Sri T.Gangi Reddy

IN THE COURT OF THE PRINCIPAL SESSIONS JUDGE AT

MAHABUBNAGAR

Wednesday, the 12th day of February, 2014.

Present:- Sri. T. Gangi Reddy, Prl. Sessions Judge, Mahabubnagar.

S.C.No. 540 of 2013

Preliminarily registered case No.44/2013 committed by the Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Jadcherla in Cr.No.204/2012 of P.S. Balanagar for the offence U/Secs.302 and 307 IPC.

Prosecution. Sri S. Vinod Kumar, Public Prosecutor, Mahabubnagar.

Accused Pathlavath Ramulu, S/o Rupla, age 21 years, Caste: Lambada, Occu: Agriculture, R/o Medigadda thanda, H/o Mothighanapur village of Balanagar mandal, Mahabubnagar District.

Sri K. Pratap Kumar, Advocate defended the Accused.

Offences under section 302 IPC Punishment for committing murder.

307 IPC Punishment for Attempt to murder.

Plea of the accused Pleaded not guilty

Finding Found not guilty

Sentence or order Accused is found not guilty of the charges U/Secs.302, 307 IPC and he is acquitted U/Sec.232 Cr.P.C. The bail bonds of accused shall stand cancelled.

This Sessions Case is coming up for hearing before me and upon perusing the material on record, upon hearing the arguments, and the matter having stood over for consideration, till this day the Court delivered the following:-

JUDGMENT

1. The Circle Inspector of police, Shadnagar Rural laid charge sheet against the accused for the offences U/Secs.302 and 307 IPC in

Crime No. 204/2012 of Balanagar police station.

2. The brief facts of the prosecution case are that Pathlavath Raju (herein after referred as deceased) was the husband of PW3 Pathlavath

Suvarna, brother of PW2 P.Gemiya and PW4 P.Venkatiya.

2 3. It is further case of the prosecution that the father of the deceased,

PW2 P. Gemiya and PW4 P. Venkatiya and two others by name Laxman got the assigned land extending 2 acres 16 guntas in the limits of

Gunded village and the same was transferred on his elder son Rupla who is the father of the accused. Since last five years the younger brothers are demanding to give their respective shares in the said land, but he denied for the same. Meanwhile, on 2.2.2008 said Rupla has taken Rs.70,000/- from his brother P.Raju (deceased) for his daughter’s marriage with a condition that he will give his share of 8 gts. of land in addition to share, but he did not give the land to the deceased and shares to other brothers and though panchayat was held he did not agree to do so as his son (accused) not available in the panchayat. Since, then grudges developed among them and that the accused hatched a plan to eliminate the deceased. On 28.11.2012 at about 6-00 p.m., the deceased and PW2 Gemiya went to accused near the Dharga adjacent to their house, and while asking about the land dispute, the accused picked up quarrel with them, went inside the house, brought an axe and hit on the heads of deceased and PW2 Gemiya indiscriminately and caused severe bleeding head injuries and the said incident was witnessed by PW1 P. Shiva and PW3 P. Suvarna (wife of deceased) and

PW7 Pathlavlath Basu who rescued from the clutches of the accused.

Later they shifted the injured to Government hospital, Shadnagar in an auto of PW5 P. Ravi with the support of PW6 P. Rukya and

LW8 P. Kishan (not examined) and from there they were shifted to

O.G.H., Hyderabad, but on the way to the hospital, the deceased succumbed to head injury. Basing on the report of PW1 P.Shiva, police

Balanagar originally registered a case in Cr No. 204/12 for the offence u/s 307 IPC, recorded the statements of witnesses, conducted scene of offence panchanama, on the death intimation referred the dead body for autopsy, arrested the accused, received the medical certificates and added the section of law. After completion of investigation filed charge sheet against the accused for the offences u/secs.302 and 307 IPC.

3 4. The learned Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Jadcherla took the cognizance of the case against the accused in PRC.No.44/2013

U/Secs.302, 307 IPC and committed the same to the Court of Sessions,

Mahabubnagar as the said offences are exclusively triable by the Court of Sessions. This court has assigned S.C.No.540/2013 and proceeded further.

5. On appearance of accused, on hearing the learned public prosecutor and the learned counsel for accused, the charge U/Secs.302, 307 IPC against the accused, as described under was framed, read over and explained to him.

