Sri V.Venkateswara Rao

1

IN THE COURT OF SESSIONS DIVISON, SESSIONS-SRIKAKULAM.

Before the Special Judge for trial of cases under SCs & STs (POA) Act,

1989-cum-Addl.District and Sessions Judge At Srikakulam

Present: Sri V.VENKATESWARA RAO,

Special Judge for trial of Cases under SCs & STs (POA) Act-

cum-Addl. District Judge, Srikakulam.

WEDNESDAY, THE 29th DAY OF APRIL, 2015

SESSIONS CASE No. 16/2013

(PRC No.1/2012 on the file of Judicial Magistrate of 1st Class, Palasa arose out of Crime No. 18/2012 of Vajrapukotthuru Police Station)

Between The State represented by Addl. Superintendent of Police, Srikakulam.

…..Complainant

And: Chittibommi Nancharayya son of late Veerayya, 58 years, Gowda by caste, Kaja villagem Movva mandal, Krishna district, presently residing at Kannuru village, Paravada mandal, Visakhapatnam city …Accused Prosecution conducted bySri. I.Nagamalleswara Rao, Special Public Prosecutor, Srikakulam. Accused was defended by Sri. T.Radhakrishna, Advocate for the accused. . Offence Punishable Under section 4 of SCs & STs (POA) Act, 1989. Plea of the accused Pleaded not guilty of the above charges. Finding of the Judge Found not guilty. Sentence or Order:- : In the result, Accused found not guilty

for the offence punishable under Section 4

of S.Cs & S.Ts ( POA) Act,`1989 and he is

acquitted under Section 235(1) Cr.P.C. The

bail bonds of Accused shall stand

cancelled after expiry of appeal time.

: This case coming on 22.4.2015 before me for final hearing in the presence of Sri. I.Nagamalleswara Rao , Special Public Prosecutor for State/Complainant and of Sri. T.Radha Krishna, Advocate for the accused and having stood over till this day for consideration, the court delivered the following judgment.

2

JUDGMENT

01. The State represented by Additional Superintendent of

Police, Srikakulam, filed charge sheet against accused- Chittibommi

Nancharayya for the offence under section 4 of SCs & STs (POA)

Act in Cr No. 18/2012 of Vajrapukothuru police station.

02. The brief facts of the prosecution case are as follows:-

The accused-Chittibommi Nancharayya, worked as Sub

Inspector of Police, Vajrapukotturu police station and he belongs to

Gowda by caste. He retired from service on 31.7.2012. On 22.9.2011 at about 7 p.m. PW1-Cherukupalli Narasimha Murthy went to Vajrapukotturu police station and presented a report to the accused-Sub Inspector of Police complaining against Tadela Srinu and two others that he was beaten and insulted in public place in public view and a receipt was also issued for the complaint . The accused visited Ananthagiri village and enquired into the matter with

PW4-Gandreti Jogarao, PW6-Marada Bhaskara Rao and some other elders and insisted on PW1 to compromise the matter, for which he refused. Bearing that grudge, the Sub Inspector of Police-accused obtained a report from non Schedule Caste person and registered the same as a case in the first instance and arrested PW1 to PW3 and later he registered a case on the report given by PW1 on 26.10.2011 belatedly. Aggrieved by the injustice, PW9-Bevara Paparao, brother in law of PW1 sent a complaint to the government for the lapses on the part of the accused and they recommended for registration of case against the accused for neglect of duty for non registration of 3 case. Then a case was registered against the Sub Inspector of

Police-accused after obtaining fresh complaint from PW1 by PW11-

K.Santharam, the then Sub Inspector of Police. As per the proceedings of the Superintendent of Police, Srikakulam the

Additional Superintendent of Police, Srikakulam B.D.V.Sagar

investigated into the case , recorded the statements of witnesses and obtained caste certificates. His investigation reveal that there was dispute regarding excavation of stones between PW1 and Tadela

Srinu. After receipt of complaint given by PW1 , first Information report was not registered by accused as negotiations were held

before elders and later they were failed . Accused tried his best to

insist on PW1 to PW3 to compromise with non schedule caste people, but they did not agree for the compromise. Hence, the accused having got knowledge of consequences of receiving cognizable complaint but not registered the same and obtained the signature of PW1 on a document to use it according to his whims and fancies to safeguard him as defence if necessary. He did not hand over the document to Additional Superintendent of Police but the accused registered a case in crime No.78/2011 on the complaint given by Tadela Srinu under section 324,354, 323 read with 34 of

Indian Penal Code. Thus, the accused being public servant failed to discharge his duties. Hence, the charge sheet.

03. After filing of the charge sheet, the learned Judicial

Magistrate of 1st Class, Palasa took cognizance of the case under

section 4 of SCs & STs (POA) Act and committed the case to the

Special Sessions Court in PRC 1/2012 for trial.

4

04. After appearance of the accused, he engaged advocate of his choice. After hearing, charge under section 4 of SCs & STs (POA) Act was framed against accused, read over and explained to him in Telugu and he denied the same by pleading not guilty and claimed to be tried.

05. To substantiate the case, prosecution examined Pw.1 to

Pw.12 and marked Ex.P.1 to Ex.P.8. On behalf of the accused, no oral evidence adduced but Ex.D1contradiction in the statement of

PW3 marked.

06. After closure of the prosecution evidence, the accused was examined under Sec.313 Cr.P.C. pertaining to incriminatory evidence against him and he denied the same. He further stated that, receipt was issued without his knowledge by the constable –

PW10-K.Vykunta Rao, who has no authority to give it , for which a women home-guard was in charge in the reception. He retired on 31.7.2012 and he was informed that the case registered against him will be referred and report was sent in his favour, but later he was arrested and this case was foisted against him, but his retirement benefits were also stopped. He arrested PW1 to PW3 as it is a case under section 354 ,324, 323 read with 34 of Indian Penal Code, but he was not competent to arrest the accused on the complaint given by PW1 in which Deputy Superintendent of Police was the designated Officer for investigation and due to that PW1 to PW3 and his people mis-understood him and the Schedule Caste elders brought pressure on Additional Superintendent of Police to register this case against him . In the counter case the accused were 5 arrested by the Deputy Superintendent of Police. This case was foisted against him by PW1 under the mistaken impression that he arrested PW1 to Pw3 without arresting Tadela Srinu and others, though he registered crimes on the same day. PW1 also requested him not to register a case after giving complaint at request that they are negotiating for settlement in the presence of elders and they do not want to have disputes in the village and their family is only schedule caste family in the village. This fact was also informed by him to Inspector of Police and Deputy Superintendent of Police and they also advised him not to act hastily. He also filed some documents in support of his defence during arguments.

07. Arguments heard.

08. Now the points for determination are ;

1. Whether prosecution is able to prove the charge under

Section 4 of SCs & STs (POA) Act against accused beyond reasonable doubt ?

09. POINT 1 :

The burden of proof is on the prosecution to establish the guilt against the accused beyond reasonable doubt. The accused is presumed to be innocent till his guilty is established in accordance with law.

10) The following are the undisputed facts :

The accused-Chittibommi Nancharayya worked as Sub

Inspector of Police of Vajrapukotturu police station at the time of incident in September,2011. PW1-Cherukupalli Narasimha Murthy is the son of PW2-Cherukupalli Paramma and husband of PW3- 6

Cherukupalli Laxmi and they belong to Schedule Caste-Mala by caste residents of Ananthagiri village. Tadela Srinu is also resident of same village. On the complaint of whom, the Sub Inspector of

Police-accused registered a case in crime No.78/2011 on 26.9.2011 under sections 354,324,323 read with 34 of Indian Penal Code. On the same day the accused also registered a case in crime

No.79/2011 under section 3 (i) (x ) of the SCs & STs (POA)

Act,1989(herein after referred as the “Act” ) against Tadela Srinu, his wife and his mother on the complaint given by PW1. The accused arrested PW1 to PW3 on 27.9.2011 and sent them to judicial custody and they were in jail till they secured bail. But accused not arrested

Tadela Srinu, his wife and his mother as that case was registered under section 4 of the Act which was subsequently investigated by

Sub Divisional Police Officer who is competent to investigate into the case and arrested those people. Some elders of both sides also negotiated in the police station for settlement before registration of the crime in respect of the incident that took place on 21.9.2011.

PW4-G.jogarao was present at the time of dispute between both the parties .PW6-Marada Bhaskara Rao acted as elder for the settlement. But both of them not supported the case of the prosecution and their earlier statements marked as Ex.P3 and Ex.P4 respectively. PW5-Bokara Narayana Rao is District President of Dalit

Mahasabha, PW7-Akkurada Lokanadham is District Secretary and

PW8- Vasudeva Rao, member of the said Dalitha Mahasabha also negotiated on behalf of PW1 to PW# before registration of crime.

PW9-Bevara Paparao is brother in law of PW1 who also 7 accompanied PW1 to their caste elders after the incident. PW10-

K.Vykunta Rao is police constable working in Vajrapukotturu police station, issued Ex.P2 receipt to PW1 for the report given by him from the reception of the police station. PW11-K.Santharam, Sub

Inspector of Police who registered crime No.18/2012 of

Vajrapukotturu police station under section 4 of the Act against the accused after receiving Ex.P1 report on 23.3.2012 in respect of the incident that took place in the year September,2011 and Ex.P6 is the caste certificate of PW1 that he belongs to S.C.-Mala by caste ,

Ex.P7 is letter issued by Mandal Revenue Officer that accused belongs to B.C.-Gowda by caste Ex.P8 is the authorization given by

Superintendent of Police to PW12-B.D.V.Sagar to investigate into the case. Ex.D1 is the contradiction elicited from PW1 in his cross examination. After retirement, the retirement benefits of accused were stopped and he was arrested in the crime. No departmental enquiry was conducted against him for the irregularities . The police registered crime as per the directions of Additional Inspector General of Police on the complaint sent by PW9 to register a crime and investigate into the case. PW12-B.D.V.Sagar, Additional

Superintendent of Police, is the investigation officer in this case.

11) The evidence of PW1-Cherukupalli Narasimha Murty,

PW2-Cherukupalli Paramma and PW3-Cherukupalli Laxmi is almost identical and they belong to same family regarding the incident . The evidence of PW9-Bevara Paparao is also almost identical with them and he is brother in law of PW1.

8

12) PW1-Cherukupalli Narasimha Murthy, deposed that there is a dispute on 21.9.2011 while he was cutting stone at quarry between him and Tadela Srinu at 1 p.m. as he found some of the stones up to a load of five tractors was removed by somebody.

When he enquired the same, Tadela Srinu, Chinnababu abused him by touching his caste that he is attributing theft to them and insulted him and also beat him with legs and hands. He narrated the incident to his mother-PW2 and wife-PW3 after going to his house, but his mother cautioned him not to enter into any dispute with other caste people. At 3 p.m while he was at his house Tadela Srinu ,

Chinnababu and Tadela Appalamma came to their house and abused them by touching their caste and threatened them with dire consequences stating that nobody will come to his rescue if they beat them. Apprehending danger, he went to PW9- his brother in laws house and narrated the incident and both of them went to approach their caste elders and later both of them went to police station and gave report at 6.30 p.m. or 7 p.m. for which a receipt was given. The accused informed him that he will conduct enquiry by coming to their village. Accordingly, the accused visited and made enquiries in the village and at that time Tadela Srinu, Chinnababu and some of the elders were also enquired by the accused. Marada

Bhaskara Rao, P. Jogarao and Tumbanadham after enquiring them the accused advised him as to why they were quarrelling with each other and advised to settle the matter in compromise for which PW1 did not agree. Then he advised both parties to bring their elders to police station on the next day.

9

13) On the next day they all went to police station. He also took his elders. The Sub Inspector of Police again suggested after negotiations with PW1 to compromise as advised by the elders, but

PW1 did not agree. Then the Sub Inspector of Police grew wild and told all of them to go out of the police station and both parties went away along with their elders. Apprehending danger, PW1 to Pw3 went to the house of PW9 on 25.9.2011. On 26.9.2011 the Sub

Inspector of Police came along with constables to the house of PW9 at 5.30 a.m. and took PW1 to the police station by misleading them that he has to sign a report. At about 9 a.m. the accused abused

PW1 in filthy language and beat him for not compromising inspite of his advice. He also called PW2 and PW3 to bring carriage to PW1 by phone and when they came to police station they were also abused by accused for not compromising the matter.

