Ms.N.PremaLatha

1Crl.App.No. 742/2014

IN THE COURT OF VIII ADDITIONAL DISTRICT & SESSIONS JUDGE,

RANGAREDDY DISTRICT AT L.B.NAGAR

PRESENT: N. PREMA LATHA, VIII Additional District & Sessions Judge, Rangareddy District at LB Nagar.

Tuesday, the 19th day of April, 2022

Crl.App.No. 742/ 2014

BETWEEN:

B.Rajanna, S/o Narsaiah, Aged about 50 years, Occ: Business, R/o H.No. 3-7-3/4, Ashok Nagar, ECIL Post, Hyderabad.

...Appellant/Accused

AND

1. K. Narsimha Reddy, S/o K. Mohan Reddy, Aged aboiut 36 years, Occ: Business, R/o H.No. 6-37/1, Marryguda, Mallapur, ECIL Post, R.R.District.

2.The State of Telangana, through Additional Public Prosecutor

...Respondent/Complainant

CRIMINAL APPEAL

Preferred by the Appellant having been aggrieved by the

Judgment passed by the learned III Special Magistrate,

Malkajgiri, Rangareddy District in

C.C.No.11 / 2014

BETWEEN:

K. Narsimha Reddy, S/o K. Mohan Reddy, Aged aboiut 36 years, Occ: Business, R/o H.No. 6-37/1, Marryguda, Mallapur, ECIL Post, R.R.District.

...Complainant

AND

B.Rajanna, S/o Narsaiah, Aged about 50 years, Occ: Business, R/o H.No. 3-7-3/4, Ashok Nagar, ECIL Post, Hyderabad.

...Accused

This Criminal Appeal coming before me for final hearing in the presence of Sri.P. Kusheel Kumar, Legal aid counsel for Appellant/Accused and none appeared for the Respondent No.1 and the learned Additional Public Prosecutor for the State and upon perusal of the material papers on record and the matter having been stood over till this day for consideration, this Court delivered the following:

2Crl.App.No. 742/2014

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

1.This Criminal Appeal is preferred by the appellant/accused against the Judgment passed by the learned

III Special Magistrate, at Malkajgiri, Rangareddy District in

C.C.No.11/2014 Dt.08-09-2014 by virtue of which Trial Court sentenced the appellant/accused U/Sec.255 (2) of Cr.P.C., to suffer

Simple Imprisonment for one year and to pay fine of Rs. 5,000/- for the offence U/Sec.138 of Negotiable Instruments Act (hereinafter called as Sec. 138 of N.I.Act) in default to suffer simple imprisonment for 3 months.

2.The appellant herein is the accused and the respondent

No.1 is complainant in C.C.No.11/2014 and they will hereinafter be referred as accused and complainant for the sake of convenience and clarity.

3.The complainant filed a private complaint before the trial court stating that the complainant and accused are residing in the same locality as such acquainted with each other and out of said acquaintance accused approached the complainant and requested to arrange a hand loan of Rs.12,00,000/- to meet urgent business necessities and the complainant paid the same to the accused in cash on 10-09-2012 and the accused has executed a promissory note on the same day with a promise to pay the said amount with interest @18% per annum in presence of one B.Venu and D.Manohar and promised to pay the said amount within 3 3Crl.App.No. 742/2014 months. After the lapse of 3months the complainant requested and accused postponed the repayment and finally on 25-04-2013 the accused issued two cheques bearing No. 361860 and 361862

dt. 25-04-2013 drawn on Canara Bank, Maredpally branch for

Rs.6,00,000/- each and promised to maintain the funds in his account. The complainant deposited the above two cheques with his banker Indian Overseas Bank, Mallapur branch on 30-04-2013 and the same were returned unpaid with reason “insufficient funds” vide cheque return memos dt. 06-05-2013. The complainant got issued legal notice on 14-05-2013 through registered post on 15-05-2013 calling upon him to repay the above amount and the said notice was received on 16-05-2013 and the accused gave a reply notice dt. 06-06-2013 with concocted stories.

Hence the complainant filed the complaint U/sec. 138 of NI Act.

4.The trial Court upon filing of the sworn statement of the complainant took cognizance of the complaint against the accused for the offence punishable U/Sec.138 NI Act and upon securing the presence of the accused by issuing summons, furnished the copy of the complaint and other documents to the accused as required

U/Sec.207 of Cr.P.C and later, the accused was examined

U/Sec.251 of Cr.P.C explaining the accusation made against him in the complaint for which the accused pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried.

5.During the course of trial, to prove his case, on behalf of the complainant PW1 and PW2 were examined and got marked 4Crl.App.No. 742/2014

Exs.P1 to P10 and Ex.D1 on his behalf.

6.After closure of the evidence on the side of the complainant, accused was examined U/Sec.313 Cr.P.C explaining the incriminating material brought on record against him, for which the accused denied the said evidence and reported defence evidence and got examined himself as DW1 and got marked

Ex.D2.

7.Upon hearing both sides, the trial court found the accused guilty for the offence U/Sec.138 of NI Act and convicted him accordingly U/Sec.255(2) of Cr.P.C and sentenced him as stated above.

8.Aggrieved by the conviction and sentence passed against him, the accused preferred the above Appeal U/Sec.374(3)

(a) of Cr.P.C on the following grounds:

(i)The trial Court failed to appreciate the points elicited during the cross examination of PWs 1 and 2.

(ii)The trial Court erred looking beyond the evidence on record came to a erroneous conclusion and convicted the accused.

(iii)The trail Court failed to appreciate that it is the duty of the prosecution to prove its case beyond the reasonable doubt and without appreciating the facts elicited during the cross examination of PWs 1 and 2, convicted the accused relying upon the cross examination of DW1.

(iv)The trial Court erred in presuming that there was enforceable debt inspite of clear admission and contradiction elicited in the notice, complaint and evidence of PW1.

Hence to set aside the impugned Judgment.

9.During the course of Appeal the appellant failed to 5Crl.App.No. 742/2014 appear before this Court. Hence a non bailable warrant was issued by the Court on 10-01-2018 and subsequently respondent was also failed to appear before the Court. Hence this court addressed a letter to District Legal Services Authority vide Dis.No. 991/2021

dt. 20-12-2021 and Sri.P. Kusheel Kumar, Advocate was appointed

as Legal aid counsel vide Dis.no. 2394/2021 dt. 23-12-2021.

Heard Legal aid counsel. Perused the material on record.

10.Now the point for determination are:

1. Whether the accused has shown sufficient grounds to

set aside the impugned Judgment passed by the

learned III Special Magistrate, at Malkajgiri,

Rangareddy District in C.C.No.11/2014 Dt.08-09-2014 in law and on facts?

2. To what relief ?

11.POINT No.1:Since the complainant filed the private complaint to punish the accused for the offence U/Sec.138 of NI

Act, the initial burden is on the complainant to prove that the accused has issued Exs.P1 and P3/Cheques towards discharge of his legally enforceable debt and it was dishonored for the reasons of ‘funds insufficient’ and the accused failed to pay the cheque amount even after receipt of statutory notice/Ex.P5 and thereby he is liable to be punished U/Sec.138 of NI Act.

12.In discharge of the said burden as stated above during the course of trial before the trial Court, the complainant examined himself as PW1 and filed his chief examination affidavit with the similar contents of his complaint, and Exs.P1 to P10 and

Ex.D1 were marked. Ex.P1 is the Original cheque bearing No.

6Crl.App.No. 742/2014 361860 dt. 25-04-2013, Ex.P2 is the Cheque return memo

dt. 06-05-2013, Ex.P3 is the Original cheque bearing No. 361862

dt. 25-04-2013, Ex.P4 is the Cheque return memo dt. 06-05-2013,

Ex.P5 is the Office copy of the legal notice dt. 14-05-2013, Ex.P6 is the Postal receipt dated 15-05-2013, Ex.P7 is the Original

Acknowledgment dt. 16-05-2013, Ex.P8 is the Counterfoil Cheque

dt. 30-04-2013, Ex.P9 is the Original Promissory Note

dt. 10-09-2012, Ex.P10 is the Copy of reply notice dt. 06-06-2013.

Complainant got examined one D. Manohar as PW2 who is one of the attesting witness for Ex.P9/Promissory note dt. 10-09-2012.

13.After closure of the evidence on the side of the complainant, after examination of the accused U/Sec.313 of

Cr.P.C., the accused got examined himself as DW1 and got marked

Ex.D2 on his behalf.

14.The ingredients to prove the offence U/Sec.138 of NI Act are as follows:

(1) The cheque should have been issued for the discharge, in whole or part, of any debt or any liability. (2) The cheque should have been presented within a period of six months or within its validity period which ever is earlier. (3) The payee or holder in due course should have issued a notice in writing to the drawer within thirty days of the receipt of information by him from the bank regarding the return of the cheque as unpaid. (4) After receipt of the said notice from the holder in due course, the drawer should have failed to pay the cheque within fifteen days of receipt of said notice.

15.In view of the above evidence of PW1 and PW2 and the 7Crl.App.No. 742/2014 documents marked as Exs.P1 to P10 goes to show that the complainant got filed the present complaint and examined himself as PW1 and contended that accused requested him to lend an amount of Rs.12,00,000/- for his urgent business necessities and the complainant paid the same on 10-09-2012 in cash and the accused executed Ex.P9/Promissory note with a promise to pay the amount with interest @18% per annum within a period of 3months but failed to repay the same and on repeated demands issued two cheques bearing No. 361860 and 361862 both dt.25-04-2013 drawn on Canara Bank, Maredpally branch for Rs.6,00,000/- each and the complainant presented the same with his banker Indian

Overseas Bank, Mallapur branch on 30-04-2013 and the same were returned unpaid vide Cheque return memos/Ex.P2 and P4 both dt.06-05-2013 with an endorsement :funds insufficient” and the complainant got issued legal notice dt. 14-05-2013 and the same was received by the accused on 16-05-2013 and he issued a reply notice with false allegations as such the complainant filed private complaint against the accused to punish him for the offence U/Sec.138 of NI Act within the statutory period. In view of the above evidence, the complainant has proved the ingredients of the offence U/Sec.138 of NI Act.

