Smt A Bharathi

1

BEFORE THE JUDGE FAMILY COURT-MOTOR ACCIDENTS CLAIMS

TRIBUNAL -CUM- VII ADDITIONAL DISTRICT JUDGE : MEDAK AT

SANGAREDDY.

Present : SMT. A.BHARATHI,

Chairman, M.A.C.T. -cum- V Additional District Judge FAC Judge Family Court cum VII Addl. District Judge, Medak at Sangareddy.

THURSDAY THIS THE 29TH DAY OF JANUARY,2015.

M.V.O.P. No. 102 of 2013

Between:

1.Kalali Narsimha Goud,S/o Ganga Goud,aged 50 years, occ:Agri. 2.Smt.Kalali Nirmala,W/o Narsimha Goud,aged 40 years, occ:Household. Both native of Bairandibba village, Mandal Alladurg. Now R/o Sangareddy town, District Medak. ....Claimants A N D

1. K.Buchi Babu, S/o Narsimha Reddy,aged Major, occ:Business,owner of Passion Pro Motor Cycle bearing No.AP 36S 5505, R/o H.No.1-153, Ingurthy village, Mandal Kesamudram, District Warangal.

2. M/s National Insurance Company Ltd., though its Branch Manager, Sushiram Complex, NH Way No.9, Patancheru town, Medak District. Policy certificate No.35100731126201635774 valid from 24.09.2012 to 23.09.2013.

....Respondents.

This petition came up before me for final hearing in the presence of

Sri.B.Ravinder Raj Varma , Counsel for the Petitioners and Sri K.Prabhakar

Reddy, Counsel for the Respondent No.2 while Respondent No.1 remained exparte, upon perusing the material papers on record and having stood over for consideration to this day, this court delivered the following :-

O R D E R

This petition is filed U/Sec. 166 of Motor Vehicle Act, 1989, claiming compensation of Rs. 6,00,000/- along with costs and interest @ 18% p.a. on account of death of Kalali Srikanth Goud, in the Motor Vehicle Accident occurred on 16.01.2013 at 7.00 P.M., in the limits of Brahmanpally village . The 2

Petitioner Nos. 1 and 2 are parents of the deceased . The Respondent No. 1 is registered owner and Respondent No. 2 is insurer of the offending vehicle i.e.,

Passion Pro Motor Cycle bearing No. AP 36 S 5505 at the time of accident.

2. Brief averments of the petition are that :-

On 16.01.2013 while the deceased Srikanth Goud was proceeding on the Motor cycle bearing No.AP 36 S 5505 as pillion rider along with his friend

Arun Kumar Reddy from Jogipet towards Brahmanpally and at about 7.00

P.M., in the limits of Brahmanpally, rider of the Motor cycle drove it at high speed in a rash and negligent manner due to which the deceased fell down and received severe injuries. Immediately the deceased was shifted to

Government Hospital, Jogipet and from there he was referred to Gandhi

Hospital, Secunderabad, wherein he was succumbed to the injuries while undergoing treatment on 21.01.2013 at 10.05 P.M. The Police Jogipet registered the case in Cr.No.111 of 2012 under section 304 A of IPC against the rider of Passion Pro Motor Cycle bearing No.AP 36 S 5505 and investigated into.

At the time of accident, the deceased was aged about 20 years, hale and healthy and studying Degree and besides his studies, he was drawing salary of Rs.8,000/- per month by giving tuitions and contributing the same to their family maintenance . Due to sudden death of the deceased, the Claimants suffered much shock and mental agony as they lost love and affection and future support of the deceased. Though the loss caused to the Petitioners cannot be estimated and compensated in terms of money, they are claiming of

Rs. 6,00,000/- towards compensation along with costs and interest @ 18% p.a.

from the date of filing petition till the date of realization. Since the accident 3 occurred only due to the rash and negligent riding of Motor cycle bearing

No.AP 36 S 5505 its rider , the Respondent Nos. 1 and 2, being the registered owner and insurer of motor cycle are jointly and severally liable to pay compensation to the Petitioners.

3.The Respondent No. 1, registered owner of Passion Pro Motor cycle bearing No. AP 36 S 5505 remained exparte.

