Sri A.karna Kumar

I Addl District Judge

Rangareddy, PDJ Court Complex · Rangareddy · Telangana

SRI A.KARNA KUMAR, I Addl District Judge, is posted at Rangareddy, PDJ Court Complex, Rangareddy, Telangana, India. 298 court orders on record since 2025. 10 judgments with full text available. Primarily handles T, G, CRLMP cases.

298

Total Orders

Judgments

Orders/Month

Postings

Featured Judgments

MVOP/219/2023

D.KIRAN KUMAR S/O BUJJILAIAH vs TSRTC REP BY ITS MANAGING DIRECTOR

23 Mar 2026

BEFORE THE PRINCIPAL MOTOR ACCIDENTS CLAIMS TRIBUNAL-cum-

PRINCIPAL DISTRICT JUDGE

RANGA REDDY DISTRICT AT L.B.NAGAR

Present: A.KARNA KUMAR Chairman, Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal-cum-

Principal District Judge

(FAC) I Additional Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal-cum- I Additional District Judge Ranga Reddy District at L.B.Nagar

Monday, the 23rd day of March 2026

M.V.O.P. No.219/2023

Between: -

D.Kiran Kumar, S/o Bujjilaiah Aged 52 years, Occ: Painting labour R/o Plot No.27, Sai Colony, Phase-I Hayathnagar, Ranga Reddy District … Petitioner

And

1. TSRTC Rep. by its Managing Director Office at Bus Bhavan, RTC X Road Musheerabad, Hyderabad (Bus Bearing No.AP-28-Z-1947)

2. The Depot Manager, Hayathnagar Depot (TSRTC) Hayathnagar, Ranga Reddy District

3. M.Brahmaiah, S/o Jangaiah Age 53 years, Occ: RTC Driver R/o Plot No.37, Teachers Colony Hayathnagar, Ranga Reddy District … Respondents

This Claim Petition coming on 23.02.2026 for final hearing

before me, in the presence of Sri B.Somaiah - Advocate for the petitioner,

and of Sri T.Dayakar Reddy - Advocate for the Respondent No.1, and the

Respondents No.2 and 3 having remained exparte and upon hearing, having stood over for consideration till this day, this Court delivered the following—

Page 2 of 14 M.V.O.P. No.219/2023 March 23, 2026

O R D E R

This is a claim petition filed under Section 166 of the Motor

Vehicles Act, 1988 seeking compensation of ₹14,00,000/- for the injuries sustained by the petitioner in a motor vehicle accident that took place on 03.04.2023 at about 4:30 p.m. near Raghavendra Hotel, Hayathnagar,

Ranga Reddy District.

2. The brief averments of the claim petition are as follows: -

(i) On 03.04.2023 at about 4:30 p.m., while the petitioner was proceeding on foot from Sai Colony Phase-1 to Hayathnagar to purchase vegetables, and when he reached near Raghavendra Hotel, Hayathnagar, the driver of the bus bearing No.AP-28-Z-1947 (hereinafter referred to as the “offending vehicle”), driven by Respondent No.3, while taking a U-turn drove the bus in a rash and negligent manner and ran over the right leg of the petitioner. Due to the said impact, the petitioner’s right leg was crushed and he sustained grievous injuries, namely: (1) crush injury to right foot, (2) calcaneum fracture, (3) first PP fracture, (4) fourth metatarsal fracture and other injuries. Immediately after the accident, he was shifted to

MaxCure Hospital, Hayathnagar, where he underwent treatment.

(ii) It is further stated that the police, P.S. Hayathnagar registered a case in Crime No.447 of 2023 under Section 337 IPC against the driver of the offending vehicle.

(iii) The petitioner further submits that prior to the accident he was hale and healthy, aged about 52 years, and working as a painting labourer earning ₹15,000/- per month and contributing the same to his family members. However, due to the injuries sustained in the accident, he lost his earning capacity and became permanently disabled.

(iv) Respondent Nos.1 and 2 are the employers of Respondent

No.3, who was driving the offending vehicle at the time of the accident,

Page 3 of 14 M.V.O.P. No.219/2023 March 23, 2026 and therefore, they are jointly and severally liable to pay compensation to the petitioner. Hence, the claim petition.

3. On the other hand, Respondent Nos.2 and 3 remained exparte.

4. Respondent No.1 filed a counter denying the allegations made in the claim petition, inter alia, contending as follows: -

(i) The petitioner is put to strict proof of his age, avocation and income. The petitioner is also put to strict proof regarding the alleged permanent disability said to have been sustained by him in the accident.

The manner of the accident and the alleged rash and negligent driving of the offending vehicle by Respondent No.3 are specifically denied.

(ii) According to the records available with this respondent, the

TSRTC bus bearing No.AP-28-Z-1947 was not involved in any accident on the alleged date i.e., on 03.04.2023 at about 4:30 p.m. near Raghavendra

Hotel, Hayathnagar.

(iii) This respondent is not aware of the registration of any case by the police in connection with the alleged accident. It is contended that the compensation and interest claimed by the petitioner are excessive and therefore, prayed the Tribunal to dismiss the claim petition.

5. Based on the above rival contentions, the following issues were settled for trial: -

(1) Whether the accident occurred and the petitioner sustained injuries

in the road traffic accident due to the rash and negligent driving of the offending vehicle i.e., TSRTC bus bearing No. AP28Z1947 by its driver, Respondent No.3?

(2) Whether the petitioner is entitled to compensation? If so, to what

amount and from whom? (3) To what relief?

Page 4 of 14 M.V.O.P. No.219/2023 March 23, 2026

6. Heard the arguments of the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned counsel for Respondent No.1. Perused the written arguments filed by the learned counsel for the petitioner.

7. In order to prove the claim of the petitioner, PWs.1 to 3 were examined and Exs.A1 to A12 were marked. On behalf of Respondent No.1, no witness was examined. Ex.X1 is marked through PW-2 witness.

Issue No.1: -

8. The burden lies on the petitioner to prove this issue. In order to prove his claim, the petitioner relied on the evidence of PWs.1 to 3 and

Exs.A1 to A12.