16.The contention of the accused is that there was no acquaintance between him and the complainant and he never borrowed any amounts from the complainant. It is the contention of the accused that one B.Srinivas Reddy was acquainted with him 8Crl.App.No. 742/2014 in his course of business and during the said business transactions

B.Srinivas Reddy obtained blank signed promissory notes, Cheques and Stamp papers from him. During his evidence as DW1 the accused took another contention that he took Rs.2,00,000/- from the said B.Srinivas Reddy in the year 2009 and given four blank signed stamp papers, four blank signed cheques and one blank signed promissory note to him towards security to the Srinivas

Reddy and subsequently the accused repaid the entire amount with interest to him in the year 2012.

17.It is pertinent to note here that the accused in his reply notice stated that he is acquainted with B.Srinivas Reddy and during the course of business, the said Srinivas Reddy obtained blank signed promissory notes, Cheques and stamp papers from him. Thereafter he took a plea that he obtained a loan of

Rs.2,00,000/- from said Srinivas Reddy and issued blank signed cheques, promissory note and stamp papers. It is further noted that the accused raised another contention at the time of cross examination of PW1 that one Manohar and B.Srinivas Reddy are the friends of the complainant and running a chit business and accused was the subscriber of one of the chit in the said chit fund business and he issued a blank signed promissory note and two blank signed cheques towards security purpose for the said chit amount. The accused has taken inconsistent pleas in his reply notice and during cross examination of PW1 and further in his cross examination as DW1 which inprobablises the defense of the 9Crl.App.No. 742/2014 accused.

18.Further the accused admitted in his evidence that he did not lodge any complaint against the said Srinivas Reddy for misusing the blank signed promissory note and the cheques given to him and filing the false case through the complainant which further weakens the case of accused. It is also observed that the accused got marked Ex.D2 his account statement pertaining to

Canara Bank showing the payment of Rs.50,000/- to the Manohar towards the repayment. However, the same is of not much helpful to the case of the accused as the same do not reflect the repayment to the complainant. In this regard it is relevant to refer to the decision of the Hon’ble Apex Court in APS Forex Services

Pvt Ltd vs Shakti International Fashion Dt.14.02.2020 wherein it was held thus:

“5.2. What is emerging from the material on record is that the issuance of cheque by the accused and the signature of the accused on the said cheque are not disputed by the accused. The accused has also not disputed that there were transactions between the parties. Even as per the statement of the accused, which was recorded at the time of the framing of the charge, he has admitted that some amount was due and payable. However, it was the case on behalf of the accused that the cheque was given by way of security and the same has been misused by the complainant. However, nothing is on record that in the reply to the statutory notice it was the case on behalf of the accused that the cheque was given by way of security. Be that as it may, however, it is required to be noted that earlier the accused issued Cheques which came to be dishonored on the ground of ‘insufficient funds’ and thereafter a fresh consolidated cheque of Rs. Rs.9,55,574/ was given which has been returned unpaid on the ground of “STOP PAYMENT”.

10Crl.App.No. 742/2014

Therefore, the cheque in question was issued for the second time. Therefore, once the accused has admitted the issuance of cheque which bears his signature, there is presumption that there exists a legally enforceable debt or liability under Section 139 of the NI Act. However, such a presumption is rebuttable in nature and the accused is required to lead the evidence to rebut such presumption. The accused was required to lead evidence that the entire amount due and payable to the complainant was paid.”

19.The accused has not denied the issuance of cheques/Ex.P1 and P3 and also his signatures on them and further filed his bank account number/Ex.D1 which supports the case of the complainant that Ex.P1 and P3/Cheques issued pertaining to the said account of the accused under Ex.D1.

20.In Rangappa Vs. Mohan reported in AIR 2010 SC 1898 it was held thus:

“ Once the cheque relates to the account of the accused and he accepts and admits the signatures on the said Cheques, then the initial presumption as contemplated under Section 139 of NI Act has to be raised by the court in favour of the complainant. The presumption referred to in Section 139 of the NI Act is a mandatory presumption and not general presumption but , the accused is entitled to rebutt the said presumption.”

21.However, the accused has not denied his signatures on

Exs.P1 & P3, but his contention is that he has given the said

Cheques to the complainant towards security to B.Srinivas Reddy for the amount borrowed from him and later repaid the same.

22.In a reported decision in 2015 AIR SCW 3040 between

T.Vasanthakumar Vs. Vijayakumari, it is held that:

11Crl.App.No. 742/2014 “Cheque as well as the signature on it not disputed by accused - Presumption U/Sec.139 would be attracted story brought out by accused that the cheque was given to complainant long back in 1999 as a security to a loan, the loan was repaid but the complainant did not return the security cheque – is unworthy of credit, apart from being unsupported by any evidence.”

23.When once accused admitted the issuance of Cheques under Ex.P1 and P3 which bears his signatures, there is presumption that there exists a legally enforceable debt and liability U/Sec.139 of NI Act. However, such presumption is rebuttable in nature and accused is required to lead evidence to rebut such presumption. In the present case on hand, though the accused examined himself as DW1, failed to rebut the statutory presumption existing in favour of the complainant.

24.Since the accused is not disputing his signatures on

Ex.P1 & P3/Cheques and keeping in view of the ratio laid down in the above reported cases and in view of the presumption

U/Secs.118 & 139 of NI Act, once accused has admitted that the signatures found on Ex.P1 & P3/Cheques belongs to him, it has to be presumed legally that the accused has issued Ex.P1 &

P3/Cheques to the complainant in discharge of his legally enforceable debt in whole or in part of the other liability. Further accused also failed to rebut the presumption U/Secs.118 & 139 of

NI Act in favour of complainant.

25.In view of the above discussion, it is held that the 12Crl.App.No. 742/2014 accused has failed to prove that the Judgment passed by the learned III Special Magistrate, at Malkajgiri, Rangareddy District in

C.C.No.11/2014 Dt.08-09-2014, is perverse, or erroneous, or not based on evidence on record, and the accused has failed to make out grounds to set aside the impugned Judgment and the Appeal is liable to be dismissed. The point is answered accordingly.

26.Point No.2 Answered: In the result, the Appeal filed by the appellant/accused is dismissed by confirming the Judgment passed by the learned III Special Magistrate, at Malkajgiri,

Rangareddy District in C.C.No.11/2014 Dt.08-09-2014 against the appellant/accused.

Appellant called absent. Since the appellant/accused remained absent, the bail bonds of the appellant/accused are canceled and the trial court is directed to take necessary steps against the appellant/accused immediately for serving out the unexpired sentence in the impugned Judgment. The Office is directed to send the record to the Trial Court, immediately.

Typed to my dictation, corrected and pronounced by me in Open

Court on this Tuesday, the 19 th day of April 2022.

VIII Addl. District & Sessions Judge, Rangareddy District

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

NIL

VIII Addl. District & Sessions Judge, Rangareddy District

1Crl.App.No.862/2014

IN THE COURT OF VIII ADDITIONAL DISTRICT & SESSIONS JUDGE,

RANGAREDDY DISTRICT AT L.B.NAGAR

PRESENT: N. PREMA LATHA, VIII Additional District & Sessions Judge, Rangareddy District at LB Nagar.

Wednesday, the 13th day of April, 2022

Crl.App.No.862/ 2014

BETWEEN: A. Vijaya Kumar, S/o A.Ramaiah, Age: 39 years, Occ: Govt. Servant, R/o CAD-4, Workshop Stores, Code No. 108994, ECIL, Hyderabad – 62.

...Appellant/Accused

AND

1. G.Sadanand Kumar, S/o G.Narsimha, Aged 50 years, Occ: Govt. Servant, R/o H.No. 12-14-56, Lalapet, Secunderabad.

2.The State of Telangana, through Additional Public Prosecutor

...Respondent/Complainant

CRIMINAL APPEAL

Preferred by the Appellant having been aggrieved by the Judgment passed by the learned II Special Magistrate, Malkajgiri, Rangareddy District in C.C.No.62 / 2013

BETWEEN: G.Sadanand Kumar, S/o G.Narsimha, Aged 50 years, Occ: Govt. Servant, R/o H.No. 12-14-56, Lalapet, Secunderabad.

...Complainant

AND A. Vijaya Kumar, S/o A.Ramaiah, Age: 39 years, Occ: Govt. Servant, R/o CAD-4, Workshop Stores, Code No. 108994, ECIL, Hyderabad – 62

...Accused

This Criminal Appeal coming before me for final hearing in the presence of Sri.P. Kusheel Kumar, Legal aid counsel for the Appellant/Accused and Sri. S.Laxmaiah, Advocate for the Respondent and the learned Additional Public Prosecutor for the State and upon perusal of the material papers on record and the matter having been stood over till this day for consideration, this Court delivered the following:

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

1.This Criminal Appeal is preferred by the appellant/accused 2Crl.App.No.862/2014 against the Judgment passed by the learned II Special Magistrate, at Malkajgiri, Rangareddy District in C.C.No.62/2013 Dt.29-10-2014 by virtue of which Trial Court sentenced the appellant/accused

U/Sec.255 (2) of Cr.P.C., to suffer Simple Imprisonment for one year and to pay fine of Rs.5,000/- in default to suffer Simple

Imprisonment for three months for the offence U/Sec.138 of

Negotiable Instruments Act (hereinafter called as Sec. 138 of NI

Act).

