Rs.2,00,000/-.

2.The gist of the contents of the petition is as follows:

That the claim petitioner is resident of Khammam and he was working as Watchman in New Generation School in Khammam and he used to go to the school by his cycle. As usual on 12-8-2012 at about 9-00 p.m., the claim petitioner after completion of duty hours was returning back to his home and when he passed S.B.I.T., College and reached near culvert on 2

Khammam to Mustafanagar R & B Road, the driver of the motor cycle bearing No.AP20-AE-4938 drove the said vehicle in rash and negligent manner came in opposite direction and dashed the claim petitioner’s cycle.

As such, the claim petitioner fell down on the road and sustained bleeding injuries on his body. Immediately, the claim petitioner was admitted in

Mamata General Hospital, Khammam with the help of 108 Ambulance and the matter was informed to his brother Duggineni Chandrasekhar, who came to the hospital, saw the claim petitioner and gave report to the police. It is further contended that the claim petitioner was treated for 30 days as inpatient in the hospital. X-Ray and C.T., Scan were taken for the injuries sustained by the claim petitioner. On 12-9-2012 the petitioner was discharged from the hospital and advised to take bed rest for two months and to come to hospital one month after to remove the bandages. It is nextly contended that the petitioner used costly medicines and he spent

Rs.1,50,000/-towards treatment, medical expenses, extra nousihment, attendant charges, transport charges and other ancillary charges. It is nextly contended that basing on the report given by D.Chandra Sekhar, police registered a case in Cr.No.265/2012 u/sec.337 IPC and finally they filed charge sheet for the offence punishable u/sec.338 IPC and Sec.3,4, 180 and 181 of M.V.Act.

It is further contended that the petitioner was working as

Watchman for his livelihood and he used to earn Rs.5,000/- p.m., as salary and due to the accident, the claim petitioner could not attend his duty and he is not in position to attend normal duties for a period of six months as he received fracture to right tibia and forehead. It is further contended that the 3 claim petitioner was bed ridden for three months as per the advice of the doctors, still he is not in a position to attend normal duties and due to injuries sustained by him he lost his livelihood and chance of getting another job (sic good match). It is further contended that the claim petitioner sufferred lot of pain during the treatment period and he further sufferred mental agony. As such, he is entitled for compensation of Rs.2,00,000/-.

It is nextly contended that the respondent No.1 being the driver of the crime vehicle and respondent No.2 being the owner of the vehicle are joint and severally liable to pay compensation. It is prayed to allow the petition.

3.The respondents 1 and 2 filed joint counter and denied all the material contentions. It is mainly denied the contents of the petition regarding manner of the accident, sustaining of injuries by him, taking of treatment by him, surgeries undergone by claim petitioner, spending of Rs.1,50,000/- towards medical and other expenses. He further contended that the claim petitioner is not entitled for compensation of Rs.2,00,000/- and it is prayed to dismiss the petition.

4.Basing on the pleadings of both the sides the court framed the following issues:

1. Whether the accident took place on 12-8-2012 due to rash and negligent driving of Motor Cycle bearing No.AP-20E-4938 by its driver?

2. Whether the petitioner is entitled for compensation as prayed for ? If so, to what amount and from which of the respondents ?

3. To what relief?

4

5.To prove the claim of the petitioner, P.Ws.1 and 2 are examined and Ex.A1 to A.9 are marked. On behalf of the respondents, neither oral nor documentary evidence is adduced.

6.P.W.1 filed chief-examination affidavit wherein he stated in support of all the contents of petition. He stated about his job working as a

Watchman in New Generation School, manner of accident, sustaining of injuries by him, rash and negligent driving of the driver of the motor cycle bearing No.AP20AE-4938 , his shifting to the hospital by 108 Ambulance service, taking treatment by him, number of injuries, nature of injuries sustained by him in accident, spending of Rs.1,50,000/- by him towards medical expenses and other expenses, taking treatment by him as inpatient for 30 days, advice given by the doctors to take bed rest for two months, loss of job due to the injuries sustained by him, disability of 50% sustained by him and claiming of compensation of Rs.2,00,000/- by him. He prayed the court to allow the petition.

