Dr. Shameem Akthar, B.Com.,LL.M.,Ph.D

IN THE COURT OF THE MOTOR ACCIDENTS CLAIMS

TRIBUNAL (DISTRICT JUDGE) AT NIZAMABAD

Present: Dr. Shameem Akther, LL.M., Ph.D., Chairman, Motor Accident Claims Tribunal (Dist. Judge), Nizamabad.

Friday, the 15th day of May, 2015

O.P.No. 509 of 2013

Between:

Kammari Laxman S/o.Sudershan, aged 44 years, Caste: Hindu, Occ: Blacksmith and Carpenter, R/o. Jakora village, Mandal Varni, District Nizamabad.

..Petitioner

A n d

1. B.Devender S/o.Sayanna, aged major, Caste:Hindu, Occ: Owner of Toofan (Tempo Trax), bearing No.AP-25-V-4034, R/o.H.No.2-3, Bollakpally village, Mandal Pitlam, District Nizamabad.

2. The New India Assurance Company Limited, represented by its Divisional Manager, 1st Floor, APSFC building, Opp: Z.P. Office, Nizamabad. (Through policy No.610600/31/08/01/00003324 valid from 04.12.2008 to 03.12.2009)

..Respondents

This petition coming before me on this day for final hearing in the presence of Sri S.Srinivas, Advocate for the Petitioner and Sri S.Dayanand Goud, Advocate for Respondent No.1 and Sri P.Chandrashekar Reddy, Advocate for the Respondent No.2 and having heard and having stood over for consideration, this Tribunal makes the following:

:: O R D E R ::

1. This is a petition filed under Section 166 (i) (a) of the Motor

Vehicles Act claiming compensation of Rs.10,00,000/- together with interest at the rate of 24% per annum from the date of petition till the date of realization on account of injuries sustained by the petitioner in an accident alleged to have occurred on 29.04.2009 at about 8.30 a.m on

Nizamabad-Varni road, in the outskirts of Varni village and mandal,

District Nizamabad.

2 OP.No.509 of 2013 2.1 It is stated in the petition that the petitioner is aged 44 years, resident of Jakkora village and he was doing blacksmith and carpentry work. On 29.04.2009 the petitioner was going on his motorcycle

No.AP-25-N-5901 along with his brother-in-law Kammari Gangadhar from

Jakora to Nizamabad. The petitioner was riding the motorcycle. When they reached the Nizamabad-Varni main road, a Toofan Tempo bearing

No.AP-25-V-4034 came in opposite direction i.e., from Varni side, being driven by its driver in rash and negligent manner and dashed against the motorcycle of petitioner. The petitioner sustained blunt injury on abdomen, mesenteric tear, injury on mesocolic tear, small bowel perforation, fracture of Pelvis (Lt.pubic rumus) fracture of left leg (fibula), head injury (Occipital region), abrasion of left frontal region, abrasion on left forehead, laceration around left eye, abrasion on left hand, abrasion on right hand, multiple abrasions on face and other injuries all over the body.

2.2 The petitioner further stated that immediately he was taken to Govt.

Area Hospital, Bodhan by 108 Ambulance. From there he was taken to

Sri Srinivasa Neuro Care Hospital and from there shifted to Sai Vani

Hospital at Hyderabad and treated as in patient from 29.04.2009 to 10.05.2009. Multiple surgeries were performed on petitioner and he was kept in ICU for (9) days. He incurred expenditure of Rs..5,00,000/- for treatment, stay and conveyance. After discharge from hospital, he has been taking follow-up treatment and advised bed rest for one year. The petitioner is unable to do any work and suffered permanent disability.

One attendant is taking care of petitioner, round the clock, in his day-to-day avocations. The petitioner has lost his earning capacity and his family members are driven to streets. The accident occurred due to rash and negligent driving of the Toofan Tempo bearing No.AP-25-V-4034 by its 3 OP.No.509 of 2013 driver. 1st respondent is owner and 2nd respondent is insurer of said Tempo and the Insurance Policy was valid on the date of accident. Ultimately, the petitioner prayed to grant compensation of Rs.10,00,000/- against the respondent No.1 and 2 jointly and severally.

2.3 The respondent No.1 filed filed written statement denying all the averments of the petition and put the petitioner to strict proof of the same.

The respondent No.1 has specifically denied the manner of accident, nature of injuries sustained by the petitioner, treatment taken by the petitioner, age, income and avocation of the petitioner and the petitioner incurring expenditure etc. It is further stated that the Tempo Trax No.AP-25-V-4034 alleged to have been involved in the accident on 29.04.2009 is insured with the respondent No.2 vide policy No.610600/31/08/01/0000324 and the policy was valid from 04.12.2008 to 03.12.2009 and it was in force on the date of accident. If the petitioner is entitled to any compensation, the same may be granted against the respondent No.2 only and hence prayed to dismiss the petition against the respondent No.1.

3. The respondent No.2 filed written statement denying all the averments of the petition and put the petitioner to strict proof of the same.

The respondent No.2 has specifically denied the manner of accident, nature of injuries sustained by the petitioner, treatment taken by the petitioner, age, income and avocation of the petitioner and the petitioner incurring expenditure etc. It is further stated that neither the petitioner nor the respondent No.1 had informed the occurrence of accident to the respondent

No.2. The police concerned also did not forward the report in Form No.54 to the respondent No. 2 as required U/s 158(6) of M.V.Act. The owner and insurer of the motorcycle No.AP-25-N-5901 are necessary parties to this 4 OP.No.509 of 2013 petition. The amount of compensation of Rs.10,00,000/- claimed by the petitioner is highly excessive, exorbitant and out of all proportions and ultimately prayed to dismiss the petition of the petitioner.

4. In the light of the above pleadings the following issues were framed:

1.Whether Kammari Laxman suffered injuries due to rash and negligent driving of the Toofan (Tempo Trax) bearing No.AP-25-V-4034?

2.Whether the petitioner is entitled for compensation from the respondent as claimed?

3.To what relief?

5. To prove his claim, the petitioner examined himself as PW.1 and further examined Dr.R.Prathap Reddy as PW2. Exs. A1 to A24 are marked in the evidence of PW1. On the other hand, no oral evidence is adduced on behalf of respondents but Ex.B1 copy of insurance policy is marked.

Issue No.1:

6.1 This petition is filed claiming compensation of Rs.10,00,000/- on account of injuries sustained by the petitioner in a motor vehicle accident.

To prove his claim, the petitioner examined himself as PW1 and his evidence reveals that on 29.04.2009 he was going from Jakkora to

Nizamabad on his motorcycle bearing No.AP-25-N-5901 and when the motorcycle reached the main road from Nizamabad to Varni at about 8.30 a.m one Tempo Trax No.AP-25-V-4034 came in opposite direction being driven by its driver in rash and negligent manner and dashed to the motorcycle. The evidence of PW1 further reveals that he suffered grievous injuries all over the body and immediately admitted in Sai Vani Hospital,

Hyderabad. Through he evidence of PW1, Ex.A1 to Ex.A24 are marked.

In the cross examination, PW1 reiterated the same and denied that there 5 OP.No.509 of 2013 was rashness and negligence on his part in driving the motorcycle and also denied that he suffered simple injuries. PW2 Dr.R.Pratap Reddy deposed that Pw1 suffered injuries and took treatment at Sai Vani Hospital,

Hyderabad. PW2 reiterated the same in the cross examination.

6.2 The respondent No.1 and 2 denied involvement of Tempo Trax bearing No.AP-25-V-4034 in the accident and also denied that there was no rashness and negligent on the part of its driver and further contended that there was contributory negligence on the part of the petitioner in driving the motorcycle. But the respondents did not adduce any evidence to substantiate the same.

6.3 Ex.A1 certified copy of FIR No.104/2009 of PS Varni reveals that the accident occurred due to rash and negligent driving of the Tempo Trax

No.AP-25-V-4034 by its driver. The FIR was issued for the offence

U/s 337 IPC. Ex.A2 is certified copy of injury certificate of the petitioner and its original was issued by the Medical Officer working in Govt. Area

Hospital, Bodhan. Ex.A3 certified copy of charge sheet corroborates with the evidence of PW1 and the driver of Tempo Trax by name M.A.Mubeen was charge sheeted for the offences U/s 337 and 338 IPC. The petitioner is shown as injured in this case. The evidence of PW1 and PW2 is consistent with the documentary evidence and nothing is brought in their cross examination to discard their testimonies. There is no reason for the police to lay a false charge sheet against the driver of Tempo Trax by name

M.A.Mubeen. There is no evidence of contributory negligence on the part of the petitioner in this case in driving the motorcycle No.AP-25-N-5901.

Under these circumstances, it can be safely concluded that Kammari Laxmi suffered grievous injuries due to rash and negligent driving of the Toofan 6 OP.No.509 of 2013

Tempo Trax No. AP-25-V-4034 by its driver and there was no contributory negligence on the part of the petitioner. The issue No.1 is answered accordingly.

Issue No.2

7.1 The evidence of PW1 reveals that he sustained blunt injury on abdomen, mesenteric tear, injury on mesocolic tear, small bowel perforation, fracture of Pelvis (Lt.pubic rumus) fracture of left leg (fibula), head injury (Occipital region), abrasion of left frontal region, abrasion on left forehead, laceration around left eye, abrasion on left hand, abrasion on right hand, multiple abrasions on face and other injuries all over the body.

