Sri.Dr.s.s.s.jayaraju

MVOP No.67/2013 1 II Addl.District Court, Madanapalle

IN THE COURT OF THE MOTOR ACCIDENTS CLAIMS TRIBUNAL-

CUM-II ADDITIONAL DISTRICT JUDGE, MADANAPALLE

Present :: Dr. S.S.S. JAYA RAJU,

CHAIRMAN,

MOTOR ACCIDENTS CLAIMS TRIBUNAL

CUM - II ADDITIONAL DISTRICT JUDGE,

MADANAPALLE.

Tuesday: this the First (1st ) day of November, 2016.

M.V.O.P.No.67 of 2013

Between:

S.Rajendra.

... Petitioner.

And:

United India Insurance Company Ltd. Rep. by its Branch Manager, Madanapalle, Chittoor District.

... Respondent.

This petition coming on 14.10.2016 before me for final hearing in the presence of Sri M.Vamsivardhan, Advocate for petitioner and Sri Y.V.Sesha Reddy, Advocate for respondent, upon perusing the records and hearing both sides and having stood over for consideration till this day, this court made the following:-

O R D E R

This is a petition filed by the petitioner under Section 166 (1) (b) of A.P. Motor Vehicles Act, claiming compensation of Rs.2,00,000/- together with interest at the rate of 12% per annum from the date of petition till the date of realization for the damages caused to the

Maruti Zen car bearing Regn. No.KA03MG0144 belongs to the petitioner, caused on 27.09.2012.

2. The brief contents of the petition are that, the petitioner is the registered owner of the car i.e., Maruti Zen at Metalic bearing

Registration No.KA03MG0144 as he got purchased the same on 27.9.2002 at Maruthi Show Room, Bangalore. The said car got insured with the respondent for the period from 26.8.2011 to 25.8.2012 vide

Insurance Policy No.051602/31/1101/00001424 and the same is the comprehensive policy. The said car got insured ever since the inception of purchase even as on the date of accident. The petitioner being the insured has paid the premium of Rs.2806/- for the above

MVOP No.67/2013 2 II Addl.District Court, Madanapalle.

said period and the insurance policy is in force and subsisting by the date of accident.

On 21.4.2012 the petitioner along with his family members i.e., his wife and two sons went to Aminigunta village of Chowdepalle

Mandal, Chittoor District for attending his parent annual death ceremony and after completion of the same on 22.4.2012 the petitioner and his family members were returning to Madanapalle in the said Car. When they reached near Indian Oil Petrol Bunk on

Punganur-Madanapalle road in Madanapalle Town at about 1.30 p.m,.

by then one unknown minor girl suddenly ran across the road just in front of the car and in the process of saving the life of the girl, the petitioner negotiated steering towards the left side instantaneously the petitioner’s car dashed against the nearby cement moulded Eclectic pole and the said pole has fallen down on the petitioner’s car causing extensive damage to the car but the inmates of the car did not sustain any injuries providentially. Due to sudden impact, the said car has got badly damaged and the petitioner is having valid driving license which is valid upto 23.11.2015.

Soon after the accident the petitioner got informed about the occurrence of the accident to the S.I.of Police, I Town, Madanapalle and the Police have inspected the scene of offence and enquired into the matter and also issued receipt to the petitioner vide Receipt

No.12063 dated 23.4.2012 denoting the occurrence of the incident.

Subsequent to the accident the car has towed to Tajuddin Tinker

Garage, Madanapalle situated on the outskirts of Madanapalle Town to get it repaired by paying the sum of Rs.5000/- towards the towing charges. The petitioner has incurred sum of Rs.95,000/- towards repair charges which includes replacement of some spare parts. The petitioner also sustained loss at Rs.1,00,000/- for non-user of the vehicle subsequent to the accident till it got repaired.

The petitioner further contended that he approached the respondent in order to get compensation and sought to indemnify the loss sustained to the petitioner for which the respondent though agreed to compensate but a low amount is offereddisproportionate to the loss sustained to the petitioner. But to the surprise of the petitioner the respondent has maintained as if the claim projected by the petitioner has closed. The respondent being the insurer is liable to

MVOP No.67/2013 3 II Addl.District Court, Madanapalle.

indemnify the insured and cannot escape from its liability to pay compensation to the petitioner. Hence, this petition.