7.PW.2 deposed that on 12-8-2012 at about 11-56 p.m., the claim petitioner was brought to Mamata General Hospital, Khammam with pnenumophealees and injuries were found by him on the body of the claim petitioner. He further stated that the injuries to 1 to 6 are grievious in nature and injuries 7 and 8 are simple in nature. He further stated that the claim petitioner was referred to Neuro Surgery department and Ortho department for surgical corrections of both long bones and correction was done on 30-8- 2012 and finally he was discharged on 12-9-2012. He further stated that the patient was treated under Arogya Sree Scheme. He nextly stated that the petitioner was in bed rest for two months and the medical bills were issued by 5 the hospital and he further stated all the injuries of claim petitioner are due to road traffic accident.

8. ISSUE No.1 :

Heard counsel for the claim petitioner and respondents No.1 and

2. The counsel for the Claim petitioner contended that the evidence of

PW.1 which is corroborated by documentary evidence sufficiently and categorically establishes that the accident took place due to rash and negligent driving of the crime vehicle. He further contended that the petitioner sufficiently establishes his case vis-a-vis the responsibility of respondent No.1 in occurrence of the accident

9.On the other hand, the respondent vehemently opposed the contention of the claim petitioner. He contended that the petitioner failed to prove his case and to prove responsibility of respondent No.1 in occurrence of the accident. He further contended that there is delay of two days in giving report. As such, the version of the petitioner cannot be believed.

10.Perused the entire material on record consisting of contents of claim petition, counter filed by respondents and oral and documentary evidence adduced by both sides. After considering the arguments of both sides I am of the view there is sufficient force in the contention of the petitioner. As rightly contended by the petitioner the oral evidence of P.W.1 which is corroborated by documentary evidence categorically and sufficiently establishes that it is the respondent No.1 who drove the crime vehicle in rash and negligently manner and caused the accident. Though the counsel for the respondent cross examined P.W.1, he has not elicited any grave or 6 glaring discripencies or infirmities in his evidence. As such, I do not find any reasons to this disbelieve the evidence of P.W. 1. It may be true there is a delay of two days in giving report. The charge sheet shows that the delay had been occurred as P.W.1 was getting treatment in the hospital only because of that reason there was delay of two days in giving report. There are no grave or glaring discripencies or infirmities in evidence of P.W.1. In view of the foregoing discussion I hold that the petitioner successfully proved that the respondent No.1 drove the crime vehicle in rash and negligent manner and caused the accident. Thus I decided this issue in favour of the petitioner.

11.ISSUE NO.2:

Heard both sides. Counsel for the petitioner contended that the oral evidence of P.W.1 and Medical Bills sufficiently prove that the petitioner spent lot of money and is entitled for compensation of Rs. 2,00,000/-. He further contended that the petitioner sustained as many as six grievous injuries and two simple injuries. As such, he is entitled for compensation of Rs.2,00,000/-.

The counsel for the respondent vehemently opposed the contention of the petitioner. He mainly contended that petitioner was treated as inpatient under “AROGYA SREE’’ scheme which is a cashless scheme. He further contended that the evidence of P.W.2 itself shows that petitioner was treated under “AROGYA SREE’’ scheme of the Government.

Now, we have to see under what heads the petitioner entitled for compensation.

I. Pecuniary damages towards expenses relating to treatment,

hospitalization and medicines:- 7

After thorough careful examination of scrutiny of the oral evidence and documentary evidence adduced by the petitioner, I am of the view during the initial treatment i.e. treatment taken by the petitioner immediately after the accident in the year, 2012 the petitioner was treated under “AROGYA SREE SCHEME” of Government and he did not spend any money towards medical expenses. As such, the petitioner cannot say that he spent Rs. 37,504/- for his treatment in the year, 2012. However, the other medical bills relating to the year, 2014 show that the petitioner again took treatment and spent Rs.15,014/-. The discharge summary dated 26-08-2014 shows that IML Nailing and Implants were removed on 26-08-2014 and he was treated as inpatient from 26-08-2014 to 08-09-2014 for removal of IML

Nailing implants. In view of the foregoing discussion I hold that the petitioner is entitled for Rs. 15,014/- towards treatment, hospitalization and medicines.

