P Chandra Sekhara Prasad

BEFORE THE MOTOR ACCIDENTS CLAIMS TRIBUNAL

-CUM-SPECIAL SESSIONS JUDGE FOR FAST TRACKING

THE CASES RELATING TO ATROCITIES AGAINST WOMEN

-CUM-VIII ADDITIONAL DISTRICT JUDGE

AT: KHAMMAM

WEDNESDAY THIS THE ELEVENTH DAY OF AUGUST, 2021

Present:P.Chandra Sekhara Prasad, Chairman, Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal- cum-Special Sessions Judge for fast tracking the cases relating to atrocities against women- cum-VIII Additional District Judge, Khammam,

MVOP No. 543 of 2016

Between:

1.Keloth Jeeja, W/o Ramdas, Aged about 40 years, Household,

2.Keloth Veeranna, S/o Ramdas, Aged about 25 years, Student,

3.Keloth Veerabhadram, S/o Ramdas, Aged about 23 years, Student,

4.Keloth Heeralal, S/o Ramdas, Aged about 21 years, Student,

5.Keloth Bhanu Priya, D/o Ramdas, Aged about 19 years, Student,

All are residents of H.No.6-3-201, Bank Colony, Khammam. … Claim Petitioners

And

1.T. Madhu, S/o Laxmaiah, Aged Major, Owner of auto bearing No.AP 20X 9062, R/o H.No.2-1-34, Budidagadda Basthi, Kothagudem Village and Mandal, Khammam District,

2.United India Insurance Company Limited, Represented by its Manager, Divisional Ofce, Near MRO Ofce, Madhucon Complex, Khammam Town,

3.Banoth Balu, S/o Hanuma, Aged Major, Owner of auto bearing No.AP 20X 9062, R/o H.No.11-121, Venkatiya Thanda, Bethampudi Village, Tekulapally Mandal, Khammam District, (the 3rd respondent was added as per orders in I.A.No.4/2019, dated 28.01.2020 …Respondents

2

MVOP No.543 of 2016

This case is coming before me on 10.08.2021, for fnal hearing in the presence of Sri. T. Srinivasa Rao, advocate

for the petitioners; and of Sri. Y. Subramanyam, Advocate

for the 2nd respondent; and the respondents 1 and 3 having been set exparte; and upon perusing the material papers on record and on hearing and having stood over for consideration till this day, this Court delivered the following:

:: O R D E R ::

1.This is a petition fled by the petitioners under Section 166 of Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 claiming compensation to a tune of Rs.10,00,000/- (Rupees Ten Lakhs only) for the death of Keloth Ramdas, in a fatal accident together with subsequent interest @ 18% per annum from the date of accident till the date of realization and costs.

The averments in the petition in nutshell are, as follows:

(i)On 31.08.2015 at about 2.00 pm, the deceased and others were proceeding in auto bearing No.AP 20X 9062 to their village from Korivi. When they reached near petrol pump,

Korivi Road, Mahabubabad, the driver, driven the auto at high speed, in rash and negligent manner and dashed against the two wheeler bearing No.AP 36S 3215, which was coming in opposite direction and due to which the auto turned turtle, resulting injuries to deceased-Keloth Ramdas and others. On 20.09.2015, the deceased died, while undergoing treatment.

The accident was occurred due to rash and negligent driving of the driver of auto bearing No.AP 20X 9062.

3

MVOP No.543 of 2016

(ii) On receipt of complaint, police Mahabubabad have registered a case in crime No.157/2015 under Section 337 of

IPC against the driver of auto bearing No.AP 20X 9062.

(iii)The 1st petitioner is the wife and the petitioners 2 to 5 are children of the deceased-Keloth Ramdas. The deceased was aged about 45 years and he was hale and healthy. The deceased was a coolie and he used to earn Rs.9,000/- per month. Due to death of the deceased, the petitioners are sufering from mental agony and that the 1st petitioner lost her conjugal life and the petitioners 2 to 5 lost their father at tender age. They also lost care and custody of their father.

(iv)The 1st respondent is the owner, the 2nd respondent is insurer and the 3rd respondent is the registered owner of the crime vehicle-auto bearing No.AP 20X 9062 and as such they are jointly and severally liable to pay compensation. Hence, the claim petition.

2. Despite service of notice, the 1st respondent has failed to appear before this Tribunal and as such on 06.03.2017, he was set exparte. Since then, he did not appear before this Tribunal to take steps to fle an application to set aside exparte order.

3. On receipt of notice, the 2nd respondent has appeared and fled counter contending inter alia that the petition is

4

MVOP No.543 of 2016 liable to be dismissed in limine. It is denied the manner of accident as narrated in the petition. It is denied about the age, avocation and income of the deceased. The driver of the crime vehicle auto bearing No.AP 20X 9062 was not holding any driving licence at the time of accident and the vehicle was not road worthy to ply. The owner of crime vehicle did not inform to the 2nd respondent (Insurer), about the accident, particulars of policy, date, time and place of accident, particulars of the deceased, name of the driver and his driving licence particulars as required under Section 134 (C) of Motor

Vehicles Act, 1988. The petition is liable to be dismissed due to non-joinder of owner and insurer of two wheeler No.AP 36S 3215. The police also did not furnish the copies of documents as required under Section 158 (6) of Motor Vehicles Act, 1988.

The claim of compensation of Rs.10,00,000/- is highly exaggerated. The rate of interest 18% per annum claimed by the petitioners is contrary to Section 3 of Interest Act, 1978.

Hence, prayed to dismiss the petition against the 2nd respondent, with exemplary costs.

4.As per orders in IA No.4 of 2019 dated 28.01.2020, the registered owner of the crime vehicle auto bearing No.AP 20X 9062 was impleaded as the 3rd respondent. Despite service of notice, he did not appear and failed to fle counter. Even, he

5

MVOP No.543 of 2016 has remained exparte, in above said application.

5. Basing on the pleadings of both sides the following issues have been framed for trial:

1. Whether the deceased-Keloth Ramdas

died on 31.08.2015 while shifting to

hospital, due to the accident occurred

near Petrol Pump, Korivi Road,

Mahabubabad caused by the driver of

auto bearing No.AP 20X 9062, driven in

rash and negligent manner and dashed

the two wheeler?

2. Whether the claim petitioners are

entitled for compensation? If so, how

much and from whom?

3. To what relief?

6.During the course of trial, on behalf of the petitioners,

P.W-1 was examined and A-1 to A-4 were exhibited. On behalf of the 2nd respondent, R.Ws-1 to 3 were examined and Ex.B-1 to B-6 and C-1 and C-2 were exhibited. The respondents 1 and 3 did not choose to contest the matter. This Tribunal heard the arguments on both sides. The learned counsel appearing for the 2nd respondent fled written arguments and additional written arguments.

7. ISSUE No.1: In the proceedings under the Motor

Vehicles Act, 1998, the fnding of negligence has to be recorded on preponderance of probabilities. Therefore, both

6

MVOP No.543 of 2016 petitioners and respondents must lead appropriate evidence in support of their claim. The general purport of the word “res ipsa loquitor” is that the accident “speaks for itself” or “tells its own story”. The right of the victim in a road accident to claim compensation is a statutory one.

8.On behalf of the petitioners, the 1st petitioner has fled an afdavit in lieu of her chief examination as contemplated under Order-XVIII, Rule-4 (1) of C.P.C. Her evidence is nothing but replica of petition pleadings.

9.Admittedly, P.W-1 who is none other than wife of the deceased, claimed that she is the eyewitness to the occurrence and that she was travelling in same auto along with her deceased-husband. She deposes that on 31.08.2015 at about 2.00 pm, she along with her husband (deceased-

Keloth Ramdas) and others were proceeding in auto bearing

No.AP 20X 9062 to their village from Korivi and when they reached near petrol pump, Korivi Road, Mahabubabad, the auto driver driven the auto at high speed, in rash and negligent manner and dashed against the two wheeler bearing No.AP 36S 3215 coming in opposite direction and due to which the auto turned turtle, resulting injuries to the inmates and that on 20.09.2015, her husband died, while undergoing treatment.

7

MVOP No.543 of 2016

10.P.W-1 categorically stated that the accident was occurred due to negligence of driver of crime vehicle-auto. She denied the suggestion that the accident was occurred due to rider of the motorcycle and that there was no negligence on the part of driver of auto. Further she denied the suggestion that about 12 persons were travelling in auto. Except vague assertion, nothing has been placed to substantiate the contention of the 2nd respondent. Further, this Tribunal fnds noting to disbelieve the testimony of P.W-1.

