Kum. Y. Sujana Kumari, B.sc.,b.l.,

1

CALENDAR & JUDGMENT

IN THE COURT OF SESSION :: PRAKASAM DIVISION :: ONGOLE

(Before the Spl. Judge for trial of offences U/SCs & STS (POA) Act, 1989, Prakasam at Ongole)

Present:- Kum Y. Sujana Kumari, B.Sc., B.L., Spl. Judge for trial of offences U/SCs & STS (POA) Act, 1989, Prakasam at Ongole

Thursday, this the 27th day of June, 2013.

SESSIONS CASE No. 42/2010

(PRC No.56/2009 on the file of the AJFCM Court, Chirala in Cr.No.14/2009 of Vetapalem P.S.)

Between:

The State: Sub Divisional Police Officer, Chirala. …Complainant

And

1. Sabbu Venkataratnam @ Sabbu Nagaratnam, W/o Venkata Subbaiah, 27 years, Rajaka by caste, Lakshmipuram village, near G.B.Water Plant, Akkayapalem Panchayat, Vetapalem.

2. Sabbu Venkata Subbaiah, S/o Anjaiah, 29 years, Rajaka by caste, Auto driver, Rajaka by caste, Lakshmipuram Village, near G.B.Water Plant, Akkayapalem Panchayat, Vetapalem.

3. Kathi Moshe @ Yesobu, S/o Venkatesh, 45 years, Christian, Rickshaw Puller, Lakshmipuram Village, near G.B.Water Plant, Akkayapalem Panchayat, Vetapalem. … Accused

3. DATES OF

Occurrence-07-02-2009 Complaint-07-02-2009 Apprehension of accused-13-02-2009 Commencement of trial-14-03-2013 Close of trial-24-06-2013 Sentence or order-27-06-2013

In the result, the accused 1 to 3 are found not guilty of the charges framed against them i.e., U/Sec.3(1) (x) of SCs & STs (POA) Act, 1989 against accused 1 to 3, U/Sec. 324 IPC against accused No.1, and charge U/Sec. 324 r/w 34 IPC against accused No. 2 and 3, and they are acquitted of the said offences U/sec.235 (1) Cr.P.C. The bail bond of the accused 1 and 2 shall stand cancelled. The Superintendent , District Jail,

Ongole is hereby directed to release the accused No.3 if he is not required in any other cases.

2

4. Explanation for delay:

This case was taken on file on 19-07-2010 and issued summons to the accused for his appearance on 19-08-2010. On 19-08-2010 Accused present and Sri M. Raghavarao and T. Sarada, Advocates filed Memo of Appearance for the accused and the matter was posted to 20-09-2010 for hearing of charges.

On 20-09-2010 heard and posted to 26-10-2010 for framing charges. On 26- 10-2010 A2 absent and posted to 02-11-2010. On 02-11-2010 charges framed against the accused i.e., U/Sec.3(1) (x) of SCs & STs (POA) Act, 1989 against accused 1 to 3, U/Sec. 324 IPC against accused No.1, and charge

U/Sec. 324 r/w 34 IPC against accused No. 2 and 3, read over and explained to them in Telugu for which they pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried and posted for fixing trial schedule. The matter is being adjourned from time to time for fixing trial schedule. On 06-03-2013, trial schedule was fixed for commencing trial from 14-03-2013. 0n 14-03-2013 trial was commenced. During the course of trial PWs. 1 to 9 were examined and Exs.P1 to P9 marked and closed the prosecution side evidence on 13-05-2013. On 16- 05-2013, the accused was examined U/sec.313 Cr.P.C., by explaining the incriminating material available on record, they denied the same and reported defence evidence and posted to 31-05-2013. This case went to several adjournments from time to time for defence evidence. On 24-06-2013 accused reported no defence evidence and posted to 25-06-2013 for arguments. On 25-06-2013 heard arguments on both side and posted to 27-06-2013 for

Judgment. On 27-06-2013 Judgment pronounced. Hence, the delay.

Sd/- Y. Sujana Kumari,

SPl. Judge for trial of offences U/SCs & STS (POA) Act, 1989, Prakasam at Ongole- cum- VII-Addl. Dist. & Sessions Judge, Ongole.

Copy to:

1. The Judicial First Class Magistrate, Darsi

2. The District Collector, Prakasam District, Ongole.

3. The Superintendent of Police, Prakasam District, Ongole

4. The Spl. Public Prosecutor, SPl. Judge for trial of offences U/SCs & STS (POA) Act, 1989, Prakasam at Ongole 3

IN THE COURT OF SESSION :: PRAKASAM DIVISION :: ONGOLE

(Before the Spl. Judge for trial of offences Under SCs & STS (POA) Act, 1989, Prakasam at Ongole)

Present:- Kum Y. Sujana Kumari, B.Sc., B.L., Spl. Judge for trial of offences U/SCs & STS (POA) Act, 1989, Prakasam at Ongole

Thursday, this the 27th day of June, 2013.

SESSIONS CASE No. 42/2010

(PRC No.56/2009 on the file of the AJFCM Court, Chirala in Cr.No.14/2009 of Vetapalem P.S.)

Between:

The State: Sub Divisional Police Officer, Chirala. …Complainant

And

1. Sabbu Venkataratnam @ Sabbu Nagaratnam, W/o Venkata Subbaiah, 27 years, Rajaka by caste, Lakshmipuram village, near G.B.Water Plant, Akkayapalem Panchayat, Vetapalem.

2. Sabbu Venkata Subbaiah, S/o Anjaiah, 29 years, Rajaka by caste, Auto driver, Rajaka by caste, Lakshmipuram Village, near G.B.Water Plant, Akkayapalem Panchayat, Vetapalem.

3. Kathi Moshe @ Yesobu, S/o Venkatesh, 45 years, Christian, Rickshaw Puller, Lakshmipuram Village, near G.B.Water Plant, Akkayapalem Panchayat, Vetapalem. … Accused

This Sessions Case came on 25-06-2013 for final hearing before me in the presence of Spl. Public prosecutor for State/Complainant and of Sri. P.B. Subramanyam, Advocate for the Accused, upon perusal of oral and documentary evidence on record and the matter having stood for consideration till this day this court delivered the following:-

// J U D G M E N T //

1.The Sub Divisional Police Officer, Chirala filed charge sheet against the accused 1 to 3 stating as follows:

2.The accused 1 and 2 belong to Rajaka community and

A3 belongs to Christian community. The defacto complainant Dasari

Leela Kumari examined as PW1, belongs to Madiga community. On 07- 02-2009 at about 2.00 PM, while the complainant/PW1 was grazing her 4 cattle, her she buffaloes went into the vacant site of the accused No.1.

Accused No.1 beat the buffaloes with a stick and PW1 questioned accused No.1 as to why she beat her buffaloes with stick. Then accused

No.1 grew wild and abused PW1 in filthy language touching her caste as “MAADIGA LANJA GODLANU KOSUKU THINE LANJA, GODDU MAMSAM

THINE LANJA NEEKU GODLENDUKE, YEVARI CHETLU MEPUTHAVE”.

Accused No.1 beat PW1 with stick on her right hand, when PW1 questioned on it. In the meanwhile, accused No. 2 and 3 rushed to the spot and accused No.2 folded the right hand of PW1 to her back tightly, accused No.3 caught hold of the neck and hair of PW1 and bent her down. PW1 received injuries on her body. On seeing the same

PW2/Dasari Kireeti, who is the son of PW2 came there. Accused 1 to 3 abused him also in filthy language touching his caste as “MAALA

LANJAKODAKA” pushed him down and beat him with legs. Donthaboyina

Venkateswaramma/LW3, Mandapati Rani/PW3, Anaparthi Kusuma/PW4,

Gapineedu Bhagyam/PW5 rushed to the spot and rescued Pws 1 and 2 from the hands of the accused. Later PW1 went to the police station and gave report which was registered as Cr.No.14/2009.

During the course of investigation LW11K. Srinivasa Rao,

Sub-Divisional Police Officer, Chirala visited the scene of offence, examined the witnesses and sent PW1 for treatment. The doctor, who treated PW1 examined as PW6/Dr. M.Ch. Subba Rao issued wound certificate. The Sub-Divisional Police Officer, Chirala arrested accused 1 to 3 on 13-02-2009 and sent them for remand. Later he obtained caste certificates of accused and Pws 1 and 2 and filed charge sheet alleging that the accused 1 to 3 are liable for punishment U/Sec. 323, 324 r/w 34

IPC and Sec. 3 (1) (x) of SCs & STs (POA) Act, 1989.

5

3.The Addl. Judl. First Class Magistrate, Chirala took cognizance U/sec.323, 324 r/w 34 IPC and Sec. 3(1)(x) of SCs. & STs.

(POA) Act, 1989 against the accused 1 to 3 and registered the case as

PRC No.56/2009.

4.After appearance of the accused before the court, the learned Magistrate furnished copies of the charge sheet and documents to the accused as provided U/sec.207 Cr.P.C. and committed the case to this Court by order dated:30-12-2009 as the offence U/Sec. 3 (1) (x) of

SCs & STs (POA) Act is exclusively triable by this court. This court took the case on file and numbered it as S.C.No.42/2010.

5.After appearance of the accused 1 to 3 before this court, and after hearing, charges U/Sec.3(1) (x) of SCs & STs (POA) Act, 1989 against accused 1 to 3 and charge U/Sec. 324 IPC against accused

No.1 and charge U/Sec. 324 r/w 34 IPC against accused No. 2 and 3 were framed, read over and explained to them in Telugu, for which, they pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried.

6.To prove its case, the prosecution examined Pws.1 to 9 and got marked Exs.P1 to P9.

7.After the closure of prosecution evidence, the accused 1 to 3 were examined U/sec.313 Cr.P.C. they denied the incriminating evidence and reported defence evidence. But later they filed a memo stating that they have no defence, along with copy of the F.I.R.

Registered on the report of the 1st accused in Cr.No.13/2009 of

Vetapalem P.S.

During 313 Cr.P.C. examination the 1st accused stated that when Pw1's buffaloes were grazing their plants in front of her house, she obstructed. On the date of occurrence, she engaged accused 6

No.3 to lay fencing around her plants and accused No.3 was doing that work she was in the house. When PW1's buffaloes came there and accused No.3 was questioning PW1, PW1 was abusing accused No.3.

Then she came out and questioned PW1. Then PW1 abused her in filthy language and brought PW2 and others, came upon her house and beat her.

Accused No.2 stated that on the date of the alleged offence, he was not at the house and false case is foisted against him.

Accused No.3 stated that on the date of alleged incident he was arranging fencing at the house of accused No.1 around the plants. PW1's buffaloes came there and he asked PW1 to take them away. Then PW1 abused him. Accused No.1 came there and questioned

PW1. PW1 abused accused No.1 also and later Pws 1 and 2 beat accused No.1

8.Arguments of learned Spl. Public Prosecutor and counsel of accused are heard.

9.The point consideration is:

“ Whether the prosecution proved the guilt of the accused U/Sec.3(1) (x) of SCs & STs (POA) Act, 1989, U/Sec. 324 IPC against accused No.1 and U/Sec. 324 r/w 34 IPC against accused No.2 and 3beyond reasonable doubt?”

10.Point:-From the evidence of PW7 retired Tahsildar who worked at Vetapalem, it is to be understood that pW1 belongs to Madiga community and PW2 who is her son belongs to Mala community. Ex.P3 and P4 are the caste certificates issued by PW7 relating to Pws 1 and 2.

PW2's evidence shows that his father is mala, his mother/PW1 is madiga and so his caste is mala. Both mala and madiga comes under Schedule

Castes.

7

11.The evidence of PW8K. Rajyalakshmi, who worked as

Tahsildar at Chirala shows that accused 1 and 2 belongs to Rajaka community. He issued their caste certificates which are Exs. P5 and P6.

Thus they do not belong to SC or ST communities.

12.As per the prosecution, the accused No.3 belongs to

Christian community and all the accused abused and beat Pws 1 and 2 in the name of their caste and caused injuries to PW1 on 07-02-2009 at about 2.00 PM in front of the house of accused No.1, in Lakshmipuram village of Akkayapalem panchayat. It is the version of the prosecution that when the she buffaloes of PW1 went for grazing in front of the house of the 1st accused, the 1st accused abused PW1 in the name of caste, beat her with stick. Accused No.2 folded her right hand and accused No.3 also beat her. When PW2, the son of PW1 intervened they abused him also in the name of caste and beat him.

