Vacant Fac Smt B.sunitha, Iii Adj

1

TABULAR FORM TO BE ANNEXED TO THE JUDGMENT AS REQUIRED

UNDER RULE 67 OF THE Cr.P.C.

IN THE COURT OF THE IV ADDL. SESSIONS JUDGE (FTC), ANANTAPUR.

SESSIONS CASE NO.537/2016

Name of the complainant : The Inspector of Police, Uravakonda Circle. Cr.No.68/2015 of C.K. Palli P.S.

Name of the accused : Shikari Yuvaraju (A2) S/o Gurrappa, age about 32 years, Resident of Uravakonda Town & Mandal.

Date of offence : 22.11.2012

Date of complaint: 22.11.2012

Date of apprehension of : 15.09.2016 accused

Date of release : 13.04.2017

Date of commencement : 13.03.2017 of trial

Date of close of trial : 04.04.2017

Sentence of order : 13.04.2017

Explanation of the duration of the case in the committal Court

This case was taken on file and posted for furnishing the documents and the case was committed to the court of sessions.

E xplanation of the duration of the case in Sessions court (Fast Track Court).

This case was made over to this Court on 17.12.2016 from the District Court,

Ananthapuramu and charges were framed on 03.03.2017 and posted to 13.03.2017 for trial. On 13.03.2017 the trial was commenced and closed on 04.04.2017 and after completion of 313 Cr.P.C. Examination is dispensed with and after hearing of the arguments on both sides. On 13.04.2017 judgment was pronounced (VSJ). In the result, the accused is found not guilty and acuitted U/S.235(1) Cr.P.C. for the charges framed against him for the offences punishable U/S.U/S 147, 148, 302 R/W 149 I.P.C.. The marked and unmarked property if any shall be destroyed after split up case is over. Send case property to lower court for disposal according to law.

FAC: IV Addl. Sessions Judge(FTC), Anantapuramu. Copy to:

1) The District & Sessions Judge, Ananthapuramu

2) The Superintendent of police, Ananthapuramu

3) The J.F.C.M., Uravakonda.

2

IN THE COURT OF SESSIONS DIVISION OF ANANTAPURAMU

AT ANANTAPURAMU

(BEFORE THE IV ADDL. SESSIONS JUDGE ANANTAPURAMU)

PRESENT: SMT. B. SUNITA, III ADDL. SESSIONS JUDGE,

FAC IV ADDL. SESSIONS JUDGE

THURSDAY, THE 13 th DAY OF APRIL, 2017

SESSIONS CASE NO.537/2016

[On committal by the Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Uravakonda in P.R.C. No.17 of 2016 in Cr.No. 149 of 2012 of Uravakonda P.S.]

Name of complainant :The Inspector of Police, Uravakonda Circle

Crime No. and P.S. :Crime No.149 of 2012 of Uravakonda P.S.

Name of accused:Shikari Mutholi (A5) S/o Sanjappa age about 65 years, Resident of Uravakonda Town & Mandal. Charges:U/S 147, 148, 302 r/w 149 IPC

Plea of accused:Accused pleaded not guilty.

Finding of Judge:Not guilty

Order or Sentence: In the result, the accused is found not guilty and acuitted U/S.235(1) Cr.P.C. for the charges framed against him for the offences punishable U/S.U/S 147, 148, 302 R/W 149 I.P.C.. The marked and unmarked property if any shall be destroyed after split up case is over. Send case property to lower court for disposal according to law.

Case conducted by:Addl. Public Prosecutor

Accused defended by:Sri D. Dastagiri, Advocate, Ananthapuramu.

This case coming on 11.04.2017 for final hearing before me and after hearing the counsel of both parties and having stood over for consideration till this day, this

Court delivered the following:

J U D G M E N T

1.The Inspector of Police, Uravakonda filed a supplementary charge sheet against the accused in Cr.No.149/2012 for the offences punishable U/S. 147, 148, 302 r/w 149 IPC of Uravakonda police station.

2. Brief case of prosecution as per charge sheet is that, deceased Shikari Ravi was doing bed sheet business and residing at Badvel Town, Kadapa. A1 is brother of

3

deceased and A2 to A6 are his relatives. One and half a years ago, deceased lent a sum of Rs.4,000/- each to A1 to A6. But accused did not repay said amount inspite of repeated demands by the deceased. Deceased threatened them with dire consequences and that if the amount is not paid, he will see their end. Hence, accused hatched a plan to eliminate deceased. In furtherance of their common object on 21.11.2012 A1 called deceased to come to his house for taking amount. On 22.11.2012 at about 6-00pm., deceased, Lw1/Shikari Shilpa, Lw2/Shikari Seenu came to Uravakonda and went to the house of A1. A1 to A6 in furtherance of their common object formed into unlawful assembly and attacked deceased with daggers and stabbed him indiscriminately, due to which he died on the spot. Accused absconded from the scene. Due to fear Lw1 and Lw2 did not interfere.

