Sri Putta Mrali Mohana Reddy, III ADJ

1

TABULAR FORM TO BE ANNEXURED TO THE JUDGMENT AS

REQUIRED UNDER RULE 67 OF THE Cr.P.C.

IN THE COURT OF THE III ADDL. SESSIONS JUDGE (F.T.C) : ANANTAPURAM

SESSIONS CASE NO.215/2016.

1. Name of the Police Station & Cr.No.:Mudigubba Police Station in Cr.No.24/2013.

2. Name of the Accused: 1. Udayagiri Suryanarayana Reddy, A1 aged 49 years, S/o. Narayana Reddy, R/o. D.No.1-458, Main Road, Mudigubba Town. Now residing at D.No.1-2-525, Gowrav Gardens, Ananthapuramu Town.

2.Tadimarri Gopal ReddyA2 Aged 54 years, S/o. Late Chenna Reddy R/o.Kamireddypalli, Dharmavaram (M), Now residing at RDT Quartes, Bathalapalli.

3. Date of Offence:08.03.2013

4. Date of Complaint:09.03.2013

5. Date of apprehension of the accused:05.07.2015

6. Date of release:22.07.2015

7. Date of commencement of trial:06.02.2017

8. Date of close of trial:27.04.2018

9. Sentence of Order:15.05.2018

Explanation of the duration of the case in the committal court.

This case was taken on file U/S 452, 302 and 201 r/w 34 I.P.C of Mudigubba police station and the case was committed to the Sessions Division, Ananthapuramu after completion of all formalities.

EXPLANATION OF THE DURATION OF THE CASE IN SESSIONS COURT:

This case was transferred to III Additional Sessions Judge, Fast Track

Court, Ananthapuramu on 21.04.2016. Charges are framed on 31.03.2017 and the trial of the case was commenced on 06.02.2017 and closed on 27.04.2018.

Accused are examined. Arguments heard on 14.05.2018and the judgment

pronounced on 15.05.2018.

2

In the result, A1 and A2 are not found guilty for an offence U/S 302 r/w 34 IPC and

U/S. 201 r/w 34 I.P.C and U/S.452 r/w 34 IPC and A1 and A2 are acquitted for the said charges as per Section 235(1) Cr.P.C. The bail bonds of the Accused shall stand cancelled. Mos.2 to Mo.8 shall be return to A1 and Mo.1 and other unmarked property if any shall be destroyed after appeal time is over.The unmarked gold valuables ordered to be returned to A1.

Sd/-P. Mrali Mohana Reddy

III Addl. District and Sessions Judge,

Fast Track Court,

Ananthapuramu.

To

1. The Registrar (Judicial), High Court of Judicature Hyderabad for the States of Telangana and Andhra Pradesh.

2. The Sessions Judge, Ananthapuramu.

3. The District Collector, Ananthapuramu.

4. The District Superintendent of Police, Ananthapuramu.

5. The Committal Court.

//true copy//

Superintendent

3

IN THE COURT OF THE III ADDL. SESSIONS JUDGE (F.T.C) :

ANANTHAPURAMU

PRESENT: Sri Putta Mrali Mohana Reddy.

III ADDITIONAL DISTRICT AND SESSIONS JUDGE, FTC, ANANTHAPURAM.

Tuesday, the 15 th day of May, 2018.

SESSIONS CASE NO.215/2016.

(On committal by the Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Kadiri, P.R.C.67/2015)

1. Name of Complainant.:Inspector of Police, Mudigubba Police station.

2. Name of Police Station & Cr.No.:Mudigubba Police Station, Cr.No.24/2013.

3. Name of the Accused: 1. Udayagiri Suryanarayana Reddy, A1 aged 49 years, S/o. Narayana Reddy, N/o. D.No.1-458, Main Road, Mudigubba Town. Now residing at D.No.1-2-525, Gowrav Gardens, Ananthapuramu Town.

2.Tadimarri Gopal ReddyA2 Aged 54 years, S/o. Late Chenna Reddy R/o.Kamireddypalli, Dharmavaram (M), Now residing at RDT Quartes, Bathalapalli.

4. Sentence of Order:In the result, A1 and A2 are not found guilty for an offence U/S 302 r/w 34 IPC and U/S. 201 r/w 34 I.P.C and U/S.452 r/w 34 IPC and A1 and

A2 are acquitted for the said charges as per

Section 235(1) Cr.P.C. The bail bonds of the

Accused shall stand cancelled. Mos.2 to Mo.8 shall be return to A1 and Mo.1 and other unmarked property if any shall be destroyed after appeal time is over. The unmarked gold valuables ordered to be returned to A1.

5. Offence:U/S.302 r/w 34 IPC, U/S. 201 r/w 34 I.P.C and

U/S.452 r/w 34 IPC, .

6. Plea of the Accused:Not guilty

The above Sessions case came on for final hearing before me on 07.02.2018 in the presence of Sri B.Nagalingam, Additional Public Prosecutor for the State and of Sri M.Mahaboob Khan and Sri K.Ramachandra Reddy, Advocates for the accused after hearing the arguments and perusing the material papers on record and having stood over for consideration till this day, this court delivered the following:-

4

J U D G M E N T

1.The Inspector of Police, Nallmada Circle filed a charge sheet against A1 and A2 in

Cr.No.24/2013 U/S 452, 302, 201 r/w 34 IPC of Mudigubba Police Station.

2.The case of the prosecution is in brief.

3.A1 is brother-in-law of A2. A1 is residing at Ananthapuramu and A2 is residing at

Bathalapalli.

4.One "U.Nagalakshmamma" herein after called as "deceased" in this case was resident of Mudigubba Village and Mandal.

5.A1 is the second son of the deceased and A2 is her son-in-law. There are ill feelings between A1 and the deceased due to property disputes. The deceased was having land and house properties on her name and the same has been enjoying and possessed by her and not given to anybody. Lw1 U.Narayana Reddy is husband of the deceased.

6.A1 is working as Senior Assistant in Sarva Siksha Abhiyan at Ananthapuramu. He has constructed a new house at Gowrav Gardens, Ananthapuramu by borrowing amounts on interest from others. A1 has spent Rs.2,00,000/- to the deceased for her heart surgery in a private hospital. He has spent huge money to the marriage of his daughter. Due to that, he has indebted huge amounts to others. Then, A1 has asked the deceased to help him to give money and property, but the deceased has bluntly refused to give money and property to A1. So, A1 has developed bore grudged against the deceased and decided to murder her in order to knock away the properties of the deceased to clear his debits. A1 met A2 and asked his help to murder the deceased and they were waiting for an apportunity.

7.On 08.03.2013 A1 and A2 at about 10-45 pm., came to the house of the deceased.

A1 entered into the house by calling the deceased and she opened the door. Then, A1 asked the deceased about money for which the deceased refused the same. Due to that A1 grew wild agaisnt the deceased and took iron rod and bet her with the same on her head thrice, as a result of which she received bleeding injuries and fell down on the floor and died on the spot. Later, A1 and A2 searched the house and A1 took valuable documents of the deceased. The accused locked the door of the deceased by creating a false story and screening the evidence of offence.

5

8.On 09.03.2013 at 6-00 pm., Lw3 T. Prathap who is a tenant of the deceased came to her house and found the deceased in a pool of blood and the same was informed to her husband. Then, Lw1 and others have boke opened the lock and entered into the house and found the deceased. Later, Lw1 went to Mudigubba Police Station and gave a report to the police, then the police registered a case in Cr.No.24/2013 U/S.452 and U/S.302, 201 IPC and investigated into the matter.

9.On 10.03.2013 Lw17 'M.Khasim Saheb' CI of police Nallamada secured the mediators and blood relatives of the deceased and held inquest over the dead body of the deceased and got prepared inquest report. He prepared rough sketch and seized blood stained cloths of the deceased. He got photographed the scene of offence. During the course of inquest, he examined Lws1 to 6 and recorded their statements and sent dead body to Government Area Hospital, Kadiri for Postmortem examination.

10.On 04.07.2015 at 11-00 am., A1 and A2 have approached Lw12 Kullayappa, Village

Revenue Officer, Gunjepalli and made an extra judicial confession about this offence and

Lw12 recorded extra Judicial confession of A1 and A2 and produced the accused before CI of police Nallamada. At about 11-30 am., the CI of police interogatted A1 and A2 in the presence of mediators Lw11 T.Sreeramulu and Lw12 M.Kullayappa and they voluntirely confessed the offence and got drafted a mediator report. The CI of police also examined

Lw7 and Lw8 and recorded their statements and sent the accused to Judicial Custody.