14) In the evening hours, the Sub Inspector of Police – accused called Tadela Srinu, Chinnababu and elders and those people came to the police station and he informed them that PW1 was not compromising the matter inspite of his advise and booked a case against PW1 to Pw3 under section 354, 324, 323 read with 34 of Indian Penal Code as if they outraged the modesty of Tadela

Appalamma and later registered a case in crime No.79/2011 on the complaint given by PW1, though PW1 gave that complaint on 23.9.2011. On 27.9.2011 the accused-Sub Inspector of Police arrested PW1 to PW3 and sent them to Court for remand and Sub

Inspector of Police also obtained his signature on blank white paper when he registered crime against them. But, in his cross examination 10 it is revealed that most of the allegations made by PW1 against accused are developments from his earlier statements about the overt acts of accused. He also admitted that they did not complain to the police station by phone and receipt was issued to him as per the advice of Sub Inspector of Police in the reception. On 24.9.2011 both of them took their elders to the police station and discussed to settle for compromise but he did not agree. He also admitted that he did not give any complaint against the accused for not registering a case on 23.9.2011 or for suggesting for compromise. He did not complain against the accused for any ill treatment when they were produced in Judicial Magistrate of I Class, Palasa but gives an explanation that he did not complain against the Sub Inspector of Police as he do not know by them that he filed false case against them. He also admitted that before sending him to the court they were sent to

Palasa hospital where they were examined but claims that Doctor issued certificate that they there were no injuries on him though he sustained injury on left leg. The same version is reiterated by PW2 –

Paramma and PW3-Laxmi.

15) The evidence of PW1 to Pw3 clearly reveal that they were aggrieved against accused for arresting them in the fist instance without arresting Tadela Srinu, his wife and mother along with them on the complaint given by PW1 which appears to be under a mistaken impression on their part due to lack of knowledge of law.

The accused empowered to arrest PW1 to PW3 in the crime

No.78/2011 but he is not competent to arrest Tadela Srinu, his wife and mother as that case registered in crime No.79/2011 under 11 section 3 (i)(x) of the Act and he was not competent to investigate into that case and the investigation was taken over by Sub Divisional

Police Officer designated authority who arrested them subsequently.

This fact is also admitted by PW1 to PW3 that Sub Divisional Police

Officer arrested Tadela Srinu, his wife and mother. They did not complain anything against the accused/sub Inspector of Police at the relevant time when they were produced in Judicial Magistrate of I

Class Court of any ill treatment in the police station that is fatal in this case. If really they were beaten and insulted and humiliated in the police station, the law gives an opportunity to the accused to disclose that fact immediately when they were produced before Court within 24 hours. In this case, Pw1 to PW3 kept quite at the relevant time and there is no explanation for the same. The explanation offered by

PW1 that he does not know by that time that accused booked a false case against him is also not correct because charge sheet was filed against PW1 to Pw.3 in crime No.78/2011 for outraging modesty of

Tadela Appalamma and also causing simple injury with a weapon to

Tadela Srinu for which a medical certificate is also produced in the counter case. Even, the version of PW1 to PW3 that PW1 sustained injury in the hands of Tadela Srinu, Chinnababu is not supported by medical evidence. Tadela Srinu sustained injury in the hands of PW1 is prima facie supported by medical evidence as there was a bleeding injury to Tadela Srinu as per the medical certificate issued to him when he was examined after registration of crime. Thus, the Sub

Inspector of Police in this case received two complaints from both parties as case and counter case and he also made general diary 12 entry as admitted by the police officials in this case including investigation Officer after receiving complaint of PW1. So far as arrest of Pw1 to PW3 by the accused he cannot be blamed as he was bound to arrest them in cognizable offence after registration of crime

No.78/2011 and there is no justification for PW1 to PW3 to claim that accused not arrested Tadela Srinu , his wife and mother on the same day having registered crime No.79/2011. Because that case under section 3 (i)(x) of the Act in which he is not competent to arrest , thus it lead to lot of misunderstanding on the part of PW1 to PW3 as they were sent to jail in the first instance by accused by showing their arrest.

16) So far as, the evidence of Pw1 to PW3 that they were insulted by accused and beaten in the police station is not supported by any credible evidence because there were no injuries on their person as claimed by PW1 there was no need for the Doctor to issue certificate that there were no injuries if he really observed injury on his body. Subsequently, lobbying commenced after they were released on bail through PW1 to PW3, PW9 and their caste elders under the mistaken impression that the accused not headed PW1 to

PW3 , Tadela Srinu and others equally by arresting them on the same day after failure of talks by the elders of both sides is PW4 to

PW8.

17) PW4-Gandreti Jogarao, stated that there was a dispute near quarry land between Tadela Srinu and PW1 and he pacified both parties and sent them away. Later, he was informed by both of them about the incident that took place at 3 p.m. at their house and 13 he advised both of them not to quarrel with each other and to settle the dispute amicably on the next day. He also stated that the elders approached the Sub Inspector of Police when he visited village for enquiry that they will settle the matter between the parties and negotiations continued till 26.9.2011 but ultimately talks failed and compromise not arrived. Then the Sub Inspector of Police registered a case against both parties. Same version is also reiterated by PW6, but both of them declared as hostile however their evidence is quite consistent and reliable as seen from the facts elicited from PW1 to

PW3 , ,PW5,PW7 to PW9 that PW5,PW7 and PW8 also admitted that PW1 along with brother in law -PW9 approached them and narrated the incident about the dispute in the village and requested them to help him by coming to the police station and they went to the police station and they had negotiations in the police station along with other elders of the village, but PW1not agreed for the same that he was beaten though Tadela Srinu also admitted his mistake . But, evidence on record reveals that Tadela Srinu sustained injury but not

PW1. They also admitted visiting the police station for settlement on 24.9.2011. They also admitted subsequent arrest of Tadela Srinu,

Chinnababu and Appalamma by Deputy Superintendent of Police . In fact PW5,PW7, PW8 to PW9 have no personal knowledge about the actual dispute that took place between the parties, except the information given by PW1.

18) The prosecution has to prove the case of section 4 of the

Act that Sub Inspector of Police committed offence beyond reasonable doubt :------ here a reference to section 4 will be pertinent.

14

Section 4 : Punishment for neglect of duties :- Whoever, being a public servant but not being a member of a Scheduled caste or a

Scheduled Tribe, willfully neglects his duties required to be performed by him under this Act, shall be punishable with imprisonment for a term which shall not be less than six months but which may extend to one year :

19) PW8-Namidipalli Vasudeva Rao one of the elder went to police station on behalf of PW1 to PW3 along with Schedule caste elders admitted that he did not observe any visible injuries on PW1 and he does not know what exactly took place except the version given by PW1 and his people. He does not know the reports given by the parties. When it was questioned whether there was any practice of Dalitha Mahasabha leaders attending police station for settlement on behalf of aggrieved parties if so any matters settled for which he categorically stated that they used to attend police station in some matters and after negotiations some matters were settled without registration of crimes. In those instances there is scope of delay in registering crime to enable them to settle the matters amicably to avoid unnecessary disputes in the village.

20) This is a very crucial admission and it is also corroborated by the admission of investigation officer-PW12-B.D.V.Sagar,

Additional Superintendent of Police, who also admitted that there are

instances compromise by the parties to avoid law and order problems and in some cases they permit the parties to negotiate for settlement to avoid law and order problems . He also admitted that his investigation reveal certain negotiations were held by elders 15 between both parties before Sub Inspector of Police who registered the crimes. No departmental enquiry was held in this case against accused as he surrendered after his retirement. His retirement benefits were withheld though retired as it was reported about the pendency of this case. He also admitted that the accused –Sub

Inspector of Police is not competent to arrest Tadela

Srinu,Chinnababu and another in crime No.79/2011 but sub Inspector of Police has to arrest PW1 to PW3 in crime No.78/.2011 . He also admitted that the accused Sub Inspector of police informed concerned Deputy Superintendent of Police about registration of crime and immediately the Sub Divisional Police Officer arrested those accused. He also admitted that no report was enclosed by

C.I.D. Inspector General of Police, to register and investigate the matter against the accused. He also admitted that PW1 did not state

before him that accused took him to the police station by mis leading

him and thereafter called his wife and mother to bring carriage to him and then Sub Inspector of Police abused them in filthy language and beat them for not accepting the compromise. These facts clearly reveal that this entire version of Pw1 to PW3 is subsequent development during trial. There is lot of scope for due deliberations and embellishments in Ex.P1 as there is lot of delay in reporting the incident against the accused in respect of incident that took place on 26.9.2011, but the crime was registered on the complaint obtained from PW1 on 23.3.2012 six months after the actual incident. The delay is not at all explained by the prosecution that is fatal to the case of the prosecution 16

The Hon’ble High Court of A.P., reported in Perela

Veeraiah, s/o.Mangaiah Vs. State of A.P., rep. by its Public

Prosecutor, High Court of A.P., at Hyderabad, 2008 (1) ALT (Crl.)

270 (DB) (A.P) wherein it was held:

“The delay of 9 hours in submission of the complaint is capable of being taken advantage of, to present a version in such a manner, as to provide the missing links, or to implicate the persons, who are not involved in the commission of the offence. Therefore, we find that there is unexplained inordinate delay, in submission of the complaint, Ex.P.1”.

21) The material on record further reveal that there was lot of lobbying in registration of crime against the accused from higher officials of the police and the superiors of accused were constrained to register a crime as per the directions of Additional Director General of Police, C.I.D., Hyderabad based on letter dt.15.3.2012 enclosed to the First Information Report. Therefore, in this case PW11-

K.Santharam constrained to register first information report without going through the contents of the complaint to verify the correctness of the allegations and they were forced to file charge sheet since there are instructions of the Additional Director General of Police,

C.I.D., Hyderabad though there is no departmental enquiry against the accused.

22) It is pertinent to note that whenever any employee is charged for mis-conduct and more particularly before his retirement 17 and when his retirement benefits were stopped a departmental enquiry will be held against him to verify whether he had committed any breach of duty amounting to mis conduct , by his acts, omissions and commissions before penalizing him But, in this case his retirement benefits were stopped without any enquiry, simply because an first information report was registered against him and immediately he was arrested on the date of his retirement . Thus he suffered lot of personal and financial loss as he could not get his retirement benefits. It is also pertinent to note that a report was sent by the then Superintendent of Police to the Additional Director

General of Police in this connection after conducting some enquiry on the complaint given by PW9 and that is in favour of the accused . It is pertinent to note that in this case the police suppressed the first information on the basis of which action initiated against the accused that is the complaint sent by PW9 to the Additional Director General of Police, CID, Andhra Pradesh Hyderabad and there is no explanation for not producing the same before the Court , subsequently a case was registered by receiving another report from

PW1. Therefore, suppression of the earlier report by prosecution is fatal to the case of the prosecution.

23) The report of Superintendent of Police, Srikakulam dt.14.12.2012 in which it was clearly observed except delay in registering first information report nothing has taken place in this case and further stated that one Bokara Narayana Rao-PW5 District

President of Dalit Mahasabha used to interfere in S.C/S.T issues needlessly bluffing the innocent schedule caste people by defrauding 18 them to send false representations to all higher authorities and is getting high stakes from the non-schedule caste people by settling the Schedule caste matters outside and as such with directions of

Bokara Narayanarao, the PW1 sent representations to the higher officials. Therefore, there is no need to take further steps in this regard. This letter makes it quite clear that there are no latches on the part of accused in this case for delaying the registration of first information report and no malice can be attributed to him. Thus the most important offence to establish the ingredients under section 4 of the Act is lacking in this case that accused being public servant willfully neglect his duty in this case. He allowed the parties at the advice of both elders and gave an opportunity to initiate for settlement if possible to bring peaceful atmosphere in the village as there was such practice to avoid law and order problems in some cases by the police. Therefore, I find that the prosecution is not able to prove charge under section 4 of the Act beyond reasonable doubt and the accused is entitled for acquittal. Point answered accordingly.

24) In the result, the accused found not guilty for the offence under section 4 of the SCs & STs (POA) Act, 1989 and he is acquitted under section 235(1) Cr.P.C. The bail bonds of the accused shall stand cancelled after expiry of appeal time.

Dictated to the Personal Assistant, transcribed by

him, corrected and pronounced by me in open Court, this the 29th day of April, 2015.

Special Judge for trial of cases under

SCs & STs (POA) Act, 1989-Cum-

Additional District Judge,

Srikakulam.

19

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

WITNESSES EXAM INED FOR

PROSECUTION:

PW1 : Cherukupalli Narasimha Murthy.

PW2 : Cherukupalli Papamma.

PW3 : Cherukupalli Laxmi.

PW4 : Gandreti Jogarao.

PW5 : Bokana Narayana Rao.

PW6 : Marada Bhaksara Rao.