Immediately after the accident, he was admitted in Govt.Area Hospital,

Bodhan and from there he was taken to Sri Srinivasa Neuro Care Hospital and from there he was referred to Sai Vani Hospital, Hyderabad and he took treatment from 29.0.4.2009 to 10.05.2009. Multiple surgeries were performed on him and he was kept in ICU for (9) days and he was almost in coma and blood transfusion was done and laparotomy surgery was done under G.A and all the surgeries are major surgeries and after discharge from the hospital, he is taking follow up treatment for one year and he was advised further surgeries and bed rest for one year and he is unable to do his work and at the time of accident he was 45 years old, hale and healthy.

The evidence of PW1 further reveals that he was doing black smith and carpentry work and earning Rs.15,000/- per month and due to injuries suffered in the accident, he is not able to do his work and he incurred expenditure of Rs.3,00,000/- for his treatment and ultimately prayed to grant compensation of Rs.10,00,000/-.

7 OP.No.509 of 2013 7.2 The evidence of PW2 Dr.R.Pratap Reddy reveals that he is working as General Surgeon in Basawa Tarakam Indo American Cancer Hospital,

Hyderabad. Previously he worked as consultant General Surgeon in Sai

Vani Hospital, Hyderabad from 2001 to 2012. On 29.04.2009 one patient by name K.Laxman, aged 45 years was admitted in Sai Vani Hospital, with history of injuries in road traffic accident and on examination he found the following injuries:

1)Blunt injury abdomen

2)Mesenteric tear

3)Mesocolic tear

4)Small bowel perforation

5)Fracture of Pelvis

6)Fracture of Lt.fibula

7)Head Injury

8)Multiple facial lacerations

The injuries No.1 to 7 are grievous in nature and the injury No.8 is simple in nature. He was treated as in patient from 29.04.2009 to 10.05.2009. On 30.04.2009 surgery was performed and repair of mesenteric, mesocolic + small bowel perforation, repair of multiple facial lacerations was done under G.A (General Anesthesia). He identified PW1 as the said patient. The surgery performed on PW1 is a major surgery. For fracture of Pelvis and fibula, Pw1 was treated by Dr.Prabhu Dheer,

Orthopedic Surgeon. Ex.A8, Ex.A9, Ex.A10, Ex.A11, Ex.A12, Ex.A13 and

Ex.A14 were issued by Sai Vani Hospital and it relates to PW1. Ex.A19,

Ex.A22, Ex.A23 and Ex.A24 X-rays and C.T scan reports were issued by

Sai Vani Hospital. The injuries mentioned in Ex.A2 are corresponding to the injuries mentioned in Ex.A8, Ex.A10 and Ex.A11. PW1 paid

Rs.1,55,000/- as per Ex.A14. Without seeing the record, now he cannot give the percentage of disability.

8 OP.No.509 of 2013 7.3 In the cross examination PW2 stated that the injuries are possible due to fall from height. He denied that he did not treat PW1 as deposed by him. Ex.A15 are two photos of the petitioner, Ex.A16 is copy of disability certificate issued by the Medical Board, Nizamabad wherein it is exhibited that the petitioner suffered 70% disability. On the Ex.P15 photo, the stitches are visible vertically on the abdomen. In Ex.A8 discharge summary also reveal the injuries suffered by the petitioner. There is consistency and corroboration in the evidence of PWs 1 and 2 and the documents marked under Ex A1 to Ex.A24.

7.4 The learned counsel for the petitioner relied upon a decision between Jakir Hussain v. Sabir reported in 2015 ACJ 721 wherein the

Hon’ble Supreme Court assessed the compensation payable in favour of the

petitioner/injured as under:

Amount of Sl.No. Particulars Compensation (Rs.) 1 Loss of future income due to disability 864000 2 Loss of income during period of treatment 76500 3 Pain and Suffering 150000 4 Medical Expenses 200000 Attendant charges during the period of treatment for 5 17 months 40000 6 Transportation charges during the period of treatment 20000 Special diet and nutrition as advised by the doctor 7 during the period of treatment 20000 Permanent disability/loss of amenities, happiness and 8 enjoyment of life 150000 9 Future medical expenses 200000 10 Expenses during pendency of appeal 40000 Total 1760500 7.5 The contention of the petitioner is that he is black smith by profession and due to injuries suffered in the accident; he is unable to do any work. In support of said contention, the petitioner has filed and got marked Ex.A16 disability certificate issued by the Medical Board, District 9 OP.No.509 of 2013

Headquarters Hospital, Nizamabad wherein it is exhibited that the petitioner has suffered 70% disability. In view of evidence of PW1, PW2 and documents marked as Ex.A1 to Ex.A24, it can be safely concluded that the petitioner suffered 50% permanent disability. His functional capacity and earnings are reduced by 50%. There is evidence on record that the petitioner is black smith by profession. So, the income of the petitioner can be taken at Rs.4,000/- per month. The age of the petitioner is 45 years.

The suitable multiplier for the age group of 45 is 14. So, the loss of future income due to disability is calculated as under:

4000 x 12 x 14 x 1/2 = 3,36,000/-

So the Petitioner is entitled for Rs.3,36,000/- towards loss of earnings.

It can be cull out from the record that the petitioner could not have worked for six months due to injuries suffered and treatment taken. So, the petitioner is granted Rs.24,000/- towards loss of income during the period of treatment at the rate of Rs.4000/- per month for six months. Taking into consideration the nature of injuries suffered, the petitioner is granted

Rs.80,000/- towards pain and sufferings. Under Ex.A14, there is mention that the petitioner spent Rs.1,55,000/- towards hospital final bill. PW2

Dr.R.Pratap Reddy deposed about the genuineness of Ex.A14 bill. There is evidence to believe that the petitioner was treated in Sai Vani Hospital,

Hyderabad which issued Ex.A14 final bill. Therefore, the petitioner is granted Rs.1,55,000/- towards medical expenses. PW1 deposed that he employed attendants. Considering the same, the petitioner is granted

Rs.10,000/- towards attendant charges. The petitioner was taken from

Nizamabad to Sai Vani Hospital, Hyderabad where he took treatment.

So, he is granted Rs.10,000/- towards transportation during the period of 10 OP.No.509 of 2013 treatment. An amount of Rs.10,000/- is granted towards special diet and nutrition. The petitioner is also granted a sum of Rs.1,00,000/- towards permanent disability, loss of amenities, happiness and enjoyment of life.

There is also evidence to believe that the petitioner require future treatment and on that score, the petitioner is granted a sum of Rs.50,000/. In all the petitioner is granted Rs.7,75,000/- towards compensation with interest at the rate of 7.5% per annum as detailed under:

Amount of Sl.No. Particulars Compensation (Rs.) 1 Loss of future income due to disability 336000 2 Loss of income during period of treatment 24000 3 Pain and Suffering 80000 4 Medical Expenses 155000 5 Attendant charges during the period of 10000 6 Transportation charges during the period of treatment 10000 7 Special diet and nutrition as advised by the doctor during the period of treatment 10000 8 Permanent disability/loss of amenities, happiness and enjoyment of life 100000 9 Future medical expenses 50000 �Total 775000 7.6 The contention of the respondent No.1 is that there was no rashness and negligence on the part of driver of Toofan Tempo bearing

No.AP-25-V-4034 and the accident occurred due to negligence on the part of petitioner in driving his motorcycle. While deciding issue No.1 it is held that the accident occurred due to rash and negligent driving of the Toofan

Tempo bearing No.AP-25-V-4034 by its driver only. Under Ex.B1 the said

Toofan Tempo bearing No.AP-25-V-4034 was insured with the respondent

No.2 and the policy was valid for the period from 04.12.2008 to 03.12.2009. The accident took place on 29.04.2009. There is no evidence of violation of terms and conditions of the insurance policy marked under

Ex.B1. Under these circumstances, the respondent No.1 being the owner 11 OP.No.509 of 2013 and respondent No.2 being the insurer of the Toofan Tempo bearing

No.AP-25-V-4034 are jointly and severally liable to pay awarded compensation to the petitioner. The issue No.2 is answered accordingly.

8. IN THE RESULT, the petition is allowed in part awarding compensation of Rs.7,75,000/- (Rupees seven lakh seventy five thousand only ) to the petitioner payable by the respondent No.1 and 2 jointly and severally with simple interest at the rate of 7.5% per annum from the date of petition till date of realization and proportionate costs. The respondent

No.1 and 2 are directed to deposit the awarded amount within one month from the date of this order. On deposit, the petitioner is permitted to withdraw half of the amount and the remaining half amount shall be kept in fixed deposit for a period of three years. The advocate’s fee is fixed at

Rs.2,500/-.

Dictated to the Personal Assistant transcribed by him, corrected

and pronounced by me in the open court on this the 15th day of May, 2015

Chairman, Motor Accidents Claim Tribunal, (Dist. Judge), Nizamabad.

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

WITNESSES EXAMINED ON BEHALF OF

PETITIONER RESPONDENTS

PW1 Kummari Laxman -Nil- PW2 Dr.R.Prathap Reddy

EXHIBITS MARKED

Ex.A1 CC of F.I.R in Ex.B1 Copy of Insurance Policy Cr.No.104/2009 of PS Varni Ex.A2 Certified Copy of Injury Certificate Ex.A3 Certified Copy of Charge Sheet Ex.A4 Copy of Insurance Policy Ex.A5 X-ray reports 12 OP.No.509 of 2013

Ex.A6 U.S. Scanning report Ex A7 C.T.Scan of brain Ex A8 Discharge Summary of Sai ` Vani Hospital Ex.A9 Certificate issued by Sai Vani Hospital Ex.A10 CT Scan report Ex.A11 (05) X-ray reports Ex.A12 (16) Pathological reports Ex.A13 ECG report Ex.A14 Bill issued by Sai Vani Hospital dt.10.05.2009 Ex.A15 Two photos Ex.A16 Copy of disability certificate issued by Medical Board, Nizamabad Ex.A17 Copy of RC of motorcycle NoAP 25 N 5901 Ex.A18 Copy of driving licence Ex.A19 (04) X-ray films Ex.A20 C.T.Scan report Ex.A21 X-ray film taken from Sai Vani Hospital, Hyderabad ExA22 X-ray of spinal chord Ex.A23 X-ray of chest Ex.A24 Spinal cord CT scan report

Chairman, Motor Accidents Claim Tribunal, (Dist. Judge), Nizamabad.

