Sri S.Damodar Rao

BEFORE THE MOTOR ACCIDENTS CLAIMS TRIBUNAL – CUM – II

ADDITIONAL DISTRICT JUDGE, PARVATIPURAM

Present: Sri S.Damodara Rao, Chairman, Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal cum II Additional District & Sessions Judge Monday, the 30th day of March, 2026

M.V.O.P.75/2025

Between:

1. Yantreji Venkata Ramana, S/o late.Ramu, aged 35 years, Coolie, resident of Mulaga veedhi, Narsipuram village, Parvatipuram Mandal.

2. Kornana Parvathi, W/o Police, D/o late Ramu, aged 40 years, Coolie, R/o Seetharamapuram village, Garugubilli Mandal, Parvatipuram Manyam District.

3. Kornana Narayanamma, D/o late Ramu, W/o Samba Murthy, aged 59 years, Coolie, R/o Mulaga Veedhi, Narsipuram village, Parvatipuram Manyam District.

...Petitioners

A n d:

01. Satyanarayana Sripati, S/o Narayana Rao, Hire APSRTC bus Driver, aged 41 years, residing at Door No.-109, Chittlu Street, Salur Mandal, Parvatipuram Manyam District.

2. Tummalagante Praveen Kumar, S/o T.Mutyalu, aged 52 years, APSRTC bus Owner ,R/o Door NO.5-59, Cement Road, Gajapathinagaram, Viziaangaram District.

3. APSRTC Depot Manager, Parvatipuram Depot, Parvatipuram Manyam District.

4. APSRTC Regional Manager, M/s. VC and MD, APSRTC, Bus Bhavan, Dwaraka Nagar, RTC Complex, Visakhapatnam.

5. APSRTC represented by its Regional Manager, NTR Bus Station, Guntur District, Andhra Pradesh.

Corr: NIL

II ADJ, PVP

ACT cum II ADJ, Parvatipuram 2 M.V.O.P.75/2025

6. The National Insurance Company Limited, Senior Divisional Manager, T.P.Hub Claims, Regional Officer,

Door No.45-57-27/1, 4th floor, R.R.Towers, Narasimha ...Respondents

Nagar, Akkayyapalem, Visakhapatnam.

This petition coming on 23.03.2026 for final hearing before this Tribunal in the presence of Sri N.Srinivasa Rao, Advocate for the Petitioners and of Sri M.Nagarjun, Advocate for the respondents 3 to 5 and of Sri P.Rajeswara Rao, Advocate for the 6th respondent and the respondents 1 and 2 having been called absent and remained ex-parte and having stood over for consideration to this date, this Court passed the following:

O R D E R

01.This petition is filed by the Petitioners under Section 166 of Act read with 455 of M.V.Rules against APSRTC Hired buss for grant of compensation of Rs.8,00,000/- for the death of Yantreji Appamma in a motor accident, that occurred on 18.06.2025 at about 09:30 hours near

Gamanavari Shed, Main Road, Narsipuram village, Parvathipuram Mandal, caused by a APSRTC Hired bus bearing registration No. AP 39 UM 5581.

02.The brief averments in the petition are: that the petitioners are the son and daughters of Yantreji Appamma (hereinafter referred as “deceased”).

2.1. On 18.06.2025, the deceased/Yantreji Appamma, after completion of her prayer at Bethala Prardhana Mandir (Church) located in the outskirts, returning to her house and when she reached near

Corr: NIL

II ADJ, PVP

MACT cum II ADJ, Parvatipuram 3 M.V.O.P.75/2025

Gamanavari Shed, Main Road, Narsipuram, by walk, at about 21:30 hours, the first respondent drove the bus bearing registration No.AP 39 UM 5581 in rash and negligent manner with high speed, without following traffic rules and without blowing horn, dashed her, due to the impact, she fell down on the road and sustained bleeding injuries.

2.2.Immediately, after the accident, the deceased was taken to

District Headquarters Hospital, Parvathipuram, after giving first-aid, she was referred to District Headquarters Hospital, Parvatipuram (the reference hospital mentioned in the petition is also mistakenly mentioned as the same

Hospital, where, first aid was given) where, the deceased while undergoing treatment died owing to the injuries sustained by her in the accident. After conducting autopsy, the dead body was given to the petitioners for obsequies. The Petitioners spent huge amount for transport to hospital and funeral charges.

2.3.It is further averred that the deceased was aged 59 years by the time of accident and used to earn Rs.15,000/- per month, but due to the sudden demise of the deceased, the Petitioners lost their affection of the deceased so also lost their financial support from the deceased.

2.4.The accident occurred only due to negligence of the 1st respondent, as such, the Station House Officer, Parvathipuram Rural Police

Corr: NIL

II ADJ, PVP

ACT cum II ADJ, Parvatipuram 4 M.V.O.P.75/2025

Station registered a case in Cr.No.66/2025 under Sections 106(1) of BNS against the 1st respondent.

2.5. The 1st respondent is the driver and 2nd respondent is the

Owner and the 6th respondent is the Insurer of the APSRTC Hired bus and the respondents 3 to 5 have taken the bus on hire and hence all the respondents are jointly and severally liable to pay compensation to the

Petitioners.

04.Respondents 1 and 2 remained ex-parte.

05.The 3rd respondent filed his Written Statement denying the material averments in the petition contending that the hired bus was taken on hire by the respondents 3 to 5 and as per the agreement between the parties, the true Owner shall be liable for all claims that may arise due to statutory violations out of all operations like claims due to accidents and since the APSRTC hired bus was validly insured with the 6th respondent, the respondents 3 to 5 are not liable to pay compensation and prayed to dismiss the petition against these respondents.

5.1.Respondents 4 and 5 adopted the Written Statement filed by the 3rd respondent.

05.The 6th respondent/Insurance Company filed its Written

Statement denying the material averments in the petition and further

Corr: NIL

II ADJ, PVP

MACT cum II ADJ, Parvatipuram 5 M.V.O.P.75/2025 contended that the deceased, who was a pedestrian by the time of accident and due to her own negligence by crossing the road all of a sudden, the accident occurred and there is no negligence on the part of the driver of the

APSRTC Hired bus. The petitioners are not the dependents of the deceased and thereby they are not entitled to any compensation. The compensation claimed by the petitioners is excessive and exorbitant and prayed to dismiss the petition.

07.Basing on the above pleadings, the following issues are framed for trial:-

01. Whether the accident occurred, resulting in death of the deceased/Yantreji Appamma is due to rash and negligent driving of the APSRTC Hired bus bearing No.AP 39 UM 5581 by its driver/ 1st respondent ?

02.Whether the Petitioners are entitled for compensation, if so, at what quantum and from whom ?

03.To what relief ?

08.During the course of trial, the 1st Petitioner herself was examined as P.W.1 and also examined P.Ws.2 and 3 and got marked

Exs.A.1 to A.9. On behalf of the respondents, no oral or documentary evidence is adduced.

09.Heard both the Counsel.

10.Issue No.1:-

Corr: NIL

II ADJ, PVP

ACT cum II ADJ, Parvatipuram 6 M.V.O.P.75/2025

Whether the accident occurred, resulting in death of the deceased/Yantreji Appamma is due to rash and negligent driving of the APSRTC Hired bus bearing No.AP 39 UM 5581 by its driver/ 1st respondent ?

In proof of this issue, the 1st petitioner examined himself as P.W.1, who reiterated the petition averments stating that on 18.06.2025, his mother was returning from Church after offering prayer and when she reached the place of accident at about 09:30 p.m. the 1st respondent drove the offending vehicle in rash and negligent manner with high speed and dashed his mother, who was going by walk, as a result, his mother sustained severe bleeding injuries and she was referred to Parvathipuram District

Headquarters Hospital, where, she died while undergoing treatment owing the injuries sustained by her in the accident, and, after conducting postmortem, the dead body was handed over to them for final rituals and they have incurred huge expenditure of transport and funeral charges.

10.1. During his cross-examination by the learned Counsel for the 6th respondent, he stated he is living by doing coolie work and that the petitioners 2 and 3 are his married sisters. He clearly stated that he did not see the accident, but denied that his mother without noticing the bus herself fell and sustained injuries and that there is no negligence on the part of the driver of the offending vehicle. He denied that his mother is not doing

Corr: NIL

II ADJ, PVP

MACT cum II ADJ, Parvatipuram 7 M.V.O.P.75/2025 cultivation, but stated that he did not file any document to show that his mother was vegetable vendor. P.W.1 denied that they are not dependents.

The vehement plea of the 6th respondent is that the petitioners are not the dependents and they cannot claim compensation. In view of the said contention, it is apt to refer a judgment in National Insurance Company

Limited v. Birender & Others1, wherein, the Hon’ble Apex Court observed that:- “major married and earning sons of the deceased, being legal representatives, have a right to apply for compensation...”

The ratio laid down in the above case Law is aptly applicable to the present case for the reason that though it is asserted by P.W.1 that he is living by doing coolie work and the petitioners 2 and 3 are married daughters of the deceased. The ratio in the above judgment aptly applied to the petitioners and they are entitled to claim compensation as legal heirs of the deceased since as seen from Ex.A.3/inquest report, all the petitioners are shown as blood relatives of the deceased, therefore, in view of the ratio in the above case Law, this Court has no hesitation to hold that in the absence of contra evidence except stray sentence in the written statement that the petitioners are not the dependents, the petitioners can be considered as dependents of 1. (2020) 11 SCC 356

Corr: NIL

II ADJ, PVP

ACT cum II ADJ, Parvatipuram 8 M.V.O.P.75/2025 the deceased and they can maintain the present claim petition for compensation.

10.2. In his cross-examination, P.W.1 pleaded ignorance as regards the driving license of the 1st respondent. Admittedly, the bus is being hired by the APSRTC after having taken the same on hire, generally, in such circumstances, the RTC Authorities, taking into consideration of the safety of the passengers travel in the buses, would allow the Driver, who was having valid driving license to drive the bus. However, the petitioners filed

Ex.A.7/driving license of the deceased in this case, which shows that the 1st respondent was having driving license to drive LMV and Transport vehicle and the same is valid from 05.01.2004 to 18.10.2034 with “DL

No.AP03520040000143” Hence, this Tribunal has no hesitation to hold that the 1st respondent holds valid and subsisting driving license at the time of accident and the plea of the 6th respondent that the 1st respondent was not holding driving license at the material point of time has no force.

