Sri S.V. Chalapathi, III ADJ

1

IN THE COURT OF THE MOTOR ACCIDENTS CLAIMS TRIBUNAL

ANANTAPUR

PRESENT: SRI S.V.CHALAPATHY, M.Com.,LL.B.,

III ADDITIONAL DISTRICT AND SESSIONS JUDGE, FAST TRACK COURT,

ANANTAPUR.

FRIDAY THE 22 ND DAY OF MARCH, 2013

ORIGINAL PETITION NO.469/2011

Between:-

Kansali Nagendrachari … Petitioner

And

1. E.Narayana

2. IFFCO TOKIO General Insurance Company Ltd., by its Authorised signatory, Hyderabad. … Respondents

Petition dt.10-10-2011 u/ss.140 & 166 of M.V. Act 1988 and Rule 455 of A.P

Motor Vehicles Rules 1989 praying to award compensation of Rs.4,00,000/- for the injuries sustained by him in motor accident on 18-08-2008.

This Original Petition coming on 13-03-2013 before me for final hearing in the presence of Sri Y. Lepakshi Naidu, Advocate for the petitioner and of

Sri G. Seetharama Rao, Advocate for the 2nd respondent and 1st respondent having remained exparte and the matter having stood over for consideration till this day, the court delivered the following:-

ORDER

This claim petition is filed by the petitioner/claimant u/ss.140 and 166 of

M.V.Act 1988 and Rule 455 of A.P.M.V. Rules 1989 claiming compensation of

Rs.4,00,000/- for the injuries sustained by him in a road traffic accident that took place on 18-08-2008 near Yerrampalli bus stop cross, on N.H.7 road, on

Chennekothapalli to N.S. Gate and for costs and interest.

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

On 18-08-2008 the petitioner along with others were proceeding in scropio vehicle bearing No.AP-02-S-6449 which belongs to 1st respondent under whom the petitioner was working as driver and proceeding from Chennekothapalli to N.S.

Gate and when their vehicle reached near Yerrampalli bus stop cross, on N.H.7 road, the driver of the vehicle driven the vehicle in a rash and negligent manner with high speed, lost control, resulting the vehicle turned turtle in which the 2 petitioner and others were proceeding. The accident occurred only due to rash and negligent driving of driver of their vehicle, the petitioner sustained grievous injuries and he was admitted in Government Hospital, Dharmavaram from there he was taken to Government General Hospital, Anantapur again he was shifted to

Padmachandra Super Speciality Hospital, Kurnool, the petitioner undergone surgery to his back and got admitted in the said hospital, he took treatment for a period of more than 3 months, even now also the petitioner is taking treatment and suffering the pain. The petitioner became permanent disabled person and not in a position to attend to his work and depending on others. The petitioner spent more than

Rs.2,00,000/- for his treatment. The police of C.K. Palli P.S. Registered a case in

Cr.No,.56/2008 against the driver the Scorpio vehicle. Hence the 1st respondent as owner of the crime vehicle, the 2nd respondent as its insurer both are jointly and severally liable to pay the compensation. Hence the petition may be allowed and an amount of Rs.4,00,000/- may be awarded as prayed for.

3. The 1st respondent remained exparte, the 2nd respondent insurance company filed written statement, opposing the claim of the petitioner. The brief averments of the counter are as follows:-

The 2nd respondent denied all the averments that are mentioned in the petition and pleaded that, the petitioner has to prove that, the crime vehicle was insured with 2nd respondent company and that, the policy was in existence, the liability of insurance company is subject to terms and conditions of the alleged policy. The person who drove the vehicle has no relation in force as on the date of accident. The driver of the crime vehicle Shaik Abdul Aziz, S/o Vali must hold a valid and effective driving license at the relevant point of time, otherwise, the 2nd respondent is not liable to pay the compensation. The 1st respondent failed to inform the accident, the number of the vehicle, driver particulars, policy particulars etc., further the police also failed to inform about the accident and about M.V. I report therefore the R-2 company is not liable to pay compensation. The petitioner has to prove the alleged accident, the age, avocation and his income. The petitioner has to prove that, the accident occurred only due to rash and negligent 3 driving of driver of crime vehicle. Infact there is no rash or negligent act on the part of driver of crime vehicle and the R-2 company is not liable to pay compensation. The 1st respondent must hold valid permit, R.C. and fitness certificate at the relevant point of time. The claim of the petitioner is excessive and he is not entitled for interest. Hence the petition is liable for dismissal.

