Sri. A.Satyanand

BEFORE THE CHAIRMAN, MOTOR ACCIDENTS CLAIMS TRIBUNAL-

CUM-IV ADDITIONAL DISTRICT JUDGE:: TIRUPATI

Present: Sri A.Satyanand, IV Additional District Judge, Tirupati. FAC Chairman, Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal -cum-X Additional District Judge, Tirupati. Wednesday, the 13th (Thirteenth) day of April 2022

M.V.O.P.No. 62 of 2016

Between:

1. Y.Prathap

2. Y.Lakshmi Devi.... Petitioners.

and:

1. D.Srinivas Rao,

2. Future Generali India Insurance Co., Ltd., Hyderabad, rep., by its authorized Signatory.

3. K.Sudharshan Reddy.… Respondent.

This petition came before me on 12.04.2022 for final hearing in the presence of Sri Gali Sreenivasulu, Advocate for petitioners and of Sri

D.Damodar Reddy, Advocate for the 2nd respondent. The respondents 1 and 3 remained exparte. Upon hearing the arguments, perusing the record and having considered the matter till this day, this Tribunal delivered the following:

ORDER

1. Parents of the deceased Y.Eswara Prasad Royal who died in a motor vehicle accident filed this petition U/Sec.163(A)) of M.V. Act r/w Rule 455 and 475 of A.P. Motor Vehicles Rules claiming Rs.5,00,000/- with subsequent interest @ 18% P.A as compensation from the respondents.

2. As per the averments of the petition, the case of the petitioners is follows:

2.1) The deceased Y.Eswara Prasad Royal was 5 years and was hale and healthy prior to the accident, and he is the only son to the petitioners and would have lived up to the age of 80 years. On 22.10.2015 at 9.30 AM, the 3rd respondent driver of the 1st respondent’s Car bearing No.AP-28-CF- 9959 drove in from Rajampeta in wrong side in a rash and negligent manner and hit the motorcycle on which the deceased and the 1st petitioner were proceedings towards Rajempeta on the left side of the road near Syndicate 2MVOP 62/2016, X ADJ, Tpt.

Bank, Mukkavaripalle cross, Obulavaripalle Mandal on Koduru – Rajempeta

State High Way. In that accident, Eswara Prasad Royal and the 1st petitioner received bleeding injuries and the deceased Eswara Prasad Royal died on the spot.

2.2) SHO of Obulavaripalle P.S., registered a case in Cr.No.87/2015

U/sec.337 and 304(A) IPC. The 3rd respondent caused the accident in the course of his employment under the 1st respondent who entered into contract of indemnity with the 2nd respondent and paid premium. Hence, all the respondents are jointly and severally liable to pay the compensation to the petitioners.

3. Respondents 1 and 3 did not choose to contest the petitioners claim and remained exparte. The 2nd respondent alone filed counter contending that the alleged accident was only due to gross negligence of the rider of the motorcycle who drove the same in a Zigzag fashion with high speed without having driving licence ignoring traffic rules and caused confusion in the mind of driver of the vehicle coming in opposite with due care and caution. The policy particulars are false. The alleged policy is nothing but a fabricated document. No such policy was issued to the 1st respondent in respect of the alleged offending vehicle. The petitioners and 1st respondent colluded with each other and filed petition with intent to have wrongful gain basing on fabricated and forged policy. Hence, the petition is liable to be dismissed against the 2nd respondent. The deceased is minor and non earning member. The compensation claimed is excessive.

The petition is bad for non joinder of necessary parties i.e., owner and insurer of the motorcycle involved in the accident. Hence, the petition is liable to be dismissed.

4. Basing on the above pleadings, the following issues are settled for trial, by the then Chairman:

1) Whether the accident is caused due to rash and negligent driving of 3rd respondent while driving the Car bearing No.AP 28 CF 9959?

2) Whether the petitioners are entitled for compensation, If so, from whom?