PW7 : Akkurada Lokanadham.

PW8 : Namidipalli Vasudeva Rao.

PW9 : Bevara Paparao.

PW10: K.Vykunta Rao, Police constable.

PW11 : K.Santharam, Sub Inspector of Police.

PW12 : B.D.V.Sagar, Additional Superintendent of Police.

DEFENCE :

NONE

DOCUMENTS MARKED FOR

PROSECUTION:

Ex.P1: Report given to police by PW1 DT. 23.3.2012.

Ex.P2: Original receipt issued by Station House Officer,

Vajrapukotturu police station for giving report of PW1.

Ex.P3: Section 161 Cr.P.C. statement of PW4.

Ex.P4: Relevant portion in section 161 Cr.P.C. statement of

PW6 20

Ex.P5: Original First Information report in crime No.18/2012 of Vajrapukotturu police station.

Ex.P6: Caste certificate of PW1.

Ex.P7: Letter of Tahsildar, informing caste of accused.

Ex.P8: Proceedings of the Superintendent of Police,

Srikakulam in C.No.944/C3/2012 dt.23.3.2012.

For Defence :

Ex.D1: relevant portion in Sec.161 Cr.P.C. statement of PW3.

Material Objects Marked:

NIL

Special Judge for trial of cases under

SCs & STs (POA) Act, 1989-Cum-

Additional District Judge,

Srikakulam.

21

IN THE COURT OF SESSIONS DIVISON, SESSIONS-SRIKAKULAM.

Before the Special Judge for trial of cases under SCs & STs (POA) Act,

1989-cum-Addl.District and Sessions Judge At Srikakulam

Present: Sri V.VENKATESWARA RAO,

Special Judge for trial of Cases under SCs & STs (POA) Act-

cum-Addl. District Judge, Srikakulam.

WEDNESDAY, THE 29th DAY OF APRIL, 2015

SESSIONS CASE No. 16/2013

(PRC No.1/2012 on the file of Judicial Magistrate of 1st Class, Palasa arose out of Crime No. 18/2012 of Vajrapukotthuru Police Station)

Name of the complainant The State represented by Sub Divisional . Police Officer, Srikakulam .

Name of accused Chittibommi Nancharayya son of late Veerayya, 58 years, Gowda by caste, Kaja villagem Movva mandal, Krishna district, presently residing at Kannuru village, Paravada mandal, Visakhapatnam city Offence : Punishable Under section 4 of SCs & STs (POA) Act, 1989.

Date and place of offence 22.9.2011 at 19 hours

Date of apprehension of 20.08.2014 accused Explanation for delay : (a)In the Committal Court:-Vide separate Docket extract is enclosed.

b) Explanation for delay:- (b)In the trial Court:-After apprehension of accused, charges were framed on 24.01.2014 , the trial schedule was issued as contemplated under law and that on 10.12.2014 PW1 and PW2 examined and Ex.P1 and Ex.P2 marked. On 11.12.2014 PW3 to PW5 , on 16.12.2014 PW6 to PW8, Ex.P4 marked. On 22.12.2014 PW9 to PW11 examined Ex.P5 marked. On 8.1.2015 PW6 and PW7. On 31.3.2015, Pw.12 examined Ex.P8 marked and prosecution side evidence closed. On 7.4.2015 the accused was examined under section 313 Cr.P.C. and arguments heard on 22.4.2015 and judgment pronounced on 29.4.2015

SENTENCE OR ORDER : In the result, the accused found not guilty for the offence under section 4 of the SCs & STs (POA) Act, 1989 and he is acquitted under section 235(1) Cr.P.C. The bail bonds of the accused shall stand cancelled after expiry of appeal time.

Special Judge for trial of cases under

SCs & STs (POA) Act, 1989-Cum-

Additional District Judge,

Srikakulam.

22

1

BEFORE THE CHAIRMAN MOTOR ACCIDENTS CLAIMS TRIBUNAL-CUM-

SPECIAL JUDGE FOR TRIAL OF CASES UNDER SCS & STs (POA) ACT,

1989–CUM - ADDITIONAL DISTRICT JUDGE, SRIKAKULAM.

PRESENT: Sri V.VENKATESWARA RAO, Spl. Judge for trial of

cases under SCs & STs (POA) Act-cum-Chairman

Motor Accident Claims Tribunal-cum-Addl. District

Judge,Srikakulam.

Monday, this the 27th day of April, 2015.

MVOP.No.328/2011

Between:

Reddi Appamma W/o Sanamayya, aged 55 years D No 3-72, Hindu, household

duties and Sheep Keeper, resident of Chinna Jonnavalasa

village,Amadalavalasa Mandalam,Srikakulam District.

… Petitioner

And:

1.Potnuru Gajapathirao, S/o. Vasudevarao, Door Number not known aged 25

years,Hindu, Auto Driver, resident of Golakonda Road, Dammala

street,Srikakulam Town,Srikakulam Mandalam and District.

2.Ch.Kumara Swamy, S/o late Ramarao, D.No.not known aged not known,

resident of Rayi Veedhi, Near Vamsadhara Guest House,Srikakulam

Town,Srikakulam Mandalam and District.

3.M/S Shriram General Insurance Company Limited, Visakhapatnam

represented by it’s Branch Manager.

….Respondents

This petition coming on 30.3.2015 before me for final hearing in the preswence of Sri Ch.Ramesh, Advocate for the Petitioner and of Sri K.S.R.Murthy,

Advocate for the respondents 1 and 2 and of Sri M.Janardhana Rao, Advocate for the respondent No.3 , and having stood over for consideration till this day, this

Court made the following :

2

ORDER

01. This is a claim petition filed under Section 166 of Motor Vehicles

Act read with Rule 455 of A.P. Motor Vehicles Rules 1989, claiming compensation of Rs.2,19,800/- (Rupees two lakhs nineteen thousand and eight hundred only) by the petitioner for the injuries suffered by her in the Motor

Vehicle Accident.

02. Brief facts of the petition are as follows:-

The petitioner- Reddi Appamma is resident of Chinna Jonnavalasa village, aged about 55 years and she is an agricultural labourer and shepherd, earning Rs.3000/- per month. Respondent No.1-P.Gajapathirao is driver and

Respondent No.2-Ch.Kumara Swamy is owner of vehicle bearing No. AP 30 V 3214 which was insured with respondent No.3-M/s. Shriram General Insurance

Company Limited under a valid policy by the date of accident. On 3.7.2010 the petitioner was going to bore-well to fetch water in her village at about 12.30 noon, an auto rickshaw bearing No. AP 30 V 3214 driven by respondent No.1 in a rash and negligent manner without following traffic rules dashed against her causing injuries to her. She was shifted to hospital with multiple injuries all over her body, foot , cheek and chin etc., The Station House Officer, Amadalavalasa police station registered a case in crime No.108/2010 under sections 338 and 337 of Indian Penal Code against respondent No.1 numbered as C.C.111/2010 on the file of Judicial Magistrate of I Class, Amadalavalasa. The petitioner suffered pain and became disabled after the accident due to injuries. She underwent treatment in Ramasulochana Specialty hospital, Narasannapeta after treatment as inpatient in the Government hospital and she underwent operation done by Sri S.Ram

Mohana Rao. She suffered mental shock and pain and loss of earnings. Hence, all the respondents are jointly and severally liable to pay compensation to the petitioner.

3

03. Respondent No.2 -Ch.Kumara Swamy filed written statement which was adopted by Respondent No.1-P.Gajapathirao denying the material averments of the petition, denying their liability and also the injuries suffered by petitioner and her earning capacity. However, admitting the accident and filing of charge sheet against the respondent No.1 and his driving licence particulars stating that the vehicle was insured with respondent No.3. It is further averred that respondent No.1 did not drive the vehicle in a rash and negligent manner but accident occurred as she herself fell down suddenly on the road and sustained injuries and if any compensation is payable that has to be paid by insurance company –respondent No.3. The claim of the petition is also excessive Petition against them is liable to be dismissed and.

04) Respondent No.3-M/s. Shriram General Insurance Company Limited, filed written statement denying the material averments of the petition, denying the rash and negligent driving of respondent No1, denying the injuries suffered by the petitioner and amounts spent by her for her treatment, denying the loss of earnings and her earning capacity. It is further averred that there are violation of terms and conditions of the policy as the documents were not supplied to them as required under law either by the owner or by the police. It is further averred that there was no driving licence to drive the auto rickshaw by respondent No.1 by the date of accident which amounts to gross violation of terms and conditions of the policy and it is not liable to pay any compensation. The petitioner has to prove the disability and injuries suffered by her. It is further averred that there is contributory negligence on the part of the petitioner in the accident and her claim is exorbitant and excessive under various heads. The petition is liable to be dismissed.

4

05. On the basis of above pleadings, the following issues were settled for trial.

ISSUES 1.Whether the accident occurred due to rash and negligent driving of 1st respondent Auto bearing No. AP 30 V 3214 resulting in injuries to the petitioner?

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

3.To what relief?

06. To prove the case of the petitioner, Pw.1 to PW5 were examined and

Exs.A1 to Ex.A8 were marked. On behalf of respondent, RW1 and RW2 were examined and marked Ex.B1 and Ex.X1 to Ex.X5 .

07. Respondent No.3 filed a petition under section 170 of Motor Vehicles

Act and it was allowed.

08. Arguments Heard. The counsel for the petitioner and respondent

No.3 filed written arguments.

09. ISSUE NO.1: -

To prove the case of the petitioner, Reddi Appamma-petitioner herself examined as PW1 and eye witness to the accident-Peerukatla

Suryanarayana examined as PW2. She examined PW3 to PW5 Doctors to prove the injuries and treatment given to her marked as Ex.A1 to Ex.A8. Ex.A1 to

Ex.A4 are certified copies of First Information Report in crime No.108/2010 of

Amadalavalasa police station, charge sheet in C.C.111/2010 on the file of Judicial

Magistrate of I Class, Amadalavalasa, wound certificate of PW1 and Motor vehicle

Inspector’s report of the crime vehicle. Ex.A5 to Ex.A8 relating to her treatment and disability.

10) PW1-Reddi Appamma deposed in the similar lines of petition averments that she was going towards bore well in her village Chinna

Jonnavalasa village on 3.7.2010 at about 12.30 after noon . An Auto rickshaw 5 bearing No. AP 30 W 3214 driven by respondent No.1 in a rash and negligent manner at high speed with following traffic rules dashed against her causing multiple bodily injuries. She was shifted to RIMS hospital, Srikakulam where she was treated as inpatient and later she took treatment in private hospitals. PW1 was cross examined at length challenging the rash and negligence on the part of

Respondent No.1 driver and further suggesting that there is negligence on her part, but she categorically denied the same. Suggestion denied is no evidence.

The evidence of PW1 is consistent and reliable and it is also well corroborated by the version of PW2 eye witness-Peerukatla Suryanarayana and also Ex.A1 to

Ex.A4. The evidence of PW1 and PW2 is consistent and reliable to prove that the accident occurred due to rash and negligence of auto driver, but not due to the negligence of petitioner. The investigation conducted by police immediately after the accident also that the accident occurred due to the rash and negligent driving of respondent No.1 against whom the police filed charge sheet for the offence under section 338 and 337 of Indian Penal Code numbered as C.C.110/.2010 on the file of Judicial Magistrate of I Class, Amadalavalasa. The best witness to challenge the evidence ofPW1 is respondent No.1 auto driver P.Gajapathirao but he was not examined by the respondents and that is fatal to the case of the respondents. Hence, the evidence of PW1 and PW2 remained un rebutted and has to be accepted as it is quite consistent and reliable. Therefore, I find that the accident occurred due to the rash and negligent driving of respondent No.1 causing multiple injuries to the petitioner. Issue answered accordingly.

11. ISSUE NO.2: -

To prove the case of petitioner, petitioner himself examined as PW1 and examined the Doctors Pw3 to PW5 to prove her injuries and disability suffered by her and marked Ex.A5 to Ex.A8.

12) It is the case of respondents that there are violation of terms and conditions of the policy and the driver was not having valid and effective driving licence by the date of accident. So, it is not liable to pay compensation to the petitioner in support of their case, they examined RW1 and RW2.

6

13) RW1-N.Suvarna Raju, Legal Officer working in Respondent No.3- insurance company and he marked Ex.B1 true extract of insurance policy covering the accident vehicle which was valid by the date of accident. But, he categorically admitted that he has no personal knowledge but deposing basing on the office records. He admitted that Ex.B1 policy covering third party risk of the petitioner and police filed charge sheet against the respondent No.1 He also admitted that the auto driver is having M.T.L. driving licence and their objection is auto driver was not having auto rickshaw endorsement. But his evidence is not satisfactory to explain the violation of driving licence . The evidence of RW2 is crucial in this case to prove the violation of driving licence as alleged by the insurance company.

