Sri P.srinivasa Rao

MVOP No.46 of 2018 1 XVI ADJC/NDG

BEFORE THE MOTOR ACCIDENTS CLAIMS TRIBUNAL – CUM –

THE XVI ADDITIONAL DISTRICT AND SESSIONS JUDGE’S

COURT :: NANDIGAMA

PRESENT: Sri.P.Srinivasa Rao, Chairman, Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal -cum- XVI Additional District and Sessions Judge, Nandigama.

Monday, 13 th day of April, 2026.

MVOP No.46 of 2018

Between:

1. Murali Kumudini Iyyangar @ Murali Kumuthini, W/o.Late Murali Kumar Iyyangar, 43 years, Household, R/o.Flat No.302, Plot No.81, Sravyas Sannihith Residency, Hastinapuri Colony, Sainikpuri, Secunderabad, Rangareddy District.

2. Murali Sudarshan Iyyangar, Murali Sudarshan, S/o Late Murali Kumar Iyyangar, 19 years, Student, Mother protection, R/o.Flat No.302, Plot No.81, Sravyas Sannihith Residency, Hastinapuri Colony, Sainikpuri, Secunderabad, Rangareddy District.

3. Murali Vignesh Ayyangar @ Murali Vignesh, S/o.Late Murali Kumar Ayyangar, 22 years, Student, R/o.302, Plot No.81, Sravyas Sannihith Residency, Hastinapuri Colony, Sainikpuri, Secunderabad, Rangareddy District.

(The petition is amended as per orders passed in I.A.No.831 of 2025, dated 2.12.2025)

....Petitioners

-and-

1. Nelathati Kalidasu, S/o.Sanyasi, Hindu, Major, 41 years, Driver of the lorry bearing No.AP-31-TC-9819, R/o.H.No.6- 58/6, Donaboyinapalem village, Aganmpudi Post, Gajuwaka Mandal, Visakhapatnam District.

2. Yerra Ramu, S/o. Paidaiah, Hindu, Major, 45 years, Owner of lorry bearing No.AP-31-TC-9819, R/o.D.No.1-78,

MVOP No.46 of 2018 2 XVI ADJC/NDG

Maredupudi village and post, Anakapalli Mandal, Visakhapatnam District.

3. The New India Assurance Company Ltd., Rep by its General Manager, Bandar Road, Near Ramesh Hospital, Vijayawada, Krishna District.

4. Laurus Labs Pvt Ltd., represented by P.Ravi Owner of car No.TS-09-EP-2363.

5. The Manager (Legal Officer), Future General Insurance Company Ltd., Hyderabad.

(Respondents 4 & 5 are impleaded as per Orders passed in CRP.268/2020 by the Hon’ble High Court of A.P., dated 12.12.2024).

....Respondents

The petition coming on 10.02.2026 for final hearing before me in the presence of Sri G.V.Sravan Kumar, Advocate for the petitioners,

Sri.T.John Clymate, Advocate for R3, Sri.V.Subhramanyam, Advocate for

R4, Sri.N.Mallikarjuna Rao, Advocate for R5, R1 and R2 remained ex-

parte and having stood over for consideration till this day, the Court passed the following:

// A W A R D //

This is a case where a Deputy General Manager, Supply Chain

Management Department in a reonwed LAURUS Labs, driving Maruthi Swift

Dzire car bearing No.TS-09-EP-2363 along with family members were returning to Hyderabad from Basara temple, met with an accident leading to death of Deputy General Manager-Murali Kumar Iyyangar.

MVOP No.46 of 2018 3 XVI ADJC/NDG

2.Invoking the provisions of sections 140 and 166 of Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 and Rule 455 of Andhra Pradesh Motor Vehicle Rules, the petitioners 1 to 3 have filed the instant petition seeking compensation of Rs.2,50,00,000/- (Rupees Two Crores Fifty Lakhs only) along with interest @ 24% per annum for the death of Deputy General Manager-Murali Kumar Iyyangar in the road traffic accident, which is said to have occurred on 26.1.2018 at about 4.30

P.M., near Pedacheruvu Katta at Toopran village, Medak District on NH-44.

3.The brief averments of the amended petition are as follows:-

The petitioner No.1 is the wife, petitioners 2 and 3 are sons of the deceased - Murali Kumar Iyyangar. The deceased studied B.Sc.,(Chemistry),

DBM(Marketing) and MBA. He worked initially in Zydus Cadila Health Care

Pvt Limited for 12 years and thereafter Rank Officer in PPMC/Inventory

Control Cell for five years thereafter Reddy labs and other companies in various cadres. At the time of accident, the deceased was 49 years old and he was working as Deputy General Manager, Supply Chain Management

Department in LAURUS Labs, Banjara Hills, Hyderabad since one year.

4.On 26.1.2018 at about 6.00 A.M., Murali Kumar Iyyangar along with his wife and sons, who are petitioners 2 to 4 went to Basara Temple in Maruthi

Swift Dzire bearing No.TS-09-EP-2363, seeking divine blessings of the goddess and while they were returning to Hyderabad from Basara and when they reached near Peddacheruvu Katta, on NH-44, Toopran village of Medak

District at about 4.30 P.M., the 1st respondent being the driver of lorry bearing

No.AP-31-ES-9819 proceeding ahead of the car of deceased, the driver of the lorry drove the same in rash or negligent manner and suddenly applied breaks to his lorry, due to that the lorry turned left side and abruptly moving in front of car without signaling and indicators and without any precautionary measures, at that time the deceased Murali Krishna tried to escape the collusion to the offending vehicle lorry and however, due to negligent act of driver of the

MVOP No.46 of 2018 4 XVI ADJC/NDG offending vehicle it is not possible and the car of the deceased dashed to the rear left side of the lorry from back side. Due to the impact Murali Krishna

Iyyangar received severe head injury. The 1st petitioner and 3rd petitioner also sustained multiple injuries. Immediately, after the accident, the injured persons were shifted to R.R.Hospital at Kompally in an ambulance and he was admitted in the hospital and inspite of better treatment he was not recovered and succumbed to the injuries on the same day at about 6.00 P.M., in

R.R.Hospital, Kompally. The petitioners 1 and 3 also sustained grievous injuries in this accident. The accident occurred due to rash and negligent driving of R1 who was the driver of the lorry bearing No.AP-31-ES-9819. In this regard, Challa Vijaya Prakash, who is said to be Manager of Laurus Labs

Limited, presented a report in Toopran Police Station against the driver of the crime vehicle bearing No.AP-31-ES-9819 under sections 304-A and 337 of

IPC on 27.1.2018 at 6.00 P.M., and the investigation officer visited the spot, conducted scene observation panchanama and prepared rough sketch and he also recorded the statements of injured persons. The investigating officer secured mediators and conducted inquest panchanama over the dead body of deceased person in R.R.Hospital on 27.1.2018 in between 9.00 A.M., to 10.30

P.M. Thereafter, the dead body of deceased shifted to Gandhi Medical

Hospital, Secunderabad and postmortem conducted over the dead body of deceased by Dr.Lakshamana Rao and issued postmortem report stating that the death of the deceased is due to head injury. After completion of investigation, S.I of Police, Toopran filed charge sheet against R1 under sections 304-A and 338 IPC. Upon completion of investigation, the investigating officer filed charge-sheet against R1 only. R1 is the driver of the offending vehicle lorry and the accident occurred due to rash and negligent driving of R1 who was the driver of the lorry bearing No.AP-31-ES-9819. R2 is owner of the offending vehicle bearing No.AP-31-ES-9819. R3 is the insurer of the offending vehicle lorry. R4 is owner of the Maruthi Swift Dzire bearing

MVOP No.46 of 2018 5 XVI ADJC/NDG

No.TS-09-EP-2363. R5 is the insurer of the Maruthi Swift Dzire bearing

No.TS-09-EP-2363.

5.The deceased was earning Rs.2,40,000/- per month and he contributed his earnings to the family. The income will be revised from time to time as per salary revision process dated 1.4.2017 and the performance incentive was increased Rs.3,12,250/- per annum and he was the only bread winner and looking after the welfare and needs of the petitioners. Petitioners lost their present and future earnings of the deceased and became orphans due to the death of affectionate bread winner of their family. Petitioners lost love and affection and estate of the deceased. The deceased contributed his earnings to the family. Petitioners lost their present and future earnings of the deceased and became orphans due to the death of affectionate breadwinner of their family and as such, the respondents are jointly and severally liable to pay compensation.

6.After service of notice of this petition to the respondents 1 and 2, they failed to appear before the Court. They remained absent and accordingly, they were set ex-parte on 27.4.2018.

7.Respondent No.3-The New India Assurance Company Ltd., appeared

before the Court through its Advocate by name T.John Clymet on 4.7.2018.

The main averments of the counter filed by the respondent No.3 are as follows:

The material averments in the petition are denied in toto by stating that the allegations are created by the petitioners for the purpose of the petition and the petitioners be put strict proof of the same. The petition is not maintainable under law. The alleged accident occurred due to rash and negligent driving of the deceased, who drove the car in negligent manner and

MVOP No.46 of 2018 6 XVI ADJC/NDG dashed the lorry from behind. The claim tribunal at Nandigama has no territory jurisdiction and the claim petition has to be filed where the accident occurs or where claimants reside or carries on business as per section 166 (2) of

M.V.Act. Therefore, the 3rd respondent prayed the Court to reject the claim petition as it has no territorial jurisdiction. The documents filed by the claim petitioners are manipulated for the purpose of the petition and the petition is filed in collusion with the 1st respondent, who is brother of the lorry. As per FIR it is clearly reveals there is a contributory negligence on the part of the deceased-Murali Kumar Iyyangar and he drove the car without any cautious manner and caused the accident and there is clear contributory negligence on the part of the deceased. When two vehicles involved in the accident, the insurer of one of the vehicle cannot be made liable to pay the entire compensation as the other tort-feasor is also equal liable. Hence, the culpability in causing accident leads to contributory negligence and the deceased is also liable and in principle the compensation may be fixed at the ratio of 50:50 in case of contributory negligence. The petitioners are put to strict proof of crime vehicle rider having valid and effective driving license at the time of accident. The claim petitioner has to establish the negligent driving of the 1st respondent as per section 166 of M.V.Act., and no sum shall be payable by an insurer under sub-section(1) in respect of any judgment or award unless there has been a breach of a specified condition of the policy being one of subsection (a) (b) (d) and (ii) or clause (b). As per judgment of

Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in Smt. Kaushnuma Begum vs New India

Assurance Co Ltd., 2001 ACJ 428(SC) and New India Assurance Co.Ltd.,

vs Charlie and another 2005 AIR SCW 1801(SC). The amount claimed by the petitioners against various heads are high, exaggerated and excessive.

The petitioners have to prove that all their claim on various counts are just reasonable by satisfactory and reliable legal evidence including the income of the deceased by submitting Income Tax Assessment returns. The petitioners are put to strict proof as they did not file any similar claim for the alleged

MVOP No.46 of 2018 7 XVI ADJC/NDG accident in any tribunal at any place. There is contributory negligent act on the part of the deceased car driver involved in the accident. The compensation as well as interest claimed by the petitioners is exorbitant and highly excessive and prayed to dismiss the petition.

8.From the above stated pleadings of the parties, following issues are being settled for trial by my predecessor–in-office on 27.7.2018.

1. “Whether the pleaded accident occurred on 26.1.2018 at 4.30 P.M., at Peddacheruvu Katta, NH-44, Toopran village and Mandal, Medak District, was due to rash and negligent driving of driver of the lorry bearing No.AP-31-TC-9819 and whether it resulted in death of deceased Murali Kumar Iyyangar or not?

2.Whether the claimants are entitled for compensation as prayed for? If so, to what amount and from which of the respondent?

3. To what relief?

9.During course of trial, on 9.11.2018, the learned counsel for 3rd respondent-The New India Assurance Company Ltd., filed a petition vide

I.A.No.915/2018, Under Order I, Rule 10 of C.P.C., to implead owner of the

Swift Car bearing No.TS-09-EP-2363, wherein which the petitioner, the deceased along with petitioners were travelling at the time of accident as respondent No.4 and insurer of the car bearing No.TS-09-EP-2363 as respondent No.5 in the main claim petition as there was contributory negligence on the part of the deceased. The petitioners 1 to 3 herein are contested the I.A.No.915/2018 in M.V.O.P.No.46/2018. It is also manifest from the docket proceedings in I.A.No.915/2018 that on 17.4.2019, the 3rd respondent herein being the petitioner therein not pressed the petition against R5 and accordingly, on 17.4.2019, the petition against R4 is dismissed. On contest, the petition against 4th respondent herein is dismissed by this Court/Tribunal on 25.10.2019 on merits.

MVOP No.46 of 2018 8 XVI ADJC/NDG

10. It is also transpired from the material on record, the learned Counsel for 3rd respondent-The New India Assurance Company Ltd., once again filed a petition vide I.A.No.355/2019, Under Order I, Rule 10 of C.P.C., to implead insurer company i.e., Future General Insurance Company Ltd., of the Swift

Car bearing No.TS-09-EP-2363 as respondent No.5 and after full-fledged enquiry the said petition was dismissed on merits on 25.10.2019.

11.Feeling aggrieved the orders passed by this Court in I.A.No.915/2018 in

MVOP.No.46/2018 preferred C.R.P.No.469/2020 and in I.A.No.355/2019 in

MVOP.No.46/2018 preferred C.R.P.No.268/2020 on the file of Hon’ble High

Court of Andhra Pradesh and the Hon’ble High Court of A.P., has passed common order in both C.R.P.Nos.268/2020 and 469/2020 on 12.12.2024 set aside the orders passed by this Court in I.A.No.355/2019 in

MVOP.No.46/2018 and in I.A.No.915/2018 in MVOP.No.46/2018 and impleaded owner of the Swift Car bearing No.TS-09-EP-2363-Laurus Labs

Pvt Ltd., represented by P.Ravi as 4th respondent and insurer of the car bearing No.TS-09-EP-2363-The Manager (Legal Officer), Future General

Insurance Company Ltd., Hyderabad as respondent No.5.

12.The Hon’ble High Court in the above said common order directed this

Court to frame appropriate issue with regard to “contributory negligence” as in the counter filed by the 3rd respondent-Insurance Company in MVOP.No.46- 2018, there is a specific reference with regard to contributory negligence in the counter filed by the respondent No.3. The Hon’ble High Court of Andhra

Pradesh also further directed this Court, the proposed respondents 4 and 5

shall file their counter within a period of six months from the date of this

order and as the instant M.V.O.P pertains to the year 2018, the Tribunal

shall endeavor to dispose of the same within a further period of one year

thereafter.

MVOP No.46 of 2018 9 XVI ADJC/NDG

13.The learned counsel for the petitioners filed online copy of orders of the

Hon’ble High Court before the Court on 20.1.2025.In the light of the direction

of the Hon’ble High Court in the above said common order vide

CRP.No.268/2020 and CRP.No.469/2020, the petitioners filed

I.A.No.831/2025, Under Order 6 Rule 17 C.P.C., to amend the petition and that petition is allowed and the petitioners carried out amendment and filed neat copy and the respondents 4 and 5 were brought on record.

14.The 4th respondent resisted the petition and filed counter. The main averments of counter are that the material allegations mentioned in the petition are all false and created for the purpose of petition. The vehicle driven by deceased bearing No.TS-09-EP-2363 belongs to 4th respondent and the same is provided to the deceased upon the request of deceased. Moreover, the 4th respondent vehicle is having valid insurance policy bearing No.2017-

V5130180-FPV, valid from 00.00 hours of 14.7.2017 to 13.7.2018 with 5th respondent at the time of accident. The alleged accident was occurred due to rash and negligent driving of the 1st respondent only as he applied sudden breaks and due to that the deceased was lost his life. The alleged crime vehicle is having valid insurance with 5th respondent and the accident only caused due to 1st respondent and the crime vehicle is owned by 2nd respondent and insured with 3rd respondent and hence, the respondents 1 to 3 are liable to pay compensation to the petitioners.

15.The 5th respondent also filed counter contending that the material allegations in the petition are all false and created for the purpose of petition.

There is no composite negligence on the part of deceased on the face of record, the petition is not maintainable. The insurance policy issued by this respondent in favour of respondent No.1 bearing No.2017-V5130180-FPV for the period from 14.7.2017 to 13.7.2018 is in valid and in force at the time of accident. The 3rd respondent invented the allegations that there was

MVOP No.46 of 2018 10 XVI ADJC/NDG contributory negligence on the part of the deceased in fact these allegations are created by 3rd respondent for the purpose of adding of respondents 4 and

5. The cause of action for filing of claim petition arises only on a road accident and the contents of FIR and charge-sheet filed by the investigating officer of the concerned police station thoroughly and filed charge sheet against the 1st respondent, who is the driver of the offending lorry bearing No.AP-31-ES-9819 belongs to 2nd respondent. The accident occurred due to rash and negligent driving of 1st respondent only. There is no contributory negligence on the part of the car driver and entire police records reveals that the lorry driver only caused the accident. The 3rd respondent insurance company did not take any attempts or steps to insert contributory negligence on the part of the driver of car even till today. Therefore, in the absence of finding the concerned police,

R4 and R5 are not at all necessary parties to the claim petition and without any cogent material R4 and R5 cannot be necessary parties to this petition and thus the claim petition is liable to be dismissed against R5. The deceased died in the alleged accident due to rash and negligent driving of the 1st respondent and there is no fault on the part of the deceased. Accordingly prayed to dismiss the petition.

16.In the light of the directions of the Hon’ble High Court, this Court has framedthe following additional issue on 5.12.2025:

ADDITIONAL ISSUE:

“Whether there is contributory negligence on the part of deceased-car driver as contended by R3, so that R4 and R5 are responsible”?

17.In support of the petitioners case, the 1st petitioner- Murali Kumidini

Iyyangar herself examined as PW.1 and got marked Exs.A1 to A37. The petitioners also examined Velisetti Krishna, Assistant General Manager,

HR Department of Laurus Labs Pvt Ltd as PW.2.