11.During the course of further investigating on 11.07.2015 at 8-30 pm., the CI of police Nallmada has taken A1 into police custody and interrogated in the presence of mediators Lw12 M.Kujllayappa and Lw13 D.RamaKrishna and recorded the confession statement of A1 and seized crime weapon and also land properties documents of the deceased under cover of a mediator report. On 12.07.2015 at 6-00 am., the CI of police, his staff, above mediators and A1 proceeded to Chitravathi River, Ramapuramu

Village and A1 went into the bushes and produced one iron road and the same was seized by the CI of police under cover of a mediator report. Later A1 was sent to

Judicial Custody.

6

12.Lw14 'Dr. B.Inodden Khan, Civil Assistant Surgeon, Kadiri conducted autopsy over the dead body of the deceased and opined that the deceased died due to shock and haemorrhage due to head injury and issued postmortem certificate. Hence, the charge.

13.The Addl. Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Kadiri taken this case on file U/S 452, 302, 201, r/w 34 IPC against A1 and A2 as PRC 67/2015.

14.On appearance of A1 and A2 before the learned Magistrate furnished copies of documents as contemplated U/S 207 Cr.P.C. and committed the case to Court of Sessions,

Ananthapuramu vide committal order dt.02.03.2016 passed U/S 209 Cr.P.C.

15.The District & Sessions Judge, Ananthapuramu taken the case on file as

S.C.215/2016 against A1 and A2 and the same was made over to this court for disposal as per law.

16.On appearance of A1 and A2 before this court and on hearing both sides, the

Accused were examined U/S 228 Cr.P.C. a charge U/S 302, r/w 34 IPC, U/S 201 r/w 34 IPC and U/S.452 r/w 34 IPC against A1 and A2 has been framed and read over to the Accused and explained to them in Telugu language for which they pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried.

17.During the course of trial the prosecution has examined Pws 1 to 12 and got marked

Ex.P1 to P12 and also exhibited MOs. 1 to 13.

18.On closure of the prosecution case, the Accused were examined U/S 313 Cr.P.C., in respect of the incriminating circustances found in the evidence of prosecution witnesses Pw1 to 8, 10 to 12 and A1 and A2 denied the same and reported no defence.

19.Heard the arguments of the learned Additional Public Prosecutor and learned counsel

for Accused.

20.Now the point for consideration is;

7

21.Whether the prosecution is able to establish the guilt of Accused for the offences punishable for an offence U/S 302, r/w 34 IPC, U/S 201 r/w 34 IPC and U/S.452 r/w 34 IPC against the Accused beyond all reasonable doubt?

POINT :

22.The plea of the Accused is total denial.

23.The prosecution cited 20 witnesses, but examined 12 witnesses.

24.It is the case of the prosecution that, A1 is son of the deceased and A2 is her son-in- law, there are some property disputes between A1 and the deceased. Due to that, A1 hatched a plan to kill the deceased in order to knock away the properties of the deceased.

On the date of incident A1 and A2 entered into the house of deceased, A1 bet on her head with iron road and killed her as a result of which the deceased died on the spot.

25.There are no direct eye witness to the prosecution case. The case is depending upon the circumstantial evidence.

The following are the circumstances;

1. Last seen theory

2. Motive.

3. Extra Judicial Confession of the accused.

4. Whether the death of the deceased is homicidal or suicide.

5. Recovery of material objects at the instance of accused.

Circumstance No.1

To prove this circumstances the prosecution is relying on the evidence of Pws1 to Pw5.

26.Pw1 ‘T. Pedda Ramanappa’ is running Tea Stall at Mudigubba. He has taken a room belongs to the deceased at about 5 years ago he used to pay Rs.2,000/- per month towards rent for the room. According to this witness he used to open Tea Stall at 5-00 am., and closed by 7-00 pm., He deposed that at the time of incident Lw1 U.Narayana Reddy was sleeping on the terrace of the building and the deceased was sleeping in the ground floor of the house. On the date of incident at about 5-00 am., he opened his Tea Stall and the husband of the deceased came there and taken a cup of milk and asked about the deceased since the door was locked. At about 6-00 am., Lw3 son of the deceased informed him that, somebody killed the deceased. Then, he rushed there and saw the dead body.

8

27.Pw2 'I. Ravindra' is a tailor. He is running tailoring shop in a room belongs to the deceased since 2001. He is used to pay Rs.4,000/- per month towards rent . He stated that, at the time of incident at 6-00 am., he was in tailor shop, Lw3 came there and informed him that the deceased was in a pool of blood, then he reached there and saw the dead body.

28.Pw3 ' B. Balu Naik' is running a garment shop at Mudigubba. He stated that the garment shop belongs to the deceased, he used to pay Rs.4,300/- per month towards rent.

He does not know how the deceased died. On coming to know the incident through the son of the deceased he rushed there and saw the dead body.

29.Pw4 ‘C.Venkata Ramana’ is running welding shop in main road at Mudigubba.

According to this witness on the date of incident at about 10.30 pm., himself and his son were proceeding to Praja Vaidyasala at Mudigubba for treatment. While returning to their house and reached the house of deceased and found two persons and they went away in the vehicle. On the next day he came to know that the deceased died.

30.As seen from the above evidence on record Pws1 to Pw3 are the tenants of the deceased. After the incident they reached to the house of the deceased and saw the dead body in a pool of blood. Coming to Pw4 evidence is very clear that, at the time of incident at about 10.30 am., he saw that two persons went away in a vehicle from the house of the deceased.

31.It is the case of the prosecution that, the incident was happened on 08.03.2013 at 10.45 pm., but this witness saw two persons went away. But he cannot identify A1 and A2 were present at the scene of offence. On the other hand in his cross examination he clearly and categorically stated that after two years of death of deceased police examined him and recorded his statement. So, his evidence is no way relevant.

32.On the other hand there is no evidence that, the accused went to the house of deceased on the date of incident. No witness was examined to prove the said fact. In the absence of any evidence on record, it cannot be said that, the accused went to the house of deceased at the time of incident. The prosecution failed to prove this circumstances.

9

Circumstance.2:

33.The main motive in this case is that A1 borrowed huge amount in order to clear of the debts, he asked the deceased to give money and landed property for which the deceased refused. S1, A1 hatched a plan to kill the deceased in order to knock away the properties of the deceased.

34.To prove the motive aspect the prosecution cited witnesses Lw1 U.Narayana Reddy, husband of the deceased and Lw2 U.Krishna Reddy son of the deceased. However, Pw3 clearly and categorically deposed that Lw1 and Lw2 were died at about 3 years ago, due to ill health. The prosecution closed their evidence. There is no other evidence on record to prove the motive. So, the prosecution failed to prove the motive in this case.

Extra judicial confession of the accused.

The prosecution is relying the evidence of Pw6 and Pw11.

35.It is the evidence of Pw6 ‘M. Kullayappa’ who is working as Village Revenue Officer,

Gunjepalli Village of Mudigubba Mandal. According to this witness on 04.07.2015 while he was in office at Mudigubba at 10-00 am., A1 and A2 were approached him and sought his help and revealed about in a murder case that they killed the deceased. A1 also told him that his mother is not given any property and hence they murdered the deceased. Then, he recorded the statements of A1 and A2 and drafted an extra judicial confession and handed over A1 and A2 to Circle Inspector of Police along with an extra judicial confession.

36.It is the evidence of Pw11 ‘ N. Ravindranatha Reddy’ who is working as Inspector of police, Nallamada. He stated that on 04.07.2015 while he was in the police station at about 11-00 am., Pw6 came to the police station along with two persons and submitted an extra judicial confession before him. Then he called upon Pw7 Talari Sreeramulu and another mediator and in their presence he interrogated the accused and confessed the offence and got drafted a mediator report as per Ex.P11. He also recorded the statement of Pw6.

