Dr B.Lakshmi Narayana

1

IN THE COURT OF III ADDITIONAL DISTRICT JUDGE :: BHIMAVARAM :: WEST

GODAVARI DISTRICT

Present: Dr. B.Lakshmi Narayana,

Special Judge for Speedy Trial of Offences

Under POCSO Act, 2012, Bhimavaram FAC/ III Additional District Judge,

Thursday, this the 9th day of April, 2026

A.S.No. 32 of 2025

Between:

Peethala Raju……..Appellant/

Plaintiff

And

Gurram Sadguna Rao ...Respondent/

Defendant

Appeal preferred against the Decree and Judgment passed in O.S.No.

461/2021, Dated 04.08.2023 on the file of Prinicipal Junior Civil Judge,

Bhimavaram

Peethala Raju …. Plaintiff

And

Gurram Sadguna Rao … Defendant

This appeal has come on 10.02.2026 for final hearing before me in the presence of Sri K.S.S.Prasad, Advocate for the appellants/ plaintiff and of Sri

Y.H.Newton, Advocate for Respondent/defendant and having stood over for consideration till this day, the Court made the following:

J U D G M E N T

1)The unsuccessful Plaintiff in O.S.No.461/2021 on the file of Principal

Civil Judge ( Junior Division) , Bhimavaram is the appellant. He felt aggrieved by

the Judgment and decree dated 04.08.2023, passed by the Trial Court, have preferred the present appeal.

2

2)The parties to the appeal are referred as per their array in the suit.

3)Pleadings of the respective parties to the suit are narrated in a nutshell as follows:

For plaintiff/ Appellant :

The defendant borrowed an amount of Rs.5,00,000/- (Rupees Five lakhs only) for his family welfare and for purchase of container lorry from the plaintiff on 27.06.2020 duly executing promissory note in favour of plaintiff undertaking to repay the same with interest at the rate of 24% per annum with yearly rests, payable either to plaintiff or on his order on demand, and in spite of repeated demands, as the defendant has not chosen to repay the said debt under the promissory note, the plaintiff got issued legal notice on 13.08.2021, and though it was received, as the amount of debt is not discharged, hence, this suit.

4. For Defendants/ Respondent:

Having perusal of the material on record, the Court registered the said case and issued summons to the defendant. The defendant having received the summons made his appearance before this Court through his counsel and filed his written statement denying the plaint averments by para by para and further contending that he got issued reply legal notice dt.13.09.2021 and further submitted that he borrowed an amount of Rs.50,000/- from his sister’s husband by name

Siddaluri Durga Venkata Soubhagya Raju on 10.04.2021 at which time, the said

Raju obtained signature of the defendant on blank signed promissory note and though it is repaid, without returning the same, keeping in view of the property disputes, the said Sourbhagya Raju got filed this suit with the plaintiff. He further contended that his mother namely Gurram Vijaya Kumari also filed a case against her daughter by name Bhudevi, who is the sister of defendant and also against her son in-law by name Raju in Kalla PS on 25.08.2021 for their forging the signatures and fabricating documents and the defendant opines that as a counter blast of the said police report, the present suit is got filed through this plaintiff by his brother-in- law Raju for wrongful gain and with all such contentions, prayed the court to dismiss the suit with costs.

3

5. Considering the counter contentions, this court made an attempt for settlement u/S.89 CPC, but in vain.

6. Thus, basing on the counter contentions of both the parties, this Court framed the following issues for determination :

1) Whether the suit promissory note is true, correct and binding on the defendant?

2) Whether the plaintiff is entitled to get the decree of suit amount, as prayed for?

3) If so, to what relief?

7. Learned Prinicipal Junior Civil Judge, Bhimavaram after having considered overall pleadings and evidence, both oral and documentary, placed on record on behalf of both the parties to the suit dismissed.

8. Feeling aggrieved by the finding of the learned Principal Civil Judge ( Junior Division) , Bhimavaram appellant/ Plaintiff preferred this appeal in following lines.

The decree and Judgment passed by the lower court in the suit are contrary to law, weight of evidence and probabilities of the case. The lower court should have decreed suit with cots, inspite of dismissing it. The lower court should have seen that the initial burden is on the plaintiff to prove the execution of Ex. A-1 pronote accordingly the plaintiff has established its execution by placing the cogent evidence. The lower court has simply relied upon the evidence of P.Ws-2 and 3, who spoke few sentences against to the case of the plaintiff. On one hand the lower court discussed that P.W-2 has stated that at the time of execution of the suit pronote and at the time of passing of consideration amount to the defendant he was present. As such this version must have been considered by the lower court. The lower court on one hand concluded that as per the evidence of P.W-2 the plaintiff gave money to the defendant. On the other hand it is concluded by the lower court that this P.W-2 is not spoken specifically and this part of evidence of P.W-2 appears to be added, and hence concluded that passing of consideration kept under the cloud. The lower court should have seen that it is not the case of the defendant that 4 the plaintiff has no financial capacity to lend the amount, and it is not his case that the suit pronote is not supported by consideration.

The lower court should have seen that pronote is not a compulsorily attestable document, and that there are catena of decisions showing that the attestor of the document need not know all the contents of the document. Thus the lower court went wrong in finding the discrepancies in his evidence. The lower court would have seen that P.W-2 can only be given evidence in accordance with the questions putforth before me on behalf of the defendant, and in case there is a clear question with regard to the defence P.W-2 would have given proper answers.

The lower court went wrong in concluding that there are property disputes in between P.W-3 and the defendant and that there were police cases. At the same time the lower court would have seen when such title disputes arose, whether they are prior to the suit pronote or thereafter. Without demarcating this line the lower court can not discard the evidence of P.W-3. The lower court would have seen that the attestors or the scribe of the pronote will be persons in and around the houses of the plaintiff or defendant. Here the lower court wrongly concluded that P.W-1,

P.W-2 and Ch. Samiyelu are the residents of same locality and Soubhagya Raju who is the brother in law of the defendant is the close relative, and that he has no talking terms with the Sowbhagya Raju, which version is not a conclusive proof for the dismissal of the suit on pronote. The lower court on one hand drew presumption under section 118 of Evidence Act and contrary to it drew presumption under Section 114 of Evidence Act. The lower court should have seen when the presumption under Section 118 is available Section 114 of Evidence Act can not come into picture. Where there is no provision for drawing presumption then only

Section 114 of Evidence Act comes into play. Thus the presumption has been drawn under Section 118 of NI Act as the defendant has admitted his signature on the suit pronote is a conclusive proof that the plaintiff has proved the execution of the pronote, and hence the lower court should have decreed the suit as prayed for.

