Sri R. Pundareekakshudu

1

IN THE HON’BLE COURT OF VIII ADDL.DIST. & SESSIONS JUDGE (FTC) Visakhapatnam at Gajuwaka.

PRESENT: SRI R.Pundareekakshudu, B.A., B.L., L.L.M.,

VIII ADDL.DIST.JUDGE

(FTC) Visakhapatnam, Gajuwaka.

Criminal Appeal No.103 / 2011

WEDNESDAY, THE 21 st DAY OF MARCH’ 2012

Between:

Kethineni Visweswara Rao, S/o Gopala Krishna Murthy, Hindu, aged 52 years, D.No.9-6-1, Jogavanipalem, Gajuwaka, Visakhapatnam.

… Appellant / Accused. AND

State represented by Addl. Public Prosecutor, Visakhapatnam.

…Respondent/Complainant

This Criminal Appeal is coming on 19-03-2012 before me in the presence of Sri. M.K. Sitaramayya & Sri. M.K. Srinivas, Advocates for the

Appellant/Accused and of Sri K.A.Prakash, Addl.P.P. for the Respondent and the same having stood consideration over this day this court delivered the following :

J U D G M E N T

1.This Appeal is filed by the Appellant / Accused in C.C. 248/2006 against the Calendar and Judgment dated 17.08.2011 passed by the III

Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Visakhapatnam at Gajuwaka.

2.The State represented by Food Inspector, Division-I, Office of the

Assistant Food Control of Visakhapatnam filed the case against the 2 accused under section 16(1)(a)(i)(ii) & 2(ia)(b) & (m) of Prevention of Food

Adulteration Act r/w 29 of Food Adulteration rules.

3.The case of the complainant is that PW.1 Food Inspector along with

PW.2 inspected the shop of accused M/s Vijayalakshmi Dairy Milk Parlour situated at D.No.8-146, Jogavanipalem, Gajuwaka, Visakhapatnam on 15.10.2004. The accused is the proprietor of M/s Vijayalakshmi Dairy Milk

Parlour was present in the shop and transacting kirana business. PW.1 called the mediator P. Lovaraju to act as a mediator at the time of sampling process. PW.1 disclosed his identity and purpose of visit to the accused. PW.1 inspected the food articles in the shop of accused which were kept for sale of human consumption. PW.1 found 5 Kgs of Redgram

Dal in open plastic bucket with insect infestation and adulterated with other articles. PW.1 suspected the quality of Redgram Dal and purchased 1500 grams of Dal under Ex.P2 cash receipt by paying Rs.51/- from the accused. PW.1 served Form 6 notice under Ex.P3 to the accused and informed him that he purchased Redgram Dal to send the same for analysis to public analyst, SFL, A.P. PW.1 divided 1500 grams Redgram Dal into three parts each 500 grams placed in 3 clean dry empty jars. PW.1 followed the entire procedure for packing the jars as contemplated under the Act. When PW.1 asked the accused about the source of supply of

Redgram Dal, accused replied that there were no bills. PW.1 got the panchanama report drafted under Ex.P5 and explained to the accused.

The accused admitted the contents of panchanama and signed in it and mediators also signed in the panchanama report. On 15.10.2004 PW.1 sent one sample along with form 7 memorandum and specimen seal 3 under intimation to the local health authority, Zone-I to the Public Analyst,

Hyderabad by registered parcel. PW.1 handed over remaining 2 packets of samples along with form 7 with specimen seal to the AFC and local health authority, Zone-I and obtained acknowledgment. The Public

Analyst analyzed the Redgram Dal and sent the report under form No.3 under Ex.P10 report number 690/2004 dated 23.11.2004 along with covering letter number 1995/SFL/2004 dated 23.11.2004. The Public

Analyst opined that sample of Redgram Dal did not confirm the standards of weeivilled grains and also synthetic colour tartrazine and therefore adulterated.

4.On 29.12.2004 PW.1 sent detailed report to the Director, Institute of

Preventive Medicine, Hyderabad for sanction. The Director of Preventive

Medicine accorded written sanction under section 29(1) of the Act r/w

G.O.Ms. No. 62 M & H dated 31.01.85 vide RC.No.10979/04-05/17.01.2006 for institution for prosecution for the offence under section 16(1)(a)(i)(ii) & 2(ia)(b) & (m) of Prevention of Food Adulteration Act r/w 29 of Food

Adulteration rules against the accused for adulteration of Redgram Dal.

5.The trial court examined the accused under section 251 Cr.P.C after furnishing the documents to the accused with regard to the offence under section 16(1)(a)(i)(ii) & 2(ia)(b) & (m) of Prevention of Food

Adulteration Act r/w 29 of Food Adulteration rules. The accused pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried.

6.To prove the offence the complainant is examined as PW.1, PW.2 examined. Ex.P1 to P19 marked. After closure of prosecution evidence the trial court explained the incriminating material to the accused under 4 section 313 Cr.P.C. The accused denied incriminating evidence against him. The accused did not choose to examine any defence witnesses.

7.After conclusion of trial, the Learned Magistrate found the accused guilty of the offence under section 16(1)(a)(i)(ii) & 2(ia)(b) & (m) of

Prevention of Food Adulteration Act r/w 29 of Food Adulteration rules and sentenced him to undergo rigorous imprisonment for 6 months and to pay fine of Rs.1,000/- in default to undergo simple imprisonment for one month.

8.As against the conviction and sentence the present appeal is filed.

The brief averments in the grounds of appeal are that the Judgment of the trial court is contrary to Law, Weight of evidence and probabilities of the case. The Learned Magistrate has not properly appreciated the evidence of PW.1 & 2. The Trial Court mis-construed regarding burden of proof and it is the duty of prosecution to establish that appellant is the owner of the shop but it is not the duty of the appellant to disprove the fact. The observation of the Learned Magistrate that accused has not adduced any evidence to prove that he is not the proprietor of the M/s

Vijayalakshmi Dairy Milk Parlour is not correct. The trial court has not properly appreciated the aspect that PW.1 failed to prove that he has got jurisdiction over that area. The trial court failed to consider the report of the Public Analyst. The Analyst report did not contain that sample is injurious to health and unfit for human consumption. The trial court failed to consider that inordinate delay of 17 months from the date of the sample to the date of 13(ii) notice whereby valuable right of the accused was lost. The trial court has not considered the Judgments cited by the 5 appellant. The written consent under Ex.P14 is stereo typed without application of mind.

9.Heard arguments of both sides.

10.The point for consideration.

Whether the Judgment of the trial court is sustainable either on facts or under law?

11. PW.1 who is the Food Inspector in his evidence stated about his visit on 15.04.2004 at 2.00 P.M. to the shop of accused M/s Vijayalakshmi Dairy

Milk Parlour situated at D.No. 8-146, Jogavanipalem, Gajuwaka and purchase of Redgram Dal and dividing into three parts and kept the three parts in dry clean empty jars and packed them and sending of the samples to the analyst. PW.1 further stated that about receipt of analyst report and sending of 13 (ii) notice and sanction order. PW.2 is the Office subordinate of PW.1 corroborated the evidence of PW.1.

12.The Appellant Counsel contention is that the complainant failed to establish that accused is the owner of the shop M/s Vijayalakshmi Dairy

Milk Parlour, Jogavanipalem, Gajuwaka. The Counsel further submitted that PW.1 admitted in the cross examination that he has not filed any record to show that accused is the owner of M/s Vijayalakshmi Dairy Milk

Parlour.

13.The Learned Additional Public Prosecutor submitted that accused was found in the shop and he signed in the cash receipt and panchanama and other documents. The Learned Additional Public

Prosecutor further submitted that there is no material that somebody is the owner of the shop.

6

14.PW.1 is the Food Inspector who visited the shop. PW.1 purchased

Redgram Dal under Ex.P2 receipt, the accused signed in the receipt.

Ex.P3 is the form-7. Ex.P4 is the label of the container and Ex.P5 is the panchanama report. So accused signed in Ex.P2 to P5 documents. So the visit of the PW.1 and purchase of Redgram from the shop and accused was not denied. More so the evidence of PW.1 coupled with

Ex.P2 to P5 established about the visit of PW.1 to the shop of accused.

15.It is not the case of the accused that somebody is the owner of M/s

Vijayalakshmi Dairy Milk Parlour and accused is not the owner. The accused in Ex.P2 to P5 signed voluntarily. Ex.P19 is the postal acknowledgment signed by the accused. In Ex.P19 it is mentioned that accused is the proprietor of M/s Vijayalakshmi Dairy Milk Parlour.

16.The contention of the Defence Counsel that prosecution failed to establish that accused is a owner of M/s Vijayalakshmi Dairy Milk Parlour is not correct. The Appellant Counsel cited decision i.e., 1995 FAJ 164 (Rajendra Kumar Vs. State of Haryana). The same decision was cited in the trial court, the Learned Magistrate discussed the ruling cited by the

Counsel. The observation of the Learned Magistrate that facts in the present case are totally different to the facts in ruling. There is no reason to interfere with the observation of the Learned Magistrate.

17.The contention of the Defence Counsel is PW.1 is not having jurisdiction to lift the sample. The Counsel cited decision cited i.e., 1982 (1) Prevention of Food Adulteration cases Page 90 (Mohammad Sabir Vs

State) The same decision was cited by the Counsel in the trial court. The trial court considered the ruling. The ratio laid down in the decision has no 7 application. The Counsel cited another decision reported in 1999 (2) EFR

Page 456 (Nazar Vs State of U.P. and another) In this decision Allahabad

High Court held that Food Inspector who has no jurisdiction in Kirthapur area has taken sample so the entire prosecution is viciated. This decision has no application to the present facts of the case. The Counsel cited another decision i.e., 1998 All India Prevention of Food Adulteration

Journal Page 275 (Deep Chand Jain and another Vs State of Bihar) In this decision Patna High Court held sample was taken from the premises at

Kishanganj, sample was analyzed by the Public Analyst Baghalpur. The

Public Analyst has no authority or jurisdiction to give report in respect of sample collected at Kishanganj, such report cannot be considered and prosecution is liable to be quashed. This decision has no application to the present facts of the case.