BEFORE THE CHAIRMAN, MOTOR ACCIDENTS CLAIMS

TRIBUNAL (DISTRICT JUDGE) AT NIZAMABAD

Present: Dr. Shameem Akther, B.Com.,LL.M., Ph.D., Chairman, Motor Accident Claims Tribunal (Dist. Judge), Nizamabad.

Wednesday, the 13th day of May, 2015

O.P.No.752 of 2010

Between:

1.Guguloth Ramulu S/o.Gangya, aged 52 years, Occ:AR SI Nizamabad, AR Head Quarters, Nizamabad.

2.Smt.Guguloth Heera Bai W/o.Guguloth Ramulu, aged 49 years, Occ: Household.

3.Baby Guguloth Mayuri D/o.Guguloth Ramulu, aged 13 years, Occ: Student. Petitioner No.3 is minor, under the guardianship of her father and natural guardian Sri Guguloth Ramulu petitioner No.1 All R/o H.No.9-6/1, Guthpa village of Makloor Mandal, Dist. Nizamabad.

..Petitioners

A n d

1.Sri Vijay Kumar S/o. Laxman, aged major, Occ: Owner of the Lorry No.ATJ-2244, R/o.H.No.3-31, Madapoor village of Jakranpally Mandal, Distirct Nizamabad.

2.ICICI Lombard General Insurance Company Limited, represented by its Branch Manager, Branch Office, Near Sridevi Talkies, City Plaza Complex, 3rd floor, Gandhi Chowk, Nizamabad. (vide cover note No.58079482 valid from 16.11.2009 to 15.11.2010)

.. Respondents

This petition coming before me on 13-5-2015 for final hearing in the presence of Sri Azar Kishan Rao, Advocate for the Petitioners and Sri V.Bhasker, Advocate for the Respondent No.2 and the Respondent No.1 remained ex parte having stood over for consideration, this Tribunal makes the following:

:: O R D E R ::

1. This is a petition filed under Section 166 (1) (c) of the Motor

Vehicles Act claiming compensation of Rs.8,00,000/- together with interest at the rate of 24% per annum from the date of petition till the date of realization against Respondents 1 and 2 on account of death of

Guguloth Mahesh Kumar, in an alleged motor vehicle accident which took 2 OP.No.752 of 2010 place on 29.03.2010 at 4-30 p.m in the outskirts of Mentrajpally village of

Dichpally Mandal District Nizamabad.

2.1 It is stated in the petition that on 29.03.2010 at about 4-30 p.m

Guguloth Mahesh Kumar was traveling by lorry No.ATJ-2244 from

Wasely Thanda to Guthpa Thanda. When the lorry reached in the outskirts of Mentrajpally village, the driver of lorry drove it in rash and negligent manner and lost control over the vehicle due to which it turned turtle. All persons traveling in the lorry sustained injuries. Mahesh Kumar who was sitting in the cabin sustained grievous injuries and immediately he was taken to Sheshank Hospital, Nizamabad. Dr.Mothilal examined him and declared as dead.

2.2 It is further submitted that prior to death, the deceased Mahesh

Kumar was hale and aged 23 years. He was research scholar in Ph.D in

Central University Hyderabad. He was getting scholarships of Rs.10,000/- p.m and also used to earn more than Rs.10,000/- by way of tuitions. The petitioner No.1 and 2 are parents and petitioner No.3 is sister of the deceased and they were depending on his earnings. The deceased was contributing his entire earnings on the petitioners. Due to sudden demise of the deceased, the petitioner No.1 and 2 lost their only son and put to mental agony and stress. They have also lost their dependency. The accident occurred due to rash and negligent driving of the Lorry No.ATJ-2244 by its driver only. 1st respondent is owner and the respondent No.2 is insurer of the said lorry. The insurance policy was valid on the date of accident.

Ultimately, the petitioners prayed to grant compensation of Rs.8 Lakh from the respondents 1 and 2 jointly and severally.

3. The respondent No.1 remained ex parte.

3 OP.No.752 of 2010

4. The respondent No.2/insurer of the lorry bearing No.ATJ-2244 filed written statement denying all material allegations and put the petitioners to strict proof of the same. The respondents No.2 specifically denied the manner of accident, death of deceased in the alleged accident, profession and income of the deceased etc. It is further stated that deceased and others were unauthorized passengers in the lorry No.ATJ-2244 at the time of alleged accident. The respondent No.2 is not liable to pay any compensation. The driver of the lorry was not possessing valid and effective driving licence. The claim of petitioners for Rs.8,00,000/- is excessive and imaginary and ultimately prayed to dismiss the petition of the petitioners.

5. In the light of the above pleadings the following issues were framed:

1.Whether the accident has taken place due to rash and negligent driving of the Lorry bearing No.ATJ-2244 by its driver?

2.Whether the petitioners are entitled to claim compensation. If so, to what amount and against whom?

3.To what relief?

6. The second respondent filed a petition under Section 170 of the M.V.

Act and the same is allowed permitting the second respondent to take defences available to the 1st respondent/owner of the vehicle vide orders passed in I.A No. 062 of 2014 dt.26.6.2014.

7. To prove their claim, the petitioner No.1, father of deceased examined himself as PW.1 and further got examined one Mooda Srinivas as PW2.

Ex.A1 to Ex.A12 are marked on behalf of the petitioners. On the other hand, the respondent No.2 got examined RW1 to RW3 and got marked

Ex.B1 to Ex.B9 in is defence.

4 OP.No.752 of 2010

Issue No.1

8.1 The parents and sister of the deceased Guguloth Mahesh Kumar filed this petition claiming compensation of Rs.8,00,000/- on account of his death in an alleged motor vehicle accident. 1st petitioner, the father of the deceased examined himself as PW1 and also got examined one Mooda

Srinivas as PW.2. The evidence of PW1 reveals that on 29.03.2010 at 4-30 p.m he along with his son and others was traveling by Lorry bearing No.

ATJ-2244 from Wasely Thanda to Guthpa Thanda. When the lorry reached in the outskirts of Mentrajpally village, the driver of lorry drove it in rash and negligent manner and lost control due to which the lorry turned turtle and all inmates of the lorry sustained grievous injuries and his son Mahesh

Kumar who was sitting in the cabin sustained grievous injuries and he was immediately taken to Sheshank Hospital, Nizamabad where Dr.Mothilal examined him and declared dead. The accident occurred due to rash and negligent driving of the Lorry No.ATJ-2244 by its diver. Through the evidence of PW1, Ex.A1 to Ex.A12 are marked. In the cross examination,

PW1 reiterated the same. PW2 Mooda Srinivas also corroborated with the evidence of PW1 in all material particulars.

8.2 The respondent No.1 remained ex parte. The respondent No.2 got examined its employees as RW1 and P.Raghunath Rao, an employee of office of Transport Commissioner and Secretary Regional Transport

Authority, Nizamabad as RW3. Azmeera Balya said to be driver of crime lorry deposed as RW2. RWs 1 to 3 are not eyewitnesses to the occurrence of accident.

8.3 Ex.A1 certified copy of FIR in Cr.No.62/2010 of PS Dichpally corroborates the evidence of PW1 and PW2. Ex.A2 certified copy of 5 OP.No.752 of 2010 charge sheet filed in the said crime and Ex.A4 certified copy of inquest panchnama also corroborates with the evidence of PW1 and PW2. As per

Ex.A3 certified copy of PME report, the deceased succumbed to multiple injuries which are possible in motor accident. As per Ex.A2 certified copy of charge sheet, PW1 is defacto complainant in criminal case and PW2 is an eyewitness. PW1 was also traveling in the said lorry according to the evidence on record. Nothing is brought in the cross examination of PW1 and PW2 to disbelieve their evidence and the documents marked as Ex.A1 to Ex.A4. The evidence on record is not rebutted. Under these circumstances, it can be safely concluded that Guguloth Mahesh Kumar died due to rash and negligent driving of the lorry No.ATJ-2244 by its driver by name Azmeera Balya @ Balu. The issue No.1 is answered accordingly.

Issue No.2

9.1 The evidence of PW1 reveals that his deceased son was aged 23 years at the time of death and he was research student at Central University

Hyderabad and he was getting scholarship of Rs.10,000/- per month and he was also earning Rs.10,000/- p.m by way of tuitions. The petitioners 1 and 2 are parents and petitioner No.3 is sister of deceased and they have lost the love and affection of deceased and their futures has become dark and ultimately prayed to grant compensation of Rs.8,00,000/- PW2 did not state about the avocation and earnings of the deceased.

9.2 Under Ex.A1 certified copy of FIR, there is mention that the deceased was pursuing Ph.D. Ex.A2 certified copy of charge sheet and

Ex.A4 certified copy of inquest panchnama also reveals the same.