The lower court should have seen that contrary to A series documents and contrary to the evidence of P.Ws 1 and 3 the defendant did not let any other evidence because under Section 118 of NI Act it is clearly envisaged until and otherwise is 5 proved. The lower court has wrongly concluded the preponderance of probabilities created in the mind of the court where there is clear evidence available about the pleadings of the plaintiff. The lower court should have seen that the defendant has not placed any iota of cogent evidence to disprove the case of the plaintiff except himself orally examined as D.W-1. The lower court went wrong in holding the answers to all the issues in favour of the defendant. The lower court only on flimsy grounds dismissed the suit without assigning any valid, tenable and legal reasons, thus the decree and Judgment of the lower court are liable to be set aside.

The lower court should have seen that when once the defendant has admitted his signature on the suit pronote it should have drawn presumption on the part of the plaintiff and as against the defendant in respect of the proof of the suit pronote.

With regard to the sale deed aspect raised by the defendant in favour of the sister of the defendant unless the said document seen the light of the day the lower court has no right to comment anything thereon. With regard to the alleged property disputes the lower court should have concluded that the defendant did not place any iota of evidence on the said aspect. The lower court should have seen that the case of the defendant that she has borrowed Rs. 50,000/- from his brother in law and he is the person foisted the case through the plaintiff. If that were to be nothing is prevented the defendant to examine his brother in law on this aspect, but he did not move his little figure on this aspect for his examination. The lower court should have concluded that as Section 118 of NI Act it is a rebuttable presumption proved by the plaintiff beyond all doubts. The lower court should have concluded that burden of disproving the passing of consideration is on the defendant, and the defendant failed to establish the same, and hence it should have concluded that the suit pronote is supported by consideration.

9. After having heard elaborately by learned counsels for both the parties to the appeal, the points that emerge for consideration is:

1. Whether the plaintiff is entitled for the recovery of suit amount ?

2. Whether the findings under the impugned order dated 04.08.2023 made by learned Principal Civil Judge ( Junior Division) , Bhimavaram 6 need to be interfered with for getting the impugned Judgment and decree set aside?

3. If so, to what relief?

10. POINT No.1:

The plaintiff filed the suit based on promissory note 27.6.2020. In this regard, plaintiff raised contention that he lend an amount of Rs.5,00,000/- to the defendant on 27.6.2020 for his family welfare and purchase container lorry, to that effect executed demand promissory note in favour of plaintiff at Akividu undertaking to repay the same either to his order or on demand. The plaintiff contended that when defendant not repaid for his oral demands issued legal notice on 13.8.2021 by demanding to repay the said amount but defendant not discharged the debt so that filed the present suit on the file of Principal Civil Judge (Junior Division), Bhimavaram. Where as defendant, who caused appearance on receipt of summons denied plaint averments but admitted receipt of legal notice

dt. 13.8.2021 but he contended that he issued suitable reply on 13.9.2021. The

defendant further taken defence that one Siddaluri Durga Venakta Soubhagya

Raju, who is the sister’s husband of the defendant from whom defendant obtained loan of Rs.50,000/- on 10.4.2021 and agreed to repay with interest Rs.3/- per month by the time, the said Raju obtained signature of the defendant on blank promissory note. The defendant further raised defence that he cleared the debt of said Raju but on paid amount of Rs.53,000/- on 11.6.2021. when defendant demanded for return of promissory note, the said Raju postponed on some pretext by saying he kept the pronote in his medical kit and will return after traced, as such they relief came to know the plaintiff, who is friend of that said Raju colluded and fabricated the pronote because there is a dispute regarding the property between the defendant’s mother and defendant’s sister, for that defendant’s mother also filed the report before Kalla Police against defendant’s sister by name Bhudevi, who is wife of said Raju and said Raju with allegation that they pleaded signature of his mother and fabricated shame and nominal registered documents for land and house properties.

7

11.ISSUE NO.3:

Whether the suit is barred by limitation?

We have already observed as per the contention of the plaintiff, the alleged suit transaction taken on 27.6.2000, the present suit filed on 30.9.2021. Even we consider the defence of the defendant that he signed on blank promissory note on transaction with said Raju on 10.4.2021, on any count the suit is within limitation.

Moreover, defendant also not seriously disputed regarding the limitation. Hence, we can safely concluded that suit is within limitation.

12. ISSUE Nos. 1 and 2:

Both issues are inter related and required to answer together to avoid repetition of discussion. We have already observed, the defendants clearly and categorically denied the execution of the suit pronote dt. 27.6.2020. When defendant denied the execution of suit pronote, plaintiff has burden to establish the execution of pronote as per Sec.101 of Indian Evidence Act,

Burden of proof. –– Whoever desires any Court to give judgment as to any legal right or liability dependent on the existence of facts which he asserts, must prove that those facts exist. When a person is bound to prove the existence of any fact, it is said that the burden of proof lies on that person.

13. In this regard, the plaintiff himself came into witness box as P.W.1.

One of the attestor examined as P.W.2, scribe of pronote examined as P.W.3.