18.In the present case the evidence of PW.1 established that he is the

Food Inspector of Zone-I. The evidence of PW.1 further established that he was notified as Food Inspector under Ex.P1 G.O. Ex.P16 G.O.

established that Srikakulam, Vizianagaram and Visakhapatnam Districts comes under Assistant Food Control of Zone-I. So the contention of the

Counsel that PW.1 has no jurisdiction to lift the sample is not correct.

19.The Appellant Counsel further contention is that in Ex.P10 Analyst report there is no mention that sample is injurious to health and unfit for human consumption. The Counsel further contention is that the conviction of the accused is not correct when the report of analyst is silent with regard to the sample is injurious to health. Ex.P10 is the Analyst report.

As seen from the Analyst report the sample is in a fit condition for analysis 8 and the same was analyzed on 23.11.2004. The Analyst opined that synthetic food colour i.e., present of tartrazine. The analyst further opined that the sample does not confirm to the standard of Weeivilled grains and further contains synthetic colour tartrazine. As per the analyst report weeivilled grains of 4.80 percent found but it should not be more than 3 % by count. The analyst further opined that the sample is adulterated.

20. The Appellant Counsel cited decisions reported in 1995 Crl. Law

Journal 1990 (M/s. Raj Traders- Petitioners Vs State of H.P.) In this decision

Himachal Pradesh High Court held that Public Analyst report cannot be taken into consideration as gospel truth, the report must be clear and unambiguous and it must be understandable. The Himachal Pradesh High

Court did not accept the report of Analyst and quashed the proceedings against the accused. The above decision has no application to the present facts of the case.

21.The Counsel cited another decision reported in 1990(2) EFR Page 522 (Jeet Kumar Anand Vs State of Punjab). In this decision the Hon'ble

High Court held that report of analyst did not disclose that sample is filthy, putrid, disgusting, rotten, decomposed or insect infested or otherwise unfit for human consumption. So sample cannot be held adulterated. The

Hon'ble High Court set aside the conviction. The above decision has no

application to the present facts of the case.

22.The Counsel cited another decision reported in 2011 (3) EFR 466

(State of Haryana through GFI - Appellant Vs Papinder Kumar -

Respondent) In this decision the Hon'ble High Court held that on appreciation of evidence the food article i.e., Besan kept by the accused 9 for sale could not be said to be adulterated. The Hon'ble High Court dismissed the appeal filed by the State. This decision has no application to the present facts of the case.

23.The Analyst report shows that the sample is adulterated. So the adulteration itself indicates that it is injurious to health. Though there is no specific mention by the analyst that the sample is not injurious to health but the report discloses that it is an adulterated. More so the sample found synthetic food colour i.e., tartrazine which should not be found in the food article. So the non mention of fact by analyst that food article is injurious to health is not a ground to throw away the prosecution case.

So the contention of Counsel has no force.

24.The Learned Counsel further contend that from the date of the sample to the date of 13(ii) notice there is a 17 months delay and the accused had no opportunity to send the sample to the Central Food

Laboratory for analysis even if the sample is sent no useful purpose will be served and the sample may be spoiled due to delay. The Counsel cited number of decisions on this aspect i.e., 1) 2002 (2) ALD Crl. 113 (P.

Chandrakanth Vs. State of A.P.) 2) 2007 (3) ALT Crl. 113 (C. Rama Murhty

and another Vs State of A.P. rep. by Food Inspector, Division I Rangareddy

District) 3)2010 (1) EFR 583 (Hindustan Lever Limited (M/s) & Anr. Vs State of Chattisgarh) 4) 2009 FAJ 389 (Ori) (Kinkar Prasad Mandal Vs State of

Orissa) 5) 2009 (1) Crimes Page 7 (Hindustan Lever Limited Vs State of Gujarat and another) 6) 2007 FAJ 325 (Vimalkant Kanchanlal Tailor Vs.

State of Gujarat and another) 7) 2005 (Crl.L.J) 2100 (State of Maharastra

Appellant Vs Vinayak Mahadeorao Waze and another) 8) 1994 (1) 10

Prevention of Food Adulteration Cases 84 (State of M.P. Vs

Ghansyamdas).

25.In the present case the sample was taken on 15.10.2004, the sample was sent to the analyst immediately, the sample was analyzed on 23.10.2004, the report was received on 23.11.2004. On 29.12.2004 PW.1 sent the detailed report to the Director, Institute of Preventive Medicine,

Hyderabad for sanction order. The sanction order was received on 17.01.2006. So immediately after sanction order case was filed in the court and notice was served on 13(2) on 27.04.2006.

26.In the present case the accused did not file any petition to send the sample to the central laboratory for analysis. The accused has to prove that he was prejudiced due to delay in sending of 13(2) notice. The 13(2) notice is properly served and it is acknowledged by the accused. In my view the ratio laid down in all the decisions has no application to the present facts of the case. There is no delay on the part of the PW.1 in taking action. So it is only after filing of the complaint notice has to be served to the accused under section 13 (2). In my view there is no violation of 13 (2) and there is no prejudice caused to the accused.

27.The Appellant Counsel contention is that the sanction order is mechanical and the competent authority has not applied its mind.

Ex.P14 is the sanction order. I have carefully gone through the sanction order. The competent authority i.e., the Directorate of Institute of

Preventive Medicine, Public Health Labs, Food Health Administration,

Hyderabad verified the entire material and sanctioned the prosecution.

11

The sanction order is not a printed format, so in my view there is no force in the contention of the Counsel.

28.The Counsel cited decisions reported in 2004 Crl.L.J 3605 (Rama

Balawant Hegde Petitioner Vs Food Inspector, Nippani Municipality

Respondent). In this decision Karnataka High Court held that permission granted by the authority without assigning any reason and without applying the mind is not correct. The Hon'ble High Court set aside the conviction. The decision has no application to the present facts of the case.

29.The Counsel cited another decision 2003 (2) EFR 726 (Bhairo Singh

Vs State of M.P.) In this decision Madhya Pradesh High Court held that prosecution failed to prove the sanction order, the High Court set aside the conviction. This decision has no application to the present facts of the case.

30.The Counsel cited decision reported in 2005 (1) EFR 9 (Dinesh Kumar

Vs State of M.P). This decision is under Rule 44-A of Food Adulteration

Rules. This decision has no application to the present facts of the case.

31.The Counsel cited another decision reported in 2003 (2) ALD Crl.41

A.P (Kantheti Bogeswara Rao Vs State of A.P.) In this decision our High

Court held that state analyst opined that sample of greengram is adulterated but the central food laboratory found no such colour matter and it does not confirm the standard prescribed in the Act. Our High

Court further held that the opinion of central food laboratory supersedes and accused entitled for acquittal. This decision has no application to the present facts of the case.

12

32.The Counsel cited another decision reported in 1993 (1) Prevention of Food Adulteration Cases 132 (Promod Kumar Vs State of Haryana). In this decision Punjab & Haryana High Court held carbonated water found in the possession of accused could not be held to be substandard quality, accused is entitled for acquittal. This decision has no application to the present facts of the case.

33.The Appellant Counsel contention is that PW.1 in the evidence admitted that he has not clean the containers where the sample was put.

The Counsel further contention is that the containers must be clean and there must be positive evidence to prove that fact. The Counsel further contention is that there is no evidence by prosecution that containers were clean.

34.PW.1 in the evidence stated that local health authority supplied the containers and the containers were supplied two days prior to the taking of sample. The analyst in the report clearly mentioned that sample is in a fit condition for analysis. The analyst further observed that sample received in a plastic container. So the contention of the Counsel that container is not in clean condition is not correct.

35.The Counsel cited decision reported in 1) 2009 (1) Crimes Gujarat (State of Gujarat Vs Laghadhirbhai Vaghjibhai Prajapati) 2) 2008 FAJ 273

Gujarat (State of Gujarat Vs Smt. Taraben Gopalbhai Parekh, President,

Shram Mandir Mahila) The ratio laid down in both the decisions are that mere statement that bottles were clean and dry is not enough. The

Gujarat High Court further held Rule 14 is mandatory, non compliance is 13 fatal. These decisions have no application to the present facts of the case.

36. I have carefully gone through the Judgment of the Learned

Magistrate, the Learned Magistrate discussed the entire oral and

documentary evidence and rightly come to a conclusion that accused is guilty of the offence 16(1)(a)(i)(ii) & 2(ia)(b) & (m) of Prevention of Food

Adulteration Act r/w 29 of Food Adulteration rules. There are no warranting circumstances to interfere with the Judgment. The Learned

Magistrate imposed minimum sentence of 6 months and fine of Rs.1,000/-.

So there are no grounds to interfere with the sentence. Accordingly this point is answered.

37.In the result appeal fails and therefore dismissed confirming the conviction and sentence passed in C.C.248/06 on the file of III Additional

Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Visakhapatnam at Gajuwaka.

Dictated to Personal Assistant directly on computer, corrected and

pronounced by me in the Open court on this the 21st day of March’ 2012.

Sd/- Sri. R.

Pundareekakshudu,

VIII ADDL.DIST.& SESSIONS JUDGE

(FTC) Visakhapatnam at Gajuwaka.