3MVOP 62/2016, X ADJ, Tpt.

3) To what relief?

5. During the trial, one witness each was examined on both sides and

Exs.A1 to A6 are marked on the petitioner’s side and Ex.B1 and B2 are marked on behalf of the 2nd respondent.

6. Heard both sides. The 2nd respondent's counsel filed written arguments as well.

6.1) The counsel for the Petitioner contended that the evidence on record show that in the accident occurred near Syndicate Bank of

Mukkavaripalle on Koduru – Rajampeta State High Way at 9.30 AM on 22.10.2015, the deceased Eswara Prasad Royal died and the 1st petitioner received injuries and that the 3rd respondent was the driver working under 1st respondent and the vehicle was insured with the 2nd respondent and that though the 2nd respondent contended that, no such policy was issued in respect of offending vehicle and filed policy is fake, no report was given or any action was taken against the person who issued fake policy and hence, the petitioners are entitled for compensation as prayed for. In support of his contention he relied on the following decisions:

1) National Insurance Co., Ltd., Vs., Gurpreet Singh and others (2016 ACJ 851),

2) HDFC ERGO General Insurance Co., Ltd., Vs., Nimaji and others (2017 ACJ 2830) and

3) Kurvan Ansari @ Kurvan Ali and another Vs., Shyam Kishore Murmu and another (2022 (1) ALD 74 (SC)) 6.2) The counsel for the 2nd respondent contended that Ex.B1 copy of insurance policy clearly shows that Ex.A3 policy is a fake policy and hence the 2nd respondent need not pay any compensation to the petitioners as there is no contract of indemnity between the respondents 1 and 2 and hence, the petition is liable to be dismissed against the 2nd respondent.

7. ISSUES 1 & 2:

7.1) As both the above issues are interrelated, they are being dealt in common to avoid repetition of facts and for better appreciation of the contentions of the parties to the petition.

4MVOP 62/2016, X ADJ, Tpt.

7.2) According to the petitioners, the 3rd respondent by driving the offending vehicle of the 1st respondent in a rash and negligent manner dashed the motorcycle being driven by the 1st petitioner, due to which the 1st petitioner sustained injuries and their son Eswara Prasad Royal died on the spot with injuries and that the offending vehicle was insured with the 2nd respondent. According to the 2nd respondent, it did not issue any policy in favour of 1st respondent for the period during which the accident took place and that the policy filed by the petitioners is fake policy and that the accident was due to negligence of the 1st petitioner, but not due to negligence of the 3rd respondent and hence, it need not pay any compensation to the petitioners.

7.3) In support of their claim, the 1st petitioner as PW1 reiterated all the averments of the petition and got the certified copies of FIR, inquest report, photo copy of insurance policy, certified copy of P.M. certificate, certified copy of charge sheet and school receipts marked as Exs.A1 to A6 respectively.

7.4) Duggu Sandeep Kumar legal assistant of the 2nd respondent insurance company as RW1 reiterated all the counter averments and got the true copy of insurance policy and photo copy of letter addressed to 1st respondent informing that no policy was issued for the accident vehicle and hence 2nd respondent company is not liable, marked as Ex.B1 and B2 respectively.

7.5) In this case, there is no dispute about the death of the deceased

Y.Eswara Prasad Royal in the accident that had taken place near Syndicate

Bank of Mukkavaripalle cross on Koduru – Rajampeta State High Way at 9.30 AM on 22.10.2015. Ex.A1 FIR, Ex.A2 inquest report, Ex.A4 P.M. report, and Ex.A5 charge sheet coupled with the evidence of PW.1 prove the same.