MVOP No.46 of 2018 11 XVI ADJC/NDG

Ex.A1 is Copy of the FIR in crime No.12/2018, dated 27.1.2018, EX.A2 is attested copy of inquest report, dated 27.1.2018, EX.A3 is Attested copy of the postmortem report, dated 27.1.2018, EX.A4 is Photostat copy of Insurance policy, dated 5.10.2017, EX.A5 is Photostat copy of registration certificate,

dated 5.10.2017, EX.A6 is Photostat copy of driving license of the 1st

respondent, dated 18.8.2015, Ex.A7 is Attested copy of the MVI report, dated 29.1.2018, Ex.A8 is Photostat copy of driving license of the husband of the 1st petitioner, dated 21.12.2013, Ex.A9 is Attested copy of charge sheet, Ex.A10 is Attested copy of rough sketch, Ex.A11 is Attested copy of the seen observation report, Ex.A12 is Attested copy of the death summary, Ex.A13 is

Adhaar cards of the petitioners, Ex.A14 is Medical final bill of

Rs.34,150+2500= Rs.36,650/-, Ex.A15 is Photostat copy of the resume of the deceased, Ex.A16 is Photostat copy of the pan card of the deceased, Ex.A17 is Photostat copy of the letter of Appointment of the deceased issued by

Laurus labs Pvt Ltd., Hyderabad, dated 28.3.2016, Ex.A18 is Salary Revision

Particulars of the deceased issued by Laurus Labs Pvt Ltd., dated 17.4.2017,

Ex.A19 is Copy of performance incentive scheme-FY17 issued by Laurus labs

Pvt., Ltd., 25.5.2017, Ex.A20 is Photostat copy of Full and final settlement of the deceased salary particulars issued by Laurus Labs Pvt, Ltd, dated 30.1.2018, Ex.A21 is Photostat copy of pay slip particulars of the deceased issued by Laurus Labs Pvt Ltd., in the month of the November, 2017, Ex.A22 is Photostat of pay slip particulars of the deceased issued by Laurus Labs Pvt

Ltd in the month of December, 2017, Ex.A23 is Photostat copy of pay slip particulars of the deceased issued by Laurus Labs Pvt Ltd in the month of

January, 2018, Ex.A24 is Photostat copy of the Form 26 Annual Tax statement issued by Income-tax Department for the year 2015-2016, 2016- 2017, 2017-2018, 2018-2019(4 in numbers), Ex.A25 is Photostat copy of

Form 16 issued by Income-Tax Department for year 2016-2017 and 2017- 2018, Ex.A26 is Photostat copy of the Income-Tax returns for the year 2013- 2014, 2014-2015, 2015-2016, 2016-2017, 2017-2018 (5 in number), Ex.A27 is

MVOP No.46 of 2018 12 XVI ADJC/NDG

Government of Commercial Certificate issued by the Commissioner Bureau of

Government Examinations at Pune, dated 03.02.1986, Ex.A28 is Government of Commercial Certificate issued by the Bureau of Government Examinations

Director of Examinations, dated 3.2.1986, Ex.A29 is Certificate issued by the

Cadila health Care Limited, Khemka House, dated 24.10.1996, Ex.A30 is

Certificate issued by Zydus Group of concerns at Ahamdabad, dated 17.4.2000, Ex.A31 is Certificate issued by the Cadila Health Care limited,

Khemka house, 1.1.1997, Ex.A32 is Certificate issued by Computer Society of

India Ahamadabad, dated 30.6.1990, Ex.A33 is Certificate issued by the

Cadila health Care Limited Khemka House, dated 5.4.1986, Ex.A34 is

Certificate issued by Zudus Group of concerns at Ahmadabad, dated 23.8.1999, Ex.A35 is Certificate issued by India Gandhi National Open

University for post graduate Diploma in Operation Management Programs (7 in number), dated 16.4.2003, Ex.A36 is Certificate issued by Indira Gandhi

National Open University for Diploma in Management, dated 11.4.1996,

Ex.A37 is Certificate issued by Indira Gandhi National Open University for graduate diploma in operation management, dated.23.03.2003.

18.On behalf of the 3rd respondent-The New India Assurance Company examined its legal Manager Prakash Kumar as RW.1 and Exs.B1 to B3 are marked.

Ex.B1 is Authorization letter dated 7.2.2025, Ex.B2 is Attested copy of insurance policy, Ex.B3 is Registered letter dated 7.2.2025 issued to Laurus

Labs Limited, Hyderabad.

19.The 4th respondent did not choose to examine either oral or documentary evidence.

20.On behalf of the 5th respondent – Future General Insurance Company its Senior Executive, Maloth Kavitha examined as RW.2 and got marked

Ex.B4. Ex.B4 is attested copy of insurance policy.

MVOP No.46 of 2018 13 XVI ADJC/NDG

ISSUE NO.1 & ADDITIONAL ISSUE:

21.As these two issues are with reference to the rash or negligent act of driving on the part of 1st respondent offending lorry driver bearing No.AP-31-

TC-9819 and on the part of the deceased who was driving the Swift Car bearing TS-09-EP-2369. To avoid repetition of discussion of evidence, these 1st issue and additional issue are taken together for discussions.

22.The learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that the petitioners along with deceased were went to Basara in Maruthi Swift Dzire Car bearing

No.TS-09-EP-2363 on 26.1.2018 at about 6.00 A.M., and after completion of darshan at temple they were returning to Hyderabad and the deceased was driving the car and at about 4.30 P.M., when they reached near Peddacheruvu

Katta, NH-44, Toopran village of Medak District, the 1st respondent being the driver of lorry bearing No.AP-31-ES-9819 drove the same in rash or negligent manner ahead of the car of deceased, suddenly applied breaks due to that the offending vehicle lorry turned left side without any indicators and precautionary measures and the deceased was trying to avoid collusion of the lorry and however, as the lorry came left side, as a result the car dashed the rear left side of the lorry from back side due to that the deceased sustained severe injury, the petitioners 1 and 3 also sustained grievous injuries and they were shifted to R.R.Hospitals in Kompally and where the deceased died while undergoing treatment. The learned counsel for the petitioners also submitted that the accident occurred entirely due to rash and negligent driving of the 1st respondent and there was no contributory negligence on the part of the deceased and he was proceeding at normal speed on the back side of the offending vehicle as the 1st respondent being the driver of offending vehicle applied sudden breaks and suddenly turned left side without any precautionary measures and indicators and the learned counsel for 3rd respondent took false plea of contributory negligence on the part of the deceased with a view to avoid compensation to the petitioners. The learned

MVOP No.46 of 2018 14 XVI ADJC/NDG counsel for the petitioners further contended that the investigating officer conducted thorough investigation and that the respondent No.1 was charge sheeted by the Investigating Officer in the instant case u/ss.304-A and 338

IPC and therefore, the petitioners clearly established the rash and negligent driving on the part of the 1st respondent and also clearly proved that there was no contributory negligence on the part of deceased. Hence, it is submitted that the rash and negligent act of the respondent No.1 is proved on record.

23.Per contra, it is argued by the learned Counsel for the 3rd respondent that the deceased was driving the vehicle in a rash and negligent manner and he drove the car in negligent manner and unable to control the car and dashed the backside of the lorry and due to that the accident occurred and there is contributory negligence on the part of the deceased car driver and it is also mentioned in FIR and Charge-sheet. The learned Counsel for R3 further argued that the deceased did not maintain sufficient distance when he was proceeding on the back side of the offending vehicle and however, he did not make sufficient space and drover the vehicle rash and negligent manner and dashed the lorry in negligent manner and therefore, there was contributory negligence on the part of the deceased. Hence, it is submitted that the 1st petitioner's husband is guilty of contributory negligence to the extent of 50%.

24.The learned counsel for respondents 4 and 5 contended that the accident occurred due to rash and negligent driving of the 1st respondent only and due to his negligent driving the deceased died and there was no contributory negligence on the part of the deceased and the 3rd respondent unnecessarily impleaded respondents 4 and 5 with a view to avoid compensation to the claimants and therefore, the learned Counsel for respondents 4 and 5 prayed not to accept the theory of contributory and also submitted that the entire claim shall be paid by 3rd respondent company only.

MVOP No.46 of 2018 15 XVI ADJC/NDG

25.The learned counsel for the 3rd respondent relied on Nishan Singh &

ORS vs ORIENTAL INSURANCE COMPANY LTD., through REGIONAL

MANAGER & ORS, AIR 2018 SUPREME COURT 2118, wherein the Hon’ble

Supreme Court of India held that: The moot question is whether the Tribunal committed any error in answering issue No.1 against the appellants and in favour of the respondents. The Tribunal, while answering the said issue No.1, analysed the evidence, both oral and documentary, including the charge sheet filed by the appellants and observed thus:

“20. In site plan paper No.6C/6 which is filed on record, the breadth of the

road in question appears to be 14 feet and about 7 steps Kachcha Lekh

appears at the both sides of the road. This fact is remarkable that the said

accident is not of front accident but the accident occurred as a result of

collision of the Maruti Car on the rear part of the truck in question by the

driver of the car in question and the same fact is also mentioned in the

evidence of the petitioners. PW.2 Manjeet Singh driver of the car in

question as stated in his cross examination that he was driving the car

behind the truck at the distance of about 1015 feet. Despite there being the

breadth of the road 14 feet Pucca, the driver of the car in question kept the

vehicle only at the distance of 1015 feet from the truck which doesn’t

appear in accordance with traffic rules. He should have driven the vehicle

maintaining the proper distance in order to escape from each circumstance

but he has admitted in his cross examination as PW2 that, “he knows that

he should maintain proper distance from the heavy vehicle”. Under such

circumstance if the vehicle which is running behind the heavy vehicle, must

maintain the proper distance if the proper distance is not maintain then the

whole negligence shall be determined on the part of rear vehicle in regard

to the occurrence of accident in question. In addition no evidence in regard

to the seizing of truck in question on the place of occurrence and taking

into police custody the vehicles from the place of occurrence and getting

done their technical survey is not available on place of occurrence.

21. By the facts mentioned in the petition and by the evidence of PW1 and

PW2 it doesn’t appear reliable that rash and negligent driving in the

accident in question was on the part of the driver of the truck in question

and for this purpose only by registering of F.I.R. of said accident and

submitting of chargesheet against the driver of the truck in question, the

driver of the truck in question cannot be held guilty for the said accident,

whereas by the evidence of the petitioner on record this fact comes forward

that the accident occurred as the driver of the car in question was not

driving the car in question in accordance with traffic rules i.e. the accident

MVOP No.46 of 2018 16 XVI ADJC/NDG

occurred as the vehicle was not being driven maintaining proper distance

from the truck and it appears clearly that the speed of the car would have

been fast whereby the car in question collided with the rear part of the truck

in question being uncontrolled and said accident took place. Under such

circumstance there was no rash and negligence on the part of the driver of

truck bearing No.U.P.32 Z2397 regarding the accident in question but the

same is determined on the part of Manjeet Singh driver of Maruti Car

bearing No.U.P.02 D5292.

22. On the basis of the aforesaid interpretation it appears that the said

accident didn’t occur on 28.11.2010 at about 6:45 p.m. at village Kunda

KashipurJashpur Road under area of P.S. Kunda district Udham Singh

Nagar by the driver of the truck bearing No. U.P.32 Z2397 due to rash and

negligent driving of the truck and by applying sudden break but it occurred

as a result of rash and negligent driving of Maruti Car bearing No. U.P.02

D5292 in question by Manjeet Singh driver, wherein Balvinder Kaur who

was sitting in the car sustained serious injuries and expired during her

treatment on account of serious injuries.” The Hon’ble Supreme Court also held that:

“The finding so recorded by the Tribunal has been affirmed by the High Court,

by observing that the evidence was clearly indicative of the fact that the maruti

car was being driven in a rash and negligent manner, which was the cause for

accident of this nature and resulting in death of one of the passengers in the

maruti car. The maruti car was driven by none other than PW2 Manjeet Singh. In

his evidence, he has admitted that the subject truck was running ahead of the

maruti car for quite some time about one kilometre and at the time of accident,

the distance between the truck and maruti car was only 10 15 feet. He has also

admitted that the law mandates maintaining sufficient distance between two

vehicles running in the same direction. It is also not in dispute that the road on

which the two vehicles were moving was only about 14 feet wide. It is

unfathomable that on such a narrow road, the subject truck would move at a

high speed as alleged. In any case, the maruti car which was following the truck

was expected to maintain a safe distance, as envisaged in Regulation 23 of the

Rules of the Road Regulations, 1989, which reads thus:

“23. Distance from vehicles in front. The driver of a motor vehicle moving

behind another vehicle shall keep at a sufficient distance from that other vehicle

to avoid collision if the vehicle in front should suddenly slow down or stop.”

The expression ‘sufficient distance’ has not been defined in the Regulations or

elsewhere. The thumb rule of sufficient distance is at least a safe distance of

MVOP No.46 of 2018 17 XVI ADJC/NDG two to three seconds gap in ideal conditions to avert collision and to allow the

following driver time to respond. The distance of 10–15 feet between the truck

and maruti car was certainly not a safe distance for which the driver of the

maruti car must take the blame. It must necessarily follow that the finding on the issue under consideration ought to be against the claimants.

26.The learned Counsel for the 3rd respondent also relied on

S.Mohammed Hakkim vs National Insurance Co.LTD & ORS, 2025 INSC

905, wherein the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India held that:

“First on the question of contributory negligence of the appellant and

negligence on the part of the drivers of the other two vehicles involved in the

accident. The Tribunal, as well as the High Court, have affirmed that the

accident occurred due to the sudden stoppage of the car. However, it was the

view of the Tribunal that if the bus had not been involved in the accident, the

appellant would have suffered normal injuries, and it was mainly the negligence

of the bus driver that led to the amputation of the appellant’s leg. The Tribunal

also relied on Rule 231 of the Road Regulation Rules 1989 and put contributory

negligence of 20% on the appellant for not maintaining a sufficient distance

from the car. The Tribunal had exonerated the car driver and determined the

negligence of the appellant and the bus driver in the ratio of 20:80. In appeal,

the High Court has rightly held that since the genesis of the accident was the

sudden braking of the car, the car driver should also be made liable. The High

Court held the car driver and bus driver liable for negligence to the extent of

40% and 30% respectively; while the appellant was made liable for 30%

contributory negligence.

1 Distance from vehicles in front: The Driver of a Motor vehicle moving behind

another vehicle shall keep at a sufficient distance from that other vehicle to

avoid collision if the vehicle in front should suddenly slow down or stop.

6. The car insurer has taken the stand that the appellant had hit the moving car from behind and thus, car driver is not liable. On the other hand, the car driver

has admitted in his evidence that he had suddenly applied the brakes as his

wife was pregnant and she had a vomiting sensation. In our view, the

concurrent finding that the appellant was definitely negligent in not maintaining

a sufficient distance from the vehicle moving ahead and driving the motorcycle

without a valid license is correct. But at the same time, it cannot be ignored that

the root cause of the accident is the sudden brakes applied by the car driver.

The explanation given by the car driver for suddenly stopping his car in the

middle of a highway is not a reasonable explanation from any angle. On a

highway, high speed of vehicles is expected and if a driver intends to stop his

vehicle, he has a responsibility to give a warning or signal to other vehicles

moving behind on the road. In the present case, there is nothing on record to

suggest that the car driver had taken any such precaution. Both Tribunal as

well as the High Court have noted that the bus driver was also negligent. After

considering all these aspects, we are of the view that the appellant is liable for

contributory negligence but only to the extent of 20% whereas the car driver

MVOP No.46 of 2018 18 XVI ADJC/NDG

and bus driver are liable for negligence to the extent of 50% and 30%

respectively”.

27.I have carefully considered the rival contentions and perused the record.

28.It is settled law that in an action founded on the principle of fault and liability, the proof of rash and negligent driving of the driver of offending vehicle is sine qua non. The Hon’ble Apex Court as well as Hon’ble High

Courts time and again have held that in Motor Accident Claim petitions filed under sections 166 and 140 of the Motor Vehicles Act, there is no strict proof of negligence. However, the standard of proof is not as strict as applied in criminal cases instead of strict proof, beyond reasonable doubt standard applied in criminal trials negligence in accident claim petitions is determined and evidence is to be tested on the touchstone of preponderance of probabilities. Holistic view is to be taken while dealing with the Claim Petition based upon negligence. The claims tribunal is required to take a holistic view of evidence rather than relying on technicalities or strict rule of evidence. The claimants must only show the version of events they present is more likely true than not, rather than providing a absolute, ironclad proof. Strict rules of evidence are not applicable in an inquiry conducted by the Claims Tribunal.

Reference may be made to the judgments titled as 'New India Assurance

Co. Ltd. v. Sakshi Bhutani & Others', MAC APP.No. 550/2011 decided on

02.07.2012,'Bimla Devi & Others v. Himachal Road Transport Corporation

& Others' (2009) 13 SC 500, 'Parmeshwari v. Amirchand & Others' 2011

(1) SCR 1096.

29.At this stage, it is worthwhile to refer a judgment reported inMangla

Ram v. Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd. (2018) 5 SCC 656, the Hon’ble Supreme

Court has laid down in paragraphs 27 & 28:

"27. ...This Court in a recent decision in Dulcina Fernandes, noted that the key of negligence on the part of the driver of the offending vehicle as set up by the claimants was required to be

MVOP No.46 of 2018 19 XVI ADJC/NDG decided by the Tribunal on the touchstone of preponderance of probability and certainly not by standard of proof beyond reasonable doubt. Suffice it to observe that the exposition in the judgments already adverted to by us, filing of charge sheet against Respondent 2 prima facie points towards his complicity in driving the vehicle negligently and rashly. Further, even when the accused were to be acquitted in the criminal case, this Court opined that the same may be of no effect on the assessment of the liability required in respect of motor accident cases by the Tribunal.

28. Reliance placed upon the decisions in Minu B. Mehta and Meena Variyal, by the respondents, in our opinion, is of no avail. The dictum in these cases is on the matter in issue in the case concerned. Similarly, even the dictum in Surender Kumar Arora will be of no avail. In the present case, considering the entirety of the pleadings, evidence and circumstances on record and in particular the finding recorded by the Tribunal on the factum of negligence of Respondent 2, the driver of the offending jeep, the High Court committed manifest error in taking a contrary view which, in our opinion, is an error apparent on the face of record and manifestly wrong."