9. PW1 is the petitioner himself and the injured in this case. He deposed in support of his claim and reiterated the averments made in the claim petition, including the occurrence of the accident, rash and negligent driving of the offending vehicle by Respondent No.3, admission in hospital, treatment taken, registration of the criminal case by the police, expenses incurred for treatment, his age, avocation and the permanent disability suffered by him. In the cross-examination, he admitted that he has not filed any identity card of his union, that he does not possess any diploma in painting work and that he has not filed any documentary proof regarding his income.

10. PW2 is the doctor working at MaxCure Hospital. He deposed that the petitioner was admitted in their hospital on 03.04.2023 and had sustained three injuries namely (1) calcaneum fracture, (2) first PP fracture and (3) fourth metatarsal fracture, and that the said injuries are grievous in nature. He further stated that the petitioner was discharged on 04.04.2023. Ex.X1 is the final bill. Exs.A4, A5 and A9 were issued by their hospital.

Page 5 of 14 M.V.O.P. No.219/2023 March 23, 2026

11. PW3 is the Civil Surgeon and Medical Superintendent of the

Medical Board at Government General Hospital. He deposed that on examination, the Medical Board assessed the physical disability of the petitioner at 40%. He further stated that the petitioner may face difficulty in walking, climbing stairs, sitting and folding the leg and lifting weights, and that he requires physiotherapy. Ex.A10 contains his signature.

12. Apart from the oral evidence, the petitioner has relied on documentary evidence. Ex.A1 reveals that the police of Hayathnagar registered a case basing on the complaint given by the petitioner under

Section 337 IPC against Respondent No.3, who is the driver of the offending vehicle. Ex.A2 reveals that the police filed a charge sheet against

Respondent No.3 for the offence under Section 338 IPC alleging that due to the rash and negligent driving of the offending vehicle by Respondent

No.3, the petitioner sustained grievous injuries. Ex.A3 is the crime detail form showing the physical features of the place of accident. Ex.A4 is the

MLC record issued by MaxCure Hospital showing three injuries, namely calcaneum fracture, first PP fracture and fourth metatarsal fracture. Ex.A5 shows that the petitioner was admitted in MaxCure Hospital on 03.04.2023 and discharged on 04.04.2023. Ex.A6 is the outpatient card issued by

AIIMS, Bibinagar, Yadadri District showing that the petitioner took treatment there. Ex.A7 is the final bill issued by NIMS Hospital. Ex.A8 is the receipt issued by AIIMS Bibinagar. Ex.A9 consists of the reports issued by the Department of Pathology of MaxCure Hospital. Ex.A10 is the disability certificate issued by the Medical Board, Yadadri District, which shows that the petitioner sustained 40% permanent physical disability. The certificate also mentions that the petitioner can perform certain activities such as pulling, pushing, lifting, kneeling, bending, sitting, standing, walking, reading and writing, though with difficulty. The certificate was issued on 16.10.2024. Ex.A11 is the IP advance receipt issued by NIMS

Hospital. Ex.A12 is the X-ray report. Ex.X1 is the final bill issued by

Page 6 of 14 M.V.O.P. No.219/2023 March 23, 2026

Neeladhri Hospital, Hayathnagar, Hyderabad, which was marked through

PW2 during his chief-examination.

13. On the other hand, Respondent No.1 did not examine any witness in support of its contentions. Except cross-examination of the witnesses, no evidence was placed to establish that the accident occurred due to the negligence of the petitioner.

14. The learned counsel for Respondent No.1 contended that there was delay in lodging the FIR. It is true that as per Ex.A1, the FIR was registered on 11.04.2023 whereas the accident occurred on 03.04.2023.

However, considering that the petitioner sustained grievous injuries and had to undergo treatment immediately after the accident, the delay in lodging the FIR cannot be considered as a ground to disbelieve the case of the petitioner.

15. Moreover, Respondent No.3, who is the driver of the offending vehicle, is the proper person to speak about the accident. However, he did not appear before this Tribunal to deny the occurrence of the accident.

Respondent No.1 also did not examine Respondent No.3 in support of its defence.

16. Therefore, the evidence of PWs.1 to 3 coupled with Exs.A1 to

A12 and Ex.X1 clearly establishes that the accident occurred on 03.04.2023 near Raghavendra Hotel, Hayathnagar, due to the rash and negligent driving of the offending vehicle i.e., TSRTC bus bearing

No.AP-28-Z-1947 by its driver, Respondent No.3, causing grievous injuries to the petitioner, and that the petitioner suffered 40% permanent physical disability due to the said accident.

17. Accordingly, this issue is answered in favour of the petitioner and against Respondent No.1.

Page 7 of 14 M.V.O.P. No.219/2023 March 23, 2026

Issue No.2

18. As discussed under Issue No.1, the petitioner has established that the accident occurred on 03.04.2023 at about 4:30 p.m. near

Raghavendra Hotel, Hayathnagar, Ranga Reddy District, due to the rash and negligent driving of the offending vehicle by Respondent No.3, resulting in the petitioner sustaining three grievous injuries. Therefore, the petitioner is entitled to claim compensation for the injuries sustained by him in the said road traffic accident.

19. Now it has to be determined what would be the just and reasonable compensation payable to the petitioner. The compensation awarded should be just, fair and reasonable, and it should neither be excessive nor meagre.

TRANSPORTATION EXPENSES

20. The petitioner has claimed transportation expenses under the head of special damages. Though the petitioner has not filed any documentary proof towards transportation charges, it is evident from the record that he sustained three grievous injuries and was admitted in

MaxCure Hospital. It is also evident that he subsequently took treatment at NIMS Hospital and AIIMS, Bibinagar, Yadadri District. Therefore, it is reasonable to presume that the petitioner might have incurred certain expenses towards transportation for attending the hospitals for treatment and follow-up visits. Hence, this Tribunal deems it just and proper to award a sum of ₹10,000/- towards transportation expenses.