11.In Bimla Devi & Others V. Himachal Road Transport

Corporation & Others1, Kaushnumma Begum and others v/s New India Assurance Company Limited2 and in

National Insurance Co. Ltd. V. Pushpa Rana3, it has been held that:

“the negligence has to be decided on the touchstone of preponderance of probabilities and a holistic view is to be taken. It has been further held that the proceedings under the Motor Vehicles Act are not akin to the proceedings in a Civil Suit and hence, strict rules of evidence are not applicable”.

12.In Sunitha and others V. Rajasthan State Road

Transport Corporation and another4 Hon’ble Supreme

Court held that:

1(2009) 13 SC 530 2 2001 ACJ 421 SC 3 2009 ACJ 287 4 Civil Appeal No.1665 of 2019 decided on 14.02.2019

8

MVOP No.543 of 2016 “it is settled that in motor vehicle accident claim cases, once the foundational fact, namely, the actual occurrence of the accident, has been established, the Tribunal’s role would be to calculate the quantum of just compensation, if the accident had taken place by reason of negligence of the drier of motor vehicle and while doing so, the Tribunal would not be strictly bound by pleadings of the parties”.

13.It is pertinent to see that the petitioners have fled certifed copies of First Information Report (Ex.A-1), Charge

Sheet (Ex.A-2), Post Mortem Examination Report (Ex.A-3) and

Motor Vehicle Inspector Report (Ex.A-4).

14.It is not in dispute that the police Mahabubabad Town registered the case in crime No.157/2015 under Section 337 of IPC and after completion of investigation, the Investigation

Ofcer fled charge sheet (Ex.A-2) for the ofence under

Sections 304-A, 338 and 337 of IPC, against driver of Crime vehicle-auto bearing No.AP 20X 9062, stating that the accident was not due to any mechanical defects of crime vehicle which is evident by certifed copy of Motor Vehicle

Inspector Report (Ex.A-4).

15.On scanning the material on record and in view of the citations referred supra, this Tribunal holds that the petitioners have established that the death of deceased-Keloth Ramdas, was on account of rash and negligent act on the part of the driver of the crime vehicle auto bearing No.AP 20X 9062.

9

MVOP No.543 of 2016

Accordingly, this issue is answered in favour of the petitioners and against the respondents.

16. ISSUE No.2: The 1st petitioner is the wife and the petitioners 2 to 5 are children of the deceased-Keloth Ramdas.

They are claiming compensation of Rs.10,00,000/- (Rupees

Ten Lakhs only) along with future interest @ 18% per annum from the date of accident till date of realization, with costs.

17.Age, avocation and income of the deceased:

According to the petitioners, the deceased was aged about 45 years. However, the petitioners did not fle any document showing the date of birth of the deceased, taking into consideration the available evidence on record i.e., certifed copies of Post Mortem Examination Report (Ex.A-3), the age of the deceased was mentioned as 45 years. Accordingly, this

Tribunal considers the age of the deceased as 45 years as on the date of accident, for the purpose of fxing compensation.

18.According to the petitioners, the deceased was a coolie and he used to earn Rs.9,000/- per month. No doubt, they did not fle any proof to show income of the deceased. Now-a- days, a mason aged about 40 to 50 years; easily earn more than Rs.180/- to 400/- per day. Therefore, considering the nature of avocation of the deceased and present days’

10

MVOP No.543 of 2016 minimum wages of an ordinary coolie, this Tribunal considers the income of the deceased as Rs.8,000/- per month, for the purpose of fxing the compensation.

19.Calculation for loss of Dependency and Future

Prospects:According to the petitioners, due to death of the deceased, the 1st petitioner lost conjugal happiness and petitioners 2 to 5 lost love and afection of the deceased.

When a person having 45 years of age died certainly it is a loss to the family members and the family members will sufer a lot for their livelihood. More particularly when the deceased was having small children.

20.The income of deceased is considered above as

Rs.8,000/- per month. On applying the principles as laid down in the case of Sarala Verma V. DTC,5and National

Insurance Company Ltd., V. Pranay Sethi and others,6 since the deceased was aged about 40 years and after adding 25% of income towards future prospects, the income of the deceased would be Rs.10,000/- per month i.e., Rs.1,20,000/- per annum.

21.Since all the petitioners are considered as dependents, by deducting 1/4th income towards personal expenses of the deceased and by applying the appropriate multiplier (14), 5(2009) 6 SCC 121 6 (2017) 16 SCC 680

11

MVOP No.543 of 2016 taking into consideration the age of the deceased at the time of his death, as per principles laid in Sarala Verma and

National Insurance Company Ltd., V. Pranay Sethi and

others cases (referred supra), the total loss of dependency comes to Rs.12,60,000/- [Rs.1,20,000/- (-) Rs.30,000/- (1/4th personal expenses) = Rs.90,000/- x 14]. Therefore, the petitioners are entitled to claim Rs.12,60,000/-, under the head of loss of dependency and future prospects.

22.Compensation for loss of Consortium to the 1 st petitioner (wife): As per the principles laid down in Rajesh and Others V. Rajbir Singh and others7 and National

Insurance Company Ltd., V. Pranay Sethi and others

(referred supra), this Tribunal awards Rs.40,000/- towards consortium to the 1st petitioner (wife).

23.Compensation for loss of Afection: The petitioners 2 to 5 (children) of the deceased are entitled for Rs.25,000/- each towards loss of love and afection of their father, as per the principles laid down in Juju Kuruvila and others V.

Kunjujamma Mohan and others.8

24.Compensation for loss of Estate: As per the principles laid down in case of Kalpanaraj and others V.

Tamilnadu State Transport Corporation9and National 7 (2013) 9 SCC 54 8 2013 (9) SCC 166 9 2014 (5) Scale 479

12

MVOP No.543 of 2016

Insurance Company Ltd., V. Pranay Sethi and others

(referred supra),the petitioners are entitled for Rs.15,000/- towards loss of estate.

25.Claim pertaining to the funeral expenses: As per the principles laid down in Rajesh and Others V. Rajbir Singh and others10 and National Insurance Company Ltd., V.

Pranay Sethi and others (referred supra), the petitioners are entitled for Rs.15,000/- towards funeral expenses.

26.The petitioners are entitled for total compensation as under:

1.Loss of Dependency :Rs.12,60,000/-

2.Loss of Consortium to the 1st petitioner (wife) :Rs.40,000/-

3.Loss of Love and Afection to the petitioners 2 to 5 (children):Rs.1,00,000/- Rs.25,000/- each

4.Loss of Estate :Rs.15,000/-

5.Funeral Expenses :Rs.15,000/-

Total : Rs.14,30,000/-

27.The claim petitioners are entitled to claim a total compensation of Rs.14,30,000/-. No doubt, the petitioners have fled application claiming compensation of

Rs.10,00,000/- only. There is no doubt that the Tribunal has ample power to award a just and equitable, fair and reasonable compensation as held in Rajesh and others V.

10 (2013) 9 SCC 54

13

MVOP No.543 of 2016

Rajbir Singh and others.11

28.In Nagappa V. Gurudayal Singh and others,12and

United India Insurance Company Limited V. Veluchamy

and another,13 wherein it is held that the Tribunal has to award just compensation and that the Tribunal may award more compensation than what is claimed by the claimants.

29.Under these circumstances, this Tribunal is of the opinion that the amount arrived in the above paras may be awarded to the petitioners and the petitioners may be directed to pay the defcit court fee on the amount of compensation awarded in excess of their claim.

30.Apportionment:

Sl. To whom Amount No.

1.1st petitioner (wife)Rs.6,30,000/-

2.2nd petitioner (son) Rs.2,00,000/-

3.3rd petitioner (son) Rs.2,00,000/-

4.4th petitioner (son) Rs.2,00,000/-

5.5th petitioner (daughter) Rs.2,00,000/- Total :Rs.14,30,000/-

31.Liability:Initially, it was pleaded by the petitioners that the 1st respondent is the owner and the 2nd respondent is the insurer of the crime vehicle-auto bearing No.AP 20X 9062.

Subsequently, on the application in IA No.4/2019, the registered owner i.e., the 3rd respondent was impleaded as per 11 2013 ACJ 1403 12 2003 ACJ 12 (SC) 13 2005 ACJ 1483

14

MVOP No.543 of 2016 order dated 28.01.2020. Despite service of notice, the 3rd respondent failed to appear before this Tribunal and as such he was set exparte.