11.Apart from the evidence of P.W.1, the petitioners also examined the 3rd petitioner as P.W.3 and she filed her evidence affidavit in lieu of her chief-examination reiterating the averment in the petition by explaining the mode and manner of accident.

Corr: NIL

II ADJ, PVP

MACT cum II ADJ, Parvatipuram 9 M.V.O.P.75/2025 11.1. During her cross-examination by learned Counsel for the respondents 3 to 5, she stated that deceased is her mother and she also stated that she did not witness the accident personally. She also asserted that her mother used to attend coolie work and also a vegetable vendor.

She also denied that the APSRTC authorities are not liable to pay compensation since the bus was a hired bus.

11.2. During her cross-examination by the learned Counsel for the 6th respondent, she stated that she is a married and has been living with her family. She denied that her old mother was not doing any work and also denied that her mother suddenly crossed the road.

12.As it is the evidence of P.Ws.1 and 3 that they are not an ocular witnesses to the accident, the petitioners got examined one S.Ramulamma as P.W.2 who stated that on 18.06.2025 at about 09:30 hours, while the deceased was moving by walk, the offending vehicle driven by the 1st respondent came in rash and negligent manner and dashed her and as a result, the injured/deceased sustained severe bleeding injuries and that she/P.W.2 witnessed the accident.

12.1. During her cross-examination, she stated that she noticed the accident while she was returning from Church and her house is situated towards the Eastern side of the Church and according to P.W.2, the

Corr: NIL

II ADJ, PVP

ACT cum II ADJ, Parvatipuram 10 M.V.O.P.75/2025 deceased, after, attending the church crossing the road by that time the bus hit her. It is the contention of the respondents that the deceased crossed the road all of a sudden, in that process accident occurred and that there is no negligence on the part of the 1st respondent, but, in the cross- examination of P.W.2, except eliciting the fact that the accident while deceased was crossing the road, nothing could be elicited that the deceased crossed the road all of a sudden. P.W.2 denied that since she happened to be the neighbour of the deceased speaking false.

13.Apart from the evidence of P.Ws.1 to 3, the Petitioners filed

Ex.A.1/copy of FIR and Ex.A.2/copy of Postmortem certificate, which clearly go to show that the deceased due to injuries sustained by Murali in the accident and died while undergoing treatment. P.W.1 got marked attested copy of charge sheet as Ex.A.5/copy of charge sheet. As seen from

Ex.A.5/copy of charge sheet, concerned Police after thorough investigation, filed the charge sheet against the 1st respondent mentioning that the accident occurred due to negligence of the 1st respondent. If really, the deceased is also responsible for the accident by crossing the road all of a sudden, the same would have been mentioned in the charge sheet, but the charge sheet is filed only against the 1st respondent making him solely responsible for the accident. The respondents did not chose to file any

Corr: NIL

II ADJ, PVP

MACT cum II ADJ, Parvatipuram 11 M.V.O.P.75/2025 protest petition against the charge sheet and left the contents of

Ex.A.5/charge sheet unchallenged. Moreover, as seen from Ex.A.4/Motor

Vehicle’s Inspector report, it is categorically mentioned that the accident was not due to any mechanical defect. Therefore, upon considering the evidence of P.Ws.1 to 3 coupled with Exs.A.1/FIR, Ex.A.2/Postmortem certificate, Ex.A.4/M.V.Inspector’s report and Ex.A.5/Charge sheet, this

Tribunal has no hesitation to hold that the accident occurred only due to negligence of the 1st respondent driver. Accordingly, this issue is answered.

14.Issue No.2:-

Whether the Petitioners are entitled for compensation, if so, at what quantum and from whom ?

The main contention of the 6th respondent is that the petitioners are not the dependents of the deceased, and, when the same is suggested to P.Ws.1 and 3, they denied the same and while answering issue No.1, this

Court, while referring to the Judgment of Hon’ble Apex Court in Birender and otherscase (supra), concluded that the petitioners can be considered as dependents of the deceased as they are the legal heirs of the deceased.

14.1. In the petition, the Petitioners averred that the deceased used to do coolie work and also she was a vegetable vendor and used to earn

Rs.15,000/- per month, the petitioners did not file any document, but when

Corr: NIL

II ADJ, PVP

ACT cum II ADJ, Parvatipuram 12 M.V.O.P.75/2025 the 6th respondent suggested to P.Ws.1 and 3 that the deceased has no avocation and no earning, they denied the same. But, in the absence of any documentary proof regarding the avocation and earning of the deceased, this Tribunal also cannot base on the oral assertions of the

P.Ws.1 and 3. However, in the absence of any cogent and convincing material with regard to the income of the deceased, this Tribunal, has no hesitation to take the daily income of the deceased at Rs.300/- per day, which comes to Rs.9.000/- per month as held in Chandra @ Chanda @

Chandaran Vs. Mukesh Kumar 2 wherein it was held that:- “In the absence of documentary evidence on record some amount of guess work is to be done.”

As seen from the petition, there are three petitioners, hence 1/3rd has to be deducted from the income of the deceased towards her personal and living expenses, if that is so, the residue per month would be Rs.6,000/-, which comes to Rs.72,000/- per annum.

15.The age of the deceased was shown as 59 years in the petition, but the Petitioners though not filed any documentary proof to that effect, however the respondents did not dispute the age of the deceased and the same age is also mentioned in Ex.A.2/postmortem certificate, 22021(6) ALT 116 (SC)

Corr: NIL

II ADJ, PVP

MACT cum II ADJ, Parvatipuram 13 M.V.O.P.75/2025 hence, this Tribunal has no hesitation to accept the age of the deceased as 59 years by the time of her death. As per,the appropriate multiplier for age 55-60 and above is ‘9’, and the loss of dependency would be

Rs.6,48,000/- [Rs.72,000 × 9 multiplier] to which the Petitioners are entitled towards loss of dependency and future income.

16.As mandated by the Judgment of Constitution Bench in

National Insurance Company Ltd., Vs. Pranay Sethi 3the Petitioner is entitled

Rs.15,000/- towards loss of estate and Rs.1,20,000/- [to each of the petitioners 40,000×3 = 1,20,000] towards loss of consortium and Rs.15,000/- towards funeral expenses. Thus, in all, the petitioner is entitled for compensation under the following heads:

Sl. Head of compensation Amount INR No.

01.Loss of earning power/dependency6,48,000.00

02.Loss of consortium1,20,000.00

03.For transport and funeral charges15,000.00

04.Loss of estate15,000.00 Total: Rupees seven lakhs ninety eight 7,98,000.00 thousand only 16.1.The above compensation amount has to be apportioned among the original Petitioners 1 to 3 as follows:

3 AIR 2017 SC 5157

Corr: NIL

II ADJ, PVP

ACT cum II ADJ, Parvatipuram 14 M.V.O.P.75/2025

Share Petitioners Amount INR 1st Petitioner/Major son2,98,000.00 2nd Petitioner/married daughter2,50,000.00 3rd Petitioner/married daughter2,50,000.00 Total: Rupees seven lakhs ninety eight 7,98,000.00 thousand only

17.Now, it has to be seen that which of the respondents are liable to pay the compensation. According to the Petitioners, all the respondents are liable to pay compensation, but, contention of the respondents 3 to 5 in their counter is that they have taken the offending vehicle on hire and as per the agreement in between them and the Owner, any claims arise out of accidents etc., are to be borne by the Owner of the offending vehicle. The petitioners got marked Ex.A.8/copy of agreement in between the 2nd respondent and the APSRTC Authorities. But, a perusal of the agreement shows that it is with regard to plying of bus, payment of hire amount per kilo meter, consumption and excess consumption of oil, except that there is no condition shows that in case of any accident, it has to be borne by the

Owner of the bus. As seen from Ex.A.9, the 6th respondent issued Policy to the offending vehicle, which is valid from 23.01.2025 to 22.01.2026 covering the period of accident, which took place on 18.06.2025, hence, the policy issued to the offending vehicle was in force by the time of accident.

Corr: NIL

II ADJ, PVP

MACT cum II ADJ, Parvatipuram 15 M.V.O.P.75/2025

18.Obviously, while answering the issue No.1, this Tribunal held that the accident occurred only due the negligent act of the 1st respondent.

Hence, the 1st respondent being the Driver, 2nd respondent being the

Owners and the respondents 3 to 5 being the hirers and the 6th respondent being the Insurance Company of the offending vehicle, all the respondents are jointly and severally liable to pay compensation, however, the liability of the respondents 1,2 and 6 on one hand and the liability of the respondents 3 to 5 on the other is at 50:50. Accordingly, this issue is answered.

19.Issue No.3:- To what relief ?

In the result, the petition is allowed in part with proportionate costs by granting Rs.7,98,000/- (Rupees seven lakhs ninety eight thousand only) as compensation to the Petitioners directing the respondents to pay to the Petitioners within a period of two months along with interest at 09% p.a., from the date of filing of the petition over the compensation granted above till the actual date of deposit.

Out of the total compensation amount, the 1st petitioner is entitled to

Rs.2,98,000/- with accrued interest and costs and the petitioners 2 and 3 each of them is entitled to Rs.2,50,000/- (Rs. 2,50,000 + Rs. 2,50,000 =

Rs.5,00,000/-) with subsequent accrued interest and costs.

Corr: NIL

II ADJ, PVP

ACT cum II ADJ, Parvatipuram 16 M.V.O.P.75/2025

Out of the respective awarded amounts, each of the petitioners is entitled to withdraw half of their respective awarded amounts and the remaining respective awarded amounts shall be kept in Fixed Deposit in any nationalized bank for a period of one year.

The liability of the respondents 1,2 and 6 on one hand and the liability of the respondents 3 to 5 on the other is at 50:50.

Advocate’s fee is fixed at Rs.1,500/-.