30.I have carefully perused the material on record as well as oral and documentary evidence brought on record.

31.To prove the rash or negligent act of driving on the part of driver of the offending vehicle lorry bearing No.AP-31-TC-9819, the 1st petitioner examined herself as PW-1. PW-1 filed her examination-in-chief in the form of chief- affidavit and wherein she reiterated the petition averments in verbatum. As such the examination-in-chief of PW-1 is nothing but replica of petition.

Therefore, there is no need to discuss the same once again with a view to avoid repetition. The learned counsel for the 3rd respondent has cross- examined PW.1 at length and the learned Counsel for R4 and R5 also cross- examined PW.1. On behalf of the 3rd respondent-The New India Assurance

Company Limited examined its legal officer-Prakash Kumar as PW.1 and he filed his examination-in-chief in form of chief-affidavit and wherein he reiterated the counter averments. RW.1 also relied on Exs.B1 to B3

MVOP No.46 of 2018 20 XVI ADJC/NDG documents. Ex.B1 is authorization letter, Ex.B2 is attested copy of insurance policy and Ex.B3 is the registered letter dated 7.2.2025 issued to Lauras Labs

Pvt Limited, Hyderabad. The learned counsel for petitioners has cross- examined RW.1 at length and the learned Counsel for R4 and R5 also cross- examined RW.1. On behalf of the 5th respondent, Senior Executive of Future

General Insurance Company Limited, Hyderabad by name Maloth Kavitha examined as RW.2 and in her evidence she just reiterated counter averments.

She also relied on Ex.B4-attested copy of insurance policy issued by 5th respondent. The learned Counsel for 3rd respondent has cross-examined

RW.2.

32. To prove their case, PW-1 mainly relied on Ex.A1 is Copy of the FIR in crime No.12/2018, dated 27.1.2018, EX.A2 is attested copy of inquest report,

dated 27.1.2018, EX.A3 is Attested copy of the postmortem report, dated

27.1.2018, Ex.A7 is Attested copy of the MVI report, dated 29.1.2018, Ex.A9 is Attested copy of charge sheet, Ex.A10 is Attested copy of rough sketch,

Ex.A11 is Attested copy of the seen observation report and Ex.A12 is Attested copy of the death summary. Ex.A1 reveals the accident occurred at about 4.40 PM., due to rash or negligent driving of crime vehicle lorry near Ceruvu

Katta, NH-44, Toopran Village of Medak District and in the accident, the deceased sustained severe head injury, the petitioners 2 and 3 are also sustained injuries in the accident and immediately, they were shifted to

R.R.Hospital, Kompally and while undergoing treatment the deceased died in the hospital at 6 p.m., on the same day. Ex.P1 also reveals that the de-facto complainant- Challa Vijay Prakash, who is Manager of Laurus Labs Limited gave report to Toopran Police at 6 P.M., on the same day and basing on the said report a case in Crime No.12/2018 registered against the driver of offending vehicle lorry and issued FIR. Ex.A10 is Attested copy of rough sketch clearly indicated that the driver of the lorry proceeding ahead of the car of the deceased suddenly applied breaks without indication and precautions

MVOP No.46 of 2018 21 XVI ADJC/NDG and turned the lorry towards left side on a highway in dangerous and negligent manner. Ex.A10 further reveals that the first respondent being the driver of offending vehicle lorry applied sudden brakes without warning or precautions.

Ex.A10 also reveals that the car which was driven by the deceased was keeping sufficient distance between the two vehicles running in the same direction. Ex.A11 is Attested copy of the seen observation report absolutely corroborating with Ex.A10. The evidence of PW-1 also corroborating with

Exs.A10 and A11. It clearly established that as the 1st respondent applied sudden breaks without warning or precaution and turned left side on the road and so the collision was inevitable due to the offending vehicle lorry’s abrupt maneuver. Ex.A12-attested copy of death summary also clearly established that the deceased died while undergoing treatment. The evidence of PW-1 also clearly established that the deceased was driving the car in normal speed and the first respondent suddenly applied brake on the middle of the road and the lorry driver drove the lorry in rash or negligent manner. Though the learned counsel for the third respondent has cross-examined PW-1 at length he failed to elicit anything in favour of the defence of third respondent. PW-1 is the eye-witness and she was travelling along with her husband at the time of ill-fated accident. She along with her younger son also sustained injuries in this accident. The evidence of an injured witness who lost her husband in an accident can generally be safely believed regarding the accident, as her testimony is considered highly reliable and accorded special status in law.

Because PW-1 was injured and sustained grievous injuries in the same accident along with her younger son. The testimony of PW-1 carries more weight than that of a bystander. EX.A2 is attested copy of inquest report,

dated 27.1.2018. Ex.A2 clearly established that the deceased sustained

grievous head injury, injuries on legs and hands and died in Road Traffic

Accident in Cr.No.12/2018 of Toopran Police. Ex.A2 also reveals that The

S.I.of Police, Toopran conducted inquest panchanama in the presence of mediators in between 9 am., to 10.30 am., in R.R.Hospital, Kompally on 27-

MVOP No.46 of 2018 22 XVI ADJC/NDG 01-2018. EX.A3 is Attested copy of the postmortem report, dated 27.1.2018.

Ex.A3 clearly established that Dr.Ch.Laxman Rao conducted postmortem over the dead body of the deceased at Gandhi Medical Hospital, Secunderabad on 27-01-2018 at about 11.15 A.M., and found injuries as mentioned in column

No.9 of Ex.A3 and opined that the deceased died due to head injury. Ex.A7 is

Attested copy of the MVI report, dated 29.1.2018 reveals that the accident is occurred not due to mechanical defects of the crime vehicle. Ex.A9 is Attested copy of charge sheet disclosed that the investigating officer thoroughly conducted investigation and laid charge sheet against the first respondent under sections 304-A and 338 IPC. RW.1 in his cross-examination clearly admitted that Toopran police filed charge-sheet against R1 as he is accused in the crime and in the charge sheet, the investigating officer clearly mentioned that the driver of the offending vehicle applied sudden breaks due to that the accident occurred. RW.1 also clearly admitted that they appointed investigator and he collected the crime records submitted in their office and however, they have not file that report before the Court. The Charge-sheet clearly proves that the accident occurred due to the rash and negligence of the 1st respondent.

33.The main and principle contention of the learned counsel for 3rd respondent is that the deceased being the driver of the car bearing No.TS-09-

EP-2363 was driving his car in negligent manner and he had failed to keep sufficient distance between his car and lorry while running in the same direction and dashed rear side of the lorry and the accident occurred due to contributory negligence of the deceased and however, the claimants falsely thrown entire blame on the 1st respondent/who was the driver of the lorry with a view to extract lump-sum compensation from the 3rd respondent. On the other hand, the learned Counsel for the claimants vehemently contended that the 1st respondent being the driver of lorry drove the offending vehicle lorry in rash or negligent manner on national highway and applied sudden breaks

MVOP No.46 of 2018 23 XVI ADJC/NDG without taking any precautions or signals and the deceased had drove the car by maintained and keep sufficient distance between the two vehicles and he also tried to avoid accident and however, due to rash and negligent act of 1st respondent the accident occurred and the deceased died and the accident occurred due to the gross negligence on the part of the 1st respondent.

34.Therefore, this Court has thoroughly considered the evidence brought on record. The main question which requires consideration is with regard to allegation of contributory negligence against the deceased. In New India

Assurance Co. Ltd. v. Pazhani Ammal [2012 ACJ 1370: 2011 (3) KLT 648], the Hon'ble High Court held that “production of police charge sheet is

prima facie sufficient evidence of negligence for the purpose of a claim

u/s. 166. If any one of the parties did not accept such charge sheet, the

burden must be on such party to adduce oral evidence. If oral evidence

is adduced by any party, in case where charge sheet is filed, the Tribunal

should give further opportunity to others also to adduce oral evidence

and in such a case, the charge sheet will pale into insignificance and the

dispute will have to be decided on the basis of the evidence. In all other

cases, such charge sheet can be reckoned as sufficient evidence of

negligence”. It may be noted in this connection that the wife of deceased, who is one of the injured persons, gave evidence before the Tribunal as PW-

1. PW.1 in his evidence clearly and categorically testified that while they were returning to Hyderabad from Basara, the driver of lorry bearing No.AP-31-ES- 9819 was proceeding infront of their car in a rash and negligent manner and applied sudden break due to that the lorry turned left side without any signals and indicators and her husband tried to escape collusion to the lorry.

However, due to negligent act of lorry driver their dashed to the rear left side of the lorry from back side and her husband sustained head injury and died.

PW.1 categorically denied the suggestion that her husband drove the car in negligent manner and dashed the lorry. She also denied the suggestion that

MVOP No.46 of 2018 24 XVI ADJC/NDG the lorry was proceeding at normal speed and the deceased drove the car at high speed and unable to control the speed of the car and dashed the lorry.

She also denied the suggestion that the accident has occurred due to the negligent act on the part of the deceased himself and there was contributory negligence on the part of the deceased, therefore, R3 is liable to pay 50% compensation and R5 being insurer of the car liable to pay remaining 50% compensation to them. Though the learned Counsel for the 3rd respondent cross-examined PW.1 at length nothing worthwhile material elicited in favour of the 3rd respondent. When the learned counsel for R5 cross-examined PW.1, she admitted that there is no negligence on the part of her husband and the police conducted investigation and filed charge-sheet against lorry driver only and therefore, R4 and R5 are not liable to pay compensation and R3 is only liable to pay compensation.

35.This case cannot be termed as a head-on collision. In the present matter, as rightly pointed out by the learned Counsel for the petitioners, both the vehicles should have been driven on the same direction of the road. The evidence on record clearly establishes that the accident was a rear-end collision. It further indicates that the lorry driver suddenly applied brakes in a situation that has not been shown to be unavoidable. Although the deceased who was car driver, who was proceeding on the highway ahead of the offending vehicle, also avoiding the accident, he was unable to bring the vehicle to a complete halt without colliding with the lorry due to the abruptness of the lorry’s action. The incident appears to have occurred entirely unexpectedly as a result of the sudden and unanticipated application of brakes by the 1st respondent-offending lorry driver. Importantly, the wife of the deceased car driver, who is an eyewitness to the occurrence, has categorically stated that the accident occurred due to the fault of the 1st respondent lorry driver, and that they had no opportunity to avoid the collision.

There is no material on record to show that the 1st respondent-lorry driver

MVOP No.46 of 2018 25 XVI ADJC/NDG exercised due care before applying sudden brakes on the national highway by taking sufficient precaution and indicators. In particular, it has not been established that the lorry driver slowed down the vehicle gradually or provided any warning signals or indicators prior to braking. In the absence of such precautions, the conduct of the lorry driver falls short of the standard expected of a prudent driver on a public highway. Despite this, the 3rd respondent – The

New India Assurance Company Limited has taken a plea of contributory negligence. This contention is unsustainable. The driver and owner of the offending vehicle lorry, who are respondents 1 and 2 were set ex-parte and did not participate in the proceedings. The 3rd respondent-insurance company, not being an eyewitness to the incident, cannot make a bald assertion of contributory negligence without supporting evidence. It appears that the 3rd respondent insurance company has raised this plea merely to evade its liability to compensate for the loss of life of deceased and injuries caused to the injured persons in the unfortunate accident. If the 3rd respondent-insurance company genuinely intended to establish contributory negligence, it ought to have taken steps to substantiate the same, for instance, by summoning the 1st respondent-lorry driver or producing independent evidence. No evidence was led by respondent No. 3 also to prove this fact. Having failed to do so, its plea remains unproven and cannot be accepted. Further, there was also no iota of positive evidence before the Court with regard to the alleged contributory negligence on the part of the deceased car driver. Hence, the contention of the 3rd respondent-insurance company with respect to contributory negligence does not hold water and is therefore rejected. The accident has clearly occurred due to the rash and negligent driving of the respondent No.1-driver of the offending vehicle. Hence, in the humble opinion of this Court, the citations relied by the learned Counsel for the 3rd respondent cited supra are different from the facts of the present case and therefore, with humble respect, this Court is of the considered view that those judgments do not apply to the facts and circumstances of the present case.

MVOP No.46 of 2018 26 XVI ADJC/NDG

36.In view of the above discussion and on a careful consideration of the entire evidence on record, it is clear that the petitioners proved that due to rash and negligent driving of driver of the lorry bearing No.AP-31-TC-9819 by its driver and due to that the deceased sustained fatal head injury, injuries to hands and legs at 4.30 P.M., near Peddacheruvu katta, on NH-44 in Toopran village of Medak District and he succumbed to the injuries sustained in the accident on the same day at 6.00 P.M., in R.R.Hospital, Kompally.

Furthermore, the respondent No.3 miserably failed to prove that the accident occurred due to the negligent act on the part of the deceased himself and there is contributory negligence on the part of the deceased. It has been clearly established that the offending vehicle was being driven by respondent

No.1 and that respondent No.2 is the owner of the same and the offending vehicle was insured with the respondent No.3. Hence, the respondent No. 3 shall be liable to pay the compensation amount to the petitioners 1 to 3.

Hence, issue No.1 is answered affirmatively in favour of the petitioners

and additional issue is answered in the negative against the 3 rd

respondent.

ISSUE NO.2:

37.There is no dispute that the deceased was working as Deputy General

Manager, Supply Chain Management Department in Laurus Labs, Co-operate

Office, Banjara Hills, Hyderabad. Admittedly, the 1st petitioner is wife, petitioners 2 and 3 are the sons of deceased. The place of accident is within the limits of Toopran police station of Medak District and the claimants filed this claim petition(MACT) at their own option in Nandigama of Krishna District.

The 3rd insurance company has its office and nodal officer within the limits of

Nandigama Court limits. The Hon’ble Apex Court time and again clarified that this flexibility allowing victims to approach the tribunal closest to them or for their choice. Claimants can file a tribunal where the insurance has a branch or nodal officer even if the accident did not occur there as the Motor Vehicles Act is a beneficial legislation designed to aid victims, rather than restricting them

MVOP No.46 of 2018 27 XVI ADJC/NDG to technical jurisdiction issues. Hence, this Court has find no force in the contention of the learned Counsel for the 3rd respondent that this Court has no jurisdiction to entertain the claim petition.

38.Ex.A6-copy of driving license reveals that the 1st respondent has valid and effective driving license at the time of accident. Ex.A8-copy of driving license shows that the deceased had valid and effective driving license at the time of accident. Ex.A5-copy of registration certificate shows that the 2nd respondent is the owner of the offending vehicle lorry. Ex.A4-copy of insurance policy clearly reveals that the 2nd respondent paid insurance premium to the offending vehicle and the 3rd respondent is the insurer of the crime vehicle. Ex.B2-attested copy of insurance policy filed by 3rd respondent also clearly reveals that the 3rd respondent is the insurer of offending vehicle.

Accordingly, the petitioners 1 to 3 are entitled compensation from respondents 1 to 3 jointly and severally.

39.At this stage it is worthwhile to refer a judgment of Hon'ble Supreme

Court of India in matter of " Sarla Verma & Ors. Vs. Delhi Transport

Corporation & Ors. " (2003) 6 SCC 121 has held : -

"9. Basically only three facts need to be established by the claimants

for assessing compensation in the case of death :-

(a) age of the deceased; (b) income of the deceased; and the (c) the

number of dependents. The issues to be determined by the Tribunal to

arrive at the loss of dependency are (i) additions/deductions to be

made for arriving at the income; (ii) the deduction to be made towards

the personal living expenses of the deceased; and (iii) the multiplier to

be applied with reference of the age of the deceased. If these

determinants are standardized, there will be uniformity and

consistency in the decisions. There will lesser need for detailed

evidence. It will also be easier for the insurance companies to settle

accident claims without delay.

To have uniformity and consistency, Tribunals should determine

compensation in cases of death, by the following well settled steps :

Step 1 (Ascertaining the multiplicand) The income of the deceased per

annum should be determined. Out of the said income a deduction

should be made in regard to the amount which the deceased would

MVOP No.46 of 2018 28 XVI ADJC/NDG

have spent on himself by way of personal and living expenses. The

balance, which is considered to be the contribution to the dependent

family, constitutes the multiplicand.

Step 2 (Ascertaining the multiplier) Having regard to the age of the

deceased and period of active career, the appropriate multiplier should

be selected. This does not mean ascertaining the number of years he

would have lived or worked but for the accident. Having regard to

several imponderables in life and economic factors, a table of

multipliers with reference to the age has been identified by this Court.

The multiplier should be chosen from the said table with reference to

the age of the deceased.

Step 3 (Actual calculation) The annual contribution to the family

(multiplicand) when multiplied by such multiplier gives the `loss of

dependency' to the family. Thereafter, a conventional amount in the

range of Rs. 5,000/- to Rs.10,000/- may be added as loss of estate.

Where the deceased is survived by his widow, another conventional

amount in the range of 5,000/- to 10,000/- should be added under the

head of loss of consortium. But no amount is to be awarded under the

head of pain, suffering or hardship caused to the legal heirs of the

deceased.

The funeral expenses, cost of transportation of the body (if incurred)

and cost of any medical treatment of the deceased before death (if

incurred) should also added." "11. ..................... In view of imponderables and uncertainties, we are in

favour of adopting as a rule of thumb, an addition of 50% of actual

salary to the actual salary income of the deceased towards future

prospects, where the deceased had a permanent job and was below 40

years. [Where the annual income is in the taxable range, the words

`actual salary' should be read as `actual salary less tax']. The addition

should be only 30% if the age of the deceased was 40 to 50 years.

There should be no addition, where the age of deceased is more than

50 years.

Though the evidence may indicate a different percentage of increase, it

is necessary to standardize the addition to avoid different yardsticks

being applied or different methods of calculations being adopted.

Where the deceased was self- employed or was on a fixed salary

(without provision for annual increments etc.), the courts will usually

take only the actual income at the time of death. A departure therefrom

should be made only in rare and exceptional cases involving special

circumstances."

14. 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 (1/3rd) where the number of dependant family members is 4

to 6, and one-fifth (1/5th) where the number of dependant family

members exceed six.