32.On the application of the 2nd respondent, the 1st respondent was summoned and examined as R.W-2. It is in the evidence of R.W-2 that in the year 2008, he purchased the crime vehicle-auto by availing fnance from Sriram Transport

Finance Company and as he failed to pay instalments, the said

Sriram Transport Finance Company seized and conducted auction in the year 2011, and since then the auto was not in his custody.

33.R.W-2 deposes that on enquiry in RTA Ofce, he came to know that the said auto was purchased by Banoth Balu (3rd respondent) and the same was also transferred on his name.

Ex.C-1 is the acknowledgment card and Ex.C-2 is registration certifcate.

34.It is in the evidence of R.W-3 who is the Junior Assistant in the ofce of the RTA, Khammam that as on 31.08.2015, the auto bearing No.AP 20X 9062 was standing in the name of

Banoth Balu (3rd respondent) and that Banoth Balu was issued driving licence from their ofce on 06.04.2016. Ex.C-3 is the authorization letter, Ex.C-4 is driving licence of Banoth Balu

15

MVOP No.543 of 2016 and Ex.C-5 is registration certifcate.

35.As seen from the above evidence and Ex.C-5, ownership of the crime vehicle auto bearing No.AP 20X 9062 was transferred from the 1st respondent to the 3rd respondent on 12.03.2015. Admittedly the accident was occurred on 31.08.2015. Thus, it is clear that as on the date of accident,

Banoth Balu (3rd respondent) is the registered owner of the crime vehicle-auto.

36.On behalf of the 2nd respondent, its Assistant was examined as R.W-1. His evidence reveals that the auto bearing No.AP 20X 9062 in the name of T. Madhu (1st respondent) was insured with their Company under policy

No.0525011314P110904376 and that the same was valid from 10.03.2015 to 09.03.2016. Ex.B-1 is the copy of policy.

Admittedly, the accident was occurred on 31.08.2015. Thus, it is clear that the policy was in force as on the date of accident.

37.The contention of the 2nd respondent is that the driver of the crime vehicle-auto was not having driving licence at the relevant time of accident and that their company has taken steps to produce the driving licence of the driver of the crime vehicle. Ex.B-2 is the ofce copy of letter, Ex.B-3 is postal receipts, Ex.B-4 is photocopy of un-served postal cover and

16

MVOP No.543 of 2016

Ex.B-5 is the photocopy of registration certifcate of crime vehicle.

38.However, from the evidence of R.W-3, it is clear that the

Banoth Balu (3rd respondent) who was driving the crime vehicle-auto, at the relevant time of accident was not having driving licence, which is also evident by his driving licence (Ex.C-4). It reveals that the driving licence was issued on 06.04.2016.

39.It is well settled law that even though the driver of the crime vehicle was not holding driving licence, the Insurance

Company cannot escape from their liability to pay compensation to the petitioner, as the policy (Ex.B-1) was in force as on that date. In Divisional Manager, New India

Assurance Company Limited, Cuddapah V. Acchigari

Prasad14,wherein it was held that:

“Owner has obligation to take adequate care and see that driver had appropriate licence to drive the vehicle- Therefore, in view of 2004 (4) ALD 36 (SC), appellant Insurance company, directed to frst pay awarded amount to claimants and then recover same from owner of crime vehicle, by initiating proceedings before Executing Court without fling a separate suit for said purpose”.

40.The citation in Shamanna and another V. The

Divisional Manager, the oriental Insurance Company

14 2015 (1) ALD 75

17

MVOP No.543 of 2016

Limited and others15, is also on the above aspect.

41.In the case on hand, the material on record goes to show that the driver of the crime vehicle was not holding driving licence at the relevant time of accident. In view of the citations referred supra and facts of the present case hand, the 2nd respondent is directed to frst pay awarded amount to the petitioner and then recover same from the 2nd respondent (registered owner), by initiating proper proceedings.

42.Even though the ownership was transferred, the liability of the insurer would not absolve, since, policy (Ex.B-1) was in force as on the date of accident and that the accident was occurred due to rash and negligent act of driver crime vehicle auto bearing No.AP 20X 9062, the 2nd respondent being insurer and the 3rd respondent being registered owner, are jointly and severally liable to pay compensation to the petitioners.

43.Rate of interest: The petitioners are claiming interest @ 18% per annum. As per the principles laid down in New

India Assurance Company Limited V. Charlie and

another,16 by the Hon’ble Supreme Court, this Tribunal awards an interest @ 7.5% per annum, on the compensation amount. Accordingly, this issue is answered in favour of the 152018 ACJ 2163 162005 ACJ 1131

18

MVOP No.543 of 2016 petitioners and against the respondents.

44. ISSUE No.3: In view of fndings and conclusions on the above issues, the petitioners are entitled for compensation from the respondents 2 and 3. The claim against the 1st respondent is liable to be dismissed. Accordingly, this issue is answered.

IN THE RESULT: The petition fled by the petitioners is allowed by awarding a total compensation of Rs.14,30,000/- with proportionate costs against the respondents 2 and 3 and they are jointly and severally liable to pay the same, with subsequent interest @ 7.5% per annum from the date of fling of the petition till the date of deposit of the amount;

(i)The respondents 2 and 3 are directed to deposit the awarded amount within ONE month from the date of this award;

(ii)The 2nd respondent is directed to frst pay the awarded amount to the petitioner and then re- cover the same the 3rd respondent (registered owner) by initiating proceedings, without fling a separate suit for said purpose;

(iii)The claim against the 1st respondent is dismissed;

(iv)The 1st petitioner (wife) is at liberty to withdraw Rs.3,30,000/- (Rupees Three Lakhs Thirty Thousand only) from her share and her remaining share amount of Rs.3,00,000/- (Rupees Three Lakhs only) shall be kept in fxed deposit in any nationalized bank, for a period of Two years;

(v)The 2nd petitioner (son) is at liberty to withdraw Rs.1,00,000/- (Rupees One Lakh only) from his share and his remaining share amount of Rs.1,00,000/- (Rupees One Lakh only) shall be

19

MVOP No.543 of 2016 kept in fxed deposit in any nationalized bank, for a period of Two years;

(vi)The 3rd petitioner (son) is at liberty to withdraw Rs.1,00,000/- (Rupees One Lakh only) from his share and his remaining share amount of Rs.1,00,000/- (Rupees One Lakh only) shall be kept in fxed deposit in any nationalized bank, for a period of Two years;

(vii)The 4th petitioner (son) is at liberty to withdraw Rs.1,00,000/- (Rupees One Lakh only) from his share and his remaining share amount of Rs.1,00,000/- (Rupees One Lakh only) shall be kept in fxed deposit in any nationalized bank, for a period of Two years;

(viii) The 5th petitioner (daughter) is at liberty to withdraw Rs.1,00,000/- (Rupees One Lakh only) from her share and her remaining share amount of Rs.1,00,000/- (Rupees One Lakh only) shall be kept in fxed deposit in any nationalized bank, for a period of Two years;

(ix)The petitioners are directed to deposit the defcit court fee within 15 days from this day. Ofce is directed to prepare the decree after paying the defcit court fee;

(x)The Advocate fee is fxed at Rs.2,000/- (Rupees Two thousand only).

Typed to my dictation, corrected and pronounced by me in the open court on this 11th day of August, 2021.