“Firstly:-

That you accused on 28.11.2012 at about 6-00 p.m., at your house, situated at Medigadda thanda, Balanagar mandal, picked up quarrel with the deceased Pathlavath Raju and in the meanwhile, took an axe from your house and hit on the head of the deceased Pathlavath Raju indiscriminately with an intention to kill him who was died in the hospital due to land dispute and that you thereby committed offence of murder punishable U/Sec.302 IPC, and within my cognizance;

Secondly:-

That you accused on the above mentioned date, time and place at your house picked up quarrel with LW2 Pathlavath Gemiya (brother of deceased) and in the meanwhile, took an axe from your house and attacked on LW2 Pathlavath Gemiya indiscriminately with an intention to kill him and caused bleeding injuries due to land dispute and that you thereby committed offence punishable U/Sec.307 IPC and within my cognizance.”

The accused denied the same, pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried.

6. The prosecution in order to prove its case, examined P.Ws.1 to 7 and exhibited Exs.P.1 to P.9. PW3 Pathlavath Suvarna @ Kurna is the wife of deceased and eye witness who said to have speak the motive for the incident, PW1 Pathlavath Shiva complainant son of PW2 and eye witness, PW2 Pathlavath Gemiya injured/eye witness who is elder brother of the deceased and PW7 Pathlavath Basu, eye witness said to have speak the motive for the incident, PW4 Pathlavath Venkatiya, is the brother of deceased, PW6 Pathlavath Rukya are the circumstantial 4 witnesses and PW5 Pathlavath Ravi said to have shifted the injured to hospital in his auto. Ex.P1 is the Signature of PW1 on the report,

Ex.P2 is the report by PW1, Exs.P3 to P9 are the 161 CrPC Statements of

PWs.1 to 7 respectively.

7. After closure of the prosecution side evidence, as there is no incriminating material evidence against the accused, the examination

U/Sec.313 Cr.P.C, is dispensed with.

8. Now the point for determination is:

Whether the prosecution has established the guilt of the accused beyond all reasonable doubt?

9. Point:-

It is the case of the prosecution that the deceased is the husband of

PW3 Pathlavath Suvarna and brother of PW2 Pathlavath Gemiya and

PW4 Pathlavath Venkatiya. There was a land partition dispute between the accused party and deceased party as they are co-parceners.

The father of the accused by name Rupla has taken an amount of

Rs.70,000/- for the purpose of his daughter’s marriage from the deceased (who is co-brother in relation) promising him that he will give his share of land of 0-08 gts in addition to his share and later he did not complied the same inspite of repeated requests and panchayats. The accused being the son of said Rupla developed grudge against the deceased to eliminate him. On 28.11.2012, when the deceased and PW2 questioned the accused with regard to the land issue, the accused got annoyed, brought an axe from his house and attacked on them. Due to which, both of them sustained bleeding injuries and while shifting them to the hospital, the deceased succumbed to injuries on the way to

O.G.H., Hyderabad. In this regard, PW1 P. Shiva complainant gave report to police.

10. Now coming to the evidence of PW1 P. Shiva, complainant who allegedly gave report to police stated that the deceased is his junior paternal uncle and he do not know as to how the deceased died and the 5 reason of his death. The accused is anyway connected or related with the death of the deceased. He identified his signature as Ex.P1 on the alleged report to police and stated that he do not know the contents of report. During the cross examination by the learned public prosecutor, he denied giving Ex.P2 report for having witnessed the incident and that he did not state before the police as in Ex.P3 his 161 CrPC statement.

11. PW2 P. Gemiya, elder brother of the deceased who is one of the injured in the hands of accused, PW3 Suvarna eye witness alleged to have witnessed the incident and wife of the deceased, PW7 P. Basu alleged eye witness stated that the deceased died one year ago on one day but they never witnessed the alleged incident. The accused is any way connected or related with the death of the deceased.

12. PW4 Venkatiya and PW6 Rukya circumstantial witnesses and best persons to narrate the story of the prosecution did not support the case and categorically stated in their evidence that they never witnessed the alleged incident and do not know as to how the deceased died and its reason.