4. Basing on the pleadings of both sides this court framed the following issues are framed for consideration.

1.Whether the accident occurred on 18-08-2008 at about 9:30 P.M., near

Yerrampalli bus stop cross on N.H.7 road, due to rash and negligent driving of driver of scropio bearing No.AP-02-S-6449 and lost control over the same and turtled and caused injuries to the petitioner?

2. Whether the petitioner is entitled to compensation? If so, to what amount and from which respondent?

3. To what relief?

5. On behalf of petitioner PWs-1 and 2 are examined, Exs.A-1 to A-4 are marked. On behalf of R-2 no witnesses are examined, but Ex.B-1 marked with consent.

6. Issue No.1:-

The petitioner to prove the rash or negligent act on the part of diver of crime

Scropio vehicle bearing No.AP-02-S-6449, he examined himself as PW-1 and relied on Exs.A-1 to A-4. In his chief examiation he reiterated all the averments that are mentioned in the petition regarding the accident and the manner how the accident took place, to prove the accident, he deposed that, on 18-08-2008 himself and other persons were proceeding from Chennekothapalli to N.S.Gate in the crime vehicle and when the vehicle reached near Yerrampalli bus stop cross on N.H.7 road, the driver of crime vehicle driven the vehicle rashly and negligently with high speed, lost control over the vehicle resulting the crime vehicle turned turtle, he sustained grievous injuries, thereby he was shifted to Government Hospital, 4

Dharmavaram from there he was taken to Government General Hospital, Anantapur and again on the advise of doctors he was taken to private hospital, Kurnool for better treatment. The accident occurred only due to rash and negligent act of driver of crime vehicle the police of C.K. Palli also registered a case in

Cr.No.56/2008 against the crime vehicle. The witness in clear terms deposed about the rash and negligent act of driver of driving vehicle and also relied on Exs.A-1 to

A-3. Ex.A-1 is the attested copy of F.I.R., Ex.A-2 is the attested copy of wound certificate, Ex.A-3 is attested copy of charge sheet, all these documents clearly proves that, the driver of crime vehicle alone was rash and negligent and he is responsible for the accident. For this evidence of PW-1 in the cross examination it is elicited that, on Abdul Aziz was a driver of the crime jeep at the time of accident.

The accident took place during night time on N.H.7, there is vehicular traffic on the road. It is suggested to him that, the accident not occurred at the negligence of driver of Aziz and that the accident occurred due to his negligence and he fell down from the entrance door except making suggestion to PW-1 no evidence was adduced by R-2 company with regard to the alleged negligence of petitioner.

Except filing of Ex.B-1 policy copy no evidence adduced by R-2 company, admittedly R-1 the owner of crime vehicle remained exparte and not contesting the case. Hence the evidence of PW-1 coupled with Exs.A-1 to A-3 proves that, the petitioner proved rash or negligent act on the part of driver of crime vehicle.

Admittedly the police of C.K. Palli also registered a case in Cr.No.56/2008 against the driver by name Aziz. Hence the petitioner proved his case there is rash or negligent act on the part of driver of crime vehicle, hence the issue is answered accordingly

7. Issue No.2:-

The petitioner to fix the liability on respondents 1 and 2 examined himself as

PW-1 and relied on the evidence of PW-2 the doctor who treated him and the documents Exs.A-1 to A-4. The 1st respondent who is owner of the crime vehicle remained exparte and not contesting the case. the 2nd respondent alone is contesting the case, but the insurance company not examined any witnesses on its 5 side it only filed Ex.B-1 office copy of policy. The perusal of office copy of policy