10

37.As seen from the record, the incident was happened on 08.03.2013 at about 10.45 pm., A1 and A2 made an extra judicial confession before Pw6, on 04.07.2015 i.e., after two years of the offence the accused had approached the concerned Village Revenue Officer and made an extra judicial confession, but in this case there is a delay of two years in giving the extra judicial confession by the accused. There is no explanation from the prosecution side. On the other hand an extra judicial confession is weak type of evidence and there is no other material particulars to corroborate the confession. So, extra judicial confession cannot be relied. The prosecution failed to prove this circumstance whether the death of deceased is homicidal or suicide.

The prosecution is relying the evidence of Pw7 and Pw8.

38.Pw7 ‘T. Sreeramulu’ who is working as Village Revenue Officer, Gunjepalli. On 10.03.2013 at about 6.00 am., he acted as a inquest mediator, he went to the house of deceased and by the time he reached there other mediators Lw9 A. Subbaiah and Lw10

V.Siva Reddy were present. Then the CI of police held inquest over the dead body of the deceased and got prepared inquest report. They opined that, the deceased died due to injuries caused by somebody and the same was incorporated in column No.15 of the inquest report.

39.Pw8 ‘Dr.Inodden Khan’ who is working as Civil Assistant Surgeon in Government Area

Hospital, kadiri deposed that on 10.03.2013 at about 12-00 pm., he conducted autopsy over the dead body of the deceased. He opined that the cause of death was shock and hemorrhage due to head injury. He issued postmortem certificate Ex.P6. Ex.P5 is the inquest report clearly goes to show that, the inquest mediators does not gave any opinion or they never expressed anything about this case. The only medical evidence is available on record clearly reveals that, the deceased died due to head injury. Basing on the evidence of

Pw8 coupled with Ex.P6 it cannot be concluded that the deceased met with homicidal death or suicide. The prosecution failed to prove this circumstance.

11

Recovery of material objects.

The prosecution is relying the evidence of Pw6, Pw10 and Pw12.

40.It is the evidence of Pw6 on 12.07.2015 at about 5-00 am., himself and CI of police and A1 proceeded to Chitravathi River and A1 went to thorny bushes and produced one rod and the CI of police seized the same under cover of a seizure report. Mo.1 is rod. Later they reached Ananthapuramu and went to the house of A1 and he produced documents Mo.2

D-form patta in the name of M.V.Krishna Reddy, Mo.3 Pattadar Pass Book in the name of deceased. Mo.4 Pattadar Pass Book in the name of deceased, Mo.5 Pattadar Pass Book in the name of Surya Narayan Reddy, Mo.6 Pattadar Pass Book in the name of Lw.2,

Mo.7 Post Office saving bank in the name of deceased, Mo.8 Unregistered will dated 02.05.2014 which are seized under cover of Ex.P4. He and another mediator signed in Ex.P2 and Ex.P3.

41.Pw10 ‘M. Khasim Saheb’ who is working as CI of police at Nallamada. He stated that during the course of inquest he seized the wearing apparels of the deceased Mo.9 black colour jacket, Mo.10 Yellow colour saree, Mo.11 cement colour petty coat, Mo.12 blood stained cotton and Mo.13 control cotton which are found on the dead body of the deceased.

He also seized two gold bangles, one pair of ear studs, one nose screw and some earth bangles.

42.It is the evidence of Pw12 ‘K. Ravi Kumar’ who is working as Circle Inspector of

Police, Kadiri rural deposed that on 12.07.2015 basing on the confession made by A1 his staff and mediators were proceeded to Chitravathi River. Accused went to thorny bushes and produced one crime weapon and the same was seized under cover of Ex.P3. Later they went to Ananthapuramu to the house of A1 and produced D-Form Patta, Pattadar Pass Book belongs to the deceased and also produced Mos.2 to 8 and the same was seized under cover of Ex.P4.

12

43.In view of the facts and circumstances of this case, the prosecution failed to prove single circumstance connecting the accused with this crime. Hence, the prosecution failed to prove for an offence U/S 302, r/w 34 IPC, U/S 201 r/w 34 IPC and U/S.452 r/w 34 IPC against the accused. The accused are entitled to a benefit of doubt. This point is answered accordingly.

44.In the result, A1 and A2 are not found guilty for an offence U/S 302 r/w 34 IPC and

U/S. 201 r/w 34 I.P.C and U/S.452 r/w 34 IPC and A1 and A2 are acquitted for the said charges as per Section 235(1) Cr.P.C. The bail bonds of the Accused shall stand cancelled.

Mos.2 to Mo.8 shall be returned to A1 and Mo.1 and other unmarked property if any shall be destroyed after appeal time is over. The unmarked gold valuables ordered to be returned to

A1.

Dictated to personal Assistant, transcribed by me, corrected and pronounced by me in

the open court this the 15th day of May, 2018.

III Addl. Sessions Judge, Fast TrackCourt, Anantapuramu.

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

Witnesses examined for

Prosecution: Defense:

PW1: Pedda Ramanappa PW2 : I. Ravindra PW3 : B. Balu Naik PW4 : C. Venkata Ramana PW5 : P. Ramanappa PW6 : M. Kullayappa PW7 : T. Sreeramulu PW8 : Dr. Inodden Khan PW9 : M. Krishna Reddy PW10 : M. Khasim Saheb PW11 : N. Ravindranatha Reddy PW12 : K. Ravi Kumar

Exhibits marked for prosecution

Ex.P1:Extra judicial confession statement. Ex.P2:Interragation statement. Ex.P3:Seizure report. Ex.P4:Seizure report. Ex.P5:Inquest report. Ex.P6: Postmortem certufucate. Ex.P7: Complainant given by Lw1

13

Ex.P8: Original First Information Report. Ex.P9: Rough sketch. Ex.P10: Letter of advise. Ex.P11: Mediator report. Ex.P12: RFSL Report

Exhibits marked for defence

-Nil-

Material objects marked for prosecution

M.O.1 :One road. M.O.2 : D-Form Patta. M.O.3 : Pattadar Pass Book. M.O.4 : Pattadar Pass Book. M.O.5 : Pattadar Pass Book in the name of A1. M.O.6 : Pattadar Pass book in the name of Lw2. M.O.7 :Post office savings account. M.O.8 : Unregistered will. M.O.9 : Black colour jacket. M.O.10 : Yellow colour saree. M.O.11 : Cement colour pettycoat. M.O.12 : Blood stained cotton. M.O.13 : Control cotton

III A.S.J

//true copy//

1

IN THE COURT OF THE MOTOR VEHICLE ACCIDENT CLAIMS

TRIBUNAL ANANTAPURAMU

PRESENT: Sri PUTTA MRALI MOHANA REDDY

III Additional District Judge, Fast Track Court

Thursday, the 17 th day of May, 2018.

ORIGINAL PETITION NO.551/2014.

Between:-

Neeruganti Lakshmi Narayana … Petitioner @ Ramana

And

1.G. Srinivas

2.The Manager, Legal Cell, Shriram Gen. Ins.Co. Ltd., Jaipur.

3. M. Hareram … Respondents

This petition coming on 17.05.2018 for final hearing before me in the presence of Sri P. Chenna Reddy, advocate for the petitioner and respondent No.1 & 3 are set exparty and Sri G. Seetharama Rao, advocate for respondent No.2 and the matter stood over for consideration till this day, the court made the following:-

O R D E R

1.This is aclaimpetition filed by the claimant Under Section 140 and 166 of Motor

Vehicles Act, 1988 and Rule 455 of AP Motor Vehicles Rules 1989, claiming total compensation of Rs.10,00,000/- against the respondents due to injuries received by the claimant in a motor vehicle accident that occurred on 08.10.2014 at about 6.30 pm., at

Guttur Village cross on Bangalore to Hyderabad on NH-44 road.

2.The brief avernments mentioned in the petition are as follows :

3.On 07.10.2014 on the instructions given by R1, the driver by name Hareram and cleaner by name N. Lakshmi Narayana i.e., claimant herein took the eicher van bearing

No.AP-26-TT-5478 with a load of paddy husk for unloading the same at Bangalore. On 08.10.2014 the said vehicle was coming from Bangalore to Ananthapuramu and while on the way and reached at Guttur Village cross on NH-44 road at about 6.30 pm., then the driver drove the vehicle in a rash and negligent manner and dashed against the road divider and the vehicle turned turtle. Infact the claimant sustained fractures of right leg below knee and multiple injuries and the accident occurred.