13. Lastly, coming to the evidence of PW5 Ravi, who is the Auto driver, as per prosecution story, he is the person who shifted the injured (deceased) to hospital and said to have speak the motive for the incident, but he stated that he never carried nor taken the deceased or

PW2 in his auto to the hospital for treatment and he absolutely do not know as to how even PW2 sustained injuries and the reason for the death of the deceased and the accused was anyway connected or related with the death of the deceased.

14. In the instant case, all the prosecution witnesses i.e., PWs.1 to 7 turned hostile and did not support the version of the prosecution by saying that they do not know the reason or cause for the death of the deceased and stated that the accused is not responsible for the death of the deceased and that they not at all witnessed the incident.

6 15. After going through the material on record, PWs.2, 3 and 7 being the close relatives of the deceased and eye witnesses to the alleged incident in which the accused attacked on the deceased and PW2 (being the injured) are the material witnesses to speak that the accused killed the deceased but they did not attribute anything against the accused. PWs.1, 4, 5, and 6 who are none other than the relations and are the best persons to speak about the manner of the incident that had happened, but they did not attribute anything against the accused and all are totally turned hostile to the prosecution case. In view of the hostile evidence of material witnesses, the learned Public Prosecutor treated them as hostile to the prosecution case and cross examined them at length, but nothing was elicited. As the material witnesses turned hostile to the prosecution case this court closed the evidence of other witnesses. Even if they are examined, there will not be any improvement in the prosecution case. Hence, there is no need to enter into the defence. As such, the prosecution failed to prove the guilt of the accused beyond all reasonable doubt. Thus, the accused is found not guilty for the offences which he has been charged.

16. In the result, the accused is found not guilty of the charges

U/Secs.302, 307 IPC and he is acquitted U/Sec.232 Cr.P.C. The bail bonds of accused shall stand cancelled forthwith. The unmarked case property worthless, if any, shall be destroyed after the expiry of appeal period.

Typed to my dictation by Typist, corrected and pronounced by me in the open Court, this the 12th day of February, 2014.

Prl. Sessions Judge, Mahabubnagar. Appendix of Evidence Witnesses examined.

For Prosecution:- For Defence:-

PW1 Pathlavath Shiva -None-

PW2 Pathlavath Gemiya

PW3 Pathlavath Suvarna @ Kurna,

PW4 Pathlavath Venkatiya

PW5 Pathlavath Ravi 7

PW6 Pathlavath Rukya

PW7 Pathlavath Basu

Exhibits marked for Prosecution

Ex P1. Signature of PW1 on report

Ex P2. Report, dt 28.11.12

Ex P3. 161 Cr.P.C. Statement of PW-1

Ex P4. 161 Cr.P.C. Statement of PW-2

Ex P5. 161 Cr.P.C. Statement of PW-3

Ex P6. 161 Cr.P.C. Statement of PW-4

Ex P7. 161 Cr.P.C. Statement of PW-5

Ex P8. 161 Cr.P.C. Statement of PW-6

Ex P9. 161 Cr.P.C. Statement of PW-7

Exhibits marked for Defence

-Nil-

Material objects marked.

-Nil-

Prl. Sessions Judge, Mahabubnagar.

IN THE COURT OF THE SPECIAL SESSIONS JUDGE FOR TRIAL OF CASES

UNDER SCIST (POA) ACT :: MAHABUBNAGAR

Tuesday the 3d day of September, 2013

Present:- Sri T.Gangi Reddy, B.A., B.L.,

Sessions Judge,

FAC: Spl. Sessions Judge, Mahabubnagar

Spl. S.C.No.59 of 2013

Preliminarily registered case No.11/13 committed by the Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Kollapur in Cr.No.33/13 of P.S. Veepangandla for the offence U/Sec.323

LP.C., and Sec. 3(1)\(x) of SC/ST (POA) Act, 1989.

Sri S.K.M. Quadri, Prosecution. Spl. Public prosecutor, Mahabubnagar.

Mandapuram Raju S/o Chandraiah, Aged: 32 years, Caste: Golla, Occ. LIC Agent, R/o Veepangandla village Accused and Mandal. (Sri T.Vijay Bhasker Reddy, advocate defended the accused) 323 IPC, Punishment for voluntarily causing hurt. Offence under section 3(1)(x) of SC/ST (prevention of atrocities) Act, insulting a person belonging to SC/ST caste in the name of their caste in a public view.