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

NIL

Sd/- Sri. R.

Pundareekakshudu,

VIII ADDL.DIST.& SESSIONS JUDGE

(FTC) Visakhapatnam at Gajuwaka.

14 // TRUE COPY //

VIII ADJ, (FTC)

VSP at Gajuwaka.

1

IN THE HON’BLE COURT OF VIII ADDL.DIST. & SESSIONS JUDGE (FTC) Visakhapatnam, Gajuwaka.

PRESENT: SRI R.Pundareekakshudu, B.A., B.L.,L.L.M.,

VIII ADDL.DIST.JUDGE

(FTC) Visakhapatnam, Gajuwaka.

MOP No.1033 / 2010

Saturday, the 24 th day of March’ 2012

Between:

Pilaka Srinivasa Reddy, S/o Narasinga Rao, Hindu, aged 34 years, residing at D.No.66-1-12/A, Pilakavanipalem, Sriharipuram, Visakhapatnam.

… Petitioner And:

1.Bhavani Mahila Dwucua Swayam Sahayaka SGM, rep by T. Ratnam, President, residing at D.No.14-41-17, Goddivanipalem,Pedagantyada,Gajuwaka, Visakhapatnam.

2.The Divisional Manager, National Insurance company Limited,DivisionalOffice-2,Dwarakanagar, Visakhapatnam.

…Respondents

This MOP is coming on 15.03.2012 for final hearing before me in the presence of Sri P. Ramesh Kumar, Advocate for the Petitioner and of

Smt. T.V.R. Rajya Lakshmi, Advocate for the Respondent No.2, and R1 having been remained exparte and the same having stood consideration over this day, this court delivered the following :

O R D E R

1. This petition is filed by the petitioner under sec.166 of the Motor

Vehicles Act R/W.455 of the A.P.M.V. Rules for grant of compensation of Rs.1,00,000/- with regard to the injuries sustained 2 by him in the motor accident taken place on 25.05.2010 at 14.30 hrs near Kailasagiri Steps, Venkojipalem, Visakhapatnam.

2. The case of the Petitioner is that the petitioner is a permanent resident of Pilakavanipalem Sriharipuram. The petitioner is a labourer. The petitioner was hale and healthy prior to the accident.

On 25.05.2010 at about 14.30 hrs the petitioner along with his father as a pillion rider proceeding on a motor cycle AP 31 L 2259 from

Hanumanthavaka towards Maddilapalem side, when they reached near Kailasagiri steps, Venkojipalem, one Van bearing No. AP 31 TT 4180 which was driven by its driver in a rash and negligent manner at high speed without following traffic rules coming from backside dashed the petitioner's motorcycle. As a result, petitioner fell down on the road and sustained grievous injury on his right hand and his right hand was fractured. The petitioner immediately shifted to Krishi

Hospital for treatment. The petitioner spent Rs.20,000/- towards medicines. The SHO, III Town Traffic P.S registered the case in Cr.No.

117/2010 under section 338 & 337 IPC and filed charge sheet against the driver of the van. The petitioner was bedridden for two months and unable to attend duties. The petitioner became permanently disabled. The petitioner suffered pain and mental agony. The 1st respondent is the owner of Van AP 31 TT 4180 and 2nd respondent is Insurer. Both of them liable to pay compensation.

3. The 1st Respondent set ex-parte.

4. The 2nd Respondent filed counter. The brief averments in the counter of the 2nd Respondent are that 2nd Respondent-Insurance

Company denied all the allegations in the petition. The burden is 3 on the petitioner to prove the age and income of the petitioner.

There is no negligence on the part of driver of the crime vehicle.

The claim of Rs.1,00,000/- compensation is baseless, vague and hypothetic. The petitioner has to prove the driver of the Van has got valid and subsisting driving license at the time of accident. The driver of the Van is not having valid driving license. The respondent seeks protection under section 147, 149, 149 (2) & 170 of M.V. Act.

As per section 158 of M.V. Act the police has to forward the information about the accident within 30 days to the claims tribunal and Insurance Company. The Respondent is not liable to pay compensation.

5. As seen from the docket, the following issues are settled for trial.

(1)Whether the petitioner sustained injuries in the motor accident occurred on 25.05.2010 due to rash and negligent driving of the Van bearing No. AP 31 TT 4180 by its driver?

(2)Whether the petitioner is entitled to compensation, If so, to what amount and from which of the respondents?

(3)To what relief?

6. To prove the case of the petitioner, petitioner himself examined as

PW.1, Ex. A1 to A5 marked. RW.1 & RW.2 examined, Ex.B1 to B4 and

Ex.X1 to X3 marked on behalf of the 2nd respondent.

7. Heard. Both sides filed written arguments.

8. ISSUE NO.1:The case of the petitioner is that on 25.05.2010 at 14.30 hrs petitioner along with his father as a pillion rider were proceeding on the motorcycle AP 31 L 2259 from Hanumanthavaka to

Maddilapalem, after passing Kailasagiri steps, Venkojipalem the 4 driver of Van AP 31 TT 4180 came in the same direction in a rash and negligent manner with high speed without blowing horn dashed the motorcycle. As a result petitioner sustained grievous injuries and he was shifted to Krishi Hospital for treatment. The further case of the petitioner is that III Town Traffic Police registered

Cr.No. 117/10 against the driver of the vehicle.

9. PW.1 who is the petitioner in his evidence stated all the facts about the accident. PW.1 filed Ex.A1 to A5 documents. Ex.A1 is the FIR in

Cr. No. 117/10 on the file of III Town Traffic Police Station under section 338 IPC. Ex.A2 is the charge sheet. Ex.A3 is the MVI report.

Ex. A4 is the wound certificate. Ex.A5 is the medical bills. Ex.A2 charge sheet shows that police already registered the Cr.No.

117/10 against V. Kanaka Raju, driver of Van AP 31 TT 4180. MVI report Ex.A3 shows that the accident is not due to any mechanical defects of the vehicle. Ex.A4 wound certificate shows that petitioner had got grievous injuries.

10.The 2nd Respondent - Insurance Company in the counter denied the accident. RW.1 who is the Divisional Manager of the Insurance

Company is not a witness to the accident. So the evidence of RW.2 is not relevant with regard to the accident. RW.2 is the Junior

Assistant in RTA Office. The evidence of RW.2 is not relevant with regard to the accident. The mere denial by Insurance Company without any evidence is of no use. So the evidence of PW.1 with regard to the accident is unchallenged. So the evidence of PW.1 coupled with documents clearly established that driver of the vehicle V. Kanaka Raju was negligent at the time of accident. The 5 petitioner and his father who were proceeding on the motorcycle received injuries. Accordingly this point is answered.

11. ISSUE NO. 2:R2 in the counter specifically pleaded that driver of the

Van did not possess valid and subsisting driving license. R2 further pleaded that the fitness certificate of the van was expired by 30.04.2010 and there is a violation of policy conditions. The plea of the petitioner is that the crime vehicle was insured by the date of accident, both the respondents are liable to pay compensation. R1 is the owner of the vehicle and R2 is the Insurer.

12.RW.1 who is the Divisional Manager of the Company in his evidence clearly stated that the crime vehicle is a medium goods vehicle and driver has got only license to driver light motor vehicle.

RW.1 further stated that the fitness certificate of the vehicle was expired by 30.04.2010. RW.2 who is the Junior Assistant in the RTA

Office in his evidence stated that driver Kanaka Raju had got LMV

Transport license and he has no license to drive medium vehicles.

Ex.X1 is the B register of the vehicle AP 31 TT 4180. Ex.X1 shows that the vehicle weight about 8720 Kgs which is classified as medium goods carriage vehicle. Ex.X2 is the driving license of V.Kanaka

Raju. Ex.X2 shows that Kanaka Raju has got LMV Transport license.

Ex.X3 is the authorization given to RW.2 to give evidence. EX.B1 is the Insurance Policy. As per Ex.B1 Insurance Policy, the vehicle AP 31 TT 4180 is insured with R2 and the insurance policy was in force from 17.07.2009 to 16.07.2010. The date of accident is 25.05.2010.

so by the date date of accident the insurance policy was in force.

6

13.As per condition in the Ex.B1 the driver must have valid and effective driving license to drive the vehicle. Ex.B2 is the driving license of the driver V. Kanaka Raju. Ex.X2 & B2 are one the same documents. Ex.B3 is the "C" certificate. Ex.B4 is the Form-24 B

Register. As per Ex.B4 the fitness certificate is valid from 01.05.2009 to 30.04.2010. The fitness certificate was renewed from 13.08.2010 to 12.08.2011. So by the date of accident the fitness certificate was not in force.

14. R2 Counsel contended that driver had no valid license and the vehicle had no fitness certificate and there is a violation of policy conditions and R2 is not liable to pay compensation. The Counsel cited decision reported in 2008 ACJ 2144 "National Insurance Co.,

Ltd. Vs Kaushalya Devi and others" In this decision our Hon'ble

Supreme Court held that the driver has got only license to drive light transport vehicle and he drove truck which is heavy goods vehicle.

Our Hon'ble Supreme Court further held that Insurance Company is not liable to pay compensation.

15. The Petitioner's Counsel contention is that the driver had got valid driving license and light motor vehicle means which covers both passenger vehicle and goods vehicle. The Counsel cited decision reported in 2008 ACJ 72 "National Insurance Co., Ltd. Vs Annappa

Irappa Nesaria and others". As seen from the facts in the decision the driver of the vehicle had got license to drive light motor vehicles. The crime vehicle has unladen weight of 3500 Kgs. As per section 2(21) light motor vehicle has unladen weight of less than 7500 Kgs. The Hon'ble Supreme Court held that crime vehicle is a 7 light motor vehicle and insurance company is liable to pay compensation. The above decision has no application to the present facts of the case. In the present case the weight of the vehicle is 8720 Kgs which is a medium vehicle. Section 2 (21) defines light motor vehicle. Light motor vehicle means transport vehicle or omni bus, the gross vehicle weight of either of which or a motor car or tractor or road roller the unladen weight of any of which, does not exceed 7500 Kgs. Section 2 (23) defines medium vehicle.