3.On 22.11.2012 at 9-00 pm., Lw1 came to police station and lodged complaint.

Basing on said complaint First Information Report was registered and during investigation, Lw17 visited the scene, conducted scene of offence panchanama at about 7-00 am., on 23.11.2012. He secured presence of witnesses, conducted inquest and the dead body was sent for autopsy to Government General Hospital,

Uravakonda. Entire proceedings were photographed. Rough sketch of the scene was drafted. Investigating Officer/Lw.17 examined and recorded statement of witnesses and seized material objects and they were sent to RFSL, Tirupathi for chemical analysis.

4.After completing the investigation, charge sheet was filed before Judicial First

Class Magistrate Court, Uravakonda and in turn the case was numbered as

PRC.12/2013 and NBWs were issued against the accused as they were absconding.

5.Later A2 was arrested by Gandhi Nagar Police in C.C.No.225/2012 on the file of Principal Civil Judge and Judicial First Class Magistrate, Bellary. Hence, Lw18 has taken PT warrant from JFCM, Uravakonda and produced A2 before the court. He was taken into police custody on 03.05.2016 from 6-00 am., and was interrogated in the presence of mediators and his statement was recorded. At his instance scene was

4

visited, scene observation mahazarnama was verified. Later along with accused, mediators and police officials, they all went to Hindu burial ground at Lathavaram,

Uravakonda, from where the accused produced one knife from the bushes near choultry. Later A2 was produced before court. Accordingly supplementary charge sheet was filed against the accused/A2.

On 05-08-2016 at about 7 am, A5 was arrested by Lw9 in Cr.No.72/2016 and on coming to know about it, Lw20 the Inspector of Police filed PT warrant before the

JFCM court, Uravakonda and produced A5 before the court on 8-9-2016. On 29.9.2016, A5 was taken into police custody at about 10-00 am, and after through enquiry he was produced before the court by 5-00 pm. During his enquiry, his statement was recorded, scene of offence was visited and one hidden knife that was used for commission of offence was also seized at his instance under mahazarnama.

Accordingly supplementary charge sheet was filed against A5.

6.After filing of charge sheet, learned Judicial First Class Magistrate Court,

Uravakonda took the case on file and numbered as PRC.17/2016. On appearance of the accused, copies of documents were furnished to the accused as required U/S 207

Cr.P.C. Since the case is exclusively triable by the Court of Sessions, the case was committed to the District and Sessions Court, Anantapuramu for disposal according to law as per the provisions of Sec. 209 Cr.P.C. On receipt of case records, the case was numbered as SC No. 537/2016 and made over to this court on 17.12.2016 for disposal according to law.

7.On receipt of case records in this court and on appearance of the accused, charges U/S 147, 148, 302 R/W 149 I.P.C. are framed against the accused. The charges were read over and explained to the accused in Telugu for which he pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried.

8.To prove the case of prosecution, Pw1 to Pw7 are examined and Ex.P1 to

Ex.P9 and Mo.1 are marked. Defence adduced no evidence.

5

9.Heard both sides.

10.Now the point for determination is whether the prosecution is able to establish the guilt of accused for the charges framed against him beyond reasonable doubt.

11. Case of prosecution that Shikari Ravi gave Rs.4,000/- each to A1 to A6 as hand loan but accused did not return amount. Hence, to avoid re-payment, accused hatched a plan and committed this offence. But in this case the witnesses who are shown as eye witnesses as per charge sheet i.e. Lw1 to Lw5, they are not examined by prosecution as their where abouts are not known. Shikari Shilpa is wife of deceased but she is also not available. Therefore prosecution examined photographer, punch witnesses and police officials. All these people are not eye witnesses in this case. It is the case of investigating officer that after the accused was produced on execution of P.T.warrant, they have taken into police custody and examined him.

12.Basing on his confession one knife that was used for commission of offence was recovered. A perusal of Ex.P7 which is seizure mahazarnama and Ex.P6 scene observation mahazarnama and Ex.P5 admisable portion of confession mahazarnama also show the signature of accused. Pw4 only stated that the signature of accused was taken on Ex.P5, but he did not speak about the signatures of accused on seizure mahazarnama and also scene observation mahazarnama.