Typed to my dictation, corrected and pronounced by me in open Court, this the 30th day of March, 2026. Sd/S.Damodara Rao Chairman, Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal cum II Additional District Judge, Parvatipuram.

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

Witnesses Examined

For Petitioners:For Respondents:

P.W.1: Yantreji Venkata Ramana P.W.2: S.RamulammaNone P.W.3: Kornana Narayanamma

Exhibits Marked

For Petitioners:

Ex.A.1:Attested copy of FIR in Cr.No.66/2025 of Parvathipuram Rural Police Station Ex.A.2:Attested Copy of Postmortem certificate Ex.A.3:Attested Copy of Inquest report Ex.A.4:Attested copy of M.V.Inspector’s Report. Ex.A.5:Attested copy of Charge sheet

Corr: NIL

II ADJ, PVP

MACT cum II ADJ, Parvatipuram 17 M.V.O.P.75/2025

Ex.A.6:Copy of C Book of offending vehicle Ex.A.7:Attested copy of driving license of 1st respondent Ex.A.8:Copy of agreement. Ex.A.9:Copy of Policy

For Respondents: NIL

Sd/ S.Damodara Rao Sd/S. Chairman, Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal cum II Additional District Judge, Parvatipuram.

Corr: NIL

II ADJ, PVP

BEFORE THE MOTOR ACCIDENTS CLAIMS TRIBUNAL–CUM–II

ADDITIONAL DISTRICT JUDGE, PARVATIPURAM.

Present: Sri S.Damodara Rao , Chairman, Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal cum II Additional District & Sessions Judge, Parvatipuram Tuesday, the 07th day of April, 2026

M.V.O.P.33/2025

Between:-

Rayipalli Balaram (died) (Original Petitioner)

2. Rayipalli Lakshmi, W/o late Balaram, aged 56 years, ST by caste, resident of Door No.2-14, Vengala Street, Sivadavalasa village, Bobbili Mandal.

3. Rayipalli Bhaskara Rao, S/o late Balaram, aged 38 years, ST by caste, Resident of rest ditto

4. Vangapandu Parvathi, D/o late Balaram, aged 37 years, ST by caste, resident of Door No.2-105, rest ditto.

5. Gedela Thirupathamma, D/o late.Balaram, aged 33 years, C/o Gedela Bhagyavathi, Jajuiavanipalem,

Dasrpatrunipalem, Paravada, Anakapalli District. ...Petitioners

(Petitioners 2 to 5 are added as per the orders in I.A.185/2026, Dt.30.03.2026)

A n d:

01.Botcha Sateesh, S/o Pydapu Naidu, aged 26 years, K.Velama, resident of Ramannavalasa village, resident of N.Nandabalaga panchayat, Terlam Mandal, Vizianagaram District. (Driver cum Owner of Motorcycle)

02.Shriram General Insurance Company Limited, represented by its Senior Divisional Manager, RegionalOffice,VenkatarajuNagar,

Dondaparthi, Visakhapatnam....Respondent

This petition coming on 31.03.2026 for final hearing before this Tribunal in the presence of Sri M.Nagarjun, Advocate for the Petitioner and of

Corr : NIL

II ADJ

MACT cum II ADJ, Parvatipuram 2 M.V.O.P.33/2025

Sri N.Rajeswara Rao, Advocate for the 2nd respondent and the 1st respondent having been called absent and remained ex-parte, and having stood over for consideration to this date, this Court passed the following:-

O R D E R

01.This petition is filed by the petitioner under Section 166 of Motor

Vehicles Act and R/w 455 of M.V.Rules for grant of compensation of

Rs.10,00,000/- for the injuries sustained by him in a motor accident, that occurred on 07.12.2021 at about at about 07:00 hours, near Chintada village outskirts, Balijipeta Mandal. caused by Motorcycle bearing Registration No.AP 39 FH 2383.

02.Initially, the injured/sole petitioner filed the present petition claiming compensation and during the pendency of the petition, he died leaving behind him the petitioners 2 to 5 as his legal heirs, hence they are added as parties to this petition. However, to avoid confusion, to represent the injured, it is mentioned as “petitioner”.

2.1.The brief averments of the petition are that the petitioner is a native of Chintada village. On 07.12.2021, while the petitioner was returning from his fields, he requested for lift by another motorcycle bearing No.AP 35 R 6009 to drop him at his village, by that time, the 1st respondent ride the offending motorcycle bearing registration No.AP 39 FH 2383 in rash and negligent manner with high speed without blowing horn dashed the

Corr : NIL

II ADJ

MACT cum II ADJ, Parvatipuram 3 M.V.O.P.33/2025 motorcycle of the petitioner, as a result, the petitioner fell down on the road and sustained bleeding injuries on right leg and fracture of both bones of leg.

2.2.It is further averred that immediately, after the accident, the petitioner was shifted to Government Hospital, Bobbili for treatment, from there, he was shifted to Sri Sai Super Specialty Hospital, Vizianagaram, from there, for better treatment, he was shifted to K.G.Hospital, Vizianagaram, where, his left knee was amputated and the petitioner took treatment as in patient for few months. The petitioner incurred huge expenditure for medicines, transport to Hospital beside suffering much pain and agony.

2.3. It is further averred that the petitioner is aged 59 years and he was hale and healthy at time of accident and he is an agriculturist, beside doing sandy business and used to earn Rs.21,000/- per month, but due to accident, the petitioner is unable to do his duties normally and thereby he lost his income.

2.4.It is further averred that the accident occurred only due to rash and negligent driving of the 1st respondent. The Station House Officer, Bobbili

Police Station registered a case in Cr.No.364/2021 under section 337 of IPC against the 1st respondent. The 1st respondent is driver-cum-Owner, 2nd respondent is the Insurer of the Motorcycle and thus both the respondents are jointly and severally liable to pay compensation.

03.The 1st respondent remained ex-parte.

Corr : NIL

II ADJ

MACT cum II ADJ, Parvatipuram 4 M.V.O.P.33/2025

04.The 2nd respondent filed its Written Statement denying the material averments in the petition. It is contended by the 2nd respondent that the 1st respondent has no valid and effective driving license at the time of accident and drove the vehicle in breach of contract and that the interest and compensation claimed by the petitioner is excessive and exorbitant and prayed to dismiss the petition against this respondent.

05.Basing on the above pleadings, the following issuesare framed for trial:-

01. Whether the accident occurred resulting in injuries to the petitioner due to rash and negligent driving of Motorcycle

bearing registration No.AP 39 FH 2383 by its driver/R.1 ?

02. Whether the petitioner is entitled for compensation, if so, at what quantum and from whom ?

03. To what relief ?

06.During the course of enquiry, the petitioner was examined as

P.W.1 and also examined P.W.2 and got marked Exs.A.1 to A.7. On behalf of the respondents, R.Ws.1 and 2 were examine and Exs.B.1 to B.6 were marked.

07.Heard both Counsel and perused the written arguments filed by the learned Counsel for the 2nd respondent.

08.Issue No.1:-

Whether the accident occurred resulting in injuries to the petitioner due to rash and negligent driving of Motorcycle bearing No. AP 39 FH 2383 by its driver/R.1?

Corr : NIL

II ADJ

MACT cum II ADJ, Parvatipuram 5 M.V.O.P.33/2025

The petitioner was examined himself as P.W.1 and he stated that on 07.12.2021, while he was returning from his fields, requested for lift by another motorcycle bearing No.AP 35 R 6009 to drop him at his village, by that time, the 1st respondent drove the offending motorcycle bearing registration No.AP 39 FH 2383 in rash and negligent manner with high speed without blowing horn dashed their motorcycle, as a result, he fell down on the road and sustained bleeding injuries on right leg and fracture of both bones of leg and immediately, after the accident, he was shifted to Government

Hospital, Bobbili for treatment, from there, he was shifted to Sri Sai Super

Specialty Hospital, Vizianagaram, from there, for better treatment, he was shifted to K.G.Hospital, Vizianagaram, where, his left knee was amputated and he took treatment as in patient for few months and he incurred huge expenditure for medicines, transport to Hospital beside suffering much pain and agony.

8.1.During his cross-examination by the learned Counsel for the 2nd respondent, revealed that he stated that in his report, itself, it is mentioned that he is proceeding to sandy and he is an agriculturist and he stated that by the time of accident, he was middle on the road and one Karri Murali gave lift to him. According to P.W.1, while he was getting on motorcycle, the crime vehicle came in opposite direction and dashed their motorcycle and as per

Corr : NIL

II ADJ

MACT cum II ADJ, Parvatipuram 6 M.V.O.P.33/2025

P.W.1, the crime vehicle driver negligently ride the vehicle. He denied that since the driver of the crime vehicle did not possess valid driving license, the 2nd respondent/Insurance Company is not liable to pay compensation.

09.The contention of the 2nd respondent is that the 1st respondent was not having valid driving license so also he did not drive the crime vehicle in rash and negligent manner and the accident occurred due to negligence of the petitioner only. To prove its contentions, the 2nd respondent got examined its Legal Executive as R.W.1. He filed his chief-affidavit stating that the rider of the offending vehicle was not holding valid driving license by the time of accident, which was also confirmed by the report of their Company’s

Investigator, which clearly shows that there is violation and breach of policy terms and their Company is not liable to pay compensation to the petitioner and the vehicle inspection report, there is no damage to the vehicle.

However, he admitted that the policy issued by their Company to the offending vehicle was in force by the date of accident and he relied on Exs.B.1 to B.3.

9.1.During his cross-examination, he clearly stated that the offending

Motorcycle having valid policy as on the date of accident so also it covers the third party’s risk, but denied that the accident occurred as alleged by the petitioner in the FIR and also denied that he is deposing false to avoid compensation.