Ex.B-1 goes to show that, the crime vehicle was insured with R-2 company and the period of insurance is from 28-02-2008 to 27-02-2009. the date of accident is 18-08-2008 therefore the policy is in force by the date of accident. Premium also paid for the passenger, driver and employee, therefore the insurance company has got obligation to pay the compensation. For the evidence of PW-1 in the cross examination it is suggested that, the accident occurred not due to the negligence of driver Aziz, but due to the negligence of petitioner himself. The witness denied the suggestion. Except that suggestion there is no cross examination as there are violations of policy terms and conditions. Hence the insurance company and the 1st respondent are jointly and severally liable to pay the compensation to the petitioner.

8. The next aspect of the matter is regarding quantum of compensation payable to the petitioner. The petitioner in his evidence deposed that, he was 1st taken to

Dharmavaram Hospital from there he was taken to Government General Hospital,

Anantapur again he was shifted to Padmachandra Super Speciality Hospital,

Kurnool, he received fracture of left arm, right side of the head, left lower jaw and other grievous injuries on left eyebrow and other parts of the body. He deposed that, he undergone operation at Kurnool, steel plates were inserted in the left arm and it has to be removed due to fracture of lower jaw, he is not in a position to take food, further he undergone operation on right side head, back bone and left eye brow, the treatment went for more than six months, he spent more than

Rs.2,50,000/- for treatment even now he is taking treatment, due to injuries, he is not in a position to attend to his normal duties, he became permanent disabled person due to fracture of left arm. In support of his evidence he filed Ex.A-2 wound certificate, Ex.A-4 medical bills numbering 69 for an amount of Rs.1,67,343/-. For this evidence of PW-1 in the cross examination, the R-2 counsel elicited that, the treatment in Government Hospital is at free of cost. It is suggested to him that, he sustained simple injuries, there is no disability, Ex.A-4 medical bills are not genuine and he is attending to regular work without any difficulty. The witness denied the 6 suggestion. The petitioner examined PW-2 the doctor, working at Kurnool, he deposed that, the petitioner sustained multiple injuries on head, lacerated injury to the left upper arm with fracture of bone, multiple injuries include the head injury and the left lower jaw. The injury on left lower jaw and left upper arm are grievous in nature, both are treated with internal fixation with plates and screws. The plates and screws are still inside. The medical bills Ex.A-4 belongs to his hospital (Padmachandra Super Speciality Hospital, Kurnool) and pertaining to the petitioner.

The petitioner was advised bed rest for one month, he cannot use arm for a period of six weeks, the injuries of left lower jaw permit to eat only soft food at least for three months. The lower jaw injury amounts to permanent disability. If necessary, removal of steel plates and screws has to be done, it require Rs.20,000/- to

Rs.25,000/-. In the cross examination it is elicited that, this type of treatment is also available in government hospital, it is suggested to the witness that the bills are inflated to help the petitioner, the witness denied the suggestion. It is further elicited that, the case sheet and discharge summary were lost in the floods, therefore he cannot give final details, but he can say the injuries and treatment basing investigation reports and marks on the body of patient. Further it is elicited that, the petitioner can attend to day to day work, but with some difficulty and with pain. It is further elicited that, the removal of plates and screws can be done in government hospital at free of cost. Considering the evidence of PW-2, it is now clear that, the petitioner sustained fracture to the left upper arm, multiple injuries to head, left lower jaw, both are grievous in nature, they were treated with internal fixation with plates and screws. The perusal of Ex.A-2 wound certificate goes to show that, the injury NO.2 is grievous i.e., a lacerated injury on left side of hand 5X1cm and injury Nos.1 and 3 are simple in nature. But the doctor says, the injury on left lower jaw is also grievous in nature. Considering the same I am of the view that, it can be taken as two grievous injuries and one simple injury. For two grievous injuries an amount of Rs.30,000/- can be awarded. For one simple injury