4.The Respondent No.2/Insurance Company filed counter, denying the allegations made in the petition with regard to the date, time, place, mode and manner of accident and involvement of Passion Pro Motor cycle bearing

No.AP 36 S 5505 and the Petitioners are put to strict proof of the same. It also denied the contention with regard to the age, health condition, income and avocation of the deceased at the time of accident and the Petitioners are put to strict proof of the same and the Respondent company does not admit that the driver of the crime vehicle was holding valid subsisting driving licence at the time of accident and the said vehicle was road worthy to ply and the owner of the crime vehicle has not paid any premium to cover the risk of pillion rider and deceased is not third party to the crime vehicle, as such the owner of the motor cycle has violated the conditions of the policy and claim of the Petitioners is highly excessive and exorbitant and prayed to dismiss the petition against this

Respondent with costs.

5.Basing on the above pleadings, my learned predecessor has framed the following issues for trial:-

i) Whether the alleged accident occurred due to the rash and negligent driving of Passion Pro Motor cycle bearing No.AP 26 S 5505 by its rider?

ii) Whether the petitioners are entitled for compensation, if so, to 4 what quantum and from whom ?

iii) To what relief ?

6. In order to prove the claim, PWs. 1 and 2 were examined and Exs. A1 to A10 were marked on behalf of the Petitioners. Ex.A1 is C.C of FIR and complaint with translation , Ex.A2 is C.C of scene of offence panchanama,

Ex.A3 is PME report, Ex.A4 is CC of MVI Report, Ex.A5 is Inquest

Panchanama, Ex.A6 is CC of accident information report, Ex.A7 is C.C. of

Charge sheet, Ex.A8 is SSC Marks memo(original), Ex.A9 is Intermediate

Marks Memo issued by Intermediate Board(Original) and Ex.A10 is Bonafide certificate of BA 1st year original. No oral evidence is adduced on behalf of

Respondents No.1 and 2 but Ex.B1 copy of Insurance policy was marked on behalf of R2 and it also filed a petition U/Sec.170 of M.V. Act and the same is allowed.

Issue No.1:-

7.In order to prove the rash and negligent driving of Passion Pro Motor

Cycle bearing No.AP 36 S 5505 by its rider, the Petitioner No. 1/Kalali

Narsimha Goud, father of deceased got examined himself as PW1, asserted on oath reiterating the facts as mentioned in the claim petition with regard to the date, time, place, mode and manner of accident and death of deceased in the said accident. In support of said contention, PW1 placed reliance upon the evidence of Pw.2 and documentary evidence i.e. Ex.A1 to A10 . During cross examination of Pw.1, nothing was elicited to discredit his evidence with regard to the factum of accident and death of deceased .Pw.2/ Chakali Mallesham friend of the deceased and eye witness to the accident . As seen from the evidence of Pw.2, it is clear that on 16.01.2013 evening at about 6.00 P.M., while he along with his friend P.Gopal , deceased Srikanth Goud and Arun 5 kumar Reddy were proceeding from Jogipet to Brahmanapally, by that time he was pillion rider on the vehicle of P.Gopal, while deceased Srikanth Goud was pillion rider of Passion Pro Motor cycle bearing No.AP 36 S 5505 the motor cycle of the deceased was slipped in the limits of Brahmanpally village due to high speed, rash and negligent driving and the deceased Srikanth Goud fell down and received severe injuries and immediately the deceased was shifted to Government Hospital, Jogipet and from there to Gandhi Hospital,

Secunderabad where the deceased was succumbed to the injuries while undergoing treatment on 21.01.2013 . The deceased Srikanth Goud was studying Degree at Jogipet and he was giving tuitions and earning Rs.8,000/- per month. During cross examination of Pw.2 he admitted that he did not witness the mode and manner of accident as they were proceeding ahead to the motor cycle bearing No.AP 36 S 5505..

8.As can be seen from documentary evidence i.e., Ex.A1/FIR and complaint with translation, Ex.A2/ Scene of offence Panchanama , Ex.A3/CC of

PME report, Ex.A4/MVI report, Ex.A5/CC of Inquest, Ex.A6/CC of Accident information report and Ex.A7/CC of Charge sheet they clearly supports the version of PW.1 and Pw.2 with regard to the factum of accident and death of the deceased in the said accident. Basing on the oral evidence of PW. 1 and

Pw.2 coupled with documentary evidence i.e., Exs. A1 to A6, I hold it is proved that on 16.01.2013 in the limits of Brahmanpally village, the deceased Srikanth goud, met with accident and sustained injuries and died while undergoing treatment due to the rash and negligent riding of Passion Pro Motor Cycle bearing No.AP 36S 5505 belongs to the Respondent No. 1. This issue is decided accordingly in favour of the petitioners.