2.The appellant herein is the accused and the respondent No.1 is complainant in C.C.No.62/2013 and they will hereinafter be referred as accused and complainant for the sake of convenience and clarity.

3.The complainant filed a private complaint before the trial court stating that the complainant and the accused are known to each other since long time being the employees of ECIL and out of said acquaintance on 02-06-2012 the accused requested the complainant to arrange a loan of Rs.1,00,000/- from his urgent necessities and the complainant paid the same on same day by way of cash and the accused executed a promissory note dt: 02- 06-2012 for Rs.1,00,000/- and promised to repay the same with interest @ 24% per annum within 4months and subsequently the accused postponed the repayment on one or the other pretext and finally got issued a cheque bearing No. 998985 dt. 03-12-2012 drawn on SBI, ECIL Branch for Rs.1,00,000/-. The complainant 3Crl.App.No.862/2014 deposited the said cheque with his banker SBI, ECIL branch on 03-12-2012 and the same was returned unpaid with endorsement “funds insufficient” vide cheque return memo dt. 03-12-2012. The complainant got issued a legal notice dt.07-12-2012 calling upon the accused to repay the cheque amount within 15 days and the accused received the same on 13-12-2012 but he neither replied nor repaid the cheque amount and as such the complainant filed the present case against the accused for the offence U/Sec.138 of

Negotiable Instruments Act.

4.The trial Court upon filing of the sworn statement of the complainant took cognizance of the complaint against the accused for the offence punishable U/Sec.138 NI Act and upon securing the presence of the accused by issuing summons, furnished the copy of the complaint and other documents to the accused as required

U/Sec.207 of Cr.P.C and later, the accused was examined

U/Sec.251 of Cr.P.C explaining the accusation made against him in the complaint for which the accused pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried.

5.During the course of trial, to prove his case, on behalf of the complainant PW1 was examined and Exs.P1 to P5 were marked.

6.After closure of the evidence on the side of the complainant, accused was examined U/Sec.313 Cr.P.C explaining the incriminating material brought on record against him, for which the accused denied the said evidence and reported no evidence.

4Crl.App.No.862/2014

7.Upon hearing both sides, the trial court found the accused guilty for the offence U/Sec.138 of NI Act and convicted him accordingly U/Sec.255(2) of Cr.P.C and sentenced him as stated above.

8.Aggrieved by the conviction and sentence passed against him, the accused preferred the above Appeal U/Sec.374(3)(a) of

Cr.P.C on the following grounds:

(I)The trial court failed to consider the evidence and other material available on record and to acquitthe appellant. (II)The trial court erred in holding that appellant is guilt by observing the sec.138 of NI Act raisesa presumption in favour of holder of the cheque for discharge of debt or liability in whole or in part. (III)The trial court erred in holding that once signature of the cheque is admitted by the person who issued the said cheque which is immaterial whether the body is in the handwriting of the third party whether there is any legally enforceable debt or liability on the date of issuing of the cheque. (IV)The trial court erred in observing that the accused is able to dispel the presumption available U/sec. 118 and 139 of NI Act. (V)The trial court came to a conclusion that the cheque was issued for legal enforcement of debt or liability.

Hence to set aside the impugned Judgment.

9.During the course of Appeal the appellant failed to appear

before this Court. Hence a non bailable warrant was issued by the

Court on 19-12-2017 and respondent was also failed to appear 5Crl.App.No.862/2014

before the Court. Hence this court addressed a letter to District

Legal Services Authority vide Dis.No. 993/2021 dt. 20-12-2021 and

Sri.P. Kusheel Kumar, Advocate was appointed as Legal aid counsel vide Dis.no. 758/20221 dt. 29-12-2021. Heard Legal aid counsel.

Perused the material on record.

10.Now the point for determination are:

1.Whether the accused has shown sufficient grounds to set aside the impugned Judgment passed by the learned II Special Magistrate, at Malkajgiri, Rangareddy District in C.C.No 62/2013 Dt.29.10.2014 in law and on facts?

2.To what relief ?

11.POINT No.1:Since the complainant filed the private complaint to punish the accused for the offence U/Sec.138 of NI

Act, the initial burden is on the complainant to prove that the accused has issued Ex.P1/cheque towards discharge of his legally enforceable debt and it was dishonored for the reasons of ‘funds insufficient’ and the accused failed to pay the cheque amount even after receipt of statutory notice/Ex.P3 and thereby he is liable to be punished U/Sec.138 of NI Act.

12.In discharge of the said burden as stated above during the course of trial before the trial Court, the complainant examined himself as PW1 and filed his chief examination affidavit with the similar contents of his complaint, and Exs.P1 to P5 were marked.

Ex.P1 is the Original Cheque bearing No. 998985, Dt: 03-12-2012,

Ex.P2 is the Cheque return memo dt.03-12-2012, Ex.P3 is the

Office copy of the legal notice dt. 07-12-2012, Ex.P4 is the Original 6Crl.App.No.862/2014 postal receipt, Ex.P5 is the Postal acknowledgment card

dt. 13-12-2012.

13.After closure of the evidence on the side of the complainant, after examination of the accused U/Sec.313 of Cr.P.C., the accused reported no evidence.

14.The ingredients to prove the offence U/Sec.138 of NI Act are as follows:

(1) The cheque should have been issued for the discharge, in whole or part, of any debt or any liability. (2) The cheque should have been presented within a period of six months or within its validity period which ever is earlier. (3) The payee or holder in due course should have issued a notice in writing to the drawer within thirty days of the receipt of information by him from the bank regarding the return of the cheque as unpaid. (4) After receipt of the said notice from the holder in due course, the drawer should have failed to pay the cheque within fifteen days of receipt of said notice.

15.In view of the above evidence of PW1 and the documents marked as Exs.P1 to P5 goes to show that the complainant got filed the present complaint and examined himself as PW1 and contended that the accused is a co-employee with him in ECIL and approached him requesting for a hand loan of Rs.1,00,000/- and accordingly the complainant paid the said amount in cash on 02-06-2012 and accused executed a promissory note

dt. 02-06-2012 for Rs.1,00,000/- with a promise to repay the same

with interest @ 24% per annum within a period of 4 months.

7Crl.App.No.862/2014

Subsequently on persistent demands the accused issued

Ex.P1/Cheque on 03-12-2012 for the discharge of legally enforceable debt and the complainant presented the said cheque with his banker SBI, ECIL branch and the same was returned unpaid for the reason “funds insufficient” vide cheque return memo dt.03-12-2012/Ex.P2 and subsequently the complainant got issued statutory legal notice Dt.07-12-2012/Ex.P3 to the accused, demanding him to pay the amount covered by Ex.P1/cheque within 15 days from the date of receipt of the legal notice and that the accused having received the said legal notice failed to reply to the said notice nor repaid the said amount as such the complainant filed a private complaint against the accused to punish him for the offence U/Sec.138 of NI Act within the statutory period. In view of the above evidence, the complainant has proved the ingredients the offence U/Sec.138 of NI Act.

16.The contention of the accused is that he borrowed an amount of Rs.1,00,000/- from the complainant and at that time the complainant obtained Ex.P1/Cheque towards security and subsequently the accused repaid the said amount but the complainant did not return the cheque to him and filed the present false case against him. It is pertinent to note here that the accused except giving a mere suggestion to PW1 that entire amount under Ex.P1 was repaid, no material was placed before the

Court by the accused to substantiate his version. If really the accused had paid the said amount under Ex.P1/cheque, he would 8Crl.App.No.862/2014 definitely have obtained a receipt to that effect as no prudent man will pay the amount without obtaining any receipt. Further the complainant also examined PW2 who is the attesting witness of the Promissory note executed by the accused at the time of obtaining the loan. Though the said promissory note was not filed in this case for the reason that the same was filed in a civil case by the complainant, the evidence of PW2 clearly shows that the accused obtained the amount of Rs.1,00,000/- from the complainant in his presence and further a promissory note was also executed by him and he signed as one of the witness to the said promissory note. Though PWs 1 and 2 were cross examined at length, nothing was elicited to disbelieve their version.

17.There is no dispute with regard to the acquaintance between the complainant and the accused as both are working in ECIL and are colleagues. The contention of the is that he advanced an amount of Rs.1,00,000/- to the accused on 02-06-2012 and the accused received the same and executed a promissory note and subsequently issued Ex.P1/cheque for the discharge of the above said loan.

18.The Hon’ble Apex Court in APS Forex Services Pvt Ltd vs

Shakti International Fashion Dt.14.02.2020 held thus:

“5.2. What is emerging from the material on record is that the issuance of cheque by the accused and the signature of the accused on the said cheque are not disputed by the accused. The accused has also not disputed that there were transactions between the parties. Even as per the statement of 9Crl.App.No.862/2014 the accused, which was recorded at the time of the framing of the charge, he has admitted that some amount was due and payable. However, it was the case on behalf of the accused that the cheque was given by way of security and the same has been misused by the complainant. However, nothing is on record that in the reply to the statutory notice it was the case on behalf of the accused that the cheque was given by way of security. Be that as it may, however, it is required to be noted that earlier the accused issued cheques which came to be dishonoured on the ground of ‘insufficient funds’ and thereafter a fresh consolidated cheque of Rs. Rs.9,55,574/ was given which has been returned unpaid on the ground of “STOP PAYMENT”. Therefore, the cheque in question was issued for the second time. Therefore, once the accused has admitted the issuance of cheque which bears his signature, there is presumption that there exists a legally enforceable debt or liability under Section 139 of the N.I. Act. However, such a presumption is rebuttable in nature and the accused is required to lead the evidence to rebut such presumption. The accused was required to lead evidence that the entire amount due and payable to the complainant was paid.”