Rs.3,000/- can be awarded towards pain and suffering. The doctor deposed that, except blood bank bills all the bills including Sindu medical bills are relating to their hospital. The medical bills are sixty nine in number for Rs.1,67,343/-. Taking into consideration of evidence of PW-2 towards medical bills an amount of Rs.1,50,000/- 7 can be awarded. the petitioner has not filed any proof as there is permanent disability, due to injury on his left upper arm and left lower jaw. The doctor deposed that, the injury to the left lower jaw amounts to permanent disability, but in the cross examination he said the patient can attend day to day work normally with some difficulty and pain. Therefore I am not inclined to grant any compensation for the alleged permanent disability. However, the petitioner is aged 26 years and said to be working as driver therefore for loss of his earnings during treatment period i.e., at least for six months an amount of Rs.20,000/- can be granted. The petitioner must have taken attendant service, therefore an amount of

Rs.5,000/- can be granted towards attendant charges. The petitioner was taken several hospitals for treatment, therefore he must have spent money for transportation. Hence towards transportation another sum of Rs.5,000/- can be awarded. further the petitioner requires extra nourishment and therefore another sum of Rs.5,000/- can be awarded for extra nourishment. The witness PW-2 deposed that, if necessary the petitioner requires removal of plates and screws.

Therefore an amount of Rs.5,000/- can be awarded for further treatment. in all the petitioner is entitled for compensation of Rs.30,000+3,000+1,50,000+20,000 +5,000 +5,000 +5,000+5,000=Rs.2,23,000/-. This amount of compensation is very much reasonable and justified. The respondents 1 and 2 are jointly and severally liable to pay the compensation. accordingly this issue is answered.

9. Issue No.3:-

In view of the finding given on issue Nos.1 and 2, the petitioner is entitled for compensation of Rs.2,23,000/- with proportionate costs and interest at 7.5% per annum from the date of petition till the date of deposit of the amount. The respondents 1 and 2 are jointly and severally liable to pay the compensation.

Accordingly this issue is answered.

8 In the result the petitioner is partly allowed granting compensation of Rs.2,23,000/- with proportionate costs and with interest at 7.5% per annum from the date of petition till the date of deposit of the amount.

The respondents 1 and 2 are jointly and severally liable to pay the compensation. they are directed to deposit the amount within one month from the date of this order.

On deposit of the amount the petitioner is permitted to withdraw a sum of

Rs.50,000/- with proportionate costs and accrued interest.

The remaining amount shall be deposited in a Nationalised Bank in fixed deposit account for a period of 2 years.

After completion of 2 years period, he can withdraw the amount with accrued interest.

Advocate fee is fixed as Rs.1,500/- (Rupees One Thousand Five Hundred

Only)

Typed to dictation by Personal Assistant, corrected and pronounced by me in the open court, this the 22nd day of March, 2013.

III Additional Dist. Judge, Fast Track Court, Anantapur.

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

Witnesses examined for

Petitioner. Respondents.

PW-1/K. Nagendrachari Nil PW-2/Dr. K.G.Govinda Reddy

Exhibits marked for Petitioner

Ex.A-1/Attested photostat copy of F.I.R.

Ex.A-2/Attested photostat copy of wound certificate.

Ex.A-3/Attested photostat copy of charge sheet.

Ex.A-4/Medical bills numbering 69 for Rs.1,67,343/-.

9

Exhibits marked for Respondents

Ex.B-1/Insurance policy relating to offending vehicle.

III Additional Dist. Judge, Fast Track Court, Anantapur.

1 �

IN THE COURT OF THE SESSIONS DIVISION OF

ANANTAPUR AT ANANTAPUR

BEFORE THE III ADDL. DISTRICT & SESSIONS JUDGE, FAST TRACK

COURT: ANANTAPUR

PRESENT: Sri S.V. CHALAPATHY, M . Com ., LL.B.,

III Additional District & Sessions Judge, Fast Track Court, Anantapur.