13) RW2- J.Punyavathi, Junior Assistant of Road Transport Authority

Office summoned by Respondent No.3 Insurance company. She marked Ex.X1 authorization letter to give evidence. She also marked Ex.X2 to Ex.X4 Form 24 B register extract of the auto bearing No.AP 30 V 3214 which is a passenger auto having seating capacity of four including driver, permit and fitness. She admitted that the auto rickshaw is having valid permit and fitness. Ex,.X1 to Ex.X4 are not in dispute. She stated further that, she brought Ex.X5 true extract of driving licence of Respondent No.1-P.Gajapathirao, as per which he was authorized to drive auto rickshaw transport and Light motor vehicle non transport and motor cab. He obtained driving licence for light motor vehicle on 12.7.2007 for non transport vehicle and subsequently obtained driving licence for motor cab on 27.5.2010. But by the date of accident which took place on 3.7.2010 he was not having driving licence for A.R. transport which was obtained by him on 25.3.2013 after the accident. To drive an auto rickshaw passenger vehicle covered by Ex.X2 the driver requires to have driving licence for auto rickshaw for non transport purpose. This evidence of RW2 is not completely satisfactory . She admitted in her cross examination auto rickshaw is a light motor vehicle and driving skills required for auto rickshaw for non transport and transport are one and the same.

The Respondent No.1 auto driver was having driving licence for driving auto 7 rickshaw light motor vehicle and motor cab which was valid by the date of accident. But she claims that he did not obtain transport endorsement for light motor vehicle for transport purpose is not at all satisfactory. A driver who is competent to drive light motor vehicle and also motor cab for transportation of passengers which was already obtained by respondent No.1 are sufficient to enable him to drive light motor vehicle for transportation of passengers and the insurance company can avoid its liability on this ground.

14) The learned counsel for the respondent NO.3 relied on the following decisions ………

01) The Hon’ble Supreme Court in Sardari and others Vs. Susheel Kumar and others ACJ 2008 Page No.1307.

02) The Hon’ble High Court of Andhra Pradesh in M/.s. Bajaj Allianz

General Insurance Company Limited vs. Yenni Surya Rao and another MACMA

No.949/2009 ;

03) The Hon’ble High Court of Andhra Pradesh in M/.s. National

Insurance Company Limited vs. Kaki Venkata Ramana and another MACMA

No.5482/2008 ;

04) The Hon’ble High Court of A.P., New India Assurance Company

Limited, Tirupathi Chittor Vs. G.Sampoorna and others in ACR 2011 Page

No.39 ;

05) The Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in New India Assurance

Company Limited vs. Prabhulala ACJ 2008 Page No.627

The sum and substance of above decisions is that the Insurance

Company is not liable to pay compensation when there was no valid driving

licence to the driver of the insured vehicle as it amounts to violation of terms and conditions of the policy as the owner entrusted the vehicle to a driver who is

not competent to drive the insured vehicle as per terms of the policy.

As per The Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in Kulwant Singh and 15)

others V. Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd., 2014 – ACJ 2873

8

Held :- We find the judgments relied upon to cover the issue in favour of

the appellants. In Annappa Irappa Nesaria, 2008 ACJ 721 (SC) , this court referred to the provisions of section 2 (21) and (23) of the Motor Vehicles Act,1988, which are definitions of “light motor vehicle” and “medium goods vehicle” respectively and the rules prescribing the forms for the licence i.e., rule 14 and Form No.4. It was concluded

: “(16) Form what has been noticed hereinbefore, it is evident that “transport

vehicle’ has not been substituted for “medium goods vehicle’ and “heavy goods

vehicle’. The light motor vehicle continued, at the relevant point of time , to cover both ‘ light passenger carriage vehicle’ and ‘light goods carriage vehicle’. A driver who had a valid licence to drive a light motor vehicle, therefore, was authorized to drive a light

goods vehicle as well”.

In S.Irrapan, 2013 ACJ 1944 (SC) , the question was whether the driver who had a licence to drive ‘light motor vehicle’ could drive ‘light motor vehicle” used as a commercial vehicle, without obtaining endorsement to drive a commercial vehicle. It was held that in such a case, the insurance company could not disown its liability. It

was observed.

2) In another decision E.Rajeswari and Ors. Vs. T.S.Sekhar &

Anr., 2010(3) L.S. 321 (High Court of A.P.) Wherein it was held that “The reason is that the connotation “Light Motor Vehicle” is relevant, in the context of the size and make of the vehicle, and not the use, to which it is put. The expression “transport vehicle”. On the other hand, deals with the use and not the size of the vehicle. For instance, even a small vehicle, like, Auto rickshaw can be treated as transport vehicle, because of its use, whereas a big sedan or car can be used as private vehicle.

The LMV license issued to a driver enables him to drive the

vehicle of that category. It is immaterial whether such vehicle is being

used as purely for private purposes, or as a transport vehicle”.

16) In view of the latest decision of Hon’ble Supreme Court of India

and Hon’ble High Court of Andhra Pradesh, the decisions referred by

9

respondent No.3 cannot be accepted. Hence, insurance is liable to pay

compensation to the petitioner for the injuries suffered by her.

17) The petitioner claimed Rs.2,19,800/- towards special and general

damages. In support of her claim, she examined PW3 toPW5 and marked

Ex.A3, Ex.A5 to Ex.A8.

18) PW3-Dr.S.Ram Mohana Rao, deposed that he worked as Civil

Assistant Surgeon, Primary Health Center, Jalumuru and presently working

in service of P.G. in Rangaraya college, Kakinada. He treated the petitioner –

Reddi Appamma in Ramasulochana Speciality Hospital, Narasannapeta after

the accident and Ex.X5 and Ex.X6 are prescriptions and bills relates to her

treatment. He issued bills for total amount of Rs.18,549/- for the treatment

given to her injury on her right foot and he operated the petitioner as a

measure of skin grafting. The petitioner suffered deformity even after the

treatment due to which she was limping which cannot be corrected and she

has to limp towards her life as deformity restrict her normal movement. She

cannot walk far of distance nor she attend normal duties like attending

agricultural operations and she cannot sit or stand for longer period. He

assessed the permanent disability of her is 30%. He admitted in his cross

examination that she was treated as inpatient from 17.7.2010 to 1.8.2010. he

also admitted that there was no bony injury to the petitioner and he did not

give any disability certificate to her.

19) This evidence of PW3 clearly go to establish that the petitioner

suffered grievous injury on her foot leading to a surgery for skin grafting and

its permanent disability.

10

20) PW4-Dr.M.Ambedkar, deposed that he examined PW1 on 13.6.2014 and issued disability certificate assessing disability of 20%partially

and permanent in nature due to her oldage and also due to the scars on foot

and contractions. There is limitation of planta flexion of the ankle. She will

feel pain while walking long distance. He issued Ex.A8. He also admitted

that there is a medical board for assessing disability certificates by following

special software created by Government called as “Sabaram”. Therefore, the

evidence of PW4 is also go to establish that PW1 sustained disability upto

20% and she cannot walk for longtime or cannot walk long distance.

21) PW5-Dr.T.V.Ramana Rao, Dermatologist, deposed that she had

contracture of skin and sub continuous tissues of dorsum of right leg

resulting in disability of free movement of right foot and issued Ex.A7

disability certificate. But he admitted in his cross examination that he did not mentioned the disability in Ex.A7. But categorically stated that she is not able

to attend cooli work usually due to restriction of limps.

22) Thus, the evidence of PW3 to PW5 clearly go to show that PW1

suffered permanent disability to her right leg due to injuries suffered by her

which was described in Ex.A3 wound certificate. But in the wound certificate

they were described as simple injuries in nature . This observation cannot be

accepted because subsequent treatment given to PW1 clearly indicate that she

suffered permanent disability. Simply because there is bony injury, it cannot

be said that she did not suffer grievous injury ie., deformity of right leg also

amounts to grievous injury and she is not able to attend her duties ,

agricultural works due to her right leg injury that is to be treated as grievous 11

injury for awarding compensation assessing her disability while considering

for compensation at 20% as deposed by PW4. Because she is not able to

attend regular work with her permanent disability and nobody will prefer her

to engage her services considering her oldage as well as her disability in

attending agricultural works. In view of my above findings, the other points

raised in the written arguments of both parties need not be discussed at length

as they are not much material to be discussed.

23) Taking into consideration the above evidence of PW3 to PW5 and

Exs.A3,Ex.A5 to Ex.A8, the petitioner is awarded Rs.40,000/- for grievous

injury. She is entitled total reimbursement of medical bills worth Rs.30,893/-

marked as Ex.A6 round figured to Rs.30,900/-. She is awarded Rs.7,500/-

each for four simple injuries which comes to Rs.30,000/-. She is awarded

Rs.15,000/- towards pain and suffering. Rs.12,000/- towards loss of earnings

for a period of four months. The petitioner is 60 years old.

In Sarla Varma and others Vs.Delhi Transport Corporation and

another, 2009 ACJ 1298 (S.C.)

The Supreme Court laid down the guide lines to bring uniformity in granting compensation in motor accident cases:-

The following multipliers are fixed for each age group to avoid

inconsistency.

M-18 for age of persons between 15 to 20 and between 21 and 25 ;

reduced by one unit of every five years, that I s, M-17 for 26 to 30 years, M-16

years for 31 to 35 years, M-15 for 36 to 40 years, M-14 for 41 to 45 years, and

M-13 for 46 to 50 years, then reduced by two units for every five years, this is 12

M-11 for 51 to 55 years, M-9 for 56-60 years and M-7 for 61 to 65 years and

MO-5 for 66 to 70 years.

The appropriate multiplier applicable to the petitioner who is aged 60

years is “9”. As an agricultural cooli and also shephered she can earn

Rs.3000/- per month as minimum wages, which is equivalent to Rs.36,000/-

per month. She is entitled to compensation of Rs.36000/- x9x20/100 =

64,800/-. She is entitled to Rs.64,800/- towards permanent disability. Thus

the petitioner is entitled to total compensation of Rs.1,92,700/- that is payable

by respondent No.3 Insurance company. Rest of the claim dismissed. Issue

answered accordingly.

24. Issue No.3 :-

In the result, petition is allowed partly with proportionate costs, awarding compensation of Rs.1,92,700/-(rupees One lakh ninety two thousand and seven hundred only ) with future interest of 9% p.a from the date of petition to be deposited within three months payable by

Respondent No.3- M/s. M/s.Shriram General Insurance company limited, failing which to pay the same with interest of 12% p.a from the date of petition. In case of such deposit, the petitioner is permitted to withdraw entire amount considering her old age as she could not go to cooli work due to her disability. Rest of the claim dismissed. Advocate fee is fixed at

Rs.2,000/-(rupees two thousand only)

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

pronounced by me in open court, this the 27th day of April 2015.

SPECIAL JUDGE FOR TRIAL

OF CASES UNDER SCs & STs (POA) ACT

CHAIRMAN MOTOR ACCIDENTS

CLAIMS TRIBUNAL-CUM-ADDL.DIST.AND

SESSIONS JUDGE, SRIKAKULAM.

13

Appendix of Evidence Witnesses Examined for

Petitioner:- Respondents:-

PW1: Reddy Appamma RW1 : N.Suvarna Raju

PW2 : Peerukatla Surayanrayana RW2 : J.Punyavathi.

PW3 : Dr.S.Ramamohana Rao.

PW4 : Dr. M.Ambedkar

PW5 : Dr.T.V.Ramana Rao.

Documents Marked for

PETITIONER

Ex.A.1- Certified copy of first information report in crime No.108/2010 of

Amadalavalasa police station.

Ex.A2 : Certified copy of Charge sheet in C.C. 111/2010

Ex.A3 : Certified copy of wound certificate of PW1.

Ex.A4 : Certified copy of Motor Vehicle Inspector's report.

Ex.A5 : in patient discharge slip.

Ex.A6 : bunch of prescriptions along with medical bills worth Rs.30,829/-

Ex.A7 : Disability certificate issued by skin specialist.

Ex.A8 : Disability certificate issued by Ortho specialist.

FOR RESPONDENTS :

Ex.B1: Certified true copy of insurance policy. Ex.X1 : Authorisation letter. Ex.X2 : true extract of form 24 B register. Ex.X3 ; True extract of permit. Ex.X4 : True copy of fitness certificate. Ex.X3 : True extract of driving licence.