6

Issue No. 2:-

9.Another contention of Petitioners is that at the time of accident, the deceased was aged about 20 years, hale and healthy and was earning

Rs.8,000/- per month by giving tuitions and contributing the same to the maintenance and welfare of his family. Due to sudden death of deceased, they are subjected to much shock & mental agony as they lost love and affection, future support apart from earnings of the deceased. In support of said contention, the petitioners placed reliance upon Ex.A8/SSC Marks memo,

Ex.A9 Marks memo issued by Intermediate Board and Ex.A9/Bonafied certificate issued by Nehru Memorial Government Degree College, Jogipet. In order to prove earnings of the deceased, the Petitioners did not produce any evidence . In the absence of reliable evidence with regard to actual income and avocation of the deceased,considering the fact that the deceased was

Degree 1st year student, I feel it would be just and reasonable to assess future income of the deceased @ Rs.5,000/- per month basing on minimum wage standards, which comes to Rs.60,000/-( Rs.5,000 x12) per annum. Since the deceased was un-married, half of the income is to be deducted towards his personal expenditure. Therefore net loss of contribution to the family comes to

Rs.30,000/- per annum. The learned Counsel for the Petitioners has submitted that though the deceased was unmarried, selection of multiplier is to be based on the age of the deceased and not on the basis of age of dependent and placed reliance upon the decision reported in 2012 (2) An.W.R. 291 (SC), in

Amrit Bhanu Shali and others v. National Insurance Com. Ltd. and others, it is held by the Hon'ble Supreme Court held that : “The selection of multiplier is to be based on the age of the deceased and not on the basis of age of the dependent. There may be a number of dependents of deceased whose age may be different and therefore age of dependents has no nexus with the 7 computation of compensation.” As per the evidence on record i.e. Exs. A3 and

A5, that age of deceased was shown as 20 years at the time of accident and the same was not in dispute and the same will be taken into consideration for relevant multiplier while computing net loss of dependency. As per Para No.

21 of the Authority reported in the case of “Sarla Verma Vs. Delhi Transport

Corporation” ( 2009 ACJ 1298), the relevant multiplier applicable is 18 for

the age group between 15 to 20 and 21 to 25 years. The net loss of contribution comes to Rs. 5,40,000/- (30,000 x 18).However, the Petitioners are entitled for a sum of Rs.25,000/- towards loss of love and affection,

Rs.15,000/- towards funeral expenses and last rites etc. Hence, the petitioners

No.1 and 2 who are parents of the deceased, are entitled for total compensation of Rs.5,80,000/- along with costs and interest @ 7.5% from the date of filing petition till the date of realization.

10.As already held under issue No. 1, it is proved that on 16.03.2013 at 7.00 P.M., the deceased Kalali Srikanth Goud met with accident and died due to the rash and negligent riding of Passion Pro Motor cycle bearing No.AP 36S 5505 by its rider. As seen from Ex.B1/copy of insurance policy (35100731126201635774 ) marked by consent to show that

Respondent No.1 is the registered owner and the Respondent No.2 is insurer of the Passion Pro Motor cycle bearing No. AP 36 S 5505 and the policy was in force as on the date of the accident. Therefore, Respondents Nos. 1 and 2, being the registered owner and insurer of the crime vehicle are jointly and severally liable to pay the above said compensation to the petitioners.

ISSUE No.3 :-

11.In the result, this petition is partly allowed, directing the Respondent

No.1 and 2 to pay the compensation of Rs.5,80,000/-(Rupees five lakhs eighty thousand only) along with proportionate costs and interest thereon @ 7.5% per 8 annum from the date of filing of petition till the date of realization to the claimants . The entire amount shall be deposited in the court within thirty-days from the date of order. On such deposit, the amount shall be apportioned among the petitioners No.1 and 2 in equal shares. On such deposit, the

Petitioners No.1 and 2 are at liberty to withdraw 50% each out of their respective shares and the remaining share amounts shall be kept in FDR in any Nationalized Bank for two years. Rest of the claims of the Petitioners is dismissed. Advocate fee is fixed at Rs.4,000/-.

Typed to my dictation by the Senior Assistant corrected and pronounced by me in the open Court on this the 29th day of January, 2015.

Judge Family Court cum

VII Additional District Judge, Medak at Sangareddy.

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

WITNESSES EXAMINED

For Petitioners For Respondent

PW1 K.Narsimha Goud Nil Pw.2 Chakali Mallesham.