MVOP No.46 of 2018 29 XVI ADJC/NDG

15. Where the deceased was a bachelor and the claimants are the

parents, the deduction follows a different principle. In regard to

bachelors, normally, 50% is deducted as personal and living expenses,

because it is assumed that a bachelor would tend to spend more on

himself. Even otherwise, there is also the possibility of his getting

married in a short time, in which event the contribution to the parent/s

and siblings is likely to be cut drastically. Further, subject to evidence

to the contrary, the father is likely to have his own income and will not

be considered as a dependent and the mother alone will be considered

as a dependent. In the absence of evidence to the contrary, brothers

and sisters will not be considered as dependents, because they will

either be independent and earning, or married, or be dependent on the

father. Thus even if the deceased is survived by parents and siblings,

only the mother would be considered to be a dependent, and 50%

would be treated as the personal and living expenses of the bachelor

and 50% as the contribution to the family. However, where family of the

bachelor is large and dependent on the income of the deceased, as in a

case where he has a widowed mother and large number of younger

non- earning sisters or brothers, his personal and living expenses may

be restricted to one-third and contribution to the family will be taken as

two-third."

"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."

40.In another land mark judgment of Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in its

Constitution Bench decision in the matter of "National Insurance Company

Limited Vs. Pranay Sethi & Ors . " (2017) 16 SCC 680, held as under:- "58. To lay down as a thumb rule that there will be no addition after 50 years will be an unacceptable concept. We are disposed to think, there should be an addition of 15% if the deceased is between the age of 50 to 60 years and there should be no addition thereafter. Similarly, in case of self- employed or person on fixed salary, the addition should be 10% between the age of 50 to 60 years. The aforesaid yardstick has been fixed so that there can be consistency in the approach by the tribunals and the Courts.

59. In view of the aforesaid analysis, we proceed to record our conclusions:-

(i) The two-Judge Bench in Santosh Devi should have been well advised to refer the matter to a larger Bench as it was taking a different view than what

MVOP No.46 of 2018 30 XVI ADJC/NDG has been stated in Sarla Verma, a judgment by a coordinate Bench. It is because a coordinate Bench of the same strength cannot take a contrary view

than what has been held by another coordinate Bench.

(ii) As Rajesh has not taken note of the decision in Reshma Kumari, which was delivered at earlier point of time, the decision in Rajesh is not a binding precedent.

(iii) While determining the income, an addition of 50% of actual salary to the income of the deceased towards future prospects, where the deceased had a permanent job and was below the age of 40 years, should be made. The addition should be 30%, if the age of the deceased was between 40 to 50

years. In case the deceased was between the age of 50 to 60 years, the

addition should be 15%. Actual salary should be read as actual salary less tax.

(iv) 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. The established income means the income minus the tax component.

(v) For determination of the multiplicand, the deduction for personal and living expenses, the tribunals and the courts shall be guided by paragraphs 30 to 32

of Sarla Verma which we have reproduced hereinbefore.

(vi) The selection of multiplier shall be as indicated in the Table in Sarla Verma read with paragraph 42 of that judgment.

(vii) The age of the deceased should be the basis for applying the multiplier.

(viii) Reasonable figures on conventional heads, namely, loss of estate, loss of consortium and funeral expenses should be Rs.15,000/-, Rs. 89,877/- and Rs. 15,000/- respectively. The aforesaid amounts should be enhanced at the rate of 10% in every three years."

41.In the case on hand, the deceased had higher qualifications and he worked in various Pharmaceutical companies like Zydus Cadila Health Care

Private Limited as Rank Officer for 12 years, then in P.P.M.C/Inventory

Control Cell for 5 years and also the prestigious Reddy labs before joining in the Laurus Labs as Deputy General Manager. Exs.A27 to A34 clearly established the work performance and seniority of the deceased in previous companies. Exs.A35 to A37 shows that the deceased studied post-graduate diploma, graduate diploma in operation management. Ex.A17-copy of letter of appointment shows that the deceased appointed as Deputy General Manager

MVOP No.46 of 2018 31 XVI ADJC/NDG in Laurus Labs on 28.3.2016. Ex.A18 shows that salary revision particulars of the deceased issued by Laurus Labs Pvt Limited on 17.4.2017. Exs.A15 and

A16 are copy of resume and pan card of deceased. Exs.A20 to A23 reveals the pay slip of the deceased issued by Laurus Labs Limited from November 2017 to January 2018. Ex.A24-copy of the annual tax statement issued by

Income Tax Department for the year 2015-16, 2016-17, 2017-18, 2018-19.

Exs.A25 and A26 also copies of Income-tax Department filed by the deceased.

42.PW.2 is Assistant General Manager, H.R.Department of Luarus Labs,

Hyderabad since 6.5.2013. The evidence of PW.2 plays vital role with regard to the income of the deceased along with I.T.Returns filed by PW.1 in her evidence. PW.2 in her evidence clearly testified that the deceased-Murali

Krishna Iyyangar joined in the Luarus Labs, Hyderabad on 28.3.2016 as a

Deputy General Manager in Supply Chain Management Department, Banjara

Hills, Hyderabad. He also testified that the deceased the deceased had very experienced person and as per personal file of deceased he had 24 years experience and he worked in various companies right from 1991 and the deceased worked also worked in Reddy Labs from 10.1.2013 to 29.2.2016 and he drawn an amount of Rs.21,60,000/- per annum. PW.2 in his evidence categorically deposed that at the time of appointment their company offered

Rs.24,00,000/- salary to the deceased as per Ex.A17. Ex.A17 also clearly established that the letter of appointment of deceased issued by Luarus Labs

Pvt Limited, dated 28.3.2016 that the salary package of deceased is

Rs.24,00,000/-. He also further testified that every year their company revised salary to minimum of 12 % to 15% and in that process on 17.4.2017 their company revised the deceased salary from Rs.24,40,000/- to Rs.27,29,000/- and in the month of March Rs.40,000/- additional salary from Rs.24,00,000/- for car management. PW.2 in his evidence clearly and categorically testified that their company also gave performance incentive of Rs.2,21,760/- and the

MVOP No.46 of 2018 32 XVI ADJC/NDG same was drawn by the deceased as per Ex.A19, Ex.A21, A22 and A23 pay slips issued by their company. He also testified that their company also gave all death benefits to the deceased as per company rules. According to PW.3 the salary of deceased was Rs.24,40,000/- per annum at the time of his death.

The learned counsel for 3rd respondent though cross-examined PW.2 at length, he failed to discredit the testimony of PW.2 with regard to the salary particulars of the deceased given by the Laurus Labs. It appears that PW.2 is a Assistant General Manager, H.R., Department in renowned Laurus Labs.

The evidence of PW.2 regarding the salary of deceased Deputy General

Manager can be safely taken into consideration as his evidence is supported by records and relevant documents. The evidence of PW.2 is amply corroborating with the salary particulars of deceased. The testimony of PW.2 is very much relevant as he is Assistant General Manager of H.R.,

Department in renowned Laurus Labs and he was a firsthand witness or responsible for managing the employee files. The testimony of PW.2 amply supported by service records, registers and other records including

I.T.Returns and the evidence of PW.2 hold strong probative value. The evidence of PW.2 is considered as natural witness to testify about the nature of employment and salary, which are crucial for assessing compensation. It is well settled law that in accident claims as per the principle of “preponderance of probability” rather than “proof beyond reasonable doubt”. The evidence of

PW.2 is consistent and convincing and there is no reason to disbelieve the evidence of PW.2. Therefore, the evidence of PW.2 regarding the salary of deceased employee who died in a unfortunate road accident is highly relevant can be taken into consideration as his evidence is cogent, natural and not demonstrable false.

43. The Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Sarla Verma v. Delhi

Transport Corporation (2009) 6 SCC 121 held that for calculating

compensation, the income of the victim less the income tax should be

MVOP No.46 of 2018 33 XVI ADJC/NDG treated as the actual income. In the case on hand, as per Ex.A18 the existing salary of deceased was Rs.2,40,000/- and as per the I.T. Returns there are some minor variations with regard to salary of deceased. However, the deceased regularly paid income tax. As per the latest TDS filed along with the evidence of the PW.2 recorded by Advocate Commissioner, the total income credited in the account of the deceased from April 2017 to January 2018 as Rs.21,89,229/-. As per Ex.A23 pay slip for the month of January 2018, the deceased received Rs.5,79,633/- towards salary and other allowances and for which Rs.9,098/- deducted towards Employee P.F

Contribution, Rs.200/- deducted towards professional tax and Rs.1,19,942/- deducted towards income tax for the month of January 2008, which is the last pay slip of the deceased. Hence, the monthly income of the deceased was

Rs.2,40,000/- and the annual income of the deceased was Rs.28,80,000/- and thereafter deduction of Income Tax and 80-C deductions of I.T.Act-1961 totaling to Rs.8,00,455/-. After deduction of the above said amount towards income tax, the annual income of the deceased is arrived Rs.20,79,555/-.

Hence, the monthly income of the deceased is assessed to be Rs.1,73,296/-.

As per the pan card, inquest report and postmortem report, the age of the deceased was 49 years old. Hence, as on the date of the accident, the deceased was aged 49 years. The deceased had three dependents. In light of the judgments of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Sarla Verma (Smt) & Ors. vs.

Delhi Transport Corporation & Anr., (2009) 6 SCC 121, and United India

Insurance Co. Ltd. vs. Satinder Kaur alias Satwinder Kaur & Ors., (2021)

11 SCC 780, out of the above amount so assessed, 1/3 amount has to be deducted on account of personal and living expenses as the deceased had two dependents and therefore, 1/3rd shall be deducted towards his personal expenses and it comes to Rs.57,765/-. Therefore, the monthly income of deceased is Rs.1,15,531/-.

MVOP No.46 of 2018 34 XVI ADJC/NDG

Future Prospects: -

44.The age of the deceased was 49 years old and he had a permanent job of Deputy General Manager in Lauras Labs, Hyderabad. In view of the judgment of National Insurance Company Limited v. Pranay Sethi & Ors ; (2017) 16 SCC 680, it was observed that the Claimants would also be entitled to 25% for future prospects as the deceased had a permanent job with his company. This fact has been deposed on oath by PW.2. Accordingly, the monthly income of the deceased needs to be taken as Rs.1,15,531/- +

Rs.28,882/- which is 25% of Rs.1,15,531/- and total monthly income of deceased was Rs.1,44,413/-.

Determination of Dependents:

45.In the present case, the deceased is survived by his wife and two sons, who shall be considered to be dependents on deceased and hence 1/3rd amount shall be deducted towards his personal expenses and necessities.

Determination of multiplier:

46.The monthly income of the deceased after enhancement needs to be taken as Rs.1,44,413/-. This needs to be multiplied by 12 to workout multiplicand/annual loss of dependency. Hence, multiplier for this matter would be Rs.17,32,956/- ( Rs.1,44,413 x 12).

Award Towards Loss of Dependency:

47.Further, as the deceased was 49 years of age at the time of the accident, multiplier applicable in this matter as per above discussion would be

13. The total loss of dependency would come out to be Rs.2,25,28,428/- (Rs.

17,32,956 x 13), hence, so awarded.

Non-Pecuniary Heads:

48.The Respondents/Claimants shall be entitled to the compensation under Non-Pecuniary Heads in terms of National Insurance Company

Limited vs. Pranay Sethi And Others, (2017) 16 SCC 680. The case of

National Insurance Co. Ltd. Vs. Pranay Sethi & Ors. 2017 ACJ 2700 (SC)

MVOP No.46 of 2018 35 XVI ADJC/NDG

was considered and clarified by the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of

Magma General Insurance Company Ltd. Vs. Nanu Ram @ Chuhru Ram

& Ors. Civil Appeal No. 9581/2018 decided on 18.09.2018 whereby after considering the case of Pranay Sethi's(supra), the Hon'ble Supreme Court was pleased to award loss of consortium of Rs.40,000/- to each dependent of the deceased. The relevant portion is as under:

"...... A Constitution Bench of this Court in Pranay Sethi (supra)

dealt with the various heads under which compensation is to be

awarded in a death case. One of these heads is Loss of Consortium.

In legal parlance, "consortium" is a compendious term which

encompasses 'spousal consortium', 'parental consortium', and 'filial

consortium'.

The right to consortium would include the company, care, help,

comfort, guidance, solace and affection of the deceased, which is a

loss to his family. With respect to a spouse, it would include sexual

relations with the deceased spouse. Spousal consortium is

generally defined as rights pertaining to the relationship of a

husband wife which allows compensation to the surviving spouse

for loss of "company, society, cooperation, affection, and aid of the

other in every conjugal relation."

Parental consortium is granted to the child upon the premature

death of a parent, for loss of "parental aid, protection, affection,

society, discipline, guidance and training."

Filial consortium is the right of the parents to compensation in the

case of an accidental death of a child. An accident leading to the

death of a child causes great shock and agony to the parents and

family of the deceased. The greatest agony for a parent is to lose

their child during their lifetime. Children are valued for their love,

affection, companionship and their role in the family unit.

Consortium is a special prism reflecting changing norms about the

status and worth of actual relationships. Modern jurisdictions world-

over have recognized that the value of a child's consortium far

exceeds the economic value of the compensation awarded in the

case of the death of a child. Most jurisdictions therefore permit

parents to be awarded compensation under loss of consortium on

the death of a child. The amount awarded to the parents is a

compensation for loss of the love, affection, care and

companionship of the deceased child.

The Motor Vehicles Act is a beneficial legislation aimed at providing

relief to the victims or their families, in cases of genuine claims. In

case where a parent has lost their minor child, or unmarried son or

daughter, the parents are entitled to be awarded loss of consortium

under the head of Filial Consortium.

MVOP No.46 of 2018 36 XVI ADJC/NDG

Parental Consortium is awarded to children who lose their parents

in motor vehicle accidents under the Act.

A few High Courts have awarded compensation on this count.

However, there was no clarity with respect to the principles on

which compensation could be awarded on loss of Filial Consortium.

The amount of compensation to be awarded as consortium will be

governed by the principles of awarding compensation under 'Loss

of Consortium' as laid down in Pranay Sethi (supra).

In the present case, we deem it appropriate to award the father and

the sister of the deceased, an amount of Rs.89,877 each for loss of

Filial Consortium.....".

49.However, in the case of United India Insurance Company Ltd. Vs.

Satinder Kaur @ Satwinder Kaur 2020 SCC Online SC 410 the Hon'ble

Supreme Court has observed that there is no justification to award compensation towards loss of love and affection as a separate head. The relevant portion of the observations are reproduced as under:

"...... The amount to be awarded for loss consortium will be as per the

amount fixed in Pranay Sethi (supra). At this stage, we consider it

necessary to provide uniformity with respect to the grant of consortium,

and loss of love and affection. Several Tribunals and High Courts have

been awarding compensation for both loss of consortium and loss of love

and affection. The Constitution Bench in Pranay Sethi (supra), has

recognized only three conventional heads under which compensation can

be awarded viz. loss of estate, loss of consortium and funeral expenses.

In Magma General (supra), this Court gave a comprehensive interpretation

to consortium to include spousal consortium, parental consortium, as well

as filial consortium. Loss of love and affection is comprehended in loss of

consortium.

The Tribunals and High Courts are directed to award compensation for loss

of consortium, which is a legitimate conventional head. There is no

justification to award compensation towards loss of love and affection as a

separate head...".

50.In the case of Pranay Sethi (supra), it was held that in the case of death, Rs.15,000/- is liable to be paid towards the loss of estate and funeral charges each, while Rs.40,000/- was payable towards the loss of consortium to each legal heirs. Accordingly, Rs.15,000/- awarded towards funeral expense and loss of estate to the claimants. Further, an amount of

Rs.40,000/- is awarded each to the petitioners 1 to 3 towards loss of

MVOP No.46 of 2018 37 XVI ADJC/NDG consortium. Therefore, the petitioners 1 to 3 are entitled Rs.1,50,000/- towards

Non-Pecuniary Heads.

ASSESSMENT OF QUANTUM OF COMPENSATION:

Monthly income of the deceased 1,73,296/- 1Age of the deceased as on the date of death 49 years 2Relevant multiplier to be applied13

a)Income of the deceased per month @Rs. 1,73,296/-

b)1/3rd deducted towards personal living expensesRs.57,765/-

c)Monthly Income= Rs.1,15,531/-

d)Future Prospects (25% on Rs.1,15,531/-)Rs.28,882/-

e)Monthly Net IncomeRs.1,44,413/-

f)Loss of dependency Rs.1,44,413 X 12 X 13Rs. 2,25,28,428/- (Multiplier) 3Funeral expensesRs.15,000/- 4Loss of estateRs.15,000/- 5Loss of consortium (three petitioners i.e., wife andRs.1,20,000/- two sons, Rs.40,000 x 3 = Rs.1,20,000/-) 6Total compensationRs. 2,26,78,428/- Compensation Rounded off Rs.2,26,78,000/-

51.In the case ofOriental Insurance Company Ltd. Vs. Niru @ Niharika & Ors. SLP no. 22136 of 2024 decided on 14.07.2025, the Hon'ble Supreme

Court has upheld awarding of 9% interest per annum in accident claims.

Therefore, this Court is of the considered view that the petitioners shall be entitled to interest @ 9% per annum from the date of filing of petition i.e., 22.3.2018 till realization. Hence, issue No.2 is answered accordingly.

52. In the result, the petition is allowed in-part with proportionate costs awarding a sum of Rs.2,26,78,000/- (Rupees Two Crores Twenty Six

Lakhs Seventy Eight Thousand only) towards compensation to the petitioners 1 to 3.

2. In the case of Oriental Insurance Company Ltd. Vs. Niru @

Niharika & Ors. SLP No.22136 of 2024 decided on 14.07.2025, the Hon'ble

Supreme Court has upheld awarding of 9% interest per annum. Therefore, it

MVOP No.46 of 2018 38 XVI ADJC/NDG is held that the petitioners shall be entitled to interest @ 9% per annum from the date of filing of petition i.e., 22.3.2018 till the date of realization recoverable by the petitioners from the respondents 1 to 3 jointly and severally.