SPECIAL JUDGE FOR TRIAL

OF CASES UNDER SCs & STs (POA) ACT

CHAIRMAN MOTOR ACCIDENTS

CLAIMS TRIBUNAL-CUM-ADDL.DIST.AND

SESSIONS JUDGE, SRIKAKULAM.

14

1

BEFORE THE CHAIRMAN MOTOR ACCIDENTS CLAIMS

TRIBUNAL-CUM- SPECIAL JUDGE FOR TRIAL OF CASES

UNDER SCS & STs (POA) ACT, 1989–CUM - ADDITIONAL

DISTRICT JUDGE, SRIKAKULAM.

PRESENT: Sri V.VENKATESWARA RAO, Spl. Judge for trial of cases under SCs & STs (POA) Act-cum- Chairman Motor Accident Claims Tribunal- cum- Addl. District Judge,Srikakulam.

Thursday this the 23 rd day of April,2015.

MVOP.No.267/2012

Between :

Ampili Lakshmana Rao, son of Latchodu, Hindu, aged 30 years,

Mason, resident of D.No.1-0,Buddivalasa village,Sarubujjili

mandal,Srikakulam district. … Petitioner

And:

1.Panchireddy Tejeswara Rao son of Kesava Rao, Hindu, aged

21 years,Driver of Auto bearing No.A.P.30 W 1680 resident of

Door No.1-226 Gollavalasa village, Polaki mandal,Srikakulam

district.

2.Panchireddy Appanna son of Kesava Rao, Hindu, aged 30

years, Owner of Auto bearing registration No.A.P.30 W 1680 ,

rest do.

3.M/S The Universal Sampo General Insurance Company

Limited, represented by its Branch Manager,Visaskhapatnam.

Respondents

This petition coming on 30.3.2015 before me for final

hearing in the presence of Sri N.Chinna Rao, Advocate for the

petitioner and of Sri H.Ramakrishna, Advocate for respondents 1

and 2 and of Sri M.Janardhana Rao, Advocate for respondent

No.3 and having stood over for consideration till this day this

Court made the following :

2

ORDER

01. This is a claim petition filed under Section 166 of

Motor Vehicles Act read with Rule 455 of A.P. Motor Vehicles Rules 1989, claiming compensation of Rs.2,00,000/- (Rupees two lakh only) filed by the petitioner for the injuries suffered by him in the

Motor Vehicle Accident.

02.Brief facts of the petition are as follows:-

The petitioner-Ampili Laxmana Rao a resident of

Buddivalasa village, Sarubujjili mandal, earning Rs.6000/- per month as mason. Respondent No.1-Panchireddy Tejeswara Rao is driver and Respondent No.2-Panchireddy Appanna is owner of auto bearing

No. A.P.30 W 1680 which was insured with respondent No.3-

M/.s.Universal Sampo General Insurance Company Limited represented by its Branch Manager, Visakhapatnam under a valid policy by the date of accident. On .3.3.2011 while the petitioner –

Laxmana Rao was returning from Narasannapeta towards

Singupuram-Amadalavalasa road on the motor cycle along with its rider -Ampili Govinda Rao. When they reached near Petrol bunk at

Srikakulam rural mandal, at about 4.30 p.m. the respondent No.1 driver of auto bearing No. AP 30 W 1680 coming in opposite direction drove the auto in a rash and negligent manner at high speed without following traffic rules and dashed against the motor cycle , as a result the petitioner and rider of the motor cycle Govinda Rao fell down and sustained multiple grievous injuries. They were shifted to RIMS general hospital, Srikakulam in 108 Ambulance, where they were 3 treated as in patients for several days. Even after discharge, the petitioner was advised to take further treatment. He spent huge amounts for his treatment. He was hale and healthy prior to the accident and subsequently became permanently disabled due to injuries suffered by him and he is subjected to mental shock and agony, his future became completely bleak. Hence, all the respondents are jointly and severally liable to pay compensation to the petitioner.

03) The respondent No.2-Panchireddy Appanna filed written statement which was adopted by Respondent No.1-Panchireddy

Tejeswara Rao, denying the material averments of the petition, denying the rash and negligence on the part of Respondent No.1 claiming that the accident occurred due to fault of the rider of the motor cycle , denying the injuries suffered by the petitioner, his disability and also his earning capacity and amounts incurred for his treatment. The petitioner failed to produce documentary evidence for his treatment. The rider of the motor cycle drove the motor cycle in jig jag manner in a drunken state leading to the accident and he was not having any driving licence and hence they are not entitled to claim any compensation. Even otherwise, the vehicle was duly insured with the insurance company under a valid policy and if any compensation is payable, it is payable by respondent No.3 and the petition against these respondents is liable to be dismissed.

04. Respondent No.3 – M./s. Universal Sampoo General

Insurance Company limited, filed written statement denying the material averments of the petition, denying its liability, denying the injuries suffered by the petitioner and the expenditure incurred for his 4 treatment including disability. It is further averred that, it is not supplied with required documents by the owner of the vehicle and also by the police as required under law which amounts to breach of terms. The accident occurred due to rash and negligent driving of driver of motor cycle bearing No. AP 30 B 6885 without observing traffic rules leading to the accident. The driver of the auto was also not having any driving licence which is one of the cause for the accident and it amounts to willful violation of terms and conditions of the policy. Therefore, the respondent No.3 is not liable to pay any compensation . The petitioner has to prove that there are no violation of terms and conditions of the policy including the expenditure incurred by him by producing documentary evidence. The claim of petitioner is highly exorbitant including interest. There is no cause of action against the respondent No.3 and hence petition is liable to be dismissed.

05. On the basis of above pleadings, the following issues were settled for trial.

1. Whether the accident occurred due to rash and negligent driving of 1st respondent auto bearing No. AP 30 W 1680 resulting in injuries to Ampili Laxmana Rao?

2. Whether the petitioner is entitled to claim compensation and if so, to what amount?

3. To what relief?

06. To prove the case of the petitioner, Pw.1 –Ampili

Laxmana Rao was examined and Ex.A1 to Ex.A4 were marked. On behalf of respondents, RW1 to RW3 were examined and Ex.B1 and

Ex.X1 to Ex.X5 were marked through witness.

5

07. Respondent No.3 filed a petition under section 170 of

Motor Vehicles Act and it was allowed.

08. Arguments Heard. The learned counsel for petitioner and respondent No.3 also filed Written arguments.

09. ISSUE NO.1: -

To prove the case of the petitioner, PW1-Ampili Laxmana

Rao, was examined and marked Ex.A1 to Ex.A4 .They are certified copies of First Information report in Crime No. 45/2011 of Srikakulam rural police station, charge sheet in CC 298/2011, wound certificate of petitioner and Motor Vehicle Inspector's report obtained from the criminal case filed against respondent No.1 driver filed by the police.

Respondent No.2 owner of the vehicle was examined as RW1, RW2 and RW3 were examined on behalf of respondent No.3, but their evidence is not relevant for deciding this issue.

10) PW1-Ampili Laxmana Rao deposed in the similar lines of petition averments stating that he along with rider of motor cycle –

Govindarao were returning from Narasannapeta on 3.3.2011 at about 4.30 p.m. and when they reached near Petrol bunk at

Srikakulam rural mandal, respondent No.1 driver of auto bearing No.

AP 30 W 1680 coming in their opposite direction drove the same in a rash and negligent manner at high speed without following traffic rules and dashed against their motor cycle , as a result they sustained multiple grievous injuries. They were shifted to hospital.

PW1 was cross examined at length challenging the rash and negligence on the part of respondent No.1 but nothing was elicited to impeach his evidence in any manner except giving suggestions that the accident occurred due to negligence of rider of motor cycle that 6 he was going in wrong route. It is suggested to PW1 that the rider of motor cycle is not having valid driving licence but he denied the same. Suggestion denied is no evidence. He asserted that rider of the motor cycle-Govinda Rao has got driving licence but not filed in court. He also stated that there is no divider on the road at the place of accident. He also denied the suggestion that petition is bad for non joinder of owner and insurance company of the motor cycle. The evidence of PW1 is consistent and reliable and it is well corroborated by Ex.A1 to Ex.A4. The best witness to challenge the evidence of

PW1 is respondent No.1 driver of auto –Panchireddy Tejeswara Rao but he was not examined by the respondents and that is fatal to the case of the respondents.

11) Rw1-Panchireddy Appanna was examined , he is owner of the vehicle and he has no personal knowledge as to how the accident occurred. There is no explanation for not examining the driver of auto who is no other than the brother of RW1. He stated that Respondent NO.1 is having light motor vehicle driving licence.

He categorically admitted that he was not present at the time of accident and police filed case against the respondent No.1 driver . He does not know how the accident occurred. These admissions elicited from RW1 clearly go to show that there was no negligence on the part of PW1 and the accident occurred due to the negligence of respondent No.1 driver against whom the police filed charge sheet.

The investigation conducted by police immediately after the accident also go to establish that the accident occurred due to rash and negligent driving of respondent No.1 against whom they filed charge sheet in C.C.298/2011. Non-examination of Respondent No.1 is fatal 7 and an adverse inference has to be drawn against the respondents for the same. Thus petitioner is able to prove that the accident occurred due to the rash and negligent driving of respondent No.1, as a result they sustained injuries. Issue answered accordingly.

12.ISSUE NO.2: -

Admittedly, respondent No.1-Panchireddy Tejeswara Rao is driver and respondent No.2-Panchireddy Appanna-RW1 is owner of the auto bearing No. AP 30 W 1680 which was duly insured with respondent No.3-Insurance Company under a valid policy by the date of accident.

13) It is the case of the respondent No.3 that there are violation of terms and conditions of the policy as the driver of the auto-respondent No.1 was not having valid driving licence to drive the auto. In support of their case, they examined RW2 and RW3 and marked Ex.X1 to Ex.X5.

14) RW2-B.Sairam, Senior Relationship manager working in

Respondent No.3-Insurance company stated that Respondent No.1 was having driving licence by the date of accident i.e., Light motor vehicle Non-transport and policy was in force by the date of accident.

He also admitted that the skills of driver for driving transport and non transport Light motor vehicle is one and the same and auto is a light motor vehicle. So, the evidence of RW2 is not that much important because he has no personal knowledge regarding driving licence particulars of respondent No.1. The evidence of RW3 is crucial in this case.

8

15) RW3-Savara Lakshmi, Junior Assistant working in Road

Transport Authority Office, Srikakulam summoned by Respondent

NO.3-Insurance Company. She deposed that auto rickshaw involved in the accident was registered in their office. She marked Ex. X1 authorization given to her to give evidence, Ex.X2 is form 24 B register extract, Ex.X3 is the fitness and Ex.X4 is permit of vehicle involved in accident and the vehicle is having both valid fitness and permit. She marked Ex.X5 driving licence of Panchireddy Tejeswara

Rao-Respondent No.1, as per which their office issued driving licence to respondent No.1 authorizing him to drive light motor vehicle non transport and motor vehicle with gear on 10.11.2010 which was valid up to 9.11.2030. Subsequently, the respondent NO.1 also obtained

MTL (transport) on 24.1.2014 valid upto 23.1.2007 but it was obtained after the date of accident i.e., 3.3.2011. Any driver to drive auto rickshaw with passenger should have licence for transport with

A.R. transport endorsement but such authorization not given to respondent NO.1 who is competent to drive auto rickshaw for non transport purpose. However, it is elicited that respondent NO.1 having light motor vehicle non transport licence by the date of accident. Auto rickshaw is a light motor vehicle in this case and the skills required for driving transport and non transport is one and the same. The accident occurred within one year after obtaining driving licence by respondent No.1.

16) The learned counsel for respondent No.3 vehemently argued that respondent No.1 is not having valid driving licence and 9 hence, insurance company is not liable to pay any compensation.

He relied on the following decisions :-

01) The Hon’ble High Court of Andhra Pradesh in M/.s. Bajaj

Allianz General Insurance Company Limited vs. Yenni Surya Rao and another MACMA No.949/2009;

02) The Hon’ble High Court of Andhra Pradesh in M/.s.

National Insurance Company Limited vs. Kaki Venkata Ramana and another MACMA No.5482/2008 ;

03) The Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in New India

Assurance Company Limited vs. Prabhulala ACJ 2008 Page No.627

04) The Hon’ble High Court of Andhra Pradesh in

M/s.National Insurance Company Vs. Dhupati Singhaiah and others

ALT 2009(3) Page No.121

The sum and substance of above decisions is that the

Insurance Company is not liable to pay compensation when there was no valid driving licence to the driver of the insured vehicle as it amounts to violation of terms and conditions of the policy as the owner entrusted the vehicle to a driver who is not competent to drive the insured vehicle as per terms of the policy.