EXHIBITS MARKED

For Petitioners :

1.Ex.A1/C.C of FIR and complaint with translation , 2.Ex.A2/ C.C of scene of offence panchanama, 3.Ex.A3/ PME report, 4.Ex.A4/CC of MVI Report,

5. Ex.A5/ Inquest Panchanama, 6.Ex.A6/CC of accident information report,

7. Ex.A7/ C.C. of Charge sheet, 8.Ex.A8/ SSC Marks memo(original), 9.Ex.A9/ Intermediate Marks Memo issued by Intermediate Boasrd(Original), Ex.A10/ Bonafide certificate of BA 1st year original

For Respondents:

Ex.B1 copy of the Insurance policy

Judge Family Court cum

VII Additional District Judge, Medak at Sangareddy.

9

1

BEFORE THE JUDGE FAMILY COURT-MOTOR ACCIDENTS CLAIMS

TRIBUNAL -CUM- VII ADDITIONAL DISTRICT JUDGE : MEDAK AT

SANGAREDDY.

Present : SMT. A.BHARATHI,

Chairman, M.A.C.T. -cum- V Additional District Judge FAC Judge Family Court cum VII Addl. District Judge, Medak at Sangareddy.

FRIDAY THIS THE 30TH DAY OF JANUARY,2015.

M.V.O.P. No. 58 of 2014

Between:

1. Kyasaram Narayana @ Satyanarayana,S/o Mallaiah,aged about 30 years, occ:Agri, R/o Nandikandi village, Sadasivpet Mandal, Medak Dist.

2. Smt.B.Sangamma W/o Narsimulu,aged about 32 years, occ:Coolie, R/o H.No.2-21, PO Borpatla, Palpanoor village, Hathnoora Mandal, Medak District ....Claimants A N D

1. M.Manohar Goud, S/o Chandra Goud,aged Major, occ:Business/Owner of vehicle AP 23 F 7328, R/o H.No.5-8- 124/124, Narayanareddy Colony, Sangareddy town, Medak Dist.

2. Kalali Yada Goud, S/o Veera Goud,aged about 36 years, caste:Goud, occ:Miller Driver and TVS Victor Motor cycle No.AP 23 F 7328,R/o Malapadu village, Now R/o H.N o.5-8-124/130, Narayanareddy colony, Sangareddy town, Medak District.

....Respondents.

This petition came up before me for final hearing in the presence of M/s

P.Veera Reddy, P.Bharathi and P.Vishnuvardhan Reddy, Counsels for the

Petitioners, while the Respondents remained exparte, upon perusing the material papers on record and having stood over for consideration to this day, this court delivered the following :-

O R D E R

This petition is filed U/Sec. 166 (1) (c) of Motor Vehicle Act, claiming compensation of Rs. 3,00,000/- along with costs and interest @ 18% on account of death of Smt.K.Manemma, W/o Mallaiah, in the Motor Vehicle

Accident occurred at Nandikandi village on 28.04.2010 at about 7.30 P.M. The 2

Petitioners No. 1 and 2 are children of the deceased. The Respondent No.1 is registered owner and Respondent No.2 driver of TVS Victor Motor cycle No.AP 23 F 7328.

2. Brief averments of the petition are that:

On 28.04.2010 the deceased Manemma, W/o Mallaiah along with one

Satyamma W/o Anjaiah went to Sadasivpet market to fetch vegetables and goods and returned in auto at about 7.30 P.M. , to Nandikandi and got down from the auto. When they were crossing the road in front of SC Community

Hall , one TVS Voctor Motor cycle No.AP 23 F 7328 driven by its driver in a rash and negligent manner, dashed the deceased and another woman, due to which the deceased died on the spot. On receipt of complaint, the Police

Sadasivpet registered the case in Cr.No. 88/2010, U/Sec.337 and 304-A of IPC and Section 181 and 196 of MV Act against the driver of the Motor cycle.

At the time of accident, the deceased was aged about 50 years, hale and healthy and she was earning Rs.120/- per day and Rs.3,600/- per annum by doing coolie work and contributing the same to the maintenance of his family.

Due to untimely death of deceased, the Claimants are subjected to much shock and mental agony as they lost his love and affection and future support.

The Respondent No.1, who is the owner of motor cycle, gave his motor cycle to the person who drove the vehicle at the time of accident and therefore R1 and driver of the vehicle /R2 are jointly and severally liable to pay the compensation.