P.W.1 to P.W.3 filed their examination in chief by corroborating with each other as well as contents of the suit documents i.e., suit pronote. When we consider the cross-examination of P.W.1 to P.W.3, it is admitted fact that the scribe of the pronote i..e, P.W.3 is nothing but own brother in law of defendant I..e, brother of wife of

P.W.3, nothing but sister of defendant. It is also admitted fact from the evidence of both sides, the plaintiff is resident of Akividu, where as P.W.3 is also hails from

Akividu and after marriage residing with defendant family at Kolanalapalli Village of

Kalla Mandal regarding the execution of Ex.A-1. In cross-examination of P.W.1,

P.W.1 admitted that P.W.3 is his close relative and also defendant is his relative 8 through his sister. He further testified that Ex.A-1 pronote was executed at his house at about 11-00 A.M., on 27.6.2020, which was scribed by P.W.3. He further testified that one Ganta Balaraju and Chigurupati Samiyelu, who are resident of their locality attested Ex.A-1 but they are not his relatives. He further testified that defendant brought pronote, who initially signed Ex.A-1 pronote followed by

Chigurupati Samiyelu and Ganta Balaraju. He further deposed that defendant came to his house initially and followed by attestors. He further testified that the transaction took around one hour and he lend Rs.5,00,000/- in denomination of

Rs.500/- currency notes in 10 bundles. P.W.2 i.e., one of the attestor by name

Ganta Balaji, in his cross-examination, testified that plaintiff is his neighbour, whereas defendant is resident of Kolanalapalli Village Kalla Mandal and he got acquaintance with defendant through the plaintiff. He further deposed that he acted as attestor of Ex.A-1 pronote on request of the plaintiff but he do not know the contents of promissory note. He further deposed that he signed on promissory note on the request of the plaintiff at his house. He further deposed that except he, plaintiff and P.W.3 non-else were present, when he signed Ex.A-1 pronote note. He further deposed that one Raju, who is friend of plaintiff scribed pronote. Plaintiff gave money to the defendant in his presence when he signed on Ex.A-1 prontoe.

14. P.W.3 i.e., nothing but brother in law of defendant and scribe of pronote deposed that plaintiff is his friends but not close relative. He admitted that his wife is sister of defendant and one Gurram Vijaya Kumari is his mother in law, whose against this plaintiff filed another suit as O.S.458/2021 for recovery of money. He further deposed that he scribed E.A-1 pronote on the request of the plaintiff by the time plaintiff, defendant along with attestors are present. He further testified that initially defendant signed on Ex.A-1 pronote.

15. When we consider the evidence of P.W.1 to 3, their evidence is corroborating with each other regarding Ex.A-1 transaction had been taken on 27.6.2020 at the house of the plaintiff at Akividu. P.W.1 clearly and categorically testified on 27.6.2020 at about 11-00 A.M., the alleged transaction had ben taken at his house and it took one hour time. P.W.2 also testified on request of the plaintiff, who is his neighbour, he attested the document and in his presence, 9 plaintiff passed consideration under E.A-1. P.W.3 also testified plaintiff is his friend but not relative on his request, he prepared pronote by the time of plaintiff, defendant and both attestors were present. When consider the evidence of P.W.1 to P.W.3, their evidence is corroborating with each other regarding the execution of pronote for that we can safely conclude that plaintiff initially discharged his burden by establishing the execution of pronote.

Now the burden shifts on the defendant, who has to rebut the presumption raised in favour of the plaintiff under Sec.118(a) of Negotiable Instrument Act, as well as he never executed suit pronote in favour of plaintiff.

16. To discharge the said burden, defendant himself came into witness box as D.W.1 by filing his examination in chief as affidavit, which is nothing but copy of his written statement. In his cross-examination, he admitted that he is lorry driver and also own one lorry. He further testified that P.W.3 his own brother in law, who is residing in their house after his marriage. He further testified that after marriage of his daughter, some property disputes arose between them. He admitted that signature on Suit pronote belongs to him, but denied the case of the plaintiff.

When we consider the evidence of D.W.1, he admitting the signature on suit pronote as belongs to him. We have already observed in his pleadings and examination in chief also he reiterated what he taken defence that on 10.4.2021 borrowed an amount of Rs.50,000/- from his brother in law for that he signed on blank pronote and he cleared said debt on 11.6.2021 and paid amount of

Rs.53,000/- but his brother in law i.e., P.W.3, when asked about return of said document on pretext either it kept for medical kit or at his house replied as he will return the same , whenever he traced the documents. We have already observed,

P.W.3 is nothing but brother in law of D.W.1, when we consider the cross- examination of P.W.3 i.e., brother in law of D.W.1, this defendant suggested that by misusing the blank signed pronote given towards security by the defendant and the present suit is filed in view of criminal cases filed by the defendant’s mother against him and plaintiff.

17. When we consider entire cross-examination of P.W.3, the defendant not even tried to elicit from the mouth of P.W.3 or not even tried to suggest the 10 case of the defendant that he borrowed amount of Rs.50,000/- on 10.4.2021 and said amount repaid on 11.6.2021. When defendant failed to put forth his case on

P.W.3 is fatal to the case of the defendant. Whatsoever, though P.W.3 came into witness box, defendant failed to establish his case from the mouth of P.W.3, for that best reasons known to him only. When consider the evidence of P.W.3 and D.W.1, we can safely conclude that defendant not in a position to establish the alleged transaction between defendant and P.W.3 on 10.4.2021.

18. Moreover, if really any transaction taken between defendant and P.W.3 why he has not even get endorsement by payment of Rs.53,000/- on 11.6.2021 though not got return of signed blank pronote has not explained by the defendant.

We can not expect that defendant being a prudent man will not kept quiet without demanding payment endorsement when P.W.3 obtained blank pronote while lend an amount of Rs.50,0000/-. Moreover, as per the own defence of the defendant, his mother filed a report before police against this plaintiff and P.W.3 along with his own sister i.e., nothing but wife of P.W.3 by name Bhudevi on 25.8.2021. We have already observed on 13.8.2021, plaintiff issued a legal notice that marked as Ex.A-2 and evidencing the dispatch of that notice plaintiff also marked postal receipt at 13.8.2021. But on perused Ex.A-2 and Ex.A-3 both are dated as 31.8.2021, defendant also admitted that receipt of legal notice issued by the plaintiff, he also not raised any objection regarding the date of legal notice but he issued reply notice on 13.9.2021 but defendant not exhibited the said reply notice or not even filed postal receipt, postal acknowledgment evidencing, he sent legal notice and same was served on plaintiff. Whatsoever, this defendant is aware of demand of the plaintiff on receipt of legal notice inspite of that in entire evidence of defendant does not disclose whether he issued any legal notice to P.W.3 by demanding for return of his signed blank pronote or not?