Corr : NIL

II ADJ

MACT cum II ADJ, Parvatipuram 7 M.V.O.P.33/2025

10.The petitioner/P.W.1 in support of his evidence filed Ex.A.1/copy of FIR. Ex.A.2/copy of wound certificate and Ex.A.4/copy of charge sheet, which was registered against the first respondent. Exs.A.1 and A.2 coupled with the evidence of P.W.1 establishes that the petitioner sustained injuries in the accident. Whereas, Ex.A.4/copy of charge sheet goes to show that the 1st respondent alone was responsible for the accident since the concerned

Investigating Officer after conducting investigation, registered the case against the 1st respondent alone and the mere registering the case itself sufficient to say the accident was occurred on that day only due to negligence of the 1st respondent as contended by the petitioner herein. Thus, the material on record amply shows that the petitioner sustained injuries in the accident occurred as alleged in Ex.A.2/wound certificate and the case is solely registered against the 1st respondent by the concerned Police after due investigation. Further as seen from Ex.A.3/M.V.Inspector’s report, the accident was not due to any mechanical defect. Hence, this Tribunal has no hesitation to hold that the accident occurred due to sole negligence of the 1st respondent. Accordingly Issue No.1 is answered.

11.Issue No.2:-

Whether the petitioner is entitled for compensation, if so, at what quantum and from whom?

To prove the injuries sustained by the petitioner, the petitioner was examined as P.W.1 and got marked Ex.A.2/wound certificate. To prove the

Corr : NIL

II ADJ

MACT cum II ADJ, Parvatipuram 8 M.V.O.P.33/2025 injuries and treatment of the petitioner, the petitioner got examined the

Medical Officer of the Hospital where he took treatment as P.W.2. P.W.2 stated that the petitioner came to their Hospital and basing on the certificate he stated that the petitioner had pain and swelling deformity of right leg and fracture of right both bones and leg open wound present below the knee laceration of 5x1x2 c.m. According to P.W.2, the petitioner appeared before the Medical Board for disability certificate with assessment of disability with the old injury of disability in relation to his right lower limb traumatic amputation and the percentage of disability is 75%.

11.1. During his cross-examination by the learned Counsel for the 2nd respondent, he admitted that after admission of the petitioner in their Hospital, the duty Doctor took patient to First Aid. P.W.2 also admitted that he did not issue Ex.A.2/wound certificate. According to him, the entire clinical examination is on telescopic method. He denied that the percentage of disability is assessed on higher side and also denied that the patient/petitioner can walk without any walker, but admitted that the patient can walk with the help artificial leg. The evidence of P.W.2 thus confines to the fact of issuance of disability certificate since he did not ever treat P.W.1. P.W.1 also denied that the disability given by the Medical Board is on higher side. As seen from

Ex.A.5/disability certificate, the Medical Board assessed the disability at 75%, even though P.Ws.1 and 2 were examined by the learned Counsel for the 2nd respondent, nothing could be elicited to doubt the veracity of Ex.A.5, hence, this Tribunal has no hesitation to take the functional disability at 75%.

Corr : NIL

II ADJ

MACT cum II ADJ, Parvatipuram 9 M.V.O.P.33/2025

Thus, from the evidence of P.W.1 and 2 coupled with Exs.A.2/wound certificate and Exs.A.5 to A.7, the sustaining of injuries and treatment of the petitioner so also amputation are established. Even though the learned

Counsel for the 2nd respondent cross-examined P.Ws.1 and 2, nothing worthwhile could be elicited in favour of the 2nd respondent. The evidence of

P.W.2 coupled with Ex.A.2/wound certificate, shows that the petitioner sustained fracture injury so also amputation, which is grievous in nature.

12. Now the point for quantum of compensation is concerned: It is to be noted that the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in Rajkumar Vs. Ajay

Kumar 1 explained the pecuniary damages and non-pecuniary damages:

Pecuniary Damages (Special Damages) :-

(i)Expenses relating to treatment, hospitalization, medicines, transportation, nourishing food, and miscellaneous expendi- ture; Loss of earnings (and other gains) which the injured would

(ii) have made had he not been injured, comprising;

(a)Loss of earning during the period of treatment;

(b)Loss of future earnings on account of permanent dis- ability;

(iii)Future medical expenses.

Non-pecuniary damages (General Damages)

(iv)Damages for pain, suffering and trauma as a consequence of the injuries;

(v)Loss of amenities (and/or loss of prospects of marriage); 12011(1) SCC 343

Corr : NIL

II ADJ

MACT cum II ADJ, Parvatipuram 10 M.V.O.P.33/2025

(vi)Loss of expectation of life (shortening of normal longevity).

13. While calculating compensation under the Act is (i) Age (ii)

Additions/deductions to be made for arriving at the income; (iii) the deductions to be made towards the personal living expenses of the injured; and (iv) the multiplier to be applied with reference to the age of the injured and disability sustained by the injured.

14.Having regard to the principles (supra), it would now be appropriate to assess the case of P.W.1 for awarding compensation. As per the evidence of P.W.1, at the time of accident he is aged 59 years and prior to that he was quite hale and healthy. According to the petitioner, he is an agriculturist and also doing sandy business and used to earn Rs.21,000/- per month, but he did not place any documentary proof to show his monthly income, it is apt to refer the decision reported in between Chandra @ Chanda @ Chandaran Vs. Mukesh Kumar 2 wherein it was held that:

“In the absence of documentary evidence on record some amount of guess work is to be done.”

15.Even though the petitioner claimed that he is earning Rs.21,000/- per month, except the oral assertion of P.W.1, not even a single piece of paper is filed, hence, in view of the above ratio, this Court inclined to take the minimum wage of the petitioner at Rs.300/- per day, which comes to

Rs.9,000/- per month. As seen from the evidence of P.W.2 and Ex.A.5, the 22021(6) ALT 116 (SC)

Corr : NIL

II ADJ

MACT cum II ADJ, Parvatipuram 11 M.V.O.P.33/2025 petitioner sustained 75% disability as there was an amputation, the loss of earning power of the petitioner with the said disablement would be

Rs.81,000/-. As seen from the petition, the age of the petitioner is shown as 59 years, even though the petitioner did not file any document, but even in

Ex.A.2, the age of the petitioner was shown as 59 years, hence, this Tribunal is inclined to take the age of the petitioner at the time of accident as 59 years, if that is so, as per Sarla Verma and others Vs. Delhi Transport Corporation and another 3 case, appropriate multiplier for the age group of 55-60 years is “09” and if the above income of Rs.81,000/- is multiplied with 09, it comes to

Rs.7,29,000/- [81,000x9=7,29,000] and the same can be granted towards compensation for loss of earning power.

16.The petitioner did not file any medical bills, as he himself admitted in his cross-examination that he got treatment on free of cost. However, with amputation and the petitioner would have suffered much pain and agony, hence, this Tribunal is inclined to award a sum of Rs.1,06,000/- towards

compensation for pain and suffering, grievous injuries, amputation and extra

nourishment.

17.The petitioner was initially shifted to Bobbili Hospital, from there, to Vizianagaram and from there to Visakhapatnam, and thus he would have incurred expenditure for transport to Hospital, hence, this Tribunal is inclined 3(2009) 6 SCC 121

Corr : NIL

II ADJ

MACT cum II ADJ, Parvatipuram 12 M.V.O.P.33/2025 to award a sum of Rs.15,000/- towards compensation for transport to hospital and thus, in all the petitioner is entitled to in the format mentioned herein below:

Sl. Compensation

Head No.(in INR)

1.Compensation loss of earning power7,29,000.00

2.Compensation for pain and suffering, 1,06,000.00 grievous injuries, amputation and extra nourishment

3.Compensation for transport to hospital 15,000.00 etc., Total: 8,50,000.00 (Rupees eight lakhs fifty thousand only) 17.1. As seen from the material on record, it is obvious that during the pendency of the petition, the sole petitioner died leaving behind him the petitioners 2 to 5 as his heirs, of them, as seen from the cause title, the 2nd petitioner is wife, 3rd petitioner is son, 4th and 5th petitioners are daughters, hence, the aforementioned awarded amount has to be apportioned among the petitioners 2 to 5 as follows:-

Apportioned share Sl. Petitioner amount No. (in INR)

1.2nd petitioner5,50,000-00

2.3rd petitioner1,00,000-00

3.4th petitioner1,00,000-00

4.5th petitioner 1,00,000-00

Total:8,50,000.00

Corr : NIL

II ADJ

MACT cum II ADJ, Parvatipuram 13 M.V.O.P.33/2025

18.The vehement contention of the 2nd respondent is that the 1st respondent was not holding valid and subsisting driving license. As seen from

Ex.A.4/charge sheet, the 1st respondent was also charged with the count under the Motor Vehicles Act. To prove that the 1st respondent drove the crime vehicle without valid driving license, the 2nd respondent got examined one of the personnel from the Transport Department as R.W.2. The evidence of R.W.2 shows that he produced the C-Book of the 1st respondent and the same is marked as Ex.B.5. According to R.W.2 as per their computer data, the 1st respondent was not having valid driving license. During his cross- examination by the learned Counsel for the petitioner, he stated that there is no nexus to register the vehicle by verifying the driving license of the purchaser. Except that, the petitioner could not elicit anything from the cross- examination of R.W.2 to show that 1st respondent drove the motorcycle with valid driving license.

19.However, the learned Counsel for the petitioner submitted that for the lapses on the part of the respondents, the petitioners cannot be penalized and while referring to a decision reported in Sunnala Bhaskar Reddy v. M.

Sreenivasulu and another 4urged to even adopt the ‘pay and recover’ principle.

Obviously, the Hon’ble Apex Court in catena of decisions held that when there 4 2010 AcJ 1122 (Hon’ble Mr. Justice V.V.S.Rao)

Corr : NIL

II ADJ

MACT cum II ADJ, Parvatipuram 14 M.V.O.P.33/2025 are technical lapses with the driver or owner violating the policy terms, the victims, who lost their lives and limbs cannot be victimized and direct the

Tribunals to direct the Insurance Company to satisfy the Award at the first instance and thereafter to recover the same from the insured. The 2nd respondent even though raised several aspects basing on the investigation report given by their Investigator, except filing the investigation report, though

R.W.1 stated that they would examine their Company’s Investigator, did not examine him. Hence, this Tribunal on considering the overwhelming material inclined to apply ‘pay and recovery’ principle to compensate the petitioner for sustaining grievous injuries in the accident. Accordingly, this issue is answered.

20.Issue No.3:-To what relief?