There is no dispute that the deceased died due to cardio respitory arrest due to multiple penetrating injuries which are possible with knife marked as Mo.1. Ex.P8

Postmortem report. Manner of death is not in dispute. So who are the culprits is on in dispute. Only eye witnesses Shikari Thandalu is examined as Pw2 and she was also declared hostile. Mere admission of the accused before police cannot be taken into consideration for proving the guilt of accused. Therefore, there is no evidence to connect the accused to the incident. Hence benefit of doubt is given to the accused and he is acquitted.

6

13.In the result, the accused is found not guilty and acuitted U/S.235(1) Cr.P.C. for the charges framed against him for the offences punishable U/S.U/S 147, 148, 302

R/W 149 I.P.C.. The marked and unmarked property if any shall be destroyed after split up case is over. Send case property to lower court for disposal according to law.

Dictated to personal Assistant, transcribed by me, corrected and pronounced

by me in the open court this the 13th day of April, 2017.

III Addl. Sessions Judge, FAC: IV.Addl. Sessions Judge, Anantapuramu.

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

Witnesses examined for

Prosecution: Defense: PW1: Shikari Thandalu –NIL- PW2 : G. Yerriswamy PW3 : M.B. Sai Krishna Vamsi PW4 : K.M. Ramakrishna PW5 : Dr. Harinath Reddy PW6 : K. Yellam Raju PW7 : N. Surya Narayana

Exhibits marked for prosecution

Ex.P1: 161 Cr.P.C statemen of Pw1 Ex.P2: Inquest Report Ex.P3:Arrest-cum-Confessional Mahazarnama dt.29.09.2016 at 10.45 am Ex.P4:PME Report Ex.P5:F.I.R.

Exhibits marked for defence

-Nil-

Material objects marked for

M.O.1 : Knife/dagger M.O.2:Blood stained earth M.O.3:Control earth

FAC: IV A.S.J

1

TABULAR FORM TO BE ANNEXED TO THE JUDGMENT AS REQUIRED

UNDER RULE 67 OF THE Cr.P.C.

IN THE COURT OF THE IV ADDL. SESSIONS JUDGE (FTC), ANANTAPUR.

SESSIONS CASE NO.371/2016

Name of the complainant : The Inspector of Police, Uravakonda Circle. Cr.No.68/2015 of C.K. Palli P.S.

Name of the accused : Shikari Yuvaraju (A2) S/o Gurrappa, age about 32 years, Resident of Uravakonda Town & Mandal.

Date of offence : 22.11.2012

Date of complaint: 22.11.2012

Date of apprehension of : 03.05.2016 accused

Date of release : 13.04.2017

Date of commencement : 25.11.2016 of trial

Date of close of trial : 04.04.2017

Sentence of order : 13.04.2017

Explanation of the duration of the case in the committal Court

This case was taken on file and posted for furnishing the documents and the case was committed to the court of sessions.

E xplanation of the duration of the case in Sessions court (Fast Track Court).

This case was made over to this Court on 29.07.2016 from the District Court,

Ananthapuramu and charges were framed on 16.09.2016 and posted to 28.09.2016 for trial. On 25.11.2016 the trial was commenced and closed on 04.04.2017 and after completion of 313 Cr.P.C. Examination is dispensed with and after hearing of the arguments on both sides. On 13.04.2017 judgment was pronounced (VSJ). In the result, the accused is found not guilty and acuitted U/S.235(1) Cr.P.C. for the charges framed against him for the offences punishable U/S.U/S 147, 148, 302 R/W 149 I.P.C. The marked and unmarked property if any shall be destroyed after split up case is over. Send case property to lower court for disposal according to law.

FAC: IV Addl. Sessions Judge(FTC), Anantapuramu. Copy to:

1) The District & Sessions Judge, Ananthapuramu

2) The Superintendent of police, Ananthapuramu

3) The J.F.C.M., Uravakonda.

2

IN THE COURT OF SESSIONS DIVISION OF ANANTAPURAMU

AT ANANTAPURAMU

(BEFORE THE IV ADDL. SESSIONS JUDGE ANANTAPURAMU)

PRESENT: SMT. B. SUNITA, III ADDL. SESSIONS JUDGE,

FAC IV ADDL. SESSIONS JUDGE

THURSDAY, THE 13 th DAY OF APRIL, 2017

SESSIONS CASE NO.371/2016

[On committal by the Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Uravakonda in P.R.C. No.12 of 2013 in Cr.No. 149 of 2012 of Uravakonda P.S.]

Name of complainant :The Inspector of Police, Uravakonda Circle

Crime No. and P.S. :Crime No.149 of 2012 of Uravakonda P.S.