19. We have already observed though defendant taken a defence that his mother filed a report against P.W.3, wife of P.W.3 and plaintiff herein before Kalla

Police on 25.3.2021 but defendant not exhibited copy of report for that also best reasons known to him only. Whatsoever, in cross-examination he clearly and categorically admitted but he acted as one of the attestor at the time of execution 11 of document for the properties stands in the name of P.W.3. We have already observed, defence raised by the defendant that his mother filed report with allegation that forged his signature and get fabricated three shame and nominal documents inrespect of landed properties and house property. If that is true, why the mother of the defendant not filed report against this defendant , who is one of the attestor of the alleged documents stands in the name of P.W.3, because the alleged documents what on the name of P.W.3 with the knowledge of this defendant. If really those are shame and nominal documents attested by the defendant for that he is also having knowledge intention and object in creating of those documents. As such defendant not filed those documents creating a doubt over the role of defendant. Whatsoever, defendant not discharged his burden by rebutting presumption raised in favour of plaintiff under Sec.118(a) of Negotiable

Instrument Act.

In this regard the trial court in its Judgments made observation at para

NO.12, particularly regarding cross-examination of P.W.2, who testified that at the time of transaction, he, plaintiff and scribe present, as such P.W.2 not testified about the persons of another attestor i.e., Chigurmati Samiyelu. But some time, he testified that plaintiff gave money to defendant in his presence when he signed on

Ex.A-1. It is no doubt, P.W.2 not spoken the presence of another attestor and defendant, when questioned about the presence of persons at the time of transaction. But in the same evidence after put two questions, P.W.2 testified consideration passed in his presence from plaintiff to defendant, this evidence is clearly establishing the presence of defendant is also at execution of document. We can understand when a layman came into witness box how he feel tension and other to depose in such situation the minor contradictions always possible, basing on those minor contradictions, we can not treat the entire evidence of witnesses is false one. Moreover, P.W.3 clearly and categorically testified at the time he scribed

Ex.A-1 both attestors were presence, as such P.W.2 evidence is also corroborating with evidence of P.W.1 and P.W.3, though some contradictions crept in his evidence, for that trial court made erroneous observation. The trial court observed at para NO.14 in its Judgment regarding the nexus between P.W.1 to P.W.3 and 12

Chigurupati Samiyelu as they are residents of one locality i.e.,Akividu. We have already observed, defendant is also nothing but far away the person and he is nothing but own brother in law of P.W.3. Moreover, as per the evidence of D.W.1, this P.W.3 is residing in their house after his marriage. So we can not expect though they have some property disputes, they are enemies forever, so that P.W.1 and P.W.2 and Chigurupati Samiyelu conspired to create Ex.A-1 against defendant with the co-operation of P.W.3. The trial court also observed a decision at para

Nos. 17 and 18 of Judgment, which is as follows:

“At this juncture, this court is of the considered opinion to refer the observations of our Hon’ble High Court of Andhra Pradesh in the case of G. Vasu vs Syed Yaseen Sifuddin Quadri1 , where in it is observed in Para No.32 as:

……. we are of the view that where, in a suit on a promissory note, the case of the defendant as to the circumstances under which the promissory note was executed is not accepted, it is open to the defendant to prove that the case set up by the plaintiff on the basis of the recitals in the promissory note, or the case set up in suit notice or in the plaint is not true and rebut the presumption under S.118 by showing a preponderance of probabilities in his favour and against the plaintiff.

Heneed not lead evidence on all conceivable modes of consideration for establishing that the promissory note is not supported by any consideration whatsoever. The words 'until the contrary is proved' in S.118 do not mean that the defendant must necessarily show that the document is not supported by any form of consideration but the defendant has the option to ask the Court to consider the non-existence of consideration so probable that a prudent man ought, under the circumstances of the case, to act upon the supposition that consideration did not exist. Though the evidential burden is initially placed on the defendant by virtue of

S.118 it can be rebutted by the defendant by showing a preponderance of probabilities that such consideration as stated in the pronote, or in the suit notice or in the plaint does not exist and once the presumption is so rebutted, the said presumption 'disappears'. For the purpose of rebutting the initial evidential burden, the defendant can rely on direct evidence or circumstantial evidence or on 13 presumptions of law or fact. Once such convincing rebuttal evidence is adduced and accepted by the Court, having regard to all the circumstances of the case and the preponderance of probabilities, the evidential burden shifts back to the plaintiff who has also the legal burden. Thereafter, the presumption under S.118 does not again come to the plaintiff's rescue. Once both parties have adduced evidence, the

Court has to consider the same and the burden of proof loses all its importance.

33. Before leaving the discussion on these aspects we would like to make it clear that merely because the plaintiff comes forward with a case different from the one mentioned in the promissory note it will not be correct to say that the presumption under S.118 does not apply at all. In our view the presumption applies once the execution of the promissory note is accepted by the defendant but the circumstance that the plaintiff's case is at variance with the one contained in the promissory note or the notice can be relied upon by the defendant for the purpose of rebutting the presumption and shifting the evidential burden to the plaintiff who has also the legal burden. To the above extent, we agree with the view of the

Bombay High Court in Tarmahomed's case, (AIR 1949 Bom 257) (supra). Our dissent is only to the extent of the principle laid down in that case that even when the case of the plaintiff and that of the defendant is disbelieved still the suit is to be decreed on the basis of the presumption under S.118 of the Negotiable Instruments

Act.

When such is the settled law and the circumstances, when the plaintiff is resident of Pedapeta of Akiveedu and the defendant is resident of Konalapalli

Village of Kalla, when P.W.2 says that he does not know the contents of Ex.A1 and he acted as attestor upon the request of plaintiff and he only signed on Ex.A1 upon the request of plaintiff at his house and except himself, plaintiff and P.W.3, none else were present when he signed on Ex.A1 and though said that at the time of his signing, the amount is given to defendant by P.W.1, when the brother in law of the defendant by name Soubhagya Raju is close relative to Plaintiff, when the attestors of Ex.A1 are residents of the locality of plaintiff, when the scribe of Ex.A1 promissory note is the brother of defendant, when there are admitted property disputes and as to cases pending on the reports of the mother of defendant against 14 the plaintiff, Soubhagya Raju and more particularly, when it is the evidence that

Soubhagya Raju also stayed with the defendant prior to disputes, the contentions of the defendant appears to be sufficient to create preponderance of probabilities.