THURSDAY, THE 28 th DAY OF MARCH, 2013

CRIMINAL APPEAL NO.177/2011

From which Court, the appeal is : Judicial Magistrate of 1st Class, Spl Mobile Court, Anantapur

Number of the case in that court : C.C.No.292/2010

Number of the Appeal : Criminal Appeal No.170/2011

Name and description of the appellant : K. Anil Kumar.

Section of law under which the lower : The accused is sentenced to undergo simple imprisonment for a period of six months and further directed to pay the cheque amount of Rs.1,00,000/- to the complainant u/s.357 (3) of Cr.P.C. towards compensation. In default of payment of compensation, he will undergo further 6 months of simple imprisonment for the offence u/s.138 of N.I. Act. The undergone period of remand shall be set off u/s.428 Cr.P.C.

Whether confirmed, modified or modified. In the result, the appeal is reversed and if modified, the : dismissed. The lower court judgment in modification. C.C.292/2010 dated 15-10-2011 is confirmed. since the appellant failed to appear before this court, the lower court is directed to issue N.B.W. to the accused and send him to the jail for serving the sentence.

Dates of

Presentation : 20-12-2011

Filed on : 21-12-2011

Notice issued by the Court : -------------

Appellants ordered to appear : 10-07-2012

Hearing : 21-03-2013

Judgment : 28-03-2013 2 � This appeal coming on 14-02-2013 for final hearing before me in the presence of Sri R. Krishna and Sri L.Bhaskar Reddy, Advocates for the appellant and of Sri A.V.Siva Reddy, Advocate for complainant and after hearing their arguments and upon perusing the material on record, this court delivered the following:-

JUDGMENT

This criminal appeal is arising out of the conviction and sentenced passed against the appeallant/accused for the offence u/s.138 of N.I Act in C.C.292/2010 on the file of J.M.F.C. (Special Mobile Court) Anantapur dated 15-10-2011 wherein the appellant accused was convicted u/s.255 (2) Cr.P.C. and sentenced to undergo simple imprisonment for a period of six months and also directed to pay the cheque amount of Rs.1,00,000/- to the respondent complainant u/s.357 (3) Cr.P.C. as compensation in default, he shall undergo simple imprisonment of six months. The remand period ordered to set off u/s.428 Cr.P.C.

2. Before discussing the grounds of appeal it is relevant to mention the brief facts of the complaint filed by the respondent/complainant. The appellant accused borrowed a sum of Rs.50,000/- from the complainant on 24-05-2008 and also borrowed another sum of Rs.45,000/- from the complainant on 21-07-2008 and he agreed to repay the amount with interest at 24% per annum and executed two promissory notes in favour of complainant on above refer dates, subsequently when the complainant demanded for repayment the appellant accused issued a cheque for Rs.1,00,000/- bearing No.637571 dated 12-03-2009 drawn on Indusland Bank

Limited, Anantapur Branch. The complainant present the cheque in his bank i.e.,

S.B.I., Anantapur for collection. But the cheque was returned on 16-03-2009 with endorsement that, the account of accused was closed, thereby the complainant issued a registered notice to the appellant on 26-03-2009 demanding him to repay the amount within 15 days from the date of receipt. The accused failed to repay the same, therefore the complainant filed the present complaint u/s.138 of N.I. Act against the accused. these are the brief facts of the complaint.

3 �

3. The learned Magistrate took the case on file u/s.138 of N.I.Act against the appellant/accused and after following due procedure and after examining the witnesses i.e., PWs-1 to 3 on the side of complainant and after marking the documents Exs.P-1 to P-10 and after completion of evidence on the side of complainant. The accused was examined u/s.313 Cr.P.C. thereafter on hearing the arguments on both sides. The learned Magistrate found the appellant/accused guilty of the offence u/s.138 of N.I.Act and sentenced him to undergo simple imprisonment of 6 months and also directed to pay compensation amount of

Rs.1,00,000/- to the complainant and in default to suffer simple imprisonment of six months, the said judgment was passed on 15-10-2011.