Therefore, it can be held that deceased Mahesh Kumar was aged 23 years and a Ph.D student. Generally the students of that age do some work and 6 OP.No.752 of 2010 support their parents. Therefore, the monthly income of the deceased can be taken at Rs.8,000/- per month.

9.3 Admittedly, the deceased Mahesh Kumar was unmarried at the time of accident and death. In a decision rendered in Ashvinubhai Jayantilal

Modi vs. Ramkaran Ramchandra Sharma and another reported in 2014

ACJ 2648 the Hon’ble Supreme Court in a case involving death of a bachelor, held that the age of mother of the deceased has to be taken into consideration to select the suitable multiplier as determined in Sarla Varma

Case 2009 ACJ 1298 (SC) and one-third of income of deceased has to be deducted towards personal expenses. Therefore, the said decision is relied to determine the compensation payable to the petitioners/parents of the deceased.

9.4 Relying on the above referred decision, the compensation payable to petitioners is calculated as under:

9.5 As per the decision cited above, 1/3rd income of deceased has to be deducted towards his personal expenses and 2/3rd is taken as contribution to the petitioners. The annual loss of income caused to the petitioners is computed as under:

8000 x 2/3 x 12 = Rs.64,000/-

As per the record, age of mother of deceased is (49). The suitable multiplier for the age of 49 is (13). So, the loss of dependency caused to the petitioners is computed as under:

64000 x 13 = 8,32,000

The petitioners are also granted Rs.50,000/- towards loss of love and affection and support of deceased at their old age and Rs.25,000/- towards funeral expenses. In all the compensation is computed at 7 OP.No.752 of 2010 9,07,000/-. Since the petitioners claim only Rs.8,00,000/-, they are granted

Rs.8,00,000/- with interest at the rate of 7.5% per annum.

9.6 The respondent No.1 remained ex parte. The respondent

No.2/Insurance Company contended that the deceased, Pw1, PW2 and others were returning by lorry No.ATJ-2244 after attending marriage and they are all gratuitous passengers and the lorry driver was not holding valid driving licence to drive the lorry and the owner has violated the terms and conditions of the insurance policy and therefore, the respondent No.2 is not liable to pay any compensation. RW1 Sri Chandramoulishwar, an employee of R2 company deposed the same. Through the evidence of RW1, Ex.B1 to

Ex.B7 are marked. The evidence of RW3 Sri P.Raghunath Rao, an employee of Transport Office reveals that no licence was issued to the driver of lorry by name Azmeera Balya from their office. Ex.B8 authorization and Ex.B9 extract of RC of Lorry No.ATJ-2244 are marked through the evidence of RW3. As per Ex.B9, the lorry was a goods carrying vehicle and its seating capacity is 1+2 and no passenger can travel by the said lorry. Ex.B1 copy of insurance policy reveals the same. No labour or passenger is insured under Ex.B1. RW1 also deposed the same.

9.7 Ex.B2 is office copy of notice issued to respondent No.1. Ex.B3 is postal receipt relating to issue Ex.B2 notice to RW1 owner. Ex.B4 is copy of notice issued to driver of the crime lorry and Ex.B5 is the postal receipt relating to Ex.B4. Ex.B6 is the acknowledgment showing service of copy of notice on driver of Lorry and Ex.B7 is MVI report. In Ex.B7 there is no mention of details of driving licence of driver. The driver’s name is mentioned as Azmeera Balya. Under Ex.A2 CC of charge sheet also the same name is mentioned. The vehicle check report was also issued. There 8 OP.No.752 of 2010 was no mechanical defect in the lorry. So, the evidence of RW1 and RW3 and the documents marked as Ex.A2 certified copy of charge sheet and

Ex.B7 MVI report clearly demonstrates that the driver of lorry by name

Azmeera Balya was not possessing licence to drive the lorry. Though

Azmeera Balya examined himself as RW2 and stated that he was sitting in the lorry at the time accident and driver of lorry was driving the lorry, he did not state the name of driver of said lorry. There is ample documentary record to believe that RW2 Azmeera Balya @ Balu was driver of crime lorry at the time of accident. Ex.B12 is the copy of Insurance Policy.

Ex.B1 is also copy of Insurance Policy. There is no evidence to believe that the deceased and others were labourers engaged to load and unload goods in the crime lorry as contended by the counsel for the petitioners. It can be safely concluded that the deceased and others were returning after the attending a marriage by crime lorry No.ATJ-2244 to their place, as deposed by RW1 and as mentioned in Ex.A1 certified copy of FIR and other criminal case records filed in this case.

9.8 The learned counsel for the petitioners relied upon the following citations:

1) Oriental Insurance Co.Limited Vs. Shahnawaz and others reported in 2014 ACJ 214. The Hon’ble High Court of Delhi in a case where the driver was not possessing valid driving licnece, held that “Insurance Company cannot avoid its liability, towards third party; Insurance Company bound to satisfy the award and then recover the amount from the owner and driver in execution of this very judgment without having recourse to independent civil proceedings.

2)Bajaj Allianz General Insurance Company Limited vs. T.Latha and others reported in III (2014) ACC 813 (AP) wherein it is held that “Insurance Company should be directed to pay 9 OP.No.752 of 2010 compensation amount first even though its defence (disputing validity of driving licence) was found accepted.

3)Samundra Devi vs. Narendera Kaur 2008 LawSuit(SC) 1589 wherein it is held that Unless the exceptions contained in Section 147 are attracted, the insure is bound to indemnify the insured.

Certain cases, though the insurer is held not liable to reimburse the owner, yet, directions are issued to the Company to pay amount of compensation to a third party and recover the same from the owner.

9.9 The learned counsel for the respondent No.2 relied upon the decision rendered in United India Insurance Company Limited Vs. Sujata Arora and others reported in 2013(3) T.A.C 29 (S.C) wherein it is held that “offending van was not being driven by a person holding a valid licence and therefore, Insurance Company is not liable to indemnify the owner.

9.10 The citation relied by the learned counsel for the respondent squarely applies to the case on hand. Though there was valid insurance in respect of crime lorry, no compensation can be awarded against the insurer i.e. respondent No.2 as the deceased was a gratuitous passenger in the lorry and the driver of lorry was not holding valid driving licence. Therefore, the respondent No.1 alone is liable to pay awarded compensation to the petitioners. The claim against the respondent No.2 is liable to be dismissed.

The issue No.2 is answered accordingly.

10. In the result, the petition is allowed granting compensation of

Rs.8,00,000/- (Rupees eight lakh only) to the petitioners 1 to 3 payable by the respondent No.1 with simple interest at the rate of 7.5% per annum from the date of petition till realization and costs. The claim against respondent No.2 is dismissed without costs. The compensation is 10 OP.No.752 of 2010 apportioned among the petitioners as under:

1st Petitioner Rs.3,00,000/- 2nd petitioner Rs.3,00,000/- with entire costs 3rd petitioner Rs.2,00,000/- (The petitioners 1 to 3 are entitled for proportionate interest)

The respondent No.1 is directed to deposit the compensation amount awarded to the petitioners with interest and costs within one month from the date of this order. On deposit, the petitioner No.1 and 2 are permitted to withdraw half of their amount and their remaining amount shall be kept in fixed deposit in any nationalized bank for a period of three years. The amount of minor petitioner No.3 shall be kept in fixed deposit till she attains age of majority. Advocate’s fee is fixed at Rs. 2,500/-.

Dictated to the Personal Assistant transcribed by him, corrected

and pronounced by me in the open court on this 13th day of May, 2015.

Chairman, Motor Accidents Claim Tribunal, (Dist. Judge), Nizamabad.

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

Witnesses examined on behalf of

Petitioners: Respondents

PW1 Guguloth Ramulu RW1 N.Chandramoulishwar PW2 Mooda Srinivas RW2 Azmeera Balya @ Balu (Eye witness) RW3 P.Raghunath Rao

EXHIBITS MARKED FOR

Petitioners: Respondents

Ex.A1 Certified Copy of FIR in Ex B1 Copy of Insurance Cr.No.62/2010 of PS Dichpally policy Ex.A2 Certified Copy of Charge Sheet Ex.B2 Copy of Notice dt.12.5.2012 to R1 Ex.A3 Certified Copy of P.M.E report Ex.B3 Post receipt Ex.A4 Certified Copy of Inquest Ex.B4 O/c of Notice of Panchnama 12-5-2012 issued to 11 OP.No.752 of 2010

Driver Ex.A5 Original SSC certificate of Ex.B5 Postal Receipt Mahesh Kumar dt.12.5.2012 Ex.A6 Intermediate Certificate of Ex.B6 Acknowledgement deceased Mahesh Kumar card of Driver Ex.A7 Memo of marks of B.Sc of Ex.B7 Copy of M.V.I report deceased Mahesh Kumar (Subject to Objection) Ex.A8 Memo of marks M.Sc of Ex.B8 Authorisation letter to deceased Mahesh Kumar RW3 Ex.A9 Provisional Certificate of B.Sc Ex.B9 Extract of RC of of deceased Mahesh Kumar Lorry No.ATJ-2244 Ex.A10 Provisional certificate of M.Sc of deceased Mahesh Kumar Ex.A11 Provisional Certificate cum Consolidated Grade Transcript of deceased Mahesh Kumar Ex.A12 Copy of Insurance Policy

Chairman, Motor Accidents Claim Tribunal, (Dist. Judge), Nizamabad

BEFORE THE CHAIRMAN, MOTOR ACCIDENTS CLAIMS

TRIBUNAL (DISTRICT JUDGE) AT NIZAMABAD

Present: Dr. Shameem Akther, B.Com.,LL.M., Ph.D., Chairman, Motor Accident Claims Tribunal (Dist. Judge), Nizamabad

Monday, the 11th day of May, 2015

O.P.No. 183 of 2013

Between:

1.Smt.Mangalpet Laxmi Bai W/o.Late Mangalpet Poshetty, aged 47 years, Occ: Household.