EXTRA NOURISHMENT

21. The petitioner also claimed extra nourishment under the head of special damages. It is evident from the record that the petitioner sustained grievous injuries and was admitted in MaxCure Hospital on 03.04.2023 and discharged on 04.04.2023. The records further reveal that he subsequently took treatment at NIMS Hospital and also at AIIMS,

Bibinagar, Yadadri District. Considering the nature of injuries sustained by

Page 8 of 14 M.V.O.P. No.219/2023 March 23, 2026 the petitioner and the treatment undergone by him, it is reasonable to presume that the petitioner might have incurred certain expenses towards special diet and extra nourishment during the period of treatment and recovery. Therefore, this Tribunal deems it just and proper to award a sum of ₹20,000/- towards extra nourishment.

CLOTHING AND ARTICLES

22. The petitioner has also claimed compensation under the head of clothing and articles as part of special damages. It is evident from the record that the petitioner sustained three grievous injuries in the accident.

During the course of the accident, it is reasonable to presume that the clothes worn by the petitioner and other personal articles might have been damaged. Though no documentary evidence has been filed in this regard, considering the nature of the accident and the injuries sustained by the petitioner, this Tribunal deems it just and proper to award a sum of ₹5,000/- towards damage to clothing and articles.

MEDICAL EXPENSES

23. The petitioner has also claimed compensation under the head of medical expenses. In order to substantiate the same, the petitioner relied on the oral evidence of PWs.1 and 2 and the documentary evidence marked as Exs.A7, A8, A11 and Ex.X1. Ex.A7 is the final bill issued by

NIMS Hospital for an amount of ₹10,000/-. Ex.A8 is a bunch of medical bills consisting of 26 pharmacy receipts issued by MaxCure Hospital, AIIMS

Bibinagar and other pharmacies in the name of the injured, which amount to ₹30,579/-. Ex.A11 is the receipt issued by NIMS Hospital in the name of the injured dated 27.04.2023 towards IP advance for a sum of ₹5,000/- . Ex.X1 is the inpatient final bill issued by Neeladri Hospital showing that an amount of ₹14,000/- was paid by the injured towards treatment.

24. The above documents clearly establish that the petitioner incurred medical expenses for the treatment of the injuries sustained in the said road traffic accident. Therefore, this Tribunal deems it just and

Page 9 of 14 M.V.O.P. No.219/2023 March 23, 2026 proper to award a sum of ₹59,579/- (₹10,000 + ₹30,579 + ₹5,000 + ₹14,000) towards medical expenses.

PAIN AND SUFFERANCE

25. The petitioner has also claimed compensation under the head of pain and suffering under general damages. It is evident from the evidence of PW1 and PW2 and the medical records placed on record that the petitioner sustained three grievous injuries in the said road traffic accident, namely calcaneum fracture, first PP fracture and fourth metatarsal fracture. Due to the said injuries, the petitioner had to undergo treatment at MaxCure Hospital and also took further treatment at NIMS

Hospital and AIIMS, Bibinagar. Considering the nature of the injuries sustained by the petitioner, the pain, trauma and mental agony undergone by him during the course of treatment and recovery, this Tribunal deems it just and reasonable to award a sum of ₹1,50,000/- towards pain and suffering.

PERMANENT DISABILITY

26. The petitioner has also claimed compensation under the head of permanent disability. In order to substantiate the same, the petitioner relied on the evidence of PW3 and Ex.A10. PW3, who is one of the members of the Medical Board, deposed that upon examination the petitioner was found to have sustained 40% permanent physical disability due to the injuries sustained in the said road traffic accident. Ex.A10 is the disability certificate issued by the Medical Board which supports the evidence of PW3.

27. The learned counsel for the petitioner contended that since the petitioner was working as a painting labourer prior to the accident, the disability should be treated as 100% functional disability. However, the petitioner has not filed any documentary proof to show that he was working as a painting labourer. He has also not filed any proof of income or any identity card to establish his occupation as a painting labourer. In fact, the

Page 10 of 14 M.V.O.P. No.219/2023 March 23, 2026 petitioner himself admitted in his evidence that he has not filed any documentary proof regarding his earnings of ₹15,000/- per month.

28. Further, Ex.A10 reveals that though the petitioner sustained physical disability, he can still perform certain activities such as pulling, pushing, lifting, kneeling, crouching, bending, sitting, standing and walking. Therefore, the disability cannot be treated as 100% functional disability. Having regard to the nature of injuries and the functional limitations mentioned in Ex.A10, this Tribunal deems it appropriate to treat the functional disability of the petitioner at 20%.

29. Coming to the income of the petitioner, as discussed above, the petitioner has not filed any documentary proof to establish his income.

Therefore, the notional income of the petitioner is fixed at ₹9,000/- per month, treating him as a labourer. Accordingly, the annual income of the petitioner comes to ₹1,08,000/- (₹9,000 × 12). Taking the functional disability at 20%, the loss of earning capacity comes to ₹21,600/- per annum (₹1,08,000 × 20%). As the petitioner was aged about 52 years at the time of the accident, the appropriate multiplier applicable is ‘11’.

Therefore, the loss of future earnings comes to ₹2,37,600/- (₹21,600 × 11).

ATTENDANT CHARGES

30. The learned counsel for the petitioner contended that the petitioner is entitled to compensation towards attendant charges.

However, the petitioner has not filed any documentary evidence to show that he had engaged any attendant or incurred expenses towards attendant charges during the course of treatment. In the absence of any proof in this regard, this Tribunal is not inclined to award any amount under the head of attendant charges. Therefore, the claim of the petitioner towards attendant charges is rejected.

Page 11 of 14 M.V.O.P. No.219/2023 March 23, 2026

FUTURE TREATMENT

31. The petitioner has also claimed compensation under the head of future medical expenses. In support of the said claim, the petitioner relied on the evidence of PW3. PW3 deposed that the petitioner sustained injuries to the bones and soft tissues and that he may require future treatment and physiotherapy. In view of the evidence of PW3 and considering the nature of the injuries sustained by the petitioner, this

Tribunal deems it just and reasonable to award a sum of ₹1,00,000/- towards future treatment and physiotherapy.