3. The respondent No.3 is directed to deposit a sum of

Rs.2,26,78,000/- (Rupees Two Crores Twenty Six lakhs Seventy Eight

Thousand only) along with interest @ 9% from the date of filing of petition i.e.,22.3.2018 till realization within 30 days under intimation to the claimants, failing which the respondents shall be liable to pay interest @ 12 % per annum for the period of delay beyond 30 days as per the judgment of Oriental

Insurance Company Ltd. Vs. Niru @ Niharika & Ors. SLP No.22136 of

2024 decided on 14.07.2025 by the Hon'ble Supreme Court.

4.Out of total compensation amount of Rs.2,26,78,000/-(Rupees

Two Crores Twenty Six lakhs Seventy Eight Thousand) a sum of

Rs.1,00,00,000/- is awarded to the first petitioner and Rs.63,39,000/- awarded each to the petitioners 2 and 3, along with accrued interest thereon and total costs.

5.The 1st petitioner is permitted to withdraw an amount of

Rs.50,00,000/- and remaining amount awarded to the 1st petitioner shall be kept in Fixed deposit in any Nationalized bank for a period of two years.

6.The petitioners 2 and 3 are permitted to withdraw an amount of

Rs.35,00,000/- each and remaining amount awarded to the petitioners 2 and 3 shall be kept in Fixed deposit in any Nationalized bank for a period of two years.

MVOP No.46 of 2018 39 XVI ADJC/NDG

7.The petitioners 1 to 3 shall open S.B.A/c in any Nationalized bank in their native place or nearby their native place and furnish the same to this

Court, while withdrawing the compensation.

8. Advocate fee is fixed at Rs.5,000/-.

9.The petition so far as respondents 4 and 5 is concerned is dismissed.

10. The rest of the claim of the petitioners is dismissed.

Typed to my dictation to the Stenographer Gr-III, corrected and

pronounced by me in the open Court, this the 13th day of April, 2026.

Sd/-P.Srinivasa Rao

Chairman, Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal -cum- XVI Additional District and Sessions Judge,

Nandigama.

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

WITNESSES EXAMINED

For Petitioners: For Respondents:

PW.1 : Murali Kumudini IyyangarRW.1Prakash Kumar

PW.2 : Krishna VelisettyRW.2M.Kavitha

Documents marked

For Petitioners:

EX.A1: Copy of the FIR in crime No.12/2018, dated 27.1.2018,

EX.A2: Attested copy of inquest report, dated 27.1.2018.

EX.A3: Attested copy of the postmortem report, dated 27.1.2018,

EX.A4: Photostat copy of Insurance policy, dated 5.10.2017,

EX.A5: Photostat copy of registration certificate, dated 5.10.2017, :Photostat copy of driving license of the 1st respondent, dated EX.A6 18.8.2015,

MVOP No.46 of 2018 40 XVI ADJC/NDG

Ex.A7: Attested copy of the MVI report, dated 29.1.2018, : Photostat copy of driving license of the husband of the 1st Ex.A8 petitioner, dated 21.12.2013,

Ex.A9: Attested copy of charge sheet,

Ex.A10: Attested copy of rough sketch,

Ex.A11: Attested copy of the seen observation report,

Ex.A12: Attested copy of the death summary,

Ex.A13: Adhaar cards of the petitioners,

Ex.A14: Medical final bill of Rs.34,150+Rs.2500= Rs.36,650/-

Ex.A15: Photostat copy of the resume of the deceased

Ex.A16: Photostat copy of the pan card of the deceased : Photostat copy of the letter of Appointment of the deceased issued Ex.A17 by Laurus labs Pvt Ltd., Hyderabad, dated 28.3.2016, : Salary Revision Particulars of the deceased issued by Laurus Labs Ex.A18 Pvt Ltd., dated 17.4.2017, : Copy of performance incentive scheme-FY17 issued by Laurus labs Ex.A19 Pvt., Ltd., 25.5.2017, : Photostat copy of Full and final settlement of the deceased salary Ex.A20 particulars issued by laurus Labs Pvt, Ltd, dated 30.1.2018, : Photostat copy of pay slip particulars of the deceased issued by Ex.A21 Laurus Labs Pvt Ltd., in the month of the November, 2017, : Photostat of pay slip particulars of the deceased issued by Laurus Ex.A22 Labs Pvt Ltd in the month of December, 2017, : Photostat copy of pay slip particulars of the deceased issued by Ex.A23 Laurus Labs Pvt Ltd in the month of January, 2018,

Photostat copy of the Form 26 AS Annual Tax statement issued by Ex.A24:Income-tax Department for the year 2015-2016, 2016-2017, 2017- 2018, 2018-2019(4 in numbers) : Photostat copy of Form 16 issued by Income-Tax Department for Ex.A25 year 2016-2017 and 2017-2018 : Photostat copy of the Income-Tax returns for the year 2013-2014, Ex.A26 2014-2015, 2015-2016, 2016-2017, 2017-2018 (5 in number) : Government of Commercial Certificate issued by the Commissioner Ex.A27 Bureau of Government Examinations at Pune, dated 03.02.1986,

Government of Commercial Certificate issued by the Bureau of Ex.A28Government Examinations Director of Examinations, dated 3.2.1986,

MVOP No.46 of 2018 41 XVI ADJC/NDG : Certificate issued by the Cadila health Care Limited, Khemka Ex.A29 House, dated 24.10.1996, : Certificate issued by Zydus Group of concerns at Ahamdabad, Ex.A30

dated 17.4.2000,

: Certificate issued by the Cadila Health Care limited, Khemka house, Ex.A31 1.1.1997, : Certificate issued by Computer Society of India Ahamadabad, Ex.A32

dated 30.6.1990,

: Certificate issued by the Cadila health Care Limited Khemka Ex.A33 House, dated 5.4.1986 : Certificate issued by Zudus Group of concerns at Ahmadabad, Ex.A34 dated23.8.1999,

Certificate issued by India Gandhi National Open University for Ex.A35:post graduate Diploma in Operation Management Programs (7 in number), dated 16.4.2003, : Certificate issued by Indira Gandhi National Open University for Ex.A36 Diploma in Management, dated 11.4.1996, : Certificate issued by Indira Gandhi National Open University for Ex.A37 graduate diploma in operation management, dated.23.03.2003

For 3 rd Respondent:

Through RW.1: Ex.B1: Authorization letter dated 7.2.2025,

Ex.B2: Attested copy of insurance policy, : Registered letter dated 7.2.2025 issued to Laurus Labs Limited, Ex.B3 Hyderabad.

Through RW.2:

Ex.B4: Attested copy of insurance policy.

Sd/-P.Srinivasa Rao

Chairman

Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal -cum-

XVI Additional District and Sessions Judge,

Nandigama.

1

IN THE COURT OF THE XVI ADDITIONAL DISTRICT AND

SESSIONS JUDGE, NANDIGAMA.

PRESENT: Sri. P. Srinivasa Rao, XVI Additional District and Sessions Judge, Nandigama. MONDAY, THIS THE 16th DAY OF MARCH, 2026. Crl. Appeal No.14/2020

From what Court the appeal is Additional Judicial Magistrate of preferredFirst Class Court, Nandigama.

No. of the case in that CourtCC No. 607 of 2018.

No. of the Appeal .Crl.Appeal No.14/2020.

Name and description of the Shaik Shabashi, S/o Dastagiri, appellantMuslim,21years,R/o Chintalapaduvillage, Chandarlapadu Mandal, Krishna District.

Name and description of the The State rep., by Sub-Inspector Respondentof Police, Chandarlapadu Police Station, rep., by the Public Prosecutor,

Section/ Sentence/ Order of the In the result, A1 is found guilty lower Court.for the offence U/sec.354-A IPC and accordingly he is convicted U/s 248(2) Cr.P.C. Bail bonds of the accused No.2 and 3 shall stand cancelled after expiry of appeal time. A1 to A3 are found not guilty for the offences U/ss.506, 509 IPC and accordingly they are acquitted U/s.248(1) Cr.P.C. A2 and A3 are found not guilty for the offences U/s 504, 354 IPC and accordingly they are acquitted U/s 248(1) Cr.P.C. Bail bonds of A2 and A3 shall stand cancelled after expiry of appeal time. Accused No.1 is sentenced to undergo S.I for a period of one year and also to pay fine for Rs.1000/- for the offence u/s.354-A of IPC in default of payment of fine amount accused shall undergo 2 simple imprisonment for 15 days.

-- CONFIRMED--

Whether the appeal confirmed,In the result, the appeal fails modified or reversed by theand is dismissed accordingly. As appellate Court.a consequence of it the impugned judgment dated 30.12.2019 of learnedAdditionalJudicial

Magistrate of First Class,

Nandigama in Calendar case No. 607/2018 in recording conviction of the appellant/accused for the offence punishable U/ss.354-A IPC stands confirmed.

Date of Presentation.9.1.2020

Date of filing10.1.2020

Date of bail bonds, if the-- appellant let out on bail.

Date of appellant/accused No.118.2.2020 ordered to appear.

Date of hearing16.2.2026

Date of judgment16.3.2026

This Criminal Appeal is coming on 16.2.2026 for final hearing

before me in the presence of Sri B.Rama Krishna, learned advocate

for Appellant/accused and of Sri. K.Satyanarayana, the learned

Additional Public Prosecutor for the State/respondent, upon hearing

the arguments on both sides, and having stood over for consideration till this day, this Court delivered the following:

J U D G M E N T

1. This Criminal Appeal is at the instance of accused in CC.No.607/2018, on the file of Additional Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Nandigama (for short ‘trial court’), and the A1 impugns conviction and sentenced imposed against him in the said case as per judgment dated 30.12.2019, whereby the 3 appellant/A1 herein was convicted for the offence U/ss.354-A IPC and was sentenced accordingly.

2.The respondent is the State, represented by the learned Additional

Public Prosecutor.For the sake of convenience, I shall refer the parties as arrayed in the trial Court.

3.The genesis of the case, as could be gathered from the material on record is that the defacto-complainant/Sk.Nasrin-PW.1 is resident of

Chinthalapadu village. Sk.Moulali-PW.2 is husband of PW.1. The appellant also hails from Chinthalapadu village. The appellant has been harassing

PW.1 for sexual favour for the last two years and PW.1 refused. Then the appellant informed to PW.2 that he is having illegal contact with PW.1.

Accordingly, disputes arose between PW.1 and PW.2 and thereafter, PW.2 sent PW.1 to her parents’ house. Then, at the intervention of elders PWs.1 and 2 restore their conjugal life and PW.1 joined with PW.2. The appellant being neighbor of PW.1 again started harassing PW.2 in the absence of family member and repeatedly insisting PW.1 to fulfill his sexual desire. The appellant also threatened PW.1 that he will kill her husband if she failed to fulfill his sexual desire. The family members of PW.1 admonished the appellant several times and however, there is no change in the attitude of appellant. A2 and A3 who are family members of appellant abused PW.1 in filthy language. The appellant insisted PW.1 to fulfill his sexual desire at any cost and harassing her. In that connection a case in Crime No.99 of 2017 registered against A1 to A3 on the report of PW.1 on 28.11.2017 at 7.00

P.M., U/ss.354, 509 and 506 r/w 34 IPC. During the course of investigation, the investigating officer visited the scene of offence, recorded the statements of witnesses and prepared rough sketch. During the course of investigation on 2.12.2017, the investigating officer-PW.5 issued section 41-A Cr.P.C., to

A2 and A3 and on the same day he arrested and send him Court for remand.

4

Thus, the accused are liable for punishment under the above provisions of law.

4.To prove its case, the prosecution examined PWs.1 to 5 and got marked Exs.P1 to P3. PW.1/Sk.Nasreen is defacto-complainant and victim,

PW.2/Sk.Moulali husband of PW.1, PW.3/Sk.Sarvarebee is mother-in-law of

PW.1, PW.4/Sk.Hussain is father of PW.1 and PW.5/P.S.V.Subrahmamyam is investigating officer. Ex.P1 is report of PW.1, Ex.P2 is the FIR, Ex.P3 is

Rough Sketch.

5.After closure of the prosecution evidence, A1 to A3 were examined

U/s.313 Cr.P.C., and the plea of the accused as seen from the record is a total denial and however, they did not adduce any evidence on their behalf.

6.The learned trial Court considered the arguments on both sides and the evidence available on record and concluded that the prosecution proved the guilt of A1 for offence under section 354-A IPC only and convicted A1 for the offence U/s.354-A IPC. However, the learned trial court acquit the appellant for the offence U/ss.506 and 509 IPC. The learned trial Court also held that the evidence on record is not sufficient to prove the guilt of A2 and

A3 for the charges levelled against them U/ss.354-A, 506, 509 IPC and accordingly, acquit A2 and A3. The learned trial Court found that evidence adduced by prosecution is clear and consistent and left no doubt in its mind and the defence raised by A1 is not acceptable and therefore, it found A1 guilty for the offence punishable U/ss.354-A of IPC and convicted him U/s 248 (2) Cr.P.C., for the above said charge. As a sequel thereof, A1 was sentenced to undergo simple imprisonment for one year for the offence punishable U/s.354-A IPC and to pay fine of Rs.1,000/-, in default to undergo simple imprisonment of 15 days.

7.Challenging that judgment the present appeal is filed by the appellant/A1. In this appeal, it is stated in the grounds of appeal that the judgment of the trial court is contrary to the law, weight of evidence and 5 probabilities of the case and the same is liable to the set aside. The learned counsel also submitted that PW.1 is defacto-complainant, PW.2 is her husband, PWs.3 and 4 are their family members and all are interested witnesses and the trial Court erroneously believed the evidence of interested witnesses and convicted A1 and the learned trial Court did not take into consideration the contradictions, omissions, inconsistencies, exaggeration and also failed to take into consideration delay in lodging report and the learned trial Court erroneously convicted A1. The learned counsel for the accused also contended that the learned trial Court believed the interested testimony of PWs.1 to 4 and there is no independent corroboration to the above said witnesses and in such view of the matter the impugned verdict would require interference and as sequel thereof the accused deserves acquittal and therefore, the conviction and sentence against A1 for the offence U/ss.354-A IPC is illegal and liable to be set aside.

8. Per contra, the learned Addl. Public Prosecutor would submitted that

A1 used to insist the victim-PW.1 and harassed her to fulfill his sexual desire and however, the victim did not yield to him and accordingly, A1 informed to the husband of PW.1 that he has illegal affair with PW.1 and accordingly, marital disputes arose in between PWs.1 and 2. The learned Additional

Public Prosecutor also argued that the evidence of victim-PW.1 is crystal clear how A1 harassed her to fulfill his sexual lust and the evidence of

PWs.2 to 4 also clinchingly corroborating with the evidence PWs.1 and 2 and there is no bar in beveling the testimony of interested or related witnesses and in the nature of offence like 354-A IPC, Court can rely on such evidence as the evidence of PWs.1 to 4 is credible, clear, cogent and they are natural witnesses after careful scrutiny, the learned trial Court convicted A1 as their evidence is corroborating with each other and their evidence also inspired confidence of the Court and there are no material omissions and contradictions in their evidence. The learned Additional Public Prosecutor also submitted that the evidence on record and the materials placed by 6 prosecution clearly established the ingredients of the offence U/ss.354-A IPC and there is no illegality or error in convicting A1 for the above said offence and therefore, the judgment of conviction and order of sentence warrants no interference at all and the learned trial Court reached correct conclusion and the learned trial court rightly convicted A1 and moreover, appropriate sentence was inflicted upon A1, and no interference is called for the verdict impugned.

9.Now the point that arises for consideration in this appeal is “Whether

the impugned judgment suffers from errors on law and facts, requiring

interference in this appeal?”

POINT :- 10.I have carefully perused the material brought on the record. As seen from evidence on record, admittedly, the victim-PW.1 is wife of PW.2, daughter of PWs.3 and 4. It is also not in dispute that A1 is neighbor of

PWs.1 and 2 and they are residents of Chintalapadu village. The crux of the prosecution case is that the appellant being the neighbor of PW.1 constantly harassed PW.1 and demands for sexual favour and also making sexually coloured remarks.

11.At the outset, this Court deems it apposite to enunciate the scope of jurisdiction of this Court in a an appeal against conviction. It is well settled that the Court of appeal has as wide powers of appreciation of evidence in an appeal against an order of conviction. The Hon’ble Supreme Court in a series of judgments held that a Court exercising appellate power must not only consider questions of law but also questions of fact and in doing so it must subject the evidence to a critical scrutiny.

12.Accordingly, this Court being the 1st appellate Court in an appeal against conviction extends to re-appreciation of the material placed on record of the trial Court and to arrive at an independent conclusion as to whether the said evidence can be relied upon or not.

7

13.To prove its case, the prosecution has relied on the evidence of

PWs.1 to 5. PW.1 in her evidence clearly and categorically testified that her husband is a lorry driver, accused is their neighbor and he used to torture her to fulfill his sexual desire and she replied that she is a married woman and that she has two children and that she is not that of character and however, the accused did not hear her words and insisted her to take money and fulfill his desire. In her evidence she also categorically deposed that accused harassed her to take Rs.1,000/- or Rs.2,000/- and surrender to him and otherwise he will kill her and accused repeatedly harassed her to satisfy sexual lust and accordingly, she lodged report under Ex.P1 against him on 28.11.2007. PW.2 is husband of PW.1, PW.3 is mother-in-law of PW.1 and

PW.4-Shaik Hussain is father of PW.1. PWs.2 to 4 in their evidence they also deposed in the similar lines as that of PW.1 and clinchingly corroborating the evidence of PW.1. PW.2 in his evidence categorically deposed that the accused informed him he has affair with PW.1 due to that disputes arose between him and PW.1 and accordingly, he sent PW.1 to her parent’s house and thereafter, disputes pacified and he brought back PW.1 to his house. He also testified that accused used to harass PW.1 and demanded her to spend time with him. PW.3 deposed that whenever PW.1 was alone in their house, A1 used to harass her stating that he likes her and spend time with her. PW.4 in his evidence categorically deposed that accused used to harass PW.1 by saying to fulfill his lust and also informed to PW.2 that he has illegal affair with PW.1 and accordingly, disputes arose between PW.1 and PW.2 and again Pw.1 joined with PW.2 and however, accused used to demand PW.1 to satisfy his lust. PW.5 is said to be investigating officer and in his evidence he deposed about registering case against accused, recording the statement of witnesses, conducting of scene observation panchanama and rough sketch and further lines of investigation and arrest of accused, further lines of investigation and filing of charge- sheet. The learned counsel for the accused has cross-examined PWs.1 to 5 8 at length. In cross-examination PW.1 stated that the house of accused situated on the other side end of the road. PW.1 also stated that they have talking terms with accused and there are disputes in between their families.