2

4.On information Penukonda Police registered a case in Cr.No.158/2014 U/S 337 IPC against the driver of crime Eicher van bearing No.AP-26-TT-5478.

5.It is further averred in the petition that, after the accident the claimant was shifted to

Government General Hospital, Ananthapuramu for treatment. He was stayed as inpatient in the said hospital. Subsequently he was shifted to Kamineni Hospital, Hyderabad for better treatment, wherein he under went an operation and his right leg below knee was amputated by way of surgery by the duty orthopedic doctors. He was stayed as inpatient more than two weeks and spent Rs.2,00,000/- towards medical expenses.

6.The claimant was hale and healthy and he was aged about 35 years at the time of accident. He was working as a cleaner and earning Rs.8,000/- per month. The entire income of the claimant was contributing to his family. On account of fractures received in the accident, he could not able to attend any work and became disabled person.

The claimant claimed total compensation of Rs.10,00,000/- as shown in para 25 of the petition indetail.

7. R1 is owner of the Eicher van bearing No.AP-26-TT-5478, R2 is insurer of the said vehicle and R3 is driver of the Eicher van bearing No.AP-26-TT-5478. All the respondents are jointly and severally held liable to pay compensation. Hence, this petition.

8. R1 and R3 remained set exparte.

9.R2 filed a counter, denying all the allegations mentioned in the petition. This respondent denied the manner of accident. This respondent submits that, the claimant was traveling in the offending vehicle as a gratuitous passenger at the time of accident and he was not a cleaner and as such this respondent is not liable to pay any compensation.

10.This respondent denied the age, avocation and income of the claimant at the time of accident. The crime vehicle has no valid permit at the time of accident. The compensation claimed in this case is highly excessive. Hence, prays to dismiss the petition with costs.

3

11. Basing on the averments, following issues were settled for trail;

1)Whether the petitioner Neeruganti Lakshmi Narayana @ Ramana, received injuries in motor vehicle accident on 08.10.2014 at about 6-30 pm., at Guttur Village cross, on Bangalore to Hyderabad on NH-44 Road, Ananthapuramu, due to rash and negligent driving of driver of Eicher van bearing No.AP-26-TT- 5478?

2)Whether the petitioner is entitled for compensation, If so to what extent and from which of the respondent?

3)To what relief?

12. During the course of trial, the claimant himself is examined as Pws1 to

Pw3 were examined and got marked Ex.A1 to Ex.A8 and Ex.C1. On behalf of R2, Rw1 and

Rw2 were examined and got marked Ex.B1. Ex.X1 and Ex.X2 are marked through Rw2.

13.Heard arguments of the learned counsel for the claimant and learned counsel for R2.

Issue No.1 :

14.It is the case of the claimant that, on the date of accident, the claimant was working under the employment of R1 as a cleaner. Himself and driver took the vehicle with a load of paddy husk for unloading the same at Bangalore. On 08.10.2014 while they were returning

Ananthapuramu and reached at Guttur Village Cross on NH-44 road at about 6-30 pm., At that time R3 being the driver of the Eicher van bearing No.AP-26-TT-5478 drove the vehicle in a rash and negligent manner and dashed against the divider then the accident occurred.

15.To prove the manner of accident, the claimant ‘N.Lakshmi Narayana’ is examined as

Pw1. He clearly and categorically deposed the manner of accident in his chief affidavit, that the driver of the Eicher van bearing No.AP-26-TT-5478 was responsible for the accident.

16.This witness was cross examined by R2 at length, but nothing is elicited.

17.The First Information Report was registered by Penukonda Police as a case in

Cr.No.158/2014 U/S 337 IPC against the driver of the Eicher van bearing No.AP-26-TT-5478, basing on the report given by one ‘Sreenivas’ as per Ex.A1. Ex.A2 is the Wound Certificate of Pw1 which goes to show that, he sustained one abrasion and one grevious injury in the accident.

4

18.As seen from the record, Pw1 is injured and direct eye witness in this accident.

There is no contra evidence on record to disprove the testimony of Pw1. On the other hand,

R2 did not dispute the above accident.

19.Thus the evidence of Pw1, coupled with Ex.A1 to Ex.A3, I have no hesitation to come to a conclusion that, the accident occurred due to rash and negligent act of the driver of the crime Eicher van bearing No.AP-26-TT-5478. This issue is answered accordingly and in favour of the claimant.

Issue No.2 :

20.The claimant sustained fracture to his right leg below knee and multiple simple injuries all over the body. After the accident he got admitted in Government General

Hospital, Ananthapuramu for treatment. On the advise given by the duty doctor he was shifted to Kamineni Hospital, Hyderabad for better treatment. He was stayed as inpatient for a period of 15 days in the said hospital. The doctor treated him and his right leg below knee was amputated by way surgery. He spent Rs.50,000/- towards medical expenses. Pw1 clearly and categorically deposed that, due to amputation, he could not able to attend any work and he became disabled person.

21.The claimant examined Pw3 ‘Dr. B. Shiva Kumar’ who is working as Civil Assistant

Surgeon, Ananthapuramu. He examined the patient and the patient was admitted in

Government General Hospital, Ananthapurmu on 08.10.2014 and found the following injuries;

1. An abrasion of 3X3 Cm in size over the left foot.

2. A crush injury over the right foot.

22.The patient was referred to higher institute for further treatment. Discharge summary of Kamineni Hospital at Hyderabad. Diagnosed as injury right lower 1/3rd leg with ankle with distal gangrene with multiple fractures. They performed surgery below knee amputation of right leg on 09.10.2014. He opined that, injury No.1 is simple and No.2 is grevious in nature.

5

23.Pw4 ‘Dr. N.Venkata Ramana Reddy’ is examined through an advocate commissioner. He was consultant Orthopedic Surgeon at Kamineni Hospital, Hyderabad. He treated the patient on 09.10.2014. The patient sustained degloving injury to the right leg with multiple fracture and vascular loss damage. He was treated by Pw4 and plastic surgeon

Dr.Venkat Thota, he was taken for below knee amputation on 09.10.2014. Following the surgery he was managed and discharged on 13.10.2014. He had come for regular follow up till suture removal . He stated that the injuries are grevious in nature.

24.The medical evidence of Pw3 and Pw4 is clear that Pw3 initially treated the patient.

Later Pw4 teated the patient and did amputation below knee. The patient was stayed in

Government General Hospital for one day and he was stayed 4 days in Kamineni Hospital,

Hyderabad. Pw4 clearly and categorically stated that the artificial leg will costs anywhere between Rs.1,50,000/- to Rs.4,00,000/-.

25.Ex.A4 is bunch of medical bills issued by Kamineni Hospital, Hyderabad. Ex.A5

Original estimation quotation copy of artificial leg was issued by the Manager, Endolite

Prosthetic & Orthotic Centre, Huderabad, Ex.A6 original Medico-Legal case record, Ex.A7 bunch of medical prescriptions at Kamineni Hospital, Hyderabad and Ex.A8 is one X-ray film.

26.The medical evidence on record is clearly indicated that the claimant sustained with one grevious and one simple injury. Pw3 did amputation below knee. Coming to the disability Pw1 clearly and categorically deposed that due to amputation he cannot able to attend any work and he became disabled person.

27.Pw2 ‘Dr. A.Jagannath’ who is working as a Civil Surgeon, Government General

Hospital, Ananthapuramu and one of the Member in the District Medical Board,

Ananthapurmau. He examined the patient on 01.06.2015 along with other members of medical board and issued disability certificate under Ex.A3. The disability was estimated at 40% permanent in nature. The patient needs right side below knee prosthesis (artificial limb). According to this witness the patient cannot work like a normal person and he cannot do cleaner work. The artificial limb has to be maintained and every year. The costs of artificial limb is Rs.1,00,000/- is up to Rs.2,00,000/-.

6

This witness was cross examined by R2 but nothing elicited.

28.Ex.A3 clearly goes to show that, the District Medical Board shown the disability suffered by the patient 60% permanent in nature. Pw2 clearly and categorically deposed that, due to disability the patient cannot work as a normal person and he cannot do cleaner work. So, the disability is fixed at 60%.

29.The evidence Pw1 clearly goes to show that, he was aged 34 years at the time of accident. It was mentioned in the wound certificate he was 36 years at the time of accident.

So, the age of the claimant is fixed 36 years.