13.The version of the accused as stated by them in their 313 Cr.P.C. examination is that on 07-02-2009 the 1st accused engaged accused No.3 to lay fencing around the plants in front of her house, and accused No.3 was arranging fencing. At that time the she buffaloes of

PW1 came there and when PW1 was asked to take away her she buffaloes, she abused accused No.3. When accused No.1 came out of the house and questioned PW1 about it, PW1 abused her in filthy language, brought PW2 and others, went upon the house of accused

No.1 and beat her. Accused No.1 gave report to the police, and as a counter blast this case is foisted. The copy of the F.I.R. Registered on the report of accused No.1 is filed into court which shows the report of accused No.1 , which was registered at 8.00 PM on 07-02-2009, by the

Assistant Sub-Inspector of Police, Vetapalem P.S. In this case, the report of PW1 was registered as Cr.No.14/2009 at 21.00 hours as can be sen 8 from the F.I.R. Marked which is Ex.P7 by the same officer. Ex.P7 and the

F.I.R. Registered on the report of accused No.1, copy which is filed, show they were sent to the court at the same time i.e., at 1.10 PM on 08-02- 2009. From the said documents it can be understood that both parties filed cases against each other with regard to the incident on 07-02-2009.

In that background let me examine, how far the prosecution proved that the accused have committed the alleged offences.

14.PW1 deposed that when her she buffaloes went in front of the house of accused No.1, accused No.1 beat the she buffaloes with a stick when she questioned accused No.1 about it, she abused her in the name of her caste saying “ MADIGA LANJA GODLU KOSUKONI

TINEDANIVI” Then accused no.2 came there and bent her hand and accused No.3 came there caught hold of her throat and also caught hold of her tuft, that accused No.1 beat on her right shoulder with stick and that she received injury. According to her LW3 Donthaboyina

Venkateswaramma, PW3 Mandapati Rani, PW4 Anaparthi Kusuma, PW5

Gapineedu Bhagyam witnessed the same, and made her to stand. She further deposed that later PW2 her son came there and intervened and accused 1 to 3 beat him with hands and legs and then she went to

Vetapalem police station, gave report and she was sent to Government

Hospital.

15.PW2 the son of PW1, naturally supported her by deposing that accused No.1 beat on the right hand of PW1 with a stick, accused No.2 bent the right hand of PW1, and accused No.3 pressed the throat of PW1 and caught hold of her tuft and made her fall down, then accused 1 to 3 beat her with hands and legs. PW1 did not depose that accused 1 to 3 beat her with hands and legs when she fell down. His further evidence is that when he intervened, accused 1 to 3 abused him 9 saying “ MALA LANJA KODAKA” and beat him with hands and legs that

LW3 and Pws 3 to 5 came to their rescue and later he and PW1 went to the police station and gave report Ex.P1.

16.As argued for the accused Pws 1 and 2 are interested witnesses and so it is to be seen whether their evidence is supported by independent evidence to believe the prosecution version.

17.PW3 deposed that about 4 years back she along with

PW4, was coming at about 2.00 PM, after selling lime, and witnessed a galata going on at the house of accused No.1. Accused No.1 beat on the right shoulder of PW1 with stick, accused No.2 bent her right hand and accused No.3 pressed the neck of PW1 with hands, that accused No.1 abused PW1 in the name of caste saying “MADIGA LANJA GODDU

MAMSAM TINE LANJA”. This witness did not depose about the presence of PW2 and about his intervention at which time he was also beaten by the accused 1 to 3.

18.PW4 did not depose that she was coming along with

PW3. Her evidence is that about 4 years back at 2.00 PM while she was coming from Chirala after selling lime, and when she reached the house of accused No.1, she found accused No.1 beating PW1 with stick on the right hand, and she went away. She stated that on enquiring she came to know that whenPW1 was grazing she buffaloes in the site of accused No.1, the incident took place. She further deposed that accused

No.1 also abused PW1 in the name of caste saying “MADIGA LANJA”.

This witness did not depose about the presence of accused No. 2 and 3 and that they beat PW1. She also did not depose about the presence of

PW2 and that the accused beat him.

10

19.PW5 deposed that 4 years back when she was coming from Chirala after selling lime, and reached the house of accused No.1, she found accused No.1 beating PW1 with stick on her right hand and

PW1 fell down. Later she went away. This witness also did not depose about the presence of the accused 2 and 3 and also PW2. She did not depose about the accused No.1 abusing PW1 in the name of her caste.

Thus, the evidence of Pws 3 to 5, said to be the eye witnesses is not consistent and corroborative. Simply they deposed that they witnessed the incident at the house of accused No.1. If they really witnessed the incident they would not go away without enquiring as to what happened and without going to the rescue of PW1. They did not depose that they went to rescue of PW1 as deposed by PW1. They belong to the community of PW1. The rough sketch of the scene of offence marked as

Ex.P9 do not show that they got houses near the scene of offence.

There is no way or road shown at the scene of offence in the rough sketch. In such a case the witnesses who were coming from Chirala after selling lime, witnessing the occurrence is doubt full. The possibility of their giving evidence supporting PW1 who is their caste person cannot be ruled out. More over their names are not mentioned int he First

Information Report. PW1 who gave all the particulars in the report and overt acts of the accused, would not have missed the presence of Pws 3 to 5 at the time of occurrence and about their going to her rescue if really they were present at that time.

20.Report was given at 9.00 PM by PW1. The report given by the 1st accused was at 8.00 PM as stated above. The possibility of

PW1 giving report as counter blast cannot be ruled out. As per Pws 1 and 2 they went to the police station immediately after the occurrence at 2.00 PM and gave report. But the report shows that it was registered at 9.00 PM. The delay is not explained by the prosecution.

11

21.The evidence of PW1 shows that she was sent to the hospital by the police. The doctor who examined PW1 gave evidence as

PW6. His evidence is that on 14-02-2009 at about 12.00 noon he examined PW1, who was sent by the police, that PW1 was unable to move her right shoulder joint that her right index finger was contracted and swelling with tenderness. He opined that the injuries were simple in nature and might have been caused by blunt object. He issued wound certificate which is Ex.P2. According to him the age of the injuries was about 7 days prior to his examination.

22. The argument for the accused is that, basing on the evidence of PW6 and the wound certificate Ex.P2 it cannot be believed that the injuries mentioned inEx.P2 were caused by the accused as PW1 was examined by the doctor on 14-02-2009. whereas the occurrence was on 07-02-2009. I find force in the said argument of the accused.

When the incident was on 07-02-2009 and when compliant was given on the same day itself and when PW1 was sent to the hospital on the same day according to her, it is not known as to how she was got examined on 14-02-2009 by the doctor relating to the injuries that occurred 7 days prior to it. Thus, there is one week gap between the alleged incident and the examination by the doctor. The possibility of PW1 receiving injuries by fall prior to the examination by the doctor and subsequent to the alleged incident cannot be ruled out. The doctor deposed that the injuries are possible by fall.

23.The further arguments for the accused is that investigation was not done by the Sub-Divisional Police Officer and he did not examine the witnesses, thus there is violation of the procedure and law and the accused are entitled to its benefit. The Sub-Divisional

Police Officer who conducted investigation is not examined, stating that 12 he is in coma and not in a position to give evidence. The Assistant Sub-

Inspector of Police, who registered the FIR also could not be examined as he is no more. PW1 herself deposed that Sub-Inspector and Head

Constable examined her. She did not depose that she was examined by the Dy.S.P. In such circumstances, the arguments of the accused has to be considered in support of them.

24.The argument for the accused that the possibility of

PW1 giving compliant as counter blast to the report given by the 1st accused cannot be ruled out as the report given by the 1st accused is earlier in time then compliant given by PW1. Considering all these aspects and for the reasons stated above I find that the accused are entitled to benefit of doubt and I hold this point against the prosecution.

25.In the result, the accused 1 to 3 are found not guilty of the charges framed against them i.e., U/Sec.3(1) (x) of SCs & STs (POA)

Act, 1989 against accused 1 to 3, U/Sec. 324 IPC against accused No.1, and charge U/Sec. 324 r/w 34 IPC against accused No. 2 and 3, and they are acquitted of the said offences U/sec.235 (1) Cr.P.C. The bail bond of the accused 1 and 2 shall stand cancelled. The Superintendent , District

Jail, Ongole is hereby directed to release the accused No.3 if he is not required in any other cases.

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

pronounced by me in Open Court, this the 27 th day of June, 2013.

Sd/- Y. Sujana Kumari,

SPl. Judge for trial of offences U/SCs & STS (POA) Act-cum-VII -Addl. District & Sessions

Judge, Prakasam at Ongole.

Appendix of Evidence

Witnesses examined

For Prosecution: PW.1Dasari Leela Kumari PW.2Dasari Kireeti PW.3Mandapati Rani 13

PW.4Anaparthi Kusuma PW.5Gapineedu Bhagyam PW.6M.Ch.Subba Rao PW.7A.P.Ch. Nageswara Rao PW.8K. Rajya Lakshmi PW.9N. Satyanarayana

For Defence:NIL

DOCUMENTS MARKED FOR PROSECUTION

Ex.P1Report given to police by PW1 Ex.P2Wound certificate issued by PW6 Ex.P3Caste certificate of PW1 issued by PW7 Ex.P4Caste certificate of PW2 issued by PW7 Ex.P5Caste certificate of accused No.1 issued by PW8 Ex.P6Caste certificate of accused No.2 issued by PW8 Ex.P7FIR in Cr.No.14/2009 Ex.P8Memo of authorization by PW9 Ex.P9Rough sketch by PW9

DOCUMENTS MARKED FOR DEFENCE

NIL

MATERIAL OBJECTS

NIL

Sd/- Y. Sujana Kumari,

SPL. JUDGE-CUM-

VII-ADJ.

1

IN THE COURT OF MOTOR ACCIDENTS CLAIMS TRIBUNAL :: ONGOLE

(BEFORE THE II-ADDITIONAL DISTRICT JUDGE, ONGOLE)

Present:- Kum. Y. Sujana Kumari, B.Sc.,B.L., Spl. Judge for trial of offences U/SCs & STS (POA) Act-Cum-VII Addl. District & Sessions Judge, Prakasam at Ongole FAC: II-Additional District Judge-Cum- Chairman Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Ongole.

Wednesday, the 26th day of June, 2013.

M.V.ORIGINAL PETITION NO.463/2011

Between:

Cherukuri Kasinath, S/o Veera Narayana, Hindu, Age: 29 years, R/o Jawahar Nagar Colony, Markapur Town & Mandal, Prakasam District.… Petitioner

And

1. Sadam Kotaiah, S/o Venkataiah, Age: 32 years, Driver of the Tata Sumo, Tadivaripalli Village, Tarlupadu Mandal, Prakasam District

2. Parasaramuni Venkata Ramaiah, S/o Bhavani Sankara Sastry, Age: 50 years, Owner of the Tata Sumo bearing No. AP 27 X 4024, Markapur Town and Mandal, Prakasam District.

3. The Reliance General Insurance Ltd., Rep. by its Branch Manager, Ongole.

Cover Note bearing No. 110000664073,

valid from 31.12.2010 to 30.12.2011... Respondents

The Original Petition coming on 31-05-2013 for final hearing

before me in the presence of Sri M.Raghavendra Reddy, Advocate for

petitioner and Sri Kareti Srinivasulu, Advocate for respondent No.3 and respondents 1 and 2 remained exparte and having stood over for consideration till this day, this Court made the following:-

A W A R D

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

Vehicles Act, claiming compensation of Rs.5,50,000/- towards the injuries received by the petitioner in motor vehicle accident, stating as follows:- 2 The petitioner was working as driver in a slate factory situated at Industrial Estate in Markapur and was earning Rs.10,000/- per month as salary. On 22-06-2011 at about 11-15 AM, the petitioner along with Kasula Venkata Kiran Kumar who was working as Accountant in the said factory, was going towards Markapur on the motorcycle bearing No.

AP 7 K 5166. The petitioner was riding the motorcycle and Kasula

Venkata Kiran Kumar was pillion rider. When they were going on the

Tank Bund of Markapur, Tata Sumo bearing No. AP 27 X 4024, driven in a rash and negligent manner dashed against the motorcycle of the petitioner in opposite direction, as a result of which accident occurred.