Medium vehicle means any goods carriage other than light motor vehicle or a heavy goods vehicle. Section 2 (16) defines heavy goods vehicle. Heavy Goods vehicle means any goods carriage the gross vehicle weight of which, or a tractor or a road roller the unladen weight of either of which, exceeds 12000 Kgs.

16.As seen from the definitions of light motor vehicle, medium goods vehicle and heavy goods vehicle, if a vehicle unladen weight is less than 7500 kgs it is a light motor vehicle, if a vehicle above 7500 Kgs and less than 12000 Kgs unladen weight it is a medium goods vehicle, If a vehicle unladen weight is more than 12000 Kgs it is heavy goods vehicle. So in the present case the vehicle unladen weight is 8720 Kgs which is a medium goods vehicle. The driver had only a license to drive light motor vehicles. So the driver had no valid license to drive medium goods vehicle. So there is a violation of policy conditions by the 1st respondent who entrusted vehicle to the driver V. Kanaka Raju. The 1st respondent violated the condition in the policy. So the 2nd Respondent insurance company is entitled to raise objection to avoid liability as there was a breach 8 of policy conditions. So R2 insurance company is not liable to pay compensation.

17. The Counsel cited another decision reported in 2006 ACJ 1336 "National Insurance Co., Ltd., Vs Kusum Rai and others". In this decision our Hon'ble Supreme Court held that the driver must possess the valid driving license to drive commercial vehicle and the driver had got license only to drive light motor vehicles. The

Hon'ble Supreme Court further held that the Insurance Company is

not liable. This decision supports the plea of the Insurance

Company but not the plea of the petitioner.

18. The Counsel cited another decision reported in 2009(6) L.C. ACR

Supreme Court 24 "Oriental Insurance Co., Ltd Vs Zaharulnisha &

Others". In this decision also the Hon'ble Supreme Court held that when there is no valid driving license which is a ground to avoid liability. The Hon'ble Supreme Court directed the Insurance

Company to pay the amount and recover from the owner.

19. The Counsel cited another decision reported in 2010 (3) ALD 447

"Oriental Insurance Co., Ltd., Secunderabad Vs Ravi Vishnu and

another". In this decision our Hon'ble High Court held that Insurance

Company raised a plea that driver has got fake driving license and

Insurance Company failed to take steps to examine the owner and prove the plea. Under such circumstances our High Court held that

Insurance Company is liable. This decision has no application to the present facts of the case.

20. The Counsel cited decision reported in III (2009) ACC 579 (DB) "P.T.

Moidu Vs Oriental Insurance Co., Ltd and Others". In this decision 9 the Hon'ble Kerala High Court held that absence of badge in driving commercial vehicles will attract penal consequences but it is not a ground to deny the liability. Kerala High Court further held that the driver had got valid driving license and the jeep has got taxi permit and owner used the jeep for private purpose. Hon'ble

High Court further held that the Insurance Company is liable to pay compensation. This decision has no application to the present facts of the case. The crime vehicle is a medium goods vehicle. There was no fitness at the time of accident. The driver had got only light motor transport license. So the driver had no valid license and R2 is not liable. R1 is the owner who remained ex-parte and R1 is liable to pay compensation.

21.I shall now consider the quantum of compensation entitled by the petitioner. The petitioner claimed compensation of Rs.1,00,000/-.

22. TRANSPORT CHARGES:The petitioner claimed Rs.5,000/- towards transport charges. After the accident petitioner was admitted in

Krishi Hospital for treatment. The petitioner did not produce any document towards transport charges. So in my view Rs.1,000/- is reasonable compensation towards transport charges. Accordingly an amount of Rs.1,000/- is awarded.

23. EXTRA NOURISHMENT AND FOOD:The petitioner claimed

Rs.5,000/- towards extra nourishment and food. The petitioner did not produce any document towards extra nourishment and food.

There is one fracture injury to the right hand of the petitioner. The petitioner might have incurred some expenditure towards extra nourishment and food to heal up the injury. In my view Rs,4,000.00 is 10 the reasonable compensation towards extra nourishment and food.

Accordingly an amount of Rs.4,000/- is awarded under this head.

24. MEDICAL EXPENSES:Thepetitionerclaimed Rs.20,000/- towards medical expenses. The petitioner produced Ex.A5 medical bills worth Rs.5,459.00. The Medical bills are rounded to Rs.5,500/-.

The petitioner did not produce any other medical bills. So in my view Rs.5,500/- has to be awarded under this head. Accordingly an amount of Rs.5,500/- is awarded.

25.PAIN AND SUFFERANCE: The petitioner claimed Rs.20,000/- towards pain and sufferance. There is one fracture injury to the petitioner.

Petitioner suffered a lot out of pain and injury. In my view

Rs.15,000/- is the reasonable compensation under this head. So an amount of Rs.15,000/- is awarded under this head.

26. PERMANENT DISABILITY: The petitioner claimed Rs.50,000/- towards permanent disability. There is no permanent disability to the petitioner. There is no disability certificate. So the claim under this head cannot be considered.

27. Therefore, the Petitioner in total is entitled a sum of Rs.25,500/- (Rs.10,500/- + Rs.15,000/-) towards compensation with interest @ 6% p.a., from the date of claim petition till the date of deposit.

28. In the result, the petition is allowed in part against R1 with costs awarding compensation of Rs.25,500/- (Rupees Twenty Five

Thousand and Five Hundred only) together with simple interest @ 6% p.a., from the date of claim petition till the date of deposit. The 1st

Respondent is directed to deposit the compensation amount within 30 days from the date of this order. On making such deposit, the 11 petitioner is permitted to withdraw the entire amount. The copy of the award shall be made ready for delivery to both parties within 15 days from the date of order. The petition against R2 is dismissed without costs.

Dictated to Personal Assistant directly on computer, corrected and

pronounced by me in the open court on this the 24th day of March’ 2012.

VIII ADDL.DIST. JUDGE

Cum Addl.Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal (FTC) Visakhapatnam, Gajuwaka.

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

No. of witnesses examined for the Petitioners:

PW.1:P. Srinivasa Reddy

No. of witnesses examined for the Respondents:

RW.1:P.S. Chakravarthy

RW.2:U. Veerabhadra Rao

No. of documents marked for the Petitioner:

Ex.A1 is the certified copy of FIR in crime no.117/2010 of III Town Traffic P.S.,

Ex.A2 is the certified copy of the Charge Sheet

Ex.A3 is the certified copy of MVI Report

Ex.A4 is the certified copy of wound certificate

Ex.A5 is the Medical Bills worth Rs.5,459/-

No. of documents marked for the Respondents:

Ex.B1 is the attested copy of the policy

Ex.B2 is the attested copy of the driving license 12

Ex.B3 is the copy of “C” Book

Ex.B4 is the attested copy of the “B” Extract

Ex.X1 is the Certified copy of the “B” Register

Ex.X2 is the driving license of V. Kanaka Raju.

Ex.X3 is the authorization given to RW.2

VIII ADDL.DIST. JUDGE

Cum Addl.Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal (FTC) Visakhapatnam, Gajuwaka.

1

IN THE HON’BLE COURT OF VIII ADDL.DIST. & SESSIONS JUDGE (FTC) Visakhapatnam, Gajuwaka.

PRESENT: SRI R.Pundareekakshudu, B.A., B.L.,L.L.M.,

VIII ADDL.DIST.JUDGE

(FTC) Visakhapatnam, Gajuwaka.

MOP No.1037 / 2010

Saturday, the 24 th day of March’ 2012

Between:

Pilaka Narasinga Rao, S/o late Appa Rao, Hindu, aged 54 years, residing at D.No.66-1-12/A, Pilakavanipalem, Sriharipuram, Visakhapatnam.

… Petitioner And:

1.Bhavani Mahila Dwucua Swayam Sahayaka SGM, rep by T. Ratnam, President, residing at D.No.14-41-17, Goddivanipalem,Pedagantyada,Gajuwaka, Visakhapatnam.

2.The Divisional Manager, National Insurance company Limited,DivisionalOffice-2,Dwarakanagar, Visakhapatnam.

…Respondents

This MOP is coming on 15.03.2012 for final hearing before me in the presence of Sri P. Ramesh Kumar, Advocate for the Petitioner and of

Smt. T.V.R. Rajya Lakshmi, Advocate for the Respondent No.2, and R1 having been remained exparte and the same having stood consideration over this day, this court delivered the following :

O R D E R

1. This petition is filed by the petitioner under sec.166 of the Motor

Vehicles Act R/W.455 of the A.P.M.V. Rules for grant of compensation of Rs.50,000/- with regard to the injuries sustained by 2 him in the motor accident taken place on 25.05.2010 at 14.30 hrs near Kailasagiri Steps, Venkojipalem, Visakhapatnam.