II. Loss of earnings and other gains which injured would have made had

he not been injured:-

It is the case of the petitioner that he was working as Watchman in New Generation School and he was earning Rs.5,000/- per month towards salary. His version is corroborated by documentary evidence i.e. Ex. A8. Ex.

A8 shows that petitioner being paid Rs.5,000/- p.a. towards salary. As per evidence of P.W.1 he was advised to take bed rest for three months. As such, it can be safely said that he lost income of Rs. 15,000/- when he took the bed rest. As such, I hold that the claim petitioner is entitled for Rs.15,000/- towards loss of earnings during the treatment and bed rest.

III. Loss of future earnings on account of permanent disability:-

8

The petitioner has not elicited sufficient material in support of his version that he lost future earnings. In chief examination also he has not stated that he was removed from the service by school authorities after he sustained injuries. As such, he is not entitled for any damages towards future earnings.

IV. Damages for pain, suffering and trauma as a consequence of

injuries:

The material on record shows that the petitioner sustained as much as six grievous injuries and two simple injuries. As per the case of the petitioner he sustained injury to frontal bone of the head and Tibia bone. It is further case of the petitioner and it is the evidence of P.W.1that due to fracture to frontal bone he has been feeling guiltyness even till today. He further stated that due to fracture to Tibia bone he is unable to walk properly.

In respect of fracture injuries sustained by the petitioner to head and Tibia, I am of the view is entitled for compensation of Rs. 40,000/- each. In respect of other fracture injuries I hold that the petitioner is entitled for compensation @ Rs. 25,000/- each. In respect of two simple injuries, the petitioner is entitled for compensation of Rs. 5,000/- each. Thus, I hold that the petitioner is entitled for Rs. 1,90,000/- towards damages for eight injuries.

In view of the foregoing discussion in total the petitioner is entitled for compensation of Rs.2,20,014/-. But, the petitioner claimed only compensation of Rs.2,00,000/-. This Tribunal has no authority to grant more compensation more than prayed for.

9

In view of the above facts and circumstances I hold that petitioner is entitled for Rs.2,00,000/- as prayed for. The respondent No.1 and 2 are jointly and severally liable to pay compensation amount.

Result:-

13. In the result, petition is allowed with costs. Respondent

Nos.1 and 2 are hereby directed to pay compensation of Rs.2,00,000/- to the claim petitioner along with interest @ 6% p.a., from the date of filing the petition till the date compensation amount is deposited into the court.

Respondents 1 and 2 are hereby directed to deposit compensation amount within two months from the date of this order. On such deposit, claim petitioner is permitted to withdraw the entire amount. The Advocate fee is fixed at Rs.1,500/-.

Dictated to Stenographer Grade-I, transcribed by him, corrected and

pronounced by me in the open Court on this the 31st day of December, 2018.

VII ADDL., DISTRICT JUDGE,

KHAMMAM.

- Appendix of Evidence-

Witnesses Examined

For Claim Petitioner: For Respondents

PW.1 Ch. Rama Rao -none- PW.2 Dr. V. Shankar Rao

Exhibits marked For Claim petitioner: Ex.A1: C.C., of FIR Ex.A2: C.C., of Chare sheet Ex.A3: C.C., of Injured certificate Ex.A4: Medical bills Ex.A5: Medical prescriptions Ex.A6: Discharge Summary Ex.A7: CT brain plain report Ex.A8: Salary Certificate Ex.A9: X-rays 10

For Respondents: -nil-

VII ADDL., DISTRICT JUDGE,

KHAMMAM.

Corrections carried out by:-

IN THE COURT OF THE MOTOR ACCIDENTS CLAIMS TRIBUNAL-CUM-

VII ADDL.DISTRICT JUDGE AT KHAMMAM.