Name of accused:Shikari Yuvaraju (A2) S/o Gurrappa, age about 32 years, Resident of Uravakonda Town & Mandal. Charges:U/S 147, 148, 302 r/w 149 IPC

Plea of accused:Accused pleaded not guilty.

Finding of Judge:Not guilty

Order or Sentence: In the result, the accused is found not guilty and acuitted U/S.235(1) Cr.P.C. for the charges framed against him for the offences punishable U/S.U/S 147, 148, 302 R/W 149 I.P.C. The marked and unmarked property if any shall be destroyed after split up case is over. Send case property to lower court for disposal according to law.

Case conducted by:Addl. Public Prosecutor

Accused defended by:Sri Lakshmanachar, Advocate, Ananthapuramu.

This case coming on 11.04.2017 for final hearing before me and after hearing the counsel of both parties and having stood over for consideration till this day, this

Court delivered the following:

J U D G M E N T

1. The Inspector of Police, Uravakonda filed a supplementary charge sheet against the accused in Cr.No.149/2012 for the offences punishable U/S. 147, 148, 302 r/w 149 IPC of Uravakonda police station.

2. Brief case of prosecution as per charge sheet is that, deceased Shikari Ravi was doing bed sheet business and residing at Badvel Town, Kadapa. A1 is brother of

3

deceased and A2 to A6 are his relatives. One and half a years ago, deceased lent a sum of Rs.4,000/- each to A1 to A6. But accused did not repay said amount inspite of repeated demands by the deceased. Deceased threatened them with dire consequences and that if the amount is not paid, he will see their end. Hence, accused hatched a plan to eliminate deceased. In furtherance of their common object on 21.11.2012 A1 called deceased to come to his house for taking amount. On 22.11.2012 at about 6-00pm., deceased, Lw1/Shikari Shilpa, Lw2/Shikari Seenu came to Uravakonda and went to the house of A1. A1 to A6 in furtherance of their common object formed into unlawful assembly and attacked deceased with daggers and stabbed him indiscriminately, due to which he died on the spot. Accused absconded from the scene. Due to fear Lw1 and Lw2 did not interfere.

3.On 22.11.2012 at 9-00 pm., Lw1 came to police station and lodged complaint.

Basing on said complaint First Information Report was registered and during investigation, Lw17 visited the scene, conducted scene of offence panchanama at about 7-00 am., on 23.11.2012. He secured presence of witnesses, conducted inquest and the dead body was sent for autopsy to Government General Hospital,

Uravakonda. Entire proceedings were photographed. Rough sketch of the scene was drafted. Investigating Officer/Lw.17 examined and recorded statement of witnesses and seized material objects and they were sent to RFSL, Tirupathi for chemical analysis.

4.After completing the investigation, charge sheet was filed before Judicial First

Class Magistrate Court, Uravakonda and in turn the case was numbered as

PRC.12/2013 and NBWs were issued against the accused as they were absconding.

5.Later A2 was arrested by Gandhi Nagar Police in C.C.No.225/2012 on the file of Principal Civil Judge and Judicial First Class Magistrate, Bellary. Hence, Lw18 has taken PT warrant from JFCM, Uravakonda and produced A2 before the court. He was taken into police custody on 03.05.2016 from 6-00 am., and was interrogated in the presence of mediators and his statement was recorded. At his instance scene was

4

visited, scene observation mahazarnama was verified. Later along with accused, mediators and police officials, they all went to Hindu burial ground at Lathavaram,

Uravakonda, from where the accused produced one knife from the bushes near choultry. Later A2 was produced before court. Accordingly supplementary charge sheet was filed against the accused.

6.After filing of charge sheet, learned Judicial First Class Magistrate Court,

Uravakonda took the case on file and numbered as PRC.12/2013. On appearance of the accused, copies of documents were furnished to the accused as required U/S 207

Cr.P.C. Since the case is exclusively triable by the Court of Sessions, the case was committed to the District and Sessions Court, Anantapuramu for disposal according to law as per the provisions of Sec. 209 Cr.P.C. On receipt of case records, the case was numbered as SC No. 371/2016 and made over to this court on 29.07.2016 for disposal according to law.

7. On receipt of case records in this court and on appearance of the accused, charges U/S 147, 148, 302 R/W 149 I.P.C. are framed against the accused. The charges were read over and explained to the accused in Telugu for which he pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried.

8.To prove the case of prosecution, Pw1 to Pw7 are examined and Ex.P1 to

Ex.P9 and Mo.1 are marked. Defence adduced no evidence.

9.Heard both sides.

10.Now the point for determination is whether the prosecution is able to establish the guilt of accused for the charges framed against him beyond reasonable doubt.