2. The case of the Petitioner is that the petitioner is a permanent resident of Pilakavanipalem Sriharipuram. The petitioner was hale and healthy prior to the accident. On 25.05.2010 at about 14.30 hrs the petitioner along with his son as a pillion rider proceeding on a motor cycle AP 31 L 2259 from Hanumanthavaka towards

Maddilapalem side, when they reached near Kailasagiri steps,

Venkojipalem, one Van bearing No. AP 31 TT 4180 which was driven by its driver in a rash and negligent manner at high speed without following traffic rules coming from backside dashed the petitioner's motorcycle. As a result, petitioner fell down on the road and sustained simple injuries on his right leg and body. The petitioner immediately shifted to INHS Kalyani Hospital for treatment. The petitioner spent Rs.20,000/- towards medicines. The SHO, III Town

Traffic P.S registered the case in Cr.No. 117/2010 under section 338 & 337 IPC and filed charge sheet against the driver of the van. The petitioner suffered pain and mental agony. The 1st respondent is the owner of Van AP 31 TT 4180 and 2nd respondent is Insurer. Both of them liable to pay compensation.

3. The 1st Respondent set ex-parte.

4. The 2nd Respondent filed counter. The brief averments in the counter of the 2nd Respondent are that 2nd Respondent-Insurance

Company denied all the allegations in the petition. The burden is on the petitioner to prove the age and income of the petitioner.

There is no negligence on the part of driver of the crime vehicle.

3

The claim of Rs.50,000/- compensation is baseless, vague and hypothetic. The petitioner has to prove the driver of the Van has got valid and subsisting driving license at the time of accident. The driver of the Van is not having valid driving license. The respondent seeks protection under section 147, 149, 149 (2) & 170 of M.V. Act.

As per section 158 of M.V. Act the police has to forward the information about the accident within 30 days to the claims tribunal and Insurance Company. The Respondent is not liable to pay compensation.

5. As seen from the docket, the following issues are settled for trial.

(1)Whether the petitioner sustained injuries in the motor accident occurred on 25.05.2010 due to rash and negligent driving of the Van bearing No. AP 31 TT 4180 by its driver?

(2)Whether the petitioner is entitled to compensation, If so, to what amount and from which of the respondents?

(3)To what relief?

6. To prove the case of the petitioner, petitioner himself examined as

PW.1, Ex. A1 to A5 marked. RW.1 & RW.2 examined, Ex.B1 to B4 and

Ex.X1 to X3 marked on behalf of the 2nd respondent.

7. Heard. Both parties filed written arguments.

8. ISSUE NO.1:The case of the petitioner is that on 25.05.2010 at 14.30 hrs petitioner along with his son as a pillion rider were proceeding on the motorcycle AP 31 L 2259 from Hanumanthavaka to

Maddilapalem, after passing Kailasagiri steps, Venkojipalem the driver of Van AP 31 TT 4180 came in the same direction in a rash and negligent manner with high speed without blowing horn 4 dashed the motorcycle. As a result petitioner sustained grievous injuries and he was shifted to INHS Kalyani Hospital for treatment.

The further case of the petitioner is that III Town Traffic Police registered Cr.No. 117/10 against the driver of the vehicle.

9. PW.1 who is the petitioner in his evidence stated all the facts about the accident. PW.1 filed Ex.A1 to A5 documents. Ex.A1 is the FIR in

Cr. No. 117/10 on the file of III Town Traffic Police Station under section 338 IPC. Ex.A2 is the charge sheet. Ex.A3 is the MVI report.

Ex. A4 is the wound certificate. Ex.A5 is the medical bills. Ex.A2 charge sheet shows that police already registered the Cr.No.

117/10 against V. Kanaka Raju, driver of Van AP 31 TT 4180. MVI report Ex.A3 shows that the accident is not due to any mechanical defects of the vehicle. Ex.A4 wound certificate shows that petitioner had got simple injuries.

10.The 2nd Respondent - Insurance Company in the counter denied the accident. RW.1 who is the Divisional Manager of the Insurance

Company is not a witness to the accident. So the evidence of RW.2 is not relevant with regard to the accident. RW.2 is the Junior

Assistant in RTA Office. The evidence of RW.2 is not relevant with regard to the accident. The mere denial by Insurance Company without any evidence is of no use. So the evidence of PW.1 with regard to the accident is unchallenged. So the evidence of PW.1 coupled with documents clearly established that driver of the vehicle V. Kanaka Raju was negligent at the time of accident. The petitioner and his son who were proceeding on the motorcycle received injuries. Accordingly this point is answered.

5

11. ISSUE NO. 2:R2 in the counter specifically pleaded that driver of the

Van did not possess valid and subsisting driving license. R2 further pleaded that the fitness certificate of the van was expired by 30.04.2010 and there is a violation of policy conditions. The plea of the petitioner is that the crime vehicle was insured by the date of accident, both the respondents are liable to pay compensation. R1 is the owner of the vehicle and R2 is the Insurer.

12.RW.1 who is the Divisional Manager of the Company in his evidence clearly stated that the crime vehicle is a medium goods vehicle and driver has got only license to driver light motor vehicle.

RW.1 further stated that the fitness certificate of the vehicle was expired by 30.04.2010. RW.2 who is the Junior Assistant in the RTA

Office in his evidence stated that driver Kanaka Raju had got LMV

Transport license and he has no license to drive medium vehicles.

Ex.X1 is the B register of the vehicle AP 31 TT 4180. Ex.X1 shows that the vehicle weight about 8720 Kgs which is classified as medium goods carriage vehicle. Ex.X2 is the driving license of V.Kanaka

Raju. Ex.X2 shows that Kanaka Raju has got LMV Transport license.

Ex.X3 is the authorization given to RW.2 to give evidence. EX.B1 is the Insurance Policy. As per Ex.B1 Insurance Policy, the vehicle AP 31 TT 4180 is insured with R2 and the insurance policy was in force from 17.07.2009 to 16.07.2010. The date of accident is 25.05.2010.

so by the date date of accident the insurance policy was in force.

13.As per condition in the Ex.B1 the driver must have valid and effective driving license to drive the vehicle. Ex.B2 is the driving license of the driver V. Kanaka Raju. Ex.X2 & B2 are one the same 6 documents. Ex.B3 is the "C" certificate. Ex.B4 is the Form-24 B

Register. As per Ex.B4 the fitness certificate is valid from 01.05.2009 to 30.04.2010. The fitness certificate was renewed from 13.08.2010 to 12.08.2011. So by the date of accident the fitness certificate was not in force.

14. R2 Counsel contended that driver had no valid license and the vehicle had no fitness certificate and there is a violation of policy conditions and R2 is not liable to pay compensation. The Counsel cited decision reported in 2008 ACJ 2144 "National Insurance Co.,

Ltd. Vs Kaushalya Devi and others" In this decision our Hon'ble

Supreme Court held that the driver has got only license to drive light transport vehicle and he drove truck which is heavy goods vehicle.

Our Hon'ble Supreme Court further held that Insurance Company is not liable to pay compensation.

15. The Petitioner's Counsel contention is that the driver had got valid driving license and light motor vehicle means which covers both passenger vehicle and goods vehicle. The Counsel cited decision reported in 2008 ACJ 72 "National Insurance Co., Ltd. Vs Annappa

Irappa Nesaria and others". As seen from the facts in the decision the driver of the vehicle had got license to drive light motor vehicles. The crime vehicle has unladen weight of 3500 Kgs. As per section 2(21) light motor vehicle has unladen weight of less than 7500 Kgs. The Hon'ble Supreme Court held that crime vehicle is a light motor vehicle and insurance company is liable to pay compensation. The above decision has no application to the present facts of the case. In the present case the weight of the 7 vehicle is 8720 Kgs which is a medium vehicle. Section 2 (21) defines light motor vehicle. Light motor vehicle means transport vehicle or omni bus, the gross vehicle weight of either of which or a motor car or tractor or road roller the unladen weight of any of which, does not exceed 7500 Kgs. Section 2 (23) defines medium vehicle.

Medium vehicle means any goods carriage other than light motor vehicle or a heavy goods vehicle. Section 2 (16) defines heavy goods vehicle. Heavy Goods vehicle means any goods carriage the gross vehicle weight of which, or a tractor or a road roller the unladen weight of either of which, exceeds 12000 Kgs.

16.As seen from the definitions of light motor vehicle, medium goods vehicle and heavy goods vehicle, if a vehicle unladen weight is less than 7500 kgs it is a light motor vehicle, if a vehicle above 7500 Kgs and less than 12000 Kgs unladen weight it is a medium goods vehicle, If a vehicle unladen weight is more than 12000 Kgs it is heavy goods vehicle. So in the present case the vehicle unladen weight is 8720 Kgs which is a medium goods vehicle. The driver had only a license to drive light motor vehicles. So the driver had no valid license to drive medium goods vehicle. So there is a violation of policy conditions by the 1st respondent who entrusted vehicle to the driver V. Kanaka Raju. The 1st respondent violated the condition in the policy. So the 2nd Respondent insurance company is entitled to raise objection to avoid liability as there was a breach of policy conditions. So R2 insurance company is not liable to pay compensation.

8

17. The Counsel cited another decision reported in 2006 ACJ 1336 "National Insurance Co., Ltd., Vs Kusum Rai and others". In this decision our Hon'ble Supreme Court held that the driver must possess the valid driving license to drive commercial vehicle and the driver had got license only to drive light motor vehicles. The

Hon'ble Supreme Court further held that the Insurance Company is

not liable. This decision supports the plea of the Insurance

Company but not the plea of the petitioner.

18. The Counsel cited another decision reported in 2009(6) L.C. ACR

Supreme Court 24 "Oriental Insurance Co., Ltd Vs Zaharulnisha &

Others". In this decision also the Hon'ble Supreme Court held that when there is no valid driving license which is a ground to avoid liability. The Hon'ble Supreme Court directed the Insurance

Company to pay the amount and recover from the owner.