Dated this, the 31st day of December, 2018.

Present:- Sri M.Venkata Ramana, Chairman, M.A.C.T-cum- VII Addl., District Judge, Khammam.

M.V.O.P.No.354 of 2017

Between :

Kamarthapu Appa Rao, s/o.Ramulu, age 42 years, occ: Granite Business, R/o.Main Road, Mudigonda Village and Mandal, Khammam Dist., ..........Claim Petitioner

And

Daravath Laxman, s/o.Badya, 23 years, occ: Granite employee & Rider-cum- Owner of Motor Cycle bearing No.AP24 AQ 7944, R/o.Thungaram village of Chandrugonda Mandal, Khammam Dist.,

...Respondent.

This petition coming before me on 14-9-2018 for final hearing in the presence of Sri K.Ramesh, Advocate for the Claim Petitioner and respondent remained exparte; upon perusing the material papers on record, on hearing both sides and having stood over for consideration till this day, the Court passed the following :-

O R D E R

1.This petition is filed u/sec.166 of Motor Vehicles Act praying the court to grant compensation of Rs.1,00,000/-, to the claim petitioner.

2.The gist of the contents of the petition is as follows:

That the petitioner is doing granite business and he has been getting salary of Rs.30,000/- p.m., and he was hale and healthy prior to the date of accident. That on 23-12-2015 during morning hours the claim petitioner was going to Granite factory by his motor cycle bearing No.AP20-

AG-3863, when he reached nearby Sri Rameswari Granite Factory, the respondent who is owner and driver of the motor cycle bearing No.AP24-AQ- 7944 drove the crime vehicle in rash and negligent manner and high speed 2 and he dashed the motor cycle of the claim petitioner. As such, the claim petitioner fell on the ground and received fracture injuries to his right leg and he also received injury to his right elbow.

On the report given by relative of claim petitioner, Mudigonda

P.S., registered a case in Cr.No.231/2015 u/sec.338 IPC. Subsequently,

Mudigonda Police filed charge sheet. It is further contended that immediately after the accident, the claim petitioner was shifted to Sri Srujan Orthopaedic

Hospital, Khammam, where he was given treatment consisting of taking X- rays, conducting surgery to right lower leg and the petitioner could not move from the bed for 30 days. It is further contended that the petitioner spent

Rs.50,000/- towards medical expenses, hospitalization charges and ancillary charges. He nextly contended that the petitioner sufferred lot of pain and mental agony during the treatment period and he also took physiotherapy treatment by spending Rs.50,000/-. It is further contended that the petitioner sustained 100% disability and he is entitled for compensation of

Rs.1,00,000/-.

3.The respondent remained exparte.

4.To prove the claim of the petitioner, P.W.1 is examined and

Ex.A1 to A.3 are marked.

5.P.W.1 filed chief-examination affidavit wherein he stated in support of all the contents of petition. He stated about his income being

Rs.30,000/- p.m., manner of accident, receiving of injuries by him, taking of treatment by him, taking bed rest for three months, spending of Rs.50,000/- towards medical expenses and Rs.50,000/- towards physiotherapy treatment and other medical expenses, loss of salary at Rs.30,000/- p.m., for a period 3 of three months and loss of his earning capacity. He further stated that he sufferred lot of mental agony and pains due to the injuries caused in the accident. He prayed to grant Rs.1,00,000/- towards compensation.