30.It is the contention of the claimant that, he was a cleaner under the employment of

R1. He was earning Rs.8,000/- per month. It was elicited in the cross examination of R2 counsel that he did not file any documentary proof to show that he was earning Rs.8,000/- per month.

31.The claimant did not file any documentary proof to show that, he was working as a cleaner and earning Rs.8,000/-. In the absence of any record the income of the claimant is fixed Rs.4,000/- per month.

32.The monthly income of the claimant is Rs.4,000/-. The annual income of the claimant is Rs.4,000 x 12 = Rs.48,000/-. The suitable multiplier in this case is 15. The above multiplier is applied loss of earnings of the claimant comes to Rs.7,20,000/- out of that 60% of the disability of the claimant is calculated Rs.4,32,000/-.

33.The claimant claimed total compensation of Rs.10,00,000/- in this case which is highly excessive. Towards transport to the hospital Rs.3,000/- is awarded. Towards medical expenses Rs.1,01,907/- claimed which is highly excessive and Rs.80,000/- is reasonable amount and the same is awarded. Towards extra nourishment Rs.10,000/- awarded.

Towards medical attendant Rs.10,000/- awarded. Towards pain and suffering Rs.15,000/- awarded. Towards mental agony Rs.15,000/- awarded. Towards loss of earnings during the stay in the hospital Rs.6,000/- awarded. Thus the claimant is entitled total compensation of

Rs.5,71,000/-.

7

34.The learned counsel for second respondent contended that, on the date of accident the claimant was traveling in the crime vehicle as gratuitous passenger but not a cleaner and as such he has to file a petition under work man compensation Act for claiming compensation. He further contended that, the offending vehicle had no valid permit and as such R1 is not liable to pay any compensation.

35.In support of his contention R2 got examined Rw1 ‘P.Gowri Shankar’ who is working as Record Assistant in Deputy Transport Offfice, Ananthapurmau he produced permit copy of offending vehicle bearing No.AP26-TT-5478 which is marked as Ex.X2. In this case the accident occurred on 08.10.2014 at the time of accident there is no permit to the crime vehicle without having any permit the vehicle should not ply on the road and it amounts to violation of Motor Vehicles Act and rules.

36.R2 also got examined Rw2 ‘D. Ramanjineyulu’ who is working as Legal Executive in R2’s company. He deposed that, the claimant was traveling in the alleged offending vehicle as gratuitous passenger for hire or reward but not a cleaner at the time of accident.

According to this witness if really he was travelling in the capacity as cleaner under

Respondent No.1. He should approached the authority constituted under workman compensation Act and this tribunal need not entertain this petition. He further stated that at the time of accident offending vehicle having invalid permit and the vehicle should not ply on the road. Hence, prays to dismiss the petition.

In his cross examination he admitted that, the policy covers the risk of 2+1 persons.

He denied a suggestion that Ex.B1 covers the risk of cleaner and deposing falsely.

37.On the other hand, the learned counsel for the claimant argued that the claimant was traveling as a cleaner in the offending vehicle under the employment of R1 at the time of accident. He further contended that if the offending vehicle had no valid permit, the compensation cannot be denied to the claimant. The insurance company has to pay compensation.

In support of his contention he relied a decision reported in 2005 AILD 26 (SC) between National Insurance Co., Ltd., Vs. Challa Bharathamma and others.

8

Accident caused by the person without permit to ply vehicle denial of liability by insurer.

38.In the above case their lordship held that the insurer has been give an option and liberty to recover the amount from the insured and the insurer has to pay compensation at first instance.

39.The learned counsel further contended that as per U/S.167 of M.V.Act is option to the claimant to file claim application either under M.V.Act or workman compensation Act.

In support of his contention he relied a decision reported in 2005 ACJ 543 between

Kore Laxmi and others Vs. United India Insurance Co. Ltd., and Others.

He also relied another decision reported in 2015 (2) An.W.R.1014 (A.P) between

Ch.Rani and others Vs. Shyamsunder Mandhani and another.

He also relied another decision reported in 2007 ACJ 1851 between Oriental

Insurance Co. Ltd., Vs. Syed Yusuf and others.

So far as the first point is consider;

40.It is the case of the claimant that on the date of accident the claimant was engaged as a cleaner and one Hareram was the driver of the offending eicher van bearing No. AP-26-

TT-5478 with a load of paddy husk for unloading the same at Bangalore and while they were returning to Ananthapuramu from Bangalore and reached at Guttur Village the accident occurred. The claimant also pleaded the same in his claim petition. Ex.A1 is the First

Information Report given by the first informant. The averments clearly reveals that at the time of accident the claimant was a cleaner and one Hareram was engaged as driver of eicher van bearing No. AP-26-TT-5478 in order to unload the paddy husk at Bangalore. So, the averments of the First Information Report clearly goes to show that the claimant was engaged as a cleaner under the offending vehicle at the time of accident.

41.To disprove the version of the claimant R2 did not adduce any evidence. The evidence of Rw1 is no way relevant to decide this issue. So, the contention raised by R2 is discorded.

9

42.The another contention raised by the learned counsel for R2 that the offending vehicle had no valid permit and the same was surrendered by the owner to RTO, Ananthapuramu and Ex.X2 permit extract does not disclose the said fact.

43.In view of the legal position in “Challa Bharathamma“ case by the Hon’ble Apex

Court the insurance company is liable to pay at first instance and recover the same and the owner of the crime vehicle.

44.It is not dispute that the accident occurred due to rash and negligent act of the driver of the eicher van bearing No. AP-26-TT-5478 i.e., R3. R3 is working under the employment of R1 at the time of accident.

44. R1 insured his vehicle with R2 under valid policy as per Ex.B1. But in view of the legal position R2 has to satisfy the award amount in favour of the claimant at first instance and then recover the same from the owner of the crime vehicle without filing any suit or petition. This issue is answered accordingly.

Point No.3 :

45.In the result, this petition is allowed partly by awarding total compensation of

Rs.5,71,000 against claim of Rs.10,00,000/- along with interest @ 7.5% per annum from the date of petition till the date of realization with proportionate costs. R1 is vicariously liable for payment of compensation, but in view of the legal position R2 has to satisfy the award amount in favour of the claimant at first instance and then recover the same from the owner of the crime vehicle without filing any suit or petition. R2 is hereby directed to deposit the said amount into court within one month from the date of this order. After deposit of the said amount the claimant is permitted to withdraw a sum of Rs.80,000/- at once, his balance amount, costs and interest shall be kept in FDR in any nationalized bank for a period of three years. The rest of the claim of the claimant is hereby dismissed. Advocate fee is fixed

10

Rs.3,000/-.The amount if any awarded U/S. 140 of MV. Act shall be deducted from this amount.

Dictated to Stenographer transcribed by her, corrected and pronounced by me in the

open court, on this the 17th day of May, 2018.

Chairman Cum III Addl. District Judge, Fast Track Court, Ananthapuramu.

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

WITNESSES EXAMINED FOR

Petitioners:- Respondents:- Pw.1 : L. Lakshmi NarayanaRw.1 : P. Gowri Shankar w.2 : Dr. A. JagannathRw.2 : D. Ramanjineyulu Pw.3 : Dr. B. Shiva Kumar Pw.4 : Dr. N. Venkata Ramana Reddy

Exhibits marked for

Petitioner Respondents

Ex.A1 : Attested copy of First Information Ex.B1 : Certified copy of Insurance policy Report in Cr.No.158/2014 of relating tot he vehicle bearing No.AP- Penukonda PS.26-TT-5478. Ex.A2 : Attested copy of wound certificate Ex.A3 : Disability certificate.Ex.X1 : Authorization letter issued by RTO, Ananthapuramu. Ex.A4 : Medical bills (15 Nos)Ex.X2 : Permit extract marked by Rw.1. Ex.A5 : Estimation Quotation copy. Ex.A6 : Case sheet. Ex.A7 : Bunch of medical prescriptions. Ex.A8 : X-ray

Ex.C1 : Case sheet

Chairman Cum III Addl. District Judge,

Fast Track Court,

Ananthapuramu.

1

IN THE COURT OF THE MOTOR VEHICLE ACCIDENT CLAIMS

TRIBUNAL ANANTAPURAMU

PRESENT: Sri PUTTA MRALI MOHANA REDDY

III Additional District Judge, Fast Track Court

Wednesday, the 16 th day of May, 2018.