19. The Counsel cited another decision reported in 2010 (3) ALD 447

"Oriental Insurance Co., Ltd., Secunderabad Vs Ravi Vishnu and

another". In this decision our Hon'ble High Court held that Insurance

Company raised a plea that driver has got fake driving license and

Insurance Company failed to take steps to examine the owner and prove the plea. Under such circumstances our High Court held that

Insurance Company is liable. This decision has no application to the present facts of the case.

20. The Counsel cited decision reported in III (2009) ACC 579 (DB) "P.T.

Moidu Vs Oriental Insurance Co., Ltd and Others". In this decision the Hon'ble Kerala High Court held that absence of badge in driving commercial vehicles will attract penal consequences but it 9 is not a ground to deny the liability. Kerala High Court further held that the driver had got valid driving license and the jeep has got taxi permit and owner used the jeep for private purpose. Hon'ble

High Court further held that the Insurance Company is liable to pay compensation. This decision has no application to the present facts of the case. The crime vehicle is a medium goods vehicle. There was no fitness at the time of accident. The driver had got only light motor transport license. So the driver had no valid license and R2 is not liable. R1 is the owner who remained ex-parte and R1 is liable to pay compensation.

21.I shall now consider the quantum of compensation entitled by the petitioner. The petitioner claimed compensation of Rs.50,000/-.

22. TRANSPORT CHARGES:The petitioner claimed Rs.5,000/- towards transport charges. After the accident petitioner was admitted in

INHS Kalyani Hospital for treatment. The petitioner did not produce any document towards transport charges. So in my view Rs.1,000/- is reasonable amount towards transport charges. Accordingly an amount of Rs.1,000/- is awarded.

23. EXTRA NOURISHMENT AND FOOD:The petitioner claimed

Rs.5,000/- towards extra nourishment and food. The petitioner did not produce any document towards extra nourishment and food.

There is four simple injuries to the petitioner. The petitioner might have incurred some expenditure towards extra nourishment and food to heal up the injury. In my view Rs.3,000.00 is the reasonable compensation towards extra nourishment and food. Accordingly an amount of Rs.3,000/- is awarded under this head.

10

24. MEDICAL EXPENSES:Thepetitionerclaimed Rs.20,000/- towards medical expenses. The petitioner produced medical bills under Ex.A5 worth Rs.2,683.00. The Medical bills are rounded to

Rs.2,700/-. The petitioner did not produce any other medical bills.

So in my view Rs.2,700/- has to be awarded under this head.

Accordingly an amount of Rs.2,700/- is awarded.

25.PAIN AND SUFFERANCE: The petitioner claimed Rs.10,000/- towards pain and sufferance. There are four simple injuries to the petitioner.

Petitioner suffered a lot out of pain and injury. In my view

Rs.10,000/- is the reasonable compensation under this head. So an amount of Rs.10,000/- is awarded under this head.

26. PERMANENT DISABILITY: The petitioner claimed Rs.10,000/- towards permanent disability. There is no permanent disability to the petitioner. There is no disability certificate. So the claim under this head cannot be considered.

27. Therefore, the Petitioner in total is entitled a sum of Rs.16,700/- (Rs.6,700/- + Rs.10,000/-) towards compensation with interest @ 6% p.a., from the date of claim petition till the date of deposit.

28. In the result, the petition is allowed in part with costs against R1 awarding compensation of Rs.16,700/- (Rupees Sixteen Thousand and Seven Hundred only) together with simple interest @ 6% p.a., from the date of claim petition till the date of deposit. The 1st

Respondent is directed to deposit the compensation amount within 30 days from the date of this order. On making such deposit, the petitioner is permitted to withdraw the entire amount. The copy of the award shall be made ready for delivery to both parties within 15 11 days from the date of order. The petition against R2 is dismissed without costs.

Dictated to Personal Assistant directly on computer, corrected and

pronounced by me in the open court on this the 24th day of March’ 2012.

VIII ADDL.DIST. JUDGE

Cum Addl.Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal (FTC) Visakhapatnam, Gajuwaka.

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

No. of witnesses examined for the Petitioners:

PW.1:P. Narasinga Rao

No. of witnesses examined for the Respondents:

RW.1:P.S. Chakravarthy

RW.2:U. Veerabhadra Rao

No. of documents marked for the Petitioner:

Ex.A1 is the certified copy of FIR in Crime No.117/2010 of III Town Traffic P.S.,

Ex.A2 is the certified copy of the Charge Sheet

Ex.A3 is the certified copy of MVI Report

Ex.A4 is the certified copy of wound certificate

Ex.A5 is the Medical Bills worth Rs.2,683/-

No. of documents marked for the Respondents:

Ex.B1 is the attested copy of the policy

Ex.B2 is the attested copy of the driving license extract

Ex.B3 is the copy of “C” Book 12

Ex.B4 is the attested copy of the “B” Extract

Ex.X1 is the Certified copy of the “B” Register

Ex.X2 is the driving license of V. Kanaka Raju.

Ex.X3 is the authorization given to RW.2.

VIII ADDL.DIST. JUDGE

Cum Addl.Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal (FTC) Visakhapatnam, Gajuwaka.

1 MOP 1513/2010

IN THE HON’BLE COURT OF VIII ADDL.DIST. & SESSIONS JUDGE (FTC) Visakhapatnam, Gajuwaka.

PRESENT: SRI R.Pundareekakshudu, B.A., B.L.,L.L.M.,

VIII ADDL.DIST.JUDGE

(FTC) Visakhapatnam, Gajuwaka.

MOP No.1513 / 2010

Tuesday, the 20 th day of March’ 2012

Between:

Sri. Lenka Appala Patrudu, S/o late Simhachalam, Hindu, aged 50 years, Lorry cleaner, residing at D.No.6-08-14, Driver’s Colony, Old Gajuwaka, Visakhapatnam. … Petitioner And:

1.Smt. G. Vasanthi, W/o G. Trimurthulu, Hindu, aged not known, owner of lorry bearing No. AP 31 TT 4313, R/o Plot no. III, Ganesh Nagar, Visakhapatnam.

2.M/s National Insurance company Limited, Represented by its Divisional Manager, D.O. II, Dwarakanagar, Seethammapeta Road,Visakhapatnam.

…Respondents

This MOP is coming on 16.03.2012 for final hearing before me in the presence of Sri. G. Appa Rao, Advocate for the Petitioner and of Smt.

U. Panchali, Advocate for the Respondent No.2, and R1 having been remained exparte and the same having stood consideration over this day, this court delivered the following :

O R D E R

1. This petition is filed by the petitioner under sec.166 of the Motor

Vehicles Act R/W.455 of the A.P.M.V. Rules for grant of compensation of Rs.1,00,000/- with regard to the injuries sustained by him in the motor accident taken place on 26.07.2007 at 11.00 hrs near B.C. Gate, Inside Steel Plant, Visakhapatnam.

2 MOP 1513/2010

2. The case of the Petitioner is that petitioner is a resident of Driver’s

Colony, Old Gajuwaka. The petitioner was working as a cleaner in crime lorry bearing No. AP 31 TT 4313 and he used to draw salary of

Rs.6,000/- per month. On 26.07.2007 the petitioner attended his duty and sat in his cleaner seat which was situated at left side of the lorry, at about 11.00 hrs when the lorry reached near B.C. gate,

Inside Steel Plant, Gajuwaka the driver drove the lorry in a rash and negligent manner at high speed without following traffic rules and suddenly he turned the lorry right side in the meantime the left door was fell down on the road resulting the petitioner fell down on the road and sustained multiple grievous injuries. Immediately after accident he was shifted to K.G.H. for treatment. He took treatment as in-patient for a period of 10 days and still he is taking treatment as out-patient. He spent Rs.30,000/ towards medicines and extra nourishment. The SHO, Steel Plant P.S. registered the case in Cr.No.

187/2007 under section 338 IPC against the driver of 1st respondent.

The petitioner is aged about 50 years. Due to the accident he sustained fracture of right femur and multiple injuries all over the body and he is confined to bed. He is leading miserable life without any salary. The 1st respondent is the owner of the offending lorry and 2nd respondent is the insurer of the crime vehicle, both are jointly and severally liable to pay the compensation.

3. The 1st Respondent set ex-parte.

4. The 2nd Respondent filed counter. The brief averments in the counter of the 2nd Respondent are that 2nd Respondent-Insurance

Company denied all the allegations in the petition. The claim of 3 MOP 1513/2010 compensation is very high. The respondent seeks protection under section 147, 149 and section 170 of M.V. Act. The respondent seeks further protection of section 64 of Insurance Act. The respondent is not liable to pay compensation until it is proved that the person who drove the vehicle had a valid driving license at the time of accident. As per section 158 of M.V. Act, the officer-in-charge of police station has to forward copy of the FIR to the Insurer within 30 days.

5. As seen from the docket, the following issues are settled for trial.

(1)Whether the petitioner sustained injuries in the motor accident occurred due to rash and negligent driving of the vehicle bearing No. AP 31 TT 4313 (Lorry) driven by its driver?

(2)Whether the petitioner is entitled to compensation, If so, to what amount and from which of the respondents?

(3)To what relief?

6. To prove the case of the petitioner, petitioner himself examined as

PW.1, PW.2 examined, Ex. A1 to A10 and Ex.X1 marked. The 2nd respondent did not adduce any oral evidence. The case is posted to 06.02.2012 for the evidence of 2nd respondent. From 06.02.2012 the case is adjourned to 10.02.2012, from 10.02.2012 the case is adjourned to 15.02.2012. The 2nd respondent or the Counsel did not turn up and no representation was made. The evidence of 2nd respondent is closed. The case is posted to 17.02.2012 for arguments. From 17.02.2012 the case is adjourned to 21.02.2012, from 21.02.2012 the case is again posted to 12.03.2012, from 12.03.2012 the case is posted to 16.03.2012. On 16.03.2012 4 MOP 1513/2010 arguments of the petitioner Counsel heard. The 2nd respondent or the Counsel did not turn up. It is treated as no arguments on behalf of the 2nd respondent.