17) The Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in Kulwant Singh and others V. Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd., 2014 – ACJ 2873

Held :- We find the judgments relied upon to cover the issue in favour of the appellants. In Annappa Irappa Nesaria, 2008 ACJ 721 (SC) , this court referred to the provisions of section 2 (21) and (23) of the Motor

Vehicles Act,1988, which are definitions of “light motor vehicle” and “medium goods vehicle” respectively and the rules prescribing the forms for the licence i.e., rule 14 and Form No.4. It was concluded : “(16) Form 10 what has been noticed hereinbefore, it is evident that “transport vehicle’ has not been substituted for “medium goods vehicle’ and “heavy goods vehicle’.

The light motor vehicle continued, at the relevant point of time , to cover both ‘ light passenger carriage vehicle’ and ‘light goods carriage vehicle’. A driver who had a valid licence to drive a light motor vehicle, therefore, was authorized to drive a light goods vehicle as well”.

In S.Iyyappan v. United India Insurance Company Limited and another , 2013 ACJ 1944 (SC) , the question was whether the driver who had a licence to drive ‘light motor vehicle’ could drive ‘light motor vehicle” used as a commercial vehicle, without obtaining endorsement to drive a commercial vehicle. It was held that in such a case, the insurance company could not disown its liability. It was observed.

2) In another decision E.Rajeswari and Ors. Vs. T.S.Sekhar &

Anr., 2010(3) L.S. 321 (High Court of A.P.) Wherein it was held that “The reason is that the connotation “Light Motor Vehicle” is relevant, in the context of the size and make of the vehicle, and not the use, to which it is put. The expression “transport vehicle”. On the other hand, deals with the use and not the size of the vehicle. For instance, even a small vehicle, like, Auto rickshaw can be treated as transport vehicle, because of its use, whereas a big sedan or car can be used as private vehicle.

The LMV license issued to a driver enables him to

drive the vehicle of that category. It is immaterial whether such

vehicle is being used as purely for private purposes, or as a

transport vehicle”.

18) However as per the latest decision of Supreme Court and Hon’ble High Court of Andhra Pradesh referred above, it is a case of Respondent NO.1 having a driving licence for light motor 11 vehicle non transport and no special skills are required for driving light motor vehicle like auto rickshaw and it cannot be treated as major breach of terms and conditions of the policy. On this ground the insurance company cannot avoid its liability. Therefore, I find that the insurance company is liable to pay compensation to the petitioner.The other points raised in the written arguments of respondent No.3 need not be discussed as they are not much material to discuss at length .

19) The contention of the learned advocate for respondent No.3 non joinder of owner and insurance company of the motor cycle is bad for the case cannot be accepted in this case. Because there was no negligence on the part of driver of the motor cyclest in the accident. Therefore, non joinder of owner and insurance company of the motor cycle is not fatal to the claim petition.

The petitioner claimed Rs.2,00,000/- towards special and 20) general damages. He marked Ex.A3 wound certificate which was issued by N.R.I. Hospital, Visakhapatnam and it can safely be accepted without examining the Doctor as it was obtained from the criminal case filed against the respondent No.1 by the police. As per

Ex.A3 the petitioner suffered four injuries, out of them Injuries 1 and 3 are grievous in nature i.e., swelling with tenderness at right wrist ad abrasion over right foot –knee and injuries 2 and 4 are simple in nature.

21) Taking into consideration Ex.A3 and the injuries suffered by the petitioner, he is awarded Rs.80,000/- for two grievous injuries at the rate of Rs.40,000/- for each grievous injury. And Rs.16,000/- for two simple injuries at the rate of Rs.8000/- each simple injury. A 12 patient who suffered fracture is expected to take absolute bed rest for a period of three or months without undertaking any weight bearing labour works and during that period there is no scope for any earnings to a patient like petitioner and he has to undergo lot of pain and somebody has to attend on him to attend his daily routine work and to go for time to time medical checkups by taking medicines as suggested by the Doctors. Therefore, the petitioner is awarded

Rs.20,000/- towards pain and suffering . Rs.16,000/- towards loss of earnings for four months at the rate of Rs.4000/- per month which is quite reasonable for a mason to earn. The claim of petitioner that, he was earning Rs.6000/- appears to be exorbitant and not supported by any credible evidence. He is also awarded Rs.4000/- towards medical and extra nourishment and Rs.10,000/- towards transportation and attender charges. Thus, the petitioner is entitled to total compensation of Rs.1,46,000/- . The petitioner could not produce any disability certificate to establish his claim. The compensation payable to the petitioner is just compensation it should be neither more nor less. An amount of Rs.1,46,000/- is quite reasonable in this case that is payable by respondent NO.3 Insurance company. Issue answered accordingly.

22. Issue No.3 :-

In the result, petition is allowed partly with proportionate costs, awarding compensation of Rs.1,46,000/-(rupees One lakh forty six thousand only ) with future interest of 9% p.a from the date of petition to be deposited within three months payable by Respondent

No.3- M/s. Universal Sampo General Insurance Company Limited , 13 failing which to pay the same with interest of 12% p.a from the date of petition. In case of such deposit, the petitioner is permitted to withdraw entire amount f. Rest of the claim dismissed. Advocate fee is fixed at Rs.1500/-(rupees one thousand five hundred only)

Dictated to the Personal Assistant, transcribed by him,

corrected and pronounced by me in open court, this the 23rd day of April 2015.

SPECIAL JUDGE FOR TRIAL

OF CASES UNDER SCs & STs (POA) ACT

CHAIRMAN MOTOR ACCIDENTS

CLAIMS TRIBUNAL-CUM-ADDL.DIST.AND

SESSIONS JUDGE, SRIKAKULAM.

Appendix of Evidence WitnessesExaminedfor

Petitioner:-

PW1: Ampili Laxmana Rao

Respondents:-

RW1 : Panchireddy Appanna. RW2 : B.Sairam. RW3 : Savara Lakshmi.

Petitioner: Documents Marked for

Ex.A.1- Certified copy of first information report in Crime

NO.45/2011 of Srikakulam rural police station.

Ex.A2: Certified copy of charge sheet in C.C.298/2011.

Ex.A3: Certified copy of wound certificate of PW1.

Ex.A4: Certified copy of Motor Vehicle Inspector’s report.

14

Respondents:

Ex.B1: True extract of Insurance Policy.

Ex.X1: Authorisation letter.

Ex.X2: True extract of Form 24 B register.

Ex.X3: True extract of fitness certificate.

Ex.X4: True copy of permit.

Ex.X5: True extract of driving licence.

SPECIAL JUDGE FOR TRIAL

OF CASES UNDER SCs & STs (POA) ACT

CHAIRMAN MOTOR ACCIDENTS

CLAIMS TRIBUNAL-CUM-ADDL.DIST.AND

SESSIONS JUDGE, SRIKAKULAM.

15

1

BEFORE THE CHAIRMAN MOTOR ACCIDENTS CLAIMS

TRIBUNAL-CUM- SPECIAL JUDGE FOR TRIAL OF CASES

UNDER SCS & STs (POA) ACT, 1989–CUM - ADDITIONAL

DISTRICT JUDGE, SRIKAKULAM.

PRESENT: Sri V.VENKATESWARA RAO, Spl.

Judge for trial of cases under SCs & STs (POA)

Act-cum- Chairman Motor Accident Claims Tribunal-cum- Addl. District Judge,Srikakulam.

Thursday this the 23 rd day of April,2015.

MVOP.No.263/2012

Between :

Ampili Govinda Rao alias Govindu, son of Somayya, , Hindu,

aged 21 years, Mason, resident of D.No.1-,Buddivalasa

village,Sarubujjili mandal,Srikakulam district. … Petitioner

And:

1.Panchireddy Tejeswara Rao son of Kesava Rao, Hindu, aged

21 years,Driver of Auto bearing No.A.P.30 W 1680 resident of

Door No.1-226 Gollavalasa village, Polaki mandal,Srikakulam

district.

2.Panchireddy Appanna son of Kesava Rao, Hindu, aged 30

years, Owner of Auto bearing registration No.A.P.30 W 1680 ,

rest do.

3.M/S The Universal Sampo General Insurance Company

Limited, represented by its Branch Manager,Visaskhapatnam.

Respondents

This petition coming on 30.3.2015 before me for final

hearing in the presence of Sri N.Chinna Rao, Advocate for the

petitioner and of Sri H.Ramakrishna, Advocate for respondents 1

and 2 and of Sri M.Janardhana Rao, Advocate for respondent

No.3 and having stood over for consideration till this day this

Court made the following :

2

ORDER

01. This is a claim petition filed under Section 166 of

Motor Vehicles Act read with Rule 455 of A.P. Motor Vehicles Rules 1989, claiming compensation of Rs.2,00,000/- (Rupees two lakh only) filed by the petitioner for the injuries suffered by him in the

Motor Vehicle Accident.

02.Brief facts of the petition are as follows:-

The petitioner-Ampili Govinda Rao @ Govindu is a resident of Boddivalasa village, Sarubujjili mandal, earning Rs.6000/- per month as mason. Respondent No.1-Panchireddy Tejeswara Rao is driver and Respondent No.2-Panchireddy Appanna is owner of auto bearing No. A.P.30 W 1680 which was insured with respondent

No.3-M/.s.Universal Sampoo General Insurance Company Limited represented by its Branch Manager, Visakhapatnam under a valid policy by the date of accident. On .3.3.2011 the petitioner Ampili

Govinda Rao @ Govindu along with pillion rider- were returning from

Narasannapeta towards Singupuram-Amadalavalasa road . When they reached near Petrol bunk at Srikakulam rural mandal, at about 4.30 p.m. the respondent No.1 driver of auto bearing No. AP 30 W 1680 coming in opposite direction drove the auto in a rash and negligent manner at high speed without following traffic rules and dashed against the motor cycle of petitioner, as a result both of them fell down and sustained multiple grievous injuries. They were shifted to RIMS general hospital, Srikakulam in 108 Ambulance, where they were treated as in patient for several days. Even after discharge, the 3 petitioner was advised to take further treatment. He spent huge amounts for his treatment. He was hale and healthy prior to the accident and subsequently became permanently disabled due to injuries suffered by him and his marriage alliance was also broke up and he is subjected to mental shock and agony, his future became completely bleak. Hence, all the respondents are jointly and severally liable to pay compensation to the petitioner.

03) The respondent No.2-Panchireddy Appanna filed written statement which was adopted by Respondent No.1-Panchireddy

Tejeswara Rao, denying the material averments of the petition, denying the rash and negligence on the part of Respondent No.1 claiming that the accident occurred due to fault of the petitioner , denying the injuries suffered by the petitioner his disability and also his earning capacity and amounts incurred for his treatment. The petitioner failed to produce documentary evidence for his treatment.

The petitioner drove the two wheeler motor cycle in jig jag manner in a drunken state leading to the accident and he was not having any driving licence and hence they are not entitled to claim any compensation. Even otherwise, the vehicle was duly insured with the insurance company under a valid policy and if any compensation is payable, it is payable by respondent No.3 and the petition against these respondents is liable to be dismissed.

04. Respondent No.3 – M./s. Universal Sampoo General

Insurance Company limited, filed written statement denying the material averments of the petition, denying its liability, denying the injuries suffered by the petitioner and the expenditure incurred for his treatment including disability. It is further averred that, it is not 4 supplied with required documents by the owner of the vehicle and also by the police as required under law which amounts to breach of terms. The accident occurred due to rash and negligence driving of driver of motor cycle bearing No. AP 30 B 6885 without observing traffic rules leading to the accident. The driver of the auto was also not having any driving licence which is one of the cause for the accident and it amounts to willful violation of terms and conditions of the policy. Therefore, the respondent No.3 is not liable to pay any compensation . The petitioner has to prove that there are no violation of terms and conditions of the policy including the expenditure incurred by him by producing documentary evidence. The claim of petitioner is highly exorbitant including interest. There is no cause of action against the respondent No.3 and hence petition is liable to be dismissed.

05. On the basis of above pleadings, the following issues were settled for trial.

1. Whether the accident occurred due to rash and negligent driving of 1st respondent auto bearing No. AP 30 W 1680 resulting in injuries to Ampili Govinda Rao?

2. Whether the petitioner is entitled to claim compensation and if so, to what amount?

3. To what relief?

06. To prove the case of the petitioner, Pw.1 –Ampili Govinda

Rao was examined and Ex.A1 to Ex.A4 were marked. On behalf of respondents, RW1 to RW3 were examined and Ex.B1 and Ex.X1 to

Ex.X5 were marked through witness.