In the result, the petition is allowed in-part with proportionate costs by granting Rs.8,50,000/- (Rupees eight lakhs fifty thousand only) as compensation to the petitioner directing 2nd respondent/Insurance Company to pay the awarded compensation at the first instance within a period of two months along with interest at 09% p.a., from the date of filing of the petition till the actual date of deposit, and then recover the same from the 1st respondent by way of filing execution petition.

After deposit, the 2nd petitioner is entitled to Rs.5,50,000/- and the petitioners 3 to 5 each is entitled to Rs.1,00,000/- with costs and accrued

Corr : NIL

II ADJ

MACT cum II ADJ, Parvatipuram 15 M.V.O.P.33/2025 interest. Out of their respective share amounts, each of them is permitted to withdraw half of the amount with costs and interest and the respective balance share amounts of petitioners 2 to 5 shall be deposited in any

Nationalized bank for a period of two years. Accordingly, the petition is disposed of.

The petitioner’s advocate fee is fixed at Rs.1,500/-.

Typed to my dictation to the Stenographer, Grade-I, corrected and

pronounced by me in open Court, this the 07 th day of April, 2026

Sd/S.Damodara Rao Chairman, Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal cum II Additional District Judge, Parvatipuram.

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

Witnesses Examined

For Petitioner:For Respondents:

P.W.1: Rayipalli Balaram (died)R.W.1: Nodagala Sankar P.W.2: Dr.A.Taj KumarR.W.2: P.Jaya Babu

Exhibits Marked

For Petitioner:

Ex.A.1:Attested copy of FIR in Cr.No.364/2021 of Bobbili Police Station. Ex.A.2:Attested Copy of wound certificate Ex.A.3:Attested copy of Motor Vehicles’ Inspector’s report Ex.A.4:Attested copy of charge sheet Ex.A.5:Attested copy of disability certificate Ex.A.6:Discharge summary Ex.A.7:X-rays

For Respondents:

Ex.B.1:Attested Copy of Insurance Policy

Corr : NIL

II ADJ

MACT cum II ADJ, Parvatipuram 16 M.V.O.P.33/2025

Ex.B.2:Attested Copy of Observation report Ex.B.3:Attested copy of investigation report Ex.B.4:Letter of authorization of R.W.2 Ex.B.5:C-Book pertains to crime vehicle Ex.B.6:Driving license particulars of the 1st respondent.

Sd/S.Damodara Rao Chairman, Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal cum II Additional District Judge, Parvatipuram.

Corr : NIL

II ADJ

BEFORE THE MOTOR ACCIDENTS CLAIMS TRIBUNAL – CUM – II

ADDITIONAL DISTRICT JUDGE, PARVATIPURAM

Present: Sri S.Damodara Rao, Chairman, Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal cum II Additional District & Sessions Judge

Thursday, the 26th day of March, 2026

M.V.O.P.64/2025

Between:

1. Lankena Lakshmana, aged 47 years, S/o Rama Murty, resident of Kothavalasa village, Pachipenta Mandal, Parvatipuram Manyam District.

2. Lankena Sridevi, aged 44 years, W/o Lakshmana,

...Petitioners

House wife, resident of rest ditto. A n d:

01. Chintada Malleswara Rao, aged 45 years, S/o Linga Murty, resident of Subrahmanyapuram, Jalumuru Mandal, Srikakulam District.

2. TATA AIG General Insurance Company Limited, represented by its Branch Manager, PSN Estate,

Balaji Nagar, Vizianagaram. ...Respondents

This petition coming on 18.03.2026 for final hearing before this Tribunal in the presence of Sri M.Benarjee, Advocate for the Petitioners and of Sri M.S.N.Reddy, Advocate for the 2nd respondent and the 1st respondent having been called absent and remained ex-parte and having stood over for consideration to this date, this Court passed the following:

O R D E R

01. This petition is filed by the petitioners under Section 166 r/w 455 of Motor Vehicles Act and Rules for grant of compensation of

Rs.57,00,000/- for the death of Lankena Sai Kumar (herein after referred as deceased) who is the son of the petitioners, in a motor vehicle accident,

Corr: NIL

II ADJ, PVP

MACT cum II ADJ Court, Parvatipuram 2 M.O.P.64/2025 which took place on 12.11.2024 caused by Royal Enfield Motorcycle bearing registration No.AP 39 SZ 3253 by its driver.

02.The brief averments in the petition are that the 1st petitioner is the father and the 2nd petitioner is the mother of deceased Lankena Sai

Kumar and they are permanent resident of Kothavalasa village of

Pachipenta Mandal.

On 12.11.2024, the deceased/Sai Kumar was proceeding on the motorcycle bearing registration No.AP 39 SZ 3253 which belongs to the 1st respondent and on the way, all of a sudden, an animal came across his motorcycle, thereby, deceased fell on the road in between Sarayivalasa and

Markondaputti villages and sustained head injury and blood oozed from his nose and ears.

2.1.Immediately, after the accident, the injured/deceased was shifted to Area Hospital, Parvatipuram where first-aid was rendered to him and thereafter he was shifted to Tirumala Hospital, Vizianagaram for better treatment, where, on 13.11.2024 while undergoing treatment, he succumbed to injuries sustained by him in the accident and after conducting postmortem examination, the dead body was handed over to the petitioners for final rituals.

Corr: NIL

II ADJ, PVP

MACT cum II ADJ Court, Parvatipuram 3 M.O.P.64/2025 2.2.Upon a report lodged by the 1st petitioner, he Station House

Officer, Makkuva Police Station registered a case in Cr.No.149/2024 against the 1st respondent for the offence under section 194 of BNSS (174,

Cr.P.C.) 2.3.It is further averred that the deceased was aged 22 years and he was hale and healthy at the time of accident and he used work as a

Driver in APSRTC on contract basis and used to earn Rs.26,000/- per month, but due to sudden demise of the deceased, the petitioners lost their financial support.

2.4.It is further averred that the 1st respondent is the Owner and the 2nd respondent is the Insurance Company of the offending vehicle, hence both the respondents are jointly and severally liable to pay compensation, hence the claim petition.

03.The 1st respondent remained ex-parte.

04.The 2nd respondent filed its Written Statement denying the material allegations in the petition by contending that the accident occurred due to negligence of the deceased. The petition is not maintainable and barred by limitation since the same was not filed within six months from the date of accident. The 1st respondent/Owner did not follow the mandatory provision under Section 134(c) and failed to furnish policy particulars etc.,

Corr: NIL

II ADJ, PVP to

MACT cum II ADJ Court, Parvatipuram 4 M.O.P.64/2025 so also, the concerned Police also did not adhere to mandatory provision under Section 159 of the Act. The interest and compensation claimed by the petitioners is excessive and exorbitant and prayed to dismiss the petition.

05.Basing on the above pleadings, the following issues are framed for trial:-

01. Whether the accident occurred, resulting in death of the deceased /Lankena Sai Kumar is due to rash and negligent driving of the Motorcycle/Royal Enfield bearing No.AP 39 SZ 3253 by its Driver/R1?

02. Whether the petitioners are entitled for compensation, if so, at what quantum and from whom?

03.To what relief?

5.1.As seen from issue No.1, inadvertently, this issue is framed wrongly since the deceased himself was riding the motorcycle at the time of accident, hence by invoking the provision under Order XIV, R.5, the issue is resettled as hereunder:

Whether deceased/Lankena Sai Kumar died in the accident while riding the motorcycle/Royal Enfield bearing No.AP 39 SZ 3253 without any fault but only due to sudden coming of an animal across the road?

06.During the course of trial, the 2nd petitioner herself examined as

P.W.1, got examined P.Ws.2 and 3 and got marked Exs.A.1 to A.8. On

Corr: NIL

II ADJ, PVP

MACT cum II ADJ Court, Parvatipuram 5 M.O.P.64/2025 behalf of the respondents, R.W.1 was examined and Ex.B.1/copy of policy was marked.

07.Heard both counsel.

08.Issue No.1:

Whether deceased/Lankena Sai Kumar died in the accident while riding the motorcycle/Royal Enfield bearing No.AP 39 SZ 3253 without any fault but only due to sudden coming of an animal across the road?

In proof of this issue, the 2nd petitioner herself examined as P.W.1 besides examining P.Ws.2 and 3. P.W.1 deposed that her son/Sai Kumar was proceeding on a motorcycle bearing registration No.AP 39 SZ 3253 which belongs to the 1st respondent and on the way, all of a sudden, an animal came across his motorcycle, thereby, her deceased son fell on the road in between Sarayivalasa and Markondaputti villages and sustained head injury and blood oozed from his nose and ears and immediately, after the accident, her son was shifted to Area Hospital, Parvatipuram where first-aid was rendered to him and thereafter he was shifted to Tirumala

Hospital, Vizianagaram for better treatment, where, on 13.11.2024 while undergoing treatment, her son succumbed to injuries sustained by him in the accident and after conducting postmortem examination, the dead body was handed over to the petitioners for final rituals.

Corr: NIL

II ADJ, PVP to

MACT cum II ADJ Court, Parvatipuram 6 M.O.P.64/2025 8.1.During her cross-examination by the learned Counsel for the 2nd respondent, she stated that she did not witness the accident and a third party, who witnessed the accident informed them that as an animal crossed the road and caused this accident. She stated the motorcycle on which her son was proceeding does not belong to her son, but denied that since the motorcycle did not belong to her son, they are not entitled to compensation.

She denied that her son is not a third party to the policy and not entitled to compensation. She also denied that this Tribunal has no jurisdiction to entertain this petition and also denied that their claim is excessive. She denied that since the accident occurred due to sudden entry of an animal, they are not entitled to make a claim under this petition and they can claim only from the local body i.e. the Municipality/Panchayat.

09. As P.W.1 stated that she did not witness the accident, the petitioners got examined one of the eyewitnesses to the accident as P.W.2, who filed his chief-affidavit in lieu of his chief-examination, wherein, he supported the case of the petitioners with regard to the mode and manner of the accident and he stated that the deceased was his friend and that he/P.W.2 was present at the time of accident and he informed to one

Karanam Eswara Rao and to the parents of the deceased and he also gave evidence as a witness in the criminal case.