4. Aggrieved by the said judgment and conviction passed in C.C.292/2010

dated 15-10-2011 this appeal is filed by the complainant accused requesting the

court to set aside the sentence and conviction on the following grounds. The appeal grounds in brief are as follows:-

The order passed by the trial court is against law and weight of evidence and probabilities of the case. the trial court failed to consider that the notice in question under section 138 (b) of the N.I. Act is not valid, the demand in the statutory notice must be in respect of the amount covered under the cheque in question, mere demand of the amount due under the promissory note cannot be construed as a demand of the amount covered under the cheque in question, the notice Ex.P-3 has been made for payment of the pronote cannot be construed as a notice within the provision of 138 (b) of N.I.Act. The respondent collected signed blank cheque from the appellant as security for the promissory notes executed by him for Rs.50,000/- on 24-05-2008 and for Rs.45,000/- on 21-07-2008 with a promise to pay with an interest at 24% per annum the respondent subsequently demanded excess interest and thereby he refused to pay the amount. Aggrieved by the said act, the respondent misused the blank cheque and foisted a false case. the appellant has not issued the cheque for purpose of discharging the whole are in part of the promissory notes. He was pressurized to issue blank cheque only as security.

Therefore the conviction and sentence passed by the trial court is erroneous and 4 � against the principles of natural justice, thereby the judgment passed by the trial court has to be set aside and the appellant may be acquitted for the offence u/s.138 of N.I.Act.

5. Now the point for consideration is :

Whether the respondent complainant proved his case under section 138 of

N.I.Act against appellant? And whether the ingredients of section 138 of N.I.Act is attracting in the case? and whether the trial court judgment is liable to be set aside as prayed by the appellant/accused?

6. Point:-

It is an admitted fact that, both appellant and respondent are residents of

Anantapur town, both are having financial transactions, the appellant admittedly borrowed Rs.50,000/- from the respondent on 24-05-2008 and again he borrowed a sum of Rs.45,000/- from the respondent on 21-07-2008 and he executed two promissory notes on respective dates in favour of respondent agreeing to repay the amount with interest at 24% per annum. According to respondent, when he demanded the appellant for repayment of the amount due under the pronotes the appellant issued a cheque bearing No.637571 dated 12-03-2009 drawn on

Indusland Bank Limited, Anantapur for Rs.1,00,000/-. According to respondent, he deposited the cheque in his bank i.e., S.B.I. Anantapur for collection but the said cheque was returned with a return memo with an endorsement that, the appellant closed the account, thereby he issued a legal notice to the appellant dated 26-03- 2009 demanding the appellant to repay the amount due under the cheque within 15 days from the date of receipt of notice, but the appellant failed to pay the amount and thereby, he was constrained to file the complaint. The complainant to prove his case examined himself as PW-1 and relied on Exs.P-1 to P-10. the respondent also examined PW-2 and 3 i.e., Branch Manager Of S.B.I Anantapur to speak about deposit the cheque by respondent for collection and return of the cheque with endorsement as account closed. PW-3 the Branch Manager of Indusland Bank 5 � Limited, Anantapur he was examined to speak about return of the cheque issued by appellant with endorsement that the account was closed and the cheque Ex.P-1 is one of the leaves of the cheque book issued to appellant. Ex.P-2 is the memo issued by Indusland Bank, Ex.P-3 is the office copy of notice issued by respondent,

Ex.P-4 is the postal acknowledgement served on the appellant. Further the respondent also relied on Ex.P-5 which is voucher of State Bank Of Anantapur to prove that the cheque Ex.p-1 was presented for collection. Ex.P-6 is the counter foil dated 17-03-2009 issued by S.B.I. Anantapur in evidence of deposit of cheque of Ex.P-1, Ex.P-7 is account opening application of appellant in Indusland Bank

Limited, Anantapur. further the documents Ex.P-8 and P-9 are the certified copies of promissory notes executed by the appellant in favour of respondent dated 24-05- 2008 and 21-07-2008, Ex.P-10 is the certified copy of plaint in O.S.323/2011 relying on these documents the respondent is conteding that, the appellant committed the offence u/s.138 of N.I. Act. In the cross examination of respondent (PW-1) it is suggested to him that, since Ex.P-1 cheque was bounced, he filed the suit O.S.323/2011 by filling the pronotes and by mentioning the dates and it is further suggested that, the appellant has no necessity to borrow money from him and that he has no capacity to lend such huge amount and he filed complaint only to harass him. It is also suggested to him that, both the pronotes Ex.P-8 and P-9 were executed by appellant on the same day. The witness denied the suggestion.