The Respondent No.1 is having lands in Sy.No.198,125,167 and 128 and extent isRs.2.17 Gts in four survey numbers at Malapadu village, Sadasivpet mandal, Medak District. R1 is also having a house bearing No.5-8-1247-132 B at Narayana Reddy colony and as such both the Respondents are jointly and severally liable to pay compensation of Rs.3,00,000/- along with costs and 3 interest @ 18% per annum from the date of filing of petition till the date of realization.

3. Though summons served on the Respondents Nos-1 and 2, they remained exparte.

4. In order to prove the claim, Pw.1 and 2 are examined and Exs.A-1 to A-6 were marked on behalf of the Claimants. Ex.A1 is C.C of FIR and complaint,

Ex.A2 is Charge sheet, Ex.A3 is scene of offence panchanama along with rough sketch, Ex.A4 is inquest report, Ex.A5 is PME report, and Ex.A6 is MVI report .

5. To prove the factum of accident and death of deceased, the claimant

No-1/Kyasaram Narayana who son of the deceased as Pw.1 filed his chief evidence in the form of affidavit, reiterating the facts with regard to the date, time, place, mode and manner of accident. as mentioned in the claim petition.

In support of said contention. PW1 placed reliance upon the evidence of Pw.2 and documentary evidence i.e. Ex.A1 to A6 . Pw.2/Kyasaram Ramulu, who is niece of the deceased and eye witness to the accident . As seen from the evidence of Pw.2 it is clear that on 28.04.2010 the deceased Manemma along with one Satyamma went to Sadasivpet market to fetch vegetables and goods and they returned in auto at about 7.30 P.M. to Nandikandi and when they were crossing the road in front of SC Community Hall, one TVS Victor Motor cycle

No.AP 23 F 7328 which was coming from Sangareddy towards Sadasivpet side driven by its driver in a rash and negligent manner, dashed the deceased and another women,due to which the deceased died on the spot and the accident occurred due to the negligence and fault of the driver of the motor cycle only.

No rebuttal evidence has been adduced on behalf of the Respondents.

6.As can be seen from documentary evidence i.e., Ex.A1/FIR and 4 complaint , Ex.A2/ Charge sheet, Ex.A3/Scene of offence Panchanama along with rough sketch, Ex.A4/ Inquest, Ex.A5/CC of PME report, Ex.A6/MVI report, clearly supports the version of PWs.1 and 2 with regard to the factum of accident and death of the deceased in the said accident. Basing on the oral evidence of PW. 1 and Pw.2 coupled with documentary evidence i.e., Exs. A1 to A6, I hold it is proved that on 28.04.2010 infront of SC Community Hall the deceased Manemma met with accident and died on the spot due to rash and negligent driving of TVS Voctor Motor cycle No.AP 23 F 7328 belongs to the

Respondent No. 1. Therefore this issue is decided in favour of the Petitioners.

7.Another contention of Petitioners is that at the time of accident, the deceased was aged about 50 years, hale and healthy and was earning

Rs.2,600/- by doing labour work and contributing the same to the maintenance and welfare of his family. Due to sudden death of deceased, they are subjected to much shock & mental agony as they lost love and affection, future support apart from earnings of the deceased. In order to prove earnings of the deceased, the Petitioners did not produce any evidence. The Apex Court in the landmark judgment “Latha Wadhva Vs. State of Bihar reported in (AIR 2001 (SC) 3218 )”, assessed average earnings of a house wife @ Rs.3,000/- per month for the services rendered by her to the family. The learned counsel for the claimants has argued that assessment of compensation does not become just compensation since the contribution made by the wife and gracious services rendered by a mother to her family is invaluable and cannot be computed in terms of money and she will not work by the clock and she takes care of all the requirements of husband and children including cooking food, provides valuable guidance to the children for their future life. A House keeper or Maidservant can never be a substitute for a wife/mother who renders 5 selfless service to her husband and children. Therefore assessment of compensation should be objective and fair and he prayed to assess income of the deceased at Rs.3,600/- per month. In support of said contention, the learned counsel for the claimants placed reliance upon a decision reported in 2010(6) ALD 123(SC) in "Arun Kumar Agarwal and another Vs National

Insurance Insurance company limited and others reported in 2010(6) ALD 123 (SC), wherein the Apex court opined income of the deceased house wife should be @ Rs.5,000/- per month which is just and fair compensation . Basing on the guidelines mentioned in the aforementioned Judgment and considering the contention of the learned counsel for the claimants, I am of the considered opinion that average income of the deceased can be assessed at Rs. 3,500/- per month, which is just and fair in order to calculate net loss of dependency.