19.In the present case on hand, the accused has not denied his signature on Ex.P1/cheque and his contention is that he returned the said amount but the complainant did not return the cheque and filed the present false case against him.

20.Hon’ble Apex Court in Rangappa Vs. Mohan reported in

AIR 2010 SC 1898 held thus:

“once the cheque relates to the account of the accused and he accepts and admits the signatures on the said cheque, then initial presumption as contemplated u/sec. 139 of NI Act has to be raised by the court in favour of the complainant. The presumption referred to in Sec. 139 of NI Act is a mandatory presumption and not a general presumption, 10Crl.App.No.862/2014 but the accused is entitled to rebut the said presumption”.

21.In the present case in hand, the accused though cross examined PWs 1 and 2 at length but failed to rebut the above presumption drawn in favour of the complainant. Further the complainant issued Ex.P3/legal notice and the accused received the same which is evident from Ex.P5/postal acknowledgment, and the accused neither repaid the amount nor issued any reply notice.

22.In a reported case of the Hon’ble High Court of Andhra

Pradesh between B.Raghunandan Reddy Vs. Rajasekhar

Reddy & Another (2015 (1) ALD (Cri.) 861 it was held thus:

“ 12-D………..It was also held by this court way backChapalaHanumaiahVsKavuri Venkateshwarlu (1971 (1) An.W.R.65) that having received and acknowledged statutory legal notice after dishonour of cheque, non-giving of reply to said legal notice, improbablises defence version, as any prudent person under said circumstances should have, but for no defence to reply.”

23.When once accused admitted the issuance of cheque which bears his signature, there is presumption that there exists a legally enforceable debt and liability U/Sec.139 of NI Act. However, such presumption is rebuttable in nature and accused is required to lead evidence to rebut such presumption. The burden of proving that cheque was not issued for legally enforceable debt and liability is on accused which in the present case the accused failed to rebut.

11Crl.App.No.862/2014

24.Since the accused is not disputing his signature on

Ex.P1/cheque and also not issued any reply notice inspite of receiving the legal notice under Ex.P3 and keeping in view of the ratio laid down in the above reported cases and in view of the presumption U/Secs.118 & 139 of NI Act, once accused has admitted that the signatures found on Ex.P1/cheque belongs to him, it has to be presumed legally that the accused has issued

Ex.P1/cheque to the complainant in discharge of his legally enforceable debt in whole or in part of the other liability. Further accused also failed to rebut the presumption U/Secs.118 & 139 of

NI Act in favour of complainant.

25.In view of the above discussion, it is held that the accused has failed to prove that the Judgment passed by the learned II

Special Magistrate, at Malkajgiri, Rangareddy District in

C.C.No.62/2013 Dt.29-10-2014, is perverse, or erroneous, or not based on evidence on record, and the accused has failed to make out grounds to set aside the impugned Judgment and the Appeal is liable to be dismissed. The point is answered accordingly.

26.Point No.2 Answered: In the result, the Appeal filed by the appellant/accused is dismissed by confirming the Judgment passed by the learned II Special Magistrate, at Malkajgiri, Rangareddy

District in C.C.No.62/2013 Dt.29-10-2014 against the appellant/accused.

Appellant called absent. Since the appellant/accused 12Crl.App.No.862/2014 remained absent, the bail bonds of the appellant/accused are canceled and the trial court is directed to take necessary steps against the appellant/accused immediately for serving out the unexpired sentence in the impugned Judgment. The Office is directed to send the record to the Trial Court, immediately.

Typed to my dictation, corrected and pronounced by me in Open

Court on this Wednesday, the 13 th day of April, 2022.

VIII Addl. District & Sessions Judge, Rangareddy District

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

NIL

VIII Addl. District & Sessions Judge, Rangareddy District

1Crl.App.No. 899/2014

IN THE COURT OF VIII ADDITIONAL DISTRICT & SESSIONS JUDGE,

RANGAREDDY DISTRICT AT L.B.NAGAR

PRESENT: N. PREMA LATHA, VIII Additional District & Sessions Judge, Rangareddy District at LB Nagar.

Wednesday, the 20th day of April, 2022

Crl.App.No. 899/2014

BETWEEN:

Smt.C.Radha Purnima, W/o C.Y.Sastry, Aged 56 years, Occ: Employee, R/o H.No. 12-14-89, Behind Masjid, Lalapet, Secunderabad.

...Appellant/Accused

AND

1.M/s Aastritha Chit Funds (P) Ltd., 16-02-702/C & 703/1 to 4, Sri Balaji House, Malakpet, Hyderabad.

2.The State of Telangana, through Additional Public Prosecutor

...Respondent/Complainant

CRIMINAL APPEAL

Preferred by the Appellant having been aggrieved by the

Judgment passed by the learned IX Special Magistrate,

Hasthinapuram, Rangareddy District in

C.C.No.01/2014

BETWEEN:

M/s Aastritha Chit Funds (P) Ltd., 16-02-702/C & 703/1 to 4, Sri Balaji House, Malakpet, Hyderabad.

...Complainant

AND Smt.C.Radha Purnima, W/o C.Y.Sastry, Aged 56 years, Occ: Employee, R/o H.No. 12-14-89, Behind Masjid, Lalapet, Secunderabad.

...Accused

This Criminal Appeal coming before me for final hearing in the presence of Sri.J.Purushotham Reddy, Legal aid counsel for Appellant/Accused and Sri.K.Jaipal, Advocate for the Respondent and upon perusal of the material papers on record and the matter having been stood over till this day for consideration, this Court delivered the following:

2Crl.App.No. 899/2014

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

1.This Criminal Appeal is preferred by the appellant/accused against the Judgment passed by the learned IX

Special Magistrate, at Hastinapuram, Rangareddy District in

C.C.No.01/2014 Dt.20-10-2014 by virtue of which Trial Court sentenced the appellant/accused U/Sec.255 (2) of Cr.P.C., to suffer

Simple Imprisonment for one year and to pay fine of Rs. 10,000/- for the offence U/Sec.138 of Negotiable Instruments Act (hereinafter called as Sec. 138 of N.I.Act) in default to suffer simple imprisonment for 3 months.

2.The appellant herein is the accused and the respondent

No.1 is complainant in C.C.No.01/2014 and they will hereinafter be referred as accused and complainant for the sake of convenience and clarity.

3.The complainant filed a private complaint before the trial court stating that the complainant is carrying a chit fund business 16-2-702/C and 703/1 to 4, Sri Balaji House, Malakpet,

Hyderabad represented by its Manager B.Rajender who is authorized by companies Board Resolution dt. 21-08-2008 and the accused is the subscriber vide Chit series No. MT 5012, Ticket No.

23 for Chit value of Rs.5,00,000/- payable @12,500/- per month in 40 installments and became successful bidder and withdrawn the prize money and the accused in all paid 14 installments and failed to pay the remaining and on persistent demands, the accused 3Crl.App.No. 899/2014 issued a cheque bearing No. 454747 dt. 28-03-2012 for

Rs.3,23,625/- drawn on State Bank of India, Chandrayangutta branch towards the discharge of balance chit amount and the complainant presented the same with his banker M/s Laxmi Vilas

Bank Ltd., Kothapet branch, Hyderabad and the same was returned vide cheque return memo dt. 30-03-2012 with endorsement “funds insufficient”. The complainant got issued a legal notice dt. 09-04-2012 calling upon the accused the accused to repay the above amount and the same was returned unserved on 23-04-2012. Thus the complainant filed the complaint U/sec.

138 of NI Act.

4.The trial Court upon filing of the sworn statement of the complainant took cognizance of the complaint against the accused for the offence punishable U/Sec.138 NI Act and upon securing the presence of the accused by issuing summons, furnished the copy of the complaint and other documents to the accused as required

U/Sec.207 of Cr.P.C and later, the accused was examined

U/Sec.251 of Cr.P.C explaining the accusation made against him in the complaint for which the accused pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried.

5.During the course of trial, to prove his case, on behalf of the complainant PW1 is examined and got marked Exs.P1 to

P10.

6.After closure of the evidence on the side of the complainant, accused was examined U/Sec.313 Cr.P.C explaining 4Crl.App.No. 899/2014 the incriminating material brought on record against him, for which the accused denied the said evidence and reported defence evidence and got examined one D.Subramanyam as DW1.

7.Upon hearing both sides, the trial court found the accused guilty for the offence U/Sec.138 of NI Act and convicted him accordingly U/Sec.255(2) of Cr.P.C and sentenced him as stated above.

8.Aggrieved by the conviction and sentence passed against him, the accused preferred the above Appeal U/Sec.374(3)

(a) of Cr.P.C on the following grounds:

(i)The trial Court failed to pursue the evidence of the appellant and the cheque issued by the appellant was misused by respondent to claim the false amount by filling up the blank cheque.

(ii)The trial Court failed to observe that the appellant not received any legal notice.

(iii)The trail Court failed to observe that there is no legally enforceable debt against the cheque by using the blank cheque filling up the amounts.

Hence to set aside the impugned Judgment.

9.During the course of Appeal the appellant failed to appear before this Court. Hence a non bailable warrant was issued by the Court on 21-06-2019. Hence this court addressed a letter to

District Legal Services Authority vide Dis.No. 49/2022

dt. 11-01-2011 and Sri.J.Purushotham Reddy, Advocate was

appointed as Legal aid counsel vide Dis.no. 134/2022

dt. 28-01-2022. Heard Legal aid counsel. Perused the material on

record.

5Crl.App.No. 899/2014

10.Now the point for determination are:

1. Whether the accused has shown sufficient grounds to

set aside the impugned Judgment passed by the

learned IX Special Magistrate, at Hastinapuram,

Rangareddy District in C.C.No.01/2014 Dt.20-10-2014 in law and on facts?