3. Notice was served upon the respondent.

4. The respondent filed its written statement denying the contents of petition and also denied the damage of the vehicle of the petitioner and spending of Rs.95,000/- towards repair charges including replacement of spare parts and also Rs.5000/- towards towing charges at Madanapalle town. The petitioner has approached the respondent and lodged own damages claim and the said claim was repudiated vide letter dt. 23.11.2012 due to non-submission of details of accident inspite of repeated demands made by the respondent though letters

dt. 27.8.2012, 27.9.2012 and 29.10.2012. When the petitioner failed

to submit the details of incident for settlement of claim, the respondent closed the file claim No.9/2012. The amount claimed by the petitioner under various heads is highly excessive, exorbitant and beyond proportionate to the loss sustained by the petitioner. Hence, this respondent prayed to dismiss the petition.

5. Basing on the above pleadings, the following issues were settled for trial:

Whether the accident occurred due to rash and negligent manner of crime vehicle 1 bearing no.KA03 MH 0144 resulting which damages caused to the vehicle of the petitioner? Whether the petitioner is entitled for 2 compensation as claimed for? 3 To what relief?

6. In order to prove their claim, PW-1 and P.W-2 were examined and Exs.A1 to A8 were marked. On behalf of the respondents, R.W-1 and R.W2 were examined and Ex.B1 to Ex.B4 were marked.

7. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and

Respondents.

8. ISSUE No.1 and 2

9. To substantiate the version of petitioner, the claimant himself is examined as P.W1 and he deposed in his chief examination reiterating the entire contents of the petition and the same is

MVOP No.67/2013 4 II Addl.District Court, Madanapalle.

mentioned in the above paras. Through him, EXs.A1 to A8 were marked. Ex.A1 is the registration copy of the Car bearing No.KA03MG 0144, Ex.A2 is an Insurance policy standing in the name of petitioner in respect of Car bearing No.KA03MG 0144 bearing Policy No.051602/ 31/11/01/ 00001424, Ex.A3 is a certificate issued by S.I. of Police

Madanapalle I Town P.S. along with receipt bearing No.12063, dt.23.4.2012, Ex.A4 is repair/replacement bills issued by Tajuddin

Tinker Garage, Madanapalle relating to Car bearing No.KA03MG 0144,

Ex.A5 is paper Publication in Eenadu Telugu Daily newspaper dt.23.4.2012, Ex.A6 is driving license standing in the name of petitioner, Ex.A7 is positive photos (7 in number). Ex.A8 is C.D.

relating to Ex.A7. In the cross-examination P.W1 deposed that as per the policy (Ex.A2) the company assessed the value of the vehicle was only Rs.50,000/- at the time of issuing the policy. He deposed that soonafter the accident the company had appointed a Surveyor H.Hyder who had assessed the damage of his vehicle to the tune of

Rs.2,48,345/-.

10. P.W2 S.Tajuddin deposed that he is working as a Mechanic in

Auto mobiles undertaking the works such as repairing, tinkering, painting etc., for four wheelers and two wheelers under the name and style of Tajudden Tinkering Garage situated near Indian Oil Petrol

Bunk, Punganur road near Basinikonda of Palamaner Municipality. He had undertaken the repair and tinkering work of car met with an accident bearing No.KA03MG 0144 belonged to the registered owner

S.Rajendra (petitioner) and the accident occurred on 22.4.2012. He found damages to the Car bearing No.KA03MG 0144. In total the petitioner spent Rs.95,000/- towards recondition of Car bearing

No.KA03MG 0144. Ex.A4 bills issued by him. In the cross-examination he deposed that a total amount paid by the petitioner is only

Rs.95,000/- including costs of the parts and repairing charges.

11. The Branch Manager of the United India Insurance company is examined as R.W1, he deposed that the petitioner approached the respondent and lodged own damages claim but it was repudiated on 23.11.2012 due to non-submission of details of accident their company closed the claim file. Soon after the accident as suchtheir company has appointed the Surveyor by name H.Hyder Sahib inspected the vehicle and assessed the damages and submitted report. Through

MVOP No.67/2013 5 II Addl.District Court, Madanapalle.

him, Ex.B1 - true copy of policy issued in the name of petitioner is marked. Ex.B2 is surveyor’s report, Ex.B3-letter addressed to respondent andEx.B4 is postal acknowledgements (2 Nos.).Ex.B5 letter addressed to petitioner by respondent (3 in number). As seen from Ex.B1 the policy of the Car bearing No.KA03MG 0144 was in force by 22.4.2012. The damaged vehicle was plain vehicle and they do not have any basis to state that the vehicle was road worthy. The claimant did not submit the documents to the Insurance company about the cost of damages incurred to his vehicle.