The petitioner and the pillion rider received grievous injuries. The petitioner received fracture and dislocation of right hip, fracture to right tibia and multiple lacerations over the right leg. Immediately he was shifted to Government Area Hospital Markapur and from there he was shifted to Quality Hospital, Guntur for better treatment, where he was inpatient. He underwent surgery in St.Joseph's General Hospital, Guntur on 24-06-2011 and was shifted back to Quality Hospital, Guntur on 25- 06-2011. The petitioner spent Rs.3,00,000/- towards surgery, medicines, hospital expenses, nourishment etc. The parents of the petitioner accompanied him during treatment and stayed in a rented room and incurred expenses for their lodging and boarding. Even after the surgery the grievous injuries sustained by the petitioner are not yet healed and he is getting pain to his right leg, he is unable to do normal work. He is unable to work as driver and lost his livelihood. The accident was solely due to the rash and negligent driving of the 1st respondent of the Tata

Sumo belonging to the 2nd respondent. The accident was reported to the

SHO of Markapur Town Police Station and it was registered as a case in

Cr.No.125/2011 and police filed charge sheet also against the 1st respondent. As the accident was solely due to the rash and negligent 3 driving of the 1st respondent during the course of employment under the 2nd respondent, both the respondents 1 and 2 and the 3rd respondent with whom the said vehicle was insured are jointly and severally liable to pay compensation of Rs.5,50,000/- to the petitioner.

2.The respondents 1 and 2 remained exparte.

3. The 3rd respondent filed written statement contending as follows:

The driver of the Tata Sumo was not having valid driving license to drive the vehicle. The said vehicle was not insured with the 3rd respondent. As can be seen from the petition, the petitioner was 29 years old at the time of accident, and under any stretch of imagination, it cannot be concluded that he was earning Rs.10,000/- per month. At the time of accident the rider of the motorcycle was not having valid and effective driving license to drive the motorcycle. He drove the motorcycle in a rash and negligent manner with high speed in opposite direction to the Tata Sumo and dashed against it. There was no negligence on the part of the driver of the Tata Sumo in causing the accident. So the 3rd respondent is not liable to pay any compensation.

The driver, owner and insurance company of the motorcycle are necessary parties, as there was contributory negligence on the part of the rider of the motorcycle. In any event, the amount of compensation claimed is highly excessive and the interest claimed is also excessive.

4. Basing on the above pleadings, the following issues were settled for trial:-

1) Whether the accident occurred due to rash and negligent driving of the Tata Sumo bearing No. AP 27 X 4024 by its driver?

2) Whether the petitioner is entitled to claim any compensation. If so, to what amount and from whom?

3) To what relief ?

4

5.On behalf of the petitioner, the petitioner and the Doctor who treated him gave evidence as PWs 1 and 2. For the petitioner Exs

A1 to A7 documents are marked. No evidence is adduced on behalf of the contesting 3rd respondent.

6.R3 filed IA.No.425/12 under Section 170 of Motor Vehicles

Act to permit him to take all the defences available to R2 owner of the

Tata Sumo. That petition was allowed.

7. Heard.

8. ISSUE NO.1:

The evidence of the petitioner as PW1 is in support of the petition averments. It shows that on 22-06-2011, the petitioner along with Kasula Venkata Kiran Kumar was going on the motorcycle bearing

No. AP 7 K 5166 to Markapur on bank work, from a slate factory at

Industrial Estate, Markapur, at about 11-30 AM, that the petitioner was riding the motorcycle and when the motorcycle reached the Tank Bund of Markapur, the Tata Sumo bearing No. AP 27 X 4024 (hereinafter referred to as crime vehicle) came in opposite direction in a rash and negligent manner and dashed against the motorcycle of the petitioner, as a result of which, the accident occurred. The petitioner and the pillion rider of the motorcycle received fracture injuries and they were shifted to Government Area Hospital Markapur and from there the petitioner was shifted to Quality Hospital, Guntur where treatment was done to him as inpatient. The evidence of the petitioner further shows that a case was registered against the driver of the crime vehicle who is the 1st respondent, with regard to the accident and charge sheet was also filed by the police in Markapur Court. Through him Ex.A1, certified copy of FIR in Cr.No.125/11 and Ex.A2, certified copy of charge sheet in 5

CC.No.323/11 filed by Sub-Inspector of Police of Markapur Town Police

Station on the file of Additional Judicial First Class Magistrate, Markapur., after investigating into the said crime alleging that the 1st respondent is liable for punishment under Section 338 IPC, as the accident occurred due to his rash and negligent driving of the crime vehicle are marked.

The 3rd respondent's contention in the written statement is that the accident was not due to the rash and negligent driving of the driver of the crime vehicle i.e. the 1st respondent and that the accident was due to the negligence of the rider of the motorcycle. Except the said contents in the written statement of the 3rd respondent, there is no evidence adduced by the 3rd respondent either oral or documentary in support of the said contentions. There are no circumstances elicited in the cross examination of the petitioner by the 3rd respondent to disbelieve his evidence. In the absence of any evidence contra to the evidence lead by the petitioner, considering the evidence of the petitioner and the above said documents filed by him, I believe the petitioner's version and hold this issue in his favour.

9.ISSUES No. 2:

The petitioners evidence is that he received grievous injuries i.e. fracture-dislocation of right hip, fracture to right tibia and multiple lacerations over the right leg, that immediately after the accident he was shifted to Government Area Hospital Markapur and later to the hospital of G.Mohan Rao, Orthopedic Surgeon, Markapur and from there he was shifted to Quality Hospital, Guntur for better treatment where he was admitted as inpatient. His evidence is that he underwent surgery in

St.Joseph's General Hospital, Guntur on 24-06-2011 and he was shifted back to Quality Hospital, Guntur on 25-06-2011, where he was treated by the Doctors. According to him, he spent nearly Rs.3,00,000/- towards 6 surgery, medicines, hospital expenses, nourishment etc. He marked

Ex.A3, wound certificate issued by St.Joseph's General Hospital, Guntur with regard to the injuries, wherein it is stated that the injuries received by the petitioner are grievous. The petitioner also filed Ex.A4, bunch of medical bills and travelling bills etc. Ex.A5, scanning report, Ex.A6, x- rays, and Ex.A7, discharge summary issued by Quality Hospital, Guntur.

Supporting the petitioner there is the evidence of PW2, Dr.

J.V.Narasimha Rao, who is practicing as Orthopedic Surgeon in Quality

Hospital, Guntur. His evidence is that, the petitioner was admitted in their hospital with grievous injuries i.e. fracture-dislocation of right hip and fracture of upper end of right tibia, that surgery was performed on 24-06-2011 at St.Joseph's General Hospital, Guntur in which hospital he is a Consultant Surgeon and that he performed the operations. He further deposed that the petitioner was shifted back to Quality Hospital,

Guntur on 25-06-2011 and was discharged on 09-07-2011. His evidence is that during surgery the hip joint dislocation was reduced and plating was done, that screws were placed for the fracture of the leg. He deposed that Ex.A7, discharge summary was issued by him on behalf of

Quality Hospital, that Ex.A4, bills were taken on his advise, that the petitioner has to undergo another surgery for removal of implants, for which he has to spend approximately Rs.40,000/- to Rs.50,000/-. His further evidence is that there is about 25% of the disability.

Though this witness and the petitioner deposed that there is disability caused to the petitioner because of the injuries sustained in the accident, no disability certificate is filed. Unless there is disability certificate issued by concerned authorities, it is not proper to consider that the petitioner is suffering from disability and is entitled for compensation towards it.

7

To prove the expenses spent by him the petitioner filed

Ex.A4, bunch of bills showing the purchase of medicines, taking X-rays and the receipts issued by St.Joseph's General Hospital, Guntur. The medical bills are not proved by examining the concerned, as argued by the 3rd respondent and so they cannot be considered in toto. In Ex.A4 inpatient bill issued by St.Joseph's General Hospital, Guntur is for

Rs.10,400/- and also a receipt issued by the same hospital for Rs.5,000/- paid towards anesthetist fee. In view of the evidence of PW2, that the petitioner underwent surgery in St.Joseph's General Hospital, Guntur and that he conducted surgery, it can be believed that the petitioner spent the amounts mentioned in those two documents i.e. Rs.10,400/- and

Rs.5,000/- to the said Hospital. The petitioner is entitled for the said amount. There is a cash bill in Ex.A4 issued by Quality Hospital, Guntur, which shows that the petitioner was charged Rs.48,000/- towards room rent, nursing charges, surgeon fee etc. Considering the evidence of PW2 and the discharge summary issued by Quality Hospital, Guntur which show that the petitioner was inpatient in that hospital, I find that the petitioner can be awarded the amount mentioned in the bill issued by the Quality Hospital, Guntur dated 09-07-2011 which is for Rs.48,000/-.

Though the medical bills and other bills filed by the petitioner are not proved by examining the concerned, the petitioner can be awarded some amount towards medicines, X-ray charges, travelling expenses etc., as it is common knowledge that patient require medicines and that he has to undergo tests etc., I find that it is proper to award Rs.40,000/- under that head. Towards diet and attendant charges during the period the petitioner was in the hospital and subsequently till he was completely cured, I award Rs.10,000/-. Towards travelling expenses, I award Rs.10,000/- to the petitioner. Considering the evidence of PW2, 8 that for removal of implants the petitioner has to spend amount, I award

Rs.40,000/- towards those expenses. The petitioner must be in bed for nearly two months for his complete recovery as his hip and leg were operated, during which period he must have lost his income. Though the petitioner deposed that he was working as driver in a slate factory at

Markapur and was earning Rs.10,000/- per month, there is no reliable evidence in that regard. As there is no proof of the petitioner's income at Rs.10,000/- per month, I find that it is proper to award Rs.10,000/- towards loss of income for the period he was in bed. Towards pain and suffering to the injuries received by the petitioner, I award Rs.40,000/-.

Thus in total, I award Rs.2,13,400/- to the petitioner i.e. Rs.63,400/- towards hospital charges, Rs.40,000/- towards medicines, X-ray charges etc., Rs.10,000/- towards diet and attendant charges, Rs.10,000/- towards travelling expenses, Rs.40,000/- for removal of implants,

Rs.10,000/- towards loss of income and Rs.40,000/- towards pain and suffering.

According to the petitioner the 1st respondent was the driver of the crime vehicle at the time of accident and the 2nd respondent is its owner. The respondents 1 and 2 have not denied the same by contesting the petition. The petitioner states that the crime vehicle was insured with the 3rd respondent. The 3rd respondent vaguely stated in the written statement that the crime vehicle was not insured with it. But while cross examining the PW1, there is no suggestion given to him that the crime vehicle was not insured with it. There is no evidence on behalf of the 3rd respondent in that regard. So it is deemed that the 3rd respondent conceded that the crime vehicle was insured with it and that the policy was in force. Otherwise, the 3rd respondent would have contested the case seriously by placing evidence before the Court.

9 Since it is believed that the crime vehicle was insured with the 3rd respondent, the 3rd respondent and the respondents 1 and 2 who are the driver and owner of the crime vehicle are jointly and severally liable to pay the said compensation awarded to the petitioner.

10.Issue No.4:- In the result, the petition is partly allowed, with proportionate costs against the respondents as follows:

(a) The respondents 1 to 3 are jointly and severally liable to pay to the petitioner an amount of Rs.2,13,400/- towards compensation with interest thereon at 9% p.a. from the date of petition till realization. They are directed to pay the same within 30 days from the date of the award;

(b)On such deposit, the petitioner is permitted to withdraw

Rs.1,00,000/- and the remaining amount shall be kept in fixed deposit in any nationalized bank for a period of 3 years;

(c)The petitioner shall open SB account in any nationalized bank in his native place or nearby his native place and furnish the same to this Court, while withdrawing the compensation; and

(d)Advocate fee is fixed at Rs.2,000/-.

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

pronounced by me in open Court, this the 26 th day of June, 2013.

SPl. Judge for trial of offences U/SCs &SPl. Judge for trial of offences U/SCs & STS (POA) Act-cum-VII -Addl. District & STS (POA) Act-cum-VII -Addl. District &

Sessions Judge, Prakasam at Ongole. Sessions Judge, Prakasam at Ongole.