32. For the reasons aforementioned, this Tribunal comes to conclusion that the petitioner shall be awarded compensation as under—

Head of Account Compensation Awarded ₹

Transportation Expenses 10,000.00 Extra Nourishment 20,000.00 Clothing and Articles 5,000.00 Medical Expenses 59,579.00 Pain and Sufferance 1,50,000.00 Permanent Disability 2,37,600.00 Future Treatment 1,00,000.00 TOTAL 5,82,179.00

33. Following the ruling of the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in a decision reported in AIR 2019 SC page 2079 between “National

Insurance Company Limited Vs. Mannat Johal” the petitioner is entitled to simple interest @ 7.5% per annum for the said awarded amount.

34. Now, it has to be decided, who has to pay the compensation awarded in this case to the petitioner.

35. Admittedly, Respondent No.1 is the Telangana State Road

Transport Corporation (TSRTC), Respondent No.2 is the Depot Manager,

Page 12 of 14 M.V.O.P. No.219/2023 March 23, 2026

Hayathnagar Depot, TSRTC, Hayathnagar, and Respondent No.3 is the driver of the offending vehicle who caused the accident.

36. As discussed under Issue No.1, the accident occurred due to the rash and negligent driving of the offending vehicle by Respondent No.3.

At the time of the accident, Respondent No.3 was driving the bus in the course of his employment under Respondent Nos.1 and 2. Therefore,

Respondent Nos.1 and 2, being the employer and owner of the offending vehicle, are vicariously liable for the acts of their driver.

37. Hence, Respondent Nos.1 to 3 are jointly and severally liable to pay the compensation awarded in this case to the petitioner.

Issue No.3

38. In the result, the petition is allowed in part with costs, awarding compensation of ₹5,82,179/- (Rupees Five Lakhs Eighty-Two

Thousand One Hundred and Seventy-Nine only) to the petitioner, together with interest thereon at the rate of 7.5% per annum from the date of filing of the claim petition till the date of deposit or realization, against

Respondents Nos.1 to 3 jointly and severally.

(i) Upon deposit of the compensation amount, the petitioner is permitted to withdraw ₹3,00,000/- together with accrued interest and costs, and the balance amount shall be kept in fixed deposit in any nationalized bank for a period of two years, after which the Petitioner is at liberty to withdraw the same.

(ii) Since the petitioner was granted exemption from payment of court fee at the time of filing of the petition vide orders in I.A. No.1172 of 2023 dated 01.05.2023, under Section 475 (2) of the Motor Vehicles Act.

The petitioner is directed to pay the court fee of ₹13,360/- within 15 days from the date of this order. In default of payment of court fee, the said amount shall be recovered from the decretal amount.

(iii) The advocate’s fee is fixed at ₹2,000/-.

Page 13 of 14 M.V.O.P. No.219/2023 March 23, 2026

NOTE: The compensation amount awarded shall be deposited through NEFT or RTGS to the account of Chairman, Motor

Accidents Claims Tribunal-cum-Principal District Judge, Ranga

Reddy, Savings Account No.43832047115 of SBI, Ranga

Reddy Court Complex with IFSC Code.SBIN0021100.

Dictated to the Stenographer, transcribed by him, corrected

and pronounced by me in the Open Court, this the 23rd day of March 2026.

Sd/-

Chairman, Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal-cum-

Principal District Judge

(FAC) I Additional Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal-cum- I Additional District Judge Ranga Reddy District at L.B.Nagar

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

WITNESSES EXAMINED

FOR PETITIONER

PW-1 : D.Kiran Kumar PW-2 : Dr. Nanandulall PW-3 : Dr. M.S.Chenna Naik

FOR RESPONDENTS

NONE

DOCUMENTS MARKED

FOR PETITIONER

Ex.A1: Certified copy of FIR along with complaint.

Ex.A2: Certified copy of charge sheet along with statements.

Ex.A3: Certified copy of crime detail form.

Ex.A4: Certified copy of MLC issued by MaxCure Hospital, Hayathnagar.

Ex.A5: Discharge summary issued by MaxCure Hospital, Hayathnagar.

Page 14 of 14 M.V.O.P. No.219/2023 March 23, 2026

Ex.A6: Outpatient medical record of NIMS Hospital, Bibinagar (3 in number).

Ex.A7: IP final bill receipt for ₹10,000/- issued by NIMS Hospital, Punjagutta, Hyderabad.

Ex.A8: Bunch of medical bills (26 in number) for ₹30,579/-.

Ex.A9: Diagnostic reports (3 in number).

Ex.A10: Disability certificate issued by the Medical Board, Yadadri District.

Ex.A11: IP advance receipt issued by NIMS Hospital, Punjagutta, Hyderabad for ₹5,000/-.

Ex.A12: X-ray films (2 in number).

Ex.X1: Inpatient final bill issued by Neeladhri Hospitals. (Marked through Advocate Commissioner by PW-2 through chief- examination)

FOR RESPONDENTS

NIL

Sd/-

Chairman, Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal-cum-

Principal District Judge

(FAC) I Additional Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal-cum- I Additional District Judge Ranga Reddy District at L.B.Nagar

T.R.O.P/82/2025

AVULA PREMA vs KAIRAMKONDA PUSHPA

06 May 2026

IN THE COURT OF THE PRINCIPAL DISTRICT JUDGE

RANGA REDDY DISTRICT AT L.B.NAGAR

Present: A.Karna Kumar

Principal District Judge

Ranga Reddy District at L.B.Nagar

Wednesday, the 6th day of May 2026

T.R.O.P. No.82 of 2025

Between:

Smt Avula Prema, W/o Avula Manik Rao Aged about 58 years, Occ: Housewife R/o H.No.23-5-614, Lal Darwaza, Chappal Galli Charminar, Hyderabad Rep. by her AGPA holder Yadaru Ramesh, S/o Late Beerappa Aged about 52 years, Occ: Business R/o H.No.23-5-614, Lal Darwaza, Charminar, Hyderabad … Petitioner

And

1. Kairamkonda Pushpa, W/o K.Madhusudhan Aged about 62 years, Occ: Housewife R/o Plot No.29, Jayanagar Colony New Bowenpally, Secunderabad, Hyderabad – 500 011 (died)

2. Burugu Tulasi, S/o Kumara Swamy Aged about 57 years, Occ: Business R/o 11-14-179/2, Road No.8, Plot No.100, Sagar Hills Haripuri Colony, Green Hills Colony, Kothapet, Hyd – 500 035.