7.6) So far the negligence on the part of the 3rd respondent driver is concerned, the 3rd respondent did not contest the petitioners’ claim that the 5MVOP 62/2016, X ADJ, Tpt.

accident was due to his negligence. Though the 2nd respondent contended that the accident was due to negligence of the petitioner and PW1 clearly denied its suggestion that the accident was due to his negligence but not due to negligence of the driver of the offending vehicle, the 2nd respondent did not choose to adduce any evidence in support of its contention. During his cross-examination, RW1 admitted that a case was registered against the driver of the car bearing No.AP 29 CF 9959 and the owner was not shown as accused in the criminal case. Ex.A5 charge sheet shows that the 3rd respondent was charge sheeted for the death of the deceased Y.Eswara

Prasad Royal on the ground that the accident took place due to his negligence. In New India Assurance Co., Ltd. vs. Pazhaniammal and others (2012 ACJ 1370) at para 12, it was held thus:

“A system cannot feed itself on a regular diet of distrust of the police. Prima facie, charge sheet filed by a police officer after due investigation can be accepted as evidence of negligence against indictee. If any one of the parties does not accept such charge sheet, the burden must be on such party to adduce oral evidence. If oral evidence is adduced by any party, in case where charge sheet is filed, the tribunals should give further opportunity to others also to adduce oral evidence and in such a case the charge sheet will pale in to insignificance and the dispute will have to be decided on the basis of the evidence. In all other cases, such charge sheet can be reckoned as sufficient evidence of negligence in a claim under section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act 1988”.

Hence, after taking the evidence of PW1 and the fact of filing of charge sheet by the investigating officer against the 3rd respondent for his negligent driving and his failure to contest the petition, I have no hesitation to conclude that the accident in which the deceased Y.Eswara Prasad Royal died was due to negligent driving of the 3rd respondent driver.

7.7) There is no dispute about the age of the deceased Y.Eswara

Prasad Royal as 5 years by the date of accident. In Kurvan Ansari @ Kurvan

Ali and another Vs., Shyam Kishore Murmu and another (2022 (1) ALD 74 (SC)), while dealing with the claim for the death of 7 years old boy and is non earning member, the Hon’ble Supreme Court after referring to the judgments in cases in Puttamma and others Vs., K.L.Narayana Reddy and another (2013 (15) SCC 6MVOP 62/2016, X ADJ, Tpt.

45 and R.K.Malik and another Vs., Kiran Pal and others (2009 (14) SCC 1) and

Kisan Gopal and others Vs., Lala and others (2013 (6) ALD 59 (SC)), increased the notional income of the deceased at Rs.25,000/- per annum by taking into account, the inflation, devaluation of the rupee and cost of living and by applying multiplier 15 as prescribed in Schedule-II granted Rs.3,75,000/- towards loss of dependency besides Rs.40,000/- each towards filial consortium and Rs.15,000/- towards funeral expenses and thus allowed the claim for

Rs.4,70,000/-. In this case also as the deceased is non earning member aged 5 years the same compensation can be awarded to the both the petitioners who are the parents of the deceased minor son.

7.8) According to the 2nd respondent, Ex.A3 policy was not issued by it and that it was fake and in fact Ex.B1 policy was issued for the period from 29.09.2004 to 28.09.2015, but the accident occurred on 22.10.2015 which was not covered by the policy. As seen from Ex.A3 policy, it appears that it is for the period from 29.09.2015 to 28.09.2016 and it contains the round seal of insurance company Mumbai besides the logo at the right top corner. Ex.B1 did not contain the round seal of Mumbai branch, but it was with round seal of the 2nd respondent insurance company at Hyderabad and both the policies are with same policy number. But, No evidence is adduced by the 2nd respondent company to show that Ex.B1 is genuine and Ex.A3 is fake. In National Insurance Co., Ltd., Vs., Gurpreet Singh and others (2016 ACJ 851), in the similar set of facts where the insurance company took defence that the so-called policy had not been issued for Maruti motor car bearing No.HR 07 900 and was issued for motorcycle bearing No.DB W 4019 and the name of the agent that had been mentioned in both cover notes having the same number and the witness affirmed that he issued cover note only to cover risk of Maruthi car by collecting premium and another person examined by the insurer deposed that he never received any money and never used to collect premium from any of their agents, the High Court held that if the cover note was fabricated by the agent, the agent must have been confronted with the cover note having the very same number that purported to cover the risk for the 7MVOP 62/2016, X ADJ, Tpt.

motorcycle, but the insurer did not even confront the cover note and thereby and if confronted the insurer may have his remedy against own agent and that cannot be set up against either the insured or a third party claimant, the liability on the insurer on the basis of the cover note that cover the risk of

Maruthi car cannot therefore be faulted with.