11. Case of prosecution is that Shikari Ravi gave Rs.4,000/- each to A1 to A6 as hand loan but accused did not return amount. Hence, to avoid re-payment, accused hatched a plan and committed this offence. But in this case the witnesses who are shown as eye witnesses as per charge sheet i.e., Lw1 to Lw5 are not examined by prosecution as their where abouts are not known. Shikari Shilpa is wife of deceased

5

but she is also not available. Therefore prosecution examined photographer, punch witnesses and police officials. All these people are not eye witnesses in this case. It is the case of investigating officer that after the accused was produced on execution of

P.T.warrant, they have taken into police custody and examined him.

12.Basing on his confession one knife that was used for commission of offence was recovered. A perusal of Ex.P7 which is seizure mahazarnama and Ex.P6 scene observation mahazarnama and Ex.P5 admisable portion of confession mahazarnama also show the signature of accused. Pw4 only stated that the signature of accused was taken on Ex.P5, but he did not speak about the signatures of accused on seizure mahazarnama and also scene observation mahazarnama.

There is no dispute that the deceased died due to cardio respitory arrest due to multiple penetrating injuries which are possible with knife marked as Mo.1. Ex.P8

Postmortem report. Manner of death is not in dispute. So who are the culprits is on in dispute. Only eye witnesses Shikari Thandalu is examined as Pw2 and she was also declared hostile. Mere admission of the accused before police cannot be taken into consideration for proving the guilt of accused. Therefore, there is no evidence to connect the accused to the incident. Hence benefit of doubt is given to the accused and he is acquitted.

13.In the result, the accused is found not guilty and acuitted U/S.235(1) Cr.P.C. for the charges framed against him for the offences punishable U/S.U/S 147, 148, 302

R/W 149 I.P.C. The marked and unmarked property if any shall be destroyed after split up case is over. Send case property to lower court for disposal according to law.

Dictated to personal Assistant, transcribed by me, corrected and pronounced

by me in the open court this the 13th day of April, 2017.

III Addl. Sessions Judge, FAC: IV.Addl. Sessions Judge, Anantapuramu.

6

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

Witnesses examined for

Prosecution: Defense: PW1: M.B. Sai Krishna Vamsi –NIL- PW2 : Shikari Thandalu PW3 : Gadige Yerriswamy PW4 : K.M. Ramakrishna PW5 : Dr. K. Harnath Reddy PW6 : K. Yellam Raju PW7 : N. Surya Narayana

Exhibits marked for prosecution

Ex.P1: Inquest Report Ex.P2: 161 Cr.P.C statemen of Pw2 Ex.P3:Photograph Ex.P4:Photograph Ex.P5:Admissible portion of the statement recorded by Pw4 dt.03.05.2016 at 11.30 am Ex.P6: Mahazarnama dt.03.05.2016 at 12.45 pm Ex.P7: Seizure Mahazarnama dt.03.05.2016 at 1.30 pm Ex.P8: PME Report Ex.P9: F.I.R.

Exhibits marked for defence

-Nil-

Material objects marked for

M.O.1 : Knife

FAC: IV A.S.J

1

IN THE COURT OF THE MOTOR ACCIDENTS CLAIMS TRIBUNAL

ANANTAPURAMU

(BEFORE III ADDL. DISTRICT & SESSIONS JUDGE (FTC), ANANTAPURAMU)

PRESENT: Smt. B. SUNITA, III ADDL. DIST. JUDGE,

FRIDAY, THE 21 st DAY OF APRIL, 2017

ORIGINAL PETITION NO.21/2013

Between:-

Momin Shahanoor… Petitioner

And

1)K. Somasekhar Reddy

2)The Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd., by its DVM, Ananthapuramu.

3)Gowravaram Srinivasulu. (R3 added as per the orders in IA No.411/2015 dt.20.07.2015)… Respondents

This petition coming on 20.04.2017 for final hearing before me in the presence of Sri A. Nagarjuna Reddy, Advocate for the petitioner and respondents

No.1 and 3 called absent and set exparte and Sri. K. Bheemanna, advocate for respondent No.2, the matter having stood over for consideration till this day, this tribunal delivered the following:

O R D E R

1.Petition is filed Under Section 140 and 166 of Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 and

Rule 455 of AP Motor Vehicles Rules 1989, claiming compensation of Rs.3,50,000/- for the injuries received by petitioner Shahanoor in a motor vehicle accident that occurred on 30.11.2010 at about 11.00 pm near Maruthi Circle, on NH-205 at Kadiri due to rash and negligent driving of the driver of tractor and trailer No.AP-04-X-4190 and 4191.