ORIGINAL PETITION NO.121/2013.

Between:-

Appannagari Rama Raju … Petitioner

And

1.Bestha Venkatesulu

2.Shriram Gen. Ins.Co. Ltd., Ananthapuramu … Respondents

This petition coming on 16.05.2018 for final hearing before me in the presence of Sri A. Nagarjuna Reddy, advocate for the petitioner and respondent No.1 is set exparte and Sri G. Seetharama Rao, advocate for the second respondent and the matter stood over for consideration till this day, the court made the following:-

O R D E R

1.This is a claim petition filed by the claimant U/S 140 and 166 of Motor Vehicle Act 1988 and Rule 455 of A.P. Motor Vehicles Rule 1989 of M.V. Act, claiming total compensation of Rs.1,50,000/- against the respondents, due to injuries received by the claimant in a motor vehicle accident that occurred on 19.01.2012 at about 9-00 am., near Sakshi Office, on NH-44 Road, Ananthapuramu.

2.The brief averments mentioned in the petition are as follows.

3. On 19.01.2012 the claimant was returning to Kakkalapalli Village in the vehicle bearing No.AP-02-X-6012 after loading the Papaya at Bangalore with an intention to again load the Papaya at Kakkalapalli Village to transport to the same to Bangalore. He was travelling in the vehicle as owner of the goods and when the vehicle reached near

Sakshi Office at about 9.00 am, at that time the driver of the crime vehicle bearing

No.AP-02-X-6012 drove the vehicle in a rash and negligent manner and lost control over the same and caused the accident.

2

4.On information Ananthapuramu Rural police registered a case in Crime

No.5/2012 U/S.337 IPC against the driver of crime vehicle bearing No.AP-02-X-6012.

5.It is further averred in the petition that immediately after the accident the claimant was shifted to Govt. General Hospital, Ananthapuramu for treatment. Subsequently he was shifted to Jeevan Jyothi Hospital, Anantapuramu for better treatment. He was stayed as in-patient and taken treatment. He spent Rs.80,000/- towards medical expenses.

6. Prior to the accident the claimant was hale and healthy and he was aged about 41 years at the time of accident. He was an agriculturist and earning an income of

Rs.10,000/- per month. The entire income of the claimant was contributing to his family.

On account of grievous injuries he could not able to attend any work. The claimant claimed total compensation of Rs.1,50,000/- in para 25 of the petition indetail.

7. R1 is the owner-cum-driver of the crime Trax bearing No.AP-02-X-6012, R2 is the insurer of the vehicle. Both the respondents are jointly and severally held liable to pay compensation. Hence, this petition.

8.R1 remained set exparte.

9.R2 filed a counter, denying all the allegations mentioned in the petition. This respondent denied the manner of the accident as alleged in the petition. This respondent submits that the petitioner cannot be said to be the owner of the goods as alleged in the petition and he is nothing but a gratuitous passenger in the vehicle. He has not submitted any Iota of evidence such as weigh bill, trip sheet and any other document connecting his journey to show that he was travelling as owner of the goods. So the petitioner is an unauthorized passenger travelled or hire or reward in the empty vehicle and as such this respondent is not liable to pay any compensation.

3

10. This respondent denied the age, avocation and income of the claimant at the time of accident. The driver of the crime vehicle was not having valid and effective driving licence at the time of accident. The compensation claimed in this case is highly excessive. Hence, prays to dismiss the petition with costs.

11. Basing on the averments, following issues were settled for trail;

1)Whether the accident occurred due to rash and negligent driving of the driver of the jeep bearing NoAP-02-X-6012?

2)Whether the petitioner is entitled for compensation? If so to what amount?

Against which respondent?

3)To what relief?

12. During the course of trial the claimant himself is examined as Pw1 and

Pw2 doctor is examined and Pw3 is examined to prove the medical bills and got marked Ex.A1 to Ex.A4. Ex.X1 and X2 are marked through Pw2. R2 got examined Rw1 and Rw2 and got marked Ex.B1 and B2. Ex.X1 to X4 are marked through Rw2.

13. Heard the arguments of the learned counsel for the claimant and learned counsel for R2. R2 filed written arguments and perused the same.

Issue No. I:-

14. It is the case of the claimant that on the date of accident the claimant was returning to Kakkalapalli Village in the vehicle bearing No.AP-02-X-6012 after loading the Papaya at Bangalore with an intention to again load the Papaya at Kakkalapalli

Village to transport to the same to Bangalore. When the vehicle reached near Sakshi

Office at about 9.00 am, at that time R1 being the driver of the crime vehicle bearing

No.AP-02-X-6012 drove the vehicle in a rash and negligent manner and lost control over the same and caused the accident.

4

15. To prove the manner of accident the claimant by name A. Ramaraju is examined as Pw1. He clearly and categorically deposed the manner of accident in his chief affidavit that the driver of the crime Trax bearing No.AP-02-X-6012 was responsible for accident.

16. This witness was cross examined by R2, but noting is elicited.

17. It is not in dispute that the first information report was registered by

Ananthapuramu Rural Police as a case in Cr.No.5/2012 U/S 337 IPC against the driver of the crime Trax bearing No.AP-02-X-6012, basing on the report given by Pw1 as per

Ex.A1. Ex.A2 is the wound certificate of the claimant which goes to show that he sustained five injuries in the accident. After completion of investigation the police filed a charge sheet against the driver of crime Trax bearing No.AP-02-X-6012 alleging that he drove the Trax in a rash and negligent manner and caused the accident as per Ex.A3.

The name of Pw1 is referred in the charge sheet as Lw1-cum-injured eye witness.

18. There is no contra evidence on record to disprove the testimony of Pw1 about the manner of the accident. On the other hand Pw1 is injured and direct witness and his evidence has to be relied on.

19. In view of my above discussions, I have no hesitation to come to conclusion that the accident occurred due to the rash and negligent act of the driver of crime Trax bearing No.AP-02-X-6012. This issue is answered accordingly and in favour of the claimant.

Issue No. II

20. The claimant sustained grievous and simple injuries in the accident. .

Immediately after the accident he was shifted to Govt. Hospital, Ananthapuramu for treatment. Later he was shifted to Jeevana Jyothi Hospital, Anantapuramu for better treatment. He was stayed as in-patient and taken treatment. He spent Rs.80,000/- towards medical expenses. Pw1 clearly and categorically deposed that on account of grievous injuries he could not able to attend any work.

5

21.The claimant examined Pw2 Dr. A. Sasidar who is consultant Neuro surgeon at Jeevana Jyothi Hospital, Ananthapuramu. According to this witness the patient was got admitted in the hospital on 19.01.2012 and patient diagonised as right parieto occipital extra dural haematoma with right parietal bone fracture with parieto occipital sub galeal haematoma. Patient was conservatively treated and discharged on 26.01.2012.

22.Pw2 found the following injuries :

1. A Bruise over the left side of fore head measuring 1X2 Cms.

2. A Bruise over dorsum of the left wrist measuring 1X2 Cms.

3. A bruise over right parieto occipital area measuring over 1X2 Cms.

4. Multiple bruise noted over the left toes each measuring 1X1 Cms.

5. Right parietal bone fracture.

6. Right parieto occipital extra dural haemotoma.

23. He opined that injuries 1 to 4 are simple and injury No.5 and 6 are grievous in nature.

24.From the medical evidence of Pw2 it is clear that the claimant sustained four simple and two grievous injuries. Pw2 did not conduct any operation and he treated conservatively to the patient. Ex.X1 is the case sheet maintained by Jeevana Jyothi

Hospital goes to show that the patient was admitted in the hospital on 19.01.2012 and discharged on 26.01.2012. The injuries as spoken by Pw2 also noted in the case sheet and tallied. Ex.X2 is the C.T. Scan Brain Plan (3 in number). Ex.A4 are the bunch of medical bills issued by Jeevana Jyothi hospital for Rs.69,596/-.

25. To prove the medical bills the claimant examined Pw3 M. Nagabhushanam who is Account Manager in Jeevana Jyothi Hospital. He stated that basing on the prescriptions given by the doctor their hospital authorities issued medical bills to the patient. He identified the medical bills issued by the Jeevana Jyothi Hospital.