Pleaded not guilty Plea of the accused

Found not guilty Finding accused is found not guilty of the offence U/Sec. 323 I.P.C. Sentence or order and Sec. 3(1)(x) of SC/ST (POA) Act, 1989 and he is acquitted U/Sec. 232 Cr.P.C. The bail bonds of the accused

Addi

stands cancelled. No property is deposited in this case. cUm

@@@@

his case IS Coming up for hearing before me on this day and upon perusing the material on record, upon hearing the arguments, and the matter having stood over for consideration, till this day the Court delivered the following:

2

JUDGMENT

The

Sub-Divisional

in police

officer,

of Wanaparthy

accused filed crime charge sheet againe No.33/13

of

Veepangandla police Sec. station, 3(1)(x) U/Sec. SC/ST 323 I.P.C (POA) Act, 1989. 2. of The brief facts the present case to are that complainant, PW.l Bandari injured belong is a Gangamma, the Madiga 3, community PW.1 along which with by PWs.2 schedule their caste. and That M.Shivamma livelihood and attending to 3) S.Laxmamma daily were eking work. They one (Pwsl Mandapur have Venkatesh 20 attended S/o labour to Chandraiah work to with asking about him On days prior pay their to at 5.3.2013 wage and amount. daily went said 5.3.2013 about to 3 Venkatesh 9.00 of for getting hours, their In PWs.l brother wage amount. Venkatesh the came meantimne, there accused, and the Lanjadana, abused PW.1, as Meeku cooli the In paisalu complainant Ivvanu with Emi Madiga hands. Chestharu this to and regard beat her PW.1 went police indiscriminately The police to to referred station the and gave injured report up hospital the officer, for police. treatment. Wanaparthy The of took Sub Divisional investigation Police completion after following all investigation of field formalities charge and after Sec. sheet 3(1)(x) for the offences SC/ST U/Sec. (POA) Act, 323 1989. I.P.C.,

and

3. The learned of Judicial

Magistrate

First cognizance in Class, against Kollapur of the has accused taken PRC.No.1 the 1/13 SC/ST U/Sec.323 I.P.C., (POA) Act, and 1989 to Sec. and 3(1)(x) committed the case exclusively triable the special for the Sessions offences Court under SC/ST S.C.No.s9/13 (POA) Act. and This court proceeded further. has assigned 4 On of appearance accused, and after hearing the prosecutor learned and the special public advocate for of accused, the charges. 3(1)(x) U/Sec.323 IPC and Sec. SC/ST (POA) Act, in 1989 are to framed, read over accused and explained Telugu. the The accused to be pleaded not guilty and claimed

5. tried. in to The prosecution order to 3 to prove its case, is examined P.Ws.1 nddl EXs.P.1 and exhibited P.5. PW.1 the 3 to complainant in and injured and PWs.2 withesses is and are the incident of the eye on to question. Ex.P.1 the signature Exs.P.3 of PW.l Ex.P.2 report. P.5 are the 3 161 Cr.P.C. to statements PWs.l respectively.

Mah..

3 s As there is no incriminating materjal in the prosecution witnesses, the the examination of the accused U/Sec. 313 Cr.P.C is dispensed with and proceeded further.

Now the point for determination is whether the prosecution could prove the 7. charges against the accused?

Point:

8 The brief facts of the present case are that PW.1 Bandari Gangamma, the complainant, injured belong to Madiga community which is a schedule caste. That PW.l along with PWs.2 and 3 were eking their livelihood by attending daily work. They have attended labour work with one Mandapur Venkatesh S/o Chandraiah about 20 days prior to 5.3.2013 and daily asking him to pay their wage amount. On 5.3.2013 at about 9.00 hours, PWs. 1 to 3 went to said Venkatesh for getting their wage amount. In the meantime, accused, the brother of Venkatesh came there and abused PW. 1, the complainant as Madiga Lanjadana, Meeku cooli paisalu Ivvanu Emi Chestharu and beat her indiscriminately with hands. In this regard PW.l went to police station and gave report to the police. The police referred the injured to hospital for treatment.