3. Ch.Venkataiah, S/o Not known Aged about 53 years, Occ: Business R/o C/o Plot No.29, Jayanagar Colony, New Bowenpally Secunderabad, Hyderabad – 500 011.

4. Kunchala Anand, S/o Not known Aged about 50 years, Occ: Business R/o C/o Plot No.29, Jayanagar Colony, New Bowenpally Secunderabad, Hyderabad – 500 011.

5. The Sub-Registrar, Saroornagar Mandal, Ranga Reddy District (5th Respondent was added as proforma party) -: 2 :-

Principal District Judge T.R.O.P. No.82/2025

Ranga Reddy District at L.B.Nagar May 6, 2026

6. Kairamkonda Madhusudhan, S/o late K.Narsaiah Aged 66 years, Occ: Business R/o H.No.3-3-32, Azad Road, Bhongir Town and Mandal Yadadri Bhuvangiri District

7. Kairamkonda Sai Kumar, S/o K.Madhusudhan Aged 43 years, Occ: Business R/o H.No.3-3-32, Azad Road, Bhongir Town and Mandal Yadadri Bhuvangiri District

8. K.Suresh, S/o K.N.Madhusudhan Aged 40 years, Occ: Business R/o H.No.3-3-32, Azad Road, Bhongir Town and Mandal Yadadri Bhuvangiri District

9. Yadaru Ramesh, S/o Late Beerappa Aged about 52 years, Occ: Business R/o H.No.23-5-614, Lal Darwaza, Charminar, Hyderabad. … Respondents

This petition came up for final hearing before me on 24.04.2026 in the presence of Sri V.Shanker Narayana, Counsel for the

Petitioner, and of Sri G.Ramesh, Counsel for the Respondent No.9 and the Respondents No.2 to 8 having remained exparte. Upon hearing the learned counsels on both sides and on perusal of the material available on record, and the matter having stood over for consideration, this

Court passed the following—

O R D E R

This is a petition filed under Section 24 of the Code of Civil

Procedure, 1908 (in short, “CPC”), seeking withdrawal of the suit in

O.S. No.47 of 2025 pending on the file of the II Additional Senior Civil

Judge, Ranga Reddy District at L.B. Nagar and transfer of the same to

the Court of the IV Additional Senior Civil Judge, Ranga Reddy District at L.B. Nagar, to be tried jointly along with O.S. No.71 of 2025.

2. The brief averments of the petition are that the petitioner herein had filed a suit in O.S. No.71 of 2025 against the respondents

Nos.1 to 5 herein for declaration and permanent injunction pending on -: 3 :-

Principal District Judge T.R.O.P. No.82/2025

Ranga Reddy District at L.B.Nagar May 6, 2026 the file of the IV Additional Senior Civil Judge, Ranga Reddy District at

L.B. Nagar. Whereas, the husband and two sons of the respondent

No.1 herein filed another suit for perpetual injunction against the petitioner herein and a GPA holder vide O.S. No.47 of 2025 pending on the file of the II Additional Senior Civil Judge, Ranga Reddy District at

L.B. Nagar. It is contended that the suit schedule properties in both the suits are one and the same and, if both the suits are tried and disposed of by two different Courts, there would be every possibility of conflicting decisions. Therefore, prayed to withdraw O.S. No.47 of 2025 pending on the file of the II Additional Senior Civil Judge, Ranga

Reddy District at L.B. Nagar and transfer the same to the Court of the

IV Additional Senior Civil Judge, Ranga Reddy District at L.B. Nagar, to be tried jointly along with O.S. No.71 of 2025.

3. On the other hand, respondent No.9 reported no objection and respondents Nos.2 to 8 remained exparte.

4. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and perused the written arguments filed by the learned counsel for the petitioner.

5. Now, the point for consideration is whether the petitioner

has made out sufficient grounds for withdrawal of O.S. No.47 of

2025 pending on the file of the II Additional Senior Civil Judge,

Ranga Reddy District at L.B. Nagar and transfer of the same to the

Court of the IV Additional Senior Civil Judge, Ranga Reddy District

at L.B. Nagar, to be tried jointly along with O.S. No.71 of 2025?

6. POINT: - Perused the copies of plaints in both the suits.

The petitioner herein filed suit in O.S. No.71 of 2025 against the respondents Nos.1 to 5 herein for declaration of title and permanent injunction in respect of open plot No.158 admeasuring 200 square yards in Survey Nos.13 and 14 situated at Mansoorabad Village,

Saroornagar Mandal, Ranga Reddy District. Whereas, the husband of -: 4 :-

Principal District Judge T.R.O.P. No.82/2025

Ranga Reddy District at L.B.Nagar May 6, 2026 respondent No.1, the son of respondent No.1 and one K.Suresh filed suit in O.S. No.47 of 2025 against the petitioner herein and her GPA holder, Yadaru Ramesh, for perpetual injunction in respect of plot

No.158 admeasuring 200 square yards in Survey Nos.13 and 14 situated at Ward No.3, Block No.7, Kurmasangam, Mansoorabad

Village, Saroornagar Mandal, Ranga Reddy District.

7. As can be seen from the copies of plaints, the subject matter of both the suits is one and the same. The suit in O.S. No.71 of 2025 is a comprehensive suit filed for declaration of title and permanent injunction in respect of the very same property, whereas the suit in O.S. No.47 of 2025 is filed for perpetual injunction. Both the suits are pending before two different Courts in respect of the same schedule property between substantially the same parties.

8. If both the suits are tried and disposed of separately by two different Courts, there would be every likelihood of conflicting decisions and multiplicity of proceedings. Further, respondent No.1 did not choose to file any counter, respondent No.9 reported no objection, and respondents Nos.2 to 8 were set exparte.