12. R.W2 who is Surveyor/Loss Assessor for United India Insurance

Company, Chittoor deposed that he was deputed by the respondent to assess the loss caused to the vehicle Car bearing No.KA03MG 0144 and he inspected the vehicle and final survey was conducted on 25.4.2012 at Sai Motor, Madanapalle. He submitted confidential report to respondents and he assessed the loss on repair basis as

Rs.22,000/-. Therefore, it can be decided here itself that the contention of petitioner that the surveyor of respondent assessed the damage of his Car to the tune of Rs.2,48,345/- is incorrect and false.

The report dt.12.8.2012 i.e., Ex.B2 was submitted by him to the respondent. In the cross-examination he deposed that at the time of his inspection the petitioner was present and after his inspection he a issued certificate (Ex.A3). At the time of his inspection photographs were taken to calculate the damages to the vehicle. In his cross- examination nothing was elicited in favour of petitioner to support his claim and contention.

13. On perusal of the entire record, evidence and both side documents, it is clear that the Car bearing No.KA03MG 0144 belongs to the petitioner was damaged due to falling of cement electric pole on the vehicle and for the damages the petitioner spent amount

Rs.95,000/- as per Ex.A4. As seen from Ex.B1 copy of policy, the Car bearing No.KA03MG 0144 was insured with respondent and the policy was in force as on the date of accident. As per Ex.B1 insurance policy the maximum insurance coverage for damages is only upto

Rs.50,000/-. Therefore, the petitioner is entitled for damage of Car bearing No.KA03MG 0144 to the extent of Rs.50,000/- only. As could be seen from Exs.A1 to A7 there is no dispute with regard to incident and damages caused to vehicle and repairs of the vehicle. Accordingly,

MVOP No.67/2013 6 II Addl.District Court, Madanapalle.

the issues 1 and 2 are answered in favour of the petitioner and against the respondent.

14. In the result, the petition is partly allowed to award compensation of Rs.50,000/- to the petitioner along with costs and interest at 7.5% p.a. from the date of petition till the date of realization. Respondent is directed to deposit the compensation within one month from the date of this award. On such deposit, the petitioner is permitted to withdraw entire amount as he had already spent the amount awarded under different heads for repair of Car. However, the petitioner is not entitled to claim any interest during the period of dismissal, till the date of restoration, if any. Rs.1,500/- is fixed as advocate fee as per Rule 15 of Advocate fee Rules, 2010.

Typed to my dictation by the Stenographer, transcribed by him, corrected and pronounced by me in the open court, this the 1st day of November, 2016.

Sd/-xxxxxxxxxx

CHAIRMAN, MACT CUM

II ADDL. DISTRICT JUDGE

MADANAPALLE

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

WITNESSES EXAMINED FOR

Petitioner respondents P.W1:S.Rajendra R.W1:S.Nagaraja. P.W2: S.Tajuddin. R.W2:H.Hyder Saheb.

EXHIBITS MARKED ON BEHALF OF THE PETITOENR:

Ex.A1 : Registration copy of the Car bearing No.KA03MG 0144. Ex.A2 : Insurance policy standing in the name of petitioner in respect of Car bearing No.KA03MG 0144 bearing Policy No.051602/ 31/11/01/ 00001424. Ex.A3 : certificate issued by S.I. of Police Madanapalle I Town P.S. along with receipt bearing No.12063,dt.23.4.2012. ExA4 : repair/replacement bills issued by Tajuddin Tinker Garage, Madanapalle relating to Car bearing No.KA03MG 0144. Ex.A5 : paper Publication in Eenadu Telugu Daily newspaper dt.23.4.2012. Ex.A6: driving license standing in the name of petitioner. Ex.A7 : positive photos (7 in number). Ex.A8 : C.D. relating to Ex.A7.

EXHIBITS MARKED ON BEHALF OF THE RESPODNENT:

Ex.B1: copy of policy. Ex.B2: Survey report.

MVOP No.67/2013 7 II Addl.District Court, Madanapalle.

Ex.B3: Letter addressed to respondent. Ex.B4: postal acknowledgements. Ex.B5: letter addressed to petitioner by respondents (3 Nos.)

Sd/-xxxxxxxxxx

CHAIRMAN/MACT

CUM II ADJ.