FAC/II ADDL. DISTRICT JUDGE,ONGOLE. FAC/II ADDL. DISTRICT JUDGE,ONGOLE.

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

Witnesses Examined

For Petitioners:-For Respondents:-

P.W.1: Cherukuri KasinathNone P.W.2: Dr. J.V.Narasimha Rao 10

Documents marked

For Petitioner:-

Ex.A.1/8.8.2012Certified copy of F.I.R. in Cr.No.125/11 of Markapur Town P.S.

Ex.A.2/8.8.2012Certified copy of charge sheet

Ex.A.3/8.8.2012Certified copy of wound certificate

Ex.A4/8.8.2012Bunch of Medical Bills

Ex.A5/8.8.2012Scanning report

Ex.A6/8.8.2012X-rays 9 in number

Ex.A7/8.8.2012Discharge Summary

For Respondents:-

Nil

Spl. Judge-Cum-VII ADJSpl. Judge-Cum-VII ADJ FAC: II ADJ

IN THE COURT OF MOTOR ACCIDENTS CLAIMS TRIBUNAL :: ONGOLE

(BEFORE THE II-ADDITIONAL DISTRICT JUDGE, ONGOLE)

Present:- Kum. Y. Sujana Kumari, B.Sc.,B.L., Spl. Judge for trial of offences U/SCs & STS (POA) Act-Cum-VII Addl. District & Sessions Judge, Prakasam at Ongole FAC: II-Additional District Judge-Cum- Chairman Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Ongole.

Wednesday, the 26th day of June, 2013.

M.V.ORIGINAL PETITION NO.463/2011

Between:

Cherukuri Kasinath, S/o Veera Narayana, Hindu, Age: 29 years, R/o Jawahar Nagar Colony, Markapur Town & Mandal, Prakasam District.… Petitioner

And

1. Sadam Kotaiah, S/o Venkataiah, Age: 32 years, Driver of the Tata Sumo, Tadivaripalli Village, Tarlupadu Mandal, Prakasam District

2. Parasaramuni Venkata Ramaiah, S/o Bhavani Sankara Sastry, Age: 50 years, Owner of the Tata Sumo bearing No. AP 27 X 4024, Markapur Town and Mandal, Prakasam District.

3. The Reliance General Insurance Ltd., Rep. by its Branch Manager, Ongole. Cover Note bearing No. 110000664073,

valid from 31.12.2010 to 30.12.2011... Respondents

This Petition is filed under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles

Act, claiming compensation of Rs.5,50,000/- towards the injuries received by the petitioner in motor vehicle accident.

Petition presented onPetition presented on: 02-12-2011: 02-12-2011

Petition filed onPetition filed on: 12-12-2011: 12-12-2011

Court fee: A Court fee of Rs.4,860/- is paid on Rs.5,50,000/-Court fee: A Court fee of Rs.4,860/- is paid on Rs.5,50,000/- under Rule 475 of AP MV Rules.under Rule 475 of AP MV Rules.

The Original Petition coming on 31-05-2013 for final hearing

before me in the presence of Sri M.Raghavendra Reddy, Advocate for

petitioner and Sri Kareti Srinivasulu, Advocate for respondent No.3 and respondents 1 and 2 remained exparte, this court doth order and decree:

1. That the petition be and the same is hereby allowed partly with proportionate costs against the respondents as follows:

2. That the respondents 1 to 3 are jointly and severally do pay to the petitioner an amount of Rs.2,13,400/- towards compensation with interest thereon at 9% p.a. from the date of petition till realization.

They are directed to pay the same within 30 days from the date of the award;

3. That on such deposit, the petitioner is permitted to withdraw

Rs.1,00,000/- and the remaining amount shall be kept in fixed deposit in any nationalized bank for a period of 3 years;

4. That the petitioner shall open SB account in any nationalized bank in his native place or nearby his native place and furnish the same to this Court, while withdrawing the compensation;

5. That Advocate fee is fixed at Rs.2,000/-; and

6. That the respondents do pay to the petitioner a sum of Rs. 4,696/- towards costs of the petition.

Given under my hand and the seal of the Court, this the 26Given under my hand and the seal of the Court, this the 26thth day of May, 2013. day of May, 2013.

SPl. Judge for trial of offences U/SCs &SPl. Judge for trial of offences U/SCs & STS (POA) Act-cum-VII -Addl. District & STS (POA) Act-cum-VII -Addl. District &

Sessions Judge, Prakasam at Ongole. Sessions Judge, Prakasam at Ongole.

FAC/II ADDL. DISTRICT JUDGE,ONGOLE. FAC/II ADDL. DISTRICT JUDGE,ONGOLE.

// TABLE OF COSTS// // TABLE OF COSTS//

FORFORFOR FOR

PETITIONERSPETITIONERSRESPONDENTSRESPONDENTS

VakalatVakalat2.002.00CM&FC not filed Court FeeCourt Fee1,494.001,494.00 Process Process 200.00200.00 Commissioner Fee (asCommissioner Fee (as1,000.001,000.00 claimed)claimed) Advocate FeeAdvocate Fee2,000.002,000.00 TOTALTOTAL4,696.004,696.00

VII A.D.J.VII A.D.J.

FAC/II A.D.J. FAC/II A.D.J.

1

IN THE COURT OF MOTOR ACCIDENTS CLAIMS TRIBUNAL :: ONGOLE

(BEFORE THE II-ADDITIONAL DISTRICT JUDGE, ONGOLE)

Present:- Kum. Y. Sujana Kumari, B.Sc.,B.L., Spl. Judge for trial of offences U/SCs & STS (POA) Act-Cum-VII Addl. District & Sessions Judge, Prakasam at Ongole FAC: II-Additional District Judge-Cum- Chairman Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Ongole.

Wednesday, the 26th day of June, 2013.

M.V.ORIGINAL PETITION NO.464/2011

Between:

Kasula Venkata Kiran Kumar, S/o Kannaiah, Age: 32 years, Residing near Vijaya Talkies, Markapur Town & Mandal, Prakasam District.… Petitioner

And

1. Sadam Kotaiah, S/o Venkataiah, Age: 32 years, Driver of the Tata Sumo, Tadivaripalli Village, Tarlupadu Mandal, Prakasam District

2. Parasaramuni Venkata Ramaiah, S/o Bhavani Sankara Sastry, Age: 50 years, Owner of the Tata Sumo bearing No. AP 27 X 4024, Markapur Town and Mandal, Prakasam District.

3. The Reliance General Insurance Ltd., Rep. by its Branch Manager, Ongole.

Cover Note bearing No. 110000664073,

valid from 31.12.2010 to 30.12.2011... Respondents

The Original Petition coming on 31-05-2013 for final hearing

before me in the presence of Sri M.Raghavendra Reddy, Advocate for

petitioner and Sri Kareti Srinivasulu, Advocate for respondent No.3 and respondents 1 and 2 remained exparte and having stood over for consideration till this day, this Court made the following:-

A W A R D

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

Vehicles Act, claiming compensation of Rs.5,50,000/- towards the injuries received by the petitioner in motor vehicle accident, stating as follows:- 2 The petitioner was working as Accountant in a slate factory at Markapur and was getting Rs.10,000/- per month. On 22-06-2011 at about 11-00 AM, the petitioner along with Cherukuri Kasinath, who was working as driver in the same factory, left the factory on a motorcycle bearing No. AP 7 K 5166 to go to Markapur, on bank work. The petitioner was the pillion rider and Cherukuri Kasinath was driving the motorcycle.

When they were going on the Tank Bund of Markapur, Tata Sumo bearing No. AP 27 X 4024 came with high speed in a rash and negligent manner without blowing horn, in opposite direction, and dashed the motorcycle of the petitioner, as a result of which accident occurred. The petitioner received grievous injuries i.e. injury to his right eye, fractures to his both legs, and Cherukuri Kasinath also received fracture injuries to his left leg and the motorcycle was partly damaged. Immediately the petitioner was shifted to Government Area Hospital Markapur and from there he was shifted to Manipal Super Specialty Hospital, Tadepalli of

Vijayawada, for better treatment. He was admitted as inpatient on 23- 06-2011. He underwent surgery on 27-06-2011 for the fracture of right leg. The petitioner spent nearly Rs.4,00,000/- towards surgery, medicines, hospital expenses, nourishment etc. During his stay as inpatient, his parents stayed in a rented room and incurred expenses for their lodging and boarding. Even after the surgery the injuries sustained by the petitioner are not yet healed and he is getting pain to his right leg. He is unable to do normal work. He sustained permanent disability.

The petitioner lost his livelihood and profession. He and his family are suffering lot of difficulties.

The accident was solely due to the rash and negligent driving of the 1st respondent of the Tata Sumo belonging to the 2nd respondent. The accident was reported to the SHO of Markapur Town 3 Police Station and it was registered as a case in Cr.No.125/2011 and police filed charge sheet also against the 1st respondent. As the accident was solely due to the rash and negligent driving of the 1st respondent during the course of employment under the 2nd respondent, both the respondents 1 and 2 and the 3rd respondent with whom the said vehicle was insured are jointly and severally liable to pay compensation of

Rs.5,50,000/- to the petitioner.

2.The respondents 1 and 2 remained exparte.

3. The 3rd respondent filed written statement contending as follows:

The driver of the Tata Sumo was not having valid driving license to drive the vehicle. The said vehicle was not insured with the 3rd respondent. As can be seen from the petition, the petitioner was 32 years old at the time of accident, and under any stretch of imagination, it cannot be concluded that he was earning Rs.10,000/- per month. At the time of accident the rider of the motorcycle was not having valid and effective driving license to drive the motorcycle. He drove the motorcycle in a rash and negligent manner with high speed in opposite direction to the Tata Sumo and dashed against it. There was no negligence on the part of the driver of the Tata Sumo in causing the accident. So the 3rd respondent is not liable to pay any compensation.

The driver, owner and insurance company of the motorcycle are necessary parties, as there was contributory negligence on the part of the rider of the motorcycle. In any event, the amount of compensation claimed is highly excessive and the interest claimed is also excessive.

4

4. Basing on the above pleadings, the following issues were settled for trial:-

1) Whether the accident occurred due to rash and negligent driving of the Tata Sumo bearing No. AP 27 X 4024 by its driver?

2) Whether the petitioner is entitled to claim any compensation. If so, to what amount and from whom?

3) To what relief ?

5.On behalf of the petitioner, the petitioner and the Doctor who treated him gave evidence as PWs 1 and 2. For the petitioner Exs.

A1 to A10 documents are marked. No evidence is adduced on behalf of the contesting 3rd respondent.

6.R3 filed IA.No.424/12 under Section 170 of Motor Vehicles

Act to permit him to take all the defences available to R2 owner of the

Tata Sumo. That petition was allowed.

7. Heard.

8. ISSUE NO.1:

The evidence of the petitioner as PW1 is in support of the petition averments. It shows that on 22-06-2011, the petitioner along with Cherukuri Kasinath was going on the motorcycle bearing No. AP 7 K 5166 to Markapur on bank work, from a slate factory at Industrial Estate,

Markapur, at about 11-30 AM, that the petitioner was pillion rider and when the motorcycle reached the Tank Bund of Markapur, the Tata

Sumo bearing No. AP 27 X 4024 (hereinafter referred to as crime vehicle) came in opposite direction in a rash and negligent manner and dashed against the motorcycle of the petitioner, as a result of which, the accident occurred. The petitioner and the rider of the motorcycle received fracture injuries and they were shifted to Government Area 5 Hospital Markapur and from there the petitioner was shifted to Manipal

Super Specialty Hospital, Vijayawada where treatment was done to him as inpatient. The evidence of the petitioner further shows that a case was registered against the driver of the crime vehicle who is the 1st respondent, with regard to the accident and charge sheet was also filed by the police in Markapur Court. Through him Ex.A1, certified copy of FIR in Cr.No.125/11 and Ex.A2, certified copy of charge sheet in

CC.No.323/11 filed by Sub-Inspector of Police of Markapur Town Police

Station on the file of Additional Judicial First Class Magistrate, Markapur., after investigating into the said crime alleging that the 1st respondent is liable for punishment under Section 338 IPC, as the accident occurred due to his rash and negligent driving of the crime vehicle are marked.