Now, coming to the evidence of PW.1, the complainant and injured in this 9. case, she categorically deposed that she does not know the accused. The accused never beat them nor abused her touching their caste. PW.1 further stated that police obtained her signature, Ex.P.1 on alleged report. She does not know the contents of alleged report, Ex.P.2.

PWs.2 and 3 are the eye witnesses to the incident in question. They too turned 10. hostile to the prosecution case and stated that they do not know the accused. The accused never beat PW.l nor abused her touching her caste in their presence. In view of the hostile attitude of PWs. l to 3, the learned Spl Public Prosecutor treated them as hostile to the prosecution case and cross examined them at length, but nothing could be elicited. PW.I being injured and having given Ex.P.1 report is the best persons to

speak as to how she sustained injuries in the hands of accused, but she did not

attribute anything against the accused. PWs.2 and 3 are said to be the eye witnesses to the incident, they did not say anything about the incident. In view of the hostile attitude of PWs. 1 to 3 being material witnesses to prosecution case, the learmed Public

J R M N O . 5 1 4 I b thC prosecutor has perfectly justified in giving up the evidence of other witnesses case. Even if the other witnesses would have been examined, there would not L been any development in the prosecution case. Since the material witnesses turmed hostile to the prosecution case, there is no need to enter into the defence. As such the accused is found not guilty for the offence he is charged.

10. In the result, the accused is found not guilty of the offence U/Sec. 323 ILP.C.

and Sec. 3()(x) of SC/ST (POA) Act, 1989 and he is acquitted U/Sec. 232 CrP.C.

The bail bonds of the accused stands cancelled. No property is deposited in this case.

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

by me in the open Court, this the 3 day of September., 2013.

Sessions Judge,

FAC Spl. Sessions Judge, Mahabubnagar.

AppendixX of Evidence Witnesses examined. For Prosecution: For Defence:

P.W.I Bandari Gangamma. -None P.W.2 Meesala Shivamma. P.W.3 Suligiri Laxmamma.

Exhibits marked for Prosecution

Signature of PW.1 on the complaint dated 6.3.2013. Ex.P.1 Complaint given to police dated 6.3.2013. Ex.P.2 Ex.P.3 161 Cr.P.C statement of PW. I dated 6.3.2013. Ex.P.4 161 Cr.P.C statement of PW.2 dated 6.3.2013. 161 Cr.P.C statement of PW.3 dated 6.3.2013. Ex.P.5

Exhibits marked for Defence cum -Nil Material objects marked. Malie,irr} -Nil

Séssions Judge. FAC:Spl. Sessions Judge,

Re y'

Mahabubnagar.

>ISTRICT LEGAL SERYICES AUTHORIY

BEFORE. THHE LOKA ADALAT BENCH,

(Referred Under Sectiou 20 of the Legal Services Authoritics Act, 1987)

ATMAHABUBNAGAR

Saturday

the 31 st lay of Augu st Tivo Thousand and Thirteen.

L.A.C.N0, 464

(Onthe ile of Mutor Aceident Chaims Tribual, I of 2013,

0.P. NO.

VII Additional District and Sessions Judge's C Court, (OOK A Mahabubnagar).

Present:- Presiding Judge:

Sri S.Bajaranga Babu, TAddl.,District Judge, Mahabubnagar, Presiding Judge, Lok Adalath Bench, DLSA,

Members: Mahabubnagar. Between: Sri Sivanna, Advocate,

1. Smt V.Rohini, Advocate, Mahabubnagar. Rohit Kumar Singh Slo. Bakaram Singh, Aged.13 years, Occupation: Student, Minor under the 2 Guardianship of his Natural Father, Bakaram Singh S/o. Masi Singh, Aged.40 years, Occ:

Agriculture, R/o. Thimmapur

Mandal, Mahabubnagar District. village, Kothur

...Petitioner.

M/s.Hetero Drugs Ltd., Rep. by its Manager, Aged.Major, Owner of Private Bus Bearing No.AP- AND 28TE-1900, R/o. D.No.22-10, IDA Jeedimetla, Quthubullapur, Ranga Reddy District.

2. The United India Insurance Co Ltd., ,Represented I by its Divisional Manager, T.P. Hub, Church

Buildings, Ramkote, Hyderabad.

(Policy No.052000/31/12/01/00003246 valid from 27.08.2012 to 26.08.2013 issued by D.0.IX, Begumpet, Hyderabad.