Chairman Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal-cum- Special Sessions Judge for fast tracking the cases relating to atrocities against women- cum-VIII Additional District Judge, Khammam

::APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE::

WITNESSES EXAMINED ON BEHALF OF PETITIONERS

P.W-1Keloth Jeeja27.12.2018

20

MVOP No.543 of 2016

WITNESSES EXAMINED ON BEHALF OF RESPONDENTS

R.W-1Gudapati Pavan Kumar 11.07.2019 R.W-2T. Madhu 30.08.2019 R.W-3RSR Vamshi 30.08.2019

DOCUMENTS EXHIBITED ON BEHALF OF PETITIONERS

Ex.A-1 Certifed copy of First Information Report 01.09.2015 Ex.A-2 Certifed copy of Charge Sheet15.02.2016 Ex.A-3 Certifed copy of PME Report20.09.2015 Ex.A-4Certifed copy of MVI Report17.09.2015

DOCUMENTS EXHIBITED ON BEHALF OF RESPONDENTS

Ex.B-1 True copy of the insurance policy of the crime10.03.2015 vehicle for the period from 10.03.2015 to 09.03.2016 Ex.B-2Ofce copy of legal notice 08.04.2019 Ex.B-3Photocopy of Postal receipts-2 Ex.B-4Photocopy of un-served postal cover - Ex.B-5Copy of Registration Certifcate of crime vehicle11.04.2008 auto bearing No.AP 20X 9062 Ex.B-6Authorization letter 26.06.2019 Ex.C-1Postal Acknowledgment Card- Ex.C-2Photocopy of Registration Certifcate of crime29.08.2019 vehicle auto bearing No.AP 20X 9062 Ex.C-3Authorization letter of R.W-330.08.2019 Ex.C-4Copy of driving licence of Banoth Balu (3rd06.04.2016 respondent) Ex.C-5Photocopy of Registration Certifcate of crime29.08.2019 vehicle auto bearing No.AP 20X 9062

Chairman Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal-cum- Special Sessions Judge for fast tracking the cases relating to atrocities against women- cum-VIII Additional District Judge, Khammam

IN THE COURT OF SPECIAL SESSIONS JUDGE

FOR FAST TRACKING THE CASES RELATING TO

ATROCITIES AGAINST WOMEN-CUM-VIII ADDITIONAL

DISTRICT AND SESSIONS JUDGE

AT: KHAMMAM

THURSDAY, THIS THE FIFTH DAY OF AUGUST, 2021

Present: P.Chandra Sekhara Prasad, Special Sessions Judge for fast tracking the cases relating to atrocities against women-cum-VIII Additional District and

Sessions Judge, Khammam.

SC No.8 of 2018

1.Name of the Complainant :The State of Telangana through Circle Inspector of Police, Madhira,

2.Name of the Accused : Kanna Suresh @ Devadasu, S/o Venkateshwar Rao, Aged about 21 years, Mutharasi, Student, R/o Narayanapuram,

3.Offence under Section :452, 376 (2) (I) (n) and 506 of I.P.C.

4.Crime Number and Name :191/2015 of Police Station Yerrupalem

5.P.R.C. No. :11 of 2017

6.Plea of the accused :Pleaded Not Guilty

7.Finding of the Court :Found Not Guilty

8.Sentence of Order : The accused is found not guilty for the offence under Sections 452, 376 (2) (l) (n) and 506 of IPC. Accordingly, the accused is acquitted under Section 235 (1) of Cr.P.C. for the said charges.

The bail bonds of accused shall stand cancelled after SIX months and that he is set at liberty, forthwith.

The unmarked case property i.e., underwear shall be destroyed after expiry of appeal time.

2

SC No.8 of 2018

9.Prosecution conducted by :Sri. G. Harender Reddy,

Additional Public Prosecutor,

10.Defence conducted by :Sri. Kolli Satyanarayana, Advocate,

11.Case committed by :Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Madhira,

This case is coming on 26.07.2021 before me, for final hearing in the presence of Sri. G. Harender Reddy,

Additional Public Prosecutor for the State and Sri. Kolli

Satyanarayana, Advocate for the Accused; and upon perusal of the material papers on record and having stood over for consideration till this day, this court delivered the following:

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

1.This is a case filed by the Circle Inspector of Police,

Madhira, for the offence punishable under Sections 376 (2) (l)

(n), 354, 452 and 506 of I.P.C., against the accused.

The case of the prosecution in brief is, as follows:

(i)The victim is mentally and physically challenged person. The accused is close relative of the victim and they are residing in the same locality. On 14.10.2015, the de facto- complainant went to attend coolie work along with her husband and returned to home at about 12.00 noon and observed that the accused was attempting to commit rape on her daughter (victim) and that on seeing them the accused escaped from the scene by pushing them. On enquiry the victim revealed that the accused committed rape frequently

3

SC No.8 of 2018

by threatening her not to reveal to anybody. As a result, the victim became pregnant.

(ii)On receipt of complaint, police Yerrupalem have registered a case in crime No.191/2015 under Sections 354, 376 (2) (l), 452 and 506 of IPC. During the course of investigation, the Sub-Inspector of Police, recorded the statement of the de facto-complainant and referred the victim for medical examination. Later, the Circle Inspector took up further investigation, visited the scene of offence, recorded the statements of other witnesses, secured the mediators, drawn rough sketch and prepared Crime Details Form in presence of mediators. On 16.10.2015, the accused was arrested and his confessional statement was also recorded in presence of mediators. The Medical Ofcer, who conducted potency test on the accused, opined that “there is nothing to suggest that he is impotent”. The lady Medical Ofcer, who conducted MTP preserved the fetus and forwarded the same to FSL, Hyderabad for DNA test. Later, she opined that “the victim subjected to medical examination has no finding consistent with recent sexual assault or intercourse”. Hence, the charge.

2.The case was taken on file as PRC No.11/2017 by the learned Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Madhira. The

4

SC No.8 of 2018

accused was furnished with the copies of the relevant documents as contemplated under Section 207 of Cr.P.C. The learned Magistrate having found prima facie case for the offence punishable under Sections 376 (2) (l) (n), 354, 452 and 506 of IPC and that as the offence under Section 376 of

IPC is exclusively triable by the Court of Sessions, has committed the case to the Court of Hon’ble Principal Sessions

Judge, Khammam, under Section 209 (a) of Cr.P.C.

3.The Hon’ble District and Sessions Judge, Khammam has taken the case on file as SC No.8/2018 and made over the same to this Special Court, for disposal according to law.

4.On the appearance of the accused before the Court, the learned Additional Public Prosecutor and the Defence Counsel were heard under Section 226 of Cr.P.C. and considering the material on record, as per Section 228 of Cr.P.C, charges under Sections 452, 376 (2) (l) (n) and 506 of IPC, were framed against the accused and read over and explained to him in Telugu. He pleaded not guilty for the said charges and claimed to be tried.

5.During the course of trial, the prosecution has examined

P.Ws-1 to 11 and P-1 to P-11were exhibited. P.W-1 is the de

5

SC No.8 of 2018

facto-complainant (mother of the victim), P.W-2 is the victim,

P.Ws-3 and 4 are neighbours and circumstantial witnesses,

P.W-5 is the mediator for Crime Details Form, P.W-6 is the

Medical Ofcer who conducted potency test on the accused and autopsy over fetus, P.W-7 is the lady Medical Ofcer who preserved the fetus for DNA test, P.W-8 is the lady Medical

Ofcer, who examined the victim and P.Ws-9 to 11 are the

Investigation Ofcers.

6.After closing the evidence on prosecution side, the accused was examined under Section 313 of Cr.P.C. He denied the incriminating material found in the evidence of the prosecution witnesses. He reported no defence witnesses.

Hence, on behalf of the accused, no witnesses were examined and no documents were exhibited.

7.This Court heard the arguments of the leaned Additional

Public Prosecutor and the learned counsel appearing for the accused.

8.The points that arise for determination are, as follows:

1. Whether the accused committed house

trespass by entering into house of de

facto-complainant (P.W-1) to commit rape

on the victim (P.W-2)?

6

SC No.8 of 2018

2. Whether the accused committed rape on the victim (P.W-2)?

3. Whether the accused threatened the

victim (P.W-2) with dire consequences?

Whether the prosecution has proved its

4.

case and established the guilt of accused

for the ofence punishable under Sections

452, 376 (2) (l) (n) and 506 of IPC, beyond

all reasonable doubt?

9.POINTS 1 TO 3:It is the specific case of the prosecution that the accused has committed house trespass by entering into house of de facto-complainant (P.W-1) to commit rape on the victim (P.W-2) and that the accused has committed rape, on the victim who is a mentally retarded woman, by threatening her with dire consequences.

10.It is in the evidence of the de facto-complainant (P.W-1) who is none other than asserted victim (P.W-2) that about 4 years ago, she along with her husband went to their fields and when they returned to home at about 12.00 noon, the accused was committing rape on her daughter (P.W-2). She further deposes that her daughter was crying and shouting and on their enquiry her daughter informed that the accused was committed rape on her since many days and that she did not inform to them as the accused threatened her with dire consequences to do away her life.

7

SC No.8 of 2018

11.P.W-2 who is said to be the asserted victim deposes that about 3 years ago, the accused committed rape on her twice and he told her not the inform to her parents and later she informed to her parents. The evidence of P.W-2 is quite contrary to the evidence of P.W-1. If really, P.W-1 witnessed the incident, P.W-2 also would have stated that her parents returned from fields and witnessed the incident.