She also stated that she along with her parents, sister and maternal grandmother went to police station and lodged Ex.P1-report after 4 or 5 days of the incident. She also stated that she did not lodged report when the accused asking for her company. She denied the suggestion that accused did not harass her to satisfy his lust she foisted false case due to family disputes with the accused. PW.2 in his cross-examination stated that petty quarrels occurred in between him and his wife. He denied the suggestion that he harassed PW.1 for additional dowry and accordingly PW.1 went to her parent’s house. He denied the suggestion that there are disputes in between his family and accused family and accordingly, this case was foisted against accused. PW.3 in her cross-examination denied the suggestion that accused never harassed PW.1 by demanding to fulfill his sexual lust and they foisted false case due to disputes with accused. PW.4 also denied the suggestion that he did not state before the Police that A1 tease PW.1 by demanding to fulfill his lust. He also denied the suggestion that A1 never harassed PW.1 to fulfill his sexual lust and they filed false case against the accused. PW.5 in his cross-examination stated that in Column

No.8 of Ex.P2-FIR he mentioned the reason for delay and he did not obtain the signature of PW.1 in FIR. He denied the suggestion that due to previous disputes PW.1 filed false report against accused and without proper investigation he registered case and filed charge sheet against accused.

14.Therefore, this Court deems it pertinent here to reproduce the relevant provisions under law/IPC, for the purpose of present adjudication, as under; "354-A. Sexual harassment and punishment for sexual harassment-(1) A man committing any of the following acts- 9

(i) physical contact and advances involving unwelcome and explicit sexual overtures; or

(ii) a demand or request for sexual favours; or

(iii) showing pornography against the will of a woman; or

(iv) making sexually coloured remarks, shall be guilty of the offence of sexual harassment. (2) Any man who commits the offence specified in clause (i) or clause (ii) or clause

(iii) of sub-section (1) shall be punished with rigorous imprisonment for a term which may extend to three years, or with fine, or with both.

(3) Any man who commits the offence specified in clause

(iv) of sub-section (1) shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term State of Gujarat v.

Bhalchandra Laxmishankar Dave , (2021) 2 SCC 735.

15.Conspicuously, it is observed from a perusal of the aforenoted provisions, in particular, from a scrupulous analysis of Section 354-A IPC that the said provision envisages criminality against any man who engages in unwelcome physical contact and advances explicit sexual behavior, demands sexual favors, shows pornography against a woman's will, or makes sexually colored remarks. In this regard, this Court deems it pertinent to make note of the decision of the Hon'ble High Court of Kerala in V.

Madhusoodhanan v. State of Kerala, 2024 SCC Online Ker 6867, wherein the Hon'ble Court, while explicating the basic ingredients and contours of the provisions under Section 354-A IPC, noted as under; "8. ...On reading the penal provision, the same deals with sexual harassment and punishment for sexual harassment. It has been specifically provided that if a man commits an act of physical contact and 10 advances involving unwelcome and explicit sexual overtures, the same is an offence under Section 354-

A(1)(i) of IPC. When a man commits an act and makes a demand or request for sexual favour, the same is an offence under Section 354A(1)(ii) of IPC.

Similarly, when a man commits an act showing pornography against the will of a woman, the same also is an offence under Section 354A(1)(iii) of IPC.

Coming to Section 354A(1)(iv) of IPC, any man making sexually coloured remarks to a woman is guilty of the offence of sexual harassment..."

16.Here, this Court further deems it pertinent to make a reference to the decision of the Hon'ble High Court of Delhi in T. Manikadan v. State (Govt.

of NCT of Delhi), 2017 SCC Online Del 6440, wherein the Hon'ble Court, while inter alia explicating the ingredients of offences under Section 354 and 354-A IPC and the difference between the said provisions, noted as under; "9. Thus when the modesty of a woman is outraged or it is likely to be outraged coupled with an assault or criminal force, Section 354 IPC would be attracted. Though assault can be by mere gesture or preparation intending or knowing that it is likely that such gesture or preparation will cause any person present to apprehend use of criminal force. This is an act more than mere physical contact with advances involving unwelcome and explicit sexual overtures. Ingredients of Section 354 IPC would show that the same mandate an actus reas of assault or criminal force with an intention to outrage or likely to outrage the modesty whereas a mere physical contact with advances as noted above would attract Section 354A 11

IPC. Though in certain fact situations there may be cases where there may be an overlap of both Sections 354 and 354A IPC however, there may be cases which may exclusively fall either in Section 354 or Section 354A IPC.

Once an offence falls under Section 354 IPC even if ingredients of Section 354A IPC are satisfied, the accused will be punished for Section 354 IPC the same being more serious in nature as it prescribes the minimum sentence of one year and term for imprisonment which may extend to five years."

17.In the present case, PW.1, who is said to be the victim in her evidence clearly and categorically deposed that the accused tortured her and sexually harassed her to fulfill his desire when she refused the sexual favours of accused, he informed to her husband that he has affair illegal affair with him and accordingly, material disputes arose between her and her husband. The victim also clearly testified that the accused offered money and demand her to satisfy her lust. PW.1 clearly testified that accused demanded her for sexual favours and also making sexually coloured remarks and sexually harassment against her. PWs.2 to 4 also in their evidence clearly and categorically deposed that accused made explicit sexual overtures and demanded sexual favours from PW.1 and he also offered money to PW.1 to fulfill his sexual desire. Though the learned counsel for the accused has cross-examined PWs.1 to 5 at length nothing worthwhile material could be elicited infavour of the accused. Though the accused would contended that he was falsely implicated, there is nothing on record to show that neither the victim nor her husband and family members had any enmity or animosity against the accused to implicate him in a crime of this nature. In the present case the allegations proved against the accused that he insisted and harassed the victim to fulfill his sexual desire and he also sexually harassed the victim and even he went to extent that he 12 offered money to the victim. The evidence on record also crystal clear that the accused created disputes between the victim and her husband and he also tried to spoil the marriage of victim and her husband for the sake of his sexual lust and hunger against married woman who has two children with ill intention. Thus, the offence committed by the appellant fulfills the ingredients of 354-A IPC. The learned trial Court was right in believing the consistent version of PWs.1 to 4 that the appellant harassed PW.1 and demanded to satisfy his sexual lust. There is no reason to disbelieve the version of PWs.1 to 4. The learned counsel for the accused contended that there was a delay of two days in lodging the report before the police and the said delay is crucial. It is true the alleged incident occurred 26.11.2017 at 9.30 P.M., and the victim did not report the matter to police immediately and PW.1 gave report to police 28.11.2017 at 7.00 P.M. It is true that prompt lodging of FIR inspires confidence that it was not an outcome of any consultation or deliberation. But the delay in lodging in FIR in case of sexual assault cannot be equated with the case involving other offence. When a sexual offence is committed against a married woman, the victim under family often remain deeply concerned about their honour and social reputation. As a result,

before approaching the police station, they may hesitate or to take time to

decide whether to lodge a complaint weighing the consequences and stigma associate with such disclosure. Therefore, nothing much weight can be given to the delay of FIR in this case. In a decision reported in Karnel Singh vs

State of M.P((1995) 5 SCC 518), the Hon’ble Supreme Court observed that

“Indian women are slow and hesitant in making a complaint regarding

sexual events and mere delay will not indicate the complaint false and

the reluctance to go to police is because of society’s attitude towards

such women”. Therefore, delay in lodging complaints in such cases does not necessarily indicate that the version of victim is false. In another decision reported in State of Punjab vs Gurmit Singh and others ((1996) 2

SCC 384), the Hon’ble Apex Court while rejecting the plea delay in lodging 13 the FIR held that “in sexual offences delay in lodging the FIR can be due

to variety of reasons particularly the reluctance of the victim or her

family members to go to the police and complaint about the incident

which concerns the reputation of the victim and the honour of her

family”. Therefore, the mere delay in lodging the Ex.P1 is not a ground to doubt the veracity of the version of the PWs.1 to 4. Therefore, the prosecution successfully establish that the accused highhandedly demanded for sexual favour and also making sexually coloured remarks and advances involving unwelcome and explicit sexual overtures and sexually harassed the victim and insisted her to satisfy his lust and committed the offence under section 354-A IPC. The evidence of PWs.1 to 4 clinchingly corroborating with Ex.P1. The investigating officer-PW.5 also promptly registered the case and conducted thorough investigation in this case. Thus, the evidence adduced by the prosecution is sufficient to sustain conviction for the offence

U/s.354-A IPC.

18. In the case on hand, the prosecution has succeeded in establishing all the ingredients of the offence under sections 354-A IPC against the accused. Therefore, the trial Court was right in convicting the accused for the offence U/s.354-A IPC and this Court finds no reason to interfere with said finding of conviction. This Court finds no illegality in the conviction of the appellant for the offence punishable U/s.354-A IPC and the sentence awarded. Therefore, the sentence awarded to the accused needs no interference. This Court finds no reason at all to interfere with the impugned judgment of conviction. Accordingly, sentence also does not require any interference. The criminal appeal is devoid of any merit and accordingly dismissed. Thus, point is answered against the appellant/A1 and in favour of the prosecution.

19.In the result, the appeal fails and is dismissed accordingly. As a consequence of it the impugned judgment dated 30.12.2019 of learned Addl 14

Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Nandigama in Calendar case No. 607/2018

in recording conviction of the appellant/accused for the offence punishable

U/ss.354-A IPC stands confirmed.

Typed to my dictation to the Stenographer Gr.III, corrected and

pronounced by me in the open Court, this the 16th day of March, 2026.

Sd/-P.Srinivasa Rao

XVI Addl. District & Sessions Judge,

Nandigama.

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE:

WITNESSES EXAMINED FOR

-- No oral or documentary evidence adduced on either side--

Sd/-P.Srinivasa Rao

XVI ADJ,NDG.

To The Additional Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Nandigama.

1

IN THE COURT OF THE XVI ADDITIONAL DISTRICT AND

SESSIONS JUDGE, NANDIGAMA.

PRESENT: Sri. P. Srinivasa Rao, XVI Additional District and Sessions Judge, Nandigama. MONDAY, THIS THE 16th DAY OF MARCH, 2026. Crl. Appeal No.14/2020

From what Court the appeal is Additional Judicial Magistrate of preferredFirst Class Court, Nandigama.

No. of the case in that CourtCC No. 607 of 2018.

No. of the Appeal .Crl.Appeal No.14/2020.

Name and description of the Shaik Shabashi, S/o Dastagiri, appellantMuslim,21years,R/o Chintalapaduvillage, Chandarlapadu Mandal, Krishna District.

Name and description of the The State rep., by Sub-Inspector Respondentof Police, Chandarlapadu Police Station, rep., by the Public Prosecutor,

Section/ Sentence/ Order of the In the result, A1 is found guilty lower Court.for the offence U/sec.354-A IPC and accordingly he is convicted U/s 248(2) Cr.P.C. Bail bonds of the accused No.2 and 3 shall stand cancelled after expiry of appeal time. A1 to A3 are found not guilty for the offences U/ss.506, 509 IPC and accordingly they are acquitted U/s.248(1) Cr.P.C. A2 and A3 are found not guilty for the offences U/s 504, 354 IPC and accordingly they are acquitted U/s 248(1) Cr.P.C. Bail bonds of A2 and A3 shall stand cancelled after expiry of appeal time. Accused No.1 is sentenced to undergo S.I for a period of one year and also to pay fine for Rs.1000/- for the offence u/s.354-A of IPC in default of payment of fine amount accused shall undergo 2 simple imprisonment for 15 days.

-- CONFIRMED--

Whether the appeal confirmed,In the result, the appeal fails modified or reversed by theand is dismissed accordingly. As appellate Court.a consequence of it the impugned judgment dated 30.12.2019 of learnedAdditionalJudicial

Magistrate of First Class,

Nandigama in Calendar case No. 607/2018 in recording conviction of the appellant/accused for the offence punishable U/ss.354-A IPC stands confirmed.

Date of Presentation.9.1.2020

Date of filing10.1.2020

Date of bail bonds, if the-- appellant let out on bail.

Date of appellant/accused No.118.2.2020 ordered to appear.

Date of hearing16.2.2026

Date of judgment16.3.2026

This Criminal Appeal is coming on 16.2.2026 for final hearing

before me in the presence of Sri B.Rama Krishna, learned advocate

for Appellant/accused and of Sri. K.Satyanarayana, the learned

Additional Public Prosecutor for the State/respondent, upon hearing

the arguments on both sides, and having stood over for consideration till this day, this Court delivered the following:

J U D G M E N T

1. This Criminal Appeal is at the instance of accused in CC.No.607/2018, on the file of Additional Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Nandigama (for short ‘trial court’), and the A1 impugns conviction and sentenced imposed against him in the said case as per judgment dated 30.12.2019, whereby the 3 appellant/A1 herein was convicted for the offence U/ss.354-A IPC and was sentenced accordingly.

2.The respondent is the State, represented by the learned Additional

Public Prosecutor.For the sake of convenience, I shall refer the parties as arrayed in the trial Court.

3.The genesis of the case, as could be gathered from the material on record is that the defacto-complainant/Sk.Nasrin-PW.1 is resident of

Chinthalapadu village. Sk.Moulali-PW.2 is husband of PW.1. The appellant also hails from Chinthalapadu village. The appellant has been harassing

PW.1 for sexual favour for the last two years and PW.1 refused. Then the appellant informed to PW.2 that he is having illegal contact with PW.1.

Accordingly, disputes arose between PW.1 and PW.2 and thereafter, PW.2 sent PW.1 to her parents’ house. Then, at the intervention of elders PWs.1 and 2 restore their conjugal life and PW.1 joined with PW.2. The appellant being neighbor of PW.1 again started harassing PW.2 in the absence of family member and repeatedly insisting PW.1 to fulfill his sexual desire. The appellant also threatened PW.1 that he will kill her husband if she failed to fulfill his sexual desire. The family members of PW.1 admonished the appellant several times and however, there is no change in the attitude of appellant. A2 and A3 who are family members of appellant abused PW.1 in filthy language. The appellant insisted PW.1 to fulfill his sexual desire at any cost and harassing her. In that connection a case in Crime No.99 of 2017 registered against A1 to A3 on the report of PW.1 on 28.11.2017 at 7.00

P.M., U/ss.354, 509 and 506 r/w 34 IPC. During the course of investigation, the investigating officer visited the scene of offence, recorded the statements of witnesses and prepared rough sketch. During the course of investigation on 2.12.2017, the investigating officer-PW.5 issued section 41-A Cr.P.C., to

A2 and A3 and on the same day he arrested and send him Court for remand.

4

Thus, the accused are liable for punishment under the above provisions of law.

4.To prove its case, the prosecution examined PWs.1 to 5 and got marked Exs.P1 to P3. PW.1/Sk.Nasreen is defacto-complainant and victim,

PW.2/Sk.Moulali husband of PW.1, PW.3/Sk.Sarvarebee is mother-in-law of

PW.1, PW.4/Sk.Hussain is father of PW.1 and PW.5/P.S.V.Subrahmamyam is investigating officer. Ex.P1 is report of PW.1, Ex.P2 is the FIR, Ex.P3 is

Rough Sketch.

5.After closure of the prosecution evidence, A1 to A3 were examined

U/s.313 Cr.P.C., and the plea of the accused as seen from the record is a total denial and however, they did not adduce any evidence on their behalf.

6.The learned trial Court considered the arguments on both sides and the evidence available on record and concluded that the prosecution proved the guilt of A1 for offence under section 354-A IPC only and convicted A1 for the offence U/s.354-A IPC. However, the learned trial court acquit the appellant for the offence U/ss.506 and 509 IPC. The learned trial Court also held that the evidence on record is not sufficient to prove the guilt of A2 and

A3 for the charges levelled against them U/ss.354-A, 506, 509 IPC and accordingly, acquit A2 and A3. The learned trial Court found that evidence adduced by prosecution is clear and consistent and left no doubt in its mind and the defence raised by A1 is not acceptable and therefore, it found A1 guilty for the offence punishable U/ss.354-A of IPC and convicted him U/s 248 (2) Cr.P.C., for the above said charge. As a sequel thereof, A1 was sentenced to undergo simple imprisonment for one year for the offence punishable U/s.354-A IPC and to pay fine of Rs.1,000/-, in default to undergo simple imprisonment of 15 days.

7.Challenging that judgment the present appeal is filed by the appellant/A1. In this appeal, it is stated in the grounds of appeal that the judgment of the trial court is contrary to the law, weight of evidence and 5 probabilities of the case and the same is liable to the set aside. The learned counsel also submitted that PW.1 is defacto-complainant, PW.2 is her husband, PWs.3 and 4 are their family members and all are interested witnesses and the trial Court erroneously believed the evidence of interested witnesses and convicted A1 and the learned trial Court did not take into consideration the contradictions, omissions, inconsistencies, exaggeration and also failed to take into consideration delay in lodging report and the learned trial Court erroneously convicted A1. The learned counsel for the accused also contended that the learned trial Court believed the interested testimony of PWs.1 to 4 and there is no independent corroboration to the above said witnesses and in such view of the matter the impugned verdict would require interference and as sequel thereof the accused deserves acquittal and therefore, the conviction and sentence against A1 for the offence U/ss.354-A IPC is illegal and liable to be set aside.

8. Per contra, the learned Addl. Public Prosecutor would submitted that

A1 used to insist the victim-PW.1 and harassed her to fulfill his sexual desire and however, the victim did not yield to him and accordingly, A1 informed to the husband of PW.1 that he has illegal affair with PW.1 and accordingly, marital disputes arose in between PWs.1 and 2. The learned Additional

Public Prosecutor also argued that the evidence of victim-PW.1 is crystal clear how A1 harassed her to fulfill his sexual lust and the evidence of

PWs.2 to 4 also clinchingly corroborating with the evidence PWs.1 and 2 and there is no bar in beveling the testimony of interested or related witnesses and in the nature of offence like 354-A IPC, Court can rely on such evidence as the evidence of PWs.1 to 4 is credible, clear, cogent and they are natural witnesses after careful scrutiny, the learned trial Court convicted A1 as their evidence is corroborating with each other and their evidence also inspired confidence of the Court and there are no material omissions and contradictions in their evidence. The learned Additional Public Prosecutor also submitted that the evidence on record and the materials placed by 6 prosecution clearly established the ingredients of the offence U/ss.354-A IPC and there is no illegality or error in convicting A1 for the above said offence and therefore, the judgment of conviction and order of sentence warrants no interference at all and the learned trial Court reached correct conclusion and the learned trial court rightly convicted A1 and moreover, appropriate sentence was inflicted upon A1, and no interference is called for the verdict impugned.