Corr: NIL

II ADJ, PVP

MACT cum II ADJ Court, Parvatipuram 7 M.O.P.64/2025 9.1.During his cross-examination, he stated that the deceased was a resident of Pachipenta and he/P.W.2 is a resident of Makkuva. He knows the deceased since the deceased used to visit to his maternal grandmother’s house. According to P.W.2, while the deceased was proceeding on motorcycle, a pig came across the road and caused the accident. He denied that he did not witness the accident.

10.Apart from the evidence of P.Ws.1 and 2, perusal of the record discloses that the Station House Officer, Parvathipuram Rural Police station registered a case in Cr.No.149/2024 under Sections 194 of BNSS.

However, since the accident occurred only due to sudden entry of an animal, the deceased/rider cannot be held to be liable and also cannot be said to be negligent but died in the accident without any fault on his part.

Accordingly, this issue is answered.

11.Issue No.2:-

Whether the petitioners are entitled to any compensation and if so, at what quantum and from which of the respondents?

In the case on hand, admittedly, the Insurance Company/2nd respondent except filing the Written Statement, did not chose to let in any evidence and also did not try to avail the opportunity given to it to adduce evidence. However, even as per the Written Statement, the claim of the

Corr: NIL

II ADJ, PVP to

MACT cum II ADJ Court, Parvatipuram 8 M.O.P.64/2025

Insurance Company is that since the deceased was not the Owner of the vehicle and does not come under the ambit of third party, the petitioners are not entitled to claim compensation. Obviously, the petitioners have examined P.W.3 to prove that the deceased was working in their Salur

Depot as Driver and by the month of October, 2024, his salary was Rs.800/- per day during the days whenever the work provided to him. Thus, from the evidence of P.W.3, it is clear that the deceased was not having continuous employment since in his cross-examination, P.W.3 made it clear that whenever they require the services, then only they used to call the deceased as he was not a regular driver. P.W.3 also stated that he cannot say the aggregate working days.

12.As seen from the material on record, this case is on different footing than that of the other claim petitions since in the case on hand the deceased died while riding the motorcycle by himself and negligence is not attributed to any of the parties except due to sudden entry of an animal across the road. Here, it is obvious that deceased was driving a borrowed vehicle (his friend's motorcycle),and, in those circumstances, this Tribunal can indeed direct the insurance company to pay the Compulsory Personal

Accident (CPA) cover amount to the legal heirs, provided the policy conditions are met. It is pleaded by the 2nd respondent that since the

Corr: NIL

II ADJ, PVP

MACT cum II ADJ Court, Parvatipuram 9 M.O.P.64/2025 deceased was riding a borrowed vehicle and steeped into the shoes of the

Owner and that the accident was a self-accident (no other vehicle involved), the parents/petitioners cannot sue for unlimited third-party compensation.

But, the Hon’ble Apex Court in Ramkhiladi v. United India Insurance Co.

Ltd.,made it clear that “if the owner’s policy includes a Personal Accident cover, the borrower (stepping into the shoes of owner) is entitled to that

₹

specific contractual sum, typically 15,00,000/- for new policies, provided the deceased had a valid license.” In the case on hand, as seen from

Ex.A.6/driving license, the deceased was hold valid driving license. Even though the petitioners filed Ex.A.5/copy of Policy, it is not visible, however, the contesting 2nd respondent/Insurance Company did not adduce any contra evidence to show that the Policy does not cover the Personal

Accident. However, even though the petitioners have invoked Section 166 of the Act, they can, at best, file a claim petition specifically seeking the

Personal Accident cover amount from the friend's insurer.

13.The learned Counsel for the petitioner submitted that the deceased can be considered as rider/driver and comes within the ambit of ‘third party’ and in support of his contentions, he relied on a decision reported in National Insurance Co., Limited Proddutur Vs. Savidi Anjaneyulu

Corr: NIL

II ADJ, PVP to

MACT cum II ADJ Court, Parvatipuram 10 M.O.P.64/2025 and others 1, with due regards to the observations of His Lordship in the above case law, the facts in the above case entirely different to the facts on hand, hence, the petitioners cannot take aid of the ratio in the above case law.

14.On the other hand, the learned Counsel for the 2nd respondent submitted that the deceased stepped into the shoes of the 1st respondent and he cannot be considered as third party since the insured himself cannot claim as a third party and in such a case, the Policy does not cover the risk of the third party and thereby the 2nd respondent/Insurance Company is not liable to pay compensation to the petitioners and in support of his contentions, he relied on a decision reported in M/s.New India Assurance

Company Limited Vs. Maddineni Pushpavathi and others 2 , wherein, it was held that:- “In the case on hand, admittedly, the deceased borrowed the vehicle from the Owner of the motorcycle involved in the accident (1 st respondent). The accident was occurred while the deceased was driving the vehicle and it was occurred due to his negligence, therefore, the deceased would step into the shoes of the owner of the motorcycle. Hence, the claimants, who are the legal heirs of the deceased could not have maintain the claim...” 1. 2025(1) ALD 221 (AP) 2. M.A.C.M.A.2662/2014, dt.10.01.2024 of Hon’ble High Court of Andhra Pradesh.

Corr: NIL

II ADJ, PVP

MACT cum II ADJ Court, Parvatipuram 11 M.O.P.64/2025

15.The Legal Officer of the 2nd respondent was examined as

R.W.1, he stated that Ex.B.1/policy is valid from 05.05.2023 to 04.05.2024 covering the third party liability. He also took the plea of limitation. He stated that the present petition is filed by the petitioners under Section 166 of the

M.V.Act and the accident occurred due to self-negligence of the deceased and he is the tortfeasor in this case and also not a third party for the purpose of the compensation under this Act and the policy does not cover the risk and the petition is not maintainable.

15.1. During his cross-examination, he stated that they have taken two pleas in their contention (1) policy does not cover the driver; (2) limitation, but asserted that Ex.B.1 is a comprehensive Policy and its cover the third party risk. He denied that under Section 145 of M.V.Act, the driver of the crime vehicle will come under the third party and he is not a paid driver.

16.As seen from Ex.B.1/policy under the caption of “B. LIABILITY”, it is clear that premium is paid for one year under “compulsory PA cover for

Owner-Driver”. The core contention of the 2nd respondent is that the deceased was not a third party and the policy does not cover him. At the same time, the another contention of the 2nd respondent is that the

Corr: NIL

II ADJ, PVP to

MACT cum II ADJ Court, Parvatipuram 12 M.O.P.64/2025 deceased is not the Owner of the vehicle and in that point of view also, policy does not extend and the petitioners cannot file this petition.

Here, notable point is that at one stage, the 2nd respondent, while relying on the judgment in Maddineni Pushpavathicase (supra) contended that the deceased stepped into the shoes of the 1st respondent and the policy does not cover the risk of Owner even under Section 163-A of the

Act. When it is categorical submission of the 2nd respondent that the deceased “stepped into shoes of the 1st respondent/Owner”.

17.Here, it is apt to mention that in legal terms, "stepping into the shoes of the owner" means that the borrower (A) is treated as the de-facto owner of the vehicle for the duration of the trip. While being considered the "owner" prevents a massive Third-Party Claim (which can be crores of rupees), it usually unlocks the Personal Accident (PA) Cover. Generally, most policies have a mandatory PA cover for the "Owner-Driver." If he "stepped into the shoes" of the owner, his family can often claim this fixed amount typically Rs.15,00,000/- in case of death, even if the insurance company denies the larger third-party liability. Hence, by considering the present petition as rarest of rare than the general claim petitions, this

Tribunal of considered view, that awarding total compensation of

Rs.15,00,000/- under “personal accident cover” would meet the ends of

Corr: NIL

II ADJ, PVP

MACT cum II ADJ Court, Parvatipuram 13 M.O.P.64/2025 justice instead of dismissing the claim of the petitioners on technical factors.

The petitioners are entitled to equal share in the said awarded amount.

Accordingly, this issue is answered.

18.Issue No.3: To what relief?

In the result, the petition is allowed in-part with proportionate costs by granting Rs.15,00,000/- (Rupees fifteen lakhs only) as compensation to the petitioners directing the respondents to pay to the petitioners within a period of two months along with interest at @ 9% p.a., from the date of filing of the petition over the compensation granted above till the actual date of deposit.

On such deposit, each of the petitioners are entitled to equal shares and each of them are permitted to withdraw half of their respective share amount with costs and interest and rest of their respective share amounts shall be kept in any nationalized bank for a period of one year.

Advocate’s fee is fixed at Rs.1,500/-.

Typed to my dictation, corrected and pronounced by me in the open Court on this the 26 th day of March, 2026.

Sd/ S.Damodara Rao Chairman, Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal cum II Additional District Judge, Parvatipuram

Corr: NIL

II ADJ, PVP to

MACT cum II ADJ Court, Parvatipuram 14 M.O.P.64/2025

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

Witnesses Examined

For Petitioners: For Respondents:

P.W.1: Lankena SrideviR.W.1: K.Kiran, Legal Officer P.W.2: Koyyana Satish P.W.3: A.P.S.Murty

DOCUMENTS MARKED

For Petitioners: For Respondents:

Ex.A.1: Attested copy of FIR. Ex.B.1:Copy of Insurance Policy. Ex.A.2: Attested copy of postmortem certificate Ex.A.3: Attested copy of M.V.Inspector’s report Ex.A.4: Attested copy of Inquest Report Ex.A.5: Copy of Policy Ex.A.6: Driving license of the deceased Ex.A.7: Identity and medical status of the driver Ex.A.8: E-Sharam Card

Sd/ S.Damodara Rao Chairman, Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal cum II Additional District Judge, Parvatipuram

Corr: NIL

II ADJ, PVP

IN THE COURT OF THE II ADDITIONAL DISTRICT & SESSIONS COURT,

PARVATIPURAM

Present: Sri S.Damodara Rao, II Addl. District & Sessions Judge Monday, this the 30th day of March, 2026

Criminal Revision Petition 18/2025

Between:- Yellampalli Rajesh Kumar, S/o Radha Krishna, aged 37 years, (Software Engineer in TCS Company, Hyderabad work from Home as arrayed), presently working in Private Transport Company on trip wages, Hyderabad, Vysya by caste, Hindu, presently residing at Seethanagaram village and Mandal, Parvatipuram Manyam District. …Revision Petitioner

A n d:-

01. Yellampalli Dhanya Sri, D/o Yellampalli Rajesh Kumar, aged 5½ years, C/o Kondyarapu Venkata Rao, Vysya by caste, Hindu, presently residing at Naidu Street, Salur, Salur Mandal and Parvatipuram Manyam District.