Apart from that, the record shows that the defendant borrowed an amount of

Rs.5,00,000/- on 27.06.2020 and the purpose of borrowing is for family welfare and purchase of container lorry. Considering the alleged date of execution as that of 27.06.2020, as it is the peak pandemic situation over the world, borrowing that much amount more particularly for the purpose of purchase of container lorry appears to be suspicious. Apart from that it is also his admission that he also filed a suit for recovery of amount against the mother of defendant by name Vijaya

Kumari, also became an adding aid to the grounds of suspicion. Besides that, where it is the specific denial of the financial capacity of plaintiff and when he deposed that he is doing fish culture and cultivation and his wife is at Dubai and she sends money to him and cannot file any document evidencing transfer of money from his wife, the lending can also be suspected, keeping in view of the contentions of the defendant”.

20. Every suit shall stands on its own facts, it is no doubt to rebut the presumption raised under Sec.118(a) of Negotiable Instrument Act or to establish the contrary, for that it is not required to come into witness box by defendant . When on considered cross-examination of P.W.1 to P.w.3, their evidence is not shaken or not established any contrary view. Moreover, the relied decision is no way applicable to the facts of the present case in hand. As we already observed the trial court observed the financial capacity of the plaintiff. In this regard, P.W.1 in his cross-examination, defendant elicited that the plaintiff is doing fish culture and cultivation and his wife is in Dubai and sent some amount. He further testified that he not filed any documents evidencing for transfer fo money. Except that there is no evidence on record regarding the financial capacity of the plaintiff. When plaintiff got burden to establish his financial capacity I..e, when the defendant established his case or rebutted the presumption raised in favour of plaintiff. Here, we have already observed, defendants failed to rebut the presumption raised in favour of 15 plaintiff under Sec.118(a) of Negotiable Instrument Act. Moreover, defendant also failed to establish his transaction with P.W.3 by admitting the blank pronote. We have already observed, defendant admitted his signature on Ex.A-1. When defendant admitted signature on Ex.A-1, he has to establish under what circumstances he made signature on Ex.A-1. For that we have already observed even defendant not put any interest to elicit his case from the mouth of P.W.3. As such defendant not in position to establish his case, so that burden not shifts to the plaintiff, to establish his financial capacity to lend amount of Rs.5,00,000/- on 27.6.2020. Hence, we can say the Trial Court erroneously came conclusion by dismissing the suit. Hence, it is just and necessary to interfere to the Judgment and

Decree by the Trial Court and needs to set-a-side the said Judgement. Accordingly, point is answered.

21. POINT NO.2:

In view of foregoing discussion, while answering point No.1 this court is of opinion that the Trial court has come to an erroneous conclusion in dismissed the suit and in the said facts of case, this court is of view that the Trial court is supposed to have decree of the suit.

For the reasons stated above, this court finds the Judgment and decree passed by the Trial court is liable to be set aside.

22. Point No.3:

In the result, appeal is allowed with costs by setting aside the decree and

Judgment passed by the Principal Civil Judge’s (Junior Division) Court,

Bhimavaram in O.S 461/2021, dt. 4.8.2023.

“Suit in O.S.461/2021 is decreed with costs, against the defendant for an amount of Rs.6,50,666/- with subsequent interest at 12% per annum from the date of the suit till the date of the decree and thereafter at the rate of 6% per annum, from 16 the date of the decree till the date of the realization on principal amount of

Rs.5,00,000/-.

Dictated to the Stenographer Grade-I, transcribed by her, corrected and

pronounced by me in open Court, this the 9 th day of April, 2026.

Sd/- Dr. B.Lakshminarayana

Special Judge for Speedy Trial of

Offences Under POCSO Act, 2012, Bhimavaram FAC/ III Additional District Judge, Bhimavaram.

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

No oral or documentary evidence is adduced on either side.

Sd/- Dr. B.Lakshminarayana

Spl. Judge, POCSO Court, BVRM FAC/III ADJ, BVRM.

1

BEFORE THE MOTOR ACCIDENTS CLAIMS TRIBUNAL-CUM-III ADDITIONAL

DISTRICT COURT:: WEST GODAVARI :: BHMAVARAM

Present: Dr.B.Lakshmi Narayana,

Special Judge for Speedy Trial of Offences under POSSO Act, 2012,

Bhimavaram, FAC.III Additional District Judge, Bhimavaram

Friday the 10th day of April, 2026

M.V.O.P. No.01 of 2020

Between:

1. Chinimilli Usha Rani

2. Chinimilli Lakshmi Narasimha Naidu

3. Chinimilli Guna Sekhara Surya Mani Pradeep

4. Chinimilli Lakshmi (2nd and 3rd petitioners being minor rep. By their natural guardian mother ie. 1st petitioner).

…..Petitioners

And

1. Rudra Suresh

2. Chinimilli Aruna

3. The Divisional Manager, The National Insurance Company Ltd. ….Respondents

This petition coming before me on 11.02.2026 for final hearing in the presence of Sri N.V.V.Satyanarayana and Sri Nimmala Naveen, Advocates for petitioners and of Sri A. Siva Rama Krishna, Advocate for 3rd Respondent and the respondents 1 and 2 remained ex parte and the matter having stood over for consideration till this day the Tribunal made the following

O R D E R

This petition is filed by the petitioners under Section 455 of M.V. Act Rules compensation amount of Rs.1,30,00,000/- on account of the death of the deceased by name Chinimilli Krishna, in the accident which was occurred on 04.12.2018 and for costs.