9.Now the point that arises for consideration in this appeal is “Whether

the impugned judgment suffers from errors on law and facts, requiring

interference in this appeal?”

POINT :- 10.I have carefully perused the material brought on the record. As seen from evidence on record, admittedly, the victim-PW.1 is wife of PW.2, daughter of PWs.3 and 4. It is also not in dispute that A1 is neighbor of

PWs.1 and 2 and they are residents of Chintalapadu village. The crux of the prosecution case is that the appellant being the neighbor of PW.1 constantly harassed PW.1 and demands for sexual favour and also making sexually coloured remarks.

11.At the outset, this Court deems it apposite to enunciate the scope of jurisdiction of this Court in a an appeal against conviction. It is well settled that the Court of appeal has as wide powers of appreciation of evidence in an appeal against an order of conviction. The Hon’ble Supreme Court in a series of judgments held that a Court exercising appellate power must not only consider questions of law but also questions of fact and in doing so it must subject the evidence to a critical scrutiny.

12.Accordingly, this Court being the 1st appellate Court in an appeal against conviction extends to re-appreciation of the material placed on record of the trial Court and to arrive at an independent conclusion as to whether the said evidence can be relied upon or not.

7

13.To prove its case, the prosecution has relied on the evidence of

PWs.1 to 5. PW.1 in her evidence clearly and categorically testified that her husband is a lorry driver, accused is their neighbor and he used to torture her to fulfill his sexual desire and she replied that she is a married woman and that she has two children and that she is not that of character and however, the accused did not hear her words and insisted her to take money and fulfill his desire. In her evidence she also categorically deposed that accused harassed her to take Rs.1,000/- or Rs.2,000/- and surrender to him and otherwise he will kill her and accused repeatedly harassed her to satisfy sexual lust and accordingly, she lodged report under Ex.P1 against him on 28.11.2007. PW.2 is husband of PW.1, PW.3 is mother-in-law of PW.1 and

PW.4-Shaik Hussain is father of PW.1. PWs.2 to 4 in their evidence they also deposed in the similar lines as that of PW.1 and clinchingly corroborating the evidence of PW.1. PW.2 in his evidence categorically deposed that the accused informed him he has affair with PW.1 due to that disputes arose between him and PW.1 and accordingly, he sent PW.1 to her parent’s house and thereafter, disputes pacified and he brought back PW.1 to his house. He also testified that accused used to harass PW.1 and demanded her to spend time with him. PW.3 deposed that whenever PW.1 was alone in their house, A1 used to harass her stating that he likes her and spend time with her. PW.4 in his evidence categorically deposed that accused used to harass PW.1 by saying to fulfill his lust and also informed to PW.2 that he has illegal affair with PW.1 and accordingly, disputes arose between PW.1 and PW.2 and again Pw.1 joined with PW.2 and however, accused used to demand PW.1 to satisfy his lust. PW.5 is said to be investigating officer and in his evidence he deposed about registering case against accused, recording the statement of witnesses, conducting of scene observation panchanama and rough sketch and further lines of investigation and arrest of accused, further lines of investigation and filing of charge- sheet. The learned counsel for the accused has cross-examined PWs.1 to 5 8 at length. In cross-examination PW.1 stated that the house of accused situated on the other side end of the road. PW.1 also stated that they have talking terms with accused and there are disputes in between their families.

She also stated that she along with her parents, sister and maternal grandmother went to police station and lodged Ex.P1-report after 4 or 5 days of the incident. She also stated that she did not lodged report when the accused asking for her company. She denied the suggestion that accused did not harass her to satisfy his lust she foisted false case due to family disputes with the accused. PW.2 in his cross-examination stated that petty quarrels occurred in between him and his wife. He denied the suggestion that he harassed PW.1 for additional dowry and accordingly PW.1 went to her parent’s house. He denied the suggestion that there are disputes in between his family and accused family and accordingly, this case was foisted against accused. PW.3 in her cross-examination denied the suggestion that accused never harassed PW.1 by demanding to fulfill his sexual lust and they foisted false case due to disputes with accused. PW.4 also denied the suggestion that he did not state before the Police that A1 tease PW.1 by demanding to fulfill his lust. He also denied the suggestion that A1 never harassed PW.1 to fulfill his sexual lust and they filed false case against the accused. PW.5 in his cross-examination stated that in Column

No.8 of Ex.P2-FIR he mentioned the reason for delay and he did not obtain the signature of PW.1 in FIR. He denied the suggestion that due to previous disputes PW.1 filed false report against accused and without proper investigation he registered case and filed charge sheet against accused.

14.Therefore, this Court deems it pertinent here to reproduce the relevant provisions under law/IPC, for the purpose of present adjudication, as under; "354-A. Sexual harassment and punishment for sexual harassment-(1) A man committing any of the following acts- 9

(i) physical contact and advances involving unwelcome and explicit sexual overtures; or

(ii) a demand or request for sexual favours; or

(iii) showing pornography against the will of a woman; or

(iv) making sexually coloured remarks, shall be guilty of the offence of sexual harassment. (2) Any man who commits the offence specified in clause (i) or clause (ii) or clause

(iii) of sub-section (1) shall be punished with rigorous imprisonment for a term which may extend to three years, or with fine, or with both.

(3) Any man who commits the offence specified in clause

(iv) of sub-section (1) shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term State of Gujarat v.

Bhalchandra Laxmishankar Dave , (2021) 2 SCC 735.

15.Conspicuously, it is observed from a perusal of the aforenoted provisions, in particular, from a scrupulous analysis of Section 354-A IPC that the said provision envisages criminality against any man who engages in unwelcome physical contact and advances explicit sexual behavior, demands sexual favors, shows pornography against a woman's will, or makes sexually colored remarks. In this regard, this Court deems it pertinent to make note of the decision of the Hon'ble High Court of Kerala in V.

Madhusoodhanan v. State of Kerala, 2024 SCC Online Ker 6867, wherein the Hon'ble Court, while explicating the basic ingredients and contours of the provisions under Section 354-A IPC, noted as under; "8. ...On reading the penal provision, the same deals with sexual harassment and punishment for sexual harassment. It has been specifically provided that if a man commits an act of physical contact and 10 advances involving unwelcome and explicit sexual overtures, the same is an offence under Section 354-

A(1)(i) of IPC. When a man commits an act and makes a demand or request for sexual favour, the same is an offence under Section 354A(1)(ii) of IPC.

Similarly, when a man commits an act showing pornography against the will of a woman, the same also is an offence under Section 354A(1)(iii) of IPC.

Coming to Section 354A(1)(iv) of IPC, any man making sexually coloured remarks to a woman is guilty of the offence of sexual harassment..."

16.Here, this Court further deems it pertinent to make a reference to the decision of the Hon'ble High Court of Delhi in T. Manikadan v. State (Govt.

of NCT of Delhi), 2017 SCC Online Del 6440, wherein the Hon'ble Court, while inter alia explicating the ingredients of offences under Section 354 and 354-A IPC and the difference between the said provisions, noted as under; "9. Thus when the modesty of a woman is outraged or it is likely to be outraged coupled with an assault or criminal force, Section 354 IPC would be attracted. Though assault can be by mere gesture or preparation intending or knowing that it is likely that such gesture or preparation will cause any person present to apprehend use of criminal force. This is an act more than mere physical contact with advances involving unwelcome and explicit sexual overtures. Ingredients of Section 354 IPC would show that the same mandate an actus reas of assault or criminal force with an intention to outrage or likely to outrage the modesty whereas a mere physical contact with advances as noted above would attract Section 354A 11

IPC. Though in certain fact situations there may be cases where there may be an overlap of both Sections 354 and 354A IPC however, there may be cases which may exclusively fall either in Section 354 or Section 354A IPC.

Once an offence falls under Section 354 IPC even if ingredients of Section 354A IPC are satisfied, the accused will be punished for Section 354 IPC the same being more serious in nature as it prescribes the minimum sentence of one year and term for imprisonment which may extend to five years."

17.In the present case, PW.1, who is said to be the victim in her evidence clearly and categorically deposed that the accused tortured her and sexually harassed her to fulfill his desire when she refused the sexual favours of accused, he informed to her husband that he has affair illegal affair with him and accordingly, material disputes arose between her and her husband. The victim also clearly testified that the accused offered money and demand her to satisfy her lust. PW.1 clearly testified that accused demanded her for sexual favours and also making sexually coloured remarks and sexually harassment against her. PWs.2 to 4 also in their evidence clearly and categorically deposed that accused made explicit sexual overtures and demanded sexual favours from PW.1 and he also offered money to PW.1 to fulfill his sexual desire. Though the learned counsel for the accused has cross-examined PWs.1 to 5 at length nothing worthwhile material could be elicited infavour of the accused. Though the accused would contended that he was falsely implicated, there is nothing on record to show that neither the victim nor her husband and family members had any enmity or animosity against the accused to implicate him in a crime of this nature. In the present case the allegations proved against the accused that he insisted and harassed the victim to fulfill his sexual desire and he also sexually harassed the victim and even he went to extent that he 12 offered money to the victim. The evidence on record also crystal clear that the accused created disputes between the victim and her husband and he also tried to spoil the marriage of victim and her husband for the sake of his sexual lust and hunger against married woman who has two children with ill intention. Thus, the offence committed by the appellant fulfills the ingredients of 354-A IPC. The learned trial Court was right in believing the consistent version of PWs.1 to 4 that the appellant harassed PW.1 and demanded to satisfy his sexual lust. There is no reason to disbelieve the version of PWs.1 to 4. The learned counsel for the accused contended that there was a delay of two days in lodging the report before the police and the said delay is crucial. It is true the alleged incident occurred 26.11.2017 at 9.30 P.M., and the victim did not report the matter to police immediately and PW.1 gave report to police 28.11.2017 at 7.00 P.M. It is true that prompt lodging of FIR inspires confidence that it was not an outcome of any consultation or deliberation. But the delay in lodging in FIR in case of sexual assault cannot be equated with the case involving other offence. When a sexual offence is committed against a married woman, the victim under family often remain deeply concerned about their honour and social reputation. As a result,

before approaching the police station, they may hesitate or to take time to

decide whether to lodge a complaint weighing the consequences and stigma associate with such disclosure. Therefore, nothing much weight can be given to the delay of FIR in this case. In a decision reported in Karnel Singh vs

State of M.P((1995) 5 SCC 518), the Hon’ble Supreme Court observed that

“Indian women are slow and hesitant in making a complaint regarding

sexual events and mere delay will not indicate the complaint false and

the reluctance to go to police is because of society’s attitude towards

such women”. Therefore, delay in lodging complaints in such cases does not necessarily indicate that the version of victim is false. In another decision reported in State of Punjab vs Gurmit Singh and others ((1996) 2

SCC 384), the Hon’ble Apex Court while rejecting the plea delay in lodging 13 the FIR held that “in sexual offences delay in lodging the FIR can be due

to variety of reasons particularly the reluctance of the victim or her

family members to go to the police and complaint about the incident

which concerns the reputation of the victim and the honour of her

family”. Therefore, the mere delay in lodging the Ex.P1 is not a ground to doubt the veracity of the version of the PWs.1 to 4. Therefore, the prosecution successfully establish that the accused highhandedly demanded for sexual favour and also making sexually coloured remarks and advances involving unwelcome and explicit sexual overtures and sexually harassed the victim and insisted her to satisfy his lust and committed the offence under section 354-A IPC. The evidence of PWs.1 to 4 clinchingly corroborating with Ex.P1. The investigating officer-PW.5 also promptly registered the case and conducted thorough investigation in this case. Thus, the evidence adduced by the prosecution is sufficient to sustain conviction for the offence

U/s.354-A IPC.

18. In the case on hand, the prosecution has succeeded in establishing all the ingredients of the offence under sections 354-A IPC against the accused. Therefore, the trial Court was right in convicting the accused for the offence U/s.354-A IPC and this Court finds no reason to interfere with said finding of conviction. This Court finds no illegality in the conviction of the appellant for the offence punishable U/s.354-A IPC and the sentence awarded. Therefore, the sentence awarded to the accused needs no interference. This Court finds no reason at all to interfere with the impugned judgment of conviction. Accordingly, sentence also does not require any interference. The criminal appeal is devoid of any merit and accordingly dismissed. Thus, point is answered against the appellant/A1 and in favour of the prosecution.

19.In the result, the appeal fails and is dismissed accordingly. As a consequence of it the impugned judgment dated 30.12.2019 of learned Addl 14

Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Nandigama in Calendar case No. 607/2018

in recording conviction of the appellant/accused for the offence punishable

U/ss.354-A IPC stands confirmed.

Typed to my dictation to the Stenographer Gr.III, corrected and

pronounced by me in the open Court, this the 16th day of March, 2026.

Sd/-P.Srinivasa Rao

XVI Addl. District & Sessions Judge,

Nandigama.

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE:

WITNESSES EXAMINED FOR

-- No oral or documentary evidence adduced on either side--

Sd/-P.Srinivasa Rao

XVI ADJ,NDG.

To The Additional Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Nandigama.

1

SC.No.18 of 2026 Dt: 7.4.2026

Tabular form to be annexed to a Judgment as per Rule 67 of Cr.P.C.

SESSION CASE No.18 of 2026

1.Name of the complainant and The Sub-Inspector of Police,

Crime No.Veerulapadu, Crime No.139/2023 of

Veerulapadu PS.

2.Name of the accused1. Rayala Sivanaga Satish @ Naga Satish, S/o. Satyanarayana, 34 years, Bodavada village.

2.Gangineni Mahesh @ Pedda Mangaiah, S/o.Satyam, 36 years, Bodavada village, Veerulapadu Mandal.

3. Rayala Anil Kumar @ Siva Anil Kumar, S/o.Satyanarayana, 35 years, Bodavadavillage,Veerulapadu Mandal.

4. Gangineni Venkata Rao @ Ramu, S/o.Chandra Sekhar, 35 years, Bodavada village.

5. Saripudi Harikrishna, S/o.Chandra Sekhar, 37 years, Bodavada village.

3.Date of Offence13.5.2021

4.Date of complaint14.5.2021

5.Date of apprehension of16.5.2021; A1 & A2 accused

6.Date of release on bail1.6.2023 A1 & A2 2

SC.No.18 of 2026 Dt: 7.4.2026

7.Date of committal23.2.2024

8.Date of commencement of6.4.2026 trial

9.Date of close of trial6.4.2026

10.Date of sentence of order7.4.2026

Explanation for the delay in Committal Court:

On 3.11.2023, this case was taken on file and numbered as

P.R.C.20/2023 on the file of Judicial Magistrate of First Class,

Nandigama and posted to 24.11.2023 for appearance of accused

Nos.1 to 5. On 9.2.2024, on appearance of accused copies of documents furnished them and on same day this case was committed to the Court of Sessions, Krishna Machilipatnam.

Explanation for the delay in trial court:

On 22.1.2026 this case was made over by the Hon’ble District and Sessions Judge, Krishna Machilipatnam for disposal according to law to this Court. On 9.3.2026 on appearance of accused the case was posted for examination. On 12.3.2026, A1 to A5 are examined under section 228 of Cr.P.C. after framing charges this case was posted to for trial. On 6.4.2026, P.Ws 1 to 7 were examined and Exs.P1 to P9 are marked, A1 to A5 were not examined U/s.313

Cr.P.C., examination as there is no incriminating circumstances appearing against them and heard arguments and posted for judgment to 7.4.2026. On 7.4.2026, Judgment pronounced .

In the result, A1 to A5 are found not guilty and they are acquitted under section 232 Cr.P.C., for the offences U/s 307 r/w 34 of

IPC. The bail bonds of A1 to A5 shall be inforce for a period of six 3

SC.No.18 of 2026 Dt: 7.4.2026

months as provided U/s 437-A of Cr.P.C. The unmarked case property, if any, shall be destroyed after expiry of appeal time.

–-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Sd/-P.Srinivasa Rao

XVI Addl. District & Sessions Judge, Nandigama.

Copies submitted to: 1.The Hon’ble Registrar (Judl.), High Court of Andhra Pradesh, Amaravathi, Nelapadu, through the Hon’ble District and Sessions Judge, Krishna, Machilipatnam.

2. The Hon’ble Principal District Court, Krishna at Machilipatnam.

Copies to:

2. The Judicial First Class Magistrate, Nandigama.

3. The Additional Public Prosecutor, XVI Addl. District Court, Nandigama.

Sd/-P.Srinivasa Rao

XVI Addl. District & Sessions Judge, Nandigama.

4

SC.No.18 of 2026 Dt: 7.4.2026

IN THE COURT OF THE XVI ADDITIONAL DISTRICT & SESSIONS

JUDGE,

NANDIGAMA

Present : Sri P. Srinivasa Rao., XVI Addl. District & Sessions Judge. Tuesday, this the 07th day of April, 2026.

SESSIONS CASE No.18 of 2026

P.R.C.No.20/2023, Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Nandigama Crime No.139/2023 of Veerulapadu PS

Name of the :The Sub-Inspector of Police, Veerulapadu P.S. complainant

Description of the :1. Rayala Sivanaga Satish @ Naga Satish, S/o. accusedSatyanarayana, 34 years, Bodavada village.

2. Gangineni Mahesh @ Pedda Mangaiah, S/o.Satyam, 36 years, Bodavada village, Veerulapadu Mandal.

3.Rayala Anil Kumar @ Siva Anil Kumar, S/o.Satyanarayana, 35 years, Bodavada village, Veerulapadu Mandal.