7.9) In HDFC ERGO General Insurance Co., Ltd., Vs., Nimaji and others (2017 ACJ 2830) where the insurance company contended that the policy filed by the petitioner is fake with regard to the period of coverage, but admitted issuance of policy for the vehicle for different period and did not give any report to police, held that “it is pertinent to note that in the matter in hand the insurance company has admitted coverage of vehicle through insurance policy

Ex.A1, but denied the period of coverage with regard to which claim petition was filed under insurance policy Ex.A11 filed by the claimant and the accident was caused on 09.06.2012 and the claim petition was p[ending before the

Tribunal from 2012, but the insurance company did not initiate any proceeding against the owner for produced forged and fabricated policy and it is only in the year 2016 that a complaint was sent to Superintendent of Police. The appellant insurance company could have produced the record containing the receipt of premium proposal form, name of agent and code etc., to prove that the policy produced by the insurance company as Ex.A1 is genuine one and was issued for the period 12.06.2012 to 11.06.2013. However, as rightly noticed by the learned judge MACT cases, the appellant insurance company has failed to prove the same” and dismissed the appeal holding that the finding and conclusion recorded awarding compensation holding insurance company liable jointly and severally is based on proper appreciation of evidence.

7.10) In the case on hand, RW1 during his cross-examination on 16.03.2020 deposed that Ex.A3 policy does not belong to the 2nd respondent insurance company and they came to know about tampering of policy one year back, and they have made complaint to the Superintendent of Police. But, no such copy of complaint is filed as admitted by him. He denied the suggestion that Ex.B1 is not genuine and Ex.A3 is genuine and there was no tampering of 8MVOP 62/2016, X ADJ, Tpt.

policy. Ex.A3 policy was filed along with the petition in the year 2016 and Ex.B2 notice was issued on 26.07.2016. Hence, RW1’s evidence that they came to know about faking of policy about one year back, cannot be believed. In this case, the insurance company did not take any action against the owner of the vehicle for faking the policy and failed to produce any evidence with regard to the steps taken by it. Had Ex.A3 is tampered and B1 is original, the 2nd respondent company should have produced the proposal form and the details to which vehicle and for which period the policy number mentioned on Ex.A3 and Ex.B1 was issued. Simply because summons were not served on the 1st respondent owner and he issued Ex.B2 notice to the owner informing that he is not liable to indemnify him as on the ground that no policy was issued, it cannot escape from its liability unless it proves that Ex.A3 is fake. Hence, in those circumstances, I have no hesitation to conclude that the 2nd respondent failed to prove that Ex.A3 is fake policy and hence, it is not liable to indemnify to the 1st respondent and to conclude that the 1st respondent being owner and 2nd respondent being the insurer and the 3rd respondent being the driver of the offending vehicle are jointly and severally liable to pay the compensation to the petitioners. Accordingly, both the issues are answered.

8. ISSUE No.3:

In view of my above discussion on issues 1 to 3, the petitioners can be awarded Rs.4,70,000/- (Rupees four lakhs and seventy thousand only) with proportionate costs as compensation for the death of the deceased

Y.Eswar Prasad Royal, The respondents 1 to 3 shall pay the same within one month with interest @ 6% p.a., from the date of filing of the claim till the date of payment. Accordingly, this issue is answered.