6.Heard counsel for the claim petitioner. Perused the entire material on record consisting of claim petition and chief examination affidavit and Ex.A.1 to A.3. Admittedly the petitioner failed to file any piece of document to show that he spent any money towards medical expenses, hospitalization charges, ancillary charges or physiotherapy charges. He further failed to show that he was earning Rs.30,000/- p.m., One way the petitioner contended in the petition that he was doing granite business and another way he contended that he has been getting salary of Rs.30,000/- p.m.,. At one stage, the claim petitioner contended that he could not attend cleaner duty due to injuries sustained by him. Thus, the pleas and evidence of PW.1 are very much inconsistent regarding his occupation and means of income. Thus, the claim petitioner failed to prove the expenditure said to have been spent by him and his means of income. The evidence of PW.1 and documentary evidence Ex.A.2 sufficiently and categorically establishes that the claim petitioner sufferred fracture injury to the right leg and simple injuries to elbow. The fracture to causes a lot of physical pain and mental agony. As such, the claim petitioner is entitled for compensation of

Rs.30,000/- towards fracture injury. The claim petitioner also is entitled for

Rs.7,500/- towards injury to right elbow.

In view of the foregoing discussion, I hold that the claim petitioner is entitled for compensation of Rs.37,500/-.

4

Result:-

7. In the result, petition is partly allowed with costs. Respondent is hereby directed to pay compensation of Rs.37,500/- to the claim petitioner along with interest @ 6% p.a., from the date of filing the petition till the date compensation amount is deposited into the court. Respondent is hereby directed to deposit compensation amount within two months from the date of this order. On such deposit, claim petitioner is permitted to withdraw the entire amount. The Advocate fee is fixed at Rs.1,500/-.

Dictated to Stenographer Grade-I, transcribed by him, corrected and

pronounced by me in the open Court on this the 31st day of December, 2018.

VII ADDL., DISTRICT JUDGE,

KHAMMAM.

- Appendix of Evidence-

Witnesses Examined

For Claim Petitioner:

PW.1 K.Appa Rao

For Respondent:

-nil- Exhibits marked

For Claim petitioner:

Ex.A1: C.C., of F.I.R. Ex.A2: C.C., of Medical certificate Ex.A3: C.C., of Charge sheet.

For Respondent:

-nil-

VII ADDL., DISTRICT JUDGE,

KHAMMAM.

Corrections carried out by:- 5

1

IN THE COURT OF THE JUDGE -FAMILY COURT AT

KHAMMAM

Dated this the 11th day of December, 2018

Present:- Smt. K.Lalitha Kumari,

Judge Family Court,

Khammam.

E.P.No. 283/2018

In ARBITRATION CASE No. 37/12

Between:- M/s Shiram Transport Finance Company Limited, 6-1-5-, Harini Complex, Khammam. Represented by authorized signatory and POA Holder, Siva Rama Krishna Kakani, s/o.Anand Mohan, 38yrs, Retainer advocate, R/o.Khammam. …….D.Hr./Claimant,

And

1.B.Venkanna, s/o.Gopaiah, R/o.H.No.5-28, Edulapuram, Naidupeta, Khammam corporation and district.

2.K.Satyam, s/o.krishnaiah, Jalgam Nagar, Edulapuram, Khammam Corporation, and district.

…….Judgment Debtors/Respondents

This petition is coming up before me on 5.12.2018 for final hearing in the presence of Y.Srinivasa rao Advocate for the D.Hr. and in the presence of Sri.G.Venkateswarlu advocate for J.dr no.1 and whereas JD no.2 is exparte; and upon perusing the material papers on record, upon hearing and having stood over for consideration till this day, this court delivered the following:-

O R D E R

Petition filed by the petitioner, the award holder in ARB Case 37/2012, under order 21 rule 43,64,66 for attachment and sale of movable properties of JD no.1 and 2.

2. The contention of the petitioner is that the Shiram transport finance referred the dispute in between petitioner and respondent to the arbitrator. Accordingly arbitrator passed an award on 30.9.2013 directing the respondents to pay

Rs.2,87,662/- along with interest @ 12% per annum on Rs.1,83,990/- along with interest and costs, inspite of passing the award by way of registered post inspite of passing of award that JD no.1 and 2 failed to pay the award amount to the award holder, since JD no.1 and 2 are having movable properties. The award 2 holder filed this petition to attach and sale of movable properties of JD no.1 & 2.

2. JD no.2 was set exparte.

3.Thereafter filed EA 38/18 for set aside exparte order.