07. Respondent No.3 filed a petition under section 170 of

Motor Vehicles Act and it was allowed.

5

08. Arguments Heard. The learned counsel for petitioner and respondent No.3 also filed Written arguments.

09. ISSUE NO.1: -

To prove the case of the petitioner, PW1-Ampili Govinda

Rao, was examined and marked Ex.A1 to Ex.A4 .They are certified copies of First Information report in Crime No. 45/2011 of Srikakulam rural police station, charge sheet in CC 298/2011, wound certificate of petitioner and Motor Vehicle Inspector's report obtained from the criminal case filed against respondent No.1 driver filed by the police.

Respondent No.2 owner of the vehicle was examined as RW1, RW2 and RW3 were examined on behalf of respondent No.3, but their evidence is not relevant for deciding this issue.

10) PW1-Ampili Govinda Rao deposed in the similar lines of petition averments stating that he along with pillion rider –Laxmana

Rao were returning from Narasannapeta on 3.3.2011 at about 4.30 p.m. and when they reached near Petrol bunk at Srikakulam rural mandal, respondent No.1 driver of auto bearing No. AP 30 W 1680 coming in their opposite direction drove the same in a rash and negligent manner at high speed without following traffic rules and dashed against their motor cycle , as a result they sustained multiple grievous injuries. They were shifted to hospital. PW1 was cross examined at length challenging the rash and negligence on the part of respondent No.1 but nothing was elicited to impeach his evidence in any manner except giving suggestions that the accident occurred due to his negligence that he was going in wrong route. It is 6 suggested to PW1 that he is not having valid driving licence but he denied the same. Suggestion denied is no evidence. He asserted that he has got driving licence but not filed in court. He also stated that there is no divider on the road at the place of accident. He also denied the suggestion that petition is bad for non joinder of owner and insurance company of the motor cycle. The evidence of PW1 is consistent and reliable and it is well corroborated by Ex.A1 to Ex.A4.

The best witness to challenge the evidence of PW1 is respondent

No.1 driver of auto –Panchireddy Tejeswara Rao but he was not examined by the respondents and that is fatal to the case of the respondents.

11) Rw1-Panchireddy Appanna was examined , he is owner of the vehicle and he has no personal knowledge as to how the accident occurred. There is no explanation for not examining the driver of auto who is no other than the brother of RW1. He stated that Respondent NO.1 is having light motor vehicle driving licence.

He categorically admitted that he was not present at the time of accident and police filed case against the respondent No.1 driver . He does not know how the accident occurred. These admissions elicited from RW1 clearly go to show that there was no negligence on the part of PW1 and the accident occurred due to the negligence of respondent No.1 driver against whom the police filed charge sheet.

The investigation conducted by police immediately after the accident also go to establish that the accident occurred due to rash and negligent driving of respondent No.1 against whom they filed charge sheet in C.C.298/2011. Non-examination of Respondent No.1 is fatal and an adverse inference has to be drawn against the respondents 7 for the same. Thus petitioner is able to prove that the accident occurred due to the rash and negligent driving of respondent No.1, as a result they sustained injuries. Issue answered accordingly.

12.ISSUE NO.2: -

Admittedly, respondent No.1-Panchireddy Tejeswara Rao is driver and respondent No.2-Panchireddy Appanna-RW1 is owner of the auto bearing No. AP 30 W 1680 which was duly insured with respondent No.3-Insurance Company under a valid policy by the date of accident.

13) It is the case of the respondent No.3 that there are violation of terms and conditions of the policy as the driver of the auto-respondent No.1 was not having valid driving licence to drive the auto. In support of their case, they examined RW2 and RW3 and marked Ex.X1 to Ex.X5.

14) RW2-B.Sairam, Senior Relationship manager working in

Respondent No.3-Insurance company stated that Respondent No.1 was having driving licence by the date of accident i.e., Light motor vehicle Non-transport and policy was in force by the date of accident.

He also admitted that the skills of driver for driving transport and non transport Light motor vehicle is one and the same and auto is a light motor vehicle . So, the evidence of RW2 is not that much important because he has no personal knowledge regarding driving licence particulars of respondent No.1 The evidence of RW3 is crucial in this case.

15) RW3-Savara Lakshmi, Junior Assistant working in Road

Transport Authority Office, Srikakulam summoned by Respondent

NO.3-Insurance Company. She deposed that auto rickshaw involved 8 in the accident was registered in their office. She marked Ex. X1 authorization given to her to give evidence, Ex.X2 is form 24 B register extract, Ex.X3 is the fitness and Ex.X4 is permit of vehicle insured in accident and the vehicle is having both valid fitness and permit. She marked Ex.X5 driving licence of Panchireddy Tejeswara

Rao-Respondent No.1, as per which their office issued driving licence to respondent No.1 authorizing him to drive light motor vehicle non transport and motor vehicle with gear on 10.11.2010 which was valid upto 9.11.2030. Subsequently, the respondent NO.1 also obtained

MTL ( transport) on 24.1.2014 valid upto 23.1.2007 but it was obtained after the date of accident i.e., 3.3.2011. Any driver to drive auto rickshaw with passenger should have licence for transport with

A.R. transport endorsement but such authorization not given to respondent NO.1 who is competent to drive auto rickshaw for non transport purpose. However, it is elicited that respondent NO.1 having light motor vehicle non transport licence by the date of accident . Auto rickshaw is a light motor vehicle in this case and the skills required for driving transport and non transport is one and the same. The accident occurred within one year after obtaining driving licence by respondent No.1.

16) The learned counsel for respondent No.3 vehemently argued that respondent No.1 is not having valid driving licence and hence, insurance company is not liable to pay any compensation.

He relied on the following decisions :-

01) The Hon’ble High Court of Andhra Pradesh in M/.s. Bajaj

Allianz General Insurance Company Limited vs. Yenni Surya Rao and another MACMA No.949/2009 ; 9

02) The Hon’ble High Court of Andhra Pradesh in M/.s.

National Insurance Company Limited vs. Kaki Venkata Ramana and another MACMA No.5482/2008 ;

03) The Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in New India

Assurance Company Limited vs. Prabhulala ACJ 2008 Page No.627

04) The Hon’ble High Court of Andhra Pradesh in

M/s.National Insurance Company Vs. Dhupati Singhaiah and others

ALT 2009(3) Page No.121

The sum and substance of above decisions is that the

Insurance Company is not liable to pay compensation when there was no valid driving licence to the driver of the insured vehicle as it amounts to violation of terms and conditions of the policy as the owner entrusted the vehicle to a driver who is not competent to drive the insured vehicle as per terms of the policy.

17) The Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in Kulwant Singh and others V. Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd., 2014 – ACJ 2873

Held :- We find the judgments relied upon to cover the issue in favour of the appellants. In Annappa Irappa Nesaria, 2008 ACJ 721 (SC) , this court referred to the provisions of section 2 (21) and (23) of the Motor

Vehicles Act,1988, which are definitions of “light motor vehicle” and “medium goods vehicle” respectively and the rules prescribing the forms for the licence i.e., rule 14 and Form No.4. It was concluded : “(16) Form what has been noticed hereinbefore, it is evident that “transport vehicle’ has not been substituted for “medium goods vehicle’ and “heavy goods vehicle’.

The light motor vehicle continued, at the relevant point of time , to cover both ‘ light passenger carriage vehicle’ and ‘light goods carriage vehicle’. A driver who had a valid licence to drive a light motor vehicle, therefore, was 10 authorized to drive a light goods vehicle as well”.

In S.Iyyappan v. United India Insurance Company Limited and another , 2013 ACJ 1944 (SC) , the question was whether the driver who had a licence to drive ‘light motor vehicle’ could drive ‘light motor vehicle” used as a commercial vehicle, without obtaining endorsement to drive a commercial vehicle. It was held that in such a case, the insurance company could not disown its liability. It was observed.

2) In another decision E.Rajeswari and Ors. Vs. T.S.Sekhar &

Anr., 2010(3) L.S. 321 (High Court of A.P.) Wherein it was held that “The reason is that the connotation “Light Motor Vehicle” is relevant, in the context of the size and make of the vehicle, and not the use, to which it is put. The expression “transport vehicle”. On the other hand, deals with the use and not the size of the vehicle. For instance, even a small vehicle, like, Auto rickshaw can be treated as transport vehicle, because of its use, whereas a big sedan or car can be used as private vehicle.

The LMV license issued to a driver enables him to

drive the vehicle of that category. It is immaterial whether such

vehicle is being used as purely for private purposes, or as a

transport vehicle”.

18) However as per the latest decision of Supreme Court and

Hon’ble High Court of Andhra Pradesh referred above, it is a case of

Respondent NO.1 having a driving licence for light motor vehicle non transport and no special skills are required for driving light motor vehicle like auto rickshaw and it cannot be treated as major breach of terms and conditions of the policy. On this ground the insurance company cannot avoid its liability . Therefore, I find that the insurance company is liable to pay compensation to the petitioner.

11

The other points raised in the written arguments of respondent No.3 need not be discussed as they are not much material to discuss at length .

19) The petitioner claimed Rs.2,00,000/- towards special and general damages. He marked Ex.A3 wound certificate which was issued by N.R.I. Hospital, Visakhapatnam and it can safely be accepted without examining the Doctor as it was obtained from the criminal case filed against the respondent No.1 by the police. As per

Ex.A3 the petitioner suffered crush injury of right foot and ankle exposing right lateral bony fragment and fracture of right foot stating both injuries are grievous in nature.

20) Taking into consideration Ex.A3 that petitioner suffered two grievous injuries of fractures, he is awarded Rs.80,000/- for two grievous injuries at the rate of Rs.40,000/- for each grievous injury. A patient who suffered fracture is expected to take absolute bed rest for a period of three or four months without undertaking any weight bearing labour works and during that period there is no scope for any earnings to a patient like petitioner and he has to undergo lot of pain and somebody has to attend on him to attend his daily routine work and to go for medical checkups time to time by taking medicines as suggested by the Doctors. Therefore, the petitioner is awarded

Rs.20,000/- towards pain and suffering . Rs.16,000/- towards loss of earnings for four months at the rate of Rs.4000/- per month which is quite reasonable for a mason to earn. The claim of petitioner that he was earning Rs.6000/- appears to be exorbitant. He is also awarded

Rs.4000/- towards medical and extra nourishment and Rs.15,000/- 12 towards transportation and attender charges. The petitioner is also entitled to Rs.10,000/- towards loss of marriage prospects as he suffered crush injury on his leg. Thus , the petitioner is entitled to total compensation of Rs.1,45,000/- . The petitioner could not produce any disability certificate to establish his claim . The compensation payable to the petitioner is just compensation it should be neither more nor less. An amount of Rs.1,45,000/- is quite reasonable in this case that is payable by respondent NO.3 Insurance company. Issue answered accordingly.

21. Issue No.3 :-

In the result, petition is allowed partly with proportionate costs, awarding compensation of Rs.1,45,000/-(rupees One lakh forty five thousand only ) with future interest of 9% p.a from the date of petition to be deposited within three months payable by Respondent

No.3- M/s. Universal Sampo General Insurance Company Limited , failing which to pay the same with interest of 12% p.a from the date of petition. In case of such deposit, the petitioner is permitted to withdraw entire amount . Rest of the claim dismissed. Advocate fee is fixed at Rs.1500/-(rupees one thousand five hundred only)

Dictated to the Personal Assistant, transcribed by him,

corrected and pronounced by me in open court, this the 23rd day of April 2015.

SPECIAL JUDGE FOR TRIAL

OF CASES UNDER SCs & STs (POA) ACT

CHAIRMAN MOTOR ACCIDENTS

CLAIMS TRIBUNAL-CUM-ADDL.DIST.AND

SESSIONS JUDGE, SRIKAKULAM.

13

Appendix of Evidence WitnessesExaminedfor

Petitioner:-

PW1: Ampili Govinda Rao @ Govind

Respondents:-

RW1 : Panchireddy Appanna. RW2 : B.Sairam. RW3 : Savara Lakshmi.

Petitioner: Documents Marked for

Ex.A.1- Certified copy of first information report in Crime

NO.45/2011 of Srikakulam rural police station.

Ex.A2 : Certified copy of charge sheet in C.C.298/2011.

Ex.A3 : Certified copy of wound certificate of PW1.

Ex.A4 : Certified copy of Motor Vehicle Inspector’s report.

Respondents:

Ex.B1 : True extract of Insurance Policy.

Ex.X1 : Authorisation letter.

Ex.X2 : True extract of Form 24 B register.

Ex.X3 : True extract of fitness certificate.