Them annual income of the deceased comes to Rs.42,000/-per annum. Since the dependents are two in the case on hand, 1/3rd of income is to be deducted towards personal expenditure of the deceased and her contribution to the family comes to Rs.28,000/- {42,000 – 14,000/-) (42,000 x 1/3 )} per annum. As per Ex.A3/inquest panchanama and Ex.A5/PME report, the age of the deceased was mentioned as 50 years as mentioned in the claim petition as well as Ex.A4/Inquest report and Ex.A5/PME report and the same was not in dispute. In order to calculate net loss of dependency, relevant multiplier applicable for the age group between 46-50 years is '13' as per Col.No. 4 of the table prepared by applying multiplier scale in Susamma Thomas, Trilok

Chandra and Charlie cases at Para No. 21 of the Authority reported in the case of “Sarla Verma Vs. Delhi Transport Corporation” (2009 ACJ 1298) .By applying multiplier 13, it comes to Rs. 3,64,000/- (28,000x13) towards net loss of contribution of the deceased to her family. In addition to that, the claimants are also entitled for a sum of Rs.10,000/- towards loss of love and affection and 6

Rs.10,000/- towards funeral expenses. Thus in all, the petitioners are entitled for a total sum of Rs.3,84,000/- (Rupees three lakhs eighty four thousand only) towards compensation under all heads. However, the petitioners have restricted their claim only to the extent of Rs.3,00,000/- and they are entitled for the same.

Since the Respondents No.1 and 2 who are owner and driver of the motor cycle they are jointly and severally liable to pay the compensation.

ISSUE No.3 :-

8.In the result, this petition is allowed, directing the Respondent Nos. 1 and 2 to pay a sum of Rs. 3,00,000/- (Rupees three lakhs only) towards compensation to the Petitioners Nos. 1 and 2 along with costs and interest thereon @ 7.5% per annum from the date of filing petition till the date of realization. The entire amount shall be deposited in the court within thirty-days from the date of order. On such deposit, the amount shall be apportioned among the petitioners in equal shares. On such deposit, the Petitioners 1 and 2 are permitted to with draw 50% of the compensation and the remaining amount shall be kept in FDR in any Nationalized bank for a period of two years.

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

Typed to my dictation by the Senior Assistant of V ADJ Court, corrected and pronounced by me in the open Court on this the 30th day of January,2015.

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

FAC VII Addl. District Judge, Medak at Sangareddy.

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

WITNESSES EXAMINED

For Petitioners For Respondent

PW1 K.Narayana.Nil Pw.2 K.Ramulu.

7

EXHIBITS MARKED

For Petitioners :

Ex.A1 C.C of FIR and complaint . Ex.A2 C.C. of Charge sheet, Ex.A3 C.C of Inquest Report. Ex.A4 C.C. of Scene of offence Panchanama along with Rough Sketch, Ex.A5 C.C. of PME Report Ex.A6 CC of MVI Report.

For Respondents:

Nil

Chairman, M.A.C.T. -cum- FAC VII Addl. District Judge, Medak at Sangareddy.

IN THE COURT OFPRINCIPAL DISTRICT JUDGE

MEDAK AT SANGAREDDY

PRESENT:SMT.A.BHARATHI,

I Additional District Judge, FAC:Principal District Judge, Medak at Sangareddy. Dated, this the 16th Day of February, 2017.

A.S.NO.27 OF 2015

Between:

1. Shankarolla Anantha Reddy S/o Raji Reddy, Aged: 40 years,

2. Shankarolla Satyanarayana Reddy S/o Raji Reddy, Aged: 38 years,

3. Shankarolla Gopal Reddy S/o Raji Reddy, Aged: 36 years,

4. Shankarolla Pratap Reddy S/o Raji Reddy, Aged: 34 years, All are agriculturists, R/o Pothireddipally Village, Sangareddy Mandal, Medak District. …Appellants/Plaintiffs A N D

1. Shankarolla Raji Reddy S/o Late Venkat Reddy, Aged: 75 years, Occ: Agriculturists, R/o Pothireddipally Village,

2. Shankarolla Vijayender Reddy S/o Late Ananth Reddy, Aged:42 years,

3. Shankarolla Mahender Reddy S/o Late Ananth Reddy, Aged: 30 years,

4. Shankarolla Kista Reddy S/o Late Pedda Ram Reddy, Aged: 60 years, All are agriculturists, R/o Pothireddipally Village, Sangareddy Mandal, Medak District.