9. Under the above circumstances, this Court is inclined to transfer the suit in O.S. No.47 of 2025 pending on the file of the

II Additional Senior Civil Judge, Ranga Reddy District at L.B. Nagar to the Court of the IV Additional Senior Civil Judge, Ranga Reddy District at L.B. Nagar, to be tried jointly along with O.S. No.71 of 2025.

10. Accordingly, the point is answered in favour of the petitioner.

11. In the result, the Petition is allowed, the suit in O.S. No.47 of 2025 pending on the file of the II Additional Senior Civil Judge,

Ranga Reddy District at L.B. Nagar is withdrawn and transferred to the -: 5 :-

Principal District Judge T.R.O.P. No.82/2025

Ranga Reddy District at L.B.Nagar May 6, 2026

Court of the IV Additional Senior Civil Judge, Ranga Reddy District at

L.B. Nagar, to be tried jointly along with O.S. No.71 of 2025 and disposed of in accordance with law. The transferor Court shall transmit the entire case record in O.S. No.47 of 2025 forthwith, duly indexed, to the transferee Court, after giving due intimation to both parties and fixing a date of appearance before the transferee Court, with due intimation to this Court.

Dictated to the Stenographer, transcribed by him, corrected and

pronounced by me in the open court, this the 6th day of May 2026.

Sd/-

Principal District Judge

Ranga Reddy District at L.B.Nagar

Copy to—

1. The learned II Additional Senior Civil Judge, Ranga Reddy District at L.B.Nagar.

2. The learned IV Additional Senior Civil Judge, Ranga Reddy District at L.B.Nagar.

T.R.O.P/9/2026

G VITTAL REDDY vs T LAXMAMMA

06 May 2026

IN THE COURT OF THE PRINCIPAL DISTRICT JUDGE

RANGA REDDY DISTRICT AT L.B.NAGAR

Present: A.Karna Kumar

Principal District Judge

Ranga Reddy District at L.B.Nagar

Wednesday, the 6th day of May 2026

T.R.O.P. No.9 of 2026

Between: -

Gurrala Vittal Reddy, S/o G.Malla Reddy Aged about 79 years, Occ: Agriculture R/o H.No.2-56, Dharmasagar H/o Gollapalli Village, Chevella Mandal, Ranga Reddy District … Petitioner

And

1. Teegapuram Laxmamma, W/o Late Jangaiah Goud Aged 72 years, Occ: Housewife

2. Teegapuram Shankaraiah Goud, S/o T.Jangaiah Goud Aged 54 years, Occ: Agriculture

3. Teegapuram Ganesh Goud, S/o T.Jangaiah Goud Aged 51 years, Occ: Agriculture

4. Teegapuram Srinu Goud, S/o T.Jangaiaha Goud Aged 49 years, Occ: Agriculture

All are R/o H.No.2-39, Dharmasagar, H/o Gollapalli Village Chevella Mandal, Ranga Reddy District … Respondents

This petition came up for final hearing before me on 29.04.2026 in the presence of Sri P.Ram Reddy, Counsel for the

Petitioner, and of Sri M.Shankar, Counsel for the Respondents No.1 to

4. Upon hearing the learned counsels on both sides and on perusal of the material available on record, and the matter having stood over for consideration, this Court passed the following— -: 2 :-

Principal District Judge T.R.O.P. No.9/2026

Ranga Reddy District at L.B.Nagar May 6, 2026

O R D E R

This is a petition filed under Section 24 of the Code of Civil

Procedure, 1908 (in short, “CPC”), seeking withdrawal of the suit in

O.S. No.205 of 2021 from the file of the Junior Civil Judge, Ranga

Reddy District at Chevella and transfer of the same to the Court of the

Senior Civil Judge, Ranga Reddy District at Chevella, to facilitate joint

trial along with O.S. No.259 of 2025 by clubbing both the suits.

2. The brief averments of the petition are that the petitioner herein filed a suit for perpetual injunction against the respondents

Nos.2 to 4 and the husband of respondent No.1, namely T. Jangaiah

Goud, pending on the file of the Senior Civil Judge, Ranga Reddy

District at Chevella vide O.S. No.259 of 2025. Initially, the said suit was filed before the Junior Civil Judge Court, Ranga Reddy District at

Chevella vide O.S. No.173 of 2019 and subsequently it was transferred to the Court of the Senior Civil Judge, Ranga Reddy District at Chevella and renumbered as O.S. No.259 of 2025.

(i) It is further contended that the respondents herein had filed another suit in O.S. No.205 of 2021 for declaration of title and perpetual injunction pending on the file of the Junior Civil Judge, Ranga

Reddy District at Chevella. According to the petitioner, the issues arising in both the suits are one and the same and the suit schedule properties involved in both the suits are also one and the same.

(ii) It is further contended that if both the suits are tried and disposed of by two different Courts, there would be every likelihood of conflicting decisions in respect of the same subject property.

Therefore, prayed to transfer O.S. No.205 of 2021 pending on the file of the Junior Civil Judge, Ranga Reddy District at Chevella to the Court of the Senior Civil Judge, Ranga Reddy District at Chevella, to be tried jointly along with O.S. No.259 of 2025 by clubbing both the suits.

-: 3 :-

Principal District Judge T.R.O.P. No.9/2026

Ranga Reddy District at L.B.Nagar May 6, 2026

3. On the other hand, respondents Nos.1 to 4 filed a counter denying all the allegations made in the petition averments and opposed the transfer of the case.

4. Heard the arguments of the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned counsel for the respondents and perused the material available on record.

5. Now, the point for consideration is whether the petitioner

has made out sufficient grounds for withdrawal of O.S. No.205 of

2021 pending on the file of the Junior Civil Judge, Ranga Reddy

District at Chevella and transfer of the same to the Court of the

Senior Civil Judge, Ranga Reddy District at Chevella, to be tried

jointly along with O.S. No.259 of 2025?