Ex.X4 : True copy of permit.

Ex.X5 : True extract of driving licence.

SPECIAL JUDGE FOR TRIAL

OF CASES UNDER SCs & STs (POA) ACT

CHAIRMAN MOTOR ACCIDENTS

CLAIMS TRIBUNAL-CUM-ADDL.DIST.AND

SESSIONS JUDGE, SRIKAKULAM.

14 15

1

IN THE COURT OF THE SPECIAL JUDGE FOR TRIAL OF CASES

UNDER SCs & STs (POA) ACT-CUM- CHAIRMAN MOTOR ACCIDENTS

CLAIMS TRIBUNAL-CUM-ADDL.DIST.AND SESSIONS JUDGE,

SRIKAKULAM.

Present : Sir V.Venkateswara Rao,

Special Judge for trial cases of cases

under S.Cs & S.Ts (POA) Act cum Addl. District & Sessions Judge, Srikakulam

Monday , the 27th day of April, 2015

M.V.O.P. 561/2012

Between :

Yenni Dhilleswara Rao son of late Ramarao, 33 years, Hindu, presently No avocation, Door No.16-2-2013 , Thota Veedhi, Gujarathipeta in Srikakulam town , mandal and district.

..Petitioner.

And :

1. Konchada Ananda Rao son of Chittaiah, 30 years, Hindu, driver cum owner of the Motor Cycle AP 30 N 4612, residing at Door No.7-19, Rapaka village in Ponduru mandal, Srikakulam district.

2. National Insurance company Limited, represented by its Divisional Manager , Divisional Office, Dwarakanagar, Visakhapatnam.

..Respondents

This petition coming on 2.4.2015 before me for final hearing in the presence of Sri S.S.L.Murthy, Advocate for the petitioner and of Sri

S.Thavitinaidu, advocate for the respondent No.2, Respondent No.1 remained exparte, and having stood over for consideration till this day, this court delivered the following :

ORDER

01. This is a claim petition filed under Section 166 of Motor Vehicles

Act read with Rule 455 of A.P. Motor Vehicles Rules 1989, claiming compensation of Rs.3,00,000/- (Rupees three lakhs only) by the petitioner for the injuries suffered by him in the Motor Vehicle Accident.

2

02. Brief facts of the petition are as follows:-

The petitioner- Yenni Dhilleswara Rao is resident of Srikakulam, working as Collection Executive in Sai Krishna Agency, earning Rs.15,800/- per month. Respondent NO.1-Konchada Ananda Rao is driver cum owner of motor cycle bearing No.AP 30 N 4612 which was insured with National Insurance

Company Limited under a valid policy by the date of accident. On 16.4.2012 at about 2.45 p.m. while the petitioner was going on his motor cycle bearing No.AP 30 M 1041 after completion of his domestic work, when he reached near KIMS

Sai Seshadri hospital by keeping extreme left side of the road, respondent No.1 driver of the motor cycle bearing No.AP 30 N 4612 came in his opposite direction in a rash and negligent manner at high speed without following traffic rules dashed his motor cycle thereby causing severe grievous injuries on his head and face. He was shifted to KIMS hospital, Srikakulam. The Station

House Officer, Traffic police station registered a case in crime No.37/2012 under section 338 of Indian Penal Code numbered as C.C.283/2012 on the file of

Judicial Magistrate of I Class, Srikakulam. The petitioner spent huge amounts

for his treatment and underwent prolonged treatment with pain and suffering and he suffered loss of earnings. He suddenly became dependant on others.

Hence, all the respondents are jointly and severally responsible to pay compensation to the petitioner.

03. Respondent No.1 remained exparte.

04. Respondent No.2-National Insurance Company Limited, filed written statement denying the material averments of the petition, denying the rash and negligence on the part of driver of the 3 motor cycle –Respondent No.1 and also the injuries suffered by the petitioner and expenditure spent for his treatment and disability. It is further averred that, the claim of petitioner is highly exorbitant including interest. The petitioner has to prove that the vehicle was insured with respondent No.2 and there are no violation of terms and conditions of the policy. The petition is also bad for non joinder of necessary parties ie., the owner and insurance company of the other motor cycle. The accident occurred due to negligence of the petitioner. The petition is liable to be dismissed as mandatory provisions are not complied . There is no cause of action.

05. On the basis of above pleadings, the following issues were settled for trial.

ISSUES 1.Whether the accident occurred due to rash and negligent driving of 1st respondent bearing motor cycle No.AP 30 N 4612 resulting injuries to Yenni Dhilleswara Rao?

2.Whether the petitioner is entitled to claim compensation and if so, to what amount?

3.To what relief?

06. To prove the case of the petitioner, Pw.1-Yenni Dhilleswara

Rao was examined and Ex.A1 to Ex.A10 were marked. On behalf of respondents, none were examined but Ex.B1 copy of insurance policy was marked by consent.

4

07. Respondent No.2 filed a petition under section 170 of Motor

Vehicles Act and it was allowed.

08. Arguments Heard.

09. ISSUE NO.1: -

To prove the case of the petitioner, PW1- Yenni Dhilleswara

Rao was examined and Ex.A1 to Ex.A4 were marked. Ex.A1 to Ex.A4 are certified copies of First Information Report in crime No.37/2012 of

Srikakulam traffic police station, charge sheet in C.C.283/2012,

Wound certificate and Motor Vehicle Inspector's report of the crime vehicle, besides Ex.A5 to Ex.A10 medical bills, prescriptions, X-ray films, C.T.Scan, case sheet and salary certificate of the injured.

10) PW1- Yenni Dhilleswara Rao, deposed in the similar lines of petition averments stating that on 16.4.2012 at about 2.45 p.m. while he was going near KIMS Sai Seshadri hospital by keeping left side of the road , the respondent NO.1 who is driver cum owner of the motor cycle bearing No. AP 30 N 4612 came in his opposite direction in a rash and negligent manner at high speed without following traffic rules and dashed against his motor cycle causing severe grievous injuries on his head and face. Later, he was shifted to hospital . He was cross examined at length challenging the rash and negligence on the part of respondent No.1 suggesting that the accident occurred due to his negligence , but nothing was elicited to prove rash and negligence on the part of petitioner or to disprove the rash and 5 negligence on the part of respondent NO.1 who is not contesting the case. The evidence of PW1 is consistent and reliable and it is also corroborated by Ex.A1 to Ex.A4 obtained from the criminal case filed against the respondent NO.1 for the offence under section 338 of

Indian Penal Code for causing grievous injuries to the petitioner. The investigation conducted by the police immediately after the accident also corroborates the case of petitioner that the accident occurred due to rash and negligent driving of respondent No.1 against whom they filed charge sheet under section 338 of the Indian Penal Code marked as Ex.A2. The best witness to challenge the evidence of PW1 is respondent NO.1 but he was not examined by the respondents that is fatal to the case of the respondents. Therefore, the evidence of PW1 is not at all rebutted and has to be accepted and it is also corroborated by other credible evidence. Therefore, I find that the petitioner is able to prove that the accident occurred due to rash and negligent driving of respondent No.1 causing grievous injuries to the petitioner. Issue answered accordingly.

11. ISSUE NO.2: -

Admittedly, respondent No.1 is driver cum owner of the motor cycle bearing No. AP 30 N 4612 which was duly insured with respondent No.2 National Insurance Company Limited,

Visakhapatnam covering third party risk of the petitioner. No violations of terms and conditions of the policy were proved by the respondents by examining any witnesses on their side. Therefore, the petitioner is entitled to compensation for the injuries suffered by him 6 from the respondents jointly and severally. Respondent No.2 being the insurance company is liable to pay compensation to the petitioner towards the loss suffered by respondent No.1 .

12) The petitioner claimed Rs.3,00,000/-towards special and general damages for the injuries suffered by him in the accident. To prove his injuries and treatment, loss of earnings, he marked Ex.A5 to

Ex.A10. Ex.A5 bunch of medical bills worth Rs.42,418/- after deducting advance bills which was also adjusted by the hospital while issuing discharge certificate. The petitioner is entitled total reimbursement of the above said amount which was round figured to

Rs.42,400/- . Ex.A6 bunch of prescriptions, Ex.A7-X.Ray films, ExA8-

C.T.Scan, Ex.A9 case sheet of Sagar Durga Hospital corroborated the version of PW1 that he sustained head injury and facial injuries.

13) As seen from Ex.A3 wound certificate issued by Sai Durga hospital, obtained from the criminal case filed against respondent

No.1 petitioner suffered two injuries. First injury is head injury with multiple lacerations on face and after C.T.Scan there is fracture of frontal bone on right side and fracture of nasal bones on right maxilla.

There is fracture of right orbit leading to contusion optic nerve ie., grievous injury. However, the second injury was described as injury to neck . MRI Scan of cervical spinal showed degenerative changes in

C5-C6 resulting in compression of spinal cord is pre existing not related to accident. Therefore, the petitioner is entitled to compensation only for the head injury described as grievous injury 7 leading to fracture of frontal and nasal bones and maxilla. This certificate can safely be accepted as it is also corroborated by Ex.A9 case sheet of Sai Durga Hospital.

14) Taking into consideration the grievous injury on head leading to several fractures. The petitioner is awarded Rs.50,000/- for the grievous injury . He is awarded Rs.25,000/- towards pain and suffering. Rs.15,000/- towards transportation and attender charges.

Rs.5,000/- towards extra nourishment. The petitioner produced his salary certificate-Ex.A10, as per which he was earning Rs.15,800/- per month as collection executive in Sai Krishna Agency, but he did not chose to examine the proprietor of the agency to prove Ex.A10.

Thus, petitioner failed to prove Ex.A10. However, it is elicited in the cross examination of PW1 that he studied B.Sc., Computer Science working as collection executive, with his education back ground, the petitioner can easily earn Rs.10,000/- per month as collection agent.

Any person who suffered fracture is expected to undertake absolute bed rest for a period of three months without undertaking any weight bearing labour works and during that period the patient like petitioner cannot attend to his regular work and might have suffered loss of earnings. Hence, he is awarded Rs.30,000/- towards loss of earnings at the rate of Rs.10,000/- per month for three months, but he is not entitled to claim Rs.15,800/- per month on the basis of Ex.A10 which is not proved by credible evidence. Thus petitioner is entitled to total compensation of Rs.1,67,400/- . The petitioner failed to prove that 8 he suffered any permanent disability due to injuries after the accident by examining any Doctor. In the absence of any such proof, he is not entitled to claim any compensation under the head of permanent disability. This compensation has to be paid by Respondent No.2 –

National Insurance Company Limited. Issue answered accordingly.

Issue No.3:- 15.

In the result, petition is allowed partly with proportionate costs, awarding compensation of Rs.1,67,400/-(rupees

One lakh sixty seven thousand and four hundred only ) with future interest of 9% p.a from the date of petition to be deposited within three months payable by Respondent No.2- M/s.National Insurance

Company Limited, failing which to pay the same with interest of 12% p.a from the date of petition. In case of such deposit, the petitioner is permitted to withdraw entire amount Rest of the claim dismissed.

Advocate fee is fixed at Rs.2,000/-(rupees two thousand only)

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

pronounced by me in open court, this the 27th day of April 2015.

SPECIAL JUDGE FOR TRIAL

OF CASES UNDER SCs & STs (POA) ACT

CHAIRMAN MOTOR ACCIDENTS

CLAIMS TRIBUNAL-CUM-ADDL.DIST.AND

SESSIONS JUDGE, SRIKAKULAM.

Appendix of Evidence Witnesses Examined for

Petitioner: - Respondents:-

PW1: Yenni Dhilleswara Rao None 9

Documents Marked for

PETITIONER

Ex.A.1- Certified copy of first information report in crime No.37/2012 of Srikakulam traffic police station.

Ex.A2: Certified copy of Charge sheet in C.C. 283/2012

Ex.A3: Certified copy of wound certificate.

Ex.A4: Certified copy of Motor Vehicle Inspector's report.

Ex.A5: Bunch of medical bills worth Rs.42,418/-

Ex.A6: Bunch of medical prescriptions.

Ex.A7: X-ray films three in number

Ex.A8: C,T.Scans three in number

Ex.A9: case sheet of Sagar Durga hospital.

Ex.A10: Salary certificate of petitioner. .

FOR RESPONDENTS:

NIL

SPECIAL JUDGE FOR TRIAL

OF CASES UNDER SCs & STs (POA) ACT

CHAIRMAN MOTOR ACCIDENTS

CLAIMS TRIBUNAL-CUM-ADDL.DIST.AND

SESSIONS JUDGE, SRIKAKULAM.