9. In the result, this petition is allowed with costs directing the respondents 1 to 3 to pay Rs.4,70,000/- (Rupees four lakh and seventy thousand only) with proportionate costs. The respondents 1 to 3 shall pay the same within one month with interest @ 6% p.a., from the date of filing of the claim till the date of payment. Advocate fee is fixed at Rs.5,000/- (Rupees five thousand only).

9MVOP 62/2016, X ADJ, Tpt.

Out of the above compensation, the 1st petitioner is entitled for

Rs.2,00,000/- with costs and proportionate interest and the 2nd petitioner is entitled for Rs.2,70,000/- with accrued interest thereon. On deposit both the petitioners are permitted to withdraw their respective shares as the compensation is for the accident that took place in the year 2016.

Typed to my dictation by the Stenographer Grade II, corrected and

pronounced by me in the open court on this, 13th day of April 2022.

Sd/- A.Satyanand,

Chairman, MACT-cum-IV Addl District Judge, FAC X ADJ.Tirupati.

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

WITNESSES EXAMINED

For the Petitioners: For the Respondents:

PW.1Y.PrathapRW.1Duggu Sandeep Kumar

Exhibits Marked

For petitioners:

Ex.A122.10.2015Certified copy of FIR Ex.A224.10.2015Certified copy of Inquest report Ex.A3--Photostat copy of insurance policy (marked subject to objection) Ex.A4--Certified copy of postmortem certificate Ex.A5-Certified copy of charge sheet Ex.A6--School receipts for Rs.16,800/-

For respondents:

Ex.B1--True copy of insurance policy Ex.B226.07.2016Photostat copy of letter with postal receipt.

Sd/- A.Satyanand,

Chairman, MACT, TPT-cum-X ADJ, Tirupati.

In the Court of V Additional District and Sessions Judge, Tirupati.

Present: Sri A.Satyanand, IV Additional District & Sessions Judge, Tirupati. FAC V Additional District & Sessions Judge, Tirupati. Tuesday, the 12th day of April 2022

Crl.M.P.No. 181 of 2022

Cr.No.21/2021 of RSASTF P.S., Tirupati Between:

1. Veluru Ram Narayana @ Narayana, S/o V.Sridhar, Hindu, aged 33 years, Residing at D.No.9/492, Mangalam Quarters, Near R.T.O Office, Tirupati Urban, Chittoor District.

2. Desai Raghavendra @ Raghava S/o D.Venu, Hindu, aged 34 years, Residing at D.No.22-9-377, Mangalam Quarters, Settipalli, Tirupati Urban, Chittoor District.… Petitioners/A3 & 4. and: The State, represented by the S.H.O., RSASTF P.S., Tirupati. … Respondent/Complainant. This petition came before me on this day for hearing in the presence of Sri A.Bhoopathy, Advocate for petitioners/A3 & 4 and of Sri. A.Keerthi Sekhar,

Additional Public Prosecutor for the State. Upon hearing arguments, perusing the

record and having considered the matter till this day, this Court delivered the following:

ORDER

1. The accused 3 and 4 in Cr.No.21/2021 of RSASTF P.S., Tirupati registered for the offences punishable under Sec. 379 r/w 34 IPC and Secs. 20(1)(d)(i) (a) r/w 20 (1) (c) (ii) (iii) (iv) (x) and Sec.36(a) r/w 32-A and 29(4) (a) (i) of A.P.Forest Amendment Act, 2016, filed this petition U/sec.439 Cr.P.C praying to grant bail contending that they did not commit any offence and they were implicated and that they are the only earning members of their families and if continuing judicial custody, their families will suffer loss and that they have got permanent abode of residence and movable and immovable properties and the investigation has been completed, and they undertake to appear before court on each and every adjournment.