2. To what relief ?

11.POINT No.1:Since the complainant filed the private complaint to punish the accused for the offence U/Sec.138 of NI

Act, the initial burden is on the complainant to prove that the accused has issued ExP5/Cheques towards discharge of his legally enforceable debt and it was dishonored for the reasons of ‘funds insufficient’ and the accused failed to pay the cheque amount even after receipt of statutory notice/Ex.P7 and thereby he is liable to be punished U/Sec.138 of NI Act.

12.In discharge of the said burden as stated above during the course of trial before the trial Court, the complainant examined himself as PW1 and filed his chief examination affidavit with the similar contents of his complaint, and Exs.P1 to P10 were marked. Ex.P1 is the CC of Certificate of Incorporation of the complainant, Ex.P2 is the Board Resolution Authorization letter

dt. 21-08-2008 Ex.P3 is the Original Chit Agreement

dt. 19-08-2010, Ex.P4 is the Statement of account, Ex.P5 is the

Original cheque bearing No.454747 dt. 28-03-2012, Ex.P6 is the

Cheque return memo dt.30-03-2012, Ex.P7 is the Office copy of legal notice dt. 09-04-2012, Ex.P8 is the returned postal cover dt.23-04-2012, Ex.P9 is the Award of Deputy Registrar of 6Crl.App.No. 899/2014

Chits/Arbitration, Erragadda dt. 22-12-2012, Ex.P10 is the

Undertaking by the accused dt. 24-06-2014.

13.After closure of the evidence on the side of the complainant, after examination of the accused U/Sec.313 of

Cr.P.C., the accused got examined one V. Subramanyam as DW1.

14.The ingredients to prove the offence U/Sec.138 of NI Act are as follows:

(1) The cheque should have been issued for the discharge, in whole or part, of any debt or any liability. (2)The cheque should have been presented within a period of six months or within its validity period which ever is earlier. (3) The payee or holder in due course should have issued a notice in writing to the drawer within thirty days of the receipt of information by him from the bank regarding the return of the cheque as unpaid. (4) After receipt of the said notice from the holder in due course, the drawer should have failed to pay the cheque within fifteen days of receipt of said notice.

15.In view of the above evidence of PW1 and the documents marked as Exs.P1 to P10 goes to show that the complainant got filed the present complaint and examined himself as PW1 and contended that accused joined as subscriber of a chit bearing No. MT 5012, Ticket No.23 for Rs.5,00,000/- payable @12,500/- per month in 40 monthly installments and became successful bidder and withdrawn the prize money and thereafter paid only 14 installments and subsequently failed to pay the remaining installments and issued a cheque bearing No. 454747 dt.28-03-2012 for a sum of Rs.3,23,625/- drawn on State Bank of 7Crl.App.No. 899/2014

India, Chandrayangutta branch and the complainant presented the same with his banker Laxmi Vilas Bank Ltd., Kothapet branch and the same was returned unpaid vide cheque return memo dt.30-03-2012 with endorsement “funds insufficient” and the complainant got issued legal notice dt. 09-04-2012 calling upon the complainant to repay the said amount and the same was returned by the accused on 23-04-2012 and the notice sent to her office address returned unserved as such the complainant filed private complaint against the accused to punish him for the offence U/Sec.138 of NI Act within the statutory period. In view of the above evidence, the complainant has proved the ingredients of the offence U/Sec.138 of NI Act.

16.The contention of the accused is that she is the successful bidder of the chit conducted by the complainant and repaid the entire subscription amount. Relative of the accused is examined as DW1 and deposed that accused was the successful bidder of the Chit conducted by the complainant and at the time of payment of prize money, the complainant obtained the blank signed cheque Ex.P5 towards security and subsequently the accused paid the entire cheque amount to the complainant and accused is not due any amount as claimed by the complainant.

However during the cross examination DW1 admitted that accused informed him that she paid only 14 installments. Further DW1 also stated that the complainant used to issue receipts at the time of payment of installments. If really the accused has paid the entire 8Crl.App.No. 899/2014 chit amount, she would have obtained the receipts from the complainant and filed the same to prove her contention but the accused has not filed any receipt showing the payment of the entire chit installments.

17.In this regard it is relevant to refer to the decision of the

Hon’ble Apex Court in APS Forex Services Pvt Ltd vs Shakti

International Fashion Dt.14.02.2020 wherein it was held thus:

“5.2. What is emerging from the material on record is that the issuance of cheque by the accused and the signature of the accused on the said cheque are not disputed by the accused. The accused has also not disputed that there were transactions between the parties. Even as per the statement of the accused, which was recorded at the time of the framing of the charge, he has admitted that some amount was due and payable. However, it was the case on behalf of the accused that the cheque was given by way of security and the same has been misused by the complainant. However, nothing is on record that in the reply to the statutory notice it was the case on behalf of the accused that the cheque was given by way of security. Be that as it may, however, it is required to be noted that earlier the accused issued Cheques which came to be dishonored on the ground of ‘insufficient funds’ and thereafter a fresh consolidated cheque of Rs. Rs.9,55,574/ was given which has been returned unpaid on the ground of “STOP PAYMENT”. Therefore, the cheque in question was issued for the second time. Therefore, once the accused has admitted the issuance of cheque which bears his signature, there is presumption that there exists a legally enforceable debt or liability under Section 139 of the NI Act. However, such a presumption is rebuttable in nature and the accused is required to lead the evidence to rebut such presumption. The accused was required to lead evidence that the entire amount due and payable to the complainant was paid.”

18.Further the accused though took a plea that she has 9Crl.App.No. 899/2014 repaid the entire chit amount, her contention is that Ex.P5/Cheque was issued at the time of obtaining the prize amount towards security by the complainant. In this regard, the Hon’ble Apex

Court in 2015 AIR SCW 3040 between T.Vasanthakumar Vs.

Vijayakumari, held that:

“Cheque as well as the signature on it not disputed by accused - Presumption U/Sec.139 would be attracted story brought out by accused that the cheque was given to complainant long back in 1999 as a security to a loan, the loan was repaid but the complainant did not return the security cheque – is unworthy of credit, apart from being unsupported by any evidence.”

19.In Rangappa Vs. Mohan reported in AIR 2010 SC 1898 it was held thus:

“ Once the cheque relates to the account of the accused and he accepts and admits the signatures on the said Cheques, then the initial presumption as contemplated under Section 139 of NI Act has to be raised by the court in favour of the complainant. The presumption referred to in Section 139 of the NI Act is a mandatory presumption and not general presumption but , the accused is entitled to rebutt the said presumption.”

20.In the present case on hand, though accused examined himself as DW1 but failed to rebut the above presumption existing in favour of the complainant.

21.Learned legal aid counsel for accused argued that there are no particulars of commencement of chit and date of default by the accused and the amount due from the accused in Ex.P7/legal notice. It is true that there are no particulars of commencement and closure of chit in Ex.P7/legal notice, but the evidence of DW1 10Crl.App.No. 899/2014 clearly proves the case of the complainant that the accused paid only 14 installments out of 40 installments and defaulted thereafter. Further Ex.P4 statement of account of the accused clearly shows the date of actual amount due and other particulars which the accused did not deny. Further Ex.P9 award passed by

Deputy Registrar of Chits/Arbitrator clearly shows that the accused was the successful bidder of a chit of Rs.5,00,000/- and after receiving the prize money committed default and thereby held liable to pay the balance amount. Further Ex.P10 also shows that accused admitted her liability and agreed to repay the chit amount by paying Rs.15,000/- to the complainant on 24-06-2016 in connection with this case on hand, further undertaking to repay

Rs.30,000/- every month till the amount is cleared, which clearly supports the case of the complainant.

22.When once accused admitted the issuance of Cheque under Ex.P5 which bears her signature, there is presumption that there exists a legally enforceable debt and liability U/Sec.139 of NI

Act. However, such presumption is rebuttable in nature and accused is required to lead evidence to rebut such presumption. In the present case on hand, though the accused examined DW1 but failed to rebut the statutory presumption existing in favour of the complainant.

23.Since the accused is not disputing her signature on

Ex.P5/Cheque and keeping in view of the ratio laid down in the 11Crl.App.No. 899/2014 above reported cases and in view of the presumption U/Secs.118 & 139 of NI Act, once accused has admitted that the signatures found on Ex.P5/Cheque belongs to her, it has to be presumed legally that the accused has issued Ex.P5/Cheque to the complainant in discharge of her legally enforceable debt in whole or in part of the other liability. Further accused also failed to rebut the presumption U/Secs.118 & 139 of NI Act in favour of complainant.

24.In view of the above discussion, it is held that the accused has failed to prove that the Judgment passed by the learned IX Special Magistrate, at Hastinapuram, Rangareddy

District in C.C.No.01/2014 Dt.20-10-2014, is perverse, or erroneous, or not based on evidence on record, and the accused has failed to make out grounds to set aside the impugned

Judgment and the Appeal is liable to be dismissed. The point is answered accordingly.

25.Point No.2 Answered: In the result, the Appeal filed by the appellant/accused is dismissed by confirming the Judgment passed by the learned IX Special Magistrate, at Hastinapuram,

Rangareddy District in C.C.No.01/2014 Dt.20-10-2014 against the appellant/accused.

Appellant called absent. Since the appellant/accused remained absent, the bail bonds of the appellant/accused are canceled and the trial court is directed to take necessary steps 12Crl.App.No. 899/2014 against the appellant/accused immediately for serving out the unexpired sentence in the impugned Judgment. The Office is directed to send the record to the Trial Court, immediately.

Typed to my dictation, corrected and pronounced by me in Open

Court on this Wednesday, the 20 th day of April 2022.