6

26. The evidence of Pw1 and Pw2 coupled with Ex.A4 and Ex.X1 and X2 I am of the clear opinion that the claimant sustained two grievous and four simple injuries in the accident and he is entitled to receive just and reasonable compensation.

27. The claimant claimed total compensation of Rs.1,50,000/- which is highly excessive. Towards transport to the hospital Rs.1,000/- awarded. Towards medical expenses Rs.69,596/- claimed which are highly excessive and Rs.40,000/- is reasonable amount and the same is awarded. Towards extra nourishment Rs.5,000/- awarded. Towards medical attendant Rs.5,000/- awarded. Towards pain and suffering

Rs.8,000/- awarded. Towards mental agony Rs.8,000/- awarded. Towards compensation for two grievous injuries each Rs.15,000/- and Rs.30,000/- awarded.

Towards compensation for four simple injuries each Rs.3,000/- and Rs.12,000/- awarded. Towards loss of earnings during the stay in the hospital Rs.4,000/- awarded.

Thus the claimant is entitled total compensation of Rs.1,13,000/-

28.The learned counsel for the 2nd respondent contended the claimant was travelling as unauthorized passenger in the goods vehicle. He further contended that the driver of the crime vehicle was not holding valid and effective driving licence and their company is not liable to pay any compensation.

29.In support of his contention R2 got examined Rw1 D. Ramanjaneyulu who is working as Legal Executive in R2 company. He stated that the petitioner and others have boarded the offending vehicle individually and travelled and received injuries in the accident. According to this witness the journey of the petitioner while travelling with the goods seizes the movement the goods are delivered/sold and the return journey in the empty lorry cannot give him the status of ownership of the goods carrier in the vehicle and his status is nothing but unauthorized passenger.

7

In support of his contention he relied a decision reported in 2016 1 An.W.R. 742

A.P. between Varanasi Murali Manohar Sarma Vs. Palaki Sreenivasa Rao and another.

30. It was held that merely because the claimant-injured was carrying a rice bag in a goods vehicle, he cannot be termed as owner of goods.

He also relied another decision reported in CMA No.758 to 760/2007 and CRP 211/2018 between The Oriental Insurance Co. Vs. Gudiyattam and R. Shiva and others.

31.In this case the injured along with their family members of the driver of the vehicle were travelling, but they were not travelling as owner of the goods. Therefore his

Lordship held that they were travelling as gratuitous passengers.

He also relied another decision reported in 2005 ACJ 1801 between M.V.

Jayadevappa and another Vs. Oriental Fire and General Insurance Co. Ltd., and another.

He also relied another decision reported in 2017 ACJ 1043 between New India

Assurance Co. Ltd., Vs. Vedavathi and another.

He also relied another decision reported in 2017 1 An.W.R. 14 Madras between

Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd., Vs. Panchavarnam and others.

It was held that gratuitous passengers are not entitled to compensation from the insurance company.

He also relied another decision reported in 2015 ACJ 1965 between

Cholamandalam M.S. General Insurance Co. Ltd., Vs. Bathina Elendra.

8

32.Death of passenger returning in Auto trolley after unloading goods when vehicle met with accident. Insurance company disputes Tribunal order of pay and recover on the ground that the deceased was travelling in a goods vehicle as unauthorized passenger.

33.On the other hand the learned counsel for the claimant contended that the claimant was travelling as owner of the goods in the crime vehicle. He further contended that the insurance company is liable to pay compensation under the principle of pay and recover.

In support of his contention he relied a decision reported in 2017 2 ALD 65 SC between Manuara Khatun and others Vs. Rajesh k.r. Singh and others.

34. As seen from the record as per Ex.A1 on the date of accident the claimant and others were engaged the crime vehicle to transport Papayas from Ananthapuramu to Bangalore market. It is clearly mentioned in the FIR on the date of accident the claimant and another person loaded the Papayas in the crime vehicle and reached

Bangalore. They unloaded the same at Bangalore and while they were returning to

Ananthapuramu and reached near Sakshi Office the accident occurred. The said fact was also mentioned in the charge sheet. The claimant also pleaded in his claim petition that himself and others engaged the crime vehicle in order to transport Papayas. So the claimant was travelled in the crime vehicle as owner of the goods, but not unauthorized passenger.

35. The decision relied by R2 are not latest one and the decisions cited by the claimant is latest and the Hon’ble Apex Court clearly held that the insurance company first pay the compensation and recover the amount from the owner of the crime vehicle relying on the decision in “Saju P. Paul” case.

9

36.The learned counsel for R2 further contended that the driver of the crime vehicle had no valid driving licence. Again he relied the evidence of Rw1. According to this witness R1 being the driver-cum-owner of the crime vehicle was not holding valid driving licence. He should hold Light Motor Vehicle transport category licence to drove the vehicle. He was holding Light Motor Vehicle (NT) and MCWG which he shall not drive the offending vehicle.

37.In his cross examination he admitted that the crime vehicle is a light motor vehicle. He further says that the driver of the crime vehicle having Light Motor Vehicle non-transport driving licence at the time of accident.

38.R2 also examined Rw2 P. Gowri Shankar who is working as Record Assistant in

DTO Office, Ananthapuramu. He produced driving licence extract of driver by name

B.Venkatesu S/o B. Eearanna, residing at D.No.11-520, K.K.Palli Colony,

Ananthapuramu. The said driver is having Light Motor Vehicle non-transport and motor cycle with gear driving licence at the time of accident which is marked as Ex.X2. As per

Ex.X2 the driver is authorized to drive Light Motor Vehicle non transport and motor cycle with gear which are valid upto 22.07.2010.

39.He further stated that Ex.X3 is the R.C. relating to the crime vehicle. Ex.X4 is the fitness certificate. The driver is not authorize to drove the crime vehicle under Ex.X2 driving licence.

40.On the other hand the learned counsel for the claimant contended that the driver of the crime vehicle having valid driving licence and insurance company is liable to pay compensation.

10

In support of his contention he relied a decision reported in 2013 (2) An.W.R. 291

SC between S. Iyappan Vs. M/s. United India Insurance Co. Ltd., and another.

41.It was held that insurer cannot disown its liability on the ground, the driver though had licence to drove light motor vehicle, obtained no endorsement in licence to drive such vehicle used as a commercial vehicle.

42.Ex.B1 is the policy particulars issued by R2 relating to the crime vehicle and the same is in force. Ex.X1 is the authorization letter. Ex.X2 driving licence extract clearly goes to show that the driver of the crime vehicle having non transport driving licence at the time of accident.

43.In view of the legal position the insurance company first pay compensation, then recover the same from the owner of the crime vehicle.

44. It is not in dispute that R1 being the owner-cum-driver of crime Trax bearing

No.AP-02-X-6012 drove the vehicle in a rash and negligent manner and caused the accident. R1 being the owner of the crime vehicle is vicariously liable to pay compensation. R1 insured his vehicle with R2 at the time of accident under a valid policy vide Ex.B1. R1 is liable to pay compensation, but in view of the legal position R2 has to satisfy the award amount at first instance, then recover the same from the owner of the crime vehicle without filing any suit or petition. This issue is answered accordingly and in favour of the claimant.

Issue No.III 45. In the result, petition is allowed partly by awarding total compensation of

Rs.1,13,000/- against claim of Rs.1,50,000/- along with interest @ 7.5% per annum from the date of petition till the date of realization with proportionate costs. R1 is liable to pay compensation, but in view of the legal position R2 has to pay the compensation at

11

first instance, then recover the same from the owner of the crime vehicle without filing any suit or petition. R2 is hereby directed to deposit award amount into the court within one moth from the date of this order. After deposit of said amount the claimant is permitted to withdraw Rs.50,000/- at once, his balance amount, costs and interest shall be kept in fixed deposit in any nationalized bank for a period of one year. The rest of the claim of the claimant is here by dismissed. Advocate fee is fixed at Rs.1,000/-.

The amount if any awarded U/S. 140 of MV. Act shall be deducted from this amount.

Dictated to typist transcribed by him, corrected and pronounced by me in the

open court, on this the 16th day of May, 2018.

Chairman Cum III Addl. District Judge, Fast Track Court, Ananthapuramu.