2.Mangalpet Ravi S/o.Late Poshetty, aged 37 years, Occ: Private Service.

3.Mangalpet Hari S/o.Late Poshetty, aged 32 years, Occ: Labour.

4.Mangalpet Anand S/o.Late Poshetty, aged 27 years, Occ: private Service. All R/o.H.No.10-9-442, Sainagar, Road No.2, Varni Road, Nizamabad.

..Petitioners

A n d

1.Sri Nazar Mohemmed S/o.Yousuf Khan aged major, Occ: owner of the Lorry No.MP-31-HA-0539 R/o H.No.193, Near Mudgal Lodge, Station Road, Shedpur, Rajasthan state.

2.Shriram General Insurance Company Limited, represented by its Branch Manager, Branch Office, E-8, EPIP RICO Sitapur, Jaipur, Rajasthan state (vide policy No.10003/31/13/203439 valid from 12.08.2012 to 11.08.2013)

.. Respondents

This petition coming before me on 11.05.2015 this day for final hearing in the presence of Sri Azar Kishan Rao, Advocate for the petitioners and Sri Jaya Prakash Loya, Advocate for respondent No.1 and Sri B.Anna Rao, Advocate for the respondent No.2 and having stood over for consideration, this Tribunal makes the following:

:: O R D E R ::

1. This is a petition filed under Section 166 (1) (c) of M.V.Act. 1988 r/w Rule 455 of A.P.M.V.Rules, 1989 claiming compensation of

Rs.6,00,000/- together with interest at the rate of 24% per annum from the date of petition till the date of realization against respondents 1 and 2 on account of death of Mangalpet Poshetty, in an alleged motor vehicle accident which occurred on 22.11.2012 at about 19-00 hours near SBH

Dichpally, District Nizamabad.

2 OP.No.183 of 2013 2.1 It is stated in the petition that on 22.11.2012 at about 7-00 p.m

Mangalpet Poshetty was returning from Dichpally to Nizamabad by his

Scooter bearing No.AP-25-AC-9145. When he reached near SBH, Branch

Dichpally, at the same time one Lorry No.MP-31-HA-0539 came in opposite direction being driven by its driver in rash and negligent manner and dashed against Poshetty. Poshetty fell down on the road, sustained crush injuries and died on the spot.

2.2 The petitioners further submitted that prior to death, the deceased

Mangalpet Poshetty was hale and healthy and aged 60 years. The deceased was doing travel business and earning Rs.15,000/- per month. The petitioner No.1 is wife and petitioner No.2 to 4 are sons of the deceased and they were depending on the earnings of the deceased. Due to sudden demise of Poshetty, the lives of petitioner became gloomy and miserable and they are put to starvation. The accident occurred due to rash and negligent driving of the Lorry No.MP-31-HA-0539 by its driver.

1st respondent is owner and 2nd respondent is insurer of the said vehicle.

The insurance policy was valid on the date of accident. Ultimately, the petitioners prayed to grant compensation of Rs.6,00,000/- from the respondents 1 and 2 jointly and severally.

3. The respondent No.1 filed written statement denying all material allegations made in the petition and put the petitioners to strict proof of the same. The respondents No.1 specifically denied the manner of accident, death of deceased in the alleged accident, profession and income of the deceased etc. It is further stated that the there is rashness on the part of deceased in driving the scooter. The Lorry was insured with the respondent

No.2 and the policy was in force on the date of accident. If the petitioners 3 OP.No.183 of 2013 are entitled for any compensation, the respondent No.2 alone is liable to pay the same.

4. The respondent No.2 filed written statement denying all material allegations made in the petition and put the petitioners to strict proof of the same. The respondents No.2 specifically denied the manner of accident, death of deceased in the alleged accident, profession and income of the deceased etc. It is further stated that the petitioners involved the lorry in order to get wrongful gains. There is greater negligence on the part of rider of scooter in causing the accident, insurer and owner of scooter are necessary parties to this petition. The claim of the petitioners under various heads is wrong, exorbitant and against law and ultimately prayed to dismiss the petition.

5. In the light of the above pleadings the following issues were framed:

1.Whether Mangalpet Poshetty died due to rash and negligent driving of the Lorry bearing No.MP-31-HA-0539?

2.Whether the petitioners are entitled for compensation from the respondents?

3.To what relief?

6. To prove their claim, the petitioner No.1, wife of the deceased examined himself as PW.1 and the petitioners further got examined one

Karsuvi Reddy as PW2 and Vaitla Prasad as PW3 and got marked Ex.A1 to

Ex.A6. On behalf of respondents, no oral evidence is adduced by Ex.B1 copy of Insurance Policy is marked.

7. The second respondent filed a petition under Section 170 of the

M.V. Act and the same is allowed permitting the second respondent to take defences available to the 1st respondent/owner of the vehicle vide orders passed in I.A No.548 of 2015 dt.17.04.2015.

4 OP.No.183 of 2013

Issue No.1

8.1 The wife and children of deceased Mangalpet Poshetty filed this petition claiming compensation of Rs.6,00,000/- on account of his death in an alleged motor vehicle accident. The 1st petitioner/wife of the deceased examined herself as PW1. The evidence of PW1 reveals that on 22.11.2012 at 7 p.m her husband Mangalpet Poshetty was returning home from Dichpally towards Nizamabad by Scooter bearing

No.AP-25-AC- 9145 and when reached near SBH Branch Dichpally, at the same time one Lorry No.MP-31-HA-0539 came in opposite direction, being driven by its driver in rash and negligent manner and dashed to the scooter of her husband. Due to the mishap, her husband suffered grievous injuries all over the body and died on the spot. Through the evidence of

PW1, Ex.A1 to Ex.A6 are marked. In the cross examination, PW1 reiterated the same. Admittedly, as per her own evidence, PW1 is not an eyewitness to the occurrence of accident. The petitioners also got examined

PW2 Karsuvi Reddy. He has corroborated with PW1 in all material particulars with regard to occurrence of accident. He has also deposed that the accident occurred due to rash and negligent driving of the

Lorry No.MP-31-HA-0539 by its driver. In the cross examination, he has reiterated the same. PW3 also spoke about the rashness and negligence on the part of Lorry driver.

8.2 Ex.A1 certified copy of FIR reveals that M. Poshetty died due to rash and negligent driving of Lorry No.MP-31-HA-0539. As per Ex A2, driver of said lorry by name Shaik Ansar Khan was charge sheeted for the offence U/s 304-A IPC. Ex.A2 also reveals that PW2 is cited as eyewitness to the occurrence of accident. Ex.A3 certified copy of inquest also corroborates with the evidence of PW1 to PW3. As per Ex.A4 certified 5 OP.No.183 of 2013 copy of PME report, the deceased succumbed to injuries which are possible in a road traffic accident. As per Ex.A5 report of M.V. Inspector, there was no mechanical defect in the lorry No.MP-31-HA-0539. There is consistency and corroboration in the evidence of PWs 1 to 3 and the documents marked as Ex.A1 to Ex.A5. There is no evidence of rashness or negligence on the part of deceased in driving the scooter.

8.3 The respondent No.1 and 2 though denied involvement of lorry and attributed negligence on the part of deceased, did not examine any person on their behalf. Under these circumstances, it can be safely concluded that

Mangalpet Poshetty died due to rash and negligent driving of the Lorry

No.MP-31-HA-0539 by its driver only and there was no negligence on the part of deceased in driving his scooter. The issue No.1 is answered accordingly.

Issue No.2

9.1 The evidence of PW-1 reveals that prior to death, her husband

Mangalpet Poshetty was aged 60 years, hale and healthy and was doing travel business and earning Rs.15,000/- per month used to contribute the same to the petitioners who were depending on the earnings of deceased and due to his sudden demise, they have lost their dependency and ultimately prayed to grant compensation of Rs.6,00,000/-. Under Ex.A2 certified copy of charge sheet, there is mention that the deceased was 60 years old and a businessman. Ex.A3 certified copy of inquest panchnama also reveals the same. There is nothing to disbelieve these documents. So, considering the evidence on record, it can be concluded that the deceased was 60 years old, doing business and his income can be taken at

Rs.4,500/- p.m.

6 OP.No.183 of 2013 9.2 In view of the circumstances of the case, it is relevant to refer the decision rendered in Rajesh and others v. Rajbir Singh and others (2013) 9 Supreme Court Cases 54 wherein the Judgments of Santosh

Devi, (2012) 6 SCC 421 and Sarla Verma, (2009) 6 SCC 121 were referred in determining the compensation payable to the dependents of the deceased.