The 3rd respondent's contention in the written statement is that the accident was not due to the rash and negligent driving of the driver of the crime vehicle i.e. the 1st respondent and that the accident was due to the negligence of the rider of the motorcycle. Except the said contents in the written statement of the 3rd respondent, there is no evidence adduced by the 3rd respondent either oral or documentary in support of the said contentions. There are no circumstances elicited in the cross examination of the petitioner by the 3rd respondent to disbelieve his evidence. In the absence of any evidence contra to the evidence lead by the petitioner, considering the evidence of the petitioner and the above said documents filed by him, I believe the petitioner's version and hold this issue in his favour.

9.ISSUES No. 2:

The petitioners contention and evidence is that he received grievous injuries in the accident. His evidence is that immediately after 6 the accident he was admitted in the Area Hospital Markapur and from there he was shifted to Manipal Super Specialty Hospital for better treatment. He deposed that he received fracture injuries to his right and left legs and also injury to the right eye. According to him operation was conducted to his right leg below the knee by inserting steel rods and operation was conducted to his left knee also by inserting steel plates.

Plastic surgery was done to his right eye. According to him he spent nearly Rs.4,00,000/- towards treatment and other expenses. He marked

Ex.A3 and A4, wound certificates issued by A.P. Vydya Vidhan Parishad,

Markapur and Manipal Super Specialty Hospital. He also filed Ex.A5, inpatient bill issued by Manipal Super Specialty Hospital. Ex.A10, discharge summary issued by the said hospital and Ex.A6 to A9, medical bills, X-rays, CT scan certificate and photos.

Supporting the petitioner there is the evidence of PW2, Dr.

Moporthi Srinivas who worked as Orthopedic Surgeon at Manipal Super

Specialty Hospital, Tadepalli of Guntur District. His evidence is that, the petitioner was admitted in their hospital on 23-06-2011 with 1) swelling over the right supra orbital region and swelling over the right maxilla.

2)cut lacerated wound over the left knee joint and multiple abrasions over the right knee joint. 3) swelling and deformation of the right leg.

4)cut lacerated wound over the right upper eyelid. According to him the said injuries were grievous in nature. His evidence is that surgery was done on 27-06-2011 for upper eyelid reconstruction by plastic surgeon, and also to the right and left legs, that the petitioner was inpatient in the hospital and was discharged on 02-07-2011. He sated that Ex.A5, inpatient bill and Ex.A10, discharge summary were issued by the

Manipal Super Specialty Hospital authorities. He further deposed that the petitioner requires Rs.50,000/- for removing steel rods which were 7 placed while conducting operations to his legs. According to him there will be partial to permanent disability to the petitioner in his daily activities in future.

There is no disability certificate issued by the said hospital regarding the disabilities of the petitioner. The evidence of PW2 in his cross examination shows that the fractures of the petitioner were united properly. So it cannot be said that there is disability to the petitioner because of the injuries received, as argued for the respondent. Unless there is disability certificate issued by the concerned authorities, it is not proper to consider that the petitioner is suffering from disability and is entitled for compensation towards it.

With regard to the expenses the petitioner deposed that he spent nearly Rs.4,00,000/-. Ex.A5 is inpatient bill of Manipal Super

Specialty Hospital which include operation theatre charges, visiting

Doctors fee and surgical medicines. It shows that the petitioner was asked to pay Rs.1,66,405/-. In view of the evidence of PW2, that the petitioner was admitted in the said hospital and was treated as inpatient from 23-06-2011 to 02-07-2011 and operations were conducted on him, it is to be believed that the petitioner spent the amount mentioned in the said bill towards his treatment in the said hospital. The petitioner is entitled to the said amount.

Apart from that amount the petitioner must have spent amounts for medicines. The petitioner filed some medical bills. They are not proved by examining the concerned. Though they are not proved, the petitioner can be awarded some amount towards medicines, X-ray charges, CT scan charges etc. Under that head, I find that it is proper to award Rs.40,000/-. Towards diet and attendant charges during the 8 period the petitioner was in the hospital and subsequently till he was completely cured, I award Rs.10,000/-. Towards travelling expenses, I award Rs.10,000/- to the petitioner. In view of the evidence of PW2, for removal of implants, I award Rs.40,000/- to the petitioner. The petitioner deposed that he was working as Accountant in a slate factory and was earning Rs.10,000/- per month. There is no reliable evidence in that regard. The petitioner must be in bed for nearly two months for his complete recovery as his two legs were operated, during which period he must have lost his income. As there is no proof of his income at

Rs.10,000/- per month, I find that it is proper to award Rs.10,000/- towards loss of income. Towards pain and suffering to the injuries received by the petitioner, I award Rs.40,000/-. Thus in total, I award

Rs.3,16,405/- to the petitioner i.e. Rs.1,66,405/- towards hospital charges, Rs.40,000/- towards medicines, X-ray charges, CT scan charges etc., Rs.10,000/- towards diet and attendant charges, Rs.10,000/- towards travelling expenses, Rs.40,000/- for removal of implants,

Rs.10,000/- towards loss of income and Rs.40,000/- towards pain and suffering.

According to the petitioner the 1st respondent was the driver of the crime vehicle at the time of accident and the 2nd respondent is its owner. The respondents 1 and 2 have not denied the same by contesting the petition. The petitioner states that the crime vehicle was insured with the 3rd respondent. The 3rd respondent vaguely stated in the written statement that the crime vehicle was not insured with it. But while cross examining the PW1, there is no suggestion given to him that the crime vehicle was not insured with it. There is no evidence on behalf of the 3rd respondent in that regard. So it is deemed that the 3rd respondent conceded that the crime vehicle was insured with it and that 9 the policy was in force. Otherwise, the 3rd respondent would have contested seriously by placing evidence before the Court. Since it is believed that the crime vehicle was insured with the 3rd respondent, the 3rd respondent and the respondents 1 and 2 who are the driver and owner of the crime vehicle are jointly and severally liable to pay the said compensation awarded to the petitioner.

10.Issue No.4:- In the result, the petition is partly allowed, with proportionate costs against the respondents as follows:

(a) The respondents 1 to 3 are jointly and severally liable to pay to the petitioner an amount of Rs.3,16,405/- towards compensation with interest thereon at 9% p.a. from the date of petition till realization. They are directed to pay the same within 30 days from the date of the award;

(b)On such deposit, the petitioner is permitted to withdraw

Rs.1,50,000/- and the remaining amount shall be kept in fixed deposit in any nationalized bank for a period of 3 years;

(c)The petitioner shall open SB account in any nationalized bank in his native place or nearby his native place and furnish the same to this Court, while withdrawing the compensation; and

(d)Advocate fee is fixed at Rs.3,000/-.

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

pronounced by me in open Court, this the 26 th day of June, 2013.

SPl. Judge for trial of offences U/SCs &SPl. Judge for trial of offences U/SCs & STS (POA) Act-cum-VII -Addl. District & STS (POA) Act-cum-VII -Addl. District &

Sessions Judge, Prakasam at Ongole. Sessions Judge, Prakasam at Ongole.

FAC/II ADDL. DISTRICT JUDGE,ONGOLE. FAC/II ADDL. DISTRICT JUDGE,ONGOLE.

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

Witnesses Examined

For Petitioners:-For Respondents:-

P.W.1: Kasula Venkata Kiran KumarNone P.W.2: Dr. M.Srinivas 10

Documents marked

For Petitioner:-

Ex.A.1/29.6.2011Certified copy of F.I.R. in Cr.No.125/11 of Markapur P.S.

Ex.A.2Certified copy of charge sheet in Cr.No.125/11 of Markapur

Ex.A.3/23.8.2010Certified copy of wound certificate issued by Doctor of A.P. Vydya Vidhan Parishad, Markapur to the petitioner

Ex.A4Certified copy of wound certificate issued by Doctor of Manipal Super Specialty Hospital, Tadepalli to the petitioner

Ex.A5Certified copy of inpatient bill for Rs.1,66,405/-

Ex.A6Bunch of Medical Bills

Ex.A7X-rays 8 in number

Ex.A8city scan and brain report

Ex.A9photos

Ex.A10Discharge summary issued at Manipal Super Speciality Hospital at Tadepalli

For Respondents:-

Nil

Spl. Judge-Cum-VII ADJSpl. Judge-Cum-VII ADJ FAC: II ADJ

IN THE COURT OF MOTOR ACCIDENTS CLAIMS TRIBUNAL :: ONGOLE

(BEFORE THE II-ADDITIONAL DISTRICT JUDGE, ONGOLE)

Present:- Kum. Y. Sujana Kumari, B.Sc.,B.L., Spl. Judge for trial of offences U/SCs & STS (POA) Act-Cum-VII Addl. District & Sessions Judge, Prakasam at Ongole FAC: II-Additional District Judge-Cum- Chairman Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Ongole.

Wednesday, the 26th day of June, 2013.

M.V.ORIGINAL PETITION NO.464/2011

Between:

Kasula Venkata Kiran Kumar, S/o Kannaiah, Age: 32 years, Residing near Vijaya Talkies, Markapur Town & Mandal, Prakasam District.… Petitioner

And

1. Sadam Kotaiah, S/o Venkataiah, Age: 32 years, Driver of the Tata Sumo, Tadivaripalli Village, Tarlupadu Mandal, Prakasam District

2. Parasaramuni Venkata Ramaiah, S/o Bhavani Sankara Sastry, Age: 50 years, Owner of the Tata Sumo bearing No. AP 27 X 4024, Markapur Town and Mandal, Prakasam District.

3. The Reliance General Insurance Ltd., Rep. by its Branch Manager, Ongole. Cover Note bearing No. 110000664073,

valid from 31.12.2010 to 30.12.2011... Respondents

This Petition is filed under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles

Act, claiming compensation of Rs.5,50,000/- towards the injuries received by the petitioner in motor vehicle accident.

Petition presented onPetition presented on: 02-12-2011: 02-12-2011

Petition filed onPetition filed on: 12-12-2011: 12-12-2011

Court fee: A Court fee of Rs.4,860/- is paid on Rs.5,50,000/-Court fee: A Court fee of Rs.4,860/- is paid on Rs.5,50,000/- under Rule 475 of AP MV Rules.under Rule 475 of AP MV Rules.

The Original Petition coming on 31-05-2013 for final hearing

before me in the presence of Sri M.Raghavendra Reddy, Advocate for

petitioner and Sri Kareti Srinivasulu, Advocate for respondent No.3 and respondents 1 and 2 remained exparte, this court doth order and decree:

1. That the petition be and the same is hereby allowed partly with proportionate costs against the respondents as follows:

2. That the respondents 1 to 3 are jointly and severally do pay to the petitioner an amount of Rs.3,16,405/- towards compensation with interest thereon at 9% p.a. from the date of petition till realization.

They are directed to pay the same within 30 days from the date of the award;

3. That on such deposit, the petitioner is permitted to withdraw

Rs.1,50,000/- and the remaining amount shall be kept in fixed deposit in any nationalized bank for a period of 3 years;

4. That the petitioner shall open SB account in any nationalized bank in his native place or nearby his native place and furnish the same to this Court, while withdrawing the compensation;

5. That Advocate fee is fixed at Rs.3,000/-; and

6. That the respondents do pay to the petitioner a sum of Rs. 6,726/- towards costs of the petition.

Given under my hand and the seal of the Court, this the 26Given under my hand and the seal of the Court, this the 26thth day of May, 2013. day of May, 2013.

SPl. Judge for trial of offences U/SCs &SPl. Judge for trial of offences U/SCs & STS (POA) Act-cum-VII -Addl. District & STS (POA) Act-cum-VII -Addl. District &

Sessions Judge, Prakasam at Ongole. Sessions Judge, Prakasam at Ongole.

FAC/II ADDL. DISTRICT JUDGE,ONGOLE. FAC/II ADDL. DISTRICT JUDGE,ONGOLE.

// TABLE OF COSTS// // TABLE OF COSTS//

FORFORFOR FOR

PETITIONERPETITIONERRESPONDENTSRESPONDENTS

VakalatVakalat2.002.00CM&FC not filed Court FeeCourt Fee2,524.002,524.00 Process Process 200.00200.00 Commissioner Fee (asCommissioner Fee (as1,000.001,000.00 claimed)claimed) Advocate FeeAdvocate Fee3,000.003,000.00 TOTALTOTAL6,726.006,726.00

VII A.D.J.VII A.D.J.

FAC/II A.D.J. FAC/II A.D.J.