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

WITNESSES EXAMINED FOR

Petitioners:- Respondents:- Pw.1 : A. RamarajuRw.1 : D.Ramanjaneyulu Pw.2 : Dr. A. SasidharRw.2 : P. Gowri Shankar Pw.3 : M. Nagabhushanam

Exhibits marked for

Petitioner Respondents

Ex.A1 : Attested copy of First Information Ex.B1 : True copy of Insurance policy. Report in Cr.No.5/2012 of Ananthapuramu Rural P.S. Ex.A2 : Attested copy of wound certificate.Ex.B2: Office copy of notice. Ex.A3 : Attested copy of charge sheet. Ex.A4 : Bunch of medical bills for Rs.69,596/-Ex.X1 : Authorization letter. Ex.X2 : Light Motor vehicle Driving License extract. Ex.X1 : Case sheetEx.X3 : Registration Certificate relating to Mahindra Maxi goods carriage bearing No.AP-02-X-6012 Ex.X2 : C.T.Scan Brain plainEx.X4 : Fitness Certificate relating to vehicle bearing No.AP-02-X-6012

Chairman Cum III Addl. District Judge,

Fast Track Court,

Ananthapuramu.

IN THE COURT OF THE MOTOR VEHICLE ACCIDENT CLAIMS

TRIBUNAL ANANTAPURAMU

PRESENT: Sri PUTTA MRALI MOHANA REDDY

III Additional District Judge, Fast Track Court

Thursday, the 17 th day of May, 2018.

ORIGINAL PETITION NO.551/2014.

Between:-

Neeruganti Lakshmi Narayana @ Ramana, S/o. N.Rajanna, aged 35 years, Hindu, cleaner, residing at Mudigubba Village, Atmakur Mandal, Ananthapuramu District. … Petitioner

And

1.G. Srinivas, S/o. Venkateswara Rao, major, Hindu, residing at D.No.17-1-264, Venugopal Nagar, Old Town, Ananthapuramu Town and District.

2.The Manager, Legal Cell, Shriram General Insurance Company Limited, O/o. E-8, EPIP, RIICO, Sitapura Jaipur, Rajasthan State.

3. M. Hareram, S/o. Narayana, Hindu, residing at D.No.5-102, B.C.Colony, Rampuram Village, Obula Puram Post, Ananthapurmu District.

… Respondents

This is aclaimpetition filed by the claimant Under Section 140 and 166 of Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 and Rule 455 of AP Motor Vehicles Rules 1989, claiming total compensation of Rs.10,00,000/- against the respondents due to injuries received by the claimant in a motor vehicle accident that occurred on 08.10.2014 at about 6.30 pm., at Guttur Village cross on Bangalore to Hyderabad on

NH-44 road.

Petition presented on:26.11.2014.

Value for Court fee is Rs.10,00,000 /- and a Court fee of Rs.9,360/- is paid under Rule 475 (2) of A.P.M.V. Rules.

This petition coming this day for disposal before me in the presence of

Sri P. Chenna Reddy, advocate for the petitioner and respondent No.1 & 3 are set exparty and

Sri G. Seetharama Rao, advocate for respondent No.2 and the matter stood over for consideration till this day, DOTH ORDER AND DECREE:- //2//

1.that the petition be and the same is hereby partly allowed with interest and proportionate costs.

2.that the sum of Rs.5,71,000/-(Rupees five lakhs seventy one thousands only) against claim of Rs.10,00,000/- along with interest @ 7.5% per annum from the date of petition i.e., 26.11.2014 till the date of realization.

3.that the R1 is vicariously liable for payment of compensation.

4.that the view of the legal position R2 has to satify the award amount in favour the claimant at first instance.

5.that the recover the same from the owner of the crime vehicle without filing any suit or petition.

6.that the R2 is hereby directed to deposit the said amount in to the court within one month from the date of this order.

7.that the deposit of the said amount the claimant is permitted to withdraw a sum of Rs.80,000/- at once.

8.that the balance amount, and costs and interest shall be kept in FDR in any nationalized bank for a period of three years.

9.that the rest of claim of the claimant is here by dismissed.

10. that the Advocate fees is fixed at Rs.3,000/-

11. that the respondents do pay to the petitioners a sum of Rs.10,835/- towards proportionate costs of the petition and do bear their own costs of Rs.2-00 (Other costs not certified)

Given- under my hand and seal of the court this the 17st day of May,2018.

Chairman Cum III Addl. District Judge,

Fast Tack Court, Ananthapuramu.

TABLE OF COSTS FOR

Petitioner Respondents Rs. Ps Rs. Ps Stamp on main petition9,360-00-- Stamp on vakalath2-002-00 Petition on stamp15-00 Process200-00 Commissioner Fee2,000-00 Publication Charges350-00 Typing and writing charges200-00 Advocate's fee3,000-00 Total 15,127-002-00 (F.C memo not filed other costs not certified)

Proportionate Cost of Rs.10,835/-

Chairman Cum III Addl. District Judge

Fast Track Court Ananthapuramu .

IN THE COURT OF THE MOTOR VEHICLE ACCIDENT CLAIMS

TRIBUNAL ANANTAPURAMU

PRESENT: Sri PUTTA MRALI MOHANA REDDY

III Additional District Judge, Fast Track Court

Wednesday, the 16 th day of May, 2018.

ORIGINAL PETITION NO.121/2013.

Between:-

Appannagari Rama Raju, S/o. Rajappa, aged about 41 years, Kondakindapalli Village, C.K.Pali Mandal, Ananthapuramu District. … Petitioner

And

1.Bestha Venkatesulu, S/o. Veeranna, major, residing at D.No.11-520, Kakkalapalli Colony, Ananthapuramu.

2.Shriram General Insurance Company Limited, Rep by its Manager, Ananthapuramu. … Respondents

This is a claim petition filed by the claimant U/S 140 and 166 of Motor Vehicle Act 1988 and Rule 455 of A.P. Motor Vehicles Rule 1989 of M.V. Act, claiming total compensation of

Rs.1,50,000/- against the respondents, due to injuries received by the claimant in a motor vehicle accident that occurred on 19.01.2012 at about 9-00 am., near Sakshi Office, on NH- 44 Road, Ananthapuramu.

Petition presented on:05.03.2013.

Value for Court fee is Rs.1,50,000 /- and a Court fee of Rs.860/- is paid under Rule 475 (2) of A.P.M.V. Rules.

This petition coming this day for disposal before me in the presence of

Sri A. Nagarjuna Reddy, advocate for the petitioner and respondent No.1 is set exparte and Sri G. Seetharama Rao, advocate for the second respondent and the matter stood over for consideration till this day, DOTH ORDER AND DECREE:- //2//

1.that the petition be and the same is hereby partly allowed with interest and proportionate costs.

2.that the sum of Rs.1,13,000/-(Rupees one lakh thirteen thousands only) against claim of Rs.1,50,000/- along with interest @ 7.5% per annum from the date of petition i.e., 05.03.2013 till the date of realization.

3.that the R1 is liable to pay compensation but in view of legal position R2 has to pay compensation at first instance.

4.That the recover the same from the owner of the crime vehicle without filing any suit or petition.

5.that the R2 is hereby directed to deposit award amount into the court within one month from the date of this order.

6.that the deposit of the said amount the claimant is permitted tow ithdrw Rs.50,000/- at once.

7.that the balance amount, costs and interest shall be kept in fixed deposit in any nationalized bank for a period of one year.

8.that the rest of claim of the claimant is here by dismissed.

9.that the Advocate fees is fixed at Rs.3,000/-

10. that the respondents do pay to the petitioners a sum of Rs.10,835/- towards proportionate costs of the petition and do bear their own costs of Rs.2-00 (Other costs not certified)

Given- under my hand and seal of the court this the 16th day of May,2018.

Chairman Cum III Addl. District Judge,

Fast Tack Court, Ananthapuramu.

TABLE OF COSTS FOR

Petitioner Respondents Rs. Ps Rs. Ps Stamp on main petition860-00-- Stamp on vakalath2-002-00 Petition on stamp15-00 Process200-00 Commissioner Fee2,000-00 Publication Charges350-00 Typing and writing charges200-00 Advocate's fee1,000-00 Total 15,127-002-00 (F.C memo not filed other costs not certified)

Proportionate Cost of Rs.10,835/-

Chairman Cum III Addl. District Judge

Fast Track Court Ananthapuramu .