12.P.W-1 deposes before this Court, as if she witnessed the asserted rape. But, P.W-1 did not say that they made efforts to catch the accused. No prudent parents would keep quiet, when a person committing rape on their daughter. Certainly they made efforts to catch the offender. If really P.W-1 and her husband witnessed the asserted incident, they would have made efforts to catch the accused. No such efforts were seen from P.W-1, which is sufcient to conclude that there is no truth that she witnessed the asserted committing of rape by the accused on her daughter (P.W-2).

13.Moreover, P.W-2 did not whisper that the accused threatened her with dire consequences and told her not to disclose to anybody. According to prosecution, the de facto- complainant lodged the complaint (Ex.P-1) on the date of

8

SC No.8 of 2018

asserted incident itself. In her cross-examination, P.W-2 voluntarily stated that no rape was committed on her on the date of lodging complaint. She categorically stated that she does not know as to who is responsible for her pregnancy.

14.Further, P.Ws-3 and 4, who are said to be the neighbours and circumstantial witness have turned hostile and did not support the case of prosecution. They depose that they did not witness any incident. On thorough scrutiny of the testimonies of P.Ws-1 and 2, this Court is of the opinion that their evidence is not cogent and consistent and that their evidence did not inspire confidence of the Court on material aspects. Hence, this Court is not inclined to accept their testimonies.

15.In so far as the evidence of the 1st Investigation Ofcer (P.W-9) is concerned, on receipt of report (Ex.P-1), he registered the case in crime No.191/2015 under Sections 354, 376 (2) (l), 452 and 506 of IPC against accused. Ex.P-10 is the

First Information Report. He deposes that he examined P.W-1 and handover CD file to their Inspector, for further investigation.

9

SC No.8 of 2018

16.The evidence of P.W-10 further reveals that he examined other witnesses, visited the scene offence, secured the mediators (P.W-5 and Koganti Satyanarayana), observed the scene of offence, drawn rough sketch and prepared Crime

Details Form (Ex.P-4). The evidence of P.W-5, who is said to be one of the mediators, is also on the same footing.

17.It is in the evidence of P.W-10 that on 16.10.2015, he apprehended the accused, recorded his confessional statement and seized underwear from his house under cover of confession-cum-seizure panchanama. But, the said underwear said to have been seized from the accused is not produced before the Court and exhibited as material object

before the Court, for the reasons best known to the

prosecution. There is nothing to show that the Investigation

Ofcers made efforts to send the same to FSL to find out whether any incriminating evidence is available on it. The

Investigating Ofcers also did not explain as to what purpose the said material object was seized.

18.According to prosecution, the victim (P.W-2) got pregnancy through the accused. The lady Medical Ofcer (P.W-7) deposes that she examined the victim (P.W-2) and admitted for MTP and preservation of baby for DNA test as she

10

SC No.8 of 2018

was unmarried and that gestation age was of 32 weeks. She further deposes that on 19.11.2015, the victim (P.W-2) delivered to a female baby and that the baby was shifted to

SNCU for observation and that the baby died on 24.11.2015 and that the dead female baby was sent to FSL, Hyderabad for

DNA test, Ex.P-6 is the Medical Examination Report.

19.The evidence of Dr. E. Ravi Kishore (P.W-6) reveals that on 17.12.2015, on the requisition of police Yerrupalem, he conducted autopsy over dead of just born female baby and found no external injuries and that the cause of death was due to asphyxia due to low birth weight. Ex.P-5 is the Post

Mortem Examination Report.

20.The evidence of the 3rd Investigating Ofcer (P.W-11) reveals that he took up further investigation from his predecessor (P.W-10) and on receipt of DNA report (Ex.P-11) he filed the charge sheet. A perusal of DNA report (Ex.P-11), reveals that the accused is not the biological father of girl baby of the victim (P.W-2). P.W-2 categorically started in her cross-examination that she does not know as to who is responsible for her pregnancy. Therefore, there is nothing to accept the contention of the prosecution that the victim (P.W-2) got pregnancy through the accused.

11

SC No.8 of 2018

21.According to prosecution, the victim (P.W-2) was mentally and physically challenged person. The Investigation

Ofcer (P.W-11),who has filed charge sheet also stated the same, in conclusion para of charge sheet. But, the prosecution did not place any medical record to that effect. The Medical

Ofcer (P.W-8) who examined the victim (P.W-2) deposes that she did not refer the victim (P.W-2) to psychologist and that there is no medical record to show that the victim was mentally retorted. There is nothing to show that the

Investigation Ofcers made efforts to collect medical evidence to establish the victim (P.W-2) is a mentally retarded woman.

22.Unfortunately, the same Investigation Ofcer (P.W-11), who filed charge sheet, has stated in his cross-examination that it is not the case of prosecution that the victim (P.W-2) is mentally retorted. It shows the way, as to how the said

Investigation Ofcer has conducted investigation, in very causal manner. The evidence of a responsible Investigation

Ofcer (P.W-11) is quite contrary to the contents of his own charge sheet and that of the case of the prosecution, regarding the mental status of the victim (P.W-2), which is not expected from the cadre of a Circle Inspector, as that of

P.W-11.

12

SC No.8 of 2018

23.Ongoing through the evidence of Medical Ofcers and the Investigation Ofcers, this Court is of the view that their evidence is in routine manner and did not render any help to the case of prosecution.

24.On scanning the material on record, this Court holds that the prosecution has miserably failed to establish that the accused has committed house trespass by entering into house of de facto-complainant (P.W-1) to commit rape on the victim (P.W-2) and that the accused has committed rape on the victim, who is said to be a mentally retarded woman, by threatening her with dire consequences and that he is responsible for pregnancy of P.W-2, beyond all reasonable doubt. Therefore, the accused is entitled for benefit of doubt.

Accordingly, these points are answered against the prosecution.

25.POINT No.4:For the foregoing reasons, this Court has no hesitation to come to conclusion that the prosecution has failed to establish the guilt of accused for the offence punishable under Sections 452, 376 (2) (l) (n) and 506 of IPC, beyond all reasonable doubt. Accordingly, this point is answered.

13

SC No.8 of 2018

IN THE RESULT:The accused is found not guilty for the offence punishable under Sections 452, 376 (2) (l) (n) and 506 of IPC. Accordingly, the accused is acquitted under

Section 235 (1) of Cr.P.C., for the said charges.

The bail bonds of the accused shall stand cancelled after

SIX months and that he is set at liberty, forthwith. The unmarked case property, i.e., underwear shall be destroyed after expiry of appeal time.

Typed to my dictation, corrected and pronounced by me in the open court on this the 5th day of August, 2021.

Special Sessions Judge for fast tracking the cases relating to atrocities against women-cum-VIII

Additional District and Sessions Judge,

Khammam

:: APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE ::

WITNESSES EXAMINED ON BEHALF OF PROSECUTION

P.W-1Kanna Mangamma03.03.2020 P.W-2Victim 03.03.2020 P.W-3Kanna Krishna03.03.2020 P.W-4T. Rajashekhar Reddy03.03.2020 P.W-5P. Venkataramireddy04.03.2020 P.W-6Dr. E. Ravi Kishore13.03.2020 P.W-7Dr. K. Prasanna Jyothi13.03.2020 P.W-8Dr. T. Priyanka25.02.2021 P.W-9N. Goutham25.02.2021 P.W-10N. Venkateswarlu25.02.2021 P.W-11Ch. Sridhar25.02.2021

14

SC No.8 of 2018

WITNESSES EXAMINED ON BEHALF OF DEFENCE

-Nil-

DOCUMENTS EXHIBITED ON BEHALF OF PROSECUTION

Ex.P-1Complaint14.10.2015

Ex.P-2Statement of P.W-3 under Section 161 Cr.P.C 15.10.2015

Ex.P-3Statement of P.W-4 under Section 161 Cr.P.C 15.10.2015

Ex.P-4Crime Details Form14.10.2015

Ex.P-5Post Mortem Examination Report17.12.2015

Ex.P-6Medical Examination Report-

Ex.P-7Preliminary Examination Report14.10.2015

Ex.P-8FSL Report19.12.2015

Ex.P-9Final Opinion15.04.2017

Ex.P-10First Information Report14.10.2015

Ex.P-11DNA Test Report27.07.2016

DOCUMENTS EXHIBITED ON BEHALF OF DEFENCE

-Nil-

Special Sessions Judge for fast tracking the cases relating to atrocities against women-cum-VIII