2. The averments of the petition, in brief, are as follows:

The deceased Chinimilli Krishna S/o. late. Narasimha Murthy aged about 37 years and he is hale and healthy person by the date of accident. He has been practicing as R.M.P. doctor and doing aqua cultivation, transport business and 2

Earning monthly income of Rs:1,00,000/- per month at the time of accident. The 1st petitioner is the Wife of the deceased and the 2nd and 3rd petitioners are the minor sons and 4th petitioner is the mother of the deceased and father of the deceased pre deceased to him. And he is the only earning member of the Family at the time accident. After the accident, the petitioners, have shifted to Mente vari thota,

Bhimavaram for eking of their livelihood."

On 04.12.2018 the deceased Chinimilli Krishna S/o. late. Narasimha Murthy along with his friend Rudra Suresh were proceeding from Narsapuram to

Perupalem village on their Splendor motorcycle bearing No. AP 37 DH 7062. The deceased Chinimilli Krishna was travelling as a pillion rider. At about 6.30 P.M when they reached near Subbarayudu temple in Perupalem village, the 1st respondent i.e., the rider of the splendor motorcycle bearing No. AP 37 DH 7062 drove his vehicle in a rash and negligent manner without taking any precautionary measures and suddenly applied the brakes of his motorcycle due to sudden sight of cow herd in the middle of the road. As a result both the rider and the pillion rider of the said motorcycle i.e.. the deceased Chinimilli Krishna had fell on the road from the motorcycle and sustained head injury and blood oozed from his nose and ears.

Immediately the deceased Chinimilli Krishna was shifted to Varma Hospitals,

Bhimavaram and while undergoing treatment on 05.12.2018 al about 06.15 AM he succumbed to injuries: The Family members spent nearly Rs.50,000/- towards medical expenses. The cause of accident is only due to the rash and negligent driving of the 1st respondent.

The 1st respondent is the rider of Splendor plus motorcycle bearing No. AP 37 DH 7062, 2nd Respondent is the owner of Splendor plus motorcycle bearing No.

AP 37 DH 7062, 3rd respondent is the insurer of motorcycle. Hence all the respondents are severally and jointly liable to pay the compensation amount to the 37 DH 7062.

3. The 3rd respondent filed Written Statement denying the allegations in the petition and contended that the deceased was travelling on the Splendor motor cycle bearing no. AP 37 DH 7062 as a pillion rider, as per the settled legal position of our Apex courts, the pillion rider or his legal heirs can not claim any 3 compensation against the insurance company and the 3rd respondent is not liable to pay any compensation. The rider of the Splendor motor cycle bearing no. AP 37

DH 7062 was not having any license to drive the motor cycle, hence, the petitioners are not entitled to claim any compensation. The vehicle involved in the alleged accident Splendor motor cycle bearing no. AP 37 DH 7062 was driven by the person who was not having valid and affective driving license and he is not authorized to drive Splendor motor cycle bearing no. AP 37 DH 7062 (crime vehicle) by the time of alleged accident, the same is a clear violation of the policy terms and conditions of the policy if any and hence, the liability of this respondent does not arise and the claim against this respondent is liable to be dismissed in limine. The amount of compensation claimed by the petitioners to the tune of Rs.

1,30,00,000/- is highly excessive and exaggerated and baseless. In any view of the matter the liability of this respondent does not arise. The petitioners are not entitled to claim any interest more than 7.5% as per the settled legal position, the interest claimed by the petitioners is excessive. Therefore prays that to dismiss the petition with costs.

4. On the strength of the above pleadings, the following issues were settled for trial:

1. Whether 1st respondent drove the Splendor Motorcycle bearing No.

AP 37 DH 7062, on 04-12-2018, at the place and time of accident in a rash and negligent manner or not?

2. Whether petitioner are entitled to get the compensation on account of the death of pillion rider of motorcycle bearing No. AP 37 DH 7062, ог not?

3. If so, to how much amount?

4. To what Relief?

5. On behalf of the petitioners. P.Ws.1 to 6 were examined and Ex.A1 to

Ex.A8, are marked. On behalf of respondents R.W.1 to R.W.3 were examined , and Ex.B1 to B2 marked. documents are marked.

6. Heard both sides.

4

7. P.W.1, who is wife if deceased . She reiterated her petition averments as her examination in chief. She deposed in her cross-examination that except the motorcycle on which deceased was going, no other vehicle involved in the accident.

Sje do not know whether R1 was having any driving license for two wheeler or not.

She do not know whether R1 and my husband wore the helmets by the time of accident. She do not know whether R2 informed to the R3 about the accident, or not. Her husband used to do the coconut business apart from his practice as registered medical practitioner. Her father in law name is Chinimilli Narasimham @

Tata Rao.

8. P.W.2, who is Income Tax Inspector deposed that their income tax officer received summons in IA.No.666/2024 and he is giving evidence as per the office records available with them. Ex.X1 is authorization letter given by their income tax officer given by evidence. Ex.X2 is summons received from this court. He is filing

Ex.X3 which is income tax returns for the year which is search report. Ex.X4 is income tax returns for the financial year 2015-2016. Ex.X5 is income tax returns for the financial year 2016-2017. Ex.6 is income tax returns for the financial year 2018- 2019. As per Ex.X4 the income was shows as Rs.2,68,820/-. As per Ex.X5 the income was shows as Rs.2,99,650/-. As per Ex.X6 the income was shows as

Rs.3,52,520/-. All the IT returns belongs to deceased Chinnimilli Krishna, having

PAN No.BHXPC5016R.

P.W.2 deposed in his cross-examination that he has not personally received summons from this Court to give evidence. He adds that their officer has received and he authorized me to give evidence. The deceased Chinnimilli Krishna submitted income tax returns for the financial years 2015-2016, 2016-2017 and 2018-2019. The deceased Chinnimilli Krishna not paid 2015-2016, 2016-2017 and 2018-2019 as per their records as the income tax returns are below the ceiling limit.

The deceased Chinnimilli Krishna shown in his income tax returns that he offered income from other sources and income from business and profession without mentioning the details of the same. Though Ex.X7 filed income tax returns for the year 2018-2019 it is not valid returns. Though it is not valid return it is not rectified and resubmitted since it is defective one and assesse has not resubmitted for 5 revising it. 1st April of the calendar year to 31st March of next calendar year will be consider as financial year for income tax purpose. There is possibility of filing income tax returns by the agent or Managing Partner, and legal heirs on behalf of the deceased. He do not know whether the income tax assess namely Chinnimilli

Krishna died on 04.12.2018, since it is online filing of income tax returns physical signatures are not required. He is spearing as per records only.