1

IN THE COURT OF MOTOR ACCIDENTS CLAIMS TRIBUNAL :: ONGOLE

(BEFORE THE II-ADDITIONAL DISTRICT JUDGE, ONGOLE)

Present:- Kum. Y. Sujana Kumari, B.Sc.,B.L., Spl. Judge for trial of offences U/SCs & STS (POA) Act-Cum-VII Addl. District & Sessions Judge, Prakasam at Ongole FAC: II-Additional District Judge-Cum- Chairman Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Ongole.

Friday, the 31st day of May, 2013.

M.V.ORIGINAL PETITION NO.179/2011

Between:

1. Pilli Mariyamma, W/o Late Ankalaiah @ Ankalu, 34 years.

2. Pilli Shyam Babu, S/o Late Ankalaiah @ Ankalu, 20 years.

3. Pilli Kavitha, D/o Late Ankalaiah @ Ankalu, 19 years.

All are R/o Birudula Narava Village, Thippayapalem Post, Markapur Mandal, Prakasam District. … Petitioners

And

1. D.Madhusudan Rao, S/o Pedda Nagaiah, Fertilizer Dealer, R/o Nandyala Town & Mandal, Kurnool District.

(Owner of the lorry bearing No. AP 21 U 2329)

2. The Branch Manager, The New India Assurance Co. Ltd., Nandyala, Kurnool District.

Policy No. 61150231100200000923 Valid from 25.08.2010 to 24.08.2011

... Respondents

The Original Petition coming on 14.05.2013 for final hearing

before me in the presence of Sri M.Raghavendra Reddy, Advocate for

petitioners and Sri Subba Reddy Devarapalli, Advocate for respondent No.2 and respondent No.1 remained exparte and having stood over for consideration till this day, this Court made the following:-

A W A R D

1.This Petition is filed under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles

Act, claiming compensation of Rs.5,50,000/- towards the death of Pilli

Ankalaiah in motor vehicle accident, stating as follows:- 2

The deceased Pilli Ankalaiah @ Ankalu was hale and healthy prior to his death. He was doing agricultural mastry work and used to maintain mutta and was earning Rs.10,000/- per month. The petitioners who are his wife and children were depending on him. The deceased, along with his villagers Ambadipudi Naraih, Sriram Samuel went to

Birudula Narava on 28.10.2010 morning while returning from that village they boarded the lorry bearing No. AP 21 U 2329 at Gajulapalle at about 3 PM on that day. That lorry belongs to the 1st respondent. While the lorry was proceeding in Nallamalla forest after crossing ghat road, the driver of the lorry drove it in a rash and negligent manner with high speed and due to that high speed he could not control the lorry and dashed against a tree, as a result of which, the accident occurred and the deceased Pilli Ankalaiah @ Ankalu died on the spot and the other inmates received injuries. The driver of the lorry escaped by leaving the lorry. The injured were shifted to Government Hospital, Giddalur in an

Auto. The accident was reported by the eye witness Ambadipudi

Naraiah to the SHO Giddalur police station who registered it as a case in

Crime No.155/2010 under Section 304-A IPC. Due to the sudden death of the deceased the petitioners are suffering a lot. The 1st petitioner lost consortium and the petitioners 2 and 3 lost love and affection of their father. The 1st respondent being the owner of the lorry and the 2nd respondent being the insurance company with which the lorry was insured are jointly and severally liable to pay the compensation of

Rs.5,50,000/- claimed by the petitioners.

2.The 1st respondent remained exparte.

3

3.The 2nd respondent filed written statement contending as follows:

The entire case facts i.e., the FIR and charge sheet revealed that the deceased and one Ambadipudi Naraiah of Birudula Narava village of Markapur Mandal boarded the lorry bearing No. AP 21 U 2329 at Gajulapalli on 28.10.2010 while returning to Giddalur and so they were gratuitous passengers. They were not paid passengers even. The said lorry has no permit and insurance coverage. So the 2nd respondent is not liable to pay any compensation to the petitioners. The driver of the said lorry had no valid driving license. In any case, the compensation claimed at Rs.5,50,000/- is highly excessive and arbitrary and the interest claimed is also excessive. So the petition is to be dismissed.

4. Basing on the above pleadings, the following issues were settled for trial:-

1) Whether the accident dated 29.10.2010 which resulted in the death of the deceased Pilli Ankalaiah @ Ankalu, S/o Chennaiah, occurred due to the rash and negligent driving of the lorry bearing No. AP 21 U 2329 by its driver as alleged in the petition?

2) Whether the petitioners are entitled for compensation and if so, for what amount and from which of the respondents?

3) To what relief ?

5.On behalf of Petitioners, PWs 1 and 2 are examined and

Exs. A1 to A5 documents are marked. For the contesting 2nd respondent,

RW1 is examined and Exs. B1 to B3 documents are marked.

6.R2 filed IA.No.183/13 under Section 170 of Motor Vehicles

Act to permit him to take all the defences available to R1 owner of the lorry. That petition is allowed.

4

7. Heard both sides.

8. ISSUE NO.1:

It is not in dispute that the deceased Pilli Ankalaiah @

Ankalu died in the accident caused by the lorry bearing No. AP 21 U 2329 (hereinafter referred to as crime vehicle), while he was travelling in the said lorry, on 28.10.2010 at about 3 PM. According to the petitioners the accident was due to the rash and negligent driving of the driver of the crime vehicle because of which he lost control and dashed against a tree. To prove the said contention the 1st petitioner gave evidence as

PW1, who is the wife of the deceased. She is not the eye witness to the accident. So her evidence with regard to the manner in which the accident occurred is of no help. PW2 is the eye witness to the accident who was travelling along with the deceased in the crime vehicle at the time of accident. He is the person who gave report to the police also with regard to the accident. His evidence is that because of his rash and negligent driving of the lorry the driver lost control over it and near

Diguvametta village dashed it to a tree, as a result of which, the deceased died on the spot, that he and other persons in the lorry received injuries, that he gave report to the police with regard to the accident. No circumstances are elicited in his cross examination to disbelieve his evidence except suggesting that he did not board the vehicle on the date of accident. Unless he was travelling in the crime vehicle at the time of accident he need not depose in support of the petitioners and he need not give report to the police. The copy of the

FIR registered on the report of this witness is marked as Ex.A1. In that report also PW2 stated about the negligence of the driver of the crime 5 vehicle which resulted in the accident. The contents of the charge sheet filed by the police after investigating into the said case before the

Judicial First Class Magistrate, Giddalur, which is marked as Ex.A5 also show that because of the rash and negligent driving of the driver of the crime vehicle the accident occurred. The copy of the Motor Vehicles

Inspector report which is marked as EX.A4 shows that he opined that the accident was not due to any mechanical defects of the crime vehicle.

There is no contra evidence on behalf of the respondent. In such circumstances, considering the evidence of PW2, who is the eye witness and the above said documents, I believe the petitioners version and hold this issue in their favour.

9.ISSUES No. 2:

The petitioners state that the deceased was 38 years old by the time of his death and he was working as agricultural mastry and was earning Rs.10,000/- per month. There is no document showing the date of birth of the deceased. The inquest report of the deceased, copy of which is Ex.A2 and postmortem certificate of the deceased, copy of which is Ex.A3 shows the age of the deceased as 38 years. In the absence of any other reliable evidence, considering the said documents,

I believe that the deceased was 38 years old by the date of his death.

With regard to the income of the deceased there is no reliable oral or documentary evidence except the interested evidence of the PW1, who is the wife of the deceased. She stated that her husband was earning

Rs.10,000/- per month. As there is no proof regarding the income of the deceased, I find that it is proper to consider the earnings of the deceased at Rs.100/- per day and Rs.3,000/- per month, considering the agricultural coolie rates. Out of the said assessed earnings of the 6 deceased, 1/3rd has to be deducted towards personal expenses of the deceased as per schedule-II of Motor Vehicles Act. If deduction is made accordingly, the loss of dependency would be Rs.2,000/- per month and

Rs.24,000/- per annum. The suitable multiplier applicable for the persons aged between 35 and 40 is '16' as per Schedule-II of the Motor Vehicles

Act. If the loss of dependency arrived at Rs.24,000/- per annum, is multiplied with '16' it would come to Rs.3,84,000/-. The petitioners being the wife and children of the deceased are entitled to the same.

Apart from it, they are entitled to Rs.3,000/- towards funeral expenses and Rs.8,000/- towards loss of estate. The 1st petitioner being the wife of the deceased is entitled to Rs.5,000/- towards loss of consortium. Thus in total I award Rs.4,00,000/- as compensation to the petitioners.

According to the petitioners, the 1st respondent is the owner of the crime vehicle. It is not denied by the 1st respondent by contesting the petition. There is no dispute that the crime vehicle was insured with the 2nd respondent. The copy of the insurance policy is marked as Ex.B1 by RW1, employee of the of the 2nd respondent. It shows that the 1st respondent is the owner of the crime vehicle and that it was insured with the 2nd respondent, that the policy was in force from 25.08.2010 to 24.08.2011. The accident was on 29.10.2010. The argument for the respondent is that even if the policy was in force, the 2nd respondent is not liable to pay compensation, as the driver had no valid driving license and that the deceased was gratuitous passenger. It is argued that the policy does not cover the risk of the passengers in the crime vehicle i.e., lorry meant for carrying goods. The 2nd respondent marked Ex.B2 and

B3 through RW1. Ex.B2 is the certified copy of the extract of the driving license issued by licensing officer, Nandyal relating to the driver of the 7 crime vehicle by name Subbarayudu Annepogula. Ex.B3 is the xerox copy of the driving license issued to the driver. It shows that the driver had license to drive transport HTV, LMV and it was valid up to 19.08.2012. Ex.B2 shows that the transport validity is extended up to 19.08.2015. They show that the license was issued on 06.11.1984. So it can be said that by the date of the accident the driver had valid driving license.

The policy Ex.B1 shows that it was open policy and the number of passengers is '0' excluding the driver. From the evidence of the petitioners it can be understood that the deceased and PW2 and others boarded the lorry. As argued for the respondents, it can be said that they are unauthorized passengers who were travelling in a goods vehicle and that there is violation of the terms of the policy. As per the decisions of our High Court and the Supreme Court it can be said that the 2nd respondent is not liable to pay compensation. In the decision of our High Court reported in 2012 (6) ALT 369 between Murram

Mohan Vs. Gundumogula Venkata Rama Rao and another it was observed, placing reliance on the decisions of the Hon'ble Supreme

Court in2005 (2) ACJ 721 (SC) between National Insurance Company

Limited Vs. Bommithi Subbayamma and others and 2007 (1) DT 387 between New India Assurance Company Limited and Vedwati & others , that the insurance company is not liable to pay any compensation towards the claim of gratuitous passengers. In another decision of our

High Court reported in 2006 ACJ page No.2098 between Vachala and others Vs. V.R.Kumar and another it was observed that, when carrying passengers in goods vehicle is not allowed, Insurance company is not liable to pay compensation. In view of the observations in the 8 above said decisions, I find that the 2nd respondent is not liable to pay compensation as the deceased was unauthorized and gratuitous passenger in the crime vehicle.

Since it is found that the accident was due to the negligent driving of the crime vehicle belonging to the 1st respondent, the 1st respondent being its owner is liable to pay the above said compensation awarded, to the petitioners. I hold this issue accordingly.

10.Issue No.4:-In the result, the petition is partly allowed, with proportionate costs against the 1st respondent as follows:

(a) The 1st respondent is liable to pay to the petitioners an amount of Rs.4,00,000/- towards compensation with interest thereon at 9% p.a. from the date of petition till realization. They are directed to pay the same within 30 days from the date of the award;

(b)On such deposit, the 1st petitioner is entitled to Rs.2,00,000/- and she is permitted to withdraw Rs.1,00,000/- and the remaining amount shall be kept in fixed deposit in any nationalized bank for a period of 3 years;

(c)The petitioners 2 and 3 are entitled to Rs.1,00,000/- each and they are permitted to withdraw Rs.50,000/- each and the remaining amount shall be kept in fixed deposit in any nationalized bank for a period of 3 years;

(d)The petitioners shall open SB account in any nationalized bank in their native place or nearby their native place and furnish the same to this Court, while withdrawing the compensation;

(e)The petition against the 2nd respondent is dismissed; and 9

(f)Advocate fee is fixed at Rs.4,000/-.

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

pronounced by me in open Court, this the 31 st day of May, 2013.