2. Heard both sides.

3. Now the point for consideration is: Whether the petitioners/A3 and 4 can be granted bail ?

4. Point:

4.1) According to the prosecution, on 14.04.2021 at 9.30 AM while the Reserve Sub-Inspector, RSASTF along with his staff conducting vehicle checking on Renigunta – Kadapa National High Way Mahindra Scorpio vehicle coming from Renigunta side, stopped some distance and the inmates got down and escaped from the spot and they caught the driver A1 and verified the vehicle and found 5 red sanders logs and he confessed that on the instruction of A2, he went to forest along with A3 and A4 and some other smugglers got those red sander logs, loaded and while proceeding towards Bangalore via Kadapa, police caught him and A2 to A4 escaped and basing on his confession, those logs were seized under police

2

proceedings and under the report of RSI, FIR was registered and later A2 was produced on PT warrant and A3 and A4 were arrested on 30.03.2022.

4.2) According to the petitioners they did not commit any offence, and a false case was foisted against them. The learned Additional Public Prosecutor opposed the bail contending that the investigation is pending for arrest of A5 to A8 and for sanction orders against arrested accused.

4.3) On perusal of C.D., it appears that the petitioners were arrested on 30.03.2022 at 7.00 AM when they tried to escape on seeing the police and they were confessed the offence in Cr.No.21/2021 registered in the month of April 2021. Admittedly nothing was seized from the possession of petitioners at the time of arrest. The alleged contraband and the vehicle was already seized from the possession of A1 on 14.04.2021. Record shows that already charge sheet was prepared against A1 to A4 and is ready to file. Petitioners are permanent resident of Chittoor District and are ready to produce sureties for their release on bail. Hence, after taking the fact that nothing was seized from the possession of the petitioners and the investigation is already completed, I feel it just to grant conditional bail to the petitioners. Accordingly, this point is answered.

5. In the result, this petition is allowed. The petitioners/A3 & 4 shall be released on execution of bond for Rs.25,000/- each with two sureties for like sum each to the satisfaction of V Addl.Judicial Magistrate of Ist Class, Tirupati.

Typed to my dictation by the Stenographer of this court, corrected and

pronounced by me in the open court, on this the 12th day of April 2022.

Sd/- A.Satyanand,

IV Additional Sessions Judge, Tirupati. FAC V Additional Sessions Judge, Tirupati. Copy to:

1. The V Addl.Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Tirupati.

2. The S.H.O., RSASTF P.S., Tirupati.

3. The counsel for petitioners on payment of statutory charges.

// t.c.b.o.//

Chief Administrative Officer

In the Court of V Additional District and Sessions Judge, Tirupati.

Present: Sri A.Satyanand, IV Additional District & Sessions Judge, Tirupati. FAC V Additional District & Sessions Judge, Tirupati. Tuesday, the 12th day of April 2022

Crl.M.P.No. 196 of 2022

Cr.No.28/2022 of Sathyavedu P.S., Between:

Ashok S/o late Raghupathi Naidu, Hindu, aged 39 years, D.No.41, Puduru Rice Mill Village, Kunnavalam Post, Tiruvallur District. … Petitioner/A3. and: The State, represented by the S.H.O., Sathyavedu P.S., … Respondent/Complainant. This petition came before me on this day for hearing in the presence of Sri A.Bhoopathy, Advocate for petitioner/A3 and of Sri. A.Keerthi Sekhar, Additional Public Prosecutor for the State. Upon hearing arguments, perusing the record and having considered the matter till this day, this Court delivered the following:

ORDER

1. The 3rd accused in Cr.No.28/2022 of Sathyavedu P.S., registered for the offences punishable under Sec.447, 427, 379, 120(b) r/w 34 IPC and Secs. 20(1)(d)

(i) (a) r/w 20 (1) (c) (ii) (iii) (iv) (ix) (x) r/w 32-A r/w 29 (1)(4) (a) 1 (a) (b) of A.P.Forest Amendment Act, 2016 and Sec.3(1) and 5 of Prevention of Damage to Public Property Act, filed this petition U/sec.439 Cr.P.C praying to grant bail contending that he did not commit any offence, but was falsely implicated on imaginary ground and that he has no acquaintance with A1 and A2 and the police to implicate him took him and his car from his village and that he is the only earning member of his family and maintaining Garment Factory in which 220 persons were employed, and he has got good reputation and that the investigation has been completed, and he is ready to produce sureties for his release and to abide by the conditions if any.