Additional District and Sessions Judge,

Khammam

BEFORE THE MOTOR ACCIDENTS CLAIMS TRIBUNAL

-CUM-SPECIAL SESSIONS JUDGE FOR FAST TRACKING

THE CASES RELATING TO ATROCITIES AGAINST WOMEN

-CUM-VIII ADDITIONAL DISTRICT JUDGE

AT: KHAMMAM

FRIDAY THIS THE SIXTH DAY OF AUGUST, 2021

Present:P.Chandra Sekhara Prasad, Chairman, Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal- cum-Special Sessions Judge for fast tracking the cases relating to atrocities against women- cum-VIII Additional District Judge, Khammam,

MVOP No. 522 of 2019

Between:

Gade Shanmukh, S/o Venkateswarlu, Aged about 12 years, Student, R/o Mangapuram Village, Thallada Mandal, Khammam District, being minor, is represented by his father and natural guardian Gade Venkateswarlu @ Samba, S/o Satyanarayana, Aged about 39 years, Home-Guard, R/o Mangapuram Village, Thallada Mandal, Khammam District, …Claim Petitioner

And

Dundeti Srinivasa Reddy, S/o Late Surya Narayana Reddy, Aged about 42 years, Agriculture and Owner of motorcycle bearing No. AP 20AA 1254, R/o Gollagudem Village, Thallada Manda, Khammam District,

...Respondent

This petition is coming before me on 05.08.2021 for fnal hearing, in the presence of Sri. B. Ramesh, Advocate for the petitioner; and of Sri. P. Venkaiah Chowdary, respondent; and upon perusal of the material papers on record and having stood over for consideration till this day, this court delivered the following:

:: O R D E R ::

1.This is a petition fled by the petitioner under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 to grant compensation of

Rs.2,00,000/- (Rupees Two Lakhs only) to the petitioner for the injuries sustained by him in the accident, with costs and

2

MVOP No.522 of 2019 interest @ 24% per annum from the date of accident till realization.

The averments in the petition in nutshell are, as follows:

(i)On 30.01.2015 at about 10.30 am, the claim petitioner (injured) was crossing the road to go to their relative’s house to attend a function and meanwhile, the rider of the motorcycle bearing registration No.AP 20 AA 1254 ride the motorcycle at high speed, in rash and negligent manner and dashed against the petitioner. Due to which, the petitioner sustained fracture over his left leg thigh femur and other multiple injuries all over body. Immediately, the petitioner was shifted to Dr. Hanuman Prasad Hospital,

Khammam for treatment, where he was admitted as in patient, for about one week.

(ii)On receipt of complaint, the police Thallada have registered the case in crime No. 15 of 2015 under Section 337 of IPC and after investigation fled charge sheet under Section 338 of IPC and under Section 146 read with Section 191 of

Motor Vehicles Act, 1988.

(iii)The petitioner was a student. He was bed ridden for three months. His father spent Rs.90,000/- towards medical, transportation and extra nourishment, etc.. Due to the injuries

3

MVOP No.522 of 2019 sustained by him in the accident, he lost entire academic year.

(iv)The respondent is the owner-cum-rider of the crime vehicle motorcycle bearing No.AP 20 AA 1254. There was no valid insurance policy for the said crime vehicle and as such the respondent alone is liable to pay compensation, to the petitioner. Hence, the petition.

2. On receipt of notice, the respondent has appeared and fled counter by denying the averments of the petitioner. It is denied that there was no negligence on the part of respondent. The claim petitioner was suddenly crossing the road, in hurried manner without taking precautionary measures and came into contact with the motorcycle. The claim of the petitioner is excessive and exorbitant. Hence, prayed to dismiss the petition with costs.

3. Basing on the pleadings of both sides the following issues have been settled for trial:

1. Whether the petitioner sustained injuries in

the motor vehicle accident? If so, whether

the accident was occurred due to the rash

and negligent riding of the rider of the

motorcycle bearing No.AP 20 AA 1254?

2. Whether the petitioner is entitled for any

compensation? If so, to what amount and

from whom it should be collected?

3. To what relief?

4

MVOP No.522 of 2019

4.During the course of trial, on behalf of the petitioner,

P.Ws-1 to 3, were examined and A-1 to A-5 were exhibited. On behalf of the respondent, R.W-1 was examined and no documents were exhibited. This Tribunal heard the arguments on both sides.

5.ISSUE No.1:On behalf of the petitioner, his father was examined as P.W-1 and he has fled an afdavit in lieu of his chief examination as contemplated under Order-XVIII, Rule-4 (1) of C.P.C. His evidence is nothing but replica of petition pleadings.

6.Admittedly, P.W-1 is not the eyewitness to the accident.

P.W-2 who claimed as eyewitness to the accident, deposes that on 30.01.2015 at about 10.30 am, when the claim petitioner (injured) was crossing the road, the respondent, who was rider of the motorcycle bearing registration No.AP 20AA 1254 ride the motorcycle at high speed, in rash and negligent manner and dashed against the petitioner and that the petitioner sustained severe injuries.

7.The contention of the respondent is that there was no negligence on his part. P.W-2 categorically stated that he witnessed the accident and that the police also examined him.

In his cross-examination P.W-2 stated that he was standing on

5

MVOP No.522 of 2019 the road to go to attend a function. He denied the suggestion that the petitioner himself hit the stationed motorcycle. The respondent, who was examined as R.W-1, deposes that the petitioner was crossing the road without following trafc rules and without talking precautionary measures and suddenly came before his motorcycle and he himself fell down and sustained injuries.

8.R.W-1 stated that he did not lodge any complaint before the police. Further, he admitted that he admitted his guilt and paid fne in criminal case. If really there was no negligence on his part, the respondent would have approached the police to lodge complaint and he would have not pleaded guilty before the Court in criminal case. These aspects are sufcient to conclude that there is no truth in the contention of the respondent. Further, there is nothing to disbelieve the testimony of P.W-2.

9.In Bimla Devi & Others V. Himachal Road Transport

Corporation & Others1, Kaushnumma Begum and others

V. New India Assurance Company Limited2 and in

National Insurance Co. Ltd. V. Pushpa Rana,3 it was held that:

1(2009) 13 SC 530 2 2001 ACJ 421 SC 3 2009 ACJ 287

6

MVOP No.522 of 2019 “the negligence has to be decided on the touchstone of preponderance of probabilities and a holistic view is to be taken. It has been further held that the proceedings under the Motor Vehicles Act are not akin to the proceedings in a Civil Suit and hence, strict rules of evidence are not applicable”.

10.It is not in dispute that the police Thallada have registered a case in crime No.15/2015 under Section 337 of

IPC against rider of crime vehicle motorcycle bearing No.AP 20 AA 1254, which is evident by First Information Report (Ex.A-1).

11.A perusal of certifed copy of charge sheet (Ex.A-2), it is clear that on completion of investigation, the Investigation

Ofcer, has fled Charge Sheet (Ex.A-2) against rider of crime vehicle-motorcycle bearing No.AP 20AA 1254, for the ofence under Section 338 of IPC and under Section 146 read with

Section 196 of Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, which prima facie reveals that the accident was occurred due to rash and negligent riding of rider of motorcycle bearing No.AP 20AA 1254.

12.In view of the citations referred supra and from the material on record, it is clear that the petitioner sustained injuries in the motor vehicle accident and that the said accident was occurred due to rash and negligent riding of the rider of motorcycle bearing No.AP 20AA 1254. Accordingly,

7

MVOP No.522 of 2019 this issue is answered in favour of the petitioner and against the respondent.

13. ISSUE No.2: The claim petitioner fled the petition by claiming compensation of Rs.2,00,000/- (Rupees Two Lakhs) with interest @ 24% per annum, under all heads, as compensation for the injuries sustained by him in the accident.

14.It is in the evidence of P.W-1 that the petitioner sustained fracture over his left leg thigh femur and other multiple injuries all over body in the said accident and that immediately, he was shifted to Dr. Hanuman Prasad Hospital,

Khammam for treatment, where he was admitted as in patient, for about one week. In support of his case, the petitioner has fled certifed copy of extract of medico legal register (Ex.A-3), medical bills-18 (Ex.A-4) worth of Rs.62,444/- and discharge summaries (Ex.A-5 and A-6).

15.The evidence of Dr. D. Hanuman (P.W-3), Orthopedic

Surgeon, Hanuman Hospital, Khammam also corroborated the contention of the petitioner that the petitioner sustained a fracture of middle 3rd of left femur, deep abrasion over left ankle, lacerated wound over left elbow and abrasion over left hand and that the petitioner underwent surgery on

8

MVOP No.522 of 2019 31.01.2015 and discharged on 07.02.2015. His evidence also reveals about the nature of treatment given to the petitioner.