6. POINT: - Perused the copies of plaints in both the suits.

The petitioner herein had initially filed a suit in O.S. No.173 of 2019 pending on the file of the Junior Civil Judge, Ranga Reddy District at

Chevella, for perpetual injunction in respect of agricultural land in

Survey No.172/A admeasuring Ac.2-09 guntas situated at Gollapally

Revenue Village, Chevella Mandal, Ranga Reddy District, against the respondents Nos.1 to 4 herein. Subsequently, the said suit was transferred to the Court of the Senior Civil Judge, Ranga Reddy District at Chevella on administrative grounds and renumbered as O.S. No.259 of 2025.

7. Whereas, the respondents No.1 to 4 herein filed a suit in

O.S. No.205 of 2021 pending on the file of the Junior Civil Judge,

Ranga Reddy District at Chevella against the petitioner herein for declaration of title and perpetual injunction in respect of land in Survey

No.172/A admeasuring Ac.2-09 guntas situated at Gollapalli Revenue

Village, Chevella Mandal, Ranga Reddy District.

-: 4 :-

Principal District Judge T.R.O.P. No.9/2026

Ranga Reddy District at L.B.Nagar May 6, 2026

8. As can be seen from the copies of plaints in both the suits, the suit schedule property in both the suits is one and the same and the parties in both the suits are also one and the same. The suit in

O.S. No.205 of 2021 is a comprehensive suit filed for declaration of

title and perpetual injunction, whereas the suit in O.S. No.259 of 2025 (old O.S. No.173/2019) is a suit for perpetual injunction simpliciter in respect of the same subject property. The rival claims of both parties relate to one and the same schedule property.

9. If both the suits are tried and disposed of by two different

Courts, there would be every likelihood of conflicting decisions and multiplicity of proceedings. Therefore, under the above circumstances, this Court is inclined to transfer the suit in O.S. No.205 of 2021 pending on the file of the Junior Civil Judge, Ranga Reddy District at

Chevella to the Court of the Senior Civil Judge, Ranga Reddy District at

Chevella, to be tried jointly along with O.S. No.259 of 2025.

10. Accordingly, the point is answered in favour of the petitioner.

11. In the result, the Petition is allowed, the suit in O.S.

No.205 of 2021 pending on the file of the Junior Civil Judge, Ranga

Reddy District at Chevella is withdrawn and transferred to the Court of the Senior Civil Judge, Ranga Reddy District at Chevella, to be tried jointly along with O.S. No.259 of 2025 and disposed of in accordance with law. The transferor Court shall transmit the entire case record in

O.S. No.205 of 2021 forthwith, duly indexed, to the transferee Court,

after giving due intimation to both parties and fixing a date of appearance before the transferee Court, with due intimation to this

Court.

-: 5 :-

Principal District Judge T.R.O.P. No.9/2026

Ranga Reddy District at L.B.Nagar May 6, 2026

Dictated to the Stenographer, transcribed by him, corrected and

pronounced by me in the open court, this the 6th day of May 2026.

Sd/-

Principal District Judge

Ranga Reddy District at L.B.Nagar

Copy to—

1. The learned Senior Civil Judge, Ranga Reddy District at Chevella.

2. The learned Junior Civil Judge, Ranga Reddy District at Chevella.

CRLMP.BAIL/424/2026

State of Telangana Through PS EOW Cyberabad vs A27 Vikas Kumar Sakhare

30 Mar 2026

IN THE COURT OF THE I ADDITIONAL DISTRICT & SESSIONS JUDGE

RANGA REDDY DISTRICT AT L.B.NAGAR

Present: A.KARNA KUMAR

Principal District & Sessions Judge

Ranga Reddy District at L.B.Nagar (FAC) I Additional District & Sessions Judge Ranga Reddy District at L.B.Nagar

Monday, the 30th day of March 2026

Crl.M.P. No.424/2026

Cr. No.11/2025

(P.S. EOW Cyberabad)

Between: -

A27 Vikas Kumar Sakhare, S/o Charandas Sakhare Aged about 40 years, R/o H.No.4-59/2, P.No.80, Laxmi Nagar Colony Hyderashakot, Hyderabad … Petitioner/A27

And

The State of Telangana Rep. by PP through PS EOW CID, TG Hyderabad … Respondent/Complainant

This petition coming before me on 25.03.2026 for final hearing in the presence of Sri Apurva M Gokhale, Counsel for the Petitioner/A27 and the learned incharge Additional Public Prosecutor for the

Respondent/complainant and upon hearing both sides, and on perusal of the material on record and the matter having stood over for consideration till this day, this Court made the following—

O R D E R

This is the first bail application filed under Section 483 of BNSS seeking to grant regular bail to the petitioner/accused No.27 for the offences under Sections 316(2), 318(4), 61(2) of BNS, 2023 and Section 5 of the Telangana State Protection of Depositors of Financial

Establishments Act, 1999.

-: 2 :-

Crl.M.P. No.424/2026

Cr. No.11/2025 (P.S. EOW Cyberabad) 30th March 2026

2. Notice was given to the learned In-charge Additional Public

Prosecutor, who filed a counter opposing the bail petition.

3. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner/A27 and the learned In-charge Additional Public Prosecutor. Perused the record.

4. Now the point for consideration is whether the petitioner/A27 is entitled for regular bail as sought for?

5. POINT: - The brief facts of the prosecution case are that the petitioner/A27, along with other accused, with criminal intention hatched a plan to cheat the depositors in order to earn easy money, developed

Falcon Group website and mobile application and collected deposits from 941 depositors to the tune of Rs.336,44,44,065/- from all over the country in the name of fake Falcon Invoice Discounting business by promising to pay a specific rate of interest for a specific period. It is alleged that A2 and others diverted the funds to the companies of A2 and his family members and failed to repay the maturity amounts though the maturity period was completed.

6. The learned counsel for the petitioner/A27 contended that a false case has been foisted against the petitioner/A27 based on the confession made by A2 and such confession is not admissible in evidence.