2. Heard both sides.

3. Now the point for consideration is: Whether the petitioner/A3 can be granted bail ?

4. Point:

4.1) According to the prosecution, on 30.03.2022 at 4.30 PM while the Inspector of Police, Sathyavedu conducting vehicle checking near Dasukuppam on Sathyavedu – Uthukottai road, they found one car being followed by Mini lorry dashed the barricades and proceeded towards Uthukottai, they caught the Mini lorry and caught A1 and A2 when they tried to escape and on verification, they found 53 red sanders logs weighing 1457.5 kgs and they have confessed the offence of transporting those logs to Chennai port for smuggling the same to Foreign countries and A3 was piloting the Mini lorry, those logs and Mini lorry were seized and thereafter arrested A3 at his house and seized his Swift Car in the presence of mediators.

2

4.2) According to the petitioner he did not commit any offence, and was falsely implicated in this case by taking him and his car from his house and that 220 workers are working in his Garment Factory and he is the sole breadwinner of his family. The learned Additional Public Prosecutor opposed the bail contending that the investigation is pending for apprehension of absconding accused 4 and 5 and that the petitioner is the king pin and if released on bail, the petitioner will abscond and there is no chance for identifying the king pins who got forward and backward links of red sanders smuggling.

4.3) About 53 logs weighing 1457.5 kgs worth Rs.72,87,500/- red sanders logs and Mini lorry and Swift car were seized in this case and as per the confession of arrested accused, a huge red sanders smuggling rocket is dealing with the transportation of those logs and to unearth the said rocket, deep investigation is required. The investigation in this case is at threshold and if petitioner is granted bail at this stage, he will try to obstruct the investigation which will ultimately prevent the prosecution from completing investigation. Hence, I feel it is not correct time to grant bail to the petitioner. Accordingly, this point is answered.

5. In the result, this petition is dismissed.

Typed to my dictation by the Stenographer of this court, corrected and

pronounced by me in the open court, on this the 12th day of April 2022.

Sd/- A.Satyanand,

IV Additional Sessions Judge, Tirupati. FAC V Additional Sessions Judge, Tirupati. Copy to:

1. The Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Sathyavedu.

2. The S.H.O., Sathyavedu P.S.,

3. The counsel for petitioner on payment of statutory charges.

// t.c.b.o.//

Chief Administrative Officer

IN THE COURT OF THE X ADDITIONAL DISTRICT JUDGE, TIRUPATHI.

PRESENT:- Sri A.Satyanand, IV Addl.District Judge, Tirupathi, FAC.X Addl.District Judge, Tirupathi.

Dated this theTwelveth (12th ) day of April, 2022.

E.P.No.93/2021

ARC.No.948/2018

Between: M/s.Shriram City Union Finance Limited, having branch at T.K.Street, Tirupathi-2 Branch, represented by its GPA Holder A.Ramana Reddy and present GPA Holder V.Gopi, S/o V.Neerajakshulu Naidu, aged about 31 years, working as Branch Manager. ..... Decree Holder

And:

1. T.K.Ravi Kumar, S/o T.M.Krishnappa Modali, Hindu, aged about 45 years, residing at D.No.1-22, Eswaran Koil Street, Sathrawada, Nagari, Chittoor District-517 234. Business: Ravi Textiles, D.No.1-22, Eswaran Koil Street, Sathrawada, Nagari, Chittoor District.

2. S.Murugesan, S/o K.Subramanyam, Hindu, aged about 36 years, residing at D.No.2- 26/R, Ithepalli Village, Chandragiri Mandal, Chittoor District working as Secondary Grade Teacher, MPP School, V.Kota, Chittoor District.