SPl. Judge for trial of offences U/SCs & STS (POA) Act-cum-VII -Addl. District &

Sessions Judge, Prakasam at Ongole.

FAC/II ADDL. DISTRICT JUDGE,ONGOLE.

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

Witnesses Examined

For Petitioners:-For Respondents:-

P.W.1: Pilli MariyammaR.W.1: Ch.Ramabau P.W.2: Ambadipudi Naraiah

Documents marked

For Petitioner:-

Ex.A.1/28.10.2010Certified copy of F.I.R. in Cr.No.155/10 of Giddalur P.S.

Ex.A.2/29.10.2010Certified copy of Inquest Report over the dead body of Pilli Ankalaiah @ Ankalu

Ex.A.3/29.10.2010Certified copy of Post Mortem certificate over the dead body of Pilli Ankalaiah @ Ankalu

Ex.A.4Certified copy of Motor Vehicles Inspector in Cr.No.155/10 of Giddalur P.S.

Ex.A.5Certified copy of charge sheet in Cr.No.155/10 of Giddalur P.S.

For Respondents:-

Ex.B1 Attested xerox copy of certificate-cum-policy schedule of D.Madhusudhana Rao at New India Assurance company

Ex.B2/16.11.84 Attested copy of grant of issue of driving license of A.Subbarayudu

Ex.B3 True copy of Driving license card

Spl. Judge-Cum-VII A.D.J. FAC/II A.D.J.

IN THE COURT OF MOTOR ACCIDENTS CLAIMS TRIBUNAL :: ONGOLE

(BEFORE THE II-ADDITIONAL DISTRICT JUDGE, ONGOLE)

Present:- Kum. Y. Sujana Kumari, B.Sc.,B.L., Spl. Judge for trial of offences U/SCs & STS (POA) Act-Cum-VII Addl. District & Sessions Judge, Prakasam at Ongole FAC: II-Additional District Judge-Cum- Chairman Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Ongole.

Friday, the 31st day of May, 2013.

M.V.ORIGINAL PETITION NO.179/2011

Between:

1. Pilli Mariyamma, W/o Late Ankalaiah @ Ankalu, 34 years.

2. Pilli Shyam Babu, S/o Late Ankalaiah @ Ankalu, 20 years.

3. Pilli Kavitha, D/o Late Ankalaiah @ Ankalu, 19 years.

All are R/o Birudula Narava Village, Thippayapalem Post, Markapur Mandal, Prakasam District. … Petitioners

And

1. D.Madhusudan Rao, S/o Pedda Nagaiah, Fertilizer Dealer, R/o Nandyala Town & Mandal, Kurnool District.

(Owner of the lorry bearing No. AP 21 U 2329)

2. The Branch Manager, The New India Assurance Co. Ltd., Nandyala, Kurnool District.

Policy No. 61150231100200000923 Valid from 25.08.2010 to 24.08.2011

... Respondents

This Petition is filed under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, claiming compensation of Rs.5,50,000/- towards the death of Pilli Ankalaiah in motor vehicle accident.

Petition presented onPetition presented on: 26.03.2011: 26.03.2011 Petition filed onPetition filed on: 29-04-2011: 29-04-2011

Court fee: A Court fee of Rs.4,860/- is paid on Rs.5,50,000/-Court fee: A Court fee of Rs.4,860/- is paid on Rs.5,50,000/- under Rule 475 of AP MV Rules.under Rule 475 of AP MV Rules.

The Original Petition coming on 14.05.2013 for final hearing

before me in the presence of Sri M.Raghavendra Reddy, Advocate for

petitioners and Sri Subba Reddy Devarapalli, Advocate for respondent No.2 and respondent No.1 remained exparte, this court doth order and decree:

1. That the petition be and the same is hereby allowed partly with proportionate costs against the 1st respondent;

2. That the 1st respondent do pay to the petitioners an amount of

Rs.4,00,000/- towards compensation with interest thereon at 9% p.a. from the date of petition till realization. He is directed to pay the same within 30 days from the date of the award;

3. That on such deposit, the 1st petitioner is entitled to Rs.2,00,000/- and she is permitted to withdraw Rs.1,00,000/- and the remaining amount shall be kept in fixed deposit in any nationalized bank for a period of 3 years;

4. That the petitioners 2 and 3 are entitled to Rs.1,00,000/- each and they are permitted to withdraw Rs.50,000/- each and the remaining amount shall be kept in fixed deposit in any nationalized bank for a period of 3 years;

5. That the petitioners shall open SB account in any nationalized bank in their native place or nearby their native place and furnish the same to this Court, while withdrawing the compensation;

6. That the petition against the 2nd respondent is dismissed;

7. That Advocate fee is fixed at Rs.4,000/-; and

8. That the respondents do pay to the petitioners a sum of Rs.7,512/- towards costs of the petition..

Given under my hand and the seal of the Court, this the 31Given under my hand and the seal of the Court, this the 31stst day of May, 2013. day of May, 2013.

SPl. Judge for trial of offences U/SCs &SPl. Judge for trial of offences U/SCs & STS (POA) Act-cum-VII -Addl. District & STS (POA) Act-cum-VII -Addl. District &

Sessions Judge, Prakasam at Ongole. Sessions Judge, Prakasam at Ongole.

FAC/II ADDL. DISTRICT JUDGE,ONGOLE.FAC/II ADDL. DISTRICT JUDGE,ONGOLE.

// TABLE OF COSTS// // TABLE OF COSTS//

FORFORFOR FOR

PETITIONERSPETITIONERSRESPONDENTSRESPONDENTS

VakalatVakalat2.002.00CM&FC not filed Court FeeCourt Fee3360.003360.00 Process Process 150.00150.00 Advocate FeeAdvocate Fee4000.004000.00 TOTALTOTAL7512.007512.00

Spl. Judge-Cum-VII ADJSpl. Judge-Cum-VII ADJ FAC: II ADJ

1

IN THE COURT OF MOTOR ACCIDENTS CLAIMS TRIBUNAL :: ONGOLE

(BEFORE THE II-ADDITIONAL DISTRICT JUDGE, ONGOLE)

Present:- Kum. Y. Sujana Kumari, B.Sc.,B.L., VII-Additional District Judge-Cum- Chairman Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Ongole.

Tuesday, the 14th day of May, 2013.

M.V.ORIGINAL PETITION NO.429/2011

Between:

Kaki Jyothi, W/o Sivaramaiah, Hindu, 25 years, Coolie, R/o Sarvereddypalem Village, Ongole Mandal, Prakasam District.… Petitioner

And

1. Seelam Venkata Krishnarao, S/o Venkateswarlu, Hindu, 26 years, R/o Alakurapadu Village, Tangutur Mandal. (Driver of the car bearing No. AP 26 AJ 1044)

2. Siri Gold Farms & Estates (P) Ltd, Represented by Prop. Vela Sundaram, II Floor, Pavanputra Enclaves, G.N.T.Road, Nellore. (Owner of the car bearing No. AP 26 AJ 1044)

3. United India Insurance Company Limited, Represented by its Branch Manager, Trunk Road, Birudaraju Towers, Trunk Road, Ongole.

(Policy No. 151282/31/10/01/00000433 Valid from 19-10-2010 to 18-10-2011

... Respondents

The Original Petition coming on 10.05.2013 for final hearing

before me in the presence of Sri S.Brahmaiah, Advocate for petitioner,

Sri Y.Srinivasa Rao, Advocate for respondents 1 and 2 and Sri K.Babu Rao, Advocate for respondent No.3 and having stood over for consideration till this day, this Court made the following:-

A W A R D

1.This Petition is filed under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles

Act, claiming compensation of Rs.1,00,000/- towards the injuries received by the petitioner in motor vehicle accident, stating as follows:- 2

The petitioner is a resident of Sarvereddypalem village and she is a coolie earning Rs.3,000/- per month. On 29.07.2011, she went to Yedugundlapadu. In the evening at about 5.30 PM, she came to the center near Malapalli of Yedugundlapadu, and waiting for a bus to go to her village. At that time, the driver of the car bearing No. AP 26 AJ 1044 drove it in high speed in rash and negligent manner, while proceeding towards Ongole, and hit the petitioner, as a result of which, the petitioner fell on the road and received injuries all over her body. A case was registered in Cr.No.113/11 under Section 337 IPC in Maddipadu P.S.

against the driver of the car, who is the 1st respondent. Immediately after the accident the petitioner was brought to Ongole and was admitted in government hospital, she was treated there. She also took treatment in private nursing homes and spent altogether Rs.30,000/- towards medical expenses. She suffered much mental agony and loss due to the injuries received. She is not able to attend her routine work.

Hence she claimed compensation of Rs.1,00,000/- from the respondents 1 to 3 who are the driver, owner and insurance company of the said car, jointly and severally.

2.The 2nd respondent filed written statement and the 1st respondent filed memo adopting the written statement filed by the 2nd respondent. The case of the respondents 1 and 2 is as follows:

There was no mistake on the part of the driver of the car. It was only because of the mistake of the petitioner, the accident occurred.

The driver of the car never drove it in high speed and in rash and negligent manner. He has valid driving license and the car was insured with the 3rd respondent, and the policy was in force. So the 3rd respondent is responsible to pay the claimed amount. The petitioner 3 received only minor injuries, there was no permanent disability. Hence the petition is to be dismissed.

3. The 3rd respondent filed counter stating as follows:

The matter of accident was not reported by the insured to the 3rd respondent in collusion with the petitioner, to cause loss to it.

The driver of the car i.e., the 1st respondent was not having any type of valid subsisting driving license. Thus the 2nd respondent violated the terms and conditions of the policy and handed over the vehicle to the 1st respondent who had no valid driving license. It is false to state that the accident was due to the negligent driving of the car by its driver. The petitioner suddenly crossed the road without observing the vehicular traffic and so the accident took place. The petitioner received only simple injuries and the injuries are healed. She did not spend any amount towards her treatment, as she was treated in government hospital free of cost. In any case, the compensation claimed by the petitioner at Rs.1,00,000/- is excessive and the interest claimed is also excessive. Hence the petition is liable to be dismissed.

4. Basing on the above pleadings, the following issues were settled for trial:-

1) Whether the petitioner received injuries in the accident caused by the car bearing No. AP 26 AJ 1044 at about 5.30 PM near Malapalli Yedugundlapadu village, Maddipadu Mandal due to the rash and negligent driving of the 1 st respondent?

2) Whether the petitioner is entitled to claim compensation. If so, from whom and to what extent?

3) To what relief ?

4

5.On behalf of the petitioner, PWs 1 to 3 are examined and

Exs.A1 to A22 documents are marked. No oral evidence is adduced by the respondents. The 3rd respondent marked the copy of insurance policy, as Ex.B1, by consent.

6.R3 filed IA.No.208/13 under Section 170 of Motor Vehicles

Act to permit him to take all the defences available to R2 owner of the car. That petition was allowed.

7. Heard both sides.

8.ISSUE NO.1:

The evidence of the petitioner is in support of the petition allegations. She deposed that on 29-07-2011 at about 5.30 PM, she was waiting for bus at Yedugundlapadu center, at which time the car bearing

No. AP 26 AJ 1044 (hereinafter referred to as crime vehicle) driven by the 1st respondent in a rash and negligent manner, while proceeding towards Ongole, hit her, as a result of which, she fell on the road and received injuries all over her body, that she received injuries to the right side of head, right side ribs, right thigh and left hand fingers, that a case was registered in Cr.No.113/11 under Section 337 IPC in Maddipadu police station. Her evidence is that, she was admitted in government hospital, and took treatment in private nursing home also. She marked

Ex.A1, certified copy of FIR registered in the said crime and Ex.A2, certified copy of wound certificate issued by the Doctor in government hospital, Ongole who is examined as PW3. PW3 deposed that he examined PW1 on 29.07.2011 at 6.30 PM and issued wound certificate relating to the injuries found. PW1 also filed certified copy of charge sheet marked as Ex.A3 in C.C.No.123/11 on the file of Special Mobile 5

Court, Ongole filed against the 1st respondent, alleging that because of his rash and negligent driving the accident occurred and that he is liable for punishment under Section 338 IPC. In the cross examination of PW1, except suggesting that the accident was due to her negligence only, nothing could be elicited to disbelieve her evidence. There is no evidence supporting the respondents version. In such circumstances, considering the evidence of PW1, who is the injured in the accident, and the above said documents, I believe the petitioner's version and hold this issue in her favour.