2.Case of petitioner is that on 30.11.2010 at about 11.00 pm., while he was going in Auto bearing No.AP-02-U-1650 from Kadiri Bus Stop to their house and reached near Maruthi Circle, on NH-205 at Kadiri, the crime tractor and trailer

2

bearing No. AP-04-X-4190 and 4191 came from Madanapalli side in a rash and negligent manner, lost control and dashed against the Auto due to which the petitioner received multiple injuries. Immediately he was shifted to Area Hospital,

Kadiri and later to GGH, Ananthapuramu for treatment.

3.Petitioner was aged about 26 years, hale and healthy, doing garments business under the name and style as Kids Wear garments at Kadiri and easily earning Rs.8,000/- every month. He was contributing his income for maintenance of family. Inspite of spending Rs.30,000/- for treatment, still he is suffering.

4.As the accident occurred due to rash and negligent driving of the driver of crime tractor and trailer bearing No. AP-04-X-4190 and 4191, the Kadiri Town police registered a case in Cr.No.227/2010 U/S 337 and 338 IPC. First respondent is owner, second respondent is its insurer and third respondent is its driver. Hence, petition is filed claiming compensation jointly and severally from all the respondents.

5.first and third respondents remained exparte.

6.Second respondent filed a counter, denying allegations made in petition regarding manner of accident, age, income, occupation, injuries sustained by petitioner. The mishap occurred due to negligence of Auto bearing NO.AP-02-U-1650 as its driver drove with high speed and in zigzag manner in the middle of road and hit opposite coming vehicle. Further the driver of Auto was in drunken stage at the time of accident. The police registered a false case against its driver as the driver of Auto was not holding valid driving licence at the time of accident. The criminal case in C.C.

530/2010 on the file of AJFCM, Kadiri against the charge sheeted tractor and trailer in Cr.No.227/2010 ended with acquittal on 16.11.2011. The petition is bad for non joinder of Auto driver, owner and its insurer. The liability of insurance company is subject to terms and conditions of policy issued in favour of R1's vehicle. Claim of compensation is excessive and finally prayed for dismissal of the petition against this respondent.

3

7. Basing on the averments, following issues were settled for trail;

1)Whether the accident occurred on 30.11.2010 at about 11.00 pm due to rash and negligent driving of Tractor and Trailer bearing No.AP-04-X- 4190 and 4191 by its driver and caused injuries to the petitioner?

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

3)To what relief?

8. To prove their respective contentions, on behalf of the petitioner, Pw1 and

Pw2 are examined and Ex.A1 to Ex.A6 are marked. On behalf of second respondent no evidence is adduced.

Issue No. I:-

9.According to petitioner on 30.11.2010 at about 11.00 pm., while he was going in Auto bearing No.AP-02-U-1650 from Kadiri Bus Stop to their house and reached near Maruthi Circle, on NH-205 at Kadiri, the crime tractor and trailer bearing No. AP-04-X-4190 and 4191 came from Madanapalli side in a rash and negligent manner, lost control and dashed against the Auto due to which the petitioner received multiple injuries. Immediately he was shifted to Area Hospital,

Kadiri and later to GGH, Ananthapuramu for treatment.

During cross examination of Pw1 it is elicited that night at about 11.00 the accident occurred and he was going home in Αuto from RTC Bus stand when accident occurred. He does not remember Auto number. Tractor came in opposite direction to the Auto.

10.To prove the accident the petitioner had marked Ex.A1 Certified copy of First

Information Report, Ex.A3 is certified copy of charge sheet. Both these documents reveal manner of accident as stated by petitioner. Inspite of cross examining Pw1 nothing is elicited to disbelieve manner of accident. Since oral and documentary

4

evidence corroborated and since in this case as per available evidence the accident occurred as stated by the petitioners, this is issue is answered in favour of petitioner.

Issue No. II

11.According to petitioner, he received multiple grevious in accident and to prove his injuries, the petitioner has marked Wound Certificate as Ex.A2 and according to it the petitioner received two grevious injuries. The contention of the petitioner is that, due to said injuries he sustained disability. Pw2 is the doctor who issued disability certificate under Ex.A4. According to Pw2 the petitioner sustained 35% permanent disability due to post traumatic sequalae due to RTA on 30.11.2010 with fracture fibula left and punctured wound above the medial malleolus left leg as per wound certificate. On examination all wounds healed, fracture united with mild irregularity of ankle joint left on medial aspect with secondary osteo arthritis changes.

He has got decreased range of movements of left ankle joint with limping and weakness of left leg muscles. He has difficulty for sitting in the position of squatting, prolonged periods of brisk walking, claiming stairs and vise versa and running. He has got difficulty in attending to garment business. During his cross examination it is elicited that there is no amputation of the limb of petitioner.