In the aforesaid citation, the deceased Bijender Singh was 33 years old working as clerk in Education Department in the State of Haryana and his monthly salary was Rs.9,520/- and the compensation payable to the dependents is assessed as mentioned hereunder:

S.No. Heads Calculation 1 50% of (i) above to be (9520 + 4760) = Rs.14,280 per month added as future prospects 2 1/4th of (ii) deducted as (Rs.14280 – Rs.3570)=Rs.10,710 per personal expenses of the month deceased 3 Compensation after multip- (Rs.10,710 x 12 x 16)=Rs.20,56,320 lier of 16 is applied 4 Loss of consortium Rs.1,00,000 5 Loss of care and guidance Rs.1,00,000/- for minor children 6 Funeral expenses Rs.25,000/- Total compensation Rs.22,81,320/-

Relying on the above referred decision, the compensation payable to petitioners is calculated as under:

9.3 Had the deceased was alive, he could have supported his major sons and taken care of them, helping them finally. Therefore there are four dependents of the deceased. The Petitioner No.2 to 4 are major sons of the deceased. Considering the same, 1/3rd income of deceased is deducted towards his personal expenses and 2/3rd is taken as contribution to the petitioners. The annual loss of income caused to the petitioners is computed as under:

4500 x 2/3 x 12 = Rs.36000/- 7 OP.No.183 of 2013

The suitable multiplier for the age of 60 is (9). So, the loss of dependency caused to the petitioners is computed as under:

36000 x 9 = 3,24,000/-

The petitioners 1 to 3 are entitled for the said amount of

Rs.3,24,000/- towards loss of dependency.

9.4 The petitioner No.1 being wife of the deceased is granted a sum of

Rs.1,00,000/- towards loss of love and affection. Since the petitioner No.2 to 4 are major sons of the deceased, they are granted Rs.51,000/- towards loss of love, affection and care. The petitioners are also granted a sum of

Rs.25,000/- towards funeral expenses. In all the petitioners are granted

Rs.5,00,000/- -towards compensation with interest at the rate of 7.5% per annum as detailed under:

1 Loss of dependency Rs.3,24,000 2 Loss of consortium Rs.1,00,000 3 Loss of love and affection Rs. 51,000 4 Funeral expenses Rs. 25,000 Total Rs.5,00,000 9.5 The respondent No. 1 and 2 contended that the there was no rashness on the part of driver of Lorry No.MP-31-HA-0539 and the deceased has contributed to the occurrence of accident by driving the Scooter

No.AP-25-AC-9145 in rash and negligent manner. But the respondents did not adduce any evidence in support of said contention. While deciding issue No.1, it is held that the accident occurred due to rash and negligent driving of the said lorry by its driver only and there was no negligence on the part of deceased. As per Ex.A6 and Ex.B1, the Lorry

No.MP-31-HA-0539 was insured with the 2nd respondent and the policy was valid for the period from 12.08.2012 to 11-08-2013.. The accident occurred on 22.11.2012. There is no evidence of violation of terms and 8 OP.No.183 of 2013 conditions of the insurance policy by owner and driver. So, the respondent

No.1 being owner and respondent No.2 being insurer of the Lorry

No.MP-31-HA-0539 are jointly and severally liable to pay the awarded compensation to the petitioners with interest at the rate of 7.5% per annum.

The issue No.2 is answered accordingly.

10. IN THE RESULT, the petition is allowed in part granting compensation of Rs.5,00,000/- (Rupees five lakh only) to the petitioners 1 to 4 payable by the respondent No.1 and 2 jointly and severally with simple interest at the rate of 7.5% per annum from the date of petition till realization and costs. The compensation is apportioned among the petitioners as under:

1st Petitioner Rs. 2,75,000/- includes consortium, with entire costs. 2nd petitioner Rs. 75,000/- 3rd petitioner Rs.75,000/- 4th petitioner Rs.75,000/- (Petitioner No.1 to 4 are entitled for proportionate interest)

The respondent No.1 and 2 are directed to deposit the compensation amount awarded to the petitioners with interest and costs within one month from the date of this order. On deposit, the petitioner No.1 is permitted to withdraw half of her amount and her remaining amount shall be kept in fixed deposit in any nationalized bank for a period of three years. The respondents No.2 to 4 are permitted to withdraw their entire amount.

Advocate’s fee is fixed at Rs. 2,500/-.

Dictated to the Personal Assistant transcribed by him, corrected and

pronounced by me in the open court on this the 11th day of May, 2015.

Chairman, Motor Accidents Claim Tribunal, (Dist. Judge), Nizamabad 9 OP.No.183 of 2013

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

WITNESSES EXAMINED ON BEHALF OF

PETITIONERS RESPONDENTS

PW1 Mangalpat Laxmibai -Nil- PW2 Karsuvi Reddy PW3 Vaitla Prasad

EXHIBITS MARKED FOR

PETITIONERS RESPONDENTS

Ex.A1 Certified copy of F.I.R filed in Ex B1 Copy of Insurance policy Cr.No.250/2012 of PS Dichpally Ex.A2 Certified copy of charge sheet in Cr No. 250/2012 of PS Dichpally Ex.A3 Certified copy of inquest panchnama Ex.A4 Certified copy of P.M.E report Ex.A5 Certified copy of M.V.I report Ex.A6 Copy of Insurance Policy

Chairman, Motor Accidents Claim Tribunal, (Dist. Judge), Nizamabad.

IN THE COURT OF SESSIONS JUDGE, AT NIZAMABAD

Present: Dr. Shameem Akther, B.Com.,LL.M.,Ph.D.,

Sessions Judge, Nizamabad.

Thursday, the 14th day of May, 2015

Crl.Appeal No.33 of 2015

Between: M.A.Qadeer S/o. Mohd. Khaja Miyan, aged 40 years, Occ: owner of Eicher Van, H.No.1-2-102, Near Old Masjid, Muslimpura, Metpally, Kareemnagar District.

..Appellant

A n d

1. The State Government through the District Supply Officer, Nizamabad.

2. The State represented by Public Prosecutor, Nizamabad.

..Respondents

Crl.Appeal No.34 of 2015

Between: Konda Laxman S/o. Lachaiah, aged 42 years, Occ: Proprietor of M/s Hanuman Sai Traders, C/o. Renuka Industries, Thimmapoor village of Jagatiyal mandal of Karimnagar District.

..Appellant

A n d

1. The State through the Deputy Tahsildar Nizamabad.

2.The State represented by Public Prosecutor, Nizamabad.

..Respondents

These appeals coming on the 11.05.2015 before me for final hearing in the presence of Sri G.V.Krupakar Rerddy, Advocate for appellants in both the appeals and of Public Prosecutor for the Respondent having heard and having stood over for consideration, this Court delivered the following:

:: COMMON JUDGMENT ::

1. These appeals are preferred U/s.6-C of Essential Commodities Act aggrieved by the order of the Joint Collector, Nizamabad in case

No.CS6/32/2015 dtd: 03.03.2105 by questioning the confiscation of 100% seized stocks of rice in favour of the Government and imposition of

Crl.A.No.33/2015 & 34/2015 2

penalty of Rs.2,25,450/- on owner of lorry bearing No.AP-15-TA-2786.

The appeal No.33/2015 is preferred by owner of Eicher Van bearing

No.AP-15-TA-2786 viz. M.A.Qadeer s/o Mohd. Khaja Miyan and the

Crl.Appeal No.34/2015 is preferred by the owner of seized stocks i.e.

Proprietor of M/s Hanuman Sai Traders, Thimmapoor village of Jagtiyal

Mandal.

2. The brief facts of the case are as follows:

On 27.01.2015 while checking the vehicles at Kanteshwar by-pass road, Nizamabad, the District Supply Officer and others intercepted an

Eicher Van bearing No.AP-15-TA-2786 carrying 100.20 quintals of PDS rice packed in plastic bags. On enquiry, the driver stated that the rice was loaded by M/s Hanuman Sai Traders, Thimmapoor village of Jagtial

Mandal. The Muneem of Hanuman Traders stated that his master had instructed him to intimate after reaching Nizamabad shivar and then he would inform the place of delivery. On 28.01.2015 a panchnama was held in the presence of mediators. On enquiry, it is established that the appellant was doing illegal business by diverting the PDS stocks meant for distribution to the poor, in to the black market for unlawful gains and thereby contravened the provisions of Clause 5(xvi), 7(i), 17(c) and 18(b) of AP PDS Control Order 2008 and Clause 7(a)(1), 7(a)(2) of A.P.Rice

Procurement (Levy) Order 1984. The officials recorded statement of driver of said lorry viz. Md.Ikram Ali and Muneem viz. Tenugu Venkat Ramana and seized the stock and lorry under cover of panchnama and filed report for confiscation U/s 6-A of the E.C.Act 1955.

3. This case was taken on file by the Joint Collector, Nizamabad on 3.2.2015 and notice U/s 6-B of the E.C Act was issued to the appellant to file written explanation as to why the seized stock should not be confiscated

Crl.A.No.33/2015 & 34/2015 3

in favour of government. The owner of the vehicle was directed to furnish bank guarantee of Rs.2,50,000/- for the release of vehicle.

4. The appellant in Crl.Appeal No.34/2015 appeared and orally stated that the rice in question pertains to another 6-A case booked at Karimnagar

District and the said rice was released as per orders of the appellate Court and he is entitled to sell the same and he sent the said rice to Nizamabad for sale. The appellant in Crl.Appeal No.33/2015 did not appear before the lower court. The Joint Collector, Nizamabad after thorough enquiry found that the appellant is habituated in illegal transportation of PDS rice and he did not file any paper pertaining to 6-A case booked at Karimnagar and he is not entitled to sell the released rice without any way bill. The learned

Joint Collector, Nizamabad held that the appellant in Crl.Appeal No.

34/2015 has contravened the clauses 5(xvi), 7(i), 17(c) and 18(b) of AP

PDS Control Order 2008 and Clause 7(a)(1), 7(a)(2) of A.P.Rice

Procurement (Levy) Order 1984 and order for confiscation of 100 stock of seized stock in favour of Government. Further, the Joint Collector,

Nizamabad imposed penalty of Rs.2,25,450/- on the owner Eicher Van bearing No.AP15-TA-2786.