7. ISSUE NO.1:The case of the petitioner is that on 26.07.2007 at about 11.00 hrs he was doing duty as a cleaner in the lorry AP 31 TT 4313.

When the lorry reached near B.C. Gate, Inside steel plant, the driver of the lorry drove the lorry in a rash and negligent manner without following the traffic rules suddenly the lorry was turned and the left door of the lorry fell down as a result petitioner who was sitting on the left side fell down and received multiple injuries. The further case of the petitioner is he was taken to KGH for treatment and steel plant police registered Cr. No. 187/2007 against the driver of the lorry.

8. PW.1 who is the petitioner in his evidence stated all the facts which are pleaded in the petition. The petitioner filed Ex.A1 to A10 and

Ex.X1 documents. Ex.A1 is the FIR, Ex.A2 is the Wound Certificate,

Ex.A3 is the MVI report, Ex.A4 is the driving license, Ex.A5 is the insurance policy, Ex.A6 is the charge sheet, Ex.A7 is the Out-patient profile, Ex.A8 is the X-Rays, Ex.A9 is the medical bills, Ex.A10 is the photo of the petitioner, Ex.X1 is the case sheet. The MVI Report shows that the accident is not due to any mechanical defects of the vehicle. Ex.A6 charge sheet shows that already police filed case under section 338 IPC against the driver of the lorry. The petitioner is shown as LW.3 injured. The evidence of petitioner coupled with other documents established that driver of lorry by name Senapati Appa Rao was negligent at the time of accident, 5 MOP 1513/2010 petitioner received injuries in the accident. Accordingly issue no. 1 is answered.

9. ISSUE NO. 2:The date of accident is 26.07.2007. Ex.A5 insurance policy was issued by the 2nd respondent, the crime vehicle AP 31 TT 4313 was insured with 2nd respondent. The insurance policy was in force from 27.11.2006 to 26.11.2007. By the date of accident the crime vehicle was covered with insurance. I shall now consider the quantum of compensation entitled by the petitioner. The petitioner claimed special damages and general damages.

10. LOSS OF EARNINGS:The petitioner claimed Rs.40,000/- towards loss of earnings. Ex.A2 is the wound certificate. As per Ex.A2 PW.1 was admitted in the hospital on 26.07.2007 and discharged on 30.08.2007. As per the wound certificate, injury is on the right hip joint which is grievous injury. PW.2 is the medical officer in his evidence stated about the treatment to the petitioner and issuing of Ex.A2 certificate and Ex.X1 is the case sheet. The petitioner in the evidence did not state from which period to which period he was in the hospital. But the wound certificate shows that petitioner was in the hospital from 26.07.2007 to 30.08.2007. The petitioner in the petition stated that he is working as a cleaner under 1st respondent and earning Rs.6,000/- per month. There is no documentary evidence to show the earning of the petitioner. So the income of the petitioner is to be estimated hypothetically. The petitioner is only an unskilled labour. Now a days even a coolie is earning not less than Rs.100/- per day. By the year 2007 the income of the petitioner is estimated Rs.100/- per day. The monthly income of the 6 MOP 1513/2010 petitioner is Rs.3,000/-. After discharge from the hospital the petitioner might have suffered from the injuries for sometime in the house. The photograph under Ex.A10 shows that petitioner was bed ridden. So the loss of income of the petitioner is estimated for the period of four months. So the loss of income of the petitioner is

Rs.12,000/-. So an amount of Rs.12,000/- awarded under this head.

11. MEDICINES AND EXTRA NOURISHMENT:The petitioner claimed

Rs.20,000/- towards medicines and extra nourishment. The petitioner in the evidence stated that he spent Rs.50,000/- towards medicines and extra nourishment, whereas the petitioner in the petition stated that he spent Rs.30,000/- towards extra nourishment and medicines.

So the evidence of petitioner is contrary to the pleadings in the petition. Ex.A9 is the medical bills. Ex.A9 medical bills shows that petitioner incurred Rs.768.92 Ps towards medicines. The petitioner was treated in KGH for sometime and sometime in R.K. Hospital. The medical bills only for Rs.768.92Ps. So the expenditure on medical bills is rounded to Rs.800/-. The petitioner has not produced other documents to show the expenditure of medical bills. So an amount of Rs.800/- is awarded towards medical bills. The petitioner did not produce any bills towards extra nourishment. The petitioner might have incurred some expenditure towards extra nourishment. In my view Rs.5,000/- is the reasonable compensation towards extra nourishment. So an amount of Rs.5,800/- is awarded under this head.

12. PAIN AND SUFFERANCE: The petitioner claimed Rs.25,000/- towards pain and sufferance under general damages. The petitioner was in 7 MOP 1513/2010 the hospital from 26.07.2007 30.08.2007. After discharge from the hospital petitioner might have suffered sometime due to pain and suffering. In my view Rs.20,000/- is the reasonable compensation under this head. So an amount of Rs.20,000/- is awarded under this head.

13. LOSS OF EARNING POWER:The petitioner claimed Rs.15,000/- towards loss of earning power. There is no disability to the petitioner, the question of loss of earning power does not arise.

Already loss of earnings was granted under the first head. So the claim under this head cannot be considered and the same is disallowed.

14. Therefore, the Petitioner in total is entitled a sum of Rs.37,800/- towards compensation with interest @ 6% p.a., from the date of claim petition till the date of deposit.

15. In the result, the petition is allowed in part with costs awarding compensation of Rs.37,800/- (Rupees Thirty Seven Thousand and

Eight Hundred only) together with simple interest @ 6% p.a., from the date of claim petition till the date of deposit. The Respondents 1 and 2 are directed to deposit the compensation amount within 30 days from the date of this order. On making such deposit, the petitioner is permitted to withdraw the entire amount. The copy of the award shall be made ready for delivery to both parties within 15 days from the date of order.

Dictated to Personal Assistant directly on computer, corrected and

pronounced by me in the open court on this the 20th day of March’ 2012.

8 MOP 1513/2010

VIII ADDL.DIST. JUDGE

Cum Addl.Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal (FTC) Visakhapatnam, Gajuwaka.

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

No. of witnesses examined for the Petitioners:

PW.1:L. Appala Patrudu PW.2: Dr. H.R.K. Dora

No. of witnesses examined for the Respondents: NIL

No. of documents marked for the Petitioner:

Ex.A1 is the certified copy of FIR in Crime No.187/2007 of Steel Plant P.S.,

Ex.A2 is the certified copy of the wound certificate

Ex.A3 is the MVI Report

Ex.A4 is the driving license

Ex.A5 is the Insurance Policy

Ex.A6 is the Charge sheet

Ex.A7 is the R.K. Hospital out-patient profile

Ex.A8 is the X-Rays

Ex.A9 is the bunch of medical bills worth Rs.768.92Ps.

Ex.A10 is the photograph

Ex.X1 is the case sheet

No. of documents marked for the Respondents: NIL

VIII ADDL.DIST. JUDGE

Cum Addl.Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal 9 MOP 1513/2010 (FTC) Visakhapatnam, Gajuwaka.

1 MOP 1513/2010

IN THE HON’BLE COURT OF VIII ADDL.DIST. & SESSIONS JUDGE (FTC) Visakhapatnam, Gajuwaka.

PRESENT: SRI R.Pundareekakshudu, B.A., B.L.,L.L.M.,

VIII ADDL.DIST.JUDGE

(FTC) Visakhapatnam, Gajuwaka.

MOP No.1513 / 2010

Tuesday, the 20 th day of March’ 2012

Between:

Sri. Lenka Appala Patrudu, S/o late Simhachalam, Hindu, aged 50 years, Lorry cleaner, residing at D.No.6-08-14, Driver’s Colony, Old Gajuwaka, Visakhapatnam. … Petitioner And:

1.Smt. G. Vasanthi, W/o G. Trimurthulu, Hindu, aged not known, owner of lorry bearing No. AP 31 TT 4313, R/o Plot no. III, Ganesh Nagar, Visakhapatnam.

2.M/s National Insurance company Limited, Represented by its Divisional Manager, D.O. II, Dwarakanagar, Seethammapeta Road,Visakhapatnam.

…Respondents

This MOP is coming on 16.03.2012 for final hearing before me in the presence of Sri. G. Appa Rao, Advocate for the Petitioner and of Smt.

U. Panchali, Advocate for the Respondent No.2, and R1 having been remained exparte and the same having stood consideration over this day, this court delivered the following :

O R D E R

1. This petition is filed by the petitioner under sec.166 of the Motor

Vehicles Act R/W.455 of the A.P.M.V. Rules for grant of compensation of Rs.1,00,000/- with regard to the injuries sustained by him in the motor accident taken place on 26.07.2007 at 11.00 hrs near B.C. Gate, Inside Steel Plant, Visakhapatnam.

2 MOP 1513/2010

2. The case of the Petitioner is that petitioner is a resident of Driver’s

Colony, Old Gajuwaka. The petitioner was working as a cleaner in crime lorry bearing No. AP 31 TT 4313 and he used to draw salary of

Rs.6,000/- per month. On 26.07.2007 the petitioner attended his duty and sat in his cleaner seat which was situated at left side of the lorry, at about 11.00 hrs when the lorry reached near B.C. gate,

Inside Steel Plant, Gajuwaka the driver drove the lorry in a rash and negligent manner at high speed without following traffic rules and suddenly he turned the lorry right side in the meantime the left door was fell down on the road resulting the petitioner fell down on the road and sustained multiple grievous injuries. Immediately after accident he was shifted to K.G.H. for treatment. He took treatment as in-patient for a period of 10 days and still he is taking treatment as out-patient. He spent Rs.30,000/ towards medicines and extra nourishment. The SHO, Steel Plant P.S. registered the case in Cr.No.