5. K.Janardhan Reddy S/o Late Narsa Reddy, Aged:28 years, Occ: Business, R/o H.No.4-8-84, Manjeera Nagar, Sangareddy Town, Medak District.

6. K.Panduraj S/o Late K.Laxmaiah, Aged:: 43 years, Occ: Business, R/o H.No.2-7-28, Ram Nagar, Sangareddy Town, Medak District.

7. A.Krishna S/o Mallaiah, Aged: 34 years, Occ: Business, R/o H.No.1-1-106, Sri Nagar, Sangareddy Town, Medak District.

8. M.Madhava Reddy S/o Baslinga Reddy, Aged: 36 years, Occ: Business, R/o H.No.3-54, Pothireddipally Village, Sangareddy Mandal, Medak District.

9. T.Rajeshwar S/o Vittaiah, Aged: 28 years, Occ: Business, R/o H.No.4-8- 78/1, Manjeera Nagar, Sangareddy Town. (Respondents No.2 to 9 are proforma parties and no relief are sought against them) …Respondents/Defendants

Appeal filed U/Or 41 Rule 1 r/w Section 96 of C.P.C., aggrieved by the

Judgment and Decree passed by the Principal Junior Civil Judge, Sangareddy,

Dated:31.07.2012 in

O.S.No.491 of 2007

Between:

1. Shankarolla Anantha Reddy S/o Raji Reddy, Aged: 40 years,

2. Shankarolla Satyanarayana Reddy S/o Raji Reddy, Aged: 38 years,

3. Shankarolla Gopal Reddy S/o Raji Reddy, Aged: 36 years,

4. Shankarolla Pratap Reddy S/o Raji Reddy, Aged: 34 years, All are agriculturists, R/o Pothireddipally Village, Sangareddy Mandal, Medak District. …Plaintiffs -2-

AND

1. Shankarolla Raji Reddy S/o Late Venkat Reddy, Aged: 75 years, Occ: Agriculturists, R/o Pothireddipally Village,

2. Shankarolla Vijayender Reddy S/o Late Ananth Reddy, Aged:42 years,

3. Shankarolla Mahender Reddy S/o Late Ananth Reddy, Aged: 30 years,

4. Shankarolla Kista Reddy S/o Late Pedda Ram Reddy, Aged: 60 years, All are agriculturists, R/o Pothireddipally Village, Sangareddy Mandal, Medak District.

5. K.Janardhan Reddy S/o Late Narsa Reddy, Aged:28 years, Occ: Business, R/o H.No.4-8-84, Manjeera Nagar, Sangareddy Town, Medak District.

6. K.Panduraj S/o Late K.Laxmaiah, Aged:: 43 years, Occ: Business, R/o H.No.2-7-28, Ram Nagar, Sangareddy Town, Medak District.

7. A.Krishna S/o Mallaiah, Aged: 34 years, Occ: Business, R/o H.No.1-1-106, Sri Nagar, Sangareddy Town, Medak District.

8. M.Madhava Reddy S/o Baslinga Reddy, Aged: 36 years, Occ: Business, R/o H.No.3-54, Pothireddipally Village, Sangareddy Mandal, Medak District.

9. T.Rajeshwar S/o Vittaiah, Aged: 28 years, Occ: Business, R/o H.No.4-8- 78/1, Manjeera Nagar, Sangareddy Town. …Defendants

The appeal suit came up before me in the presence of Sri K.Madhu

Mohan Reddy, Counsel for the appellants and of Sri K.Krishna Rao, Counsel

for the respondent Nos.2 to 4, while the respondent Nos.1, 5 to 9 not yet

appeared before this Court and having stood over for consideration till this day, the Court made the following:

O R D E R

From 04.11.2015 the appellants did not turn up to pay process for respondent No.1, 5 to 9 till this day. No representation. The appeal suit is dismissed for default.

‘

Pronounced in the open Court, the 16thday of February, 2017.