3. M.Vani, D/ M.Chengalrayalu, Hindu, aged about 36 years, residing at Goturuvandalapalli Village, Chinnagottigallu Mandal, Chittoor District working as Secondary Grade Teacher, MPPS, Gantavaripalli, Mangalampeta, Pulicherla Mandal, Chittoor District.

..... Judgment Debtors

This Execution Petition is filed Under Order 21 Rule 22, 48 and 60 CPC prays to issue R.22 Notice to Jdr.2 and attach the salary of Jdr.2 Under Order 21 Rule 48 CPC subject to provision of Sec.60 CPC for the realisation of the EP Amount with further interest and costs.

This petition is coming on this day before me for furnishing correct address of Jdr.2 in the presence of Sri G.V.Subbaiah, Advocate for Decree Holder and having filed a memo by Dhr., for not pressing the E.P., finally, this court delivered the following:

O R D E R

Dhr. filed memo not pressing E.P. Memo is recorded. This EP is dismissed as not pressed by the Dhr.

Pronounced by me in the open court, this the 12th day of April, 2022.

Sd/-A.Satyanand,

IV Additional District Judge, FAC.X Additional District Judge, Tirupathi.

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

-- NIL -- Sd/-AS,

IV ADJ,

FAC.X ADJ,

TPT.

IN THE COURT OF THE X ADDITIONAL DISTRICT JUDGE, TIRUPATHI.

PRESENT:- Sri A.Satyanand, IV Addl.District Judge, Tirupathi, FAC.X Addl.District Judge, Tirupathi.

Dated this the Thirteenth (13th ) day of April, 2022.

E.P.No.178/2021

ARC.No.47/2010

Between:

M/s.Shriram City Union Finance Limited, having branch at D.No.138/A-2, I Floor, T.K.Street, Tirupathi-2 Branch, represented by its GPA Holder K.V.Ramana at present GPA Holder V.Gopi, S/o V.Neerajakshulu Naidu, aged about 31 years, working as Branch Manager.

..... Decree Holder

And:

1. M/s.Vamsi Chemical Industries represented by Proprietor Smt.B.Sirijavenkat, W/o B.Venkatesh, Hindu, aged about 40 years, R/at 13/32, NGO Colony, Thatithopu, Tirupathi, presently residing at Subbareddy Nagar, Near S.V.Nagar, Chittoor District.

2. N.Sujatha, W/o S.Sardhar, aged about 49 years, D.No.13-7-940, Korlagunta, Chittoor District.

3. S.Rajendra Prasad, S/o S.Sundaram, Hindu, aged about 40 years, D.No.20-5-575, Maruthi Nagar, Korlagunta, Tirupathi, Chittoor District.

4. K.Usman Doula, S/o S.Abdulla, D.No.11-168, S.V.Nagar, near West Railway Station, Tirupathi working as LOCO Pilot in Tirupathi Railway Station, Tirupathi, Chittoor District.

..... Judgment Debtors

This Execution Petition is filed Under Order 21 Rule 46 CPC prays to attach the arrears of leave salary of Jdr.4 Under Order 21 R.46 CPC subject to Provision of Sec.60 CPC for the realisation of the EP amount with further interest and costs.

This petition is coming on this day before me for furnishing correct address of Jdr.4 in the presence of Sri G.V.Subbaiah, Advocate for Decree Holder and having filed a memo by Dhr., for not pressing the E.P., finally, this court delivered the following:

O R D E R

Dhr. filed memo not pressing the E.P. Memo is recorded. This EP is dismissed as not pressed by the Dhr.

Pronounced by me in the open court, this the 13th day of April, 2022.

Sd/- A.Satyanand,

IV Additional District Judge, FAC.X Additional District Judge, Tirupathi.

// 2 //

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

-- NIL --

Sd/-A.S.,

IV ADJ,

FAC.X ADJ,

TPT.