He further stated that the medicines referred in medical bills (Ex.A-4) were purchased on his prescription only.

16.Ongoing through the evidence of P.Ws-1 and 3, and also the medical evidence produced by the petitioner, this Tribunal is of the opinion that the petitioner is able to establish that he sustained injuries in the accident which took place on 30.01.2015 and that the nature of treatment given to him.

17.Transport to hospital: Admittedly, the accident was occurred on 30.01.2015 t about 10.30 am, near Kuncham

Chandraiah house, Mangapuram and soon after the accident, the petitioner (injured) was shifted to Hanuman Hospital,

Khammam. Even though the petitioner did not produce bills and did not examine any person, considering the nature of the injuries sustained by the petitioner and also the place of accident this Tribunal feels that a reasonable amount has to be awarded under this head. This Tribunal found that an amount of Rs.10,000/- is found to be reasonable amount.

Therefore, the petitioner is entitled to claim an amount of

Rs.10,000/- under the head of transport expenditure.

18.Extra Nourishment:Though the petitioner proved

9

MVOP No.522 of 2019 that he sustained injuries in the accident and he was admitted hospital, there is no evidence before this Tribunal that the doctor prescribed to take vitamin food and other medicines for energy. Anyhow, considering the nature of the injuries received by the petitioner, his age and nature of injuries, though there is no evidence before this Tribunal, this Tribunal feels that an amount of Rs.5,000/- is found to be reasonable amount. Therefore, the petitioner is entitled to claim

Rs.5,000/- under the head of extra nourishment.

19.Medical Expenditure: According to the petitioner, P.W- 1 spent Rs.90,000/- for his treatment. But, he has fled medical bills-18 (Ex.A-4) worth of Rs.62,444/-. According to

P.W-3, the petitioner was operated for closed reduction and internal fxation of fracture with ender nail (steel rod) and that impact of fracture will be there on the patient for few years.

There is no whisper, whether there is need of one more surgery for removal of implant or not. However, this Tribunal feels that is just and proper to consider future medical expenditure as Rs.20,000./-

Considering the material on record, this Tribunal holds that the petitioner is entitled to claim Rs.82,444/- under the head of medical expenditure.

10

MVOP No.522 of 2019

20.Pain and Suffering:The medical evidence on record reveal that the petitioner sustained one grievous injury and three simple injuries, which is evident by certifed copy of extract of medico legal register (Ex.A-3) and evidence of P.W-

3. Taking into consideration of pain, sufering, trauma, loss of amenities, loss of expectation of life and loss of discomfort, frustration, mental stress of the minor petitioner, this Tribunal is of the view that if sum of Rs.50,000/- is awarded, the same would meet the ends of justice, as held in Laxman @

Laxman Mourya V. Divisional Manager, Oriental

Insurance Company Limited and another4and K.Raghu

Babu V. C.Veera Sekhar and other5. Hence, the petitioner is entitled to Rs.50,000/- towards pain and sufering.

21.Loss of Earning: According to the petitioner, he is a student. It is stated that due to accident, he lost entire academic year. But nothing has been placed to substantiate the same. Further, the petitioner is not having any source of income. Hence, this Tribunal is of the view that there is no need to consider granting compensation under this head.

22.Permanent Disability: Admittedly, the petitioner did not fle disability certifcate. There is no material to show that the petitioner sustained permanent disability and that he is 42012 (3) ALD 53 (SC) 5 2011 (2) ALD 763

11

MVOP No.522 of 2019 unable to attend to his regular work, due to injuries sustained by him in accident. In the absence of any evidence to show that the petitioner sustained permanent disability, this

Tribunal holds that the petitioner is not entitled for any amount under this head.

23.The petitioner is entitled for compensation under diferent heads as per the following table:

Compensation Sl. Head Amount No.

1.Transport to hospital Rs.10,000/-

2.Extra Nourishment Rs.5,000/-

3.Medical expensesRs.82,444/-

4.Pain and suferingRs.50,000/-

5.Loss of Earnings -

6.Permanent disability -

Total Rs.1,47,444/- Rounded to Rs.1,48,000/-

The claim petitioner is entitled to claim a total compensation of Rs.1,48,000/-.

24.Liability: It is not in dispute that the respondent is the owner-cum-rider of the crime vehicle motorcycle bearing

No.AP 20AA 1254 and that the said vehicle was not having valid insurance to cover the relevant period.

25.Since, it is clearly established that the accident was occurred due to rash and negligent act of the respondent-rider

12

MVOP No.522 of 2019 crime vehicle motorcycle bearing No.AP 20AA 1254, the respondent (owner-cum-rider) alone is liable to pay compensation to the petitioner.

26.Rate of interest: The petitioner is claiming interest @ 24% per annum. As per the principles laid down by the

Hon'ble Supreme Court, in New India Assurance Company

Limited–Appellant V. Charlie and another,6this Tribunal awards an interest @ 7.5% per annum, on the compensation amount. Accordingly, this issue is answered.

27. ISSUE No.3: In view of fndings and conclusions on the above issues, this Tribunal holds that the petitioner is entitled for compensation against the respondent. Accordingly, this issue is answered.

IN THE RESULT: The petition fled by the petitioner is allowed partly by awarding total compensation of an amount of Rs.1,48,000/- with costs against the respondent and he is solely liable to pay the same, with subsequent interest @ 7.5% per annum from the date of petition till the date of deposit of the amount.

(i)The respondent is directed to deposit the awarded amount within ONE month from the date of this award; 62005 ACJ 1131

13

MVOP No.522 of 2019

(ii)After deposit of the above said amount the petitioner is permitted to withdraw the entire amount;

(iii)The Advocate fee is fxed at Rs.2,000/- (Ru- pees Two Thousand only).

Typed to my dictation, corrected and pronounced by me in the open court on this 6th day of August, 2021.

Chairman Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal-cum- Special Sessions Judge for fast tracking the cases relating to atrocities against women- cum-VIII Additional District Judge, Khammam

::APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE::

WITNESSES EXAMINED ON BEHALF OF PETITIONER

P.W-1Gade Venkateswarlu16.03.2021 P.W-2K. Pulla Rao19.03.2021 P.W-3Dr. D. Hanuman23.03.2021

WITNESSES EXAMINED ON BEHALF OF RESPONDENTS

R.W-1D. Srinivasa Reddy09.04.2021

DOCUMENTS EXHIBITED ON BEHALF OF PETITIONER

Ex.A-1 Certifed copy of First Information Report with01.02.2015 Complaint

Ex.A-2 Certifed copy of Charge Sheet20.03.2015 Ex.A-3 Certifed copy of extract of medico legal30.01.2015 register Ex.A-4Medical bills-18 worth of Rs.62,444/-- Ex.A-5Discharge Summaries-2 19.12.2015

DOCUMENTS EXHIBITED ON BEHALF OF RESPONDENTS

-Nil-

Chairman Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal-cum- Special Sessions Judge for fast tracking the cases relating to atrocities against women- cum-VIII Additional District Judge, Khammam

IN THE COURT OF THE PRINCIPAL DISTRICT JUDGE

AT: KHAMMAM

WEDNESDAY THIS THE TWENTY THIRD DAY OF MARCH, 2022

Present: P.Chandra Sekhara Prasad,

I Additional District Judge, Khammam, FAC. Principal District Judge, Khammam.

GOP No. 1 of 2022

Between:

Bodepudi Madhuri, W/o. Late Srikanth, Aged about 50 years, R/o H.No.11-2-52/1, Wyra Road, Balaji Nagar, Khammam.

... Petitioner

And

To whomsoever it may concern.

....Respondent.

This petition coming before me on this day for hearing in the presence of Sri B.Ramesh, Advocate for Petitioner; and no one appeared on behalf of the respondent; upon perusing the material on record; and upon hearing the counsel for the petitioner, this Court passed the following:

::O R D E R::

1.This is a petition filed by the petitioner under Section 8 of the Hindu Minority and Guardianship Act, 1956 and under

Section 10 and 29(A) of the Guardian and Wards Act, 1890, who is none other than the mother and the natural guardian of the minor Bodepudi Vineela, aged 15 years, praying the

2 of 8

GOP No.1 of 2022

Dated 23rd day of March, 2022

Court to permit the petitioner to sell the petition schedule property, which is in the name of the deceased Bodepudi

Srikanth, for the better welfare of minor daughter.