4. JD no.1 and 2 filed their counter stating that no notice was issued by the

Shiram Transport finance to the JDRs prior to referring matter to the arbitrator. DHR has no right to file EP without any authorization no demand notice was served on the JDRs, infact JDR paid the amount to the agent of decree holder. The same was not created. The Branch Manager of Shiram transport finance seized the vehicle of the JDR and sold away auction the said sale amount was not credited. The JDRs are not having any means to pay EP amount the arbitrator also passed exparte order without giving any opportunity, JDR prays the court to dismiss the petition.

5. Heard both sides.

6.Perused the record. Along with the petition the award holder filed the award passed in ARB Case 37/2012 dated 30.9.2013. As per the contents of the award Sriram transport finance company lending an amount of

Rs.3,80,000/- to the respondent for the purpose of purchase vehicle bearing no.AP 20 W 3641. Accordingly the first respondent executed loan agreement. The second respondent stood as guarantor by executing loan hypothecation agreement thereafter after availing the loan the first respondent promise to pay the loan installments in 45 installments @

Rs. 12,393/- per month from 1.4.2008 onwards. The first respondent had committed the default in payment of loan installments and failed to pay the loan amount I.e Rs.4,63,990/- since the respondents committed default after giving the notice the petitioner seized the vehicle and sold in the auction on 27.7.2010 and an amount of Rs.2,80,000/- was credited in the account the remaining balance of Rs.2,16,500/- is due payable by the respondent accordingly the dispute was referred to the arbitrator. As seen 3 from the award the respondents failed to appear before the arbitrator on that the arbitrator passed an award even after passing of the award copy of the award was sent to the respondents by way of the registered post. Now the award holder filed this EP for attachment of movable properties of JD no.1 and 2.

7.As seen from the counter the contention of the JDR that the award holder has no authority to filed the EP before this court. The award holder filed

GPA gave infavour of the authorized person to file this petition I.e Siva

Ramakrishna Kakani as such, the GPA is very clear that the person who had filed the EP 283/18 is having power to file the EP, with regarding to the other contention of the JDR that no notice was given to the respondents by the arbitrator is also not correct. The contents of the award are clear notice was given to the respondents by the arbitrator the office copy of legal notice clearly shows that the petitioner gave demand notice to the respondent, respondent to paid the amount. The sale amount of the vehicle was also credited by the petitioner as such, the terms of the award is very clear that the JD No.1 and 2 are liable to pay the EP amount. Inspite of the notice JDRs failed to pay the amount. The award holder field this petition as per the contents of the award JD No1 and 2 are jointly and severally liable to pay the EP amount as such it is a fit case to order attachment of the movable properties of the JD No.1 and 2.

8. IN THE RESULT, the petition is allowed. Issue rule 43 warrant call on 31.1.2019.

Dictated to the stenographer, transcribed by her, corrected and pronounced

by me in the open court on this the 11th day of December, 2018.

JUDGE FAMILY COURT

KHAMMAM.

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

-NIL-

JUDGE FAMILY COURT,

KHAMMAM.

4

1

IN THE COURT OF THE JUDGE -FAMILY COURT AT

KHAMMAM

Dated this the 4th day of October, 2018

Present:- Smt. K.Lalitha Kumari,

Judge Family Court,

Khammam.

E.P.No. 71/2017

In ARBITRATION CASE No. 381 of 2013

Between:- M/s Shiram City Union Finance Co.Limited, Khammam 1 branch, Khammam represented by its authorized signatory and GPA Holder …….D.Hr./Claimat,

And

1.Usijaka Samsen, S/o.Atchaiah, 34yrs, agrl, H.No.2-107, Patharlapadu, Chinthakani mandal, Khammam district,

2. Nunna Ramakotaiah, s/o.Venkaiah, 50yrs, agrl, H.No.4-86, Patharlapadu village, Chinthakani mandal, Khammam district. …….Judgement Debtors/Respondents

This petition is coming up before me on 1.10.2018 for final hearing in the presence of K.Kranthikumar Advocate for the D.Hr. And in the presence of G.Chandraleela Mohan advocate for J.drs no.1 and 2 ; and upon perusing the material papers on record, upon hearing and having stood over for consideration till this day, this court delivered the following:-

O R D E R

Petition filed by the award holder in Arbitration Case 381/13 U/Or.21 R. 43 of

CPC to attach the movable properties of the Judgement Debtor no.1 and 2 for recovery of the award amount of Rs.1,06,542/-..