9.P.W.3, who is School Assistant deposed that he is working as School

Assistant in Z.P. High School, K.P. Palem Village of Mogalthur Mandal. Today he attended before this Court on receipt of summons to his Head Master, who authorized him to give evidence on his behalf. As per summon, he produced the attested Transfer Certificate of Chinimilli Krishna, who had admission in their school as per Admission No.3227/1992-1998. He identified the attested Transfer

Certificate, . As per Ex.X.8, date of birth of Chinimilli Krishna is 28.06.1980.

10. P.W.4, who is Senior Assistant in Regionaly Transaport Office,

Bhimavaram deposed that he attended before this Court on receipt of summons to his Regional Transport Officer, who authorized him to give evidence on his behalf. He identified the authorization letter . As per summon, he produced the B-

Extract of Tractor bearing No. AP 37 CU 9754. He idenfied the B.Extract and sme is marked as Ex.X.10. As per Ex.X.10, the abvoe said vehicle stands on the name of Chinimilli Krishna as on 04.12.2018.

11. P.W.5, who is Divisional Legal Manager deposed that he attended

before the court on receipt of summons to give his evidence. As per summons,

they were directed to produce statement of accounts and loan agreement copy.

Accordingly, he brought the copies attested by him. He identified the loan agreement copy . He identified the account copy of deceased Chinimilli Krishna .

The deceased Chinimilli Krishna availed loan from us to purchase Tractor and

Farming. The tenure of the loan from 2017 to 2019. The half yearly E.M.I., is an amount of Rs.68,050/-. As per Ex.X.12, the last E.M.I., was paid on 13.08.2018.

6

P.W.5 deposed in his cross-examination that he has not produced the Audit report for the above said period from 2017 to 2019 because they have not received any summons for production of Audit report.

12. P.W.6, who is eye witness to the accident. He deposed that on 4.12.2018 at about 6-30 P.M., when they reached ner Subbarayudu temple in

Perupalem village, he witnessed that the 1st respondent i.e., the rider of the splendor motor cycle bearing No.AP37 DH 7062 drove his vehicle in a rash and negligent manner without taking any precautionaly measures and suddenly applied the brakes of his motorcycle due to sudden sight of cow herd in the middle of the road. As a result both the rider and the pillion rider of the said motor cycle i.e., the deceased Chinimilli Krishna had fell on the road from the motor cycle and sustained head injury and blood oozed from his nose and ears. Immediately the decased

Chinimilli Krishna was shifted to Varma Hospitals, Bhimavaram , whie undergoing treatment on 5.12.2018 at about 6.15 A.M he succumbed to injuries. The cause of accident is only due to the rash and negligent driving of the 1st respondent. He is

L.w.7 in Charge Sheet and present at the time of inquest.

13. R.W.1, who is Senior Assistant of National Insurance company

Limited, Bhimavaram. He reieterated Written Statement averments as his examination in chief. He deposed in his cross-examination that the Insurance policy is in force by the date of alleged accident. As per Motor Vehicles Inspection

Report i..e, Ex.A-14, 1st respondent is having driving licence, valid till 10.6.2017.

14.R.W.2, Junior Assistant in Regional Transport Office, Bhimavaram.

Their office received summons to produce the details of driving licence particulars on the name of Rudra Suresh, Slo. Danayya. On verification, on their portal, not found any driving licence details on the name of Rudra Suresh, S/o. Danayya. For that he is filing letter submitted by District Transport Officer.

R.W.2 deposed in his cross-examination that they were not provided with driving licence to search the licence on the name of Rudra Suresh. If provided driving licence number, theye can search withint 10 minutes. As per contents of

Ex.A.4, Motor Vehicles Inspector noted driving licence is in force upto 10.06.2027. If they are directed to made search and file a report as per report of Ex.A.4, they can 7 file the report as per the direction of the Court. They cannot get details if searched with above said name having any spelling change. He was not provided with

Aadhar Card or date of birth details of above said Rudra Suresh. They cannot say whether above said person has no driving licence because not searched with his

Aadhar Card and date of birth details.

15.R.W.3, Police Constable deposed that he attended before this Court on receipt of summons for production of case diary of Crime No.280/2018 on the file of Mogalthur Police Station. As per the investigation, 1st Respondent committed the accident. As per the investigation, 1st Respondent is having driving licence at the time of accident. He deposed in his cross-examination that as per the column

No.17 in Motor Vehicles Inspection Report, the driver of the crime vehicle i.e., 1st

Respondent is having driving licence and same is valid upto 10.06.2027.

16. Issue Nos.1 to 3:

The cause of death of deceased Chinimilli Krishna ;

The petitioners pleaded that on 4.12.2018 the deceased Chinimilii

Krishna along with his friend Rudra Suresh i.e., 1st respondent were proceeding from Narasapuram to Perupalem village on their Splendor plus motorcycle bearing

No. AP 37 DH 7062, when reached Subbarayudu temple in Perupalem suddenly sight of cow on the middle of road applied sudden break, resulted both rider and pillion rider I.e, Rudra Suresh 1 st respondent and pillion rider Chinimailli Krishna fell on the road, so that Chinimilli Krishna sustained head injury and oozed blood from his nose and ears, then he was shifted to Varma hospital, Bhimavaram , where he succumbed with injuries on 5.12.2018 at about 6.15 A.M. The 1st petitioner, who examined herself as P.W.1 reiterated petition averments as examination in chief. In cross-examination, 3rd respondent not elicited any contra though they denied the manner of the accident in their written statement. In this regard, petitioner also examined P.W.6, who is eye witness and corroborating with the version of

P.W.1.Moreover, Ex.A-2, A-3 and A-5 clearly shows the cause of action nothing but road accident as narrated by P.W.1. When 3rd respondent, who is contesting the 8 petition, not elicited any contrary view , we can conclude that deceased Chinimilli

Krishna died due to road accident as narrated by the petitioner /P.W.1.