5. Aggrieved by the order of the Joint Collector, Nizamabad in

CS6/32/2015 dt 03-03-2015, these appeals are preferred.

6. The learned counsel for the appellant in Crl.Appeal No.33/2015 representing the owner of Eicher Van bearing No.AP15-TA-2786 contended that the rice which was being transported by the lorry pertains to 6-A proceeding and it was released as per the orders passed in Crl.Appeal

No.163 of 2014 dt.3-4-2014 by the Hon’ble Prl. District and Sessions

Judge, Karimnagar. The learned Joint Collector, did not consider the said

Crl.A.No.33/2015 & 34/2015 4

fact and mechanically passed orders imposing penalty of Rs.2,24,450/- on this appellant. The documents relating to Court order and release order of

District Supply Officer was sufficient to transport the Rice. Those documents were not considered by the learned Joint Collector. The penalty imposed is on higher side and ultimately prayed to allow the appeal by setting aside the penalty imposed against the Eicher Van bearing

No.AP15-TA-2786.

7. The learned counsel representing appellant in Crl.Appeal

No.34/2015 has submitted that the seized rice was the released stock of 6-A proceedings and in Crl.Appeal No.163/2013, the Hon’ble Sessions Court,

Karimnagar modified the order of the learned Joint Collector and ordered for release of 50% of stock and the same rice was being transported. The lower court did not consider the said fact and passed orders mechanically and the same is liable to be set aside. The order under appeal is bad in law and ultimately prayed to set aside the impugned order of Joint Collector

Nizamabad in Proceedings No.CS6/32/2015 dt.03.03.2015.

8. The learned Public Prosecutor contended that the learned Joint

Collector, Nizamabad after analyzing the entire material on record was pleased to confiscate entire seized stock. The appellant/owner of the rice is indulged in clandestine business of essential commodities and earlier also, a case was booked against him at Karimnagar. The owner of Eicher Van bearing No.AP-15-TA-2786 knowing well that the rice was meant for

Public Distribution System, without valid document, transported the same.

The learned Joint Collector has rightly imposed penalty on the owner of the

Van and also order for 100% confiscation of the seized stock and ultimately prayed to dismiss the appeal by confirming the order under appeal.

Crl.A.No.33/2015 & 34/2015 5

9. In view of the contentions put forth, the points that arose for determination are:

i) Whether the appellants are entitled for the release of seized stock and Eicher Van bearing No.AP15-TA-2786 by setting aside the order under appeal?

ii) To what result?

Point No.1 10.1 The material placed in the Court reveals that on 27.01.2015, 180.20 quintals of Rice was being transported by Eicher Van bearing

No.AP-15-TA-2786 and when said Van was intercepted by the District

Supply Officer, the lorry driver reveal that the rice was loaded by M/s

Hanuman Sai Traders, Thimmapoor village of Jagtial Mandal and the said lorry driver did not furnish the details of destination. The lorry driver also did not produce required documents for transportation of rice. So, under a panchnama dated 28.1.2015 the whole stock of rice and Van were seized in the presence of mediators.

10.2 It is the contention of the owner of rice and owner of lorry that they had requisite permit and way bill to transport the rice from Hanuman Sai

Trader, Thimmapoor of Jagtiyal Mandal to Nizamabad. But no such permit or way bill is produced. Both the appellants contended that the rice that was being transported was subject matter of 6-A proceedings

No.G3/2416/2013 on the file of Joint Collector, Karimnagar wherein 300 quintals of raw rice was seized and the learned Joint Collector had confiscated 50% of the seized stock and released the remaining rice.

Aggrieved by the said orders, the owner of rice preferred Crl.Appeal

No.163/2013 before the Prl.Sessions Judge, Karimangar and the Hon’ble

Judge was pleased to set aside the order of confiscation of 50% stock by

Crl.A.No.33/2015 & 34/2015 6

imposing of Rs.60,000/- penalty. The appellant/owner of the rice contended that the same rice was being transported from Jagtial to

Nizamabad and the rice was not meant for supply under Public Distribution

System and the owner is entitled to sell the stock anywhere. The same point was also agitated before the learned Joint Collector, Nizamabad and it was not considered. As per Govt. Orders in G.O.Ms No.11 dated 17.10.2014, the miller is entitled to sell his levy free eligibility @ 75% after delivering the levy @ 25%. The rice can be sold to any other traders but with the way bills. The owner has not produced the way bill for which the transpiration is meant for. The owner is not authorized to sell the released rice without any way bill. Moreover, on 27/1/2015 the appellant/owner of the rice has personally admitted before learned Joint Collector that he is not having any paper pertaining to 100 quintals of rice. Till date also, the appellant/owner of the rice did not file any material such as authorization certificate to transport the rice from Jagtial to Nizamabad District and way bill. Simply he is harping upon the judgment delivered in Crl.Appeal

No.163/2013 on the file of Prl.Sessions Judge, Karimnagar and no other material is placed before the Court to conclude that the stock released in that judgment and stock seized in this case are one and the same.

10.3 The panchnama conducted in this case on 28.1.2015 reveals that the rice seized was meant for supply under Public Distribution System and transported by Eicher Van bearing No.AP15-TA-2786 and the rice was sealed in different plastic bags. There were no bills, way bills, permission from the District Collector, Levy free eligibility certificate, loading certificate or the permission given by District Supply Officer and no document was available with the lorry driver for transportation of those rice bags. Under these circumstances, it can be safely concluded that the

Crl.A.No.33/2015 & 34/2015 7

appellant /owner of the rice is indulged in clandestine business of rice and illegal transporting the same into black market. Since there is no material to hold that the seized rice pertains to Public Distribution System, there is no contravention of Clause 5(xvi), 7(i), 17(c) and 18(b) of AP PDS Control

Order 2008. Since the appellant/owner of the rice had avoided payment of

Levy and taxes to the Government, he has contravened Clause 7(a)(2) of

A.P.Rice Procurement (Levy) Order 1984. Under these circumstances, 50% of the seized stock is liable to be confiscated and 50% is ordered to be released.

10.4 As seen from the record, there is no direct nexus between the appellant/owner of the Eicher Van No.AP-15-TA-2786 and the supply of rice by owner of rice. Since the appellant/driver of the Van transported

Rice without valid document, the penalty of Rs.2,25,450/- is reduced to

Rs.25,000/-. The point No.1 is answered accordingly.

11. In the result, the order of Joint Collector passed in CS6/32/2015 dt.3.3.2015 is modified and 50% of the seized stock is ordered to be confiscated in favour of Government and remaining 50% is ordered to be released in favour of the appellant in Crl.Appeal No.34/2015. The penalty imposed on the owner of lorry No. AP-15-TA-2786 in Crl.Appeal

No.33/2015 is reduced to Rs.25,000/- from Rs.2,25,450/- With these modifications, the appeals are partly allowed.

Dictated to the Personal Assistant, transcribed by him, corrected and

pronounced by me in open Court on this the 14th day of May, 2015

Sessions Judge,

Nizamabad.

Crl.A.No.33/2015 & 34/2015 8

IN THE COURT OF SESSIONS JUDGE, AT NIZAMABAD

Present: Dr. Shameem Akther, B.Com.,LL.M.,Ph.D.,

Sessions Judge, Nizamabad.

Thursday, the 14th day of May, 2015

Crl.Appeal No.33 of 2015

Between: M.A.Qadeer S/o. Mohd. Khaja Miyan, aged 40 years, Occ: owner of Eicher Van, H.No.1-2-102, Near Old Masjid, Muslimpura, Metpally, Kareemnagar District.

..Appellant

A n d

1. The State Government through the District Supply Officer, Nizamabad.

2. The State represented by Public Prosecutor, Nizamabad.

..Respondents

Crl.Appeal No.34 of 2015

Between: Konda Laxman S/o. Lachaiah, aged 42 years, Occ: Proprietor of M/s Hanuman Sai Traders, C/o. Renuka Industries, Thimmapoor village of Jagatiyal mandal of Karimnagar District.

..Appellant

A n d

1. The State through the Deputy Tahsildar Nizamabad.

2.The State represented by Public Prosecutor, Nizamabad.

..Respondents

These appeals coming on the 11.05.2015 before me for final hearing in the presence of Sri G.V.Krupakar Rerddy, Advocate for appellants in both the appeals and of Public Prosecutor for the Respondent having heard and having stood over for consideration, this Court delivered the following:

:: COMMON JUDGMENT ::

1. These appeals are preferred U/s.6-C of Essential Commodities Act aggrieved by the order of the Joint Collector, Nizamabad in case

No.CS6/32/2015 dtd: 03.03.2105 by questioning the confiscation of 100% seized stocks of rice in favour of the Government and imposition of

Crl.A.No.33/2015 & 34/2015 2

penalty of Rs.2,25,450/- on owner of lorry bearing No.AP-15-TA-2786.

The appeal No.33/2015 is preferred by owner of Eicher Van bearing

No.AP-15-TA-2786 viz. M.A.Qadeer s/o Mohd. Khaja Miyan and the

Crl.Appeal No.34/2015 is preferred by the owner of seized stocks i.e.

Proprietor of M/s Hanuman Sai Traders, Thimmapoor village of Jagtiyal

Mandal.