It is further contended that the petitioner/A27 is only an employee who joined in the year 2021 and left in the year 2022 and his duties were only to securely record employee data and he is in no way connected with the collection of money or diversion of amounts. The name of the petitioner/A27 was not found in the complaint and FIR. The petitioner/A27 was taken into police custody for a period of five days in Crime No.10 of 2025, which is another crime registered in the name of the petitioner/A27, and the allegations in all the cases are similar. The material part of the -: 3 :-

Crl.M.P. No.424/2026

Cr. No.11/2025 (P.S. EOW Cyberabad) 30th March 2026 investigation has been completed. Therefore, prayed to release the petitioner/A27 on bail.

7. On the other hand, the learned In-charge Additional Public

Prosecutor contended that the investigation in this case is still in progress and the petitioner/A27 is one of the conspirators. If the petitioner/A27 is released on bail, he may threaten the witnesses or tamper with the evidence. It is further contended that A2 diverted the amounts and the same have to be ascertained.

8. Based on the complaint given by Rohit Kumar Morla and others, the police registered this case. The allegation of the complainant is that the Managing Director, i.e., A2 of M/s Falcon Capital Protection Force

Private Limited and other directors of the said company and accused Nos.1 to 26 committed fraud by cheating the depositors. The case diary reveals that accused Nos.1 to 26 collected deposits from the victims and diverted the deposit amounts to the companies of A2 and his family members with an intention to cheat the depositors.

9. There is no reference about accused No.27 in the allegations made by the complainant and victims. The petitioner/A27 was arrayed as an accused based on the confession made by A2. The petitioner/A27 is an

Ex-COO of the company and he joined as an employee in the year 2021 and left in the year 2022. There is no specific allegation against the petitioner/A27 that he collected deposits or diverted the same along with other accused.

10. The petitioner/A27 was taken into police custody in Crime

No.10 of 2025 for a period of five days and the custody period has been completed. The respondent/complainant examined 67 witnesses and recorded the confession-cum-seizure panchanama. The material part of the investigation in respect of petitioner/A27 has been completed.

-: 4 :-

Crl.M.P. No.424/2026

Cr. No.11/2025 (P.S. EOW Cyberabad) 30th March 2026

11. Under the above circumstances, this Court is inclined to grant bail to the petitioner/A27.

12. In the result, the petition is allowed. The petitioner/A27 shall be released on bail subject to the following conditions:

(i) The petitioner/A27 shall be released on bail on executing a personal bond for Rs.50,000/- with two sureties for a like sum each to the satisfaction of this Court.

(ii) The petitioner/A27 shall not tamper with the evidence in any manner.

(iii) The petitioner/A27 shall not induce, threaten or promise any person acquainted with the facts of the case so as to dissuade him from disclosing such facts to the Court or to the police officer.

(iv) The petitioner/A27 shall ensure his presence before the Court whenever required.

(v) The petitioner/A27 shall not leave the country without prior permission of this Court.

(vi) The petitioner/A27 shall surrender his original passport before this Court.

(vii) The petitioner/A27 shall attend before the concerned police station on every Sunday between 10:00 a.m. and 2:00 p.m.

for a period of two months or till filing of the charge sheet, whichever is earlier.

Dictated to the Stenographer, transcribed by him, corrected and

pronounced by me in the open court, this the 30th day of March 2026.

Sd/-

Principal District & Sessions Judge

Ranga Reddy District at L.B.Nagar (FAC) I Additional District & Sessions Judge Ranga Reddy District at L.B.Nagar

CRLMP.BAIL/425/2026

State of Telangana Through PS EOW cyberabad vs A27 Vikas Kumar Sakhare

30 Mar 2026

IN THE COURT OF THE I ADDITIONAL DISTRICT & SESSIONS JUDGE

RANGA REDDY DISTRICT AT L.B.NAGAR

Present: A.KARNA KUMAR

Principal District & Sessions Judge

Ranga Reddy District at L.B.Nagar (FAC) I Additional District & Sessions Judge Ranga Reddy District at L.B.Nagar

Monday, the 30th day of March 2026

Crl.M.P. No.425/2026

Cr. No.12/2025

(P.S. EOW Cyberabad)

Between: -

A27 Vikas Kumar Sakhare, S/o Charandas Sakhare Aged about 40 years, R/o H.No.4-59/2, P.No.80, Laxmi Nagar Colony Hyderashakot, Hyderabad … Petitioner/A27

And

The State of Telangana Rep. by PP through PS EOW CID, TG Hyderabad … Respondent/Complainant

This petition coming before me on 25.03.2026 for final hearing in the presence of Sri Apurva M Gokhale, Counsel for the Petitioner/A27 and the learned incharge Additional Public Prosecutor for the

Respondent/complainant and upon hearing both sides, and on perusal of the material on record and the matter having stood over for consideration till this day, this Court made the following—

O R D E R

Establishments Act, 1999.

-: 2 :-

Crl.M.P. No.425/2026

Cr. No.12/2025 (P.S. EOW Cyberabad) 30th March 2026

2. Notice was given to the learned In-charge Additional Public

Prosecutor, who filed a counter opposing the bail petition.

3. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner/A27 and the learned In-charge Additional Public Prosecutor. Perused the record.

4. Now the point for consideration is whether the petitioner/A27 is entitled for regular bail as sought for?

Crl.M.P. No.425/2026

Cr. No.12/2025 (P.S. EOW Cyberabad) 30th March 2026 investigation has been completed. Therefore, prayed to release the petitioner/A27 on bail.

7. On the other hand, the learned In-charge Additional Public

8. Based on the complaint given by Smt P.Sunitha Rani, the police registered this case. The allegation of the complainant is that the

Managing Director, i.e., A2 of M/s Falcon Capital Protection Force Private

Limited and other directors of the said company and accused Nos.1 to 26 committed fraud by cheating the depositors. The case diary reveals that accused Nos.1 to 26 collected deposits from the victims and diverted the deposit amounts to the companies of A2 and his family members with an intention to cheat the depositors.

10. The petitioner/A27 was taken into police custody in Crime

No.10 of 2025 for a period of five days and the custody period has been completed. The respondent/complainant examined 49 witnesses and recorded the confession-cum-seizure panchanama. The material part of the investigation in respect of petitioner/A27 has been completed.