VIII Addl. District & Sessions Judge, Rangareddy District

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

NIL

VIII Addl. District & Sessions Judge, Rangareddy District

LAOP No. 103 of 2011 Page No 1 of 10

IN THE COURT OF THE VIII ADDL. DISTRICT JUDGE

R.R. DISTRICT AT L.B. NAGAR.

Present:Ms. N. Prema Latha, VIII Addl. District Judge, Ranga Reddy District.

Dated on this the 21st day of April, 2022

L.A.O.P. NO. 103 of 2011

Between : The Special Deputy Collector (L.A.) Unit -VI, ORR Project, HMDA, Tarnaka, Hyderabad .... Referring Officer

and

1. K. Krishna Prasad S/o. Prabhakar Rao,

2. K. Harsha S/o. K. Krishna Prasad,

3. K. Padma W/o. K. Krishna Prasad,

4. K. Sirisha D/o. K. Krishna Prasad,]

5. K. Prabhakar Rao S/o. K. Raghavaiah,

Claimant No.1 to 5 are R/o. Vishnu Housing Private Limited 205, Nilgiri Block, Adithya Enclave, Ameerpet, Hyderabad.

6. Nagula Sathaiah S/o. Late Nagula Parshuram,

7. Nagula Swamy S/o. Late Nagula Parshuram,

8. Nagula Srinivas S/o. Venkataiah,

Claimant No. 6 to 8 are R/o. Kokapet Village, Rajender Nagar Mandal, Ranga Reddy District.

9. Nagula Sathyamma S/o. Late N. Venkatesham,

10. Nagula Mahender S/o. Late Venkatesham,

11. Nagula Gnaneshwar S/o. Late N. Venkatesham,

12. Nagula Devender S/o. Late N. Venkatesham,

13. N. Laxminarayana S/o. Late Laxmaiah,

14. Nagula Dasharatha S/o. Late Laxmaiah,

15. Nagula Kumara S/o. Late Laxmaiah,

16. Nagula Gandhi S/o Late Gowraiah,

17. Nagula Murthy S/o. Late Krishna Murthy,

18. Nagula Srinivas S/o. Late Krishna Swamy,

19. Nagula Raghunath S/o. Late Krishna Swamy,

Claimant No. 6 to 19 R/o. H. No. 3-70, Narsingi Village, Rajendernagar Mandal, Ranga Reddy District.

LAOP No. 103 of 2011 Page No 2 of 10

20. Kishan Das S/o. Late Nawalmal Rizwani,

21. Arjun Das S/o. Late Nawalmal Rizwani,

22. Dhan Raj S/o. Late Nawalmal Rizwani,

23. Gadavari Bai D/o. Late Thakur Das,

24. Harish S/o. Late Thakur Das.

Claimant No. 20 to 24 are R/o. Puppalaguda Village, Rajendernagar Mandal, Ranga Reddy District.

..Claimants

This L.A.O.P. is coming before me for hearing in the presence of Sri S. Srinivas Rao, Standing Counsel for HMDA, for Referring Officer and of Sri K.V. Bhanu Prasad, Advocate for claimant Nos.1 to 4 and of Sri Appa Rao, Advocate for claimant No.8 to 12, 14 to 18 and claimant No. 6,7,13 died and claimant Nos. 5, 19 to 24 remained exparte and upon perusal of the material papers on record and the matter having been stood over for consideration till this day, this Court delivered the following:

O R D E R

This reference is made by respondent/referring officer under

Section 30 of land Acquisition Act, in respect of Acquisition of the land to an extent of Ac. 06-00 Gts in Sy. No. 300 situated at Puppalaguda Village,

Rajender nagar Mandal, Ranga Reddy District for the formation of Outer ring road after giving notice under Section 4(1) of land Acquisition Act and the reference was made under Section 30 and 31 of the Land

Acquisition Act.

2.After receiving the reference the same is numbered as OP No. 103 of 2011 and notices were sent to claimant Nos. 1 to 24. On receipt of notices claimant Nos. 19 to 24 were remained exparte on 17.11.2017.

Claimant Nos. 1 to 4 and 8 to 12 and 14 to 19 have filed their claim statements. Claimant No.5 reported died and his legal heirs claimant No.

1 to 4 were already on record. Claimant Nos.6,7 and 13 reported died and no steps were takan against them by the referring officer.

LAOP No. 103 of 2011 Page No 3 of 10 3.As per the claim statement of claimants No.1 to 4, the Government of Andhra Pradesh issued a notification under Section 4 (1) published in

A.P. Gazette ORR No. 85 dated 21.4.2005 proposing to acquire the land in

Sy. Nos. 277, 282, 283,286, 298, 299, 300 and 301 admeasuring Ac 35.21

Gts situated at Puppalaguda Village, Rajendernagar Mandal, Ranga

Reddy District for formation of Outer Ring road and conducted an enquiry on 27.03.2006 and subsequently after withdrawal of proposals in respect of land bearing No. 277, 282, 283 and 286 admeasuring Ac 22.38

Gts by the Special Collector only lands in Sy. Nos. 298,299, 300 and 301 were acquired to an extent of Ac 12.23 Gts. The respondents 1 to 4 are concerned only with land in Sy. No. 300 of Puppalaguda Village and the claimant No.1 K. Krishna Prasasd purchased an extent of Ac 04-10 Gts in

Sy. no. 300 vide two registered sale deed bearing document Nos.

8323/2002 and 8326/2002 dated 02.10.2002 and claimant No. 2 purchased an extent of Ac 02-00 Gts vide registered document No.

8324/2002 and claimant No. 3 purchased an extent of Ac 02-00 vide registered document No. 8325/2002 and claimant No.4 purchased an extent of Ac 02-00 Gts vide registered document No. 8327/2002 and claimant No. 5 purchased an extent of Ac 2-00 Gts vide registered document No. 8328/2002. That, the claimant No.5 is no more and he executed registered Will Deed in favour of his son claimant No.1 on 04.07.2007. Thus, claimants No.1 to 5 purchased an extent of Ac 12-10

Gts from Nagula Sattaiah and his family who are the owners and possessors of land in Sy. No. 300 of Puppalaguda Village under registered sale deeds. It was further stated that vendors of the claimants 1 to 5

LAOP No. 103 of 2011 Page No 4 of 10 namely Nagula Sattaiah, Nagula Swamy, Nagula Parshuram have filed representation to recognize thier long standing possession over the lands in Sy. no. 299, 300 and 301 to an extent of Ac 35-02 Gts and also filed writ petition No. 9600/1993 and the same was disposed of with a direction to MRO to consider the representation and pursuant to the directions the revenue officials have conducted a detailed enquiry and found the possession of father of Nagula Sattaiah and others for a period of about 30 years and Regional Settlement Commissioner Bombay passed orders that they are entitle for transfer of evacuee property which are in their physical possession, on payment of Rs.450/- for standard acre and accordingly Joint Collector vide proceedings No.

D3/5187/1993 dated 06.12.1994 passed orders transferring the title to the vendors of the claimants 1 to 5 and the same has become final. Thus, there is no dispute with regard to the title of the claimants 1 to 5. It was further submitted that subsequent to the purchase in the year 2002 the claimants 1 to 5 are in possession and enjoyment by the date of issuing the notification in the year 2005 and their names were reflected in land acquisition proceedings. Though, the claimants claimed Rs.10 crores in all but the same has not been granted and a sum of Rs.52,16,605/- had been awarded but the claimants No. 20 to 24 have raised an objection before the land acquisition officer claiming right over the said property. The claimants No. 6 to 19 being the vendors have no disputes with regard to the compensation payable to claimants No.1 to 5.

4.It was further stated that, claimant No. 20 to 24 were trying to assert thier right in the said property stating that Regional Settlement

LAOP No. 103 of 2011 Page No 5 of 10 commissioner Bombay vide allotment order dated 28.07.1955 allotted land in Sy. No. 300 to an extent of Ac 13-01 Gts in their favour and subsequently a Sanad dated 10-05-1956 was also issued in their favour based on which the claimant No. 20 to 24 are claiming the compensation of the land Acquisition officer. However, no revenue records support the case of claimant No. 20 to 24 and they have also failed to establish their possession and enjoyment over the said lands. The claimant No. 20 to 24 are not entitled to any portion of the amount deposited by the

Government. The claimants No. 1 to 5 being the registered owners of the land are entitled to the compensation deposited by the Government.

5.The claimants No. 8 to 12, 14 to 19 though filed their claim petition, but, they claim the land in Sy. No. 299 of Puppalaguda Village, and not

Sy. No. 300 of Puppalaguda Village in respect of which land the present reference has been made by the referring officer. Thus, the claim statement of the claimants 8 to 12 and 14 to 19 need not be considered for any purpose in the present reference. However, claimant No. 18 filed his evidence affidavit as PW-2 in respect of land under reference ie., land in Sy. No. 300 of Puppalaguda Village.

6.Heard Counsels for Claimants and referring officer. Perused the record.

7.Point for consideration is : Whether the Claimant No. 1 to 5, 8 to 12, 14 to 18 and 19 to 24 are entitled to receive the compensation awarded by the Referring Officer?