The facts stated in the petition in nutshell are, as follows:

(i)The petitioner is the mother and the natural guardian of the minor Bodepudi Vineela, aged about 15 years.

The husband of the petitioner by name Bodepudi Srikanth died on 10.03.2016, by leaving his wife (petitioner), son by name Bodepudi Shashank and minor daughter by name vineela as his legal heirs and successors. During the life time of the husband of the petitioner, he purchased the house plot bearing no.37 in Sy.no.197 measuring 318.33 Sq.yards situated at kaikondaigudem Grampanchayat, Mallemadugu

Revenue village, Khammam Rural Mandal (hereinafter referred to as petition schedule property) vide registered document bearing no.824/2007 dated 19-2-2007. Due to

3 of 8

GOP No.1 of 2022

Dated 23rd day of March, 2022

sudden demise of the husband of the petitioner, the petitioner and her children lost their source of income and that the petitioner have no any source of income to meet the educational and other expenses. The petitioner is intended to sell away the petition schedule property for the better welfare of the minor daughter. Hence, prayed to grant permission to sell the petition schedule property.

2.On the registration of this petition, a general notice was ordered, calling for the objections from the general public.

Publication of general notice in Andhra Prabha news paper was also ordered besides directing an affixture of a general notice in the District Collector’s office, office of the

Commissioner of Police, in the offices of Khammam Rural

Mandal and on the notice board of the District Court,

Khammam calling for the objections, if any, against the prayer of the present petition.

4 of 8

GOP No.1 of 2022

Dated 23rd day of March, 2022

3.On 07-03-2022, the objectors were called absent, since none from the general public raised any objection.

4.In support of her case, on behalf of the petitioner, the petitioner herself examined as P.W-1 and Ex.A-1 was exhibited. This Court heard the arguments of the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner.

5.Now the point for consideration is whether

the petitioner can be granted the permission

Section 8 of the Hindu Minority and

Guardianship Act, 1956 and under Section

10 and 29(A) of the Guardian and Wards Act,

1890 for selling the petition schedule

property as prayed for by the petitioner?

6.POINT:The petitioner has filed an affidavit in lieu of her chief examination as contemplated under Order XVIII,

Rule- 4 (1) of C.P.C. Her evidence is reiterated version of petition contents. It is in her evidence that her husband, namely, Bodepudi Srikanth died leaving her, her son by name

Shashank and her minor daughter Vineela as legal heirs.

5 of 8

GOP No.1 of 2022

Dated 23rd day of March, 2022

7.P.W-1 deposes that her husband by name Bodepudi

Srikanth died on 10.03.2016, by leaving her, son by name

Bodepudi Shashank and minor daughter by name vineela as his legal heirs and successors and during his life time, he purchased the petition schedule property vide registered document bearing no.824/2007 dated 19-2-2007 and that due to sudden demise of her husband, she and her children lost their source of income and that she had no any source of income to meet the educational and other expenses of the minor ward and that she is intended to sell away the petition schedule property for the better welfare of the minor wad.

8.Further, in support of her contention, the petitioner has filed certified copy of the registered sale deed vide document bearing no.824/2007, dt.19-2-2007.

9.Ongoing through the testimony of P.W-1, it is clear that the petitioner (P.W-1) is interested in the welfare and the

6 of 8

GOP No.1 of 2022

Dated 23rd day of March, 2022

benefits of her minor daughter and that in order to provide good education to her minor daughter, it is essential for the petitioner (P.W-1) being the natural guardian of minor daughter to seek the permission of the Court, for selling the petition schedule property.

10.Taking into all these facts into consideration, this Court is of the view that it is a fit case to grant permission to P.W-1 to sell the petition schedule property, but subject to the condition that the amounts received after selling the petition schedule property in respect of the share of the minor ward-

Bodepudi Vineela shall be used for the welfare and education of the minor ward only. Accordingly, this point is answered.

IN THE RESULT:In the result, the petition is allowed and the petitioner, being the mother and the natural guardian of the minor girl Kum.Bodepudi Vineela, is permitted to sell the petition schedule property not below the market value. The sale proceeds received in

7 of 8

GOP No.1 of 2022

Dated 23rd day of March, 2022

respect of the share of the minor ward shall be deposited in the Court within one week from the date of the sale, so that the same will be kept in a fixed deposit with any nationalized bank, till the minor attains the majority. The petitioner is entitled to withdraw the interest for every three months out of the amount put in the fixed deposit. If the petitioner wants to pay the school/college fee of the minor, she is permitted to withdraw the amount required, by producing the fee receipts. After the minor attains the majority, she can withdraw the entire amount.

Typed to my dictation, corrected and pronounced by me in the open Court on this, the 23rd day of March, 2022.

FAC. Principal District Judge Khammam

::APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE::

WITNESSES EXAMINED ON BEHALF OF PETITIONER

P.W-1Bodepudi Madhuri11.03.2022

8 of 8

GOP No.1 of 2022

Dated 23rd day of March, 2022

WITNESSES EXAMINED ON BEHALF OF RESPONDENT

-Nil-

DOCUMENTS EXHIBITED ON BEHALF OF PETITIONER

Ex.A-1certified copy of the registered sale deed19-2-2007 vide document bearing no.824/2007

DOCUMENTS EXHIBITED ON BEHALF OF RESPONDENT

-Nil-

FAC. Principal District Judge Khammam

BEFORE THE LOK

DALAT BENCH AT KHAMMAM.

(Constituted by the District Lea

Khammam egal Services Authority, under section 19 of Le oritiesAct, 1987)

D6 day, the Agday of 2tpTwo thousand sauesy Une ervicesAutho

Present

1. Srh: SS. ShapgmSsee, ..Presiding Officer

AQAI Dis{iicA udae, Ku Gmuam

2. St:. Kantli Kvi, A AGAlnceli . Member

LOk Adalat Case No. oo5 /202

MACT OP N geKa

onthe file of the vim

Between:

3/. HNO S6, Koveukajalh RaenG, kedunasuikleuln)

Clea ehhDrey

tg o. Jowmgeu Aep: MAW O ty

&)

RA Km&ua

Crhu ee po: Tsop UA o, Rb A-KO:2-

CAtolu tA(V koeai (M) ka una

BrohMauas, TATA AIG nlusae /|eikgn

2)

-ANO Jrd Hlun, s-1- Sis]a kavnjrung, lyoo

yellandh CoR TDrokhan ,elanaa. Ioa 002

op: b. T QurtuRo, st*N (polty t OlS 33

Brief facts of the Petition: laim filed for compensation of Rs.

2,00 000on account of Junes

in an accident that

took place ón 211023t in the limits of P.S. Kawall

This petition was referred to ne Lok Adalat by the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Khammam.

This petition coming before LOK udldt toaay for final settlement in the

presence of the petitioners, Respondents and of Sri D. Sawaf KuuN

Advocate for tlaim petitioner

anc or Sri KutteA. RsuaPaw

2. The respondent No.2 came forward to Advocate for the Respondent No.2.

indemnifythe RespondentNo.1. Hence, there is no separate order against

Both the parties to Respondent No.1. tne petition have agreed for

erms of compromise

amicable settlement and filed term with free will and volition.Hence, the following award IS passed as per the settlement arrived at between the parties.

AWARDD

1. After negotiations and concillation

between the parties, the claim is

settled at Rs. 15go e0

(Rupees C kl P6tlhoufendf only)

towards full and final settieme, ohe claim amount without interest and

costs and is hereby awarded accOr ingly under Section 21 of the Legal

Services Authorities Act, 1987.

2. If the Respondent No. does no deposit the amount within dne month

from today, the amount so dwa a

carry interest at the rate of 7.5% per annum from the date of this awaid.

3.The Court Fee paid shall be refunued to the petitianer

Apportionment of CompensatOnnount among the parties.

Petitioner Amcunt

Amount Amount ordered Period of FDR

Permitt ed to

apportioned to be kept in

withd aw

Petitioner No.1 50ce 1,501Oco FDR

Petitioner No.2

Petitioner No.3

Petitioner No.4

Petitioner No.5

Petitioner No.6

Both the parties have affixed their signatures in evidence of their consent for the terms of award.

R4

ANG

Petitioner/sRespondent No ATA-4

Advocate fore Petitioner/s Advocate for Respondent No.2

Given under our nands and the seal of the Lok Adalat on this the day

Auguet 2048. 202|

of

MEMBER

PRESIDING JUDGE

Y.aanl& kom