I Additional District Judge FAC: Principal District Judge Medak at Sangareddy

TSME000001552014

Presented on : 17-02-2014 Registered on : 18-02-2014 Decided on : 25-11-2014 Duration : 0 years, 9 months, 8 days

IN THE COURT OF

Special Judge for Trial of Cases under SCs and STs (POA) Act, 1989 - cum--III

Additional District and Sessions Judge, Sangareddy

CRLA/26/2014

Exhibit No. (PROSECUTION): Urella Yadaiah Through Police Station Officer , Aged about 55 years Occ.Driver H.No.11-24 Srinivasanagar Colony R.C.Puram town and Mandal Medak District MEDAK

Urella Yadaiah VERSUS : B Jagannath Reddy Age: 0 Occupation : Aged about 57 years Occ Retired Employee Now Agriculture H.No.25-372 Flat G-1 Noble residency Mallikarjuna nagar colony ----------------------------------------------------------------------------- APP for State }: M Goverdhan, Advocate for appearing for B Jagannath Reddy Advocate appearing for , respectively. -----------------------------------------------------------------------------

Offence punishable under :

JUDGMENT

(Delivered on 25-11-2014)

ORDER

Both the appellant/accused and the respondent/complainant present. This appeal is preferred against the judgment and order in CC No.943/2010 dated 22-01- 2014 passed by the Addl. Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Sangareddy convicting and sentencing the appellant to under go SI for a period of six months for the offence punishable under section 138 of NI Act. The counsel for the appellant/accused filed memo stating that the said appeal has been compromised by both parties out of the court on the advice of village elders for Rs.75,000/- and the appellant is unable to pay costs, because he is a poor person, aged about 60 years and eking out livelihood by way of labour work and prayed to exempt him from payment of costs in view of the decision of the Honble Supreme Court of India in

Crl.A.No.963 of 2010 in Damodar S. Prabhu Vs. Sayed Babalal H. The

complainant/ respondent reported that the appellant/accused paid Rs.75,000/- and he has no objection to allow the appeal. Perused the case record. The actual cheque amount is Rs.3 lakhs. Considering the old age and pathetic condition of the appellant/accused, I am of the considered opinion that an amount of Rs.100/- is imposed towards costs exempting the costs of 15 percent as per the above decision, costs paid in DLSA. Accordingly, the appeal is disposed off by setting aside the conviction and sentence passed in Judgment by the trial court in CC.No.943/2010,

dated 22-01-2014. The bail bonds of the appellant/accused are hereby canceled.

Date : 25-11-2014

Special Judge for Trial of Cases under SCs and STs (POA) Act, 1989 - cum--III

Additional District and Sessions Judge, Sangareddy

Dictated on :

Transcribed on : checked on : Signed on :

Special Judge for Trial of Cases under SCs and STs (POA) Act, 1989 - cum--III

Additional District and Sessions Judge, Sangareddy

Visit ecourts.gov.in for updates or download mobile app “eCourts Services ” from Android or iOS

TSME000005142016

Presented on : 08-09-2016 Registered on : 19-09-2016 Decided on : 02-03-2017 Duration : 0 years, 5 months, 24 days

IN THE COURT OF

Principal District and Sessions Judge, Sangareddy

MVOP/336/2016

Exhibit No.: Bandla Laxmi Address: Age 35 years, Occupation Household, RO.H.No.3-54, Bilalpur Vi, Koheer M, Medak District.

2: Bandla Prasanna Kumari VERSUS P.Ambaiah Address: Age Major, Occupation Driver of Tractor bearing No.AP-10-J- 4642, RO.H.No.6-53,Bilalpppur Vi, Koheer M, Medak District.

2:Mungi Soloman 3:MS H DFC ERGO General Insurance Co.Ltd. ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Advocate for : Sri Baswaraj Patil Advocate for : appearing for P.Ambaiah: Advocate , appearing for 2,3 respectively.

ORDER

The claimants-1 and 2 and Respondent No.3 are present. Counsel for both sides also present. At the intervention and upon advice by the members of the Lok Adalat bench and the learned counsel on either side, both the parties have arrived at an amicable settlement and entered into compromise. As per the compromise mutually agreed between the parties Respondent No.3 has offered to pay an amount of Rs.6,50,000/- (Rupees

Six Lakhs fifty thousand only) depositable within 30 days and in default to deposit along with interest @ 7.5 percent p.a., and the Claimants agreed to receive the same towards full and final settlement of their claim with share of Rs.5,50,000/- (Rupees Five Lakhs Fifty thousand only ) to the Claimant No.1., Rs.1,00,000/- (Rupees One lakh only to the Claimanst-2. The Claimant No.1 is permitted to withdraw Rs.4,50,000/- (Rupees Four lakhs fifty thousand only) out of his share amount and the balance amount i.e. Rs.1,00,000/-(Rupees One lakh only) shall be deposited in any nationalized bank for the period of one year. The claimant No.2 is permitted to withdraw their entire share amount, Thus, in terms of compromise stated above, an award is passed (vide separate one).

Date : 02-03-2017 Principal District and Sessions Judge,

Sangareddy