2. The brief facts of the case are as follows:

On 27.01.2015 while checking the vehicles at Kanteshwar by-pass road, Nizamabad, the District Supply Officer and others intercepted an

Eicher Van bearing No.AP-15-TA-2786 carrying 100.20 quintals of PDS rice packed in plastic bags. On enquiry, the driver stated that the rice was loaded by M/s Hanuman Sai Traders, Thimmapoor village of Jagtial

Mandal. The Muneem of Hanuman Traders stated that his master had instructed him to intimate after reaching Nizamabad shivar and then he would inform the place of delivery. On 28.01.2015 a panchnama was held in the presence of mediators. On enquiry, it is established that the appellant was doing illegal business by diverting the PDS stocks meant for distribution to the poor, in to the black market for unlawful gains and thereby contravened the provisions of Clause 5(xvi), 7(i), 17(c) and 18(b) of AP PDS Control Order 2008 and Clause 7(a)(1), 7(a)(2) of A.P.Rice

Procurement (Levy) Order 1984. The officials recorded statement of driver of said lorry viz. Md.Ikram Ali and Muneem viz. Tenugu Venkat Ramana and seized the stock and lorry under cover of panchnama and filed report for confiscation U/s 6-A of the E.C.Act 1955.

3. This case was taken on file by the Joint Collector, Nizamabad on 3.2.2015 and notice U/s 6-B of the E.C Act was issued to the appellant to file written explanation as to why the seized stock should not be confiscated

Crl.A.No.33/2015 & 34/2015 3

in favour of government. The owner of the vehicle was directed to furnish bank guarantee of Rs.2,50,000/- for the release of vehicle.

4. The appellant in Crl.Appeal No.34/2015 appeared and orally stated that the rice in question pertains to another 6-A case booked at Karimnagar

District and the said rice was released as per orders of the appellate Court and he is entitled to sell the same and he sent the said rice to Nizamabad for sale. The appellant in Crl.Appeal No.33/2015 did not appear before the lower court. The Joint Collector, Nizamabad after thorough enquiry found that the appellant is habituated in illegal transportation of PDS rice and he did not file any paper pertaining to 6-A case booked at Karimnagar and he is not entitled to sell the released rice without any way bill. The learned

Joint Collector, Nizamabad held that the appellant in Crl.Appeal No.

34/2015 has contravened the clauses 5(xvi), 7(i), 17(c) and 18(b) of AP

PDS Control Order 2008 and Clause 7(a)(1), 7(a)(2) of A.P.Rice

Procurement (Levy) Order 1984 and order for confiscation of 100 stock of seized stock in favour of Government. Further, the Joint Collector,

Nizamabad imposed penalty of Rs.2,25,450/- on the owner Eicher Van bearing No.AP15-TA-2786.

5. Aggrieved by the order of the Joint Collector, Nizamabad in

CS6/32/2015 dt 03-03-2015, these appeals are preferred.

6. The learned counsel for the appellant in Crl.Appeal No.33/2015 representing the owner of Eicher Van bearing No.AP15-TA-2786 contended that the rice which was being transported by the lorry pertains to 6-A proceeding and it was released as per the orders passed in Crl.Appeal

No.163 of 2014 dt.3-4-2014 by the Hon’ble Prl. District and Sessions

Judge, Karimnagar. The learned Joint Collector, did not consider the said

Crl.A.No.33/2015 & 34/2015 4

fact and mechanically passed orders imposing penalty of Rs.2,24,450/- on this appellant. The documents relating to Court order and release order of

District Supply Officer was sufficient to transport the Rice. Those documents were not considered by the learned Joint Collector. The penalty imposed is on higher side and ultimately prayed to allow the appeal by setting aside the penalty imposed against the Eicher Van bearing

No.AP15-TA-2786.

7. The learned counsel representing appellant in Crl.Appeal

No.34/2015 has submitted that the seized rice was the released stock of 6-A proceedings and in Crl.Appeal No.163/2013, the Hon’ble Sessions Court,

Karimnagar modified the order of the learned Joint Collector and ordered for release of 50% of stock and the same rice was being transported. The lower court did not consider the said fact and passed orders mechanically and the same is liable to be set aside. The order under appeal is bad in law and ultimately prayed to set aside the impugned order of Joint Collector

Nizamabad in Proceedings No.CS6/32/2015 dt.03.03.2015.

8. The learned Public Prosecutor contended that the learned Joint

Collector, Nizamabad after analyzing the entire material on record was pleased to confiscate entire seized stock. The appellant/owner of the rice is indulged in clandestine business of essential commodities and earlier also, a case was booked against him at Karimnagar. The owner of Eicher Van bearing No.AP-15-TA-2786 knowing well that the rice was meant for

Public Distribution System, without valid document, transported the same.

The learned Joint Collector has rightly imposed penalty on the owner of the

Van and also order for 100% confiscation of the seized stock and ultimately prayed to dismiss the appeal by confirming the order under appeal.

Crl.A.No.33/2015 & 34/2015 5

9. In view of the contentions put forth, the points that arose for determination are:

i) Whether the appellants are entitled for the release of seized stock and Eicher Van bearing No.AP15-TA-2786 by setting aside the order under appeal?

ii) To what result?

Point No.1 10.1 The material placed in the Court reveals that on 27.01.2015, 180.20 quintals of Rice was being transported by Eicher Van bearing

No.AP-15-TA-2786 and when said Van was intercepted by the District

Supply Officer, the lorry driver reveal that the rice was loaded by M/s

Hanuman Sai Traders, Thimmapoor village of Jagtial Mandal and the said lorry driver did not furnish the details of destination. The lorry driver also did not produce required documents for transportation of rice. So, under a panchnama dated 28.1.2015 the whole stock of rice and Van were seized in the presence of mediators.

10.2 It is the contention of the owner of rice and owner of lorry that they had requisite permit and way bill to transport the rice from Hanuman Sai

Trader, Thimmapoor of Jagtiyal Mandal to Nizamabad. But no such permit or way bill is produced. Both the appellants contended that the rice that was being transported was subject matter of 6-A proceedings

No.G3/2416/2013 on the file of Joint Collector, Karimnagar wherein 300 quintals of raw rice was seized and the learned Joint Collector had confiscated 50% of the seized stock and released the remaining rice.

Aggrieved by the said orders, the owner of rice preferred Crl.Appeal

No.163/2013 before the Prl.Sessions Judge, Karimangar and the Hon’ble

Judge was pleased to set aside the order of confiscation of 50% stock by

Crl.A.No.33/2015 & 34/2015 6

imposing of Rs.60,000/- penalty. The appellant/owner of the rice contended that the same rice was being transported from Jagtial to

Nizamabad and the rice was not meant for supply under Public Distribution

System and the owner is entitled to sell the stock anywhere. The same point was also agitated before the learned Joint Collector, Nizamabad and it was not considered. As per Govt. Orders in G.O.Ms No.11 dated 17.10.2014, the miller is entitled to sell his levy free eligibility @ 75% after delivering the levy @ 25%. The rice can be sold to any other traders but with the way bills. The owner has not produced the way bill for which the transpiration is meant for. The owner is not authorized to sell the released rice without any way bill. Moreover, on 27/1/2015 the appellant/owner of the rice has personally admitted before learned Joint Collector that he is not having any paper pertaining to 100 quintals of rice. Till date also, the appellant/owner of the rice did not file any material such as authorization certificate to transport the rice from Jagtial to Nizamabad District and way bill. Simply he is harping upon the judgment delivered in Crl.Appeal

No.163/2013 on the file of Prl.Sessions Judge, Karimnagar and no other material is placed before the Court to conclude that the stock released in that judgment and stock seized in this case are one and the same.

10.3 The panchnama conducted in this case on 28.1.2015 reveals that the rice seized was meant for supply under Public Distribution System and transported by Eicher Van bearing No.AP15-TA-2786 and the rice was sealed in different plastic bags. There were no bills, way bills, permission from the District Collector, Levy free eligibility certificate, loading certificate or the permission given by District Supply Officer and no document was available with the lorry driver for transportation of those rice bags. Under these circumstances, it can be safely concluded that the

Crl.A.No.33/2015 & 34/2015 7

appellant /owner of the rice is indulged in clandestine business of rice and illegal transporting the same into black market. Since there is no material to hold that the seized rice pertains to Public Distribution System, there is no contravention of Clause 5(xvi), 7(i), 17(c) and 18(b) of AP PDS Control

Order 2008. Since the appellant/owner of the rice had avoided payment of

Levy and taxes to the Government, he has contravened Clause 7(a)(2) of

A.P.Rice Procurement (Levy) Order 1984. Under these circumstances, 50% of the seized stock is liable to be confiscated and 50% is ordered to be released.

10.4 As seen from the record, there is no direct nexus between the appellant/owner of the Eicher Van No.AP-15-TA-2786 and the supply of rice by owner of rice. Since the appellant/driver of the Van transported

Rice without valid document, the penalty of Rs.2,25,450/- is reduced to

Rs.25,000/-. The point No.1 is answered accordingly.

11. In the result, the order of Joint Collector passed in CS6/32/2015 dt.3.3.2015 is modified and 50% of the seized stock is ordered to be confiscated in favour of Government and remaining 50% is ordered to be released in favour of the appellant in Crl.Appeal No.34/2015. The penalty imposed on the owner of lorry No. AP-15-TA-2786 in Crl.Appeal

No.33/2015 is reduced to Rs.25,000/- from Rs.2,25,450/- With these modifications, the appeals are partly allowed.

Dictated to the Personal Assistant, transcribed by him, corrected and

pronounced by me in open Court on this the 14th day of May, 2015

Sessions Judge,

Nizamabad.

Crl.A.No.33/2015 & 34/2015 8