02. State of Andhra Pradesh, represented by its Additional Public Prosecutor, Parvatipuram…Respondents

On revision against the orders passed by the Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Salur, in Crl.M.P.7028/2023 in M.C.07/2023 Dt.31.12.2024

Between:- Yellampalli Dhanya Sri…Petitioner

A n d: Yellampalli Rajesh Kumar…Respondent

This petition coming on 18.03.2026 for final hearing before this Court in the presence of Sri S.Prabhakara Rao, Advocate for the Revision Petitioner and of Sri B.Venkata Naidu, Advocate for the respondents and having heard both sides, this petition stood over for consideration to this date, this Court passed the following:-

Corr: NIL

II ADSJ, PVP

II ADSJ Court, Parvatipuram 2 Criminal Revision Petition 18/2025

O R D E R

01. This revision petition is filed by the Revision Petitioner under

Section 397(1) of the Code of Criminal Procedurepraying the Court to set aside the order passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate of First Class,

Salur, in Crl.M.P.7028/2023 in M.C.07/2023, Dt.31.12.2024, where under, the learned Magistrate awarded an amount of Rs.8,000/- to the respondent/petitioner, towards interim maintenance from the date of petition and with a direction to the respondent to pay the said maintenance amount on or before 10th of every succeeding calendar month.

02.Aggrieved by the said dismissal order passed by the learned

Magistrate, the respondent/revision petitioner preferred this revision with the

following grounds:- 2.1.The order of the trial Court is contrary to Law, weight of evidence and probabilities of the case; 2.2.The trial Court erred in awarding huge amount of interim maintenance without there being any documentary evidence.

2.3.The trial Court ought to have considered that the revision petitioner lost his job in TCS company in November, 2021 due to

Corr: NIL

II ADSJ, PVP

II Additional Sessions Court, Parvatipuram 3 Criminal Revision Petition 18/2025 harassment by his wife and now he is working in a private Transport company on trip wages at Hyderabad and getting meager amount; 2.4.The trail Court ought to have taken the proof of employment and the salary of the revision petitioner before passing the order from or at least either party; 2.5.The trial Court failed to take into account the evidence shown by the learned Counsel for the revision petitioner before it showing that he did not neglect or refuse his wife and children and that his wife herself left the matrimonial house of the revision petitioner along with her child/respondent/petitioner and that the trial Court should have considered there is no negligence on the part of the revision petitioner; 2.5.The trial Court misunderstood the submissions of the revision petitioner and came to the conclusion in a wrong manner and the trial Court failed to exercise its powers conferred under Sections 125 and 127 of

Cr.P.C.; 2.6.The trial Court even without considering the fact that there is no fault on the part of the revision petitioner and he is catering his wife and child properly, erroneously awarded the interim maintenance; and

Corr: NIL

II ADSJ

II ADSJ Court, Parvatipuram 4 Criminal Revision Petition 18/2025 2.7. In and among grounds, the learned Counsel for the revision petitioner urged to allow the revision by setting aside the order of the trial

Court.

03.On the other hand, the learned Additional Public Prosecutor for the respondents strongly supported the order of the trial Court and submitted that the present day’s cost of living and other environmental circumstances, rightly awarded the maintenance for the sustenance of the petitioner/ respondent and that there are no merits in the revision and prayed to dismiss the revision.

04.Heard the learned Counsel for revision petitioner and the learned Additional Public Prosecutor and they have argued according to their respective pleadings.

05.Now, the point for consideration is:-

Whether the order passed by the trial Court in

Crl.M.P.7028/2023 in M.C.07/2023, Dt.31.12.2024

suffers from any illegality or irregularity warranting

interference by this Court ?

06.Point:- As seen from the contentions of both parties, there is no dispute with regard to the relationship in between the parties and that the marriage of the revision petitioner with the mother of the

Corr: NIL

II ADSJ, PVP

II Additional Sessions Court, Parvatipuram 5 Criminal Revision Petition 18/2025 respondent/petitioner was solemnized on 05.03.2015 in Aryavysya

Dharmasala, Salur, as per their caste custom and Hindu rites. The revision petitioner and the respondent/petitioner were blessed with male and female child as averred in the petition. As per the contention of the petitioner, due to harassment by the revision petitioner and his family members, the mother of the respondent/petitioner along with the respondent/petitioner went to her parent’s house and that the mother of the respondent/petitioner has no independent source of income to maintain herself and to maintain respondent/petitioner, thereby the respondent/petitioner filed the main

Maintenance Case 07/2023 and also filed Crl.M.P.7028/2023 for grant of interim maintenance and the trial Court, upon considering the material

before it, awarded interim Maintenance.

07.The respondent submitted that previously, he worked in TCS company as software Engineer and thereafter, he was removed from service and he is working in a private transport and he has no that much of income to pay the interim maintenance awarded by the trial Court and prayed to reduce the quantum of interim maintenance. It is further submitted that due to disputes arose in between the revision petitioner and the mother of the petitioner/respondent, the respondent/petitioner along with her child residing

Corr: NIL

II ADSJ

II ADSJ Court, Parvatipuram 6 Criminal Revision Petition 18/2025 separately and the mother of the respondent/petitioner filed a case under

Section 498-A of IPC against the revision petitioner and his family members and the revision petitioner filed interim custody of the children before the concerned Court. The relationship among the parties is not denied.

According to the respondent/petitioner since the revision petitioner refused and neglected to maintain the respondent/petitioner and her mother, the mother of the respondent/petitioner took shelter under her parent’s house (grand parents of the respondent/petitioner), but the revision petitioner contended that mother of the respondent/petitioner herself deserted and refused and the mother of the respondent/petitioner is maintaining illegal relationship with one Hemanth and she is living in another house and when her parents warned her to change her attitude, she filed Domestic Violence

Case before the trial Court. But, except merely alleging that mother of respondent/petitioner maintaining illegal relationship with one Hemanth, the revision petitioner did not place any proof in the above petition. However, the admitted fact is that the respondent/petitioner is not living with the revision petitioner and she is living with her mother and the revision petitioner did not place any evidence to show that he is maintaining the respondent/petitioner or providing any amount towards her maintenance.

Corr: NIL

II ADSJ, PVP

II Additional Sessions Court, Parvatipuram 7 Criminal Revision Petition 18/2025

However, without there being any proof filed by the revision petitioner with regard to the alleged adulterous life of the mother of the respondent/ petitioner, the said bald allegation cannot be considered and the revision petitioner cannot take aid of the said allegation to avoid his legal burden to provide maintenance to his wife and children.

08.It is the responsibility of the respondent to maintain his wife and children. Previously, the revision petitioner worked as Software Engineer in

TCS Company and was getting Rs.2,00,000/- towards salary and the trial

Court by considering the above facts and circumstances awarded interim maintenance to his child/daughter to a tune of Rs.8,000/- per month.

09.Now, the contention of the revision petitioner in this petition is that he was removed from service and he is not getting that much of income and he is eking out his livelihood by doing private job and he has also burden to maintain his old parents and sister and other family members and he urged to reduce the quantum of interim maintenance.

10.On a close perusal of the copy of letter fled by the Revision

Petitioner/respondent, which was issued by the TCS Company

Dt.31.08.2021 shows “this has reference to your resignation letter

Dt.31.08.2021, indicating your desire to resign from the services of the

Corr: NIL

II ADSJ

II ADSJ Court, Parvatipuram 8 Criminal Revision Petition 18/2025 organization”, thus from a plain reading of the contents of the said letter, it is crystal clear that the respondent himself resigned to his software job and he is working somewhere else and the said proof is not filed by either petitioner or the respondent and the present avocation and earnings are to be established in the main petition, and, as per the material available on record, it cannot be said that the revision petitioner has no means to maintain the respondent/petitioner and in those circumstances, until the main petition is disposed off, as urged by the petitioner that he is doing private job and having other burden to maintain his parents and sister, and, also upon considering the other facts and circumstances of the case, for the time being, even the interim maintenance amount is reduced, no prejudice would be caused to the respondent/petitioner. Further, during arguments, the learned Counsel for the revision petitioner submitted that Rs.8,000/- is granted to respondent/petitioner/daughter of the revision petitioner and also another revision petition in Crl.R.P.17/2025 is pending before this Court seeking reduction of quantum of interim maintenance filed by the wife of the revision petitioner. Hence, upon considering the submissions of both parties and taking into consideration of interim stage without there being documentary evidence as regards the income and avocation of the revision

Corr: NIL

II ADSJ, PVP

II Additional Sessions Court, Parvatipuram 9 Criminal Revision Petition 18/2025 petitioner/respondent, reduction of Rs.3,000/- from out of the awarded maintenance from Rs.8,000/- (after reducing Rs.3,000/- thereof) to

Rs.5,000/- would meet the ends of justice even this Court did not find any illegality and irregularity in the findings of the trial Court. However, except reducing the quantum of interim maintenance, this Court is of the view that the trial Court did not commit any error in awarding maintenance.

Accordingly, this point is answered.

08.In the result, the revision petition is allowed in part by reducing the monthly interim maintenance awarded to the respondent/petitioner to

Rs.5,000/- from Rs.8,000/- per month till pending disposal of main

Maintenance case, except this, the remaining operative portion of the order of the trial Court holds good.

Typed to my dictation by the Stenographer, Grade-I, corrected and

pronounced by me in open Court, this the 30 th day of March 2026.

Sd/S.Damodara Rao II Addl. District & Sessions Judge, Parvatipuram

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

No oral or documentary evidence is adduced on either side.