..Respondent(s).

AWARID UNDER R SECTION 21 OF THE LEGAL S SERVICES AUTHORITIES ACT,1987.

Sri Advocate 1 ClaimantxPetitionerx through hisoxiboi The Advocate, Mahabubnagar and the Owner of the G. Pullaiah Advocate and the .vehicle i.e., R-1 represented by Sri -none kespondent No.2 i.e., The Insurance Company Limited, represented throun tnei Advocate, Mahabubnagar,

Panel Advocate Sri A.Rajender Reddy

are present. bearing Fhe claim arises out of an accident caused by the Vehicle uS 2 OVned by the Respondent No.1 and insured with the No,. AP-28 TE-1900 . Respondent No.2. After negotiations and conciliation between the parties, the claim of the petitioners 3. |- (Rupees ; Thirty Five Tho us ands Only), is settled at Rs. 35, 000/- payable by Respondent No.2 with in one month from the date of this award without interest and costs and is hereby avarded accordingly U/s,21 of the Legal Services

Authoritics Act, 1987. If the Respondent Ne2 does not deposit the above amount within one month from todax, the amount so awarded shall be cary intercst at 12% per annum from the date of this Award. The Court Fee paid shall be rclunded under Scction 21 (1) r/w.Section.,25 of the

5. Legal Services Authorities Act, 1987.

48

6. APPORTIONMENT OF THE AM0UNT AW ARDED SHALL BE AS UNDE :

.iiiiiiii

1).

Claimant No.l is entitled Rs. 35,000/

Only). (Min or)

(Rupees Thirty Flve Thouaands Only). (taßured).

Claimant No.2 is entitled Rs. Only).

(Rupees

II).

Claimant No,3 is entitled Rs. Only).

(Rupecs

IV), Caimant No.4 is entitled Rs. Only).

(Rupes

Claimant No.5 is entitled Rs. Only).

(Rupees

VI). Only). Claimant No.6 is entitled Rs.

(Rupees

VIl). Claimant No.7 is entitled Rs. Only).

(Rupees

VIli). Claimant No.8 is entitled Rs. Only). (Rupees

2. DISBURSEMENT:

7. DISBURSEMENT:- This OP 0s settled for Rs.35,000/- Or iy. Guardianship of his Natural Father and Guardian namely Bakaram Singh S/o. Masi Sir gh is permitted to withdraw an amount of Rs.20,000/-Minor and under the On deposit of the amount the Petitioner is being (Rupees Twenty Thousands Only) towards medical experses and the remaining amount of Rs.15,000/-(Rupees Nationalized Bank on the name of Minor Fifteen Thousands Only) is ordered to be kept in fixed dposit in any petitioner Rohit Kumar Singh till he attains the age of majority.

8. Advocate Fee is fixed at Rs. -Nil (Rupees -nil-only).

Authorised Signatory

Signature of D.MUR. W.Owner. or Authorized Signatory for Signatures/T.I of Claimants/Petitioners. Insurance Company i.e.,R-2.

Petitioners Identified by me. Signature of the Advqkat& fo Insurance Company i.e, for R-2. Signature of Claimants Advocate. Given under our hands and the seal of Lok Adalat Bench on thËs thea iendcr day t0 ADVO 7'RI1 it Road, 31 st day of Aug us t,2015 at Mahabubnagar. #1.6.147 MaibsLra0a' 001 Call 99 8073601

MEMBERS OF THE BENCH

2.

1. Member Presiding Judge Member Smt. V, Rohin í, Sri S, Bájaranga Babu, Sri Siv anna, Advoc ate. I Addl.Dist. Judge, Advocate, Mahabubnagar.

Read By: Con1pBy;.

BEFORE THE LOK ADALAT BENCH,

DISTRICI LEGAL SERVICES AUTHORITY, AT MAHABUBNACan nfevendUnder Section 20 of the Legal Services Authorities Act. 199

,lhe 31 st day of Augus t,Two Thousand and Thirteen.

Saturday

L.A.CNO, 463

of 2013.