187/2007 under section 338 IPC against the driver of 1st respondent.

The petitioner is aged about 50 years. Due to the accident he sustained fracture of right femur and multiple injuries all over the body and he is confined to bed. He is leading miserable life without any salary. The 1st respondent is the owner of the offending lorry and 2nd respondent is the insurer of the crime vehicle, both are jointly and severally liable to pay the compensation.

3. The 1st Respondent set ex-parte.

4. The 2nd Respondent filed counter. The brief averments in the counter of the 2nd Respondent are that 2nd Respondent-Insurance

Company denied all the allegations in the petition. The claim of 3 MOP 1513/2010 compensation is very high. The respondent seeks protection under section 147, 149 and section 170 of M.V. Act. The respondent seeks further protection of section 64 of Insurance Act. The respondent is not liable to pay compensation until it is proved that the person who drove the vehicle had a valid driving license at the time of accident. As per section 158 of M.V. Act, the officer-in-charge of police station has to forward copy of the FIR to the Insurer within 30 days.

5. As seen from the docket, the following issues are settled for trial.

(1)Whether the petitioner sustained injuries in the motor accident occurred due to rash and negligent driving of the vehicle bearing No. AP 31 TT 4313 (Lorry) driven by its driver?

(2)Whether the petitioner is entitled to compensation, If so, to what amount and from which of the respondents?

(3)To what relief?

6. To prove the case of the petitioner, petitioner himself examined as

PW.1, PW.2 examined, Ex. A1 to A10 and Ex.X1 marked. The 2nd respondent did not adduce any oral evidence. The case is posted to 06.02.2012 for the evidence of 2nd respondent. From 06.02.2012 the case is adjourned to 10.02.2012, from 10.02.2012 the case is adjourned to 15.02.2012. The 2nd respondent or the Counsel did not turn up and no representation was made. The evidence of 2nd respondent is closed. The case is posted to 17.02.2012 for arguments. From 17.02.2012 the case is adjourned to 21.02.2012, from 21.02.2012 the case is again posted to 12.03.2012, from 12.03.2012 the case is posted to 16.03.2012. On 16.03.2012 4 MOP 1513/2010 arguments of the petitioner Counsel heard. The 2nd respondent or the Counsel did not turn up. It is treated as no arguments on behalf of the 2nd respondent.

7. ISSUE NO.1:The case of the petitioner is that on 26.07.2007 at about 11.00 hrs he was doing duty as a cleaner in the lorry AP 31 TT 4313.

When the lorry reached near B.C. Gate, Inside steel plant, the driver of the lorry drove the lorry in a rash and negligent manner without following the traffic rules suddenly the lorry was turned and the left door of the lorry fell down as a result petitioner who was sitting on the left side fell down and received multiple injuries. The further case of the petitioner is he was taken to KGH for treatment and steel plant police registered Cr. No. 187/2007 against the driver of the lorry.

8. PW.1 who is the petitioner in his evidence stated all the facts which are pleaded in the petition. The petitioner filed Ex.A1 to A10 and

Ex.X1 documents. Ex.A1 is the FIR, Ex.A2 is the Wound Certificate,

Ex.A3 is the MVI report, Ex.A4 is the driving license, Ex.A5 is the insurance policy, Ex.A6 is the charge sheet, Ex.A7 is the Out-patient profile, Ex.A8 is the X-Rays, Ex.A9 is the medical bills, Ex.A10 is the photo of the petitioner, Ex.X1 is the case sheet. The MVI Report shows that the accident is not due to any mechanical defects of the vehicle. Ex.A6 charge sheet shows that already police filed case under section 338 IPC against the driver of the lorry. The petitioner is shown as LW.3 injured. The evidence of petitioner coupled with other documents established that driver of lorry by name Senapati Appa Rao was negligent at the time of accident, 5 MOP 1513/2010 petitioner received injuries in the accident. Accordingly issue no. 1 is answered.

9. ISSUE NO. 2:The date of accident is 26.07.2007. Ex.A5 insurance policy was issued by the 2nd respondent, the crime vehicle AP 31 TT 4313 was insured with 2nd respondent. The insurance policy was in force from 27.11.2006 to 26.11.2007. By the date of accident the crime vehicle was covered with insurance. I shall now consider the quantum of compensation entitled by the petitioner. The petitioner claimed special damages and general damages.

10. LOSS OF EARNINGS:The petitioner claimed Rs.40,000/- towards loss of earnings. Ex.A2 is the wound certificate. As per Ex.A2 PW.1 was admitted in the hospital on 26.07.2007 and discharged on 30.08.2007. As per the wound certificate, injury is on the right hip joint which is grievous injury. PW.2 is the medical officer in his evidence stated about the treatment to the petitioner and issuing of Ex.A2 certificate and Ex.X1 is the case sheet. The petitioner in the evidence did not state from which period to which period he was in the hospital. But the wound certificate shows that petitioner was in the hospital from 26.07.2007 to 30.08.2007. The petitioner in the petition stated that he is working as a cleaner under 1st respondent and earning Rs.6,000/- per month. There is no documentary evidence to show the earning of the petitioner. So the income of the petitioner is to be estimated hypothetically. The petitioner is only an unskilled labour. Now a days even a coolie is earning not less than Rs.100/- per day. By the year 2007 the income of the petitioner is estimated Rs.100/- per day. The monthly income of the 6 MOP 1513/2010 petitioner is Rs.3,000/-. After discharge from the hospital the petitioner might have suffered from the injuries for sometime in the house. The photograph under Ex.A10 shows that petitioner was bed ridden. So the loss of income of the petitioner is estimated for the period of four months. So the loss of income of the petitioner is

Rs.12,000/-. So an amount of Rs.12,000/- awarded under this head.

11. MEDICINES AND EXTRA NOURISHMENT:The petitioner claimed

Rs.20,000/- towards medicines and extra nourishment. The petitioner in the evidence stated that he spent Rs.50,000/- towards medicines and extra nourishment, whereas the petitioner in the petition stated that he spent Rs.30,000/- towards extra nourishment and medicines.

So the evidence of petitioner is contrary to the pleadings in the petition. Ex.A9 is the medical bills. Ex.A9 medical bills shows that petitioner incurred Rs.768.92 Ps towards medicines. The petitioner was treated in KGH for sometime and sometime in R.K. Hospital. The medical bills only for Rs.768.92Ps. So the expenditure on medical bills is rounded to Rs.800/-. The petitioner has not produced other documents to show the expenditure of medical bills. So an amount of Rs.800/- is awarded towards medical bills. The petitioner did not produce any bills towards extra nourishment. The petitioner might have incurred some expenditure towards extra nourishment. In my view Rs.5,000/- is the reasonable compensation towards extra nourishment. So an amount of Rs.5,800/- is awarded under this head.

12. PAIN AND SUFFERANCE: The petitioner claimed Rs.25,000/- towards pain and sufferance under general damages. The petitioner was in 7 MOP 1513/2010 the hospital from 26.07.2007 30.08.2007. After discharge from the hospital petitioner might have suffered sometime due to pain and suffering. In my view Rs.20,000/- is the reasonable compensation under this head. So an amount of Rs.20,000/- is awarded under this head.

13. LOSS OF EARNING POWER:The petitioner claimed Rs.15,000/- towards loss of earning power. There is no disability to the petitioner, the question of loss of earning power does not arise.

Already loss of earnings was granted under the first head. So the claim under this head cannot be considered and the same is disallowed.

14. Therefore, the Petitioner in total is entitled a sum of Rs.37,800/- towards compensation with interest @ 6% p.a., from the date of claim petition till the date of deposit.

15. In the result, the petition is allowed in part with costs awarding compensation of Rs.37,800/- (Rupees Thirty Seven Thousand and

Eight Hundred only) together with simple interest @ 6% p.a., from the date of claim petition till the date of deposit. The Respondents 1 and 2 are directed to deposit the compensation amount within 30 days from the date of this order. On making such deposit, the petitioner is permitted to withdraw the entire amount. The copy of the award shall be made ready for delivery to both parties within 15 days from the date of order.

Dictated to Personal Assistant directly on computer, corrected and

pronounced by me in the open court on this the 20th day of March’ 2012.

8 MOP 1513/2010

VIII ADDL.DIST. JUDGE

Cum Addl.Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal (FTC) Visakhapatnam, Gajuwaka.

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

No. of witnesses examined for the Petitioners:

PW.1:L. Appala Patrudu PW.2: Dr. H.R.K. Dora

No. of witnesses examined for the Respondents: NIL

No. of documents marked for the Petitioner:

Ex.A1 is the certified copy of FIR in Crime No.187/2007 of Steel Plant P.S.,

Ex.A2 is the certified copy of the wound certificate

Ex.A3 is the MVI Report

Ex.A4 is the driving license

Ex.A5 is the Insurance Policy

Ex.A6 is the Charge sheet

Ex.A7 is the R.K. Hospital out-patient profile

Ex.A8 is the X-Rays

Ex.A9 is the bunch of medical bills worth Rs.768.92Ps.

Ex.A10 is the photograph

Ex.X1 is the case sheet

No. of documents marked for the Respondents: NIL

VIII ADDL.DIST. JUDGE

Cum Addl.Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal 9 MOP 1513/2010 (FTC) Visakhapatnam, Gajuwaka.