Sd/S.Damodara Rao II Addl. District & Sessions Judge, Parvatipuram

Corr: NIL

II ADSJ

IN THE COURT OF THE II ADDITIONAL DISTRICT & SESSIONS COURT,

PARVATIPURAM

Present: Sri S.Damodara Rao, II Addl. District & Sessions Judge Monday, this the 30th day of March, 2026

Criminal Revision Petition 17/2025

Between:- Yellampalli Rajesh Kumar, S/o Radha Krishna, aged 37 years, (Software Engineer in TCS Company, Hyderabad work from Home as arrayed), presently working in Private Transport Company on trip wages, Hyderabad, Vysya by caste, Hindu, presently residing at Seethanagaram village and Mandal, Parvatipuram Manyam District. … Revision Petitioner

A n d:

01. Yellampalli Sravani, W/o Yellampalli Rajesh Kumar, aged 35 years, D/o Kondyarapu Venkata Rao, Private Job, Vysya by caste, Hindu, presently residing at Naidu Street, Salur, Salur Mandal and Parvatipuram Manyam District.

02. State of Andhra Pradesh, represented by its Additional Public Prosecutor, Parvatipuram…Respondents

On revision against the orders passed by the Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Salur, in Crl.M.P.1257/2023 in M.C.03/2023 Dt.31.12.2024

Between:- Yellampalli Sravani…Petitioner

A n d: Yellampalli Rajesh Kumar…Respondent

This petition coming on 18.03.2026 for final hearing before this Court in the presence of Sri S.Prabhakara Rao, Advocate for the Revision Petitioner and of Sri B.Venkata Naidu, Advocate for the respondents and having heard both sides, this petition stood over for consideration to this date, this Court passed the following:-

Corr: NIL

II ADSJ, PVP

II ADSJ Court, Parvatipuram 2 Criminal Revision Petition 17/2025

O R D E R

01. This revision petition is filed by the Revision Petitioner under

Section 397(1) of the Code of Criminal Procedurepraying the Court to set aside the order passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate of First Class,

Salur, in Crl.M.P.1257/2023 in M.C.03/2023, Dt.31.12.2024, where under, the learned Magistrate awarded an amount of Rs.15,000/- to the respondent/petitioner, towards interim maintenance from the date of petition and with a direction to the respondent to pay the said maintenance amount on or before 10th of every succeeding calendar month.

02.Aggrieved by the said dismissal order passed by the learned

Magistrate, the respondent/revision petitioner preferred this revision with the

following grounds:- 2.1.The order of the trial Court is contrary to Law, weight of evidence and probabilities of the case; 2.2.The trial Court erred in awarding huge amount of interim maintenance without there being any documentary evidence.

2.3.The trial Court ought to have considered that the revision petitioner lost his job in TCS company in November, 2021 due to harassment by his wife/petitioner/respondent and now he is working in a

Corr: NIL

II ADSJ, PVP

II Additional Sessions Court, Parvatipuram 3 Criminal Revision Petition 17/2025 private Transport company on trip wages at Hyderabad and getting meager amount; 2.4.The trail Court ought to have taken the proof of employment and the salary of the revision petitioner before passing the order from or at least either party; 2.5.The trial Court failed to take into account the evidence shown by the learned Counsel for the revision petitioner before it showing that he did not neglect or refuse his wife and children and that his wife/respondent/petitioner herself left the matrimonial house of the revision petitioner along with her child and that the trial Court should have considered there is no negligence on the part of the revision petitioner; 2.5.The trial Court misunderstood the submissions of the revision petitioner and came to the conclusion in a wrong manner and the trial Court failed to exercise its powers conferred under Sections 125 and 127 of

Cr.P.C.; 2.6.The trial Court even without considering the fact that there is no fault on the part of the revision petitioner and he is catering his wife and child properly, erroneously awarded the interim maintenance; and

Corr: NIL

II ADSJ

II ADSJ Court, Parvatipuram 4 Criminal Revision Petition 17/2025 2.7. In and among grounds, the learned Counsel for the revision petitioner urged to allow the revision by setting aside the order of the trial

Court.

03.On the other hand, the learned Additional Public Prosecutor for the respondents strongly supported the order of the trial Court and submitted that the present day’s cost of living and other environmental circumstances, rightly awarded the maintenance for the sustenance of the petitioner/ respondent and that there are no merits in the revision and prayed to dismiss the revision.

04.Heard the learned Counsel for revision petitioner and the learned Additional Public Prosecutor and they have argued according to their respective pleadings.

05.Now, the point for consideration is:-

Whether the order passed by the trial Court in

Crl.M.P.1257/2023 in M.C.03/2023, Dt.31.12.2024

suffers from any illegality or irregularity warranting

interference by this Court?

06.Point:- As seen from the contentions of both parties, there is no dispute with regard to the relationship in between the parties and that the marriage of the revision petitioner with the respondent/petitioner was

Corr: NIL

II ADSJ, PVP

II Additional Sessions Court, Parvatipuram 5 Criminal Revision Petition 17/2025 solemnized on 05.03.2015 in Aryavysya Dharmasala, Salur, as per their caste custom and Hindu rites. The revision petitioner and the respondent/petitioner were blessed with male and female child as averred in the petition. As per the contention of the petitioner, due to harassment by the revision petitioner and his family members, she went to her parents’ house and that she has no independent source of income to maintain herself and to maintain her child, she filed the main Maintenance Case 03/2023 and also filed Crl.M.P.1257/2023 for grant of interim maintenance and the trial

Court, upon considering the material before it, awarded interim

Maintenance.

07.The respondent submitted that previously, he worked in TCS company as software Engineer and thereafter, he was removed from service and he is working in a private transport and he has no that much of income to pay the interim maintenance awarded by the trial Court and prayed to reduce the quantum of interim maintenance. It is further submitted that due to disputes arose in between the revision petitioner and the petitioner/respondent, the respondent/petitioner along with her child residing separately and the respondent/petitioner filed a case under Section 498-A of

IPC against the revision petitioner and his family members and the revision

Corr: NIL

II ADSJ

II ADSJ Court, Parvatipuram 6 Criminal Revision Petition 17/2025 petitioner filed interim custody of the children before the concerned Court.

The relationship among the parties is not denied. According to the respondent/petitioner since the revision petitioner refused and neglected to maintain the respondent/petitioner and her child, she took shelter under her parent’s house, but the revision petitioner contended that respondent/ petitioner herself deserted and refused and the respondent/petitioner is maintaining illegal relationship with one Hemanth and she is living in another house and when her parents warned her to change her attitude, she filed

Domestic Violence Case before the trial Court. But, except merely alleging that respondent/petitioner maintaining illegal relationship with Hemanth, the revision petitioner did not place any proof in the above petition. In the absence of proof, mere allegation cannot be considered and the revision petitioner cannot take aid of the said allegation to avoid his legal burden to provide maintenance to his wife and children.

08.It is the responsibility of the respondent to maintain his wife and children. Previously, the revision petitioner worked as Software Engineer in

TCS Company and was getting Rs.2,00,000/- towards salary and the trial

Court by considering the above facts and circumstances awarded interim maintenance to his wife to a tune of Rs.15,000/- per month.

Corr: NIL

II ADSJ, PVP

II Additional Sessions Court, Parvatipuram 7 Criminal Revision Petition 17/2025

09.Now, the contention of the revision petitioner in this petition is that he was removed from service and he is not getting that much of income and he is eking out his livelihood by doing private job and he has also burden to maintain his old parents and sister and other family members and he urged to reduce the quantum of interim maintenance.

10.On a close perusal of the copy of letter fled by the Revision

Petitioner/respondent, which was issued by the TCS Company

Dt.31.08.2021 shows “this has reference to your resignation letter

Dt.31.08.2021, indicating your desire to resign from the services of the organization”, thus from a plain reading of the contents of the said letter, it is crystal clear that the respondent himself resigned to his software job and he is working somewhere else and the said proof is not filed by either petitioner or the respondent and the present avocation and earnings are to be established in the main petition, and, as per the material available on record, it cannot be said that the revision petitioner has no means to maintain the respondent/petitioner and in those circumstances, until the main petition is disposed off, as urged by the petitioner that he is doing private job and having other burden to maintain his parents and sister, and, also upon considering the other facts and circumstances of the case, for the time

Corr: NIL

II ADSJ

II ADSJ Court, Parvatipuram 8 Criminal Revision Petition 17/2025 being, even the interim maintenance amount is reduced, no prejudice would be caused to the respondent/petitioner. Further, during arguments, the learned Counsel for the revision petitioner submitted that Rs.15,000/- is granted to respondent/petitioner/wife of the revision petitioner and also another revision petition in Crl.R.P.18/2025 is pending before this Court seeking reduction of quantum of interim maintenance filed by the son of the revision petitioner. Hence, upon considering the submissions of both parties and taking into consideration of interim stage without there being documentary evidence as regards the income and avocation of the revision petitioner/respondent, reduction of 1/3rd of the awarded maintenance from

Rs.15,000/- (reducing 1/3rd thereof would be Rs.5,000/-) to Rs.10,000/- would meet the ends of justice even this Court did not find any illegality and irregularity in the findings of the trial Court. However, except reducing the quantum of interim maintenance, this Court is of the view that the trial Court did not commit any error in awarding maintenance. Accordingly, this point is answered.

Corr: NIL

II ADSJ, PVP

II Additional Sessions Court, Parvatipuram 9 Criminal Revision Petition 17/2025

08.In the result, the revision petition is allowed in part by reducing the monthly interim maintenance awarded to the respondent/petitioner to

Rs.10,000/- from Rs.15,000/- per month till pending disposal of the

Maintenance Case, except this, the remaining operative portion of the order of the trial Court holds good.

Dictated to the Stenographer, Grade-I (on deputation), transcribed by

him, corrected and pronounced by me in open Court, this the 30 th day of March, 2026.

Sd/S.Damodara Rao II Addl. District & Sessions Judge, Parvatipuram

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

No oral or documentary evidence is adduced on either side

Sd/S.Damodara Rao II Addl. District & Sessions Judge, Parvatipuram

Corr: NIL

II ADSJ