Learned advocate for petitioner relied on judgment between S.Murali Krishna @ Murali Vs. R.S. Siva Kumar reported in 2014 Supreme (AP) 739 and argued that as held in said judgment even if disability is 15 or 20% the functional disability and loss of earnings should be taken as 50%, but in said judgment it was stated that in case of labourer, carpenter, farmer or driver or cleaner where use of both his hands and legs while working play an important role, the disability should be considered more than mentioned in disability certificate. But in this case the petitioner was doing garment business and it can be done by sitting also. Hence the facts mentioned in said judgment are different from the facts in this case.

5

Therefore as seen from above evidence it is clear that, the petitioner has difficulty in attending to his original work of garment business as there is no income proof, the income of petitioner is taken as Rs.4,500/- every month. His total monthly loss of income would be Rs.4,500x35/100 = 1,575/- as petitioner was aged about 28 years, multiplier 17 is applied for calculating compensation. Therefore a sum of

Rs.1,575x12x17 = Rs.3,21,300 is awarded towards pecuniary loss. Another some of

Rs.20,000/- is awarded towards pain and suffering, a sum of Rs.25,000/- is awarded towards loss of future amenities, a sum of Rs.10,000/- is awarded towards medical expenses and transport charges. Therefore in total a sum of Rs. 3,76,300/- awarded towards compensation.

As there is no dispute regarding the policy and since no violation of policy conditions are proved, all the respondents are jointly and severally held liable for payment of compensation.

12. As per directions of our Hon'ble High Court in judgment between The New India

Assurance Co.Ltd., Rep by its Branch Manager, Branch Office at Pragathinagar,

Station Road, Peddapally, Karimnagar District and another Vs. Margam Padmavathi,

W/o.Late Kumara Swamy and five others in MACMA No. 188/2007 dated:16-12-2014 send the copy of order to Regional Transport Authority, Anantapuramu concerned for necessary action. Therefore, this issue is answered accordingly.

Issue No. III

13.In the result petition is allowed with costs. A sum of Rs.3,76,300/- (Rupees

Three lakhs Seventy Six thousand and Three hundred only) is awarded towards compensation with interest @ 7.5% per annum from the date of petition till the date of realization. All the respondents are jointly and severally held liable for payment of compensation. If they fail to deposit the amount within two months from the date of this order, they are directed to pay interest @ 9% per annum from the date of this petition till the date of realization. The petitioner claimed only Rs.3,50,000/-. He is

6

entitled to Rs.3,76,300/- on payment of deficit court fee by 24.04.2017 or else he is entitled to receive only Rs.3,50,000/- as claimed. On deposit of the amount, the petitioner is permitted to withdraw 50% of the amount and remaining 50% shall kept in fixed deposit in any nationalized bank for a period of one year. The amount if any awarded U/S. 140 of MV. Act shall be deducted from this amount. Advocate fee is fixed at Rs.3,500/-.

Dictated to Stenographer transcribed by him, corrected and pronounced by

me in the open court, on this the 21st day of April, 2017.

III Addl. District Judge, FAC: IV Addl. District Judge, F.T.C, Ananthapuramu.

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

WITNESSES EXAMINED FOR

Petitioners:- Respondents:- PW.1 : M. Shahanoor - Nil - P.W.2 : Dr. A. Jagannath

Exhibits marked for

Petitioner Respondents Ex.A1 : Certified copy of FIR. - Nil - Ex.A2 : Certified copy of Wound Certificate. Ex.A3 : Certified copy of Charge Sheet Ex.A4 : Original Disability Certificate Ex.A5 : 13Medical Bills for an amount of Rs.3,913/- Ex.A6 : Discharge Summary issued by Dr. K. Mohan Naik

IV A.D.J

1

IN THE COURT OF THE MOTOR ACCIDENTS CLAIMS TRIBUNAL: ANANTHAPURAMU

(BEFORE IV ADDL. DISTRICT & SESSIONS JUDGE (FTC), ANANTHAPURAMU)

PRESENT: SMT. B.SUNITA, III ADDL. DIST. JUDGE,

FAC IV ADDL. DIST.JUDGE

FRIDAY, THE 21 st DAY OF APRIL, 2017

ORIGINAL PETITION NO.21/2013

Between:- Momin Shahanoor S/o Shanwaaz, aged 28 years, Muslim, R/o D.No.7-306, Jowkupalyam Street, Kadiri,

Ananthapuramu Dist....Petitioner

A n d

1)K. Somasekhar Reddy S/o Bali Reddy, Major, Hindu, Kalasamudram Village, Kadiri Mandal, Ananthapuramu District. (Owner of the Tractor and Trailer bearing No.AP-04-X-4190 & 4191)