4. Gangineni Venkata Rao @ Ramu, S/o.Chandra Sekhar, 35 years, Bodavada village.

5. Saripudi Harikrishna, S/o.Chandra Sekhar, 37 years, Bodavada village.

Offences charged:Under Sections 307 r/w 34 of IPC

Plea of the :Not guilty. accused

Finding of the :Found not guilty.

Judge

Sentence of order: In the result, A1 to A5 are found not guilty and they are acquitted under section 235(1) Cr.P.C., for the offences U/s 307 r/w 34 of IPC. The bail bonds of A1 to A5 shall be inforce for a period of six months as provided U/s 437-A of Cr.P.C. The unmarked case property, if any, shall be destroyed after expiry of 5

SC.No.18 of 2026 Dt: 7.4.2026

appeal time.

Police station and:Crime No. 139/2023 of Veerulpadu PS Crime Number.

This case is coming on 6.4.2026 for final hearing before me in the presence of Additional Public Prosecutor Sri

K.Satyanarayana for the prosecution and of Sri Sk.Karimulla,

Advocate for the A1 to A5, and the matter having stood over for consideration, till this day, this Court delivered the following:-

J U D G M E N T

The Sub-Inspector of Police, Veerulapadu P.S., has filed charge sheet against A1 to A5 in Crime No.139/2023 of Veerulapadu P.S., for the offence punishable under sections 307 r/w 34 of I.P.C.

2. In nutshell, the prosecution case is that PW.1-Seelam Uday

Bhaskar and PW.2-Seelam Sandhya are couples and they are residents of Bodavada Village. PW.2 is ‘Sarpanch’ of the village. A1-

Rayala Sivanaga Satish @ Naga Satish, A2-Gangineni Mahesh @

Pedda Mangaiah, A3-Rayala Anil Kumar @ Siva Anil Kumar, A4-

Gangineni Venkata Rao @ Ramu, A5-Saripudi Harikrishna and

LW.11-Rayala Anuradha are hails from same village. On 13.5.2023 evening at about 06.00 P.M,. LW.11-Rayala Anuradha and Rayala

Satyanarayana quarreled with each other and LW.11-Rayala

Anuradha informed the same to PW.2-Seelam Sandhya. In the mean time, Pws.1 and 2 were proceeding to their house and when they reached near the house of Rayala Satyanarayana, A1 to A5 armed with iron rods and sticks restrained Pws.1 and 2 by saying that “EE

NAA KODUKU ANDA CHUCHUKONI VALLU RECHIPOTUNNARU,

VEEDINI LEPESTHE MANAKU ADDU UNDADU” and attacked and beat PW.1with iron rods and sticks. As a result, PW.1 received 6

SC.No.18 of 2026 Dt: 7.4.2026

bleeding injury on his head and he fell down. On hearing cries of

Pws.1 and 2, Pws.3 and 4 rushed to the spot and accused ran away from the spot. Then PW.2 shifted the PW.2 to G.G.H., Nandigama for medical treatment. In this regard, the SI of Police, Veerulapadu P.S.

registered a case in Crime No.139/2023, under section 307 r/w 34 IPC against A1 to A5 on 14.5.2023 at 11.00 P.M. Thereafter, SI

Veerulapdu P.S visited the scene of offence conducted scene observation in the presence of mediators i.e., LW.9-Edara Madava

Rao and LW.10-Sk.Md.Rafi, drafted rough sketch on the spot. On 16.5.2023 at 6.00 hours, the SI of Veerulapadu P.S arrested the A2 and A3 and sent them to judicial remand. LW.12-Medical officer examined the PW.1 and opined that the injuries are simple in nature.

After completion of investigation, the LW.14- SI of Police filed charge sheet against A1 to A5. Thus, A1 to A5 are liable for punishment under the above provisions of law.

3. After filing of the charge sheet the Judicial Magistrate of First

Class, Nandigama has taken the case on file for the offence punishable Under section 307 r/w 34 of I.P.C., against A1 to A5 and numbered the same as PRC No.20/2023.

4.When the accused appeared before the Judicial Magistrate of

First Class, Nandigama, copies of the documents were furnished to

them as required U/s 207 Cr.P.C and committed the case to the

Honourable Principal District and Sessions Court, Krishna, at

Machilipatnam following the provision, as contemplated U/s 209

Cr.P.C. Then the Hon’ble Principal District and Sessions Court,

Krishna, at Machilipatnam numbered the PRC.No.20/2023 as

Sessions Case No.18/2026 and made over the same to this Court for

trial.

7

SC.No.18 of 2026 Dt: 7.4.2026

5.On appearance of A1 to A5 before this Court they were examined under section 228 of Cr.P.C., and upon hearing and on perusal of material on record, a charge Under sections 307 r/w 34 of

I.P.C., has been framed, read over the contents of the charge and explained the same in Telugu to A1 to A5 for which they pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried.

6.To prove its case, the prosecution examined P.Ws.1 to 7 and marked Exs.P1 to P9.

PW.1-Seelam Uday Bhaskar @ Uday Bhaskar Reddy is de- facto complainant and injured, PW.2-Seelam Sandhya is wife of PW.1,

PW.3-Maddineni Yesobu, PW.4-Seelam Lakshmi, PW.5-Seelam

Lakshmi Reddy, PW.6-Mondem Dibbayya and PW.7-Kankala

Nageswara Rao are eye-witnesses.

Ex.P1 is signature of PW.1 on statement, Ex.P2 is FIR statement, Ex.P3 is 161 Cr.P.C., statement of PW-1, Ex.P4 is 161

Cr.P.C., statement of PW-2, Ex.P5 is 161 Cr.P.C., statement of PW-3,

Ex.P6 is 161 Cr.P.C., statement of PW-4, Ex.P7 is 161 Cr.P.C., statement of PW-5, Ex.P8 is 161 Cr.P.C., statement of PW-6, Ex.P9 is 161 Cr.P.C., statement of PW-7.

7.Since, the material witnesses turned hostile, the Addl. Public

Prosecutor given up the remaining listed witnesses as there evidence is formal in nature.

8.After closure of prosecution evidence, A1 to A5 were not examined Under Section 313 Cr.P.C., as there are no incriminating circumstances appearing against the accused.

9. Heard arguments on both sides.

8

SC.No.18 of 2026 Dt: 7.4.2026

10. Now the point for determination is

“Whether the prosecution has proved the guilt of A1 to A5

for the offence punishable U/s.307 r/w 34 I.P.C., beyond all

reasonable doubt”?

POINT:

11.I have carefully perused the evidence brought on record. There is no dispute that PW.1 is husband of PW.2 and they are residents of

Bodavada village of Veerulapadu Mandal. It is also an admitted fact that A1 to A5 as well as PWs.3 to 7 who are said to be eye witnesses are hails from same village. The gist of the prosecution case is that on 13.5.2023 at about 6.00 P.M., A1 to A5 with common intention attacked on PWs.1 and 2 and tried to kill PW.1.

12.In order to establish its case against A1 to A5, the prosecution has relied upon the evidence of PWs.1 to 7. Out of them, PW.1 is the injured and PWs.2 to 7 are said to be eye-witnesses. PW.1 in his evidence deposed that he does not know anything about this case and he fell down from motorcycle and and sustained injures and accused did not beat him and caused injures. He also further deposed that he did not give report to police. Ex.P1 is his signature on the statemetn and Ex.P2 is also his signature and police obtained his signatures on some papers without disclosing anything. PWs.2 to 7 in their evidence deposed that they know A1 to A5, who are their villagers and they do not know the facts of the case and they did not see the incident and police not examined them. PWs.1 to 7 are turned hostile and did not support the prosecution case and accordingly the learned Addl. Public Prosecutor sought permission to cross-examine the witness and with the permission of Court, he cross-examined them and in their cross-examination, they denied that A1 to A5 armed with 9

SC.No.18 of 2026 Dt: 7.4.2026

iron rods and sticks restrained Pws.1 and 2 attacked and beat the

PW.1 with iron rods and sticks and now deposing false to help A1 to

A5 and they also denied that they have stated before the Police as in

Exs.P3 to P9. Though the learned Additional Public Prosecutor cross- examined PWs.1 to 7 nothing worthwhile material would elicited in favour of the prosecution case. Hence, the evidence of PWs.1 to 7 is not helpful to the prosecution case.

13.The entire case of the prosecution against A1 to A5 is based on testimony of Pws.1 to 7. However, as stated supra, P.Ws. 1 to 7 totally turned hostile and they did not support the prosecution case.

The evidence of PWs.1 to 7 shattered the prosecution case irreparably. They did not state anything against A1 to A5 about their involvement in this case. Though the learned Additional Public

Prosecutor cross-examined Pws.1 to 7 at length nothing worthwhile could be elicited in favour of the prosecution. Pws.1 to 7 bluntly denied that they have stated before the police as in Exs.P3 to P9,

PW.1 also denied that he gave report to police against the accused.

So, the evidence of PWs.1 to 7 ruined the prosecution case irreparably. Hence, the prosecution did not make out it's case against

A1 to A5, basing on such material on record and mainly for the reason that the alleged injured and eye witnesses are completely turned hostile and did not support the prosecution case.

14.Therefore, cumulative effect of these failures, leads to an inference that alleged charge under Section 307 r/w 34 of Indian Penal

Code is not established against A1 to A5 beyond reasonable doubt.

Hence, A1 to A5 has to be found not guilty for the offence under

Section 307 r/w 34 of Indian Penal Code and has to be acquitted in the above circumstances. Thus, this point is answered in favour of A1 to A5 and against the prosecution.

10

SC.No.18 of 2026 Dt: 7.4.2026

15. In the result, A1 to A5 are found not guilty and they are acquitted under section 232 Cr.P.C., for the offences U/s 307 r/w 34 of

IPC. The bail bonds of A1 to A5 shall be inforce for a period of six months as provided U/s 437-A of Cr.P.C. The unmarked case property, if any, shall be destroyed after expiry of appeal time.

Directly typed to my dictation by the Stenographer Gr-III, corrected and pronounced in the open Court on this the 07th day of April, 2026.

Sd/-P.Srinivasa Rao

XVI ADDL. DISTRICT & SESSIONS JUDGE.

NANDIGAMA

Appendix of Evidence

Witnesses examined on behalf of:

Prosecution :

PW-1: Seelam Uday Bhaskar @ Uday Bhaskar Reddy

PW-2: Seelam Sandhya

PW-3: Maddineni Yesobu

PW-4: Seelam Lakshmi

PW-5: Seelam Lakshmi Reddy

PW-6: Mondem Dibbayya

PW-7: Kankala Nageswara Rao

Defence: - None-

Exhibits marked on behalf of:

Prosecution:- Ex.P1: Signature of PW.1 on statement

Ex.P2: FIR statement,

Ex.P3: 161 Cr.P.C., statement of PW-1,

Ex.P4: 161 Cr.P.C., statement of PW-2,

Ex.P5: 161 Cr.P.C., statement of PW-3, 11

SC.No.18 of 2026 Dt: 7.4.2026

Ex.P6: 161 Cr.P.C., statement of PW-4,

Ex.P7: 161 Cr.P.C., statement of PW-5,

Ex.P8: 161 Cr.P.C., statement of PW-6,

Ex.P9: 161 Cr.P.C., statement of PW-7,

Defence: - NIL -

Material Objects marked: - NIL -

Sd/-P.SrinivasaRao

XVI ADDL. DISTRICT & SESSIONS JUDGE.

NANDIGAMA

MVOP No. 46 of 2018 42 XVI ADJC/NDG

BEFORE THE MOTOR ACCIDENTS CLAIMS TRIBUNAL – CUM –

THE XVI ADDITIONAL DISTRICT AND SESSIONS JUDGE’S

COURT :: NANDIGAMA

PRESENT: Sri.P.Srinivasa Rao, Chairman, Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal -cum- XVI Additional District and Sessions Judge, Nandigama.

Monday, 13 th day of April, 2026.

MVOP No.46 of 2018

Between:

1. Murali Kumudini Iyyangar @ Murali Kumuthini, W/o.Late Murali Kumar Iyyangar, 43 years, Household, R/o.Flat No.302, Plot No.81, Sravyas Sannihith Residency, Hastinapuri Colony, Sainikpuri, Secundrabad Rangareddy District.

2. Murali Sudarshan Iyyangar, Murali Sudarshan, S/o Late Murali Kumar Iyyangar, 19 years, Student, Mother protection, R/o.Flat No.302, Plot No.81, Sravyas Sannihith Residency, Hastinapuri Colony, Sainikpuri, Secundrabad Rangareddy District.

3. Murali Vignesh Ayyangar @ Murali Vignesh, S/o.Late Murali Kumar Ayyangar, 22 years, Student, R/o.302, Plot No.81, Sravyas Sannihith Residency, Hastinapuri Colony, Sainikpuri, Secundrabad Rangareddy District.

....Petitioners

-and-

1. Nelathati Kalidasu, S/o.Sanyasi, Hindu, Major, 41 years, Driver of the lorry bearing No.AP-31-TC-9819, R/o.H.No.6- 58/6, Donaboyinapalem village, Aganmpudi Post, Gajuwaka Mandal, Visakhapatnam District.

2. Yerra Ramu, S/o. Paidaiah, Hindu, Major, 45 years, Owner of lorry bearing No.AP-31-TC-9819, R/o.D.No.1-78, Maredupudi village and post, Anakapalli Mandal, Visakhapatnam District.

MVOP No. 46 of 2018 43 XVI ADJC/NDG

3. The New India Assurance Company Ltd., Rep by its General Manager, Bandar Road, Near Ramesh Hospital, Vijayawada, Krishna District.

4. Laurus Labs Pvt Ltd., represented by P.Ravi Owner of car No.TS-09-EP-2363.

5. The Manager (Legal Officer), Future General Insurance Company Ltd., Hyderabad.

(Respondents 4 & 5 are added as per orders dated 12.12.2025 in CRP.268/2020, on the file Hon’ble High Court of A.P).

....Respondents

Petitioner filed the above petition against Respondents 1 to 5, claiming compensation of Rs.2,25,00,000/- with subsequent interest thereon @ 24% p.a from the date of petition till date of realization and for costs.

On which a Court fee of Rs.2,49,360/- paid herewith under Rule 475(1) of A.P.Motor Vehicle Rules, 1988.

Petition presented on : 22.3.2018

Petition taken on file : 27.3.2018

The petition coming on 10.02.2026 for final hearing before me in the presence of Sri G.V.Sravan Kumar, Advocate for the petitioners, Sri.T.John

Clymate, Advocate for R3, Sri.V.Subhramanyam, Advocate for R4,

Sri.N.Mallikarjuna Rao, Advocate for R5, R1 and R2 remained ex-parte and the matter having stood over for consideration till this day, this Court doth order and decree:

1.That the Petition is allowed in-part with proportionate costs awarding a sum of Rs.2,26,78,000/- (Rupees Two Crores Twenty Six Lakhs Seventy Eight Thousand only) towards compensation to the petitioners 1 to 3.

MVOP No. 46 of 2018 44 XVI ADJC/NDG

2. In the case of Oriental Insurance Company Ltd. Vs. Niru @

Niharika & Ors. SLP No.22136 of 2024 decided on 14.07.2025, the Hon'ble

Supreme Court has upheld awarding of 9% interest per annum. Therefore, it is held that the petitioners shall be entitled to interest @ 9% per annum from the date of filing of petition i.e., 22.3.2018 till the date of realization recoverable by the petitioners from the respondents 1 to 3 jointly and severally.

3. The respondent No.3 is directed to deposit a sum of

Rs.2,26,78,000/- (Rupees Two Crores Twenty Six lakhs Seventy Eight

Thousand only) along with interest @ 9% from the date of filing of petition i.e.,22.3.2018 till realization within 30 days under intimation to the claimants, failing which the respondents shall be liable to pay interest @ 12 % per annum for the period of delay beyond 30 days as per the judgment of Oriental

Insurance Company Ltd. Vs. Niru @ Niharika & Ors. SLP No.22136 of

2024 decided on 14.07.2025 by the Hon'ble Supreme Court.

4.Out of total compensation amount of Rs.2,26,78,000/-(Rupees

Two Crores Twenty Six lakhs Seventy Eight Thousand) a sum of

Rs.1,00,00,000/- is awarded to the first petitioner and Rs.63,39,000/- awarded each to the petitioners 2 and 3, along with accrued interest thereon and total costs.

5.The 1st petitioner is permitted to withdraw an amount of

Rs.50,00,000/- and remaining amount awarded to the 1st petitioner shall be kept in Fixed deposit in any Nationalized bank for a period of two years.

MVOP No. 46 of 2018 45 XVI ADJC/NDG

6.The petitioners 2 and 3 are permitted to withdraw an amount of

Rs.35,00,000/- each and remaining amount awarded to the petitioners 2 and 3 shall be kept in Fixed deposit in any Nationalized bank for a period of two years.

7.The petitioners 1 to 3 shall open S.B.A/c in any Nationalized bank in their native place or nearby their native place and furnish the same to this

Court, while withdrawing the compensation.

8. Advocate fee is fixed at Rs.5,000/-.

9.The petition so far as respondents 4 and 5 is concerned is dismissed.

10. The rest of the claim of the petitioners is dismissed.

11. That the Respondents 1 to 3 jointly and severally do pay a sum of Rs.2,65,762/-(Rupees Two Lakhs Sixty Five Thousand Seven Hundred Sixty Two only) to the Petitioners, towards costs of the petition (advocate fee included) and respondents do bear their own costs of Rs.Nil (as no bill of costs is filed).

Given under my hand and the seal of this Court, on this the 13th day of April, 2026.

Sd/-P.Srinivasa Rao

Chairman, Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal -cum- XVI Additional District and Sessions Judge, Nandigama.

MVOP No. 46 of 2018 46 XVI ADJC/NDG

Memo of Costs

S.No.ParticularsPetitioners Respondents

Rs.Rs.

1Vakalat2-00 2Stamp on Plaint2,49,360-00 3Process1000-00 4Stamp on petition 200-00NO CM & FC filed 5Advocate fee 5000-00 6Commissioner Fee 10,000-00 7Typing charges100-00 8Writing charges100-00

Total 2,65,765-00

Sd/-P.Srinivasa Rao

Chairman, Motor Accident Claims Tribunal-cum-XVI Addl. District &

Sessions Judge, Nandigama.