The nature of the cross examination done to PW-1 shows that, there is no proper defence for the appellant, except making bald suggestions, nothing important is elicited. No cross examination was done with regard to Exs.P-1 to P-7. Nothing is suggested with regard to Ex.P-3 notice. The contention of appellant counsel is that,

Ex.P-3 notice was issued demanding for repayment of the pronote amount and therefore it cannot be construed as a notice within the proviso (b) to section 138 of

N.I.Act. This argument is not proper because in Ex.P-3 notice it is clearly averred about return of cheque with endorsement as account closed, it is also clearly demanded to arrange the cheque amount within 15 days from the date of receipt of the notice or else the respondent/complainant will take appropriate action u/s.138 of N.I.Act. The appellant received the notice, but he has not sent any reply. In the cross examination of PW-1 it is suggested to him that, he took Ex.P-1 forcibly from 6 � the accused cash counter and he has not borrowed any amount from him and a false complaint is filed. Whereas in the appeal grounds contrary stand is taken as the appellant borrowed the amount on two different dates and executed two promissory notes agreeing to repay the same with 24% per annum and the respondent took signed blank cheque from the appellant as security for the debt borrowed under promissory notes, later the respondent demanded excesses interest, but the appellant refused thereby the respondent pressed the cheque into service and foisted a false case. Further it is pleaded that, the cheque was towards security of pronote amount therefore the cheque is not for discharge of any legally enforciable debt. Infact, cross examination was not done, to PW-1 on the said lines. Further in the cross examination of PW-1 it is suggested that, both promissory notes were executed on one day. This cross examination to PW-1 shows that, the appellant has no definite stand, at one time he is admitting the borrowal of amount under two promissory notes and at another time he is denying the borrowal of amount and saying that Ex.P-1 was forcebily taken from the cash counter of appellant. Infact the appellant has not discharged his burden by adducing rebuttal evidence. Therefore the trial court drawn presumption u/s.139 of

N.I.Act and also u/s.118 N.I. Act. Further the respondent also examined PW-2 the

Branch Manager, S.B.I., Anantapur he also clearly spoken about presentation of

Ex.P-1 cheque by respondent on 14-03-2003 for collection and sending the cheque to Indusland Bank Limited, Subash Road, Anantapur and return of the cheque as the account was closed by the drawer. Ex.P-2 is the return memo dated 16-03- 2009, Ex.P-5 is the voucher Ex.P-6 is counter foil issued at the time of returning the cheque. This evidence of PW-2 is fully corroborating the evidence of PW-1. The other witness PW-3 who is Branch Manager of Indusland Bank Limited, Anantapur this witness also categorically deposed that the appellant is their bank customer and having account in their bank, Ex.P-7 is the account opening application, the appellant had cheque facility, the cheque Ex.P-1 is one of the leaves issued to the complainant. Further he deposed that, when Ex.P-1 reached their bank for encashment from S.B.I., Anantapur on 16-03-2009 they verified the records and issued return memo Ex.P-2, saying that, the appellant already closed his account in their bank. In the cross examination it is elicited that, on 04-11-2008 the account 7 � of complainant was closed on his request. This evidence of PW-3 is totally supporting the version of respondent, the trial court after discussing entire evidence both oral and documentary produced by complainant/respondent and after discussing all the ingredients u/s.138 of N.I. Act, rightly arrived to the conclusion that, the complainant proved his case beyond reasonable doubt and Ex.P-1 cheque was issued by appellant for discharge of debt which is legally enforcible and existing debt as on the date of issue of cheque. The judgment of lower court is on correct lines and there is no perversity and not against weight of evidence and probabilities of the case. Considering the above discussion I am of the considered view that, there are no valid grounds to interfere with the findings of the lower court, the lower court rightly convicted the accused for the offence u/s.138 of N.I.Act and awarded punishment of simple imprisonment for six months and also directed to pay compensation of Rs.1,00,000/- to the respondent and in default, he was directed to undergo further six months simple imprisonment and also given set off the remand period already undergone u/s.428 Cr.P.C. hence I find no merit in the appeal and it is liable to be dismissed. Accordingly the point is answered.