LAOP No. 103 of 2011 Page No 6 of 10 8.Point answered: Claimant No.1 filed his evidence affidavit as PW1 and reiterated the contents of the claim petition deposed that he along with claimants No. 2 to 5 have purchased total extent of Ac 12-10 gts in

Sy. No. 300 of Puppalaguda village vide different registered sale deeds which were marked as Ex.A1 to A6 purchased from Nagula Sattaiah and other who are the owners of the above said land vide proceedings of joint collector No. D3/5187/1993 dated 16.12.1994. PW1 further deposed that, claimant No. 5 is expired and he executed a registered Will Deed in favour of his son claimant No.1 on 04.06.2007 bequeathing the land purchased by him in favour of claimant No.1. It was further stated that, claimants No.6 to 19 are their vendors and they have no serious dispute with regard to the compensation payable to the claimant No.1 to 5. It was further averred that the claimant No. 20 to 24 are trying to assert their right over the above property based on the allotment of Regional

Settlement Commissioner Bombay dated 28.07.1955 and also on a Sanad

dated 10.05.1956, however, the above claimants never challenged the

sale deeds of claimant Nos. 1 to 5 and also failed to file the proceedings in their favour. PW1 filed Exs. A1 to A6 which are the certified copies of registered sale deeds executed in favour of Claimant No.1 to 5 by

Claimant No. 6 and others and Ex.A7 is the certified copy of Will Deed

dated 04.06.2007 executed by claimant No.5 in favour of Claimant No.1.

9.Claimant No. 18 filed his Chief affidavit as PW2 and deposed that he along with claimants No.8 to 10 and 14 to 17 and 19 are the owners of land admeasuring Ac 0-31 Gts in Sy. No. 300 of Puppalaguda Village by

LAOP No. 103 of 2011 Page No 7 of 10 way of inheritance and their claimants by name Nagula Shivaiah was recorded as possessor of land admeasuring Ac 13-01 Gts in Sy. No. 300 of

Puppalaguda Village vide pahanis for the period from 1965-66 to 2011-12 showing continuous possession over the said land and they were also issued a Sale certificate bearing No. D3/5187/1993 dated 16.12.1994 by the joint collector Ranga Reddy to an extent of Ac 13-01 Gts and further vide proceedings Lr. No. 3/LA/ORR/Unit-VII/2005/2 dated 03.05.2010 on the file of Land Acquisition Officer, HMDA, ORR has acquired land admeasuring Ac 06-00 in Sy. No. 300 of Puppalalguda Village. PW2 further stated that the claimants 10 to 12 and 14 to 19 have sold land admeasuring Ac 12-10 Gts to several parties and retained an extent of Ac 0-31 Gts in Sy. No. 300 of Puppalaguda Village and the said extent of Ac 0-31 Gts is not under the process of acquisition and land Acquisition

Officer inadvertently mentioned their names and the land admeasuring

Ac 0-31Gts in Sy. No. 300 of Puppalaguda Village is under acquisition.

10.During cross examination CW2 admitted that he along with his family members sold out land to an extent of Ac 12-10 Gts out of Ac 13- 01 Gts in Sy. No. 300 of Pupplaguda Village in favour of the claimants

No.1 to 5 and at present they possess only land to an extent of Ac 0-31

Gts in the said survey number and he further admitted that they have no claim over the land purchased by claimants No.1 to 5 and they are entitled for compensation for the acquisition from the Government in the above OP.

LAOP No. 103 of 2011 Page No 8 of 10 11.It is seen from the material on record that, though, the claimants

No.20 to 24 have made rival claim before the revenue authorities, but, they failed to appear before the Court and as such were set exparte in the present original petition. Further, the claimant No.1 to 5 purchased the land to an extent of Ac 12-10 Gts from the ancestors of claimants

No.8 to 19 which is evident from Exs.A1 to A6 which are the registered sale deeds standing in the name of claimant No.1 to 5. There is no dispute with regard to the title of the claimants 1 to 5 over the said extent of Ac 12-10 Gts in Sy. No. 300 of Puppalaguda Village and the claimants No.8 to 19 admit that their ancestors have sold out the said land in favour of the claimant No.1 to 5. Further, the rival claimants No.

20 to 24 who were claiming right over the said property remained exparte before this court.

12.In view of the unchallenged version of the claimant No.1 to 5 that they purchased property under registered sale deeds and part of said land was acquired by the Government as above and the same has not been denied by their vendors, it is held that the claimants No.1 to 5 are entitled for the compensation awarded by the land acquisition officer.

During the proceedings the claimant No.5 died on 17.06.2007 and he executed a registered Will Deed dated 04.06.2007 which is marked as

Ex.A7 bequeathing the property purchased by him under registered sale deed bearing No. 8328/2002/Ex.A6 in favour of his son Claimant No.1.

Thus, the Claimant No.1 is also entitled for compensation in respect of the land under Ex.A6 from the Land Acquisition Officer. Therefore,

LAOP No. 103 of 2011 Page No 9 of 10 claimant No.1 to 4 are declared as the owners of land under acquisition purchased by them under Exs.A1 to A6 and thus entitled for the compensation.

13.In view of my above discussion this OP is decreed declaring claimant No.1 to 4 are the owners of their respective properties under

Ex.A1 to A7 and they are entitled for compensation awarded by the land acquisition officer with proportionate interest.

14.In the result, this land acquisition original petition is decreed declaring the claimant No.1 to 4 are the owners of their respective properties under Ex.A1 to A7 and they are entitled to receive the compensation awarded by the land acquisition officer together with proportionate interest.

Claim of claimant No.20 to 24 are hereby dismissed.

Typed to my dictation by Stenographer, corrected and pronounced by me in open Court on this the 21st day of April, 2022.

VIII Addl. District Judge, Ranga Reddy District.

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

WITNESSES EXAMINED

FOR REFERRING OFFICER FOR CLAIMANTS

NonePW1: Krishna Prasad. PW2: Nagula SVR Murthy.

EXHIBITS MARKED

FOR REFERRING OFFICER

Nil

LAOP No. 103 of 2011 Page No 10 of 10

FOR CLAIMANTS

1Ex A1: Certified copy of sale deed Doc. No. 8323/2002 in favour of 1st claimant dated 02.10.2002.

2Ex A2: Certified copy of sale deed Doc. No. 8326/2002 in favour of 1st claimant dated 02.10.2002.

3Ex A3: Certified copy of sale deed Doc. No. 8324/2002 in favour of 1st claimant dated 02.10.2002.

4Ex A4: Certified copy of sale deed Doc. No. 8325/2002 in favour of 1st claimant dated 02.10.2002.

5Ex A5: Certified copy of sale deed Doc. No. 8327/2002 in favour of 1st claimant dated 02.10.2002.

6Ex A6: Certified copy of sale deed Doc. No. 8328/2002 in favour of 1st claimant dated 02.10.2002.

7Ex A7: Certified copy of Will executed by 5th claimant dated 04.06.2007 in favour of 1st claimant.

VIII Addl. District Judge, Ranga Reddy District.

1 MVOP.667/2016

IN THE COURT OF THE MOTOR VEHICLE ACCIDENT CLAIMS

TRIBUNAL-CUM-VIII ADDITIONAL DISTRICT JUDGE,

RANGAREDDY DISTRICT AT L.B.NAGAR

PRESENT: N.PREMA LATHA, Chairman, Motor Vehicle Accident Claims Tribunal-cum-VIII Additional District Judge, Rangareddy District at LB Nagar.

Monday, the 18th day of April, 2022

M.V.O.P.No.667/2016

Between:

1. Smt.Uyyala Laxmi W/o Narsimha Goud, Aged 40 years, Occ: Housewife

2. U. Narsimha, S/o U.Jangaiah, Aged: 45 years, Occ: Labour

Both R/o H.No. 2-2-127/37/F/19, New Vijayapuri Colony, Uppal, R.R.District, Hyderabad ….Petitioners.

AND

1.The APSRTC, rep.by its MD.Bus Bhavan, Musheerabad, RTC X road, Hyderabad.

2.Ragam Mallesh, S/o R.Yadagiri, aged 40 years, Occ: Driver, Uppal Depot, H.No. 5-44/1, Gandhi Nagar, Parvathapur, Ghatkesar Mandal, R.R.District. …Respondents

This Motor Vehicle Original Petition is came before me for final hearing in the presence of Sri.R. Nageshwar Reddy, Counsel for the Claim Petitioner and Sri.T. Dayakar Reddy, Counsel for the Respondent No.1 and Respondent No.2 remained exparte and upon perusal of the material papers on record and the matter stood over for consideration till this day, this Court delivered the following:

: : O R D E R : :

1.This petition has been filed under Section 166 of Motor

Vehicles Act, 1988 claiming compensation of Rs.15,00,000/- (Rupees Fifteen Lakh only) for the death of U. Kiran Goud @ Chintu in the Motor Vehicle Accident that occurred on 15.06.2016.

2.The averments of the Petition show that:

2 MVOP.667/2016

(i) On 15.06.2016 at about 9:10PM the deceased U. Kiran

Goud @ Chintu was proceeding on his motor bike along with his friend G.Rahul as pillion rider went to Master chef and while returning their house when they reached Venkateswara Cloth store near Mahankali Temple, Uppal meanwhile one APSRTC bus bearing No. AP28 Z 145 driven by its driver in a rash and negligent manner, came from behind and dashed the bike due to which the deceased fell down and sustained severe head injury and other injuries and died on spot. Thereafter the body was shifted to

Gandhi Hospital where PME and Inquest Panchanama was conducted.

(ii) The Police, Uppal Police Station registered a case in Crime

No.468 of 2016 against the driver of the bus bearing No.AP28 Z

145. The accident was the result of rash and negligent driving of the driver of the crime vehicle, driven by its driver.

(iii) Respondent No.1 is the Corporation and Respondent No.2 is the driver of the vehicle. As such, both the respondents are jointly and severally liable to pay compensation.

3.On receipt of summons Respondent No.2 remained exparte.

4. Respondent No.1 appeared and filed its counter. Respondent

No.1 denied the mode of accident, involvement of the crime vehicle and denied that driver of the crime vehicle was having valid driving license. Respondent No.1 further denied the age and 3 MVOP.667/2016 earning of the deceased and pleaded that the claim is excessive and arbitrary, as such, prayed to dismiss the claim.