8.ISSUES No. 2:

The petitioner's evidence is that immediately after the accident she was admitted in government hospital, Ongole and that she also took treatment in a private nursing home, that she was in the hospital as inpatient as she received grievous injuries. She stated that she incurred Rs.30,000/- towards medical and other expenses, that she is not able to attend her routine work because of the injuries received and that she lost her earning power and claimed Rs.1,00,000/- towards compensation.

PW3 is the Doctor who examined her in RIMS hospital,

Ongole. His evidence is that at 6.30 PM on 27.09.2011, he examined

PW1 and found fresh 1 x ½ inches bone deep laceration of right parital region and a fresh 3 x 1 inches contusion of left hip, that X-rays were taken and X-ray pelvis AP view fracture inferior pubic ramus and displacement of bony fragment. In the wound certificate issued by him

Ex.A2, he opined that the injury No.1 was simple and injury No.2 was grievous. The said evidence of PW3 supports the petitioner's version, 6 that she received injuries in the said accident, out of which one is simple and the other is grievous. PW3 did not find injuries on the head, right ribs of PW1 as deposed by her.

The petitioner examined PW2, Dr. K.Siva Prasad Raju who deposed that on 01.08.2011 at about 1.50 PM, he examined the petitioner and found injuries. The injuries observed by him as per the deposition are nothing but the injuries mentioned in the wound certificate issued by PW3, which is Ex.A2. It is not known as to why the petitioner examined this Doctor when she did not depose, that she took treatment in the hospital of this Doctor. This Doctor deposed that he issued medical prescriptions Ex.A4 to Ex.A22 and that the petitioner was inpatient in the hospital from 01.08.2011 to 13.08.2011 and that she spent total expenditure of Rs.15,000/- to Rs.20,000/-. When the petitioner has not specifically stated that she was admitted in the hospital of this Doctor and that she was inpatient for the said period deposed by the Doctor, and when there is no documentary proof to show that the petitioner was admitted in the hospital of PW2, it is not proper to believe that the petitioner was inpatient in the hospital of PW2. The prescriptions said to be issued by PW2 show that PW2 is a Consultant

Physician in Sri Datta Sai Nursing Home, Ongole. If the petitioner was admitted in the said hospital certainly there will be record to show that she was inpatient for certain period. Though PW2 deposed that he issued the prescriptions, the bills showing the purchase of medicines filed by the petitioner cannot be considered without the evidence of the person who issued them. As argued for the respondent when the petitioner has not specifically stated that she was treated in the hospital of PW2, that too as inpatient, it is not proper to consider and believe that 7 the petitioner spent the amounts mentioned in the bills for her treatment. As PW1 was taken to the government hospital and was examined by PW3 who issued wound certificate, it can be believed that she was treated in government hospital for the injuries received by her for which she might not have spent any amount, as argued for the respondent. Considering the injuries received by the petitioner, out of which one is grievous, I find that the petitioner can be awarded compensation to the pain and suffering I award Rs.25,000/- to the petitioner under that head. As it is not proved by the petitioner properly, that she was inpatient, I am not awarding any compensation towards loss of earnings etc.

It is not in dispute that the 1st respondent was the driver of the crime vehicle and the 2nd respondent was the owner of the crime vehicle at the time of accident. It is admitted that the crime vehicle was insured with the 3rd respondent. The copy of the insurance policy marked as Ex.B1 filed by the 3rd respondent shows that it was in force from 19.10.2010 to 18.10.2011. The accident was on 29.07.2011. So the policy was in force by the date of accident and the 3rd respondent is liable to indemnify the owner, the 2nd respondent. Hence I find that the 1st respondent being the driver, 2nd respondent being the owner and 3rd respondent being the insurance company of the crime vehicle are jointly and severally liable to pay the said compensation to the petitioner. I hold this issue accordingly in favour of the petitioner.

9.Issue No.3:- In the result, the petition is partly allowed, with proportionate costs against the respondents as follows:

8

(a) The respondents 1 to 3 are jointly and severally liable to pay to the petitioner an amount of Rs.25,000/- towards compensation with interest thereon at 9% p.a. from the date of petition till realization.

They are directed to pay the same within 30 days from the date of the award;

(b)On such deposit, the petitioner is permitted to withdraw the entire compensation awarded to her;

(c)The petitioner shall open SB account in any nationalized bank in her native place or nearby her native place and furnish the same to this Court, while withdrawing the compensation;

(d)Advocate fee is fixed at Rs.1,000/-.

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

pronounced by me in open Court, this the 14 th day of May, 2013.

CHAIRMAN, M.A.C.T.-cum-

VII ADDL. DISTRICT JUDGE, ONGOLE.

FAC/II ADDL. DISTRICT JUDGE,ONGOLE.

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

Witnesses Examined

For Petitioners:-For Respondents:-

P.W.1: Kaki JyothiNone P.W.2: Dr. K.Siva Prasad Raju P.W.3: Dr. M.Ramachandra Rao

Documents marked

For Petitioner:-

Ex.A.1/30.7.2011Certified copy of F.I.R. in Cr.No.113/11 of Maddipadu P.S.

Ex.A.2/29.7.2011Certified copy of wound certificate issued by Asst. Civil Surgeon, Government hospital, Ongole

Ex.A.3Certified copy of charge sheet in Cr.No.113/11 of Maddipadu P.S.

Ex.A.4/1.8.2011Medical prescription and bill for Rs.181/- given at Sri Rajeswari Medical Shop at Ongole to K.Jyothi

Ex.A.5/2.8.2011Medical prescription and bill for Rs.430/- given at Sri Rajeswari Medical Shop at Ongole to K.Jyothi

Ex.A.6Medical prescription and bill for Rs.469/- given at Sri Rajeswari Medical Shop at Ongole to K.Jyothi 9

Ex.A.7/3.8.2011Cash receipt for Rs.1,500/- issued at Ongole CT Scan Centre to K.Jyothi

Ex.A.8/3.8.2011Medical prescription and bill for Rs.338/- given at Sri Rajeswari Medical Shop at Ongole to K.Jyothi

Ex.A.9/3.8.2011Medical prescription and bill for Rs.219/- given at Sri Rajeswari Medical Shop at Ongole to K.Jyothi

Ex.A.10/4.8.2011Medical prescription and bill for Rs.484/- given at Sri Rajeswari Medical Shop at Ongole to K.Jyothi

Ex.A.11/5.8.2011Medical prescription and bill for Rs.452/- given at Sri Rajeswari Medical Shop at Ongole to K.Jyothi

Ex.A.12/6.8.2011Medical prescription and bill for Rs.297/- given at Sri Rajeswari Medical Shop at Ongole to K.Jyothi

Ex.A.13/7.8.2011Medical prescription and bill for Rs.459/- given at Sri Rajeswari Medical Shop at Ongole to K.Jyothi

Ex.A.14/8.8.2011Medical prescription and bill for Rs.1082/- given at Sri Rajeswari Medical Shop at Ongole to K.Jyothi

Ex.A.15/8.8.2011Medical prescription and bill for Rs.392/- given at Sri Rajeswari Medical Shop at Ongole to K.Jyothi

Ex.A.16/9.8.2011Medical prescription and bill for Rs.499/- given at Sri Rajeswari Medical Shop at Ongole to K.Jyothi

Ex.A.17/9.8.2011Medical prescription and bill for Rs.465/- given at Sri Rajeswari Medical Shop at Ongole to K.Jyothi

Ex.A.18/10.8.2011Medical prescription and bill for Rs.1,023/- given at Sri Rajeswari Medical Shop at Ongole to K.Jyothi

Ex.A.19/11.8.2011Medical prescription and bill for Rs.1,025/- given at Sri Rajeswari Medical Shop at Ongole to K.Jyothi

Ex.A.20/12.8.2011Medical prescription and bill for Rs.1,010/- given at Sri Rajeswari Medical Shop at Ongole to K.Jyothi

Ex.A.21/13.8.2011Medical prescription and bill for Rs.1,060/- given at Sri Rajeswari Medical Shop at Ongole to K.Jyothi

Ex.A.22/18.8.2011Copy of the bill/receipt for Rs.4,000/- issued at Sneha Diagnostics, Ongole to K.Jyothi

For Respondents:-

Ex.B1 Attested xerox copy of policy at United India Insurance Company of M/s Siri Gold Farms & Estates (P) Ltd represented by Vela Sundaram

VII A.D.J.

FAC/II A.D.J.

IN THE COURT OF MOTOR ACCIDENTS CLAIMS TRIBUNAL :: ONGOLE

(BEFORE THE II-ADDITIONAL DISTRICT JUDGE, ONGOLE)

Present:- Kum. Y. Sujana Kumari, B.Sc.,B.L., VII-Additional District Judge-Cum- Chairman Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Ongole.

Tuesday, the 14th day of May, 2013.

M.V.ORIGINAL PETITION NO.429/2011

Between:

Kaki Jyothi, W/o Sivaramaiah, Hindu, 25 years, Coolie, R/o Sarvereddypalem Village, Ongole Mandal, Prakasam District.… Petitioner

And

1. Seelam Venkata Krishnarao, S/o Venkateswarlu, Hindu, 26 years, R/o Alakurapadu Village, Tangutur Mandal. (Driver of the car bearing No. AP 26 AJ 1044)

2. Siri Gold Farms & Estates (P) Ltd, Represented by Prop. Vela Sundaram, II Floor, Pavanputra Enclaves, G.N.T.Road, Nellore. (Owner of the car bearing No. AP 26 AJ 1044)

3. United India Insurance Company Limited, Represented by its Branch Manager, Trunk Road, Birudaraju Towers, Trunk Road, Ongole.

(Policy No. 151282/31/10/01/00000433 Valid from 19-10-2010 to 18-10-2011

... Respondents

This Petition is filed under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles

Act, claiming compensation of Rs.1,00,000/- towards the injuries received by the petitioner in motor vehicle accident.

Petition presented onPetition presented on: 10-11-2011: 10-11-2011

Petition filed onPetition filed on: 23-11-2011: 23-11-2011

Court fee: A Court fee of Rs.360/- is paid on Rs.1,00,000/-Court fee: A Court fee of Rs.360/- is paid on Rs.1,00,000/- under Rule 475 of AP MV Rules.under Rule 475 of AP MV Rules.

The Original Petition coming on 10.05.2013 for final hearing

before me in the presence of Sri S.Brahmaiah, Advocate for petitioner,

Sri Y.Srinivasa Rao, Advocate for respondents 1 and 2 and Sri K.Babu

Rao, Advocate for respondent No.3, this court doth order and decree:

1. That the petition be and the same is hereby allowed partly with proportionate costs against the respondents as follows:

2. That the respondents 1 to 3 are jointly and severally do pay to the petitioner an amount of Rs.25,000/- towards compensation with interest thereon at 9% p.a. from the date of petition till realization.

They are directed to pay the same within 30 days from the date of the award;

3. That on such deposit, the petitioner is permitted to withdraw the entire compensation awarded to her;

4. That the petitioner shall open SB account in any nationalized bank in her native place or nearby her native place and furnish the same to this Court, while withdrawing the compensation;

5. That Advocate fee is fixed at Rs.1,000/-; and

6. That the respondents do pay to the petitioners a sum of Rs.2,202/- towards costs of the petition..

Given under my hand and the seal of the Court, this the 14Given under my hand and the seal of the Court, this the 14thth day of May, 2013. day of May, 2013.

CHAIRMAN, M.A.C.T.-cum-CHAIRMAN, M.A.C.T.-cum-

VII ADDL. DISTRICT JUDGE, ONGOLE.

FAC/II ADDL. DISTRICT JUDGE,ONGOLE. FAC/II ADDL. DISTRICT JUDGE,ONGOLE.

// TABLE OF COSTS// // TABLE OF COSTS//

FORFORFOR FOR

PETITIONERSPETITIONERSRESPONDENTSRESPONDENTS

VakalatVakalat2.002.00CM&FC not filed Court FeeCourt Fee50.0050.00 Process Process 150.00150.00 Commissioner FeeCommissioner Fee1000.001000.00 Advocate FeeAdvocate Fee1000.001000.00 TOTALTOTAL2202.002202.00

VII A.D.J.VII A.D.J.

FAC/II A.D.J. FAC/II A.D.J.