In the result, the appeal is dismissed. The lower court judgment in

C.C.292/2010 dated 15-10-2011 is confirmed. since the appellant failed to appear

before this court, the lower court is directed to issue N.B.W. to the accused and

send him to the jail for serving the sentence.

Typed to dictation by Personal Assistant, corrected and pronounced by me in the open court this the 28th day of March, 2013.

III Addl. District & Sessions

Judge, Fast Track Court,

Anantapur.

Back Daily Status

In the Court of :III Addl. District Judge

Case No. :MVOP/0000441/2010 N.P.Parvathamma Vs S.Abdul Rahiman

Date : 28-03-2013

Business: Order pronounced. Vide Separate Order. In the result, the petition is partly allowed granting compensation of Rs.78,760/- with proportionate costs and with interest at 7.5 per annum from the date of petition till the date of deposit of the amount. The respondents 1 and 2 are liable to pay compensation of 80 to the petitioners. The respondents 3 and 5 are liable to pay 20 of compensation. the Claim against R-4 is dismissed. The respondents 1, 2, 3 and 5 are directed to deposit the amount within one month from the date of this order. On deposit of the amount, the petitioner is permitted to withdraw a sum of Rs.50,000/-. The remaining amount shall be deposited in a Nationalised Bank in fixed deposit account for a period of 2 years. After completion of 2 years period, she is permitted to withdraw the entire amount with proportionate costs and accrued interest. Advocate fee is fixed at Rs.2,000/- Rupees Two Thousands Only. Nature of Disposal: ALLOWED Disposal Date: 28-03-2013 III Addl. District Judge

Back Daily Status

In the Court of :III Addl. District Judge

Case No. :MVOP/0000521/2011 Karanam Vasundhara Vs The Manager, Mahindra Navistar Automotives LTD.

Date : 04-04-2013

Business: order pronounced. V.S.O. In the result, the petition is partly allowed granting compensation of Rs.27,000 with proportionate costs and with interest at 7.5 per annum from the date of petition till the date of deposit of the amount. The respondents 1 and 2 are liable to pay the compensation, the 2nd respondent is directed to first deposit the amount with a liberty to recover the same from 1st respondent the owner of the crime vehicle. The respondents 1 and 2 directed to deposit the amount within one month from the date of this order. On deposit of the amount the petitioner is permitted to withdraw the entire amount with proportionate costs and accrued interest. Advocate fee is fixed at Rs.2,000/- (Rupees Two Thousand) Only. Nature of Disposal: ALLOWED Disposal Date: 04-04-2013 III Addl. District Judge

Case Historyhttp://172.17.40.130/swecourtis/kiosk/cases/case_no...

Back Daily Status

In the Court of :III Addl. District Judge

Case No. :SC/0000419/2012 The SHo. Roddam Vs Dasireddigari Lakshmidevamma

Date : 04-04-2013

Business: Judgment pronounced. (Vide separate judgment). In the result, the accused A-1 and A-2 are acquitted u/s.235 (1) Cr.P.C. for the offence u/s.420, 366, 342, 506 I.P.C. and u/s.4 and 5 of Immoral Traffic (Prevention) Act. The bail bonds executed by A-1 and A-2 shall stands cancelled six months after this judgment. Nature of Disposal: ACQUITTAL Disposal Date: 04-04-2013 III Addl. District Judge 1 of 114/10/24, 11:03