5.Basing on the above rival pleadings, the following Issues were settled for trial:

1. Whether the deceased U.Kiran Goud @ Chintu died on 15.06.2016 due to rash and negligent driving of RTC bus bearing No. AP28 Z 145 by its driver?

2. Whether the petitioner Nos. 1 and 2 are entitled to claim compensation and if so how much amount and from which of the respondents?

3. To what relief?

6.During trial, on behalf of the Claim Petitioners, PWs.1 and 2 were examined and Exs.A1 to A7 were marked. On behalf of

Respondents, no oral evidence was adduced and no documents are marked.

7.Learned counsel on both sides submitted oral arguments along with citations filed by the petitioners.

ISSUE No.1:

8. The Petitioners to support their case got examined PWs.1 and 2 and got marked Exs.A.1 to A7. PW1 is the claim Petitioner

No.2. As per the evidence of PW1, the accident occurred on 15.06.2016 at about 09.10PM. The information of accident was received by P.S.Uppal, at 10.30PM on the same day. Copy of First

Information Report was marked as Ex.A1 after knowing about the accident, the complaint was lodged by PW1 who is the father of the deceased. In the circumstances, Ex.A1 was promptly lodged 4 MVOP.667/2016 and authentic as to the truth of the accident. Ex.A1 was investigated and final report was filed which is marked as Ex.A2.

As per Ex.A7 Postmortem Examination Report, the cause of death was “due to head injury”. As per Ex.A4 certified copy of Motor

Vehicles Inspector the accident occurred was not due to any mechanical defect of the crime vehicle. Therefore, the pleaded accident occurred due to rash and negligent driving of driver of the crime vehicle. Therefore, the issue No.1 is answered accordingly in favour of petitioners.

9. The pleadings and oral evidence of PW1 shows that the deceased was aged about 20 years and he was a bachelor as on the date of accident and no document was filed in support of the same. As per Ex.A7 Postmortem Examination report, the age of the deceased was mentioned as 20 years. Since the deceased was a student and bachelor, the age of mother of the deceased is criterion in order to arrive proper multiplier for computation of loss of dependency.

10.The pleadings and oral evidence of PW1 shows that the deceased was doing grass business and was earning Rs.10,000/- per month and contributing the same to his family. The petitioners except mere statement that the deceased was earning

Rs.10,000/- per month, have not filed any document to show the same. In the absence of any such evidence the claim of the petitioners that the deceased was earning Rs.10,000/- per month 5 MVOP.667/2016 cannot be considered. Considering the minimum wages applicable during the period of accident and the age of the deceased, a notional income of the deceased is fixed as Rs.10,000/- per month.

As per the claim petitioners the deceased was a bachelor and aged about 20 years and considering the age of the deceased, the notional income of the deceased can be taken at Rs.10,000/- per month and 50% of the notional income of deceased has to be deducted towards personal and living expenses, as it is assumed that he would tend to spend more amounts for his personal expenses. After deducting 50% of the income of deceased from out of his total earnings i.e., Rs.10,000 – Rs.5,000/- being 50% of his income, the income of deceased comes to Rs.5,000/- per month i.e., Rs.60,000/- per annum.

11.Since the deceased is aged 20 years and earning as discussed above it is relevant to refer to the decision of Honble

Apex court in National Insurance Company Vs Pranay Sethi and others ( 2017 ACJ 1700 ) as under with regard to of future prospects.

“in case the deceased was self employed or on a fixed salary, an addition of 40% of the established income should be the warrant where the deceased was below the age of 40 years. An addition of 25% where the deceased was between the age of 40 to 50 years and 10% where the deceased was between the age of 50 to 60 years should be regarded as the necessary method of computation”.

6 MVOP.667/2016

12.In the present case the deceased was aged 20 years and self employed as such 40% additional income to be added towards future prospects. Therefore an amount of Rs.7000/- (i.e., 5000 x 40/100 = Rs.2000/- + Rs.5000/- = Rs.7000/-) shall be the income of the deceased per month. Thus annual income of the deceased comes to Rs.84,000/- (Rs.7000/- x 12 = Rs.84,000/-). As per the evidence the claimants are the parents of the deceased as already held supra, the annual income of the deceased is Rs.84,000/-.

Now the question is how much amount can be deducted towards personal and living expenses of the deceased.

13.In this regard, it is appropriate to refer to the land mark judgment of the Hon'ble Apex Court in “Sarla Verma v. D.T.C” reported in (2009) 6 SCC - 121, wherein the Hon'ble Apex Court held as under:

“14. Though in some cases the deduction to be made towards personal and living expenses is calculated on the basis of units indicated in Trilok Chandra, the general practice is to apply standardized deduction. Having considered several subsequent decisions of this Court, we are of the view that where the deceased was married, the deduction towards personal and living expenses of the deceased, should be one-third (1/3rd) where the number of dependent family members is 2 to 3, one-fourth (1/4th) where the number of dependent family members is 4 to 6, and one-fifth (1/5th) where the number of dependent family members exceed six.”

In the present case the dependents are his parents i.e., two in number. Therefore, after deducting 1/3rd of earnings of the deceased i.e., Rs.28,000/- from out of Rs.84,000/-, the remaining 7 MVOP.667/2016 amount comes to Rs56,000/- which would be the loss of dependency and which would be the income he would be contributing to the family per annum.

14.In order to determine the proper multiplier, it is appropriate to refer the decision of Hon’ble Apex Court in Sarla Verma Vs.

DTC 2009 (6) SCC 121 where in the Hon’ble Apex court held as under

21. We, therefore, hold that the multiplier to be used should be as mentioned in column (4) of the Table above (prepared by applying Susamma Thomas, Trilok Chandra and Charlie), which starts with an operative multiplier of 18 (for the age groups of 15 to 20 and 21 to 25 years), reduced by one unit for every five years, that is M-17 for 26 to 30 years, M-16 for 31 to 35 years, M-15 for 36 to 40 years, M-14 for 41 to 45 years, and M-13 for 46 to 50 years, then reduced by two units for every five years, that is, M-11 for 51 to 55 years, M-9 for 56 to 60 years, M-7 for 61 to 65 years and M-5 for 66 to 70 years.

As per my findings on age, the age of the deceased is criterion to compete the loss of dependency and the same is accepted by this Tribunal. The appropriate multiplier for the persons in the age group of 15 to 20 and 21 to 25 years is ‘18’.

Therefore the multiplier 18 is adopted for calculation of amounts.

By adopting this multiplier i.e., 56,000/- x 18 = 10,08,000/- (Rupees Ten Lakhs and Eight Thousand only) is awarded to the petitioners towards loss of dependency.

15.The Hon’ble Apex court in National Insurance Company

Vs. Pranay Sethi and others (2017 ACJ 2700) has awarded is amount Rs.70,000/- (Rupees Seventy Thousand only) towards 8 MVOP.667/2016 funeral expenses, loss of love affection and consortium. Following the above binding precedent, this tribunal awards a sum of

Rs.30,000/- (Rupees Thirty Thousand only) towards funeral expenses and loss of love and affection. Thus, the petitioners 1 and 2 are awarded the following compensation amount:

Sl. Amount of compensation

Head

No. awarded

1Towards loss of dependencyRs. 10,08,000=00 Towards funeral expenses, loss of 2Rs. 30,000=00 love and affection

TOTAL COMPENSATION

Rs. 10,38,000=00 AMOUNT (Rupees Ten Lakhs Thirty Eight Thousand Only).

16.As already held the accident was the result of rash and negligent driving of driver of the respondent no.1 Corporation and thus respondents no. 1&2 are liable to pay the compensation.

ISSUE No.3:

17. In the result, the claim is allowed with costs awarding a sum of Rs.10,38,000/- (Rupees Ten Lakhs and Thirty Eight Thousand only) with interest @ 7.5% per annum from the date of petition till the date of deposit.

(i) Respondents No.1 and 2 jointly and severally liable to pay compensation and are here by directed to deposit the above amount in the court within one month from the date of this order.

APPORTIONMENT:

9 MVOP.667/2016

(ii)Claim petitioner Nos.1 and 2 are awarded Rs.5,19,000/- (Rupees Five Lakhs and Nineteen Thousand only) each together with entire interest and costs thereon.

(iii)On such deposit, petitioner Nos.1 and 2 are permitted to withdraw their respective share amounts together with interest and costs.

(iv) The fee of Advocate is fixed as Rs.3,000/- (Rupees Three

Thousand only).

(v) Office is directed to prepare the decree, after collection of court fee which was exempted by this Tribunal, within one month from the date of this order.

Typed to my dictation, corrected and pronounced by me in open

Court on this, the Monday on 18 th day of April, 2022

Chairman, Motor Vehicle Accidents Claims Tribunal- cum-VIII Additional District Judge, Rangareddy District

-APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE-

WITNESSES EXAMINED

FOR PETITIONERS:

PW.1: Uyyala Narsimha PW.2: G. Rahul

FOR RESPONDENTS: -None-

10 MVOP.667/2016

EXHIBITS MARKED FOR PETITIONERS

Ex.A1C.C of FIR No. 468/2016 dt. 15-06-2016

Ex.A2C.C of Charge Sheet CC.No. 36/2018 dt. 15-09-2016

Ex.A3C.C of Inquest Panchanama, dt. 16-06-2016

Ex.A4C.C of MVI Report dt. 16-06-2016

Ex.A5C.C of Scene of Offence Panchanama dt. 15-06-2016

Ex.A6C.C of Sketch Plan of scene of offence dt. 15-06-2016

Ex.A7C.C of Post Mortem Report dt. 16-06-2016

EXHIBITS MARKED FOR RESPONDENTS:- NIL-

Chairman, Motor Vehicle Accidents Claims Tribunal- cum-VIII Additional District Judge, Rangareddy District