2)The Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd., Rep. by its Divisional Manager, Ananthapuramu. (Insurer of the Tractor and Trailer bearing No.AP-04-X-4190 & 4191, Vide Policy No.432404/31/2011/1556, valid from 13.07.2010 to 12.07.2011)

3)Gowravaram Srinivasulu S/o Venkatappa, aged 45 years, Kalasamudram Village, Kadiri Mandal. (Driver of Tractor No.AP-04-X-4190, Trally No.AP-04-X-4191) (R3 added as per orders in IA.411/15, dt.20.07.2015) …Respondents

Petition is filed Under Section 140 and 166 of Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 and Rule 455 of AP Motor Vehicles Rules 1989, claiming compensation of Rs.3,50,000/- for the injuries received by petitioner Shahanoor in a motor vehicle accident that occurred on 30.11.2010 at about 11.00 pm near Maruthi Circle, on NH-205 at Kadiri due to rash and negligent driving of the driver of tractor and trailer No.AP-04-X-4190 and 4191.

Petition presented on 16.01.2013.

Petition filed on 21.01.2013

Value for the purpose of Court fee and jurisdiction is Rs.3,50,000/- and a Court fee of Rs.2,860/- (Addl. Court fee of Rs.270/- is paid on 21.04.2017 for excess award amount as per court order) is paid under Rule 475 of A.P.M.V. Rules.

This petition is coming on this day for disposal before me in the presence of Sri A.Nagarjuna Reddy, advocate for Petitioner, and of Sri K. Bheemanna, advocate for second respondent, the first and third respondents remained exparte, this tribunal DOTH ORDER AND DECREE:

1)That the petition be and is hereby allowed with costs.

2) That all the respondents be and are hereby directed jointly and severally held liable to pay a sum of Rs.3,76,300/- (Rupees Three lakhs Seventy Six thousand and Three hundred only) is awarded towards compensation amount to the petitioners with costs together with interest at 7.5% per 2 annum from the date of the petition i.e. 16.01.2013 till the date of realization.

3) If they fail to deposit the amount within two months from the date of this order i.e., 21.04.2017, they are directed to pay interest at 9% per annum from the date of this petition i.e., 16.01.2013 till the date of realization.

4) That the petitioner be and is hereby entitled to enhanced amount of compensation of Rs.26,300/- (Rupees Twenty Six thousand and Three hundred only) only if they pay additional court fee by 24.04.2017. (Addl. Court fee of Rs.270/- is paid on 21.04.2017 for enhanced compensation of Rs.26,300/- as per court order).

5)On deposit of the amount, the petitioner be and is hereby permitted to withdraw 50% of compensation amount at once and remaining 50% shall be kept in fixed deposit in any nationalized bank for a period of one year.

6) That the amount if any awarded U/S 140 of M.V. Act shall be deducted from this amount.

7) That the advocate fee is fixed at Rs.3,500/- (Rupees Three thousand and Five hundred only)

8) That all the respondents do pay to the petitioners a sum of Rs.6,975/- towards costs of the petition and do bear their own costs of Rs.2/- (other costs not certified).

Given under my hand and seal of the court this the 21st day of April, 2017.

CHAIRMAN,

MOTOR ACCIDENT CLAIMS TRIBUNAL,

(FAC: IVTH ADDL. DISTRICT JUDGE),

ANANTHAPURAMU.

TABLE OF COSTS FOR

Petitioner R1 to R3 Rs. Ps. Rs. Ps. Stamp on main petition3,123-00--- Stamp on vakalath.2-002.00 Stamp on process.150-00--- Stamps on exhibits------ Stamps on petitions--- Advocate fee3,500-00--- Typing Charges100-00- Writing Charges100-00--- Total 6,975-00 2.00

CHAIRMAN,

M.A.C.T. (FAC: IV ADDL.DIST. JUDGE), Ananthapuramu.

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

Back Daily Status

In the Court of :IV Addl. District Judge

Case No. :MVOP/0000466/2016 Rajyam Vijaya Kumari Vs Bandlapalli Pullaiah

Date : 08-04-2017

Presence: Rajyam Vijaya Kumari Sri K. Narasimha Reddy Rajyam Bhaskar Sri K. Narasimha Reddy Bandlapalli Pullaiah Devarakonda Nagalakshmi ICICI Lombard General Insurance Co. Ltd. Business: The matter is settled before Lok Adalat for Rs.1,75,000/-. Nature of Disposal: SETTLED BEFORE LOK ADALAT Disposal Date: 08-04-2017 IV Addl. District Judge 1 of 119/09/24, 1:26 pm