O.P.NO. 588 of 2012

Tribunal, bococict xxboxiotOsS<bcod goxkADtix

(On the ile of MMotor Aceident Claims T

itional Distriet and SSsioNs uOt sCOurt, (O, At Mababubna0ar

VII

Sri S.Bajaranga Babu, Prescnt:- Presiding Judge:

I Addl.,District Judge, Mahabubnagar,

Presiding Judge, Lok Adalath Bench, DLSA, Mahabubnagar. 1.Sri Sivanna, Advocate, 2.Smt V.Rohini, Advocate, Mahabubnagar. Members: Between: Venkan Goud S/o. Hanmanth Goud, Aged.42 years, Occ MIlk Vendor & Business, R/o. Jamistapur village of Mahabubnagar Mandal & District. .Petitioner. AND Davarasetty Subash S/o. Davarasetty Damodar, Aged not known but major, Occ: Owner of the Indica Car 1 Bearing No.AP-22AG-4406, R/O.Mahabubnagar village and Mandal, Mahabubnagar District. The National Insurance Company Limited, Rep. by its Branch Manager, Mahabubnagar, Branch Office, D.No.7 2. 5-113/17, Lakshmi Nagar Colony, Opp: SBH, Padmavathinagar Colony, Mahabubnagar, A.P. (Policy Bearing No.25331031116120058165, valid from 17.12.2011 to 16.12.2012).

.Respondent(s).

AWARD UNDER SECTION 21 OF THE LEGAL SERVICES AUTHORITIEs

ACT,1987.

Claimants Petitionerx through his/MekK Advocate Sri

The 1 Advocate, Mahabubnagar and the Owner of the vehicle

J, Ravi Kumar

Apar eAdvocate and the Respondent No.2 i.e..

i.e., R-1 ngOREONotbx Set

The Insurance Company Limited, represented through their Panel Advocate Sri

M, Jaganna tha Redd y ,Advocate, Mahabubnagar, are present. Car

The claim arises out of an accident caused by the Vehicle Indica / bearing

2. owned by the Respondent No.1 and insured with the

No. AP=22AG-4406

Respondent No.2.

After negotiations and conciliation between the parties, the claim of the petitioners is

-(Rupees Ninety Five Thous ands Onlv).

3.

Rs. 95,000/-

settled at

payable by Respondent No.2 with in one month from the date of this award without interest and costs and is hereby awarded accordingly U/s.21 of the Legal Services

Authorities Act, 1987.

It the Respondent No.2 does not deposit the above amount within one month from today, 4. the amount so awarded shall be carrv interest at 12% per annum from the date of this

Award. The Court Fee paid shall be refunded under Section 21 (1) r/w.Section.25 of the Legal 5.

Services Authorities Act,1987.

23

6. APPORTIONMENT OF THE AMOUNT AWARDED SHALL BF AS UNDER.

(InJured).

Claimant No.1 is entitled Rs. 95,O00/ (Rupees Ninety Five Thous an ds Only),. Only). 1). Claimant No.2 is entitled Rs. Only). I1). (Rupees Claimant No.3 is entitled Rs. Only). |). (Rupees Claimant No.4 is entitled Rs. Only). (Rupees Claimant No.5 is entitled Rs. Only). V). (Rupees Claimant No.6 is entitled Rs. Only). VI). (Rupees Claimant No.7 is entitled Rs. Only). V). (Rupees Claimant No.8 is entitled Rs. Only). Vili). (Rupees

7. DISBURSEMENT:

7DISBURSEMENT:- This OP is settled for Rs.95,000/-Only.

On deposit, the petitioner is permitted to .ithdraw entire amount awarded.

(Rupees -nil- o ily). tag

8. Advocate Fee is fixed at Rs. -Nil

National iyenampany Ltd.

Signature of D.M/R.W.Owner.

Signatures/T.l of Claimants/ Petitioners.

or Authorized Signatory for

Insurance Compay i.e.,R-2

Petitioners ldentified by me.

Signature of the Advocate for Signature of Claimants Advocate. Insurance Company i.e, for R-2. Given under our hands and the seal of Lok Adalat Bench on this the 31 s+ day of at Mahabubnagar.

August,2013

MEMBERS OF THE BENCH

2. Member 1 Member

Spi SBajaranga Ba by, Smt V. Rohini,

Sri Sivanna,

Advocat e.

I Addl.Dist. Judge, Advocate

Mahabu bn ag ar.

lonply!