2. The contention of the award holder is that the award holder referred the dispute in

ARB case 381/13 to be arbitrator basing on a consumer finance transactions. Accordingly, the arbitrator passed an award for recovery of Rs.76,041/- from the respondent no.1 and 2 along with interest and costs. The arbitrator got issued a notice to the respondent no.1 and 2 after passing of the award, inspite of that the respondent failed to pay the award amount along with interest and cost on that the award holder filed EP No.71/2017 for recovery of

Rs.1,06,542/- from JDR No.1 and 2 by way of attachment of sale of movable properties.

3. Notice given to the JDR No.2.

4.JDR No.2 filed counter. The contention of the JD No.2 is that the award holder has got knowledge about the JD No.1 who is working. The award holder can proceed against JD No.1 but only to harass JDR No.2 filed this petition against JD No.2. Award holder did not gave any 2 opportunity to contest the case. EP Schedule property not belongs to JD No.2. JD NO.2 prays the court to dismiss the petition. JD NO.2 filed receipts towards payment of amount by

JD No.1 I.e receipt date 22.12.2011, 31.8.2011, 13.8.2011, 24.5.2011, 26.5.2011 and 8.2.2011 to show that the JD No.1 paid an amount to the award holder.

5.Heard both sides.

6. The petition filed by the award holder in ARB Case no.381/13 for recovery of amount from the JD NO.2 for attachment of sale and movable properties of the JD No.2.

7. As seen from the counter filed by the JD No.2 stating that JD no.1 is working as an employee he is having capacity to pay award amount along with counter. The JD No.2 filed some receipts showing the payment of installments by the JD No.1.

8.As seen from the award dated 22.10.2014, it is clear that the first respondent purchase the commercial vehicle after obtaining the loan from the petitioner thereafter the first respondent committed default in payment of installments. The 2nd JDR stood as guarantor by executing agreement guarantor. Since the JDR committed in payment of installments Sri

Ram city union finance referred the matter to the arbitrator accordingly, arbitrator passed an award. As per the terms award the first JDR committed default in payment of installments as per the contents of award it is clear that the loan agreement in between the Sri Ram city union finance and the respondents no.1 and 2 dated 29.6.2012 then it is clear that the transactions in between award holder and JDR was commenced on 26.9.2012 thereafter the JDR committed in default in payment of installments. Since the receipt filed by the JDR no.2 relating to the order 2011, it appears that the said receipts are not at all, relating to the ARB case no.381/13.In such, circumstances those receipts cannot be taken into consideration as the payments in this case, as such, the contention of the JDR that the JD No.2 is not all liable to pay the decretal amount is not at all correct as per terms of the award JD no.1 and 2 are jointly and severally liable to pay the award amount. Moreover, the other contents of JD No.2 that JD No.2 is working as a coolie EP Schedule property is luxurious items not belongs to the JD No.2 is also not correct as per the terms of the award of the JD No.2 is an agriculturist , having stood as security to the JD no.1. The JD No.2 failed to obey the terms of award as such, the liability of the JD No.2 is jointly and severally with the JD No.1. Hence, decree holder can proceed against the JD No.2 for recovery of the decretal amount by 3 attaching movable property of the JD No.2.

10. IN THE RESULT, the petition is allowed. Issue rule 43 warrant against J.Dr No.2 call on 12.11.2018.

Dictated to the stenographer, transcribed by her, corrected and pronounced by

me in the open court on this the 4th day of October, 2018.

JUDGE FAMILY COURT

KHAMMAM.

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

-NIL-

JUDGE FAMILY COURT,

KHAMMAM.