//true copy//

C.A.No.385 OF 2016 1 II ADJC., MPL

In the Court of the II Additional District & Sessions Judge,

Madanapalle

Present :: Dr. S.S.S. Jaya Raju,

II Additional District & Sessions Judge,

Madanapalle.

Wednesday, this the second (2 nd ) day of November, 2016

Criminal Appeal No. 385 of 2016

Between:

1.Nallabothula Vemanarayana.

2.Valipi Sunil Kumar.

3.Gutha Gurrappa Naidu.

4.Derangula Mallikarjuna.

5.Pallem Ramesh.

6.Idapala Ramanappa.

7.Bukke Venkataramana Naik.

8.Thota Gangi Reddy.

.. Appellants/A1 to A8.

And: The State rep. by the Sub Inspector of Police, Molakalacheruvu P.S. Cr.No.43/2016.

Respondent/complainant

This appeal is filed by the appellants/accused aggrieved by the judgment of the learned Judicial Magistrate of I class, Thamballapalle

dt. 21.09.2016 passed in

S.T.C.No. 36 of 2016

Between: The State rep. by the Sub Inspector of Police, Molakalacheruvu P.S. Cr.No.43/2016.

.. Complainant.

And:

1.Nallabothula emanarayana.

2.Valipi Sunil Kumar.

3.Gutha Gurrappa Naidu.

4.Derangula Mallikarjuna.

5.Pallem Ramesh.

6.Idapala Ramanappa.

7.Bukke Venkataramana Naik.

8.Thota Gangi Reddy.

.. Accused.

This is a criminal appeal coming on 31.10.2016 before me for final hearing in the presence of Sri Y.V.Sesha Reddy, Advocate for appellants/accused and Smt. Y.Malathi, learned Additional Public

Prosecutor for respondent/complainant, upon perusing the relevant material on record and having stood over for consideration till this day, this court made the following:

C.A.No.385 OF 2016 2 II ADJC., MPL

JUDGMENT

1. The appellant/accused having been aggrieved by the judgment of the Judicial Magistrate of I class, Thamballapalle dated 21.09.2016 made in STC No.36/2016, convicting and sentencing the appellants/accused to suffer Simple Imprisonment for a period of 10 days and shall also pay the fine of Rs.300/- ach accused in default of payment of fine they shall under simple imprisonment for 3 days for the offence under Section 9(1) of A.P.Gaming Act hereinafter referred to as „Act‟ for brevity.

2. In the memorandum of appeal, it is urged that the judgment is against law, weight of evidence and probabilities of the case. The

Lower Court erred in coming to conclusion that the alleged incident is not within the framework of A.P.Gaming Act and convicted the accused. The Lower Court ought to have asked the accused that there is no fear and no need to admit the offence and ascertained the accused that there was any tutoring or threat from the complainant party before recording the admissions made by the accused. In fact the accused have not committed the offence and they have admitted the ofence on the instructions and threat and false assurance given by the complainant party. The appellants state that there police have threatened to admit the offence and on their threat the appellants have admitted the offence and it was not considered by the Lower

Court. The appellants therefore prayed this Court to allow this appeal by setting aside the conviction recorded by the lower Court.

3. Heard the learned counsel for the appellant/accused and the learned counsel for the respondent/complainant.

4. Now, the point is to be answered is:

Whether the Judgment passed by the Lower Court passed in STC No.36/2016 21.09.2016 on the file of

Judicial Magistrate of I class, Thamballapalle can be

set aside to acquit the appellants/accused or not ?

5. POINT:: The learned counsel for the appellants/accused argued that the appellants have admitted the offence on the threat of the police and actually the appellants have not committed any offence. He further argued that though the appellants stated before the lower that

C.A.No.385 OF 2016 3 II ADJC., MPL the complainant party have threatened them to admit them but the same was not considered by the lower Court but the lower Court convicted and sentenced the appellants to undergo imprisonment for a period of 10 days each and to pay fine of Rs.300/- each for the offence punishable under Sec. 9(1) of A.P. Gaming Act.

6. The case of the prosecution is brief are that, on 19.09.2016 at 12.00 p.m. on credible information the S.I.of Police,

Molakalacheruvu along with his staff conducted raids and at under a

Pangam tree, Gangireddi cultivation fields, near Chetlevaripalle, H/O.

Chowdasamudram village, Molakalacheruvu Mandal and found A to A8 are playing gambling called (In and Out) “Mangathayi” game by betting money causing annoyance to the public, that the S.I.of Police arrested the A1 to A8, seized the betting amount of Rs.4,270/- and 52 playing cards under a cover of Police Proceedings in Cr.No.43/2016 was registered against A1 to A8 and filed charge sheet for the offence punishable under Section 9(1) of A.P.Gaming Act.

7. On perusal of the record, during the examination of appellants/accused under Section 251 Cr.P.C. before the lower Court the appellants/accused clearly pleaded guilty of the offence under Sec.

9(1) of AP Gaming Act. But the contention of the appellants/ accused is that they were not asked before the lower Court that there is no fear and no need to admit the offence and the police have threatened them to admit the offence. The only contention of the appellants is that due to threat of police the appellants/accused have admitted the offence but the same was not considered by the lower Court, cannot be believed as it appears that to create some reason or the other to prefer the appeal they raised such baseless contention without there being any ground, reality and substance. The version of appellants is disbelieved as they did not raise any objection and they did not submit such fact before trial Court as such their contention of fear, threat and force by prosecution is disbelieved as nothing prevented the appellants to report the same before the lower Court. Per contra, they clearly admitted their guilt during their examination under Sec. 251 Cr.P.C and considering the submissions of the appellants/ accused in this criminal appeal and the circumstances of the case this Court is of the considered opinion that the imprisonment underwent by the appellants for a period of three (3) days and fine paid by the appellants/accused

C.A.No.385 OF 2016 4 II ADJC., MPL in the lower Court is sufficient to meet ends of justice and to punish them under the charged offence..

8. In the result, the Criminal Appeal is allowed in part to modify the judgment of lower Court. The sentence of imprisonment undergone by the appellants for three (3) days, payment of fine amount and property order is hereby confirmed and the remaining sentence of simple imprisonment period of 7 days is set aside.

Typed to my dictation by the Stenographer, corrected and

pronounced by me in open Court, this the 2nd day of November, 2016.

Sd/-SSS Jayaraju.

II ADDL. DISTRICT & SESSIONS JUDGE,

MADANAPALLE.

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

-Nil-

Sd/-SSS Jayaraju.

II ADDL. DISTRICT & SESSIONS JUDGE,

MADANAPALLE.

//true copy//

In the Court of :II Additional District Judge

Case No. :MVOP/0000037/2013 V.RAMESH Vs M.PALANI

Date : 02-11-2016

Business: Notice given. Orders pronounced. vide separate order. In the result, the petition is partly allowed to awad compensation of rs.34,000/- to the petitoner along with costs and interest at 7.5 percent from the date of petition till the date of realization. R1 to R4 are jointly and severally liable to pay the compensation. However, final liabilities is fixed on R2 is directd to deposit the compensation within and merits from the date of this award on deposit the petitioner is permitted to withdrw entire amount as he has lready spend the amount awarded under different heards. However the petitioner is not entitled to claim any interest during the period of dismissal, till the date of restoration if on rs.1,500/- is fixed as advocate fee as per rule 15 of advocate fee rules 2010 Nature of Disposal : DECREED WITH COSTS Disposal Date: 02-11-2016 II Additional District Judge

IN THE COURT OF THE II ADDITIONAL DISTRICT JUDGE

MADANAPALLE

Present: K.Chidananda VIII Addl District Judge, Chittoor FAC.II Additional District Judge, Madanapalle.

This the ( 4th ) day of November, 2016.

MVOP.No. 91 of 2015

Between:

P.Chowdappa …Petitioner And:

B.Pradeep Kumar Alias Pradeep

..Respondent

O R D E R

Petitioner called absent. no represent5ation ispite of conditional order claimed not present and trail is not commenced. for default of petitioner OP is dismissed.

Correct and pronounced by me in the open court, this the 4th of

November, 2016.

Sd./-K.Chidananda VIII Addl District Judge, Chittoor FAC.II Additional District Judge, Madanapalle.

APENDIX OF EVIDNECE

Nil

Sd./-K.Chidananda

VIII ADJ,CTR

FAC.II ADJ, MPL.

In the Court of :VII Additional District Judge

Case No. :CRLRP/0000007/2016 P Mohan Babu Vs P Harini

Date : 01-10-2016

Business: In the result, the criminal revision is allowed partly to modify the order of the learned Special Magistrate, Madanpalle passed in MC No.25/2015, dt 16-12-15 and reduced the maintenance granted by the lower court to the daughter from Rs.3,500/- per month to Rs..2500/- per month. Nature of Disposal : ALLOWED IN PART Disposal Date: 01-10-2016 VII Additional District Judge