17.What is the age of deceased at the the time of accident?

The petitioner pleaded that at the time of alleged accident, deceased is at the age of 37 years but respondent No.3, who filed written statement denied the age of deceased as 42 years and not affirmed any age for deceased Chinamili

Krishna at the time of accident. As we already observed P.W.1 reiterated contents of petition affidavit as the deceased age is 37 years at the time of alleged accident.

In cross-examination , 3rd respondent suggested the deceased was at the age of 42 years by the date of accident. Bu tin this regard, petitioner examined P.W.3 i.e., school assistant from Z.P.H.School, K.P.Palem Village of Mogaltur Mandal and summoned to produce school transfer certificate of Chinamilli Krishna, who testified that as per their school admission register No.3227/1992, The Chinamailli

Krishna date of birth is 28.6.1980 and said school Transfer certificate marked as

Ex.X-8. Though 3rd respondent cross-examined but only made formal suggestions, which denied by the witness. Hence we can accept Ex.X-8 as a proof of date of birth of Chinimilli Krishna I..e, 28.6.1980 as such by the date of death on 5.12.2018, the deceased is at the age of 38 years.

18.What is the income of the deceased by the time of death of deceased.

In this regard, petitioner pleaded that the deceased earning an amount of

Rs.1,00,000/- per month being a RMP Doctor and doing aqua cultivation and transport business. In this regard, the above said facts reiterated by P.W.1 in her examination in chief and also got exhibited the income tax returns as EX.A-8 to

Ex.A-10. In cross-examination, she denied that for purpose of claiming Mudra

Loans, her husband filed the income tax returns though not having such income.

She further deposed that her husband used to do the coconut business apart from his practice as a RMP Doctor. Petitioner also exhibited the Ex.A-6 i.e., certificate of membership of RMP Doctor and denied the said documents is a fake document. In 9 this regard, the petitioner also summoned income Tax officer, on behalf of income

Tax officer, Income Tax Inspector present and examined as P.W.2, who exhibited

Ex.X-1 to Ex.X-6 out of that Ex.X-4 to Ex.X-6 are nothing but Ex.A-6 to Ex.A-8. As such as per Ex.X-4 income of deceased Chinimilli Krishna is Rs.2,68,820/- for the year 2015-2016, as per Ex.X-5 income of deceased Chinimilli Krishna is

Rs.2,99,650/- for the year 2016-2017, as per Ex.X-6 income of deceased Chinimilli

Krishna is Rs. 3,52,520/- for the year 2018-2019 . In cross-examination, he testified that though Ex.X-6 filed Income Tax returns for the year 2018-2019 but it is not valid returns and same was not rectified by resubmitting. We have already observed, Chinimilli Krishna died in road accident on 5.12.2018, which shows

Chinimailli Krishna field Ex.X-6 before his death, which he never anticipated.

Hence, we can take it as his yearly income I..e, Rs.3,52,520/- because respondent not established any contrary. Moreover, the petitioner also examined P.W.4 and 5 i.e., Road Transport authority person and a person from L& T Finance,

Visakhanpatanm, whose evidence shows that deceased Chinamilli Krishna having tractor on his name bearing No.AP 37 CU 9754, for that he availed a load with L& T

Finance, Visakhapatnam and paying monthly installment of Rs.68,050/-.

19. Whether Insurance policy with respondent No.3 is in force or liable for payment of insurance claim?

In this regard, 3rd respondent got marked copy of insurance policy on examine R.W.1 as Ex.B-1. R.W.1 clearly and categorically admitted that Ex.B-1 policy is in force by the date of alleged accident. He further admitted that 1st respondent is having driving license valid upto 10.6.2027. Though R.W.1 admitted that 1st respondent is having valid driving licence but examined R.W.2 by filing

Ex.B-2 deposed that not found any driving licence details on the name of Rudra

Suresh/1st respondent , which is contrary to the evidence of R.W.1 and also contents of Ex.A-4. Hence, we can not accept the evidence of R.W.2 as well as

Ex.B-2. Because, R.W.3 I..e, constable from Mogalturu police station clearly testified that as per their investigation, 1st respondent is having driving licence at the time of accident. Hence, as per the evidence of R.W.1, 3rd respondent is having liability to pay the compensation.

10

20. The Learned counsel for 3rd respondent argued that 3rd respondent has no liability to pay compensation because the accident taken to deceased and 1st respondent is nothing but self served accident, so that no insurance covered for self served accident. We have already observed, the alleged accident was taken when saw the cow on middle of the road applied sudden break, which is nothing but accident though not involved any other vehicle in accident . Hence 3rd respondent liable to pay the compensation, if he has any actionable claim against 2nd respondent, he is at liberty to proceed against him, but he has to pay the compensation being the insurer of Splendor plus motorcycle bearing No. AP 37 DH 7062.

21. We have already observed as per the above the income of the deceased fixed at Rs.3,52,520/- per year and the deceased earned an amount of

Rs.3,52,520/- Per year. These facts clearly establishing that deceased having growth in his income. As such, the petitioners are entitled future prospects at the rate of 40% as per observation in National Insurance Company Limited Vs.

Pranay Sethi and others, reported in AIR 2017 Supreme Court 5171 which as follows:

“In case the deceased was self-employed or on a fixed salary, an addition of 40% of the established income should be the warrant where the deceased was below the age of 40 Years. An addition of 25% where the deceased was between the age of 40 to 50 years and 10% where the deceased was between the age of 50 to 60 years should be regarded as the necessary method of computation. The established income means the income minus the tax component.”

As per the 2nd schedule, the multiplier applicable for the age group for the deceased is 36 - 40 years is “15”. As per the record, the deceased is aged about 38 and the multiplier applicable is also ‘15’

22. The Hon’ble Supreme Court in a case of Smt. Sarala Varma and others vs. Deli Transport Corporation and another laid down certain principles as regards the deduction of personal expenses from the monthly income. The Hon’ble

Supreme Court in this regard held that deduction towards personal and living 11 expenses of the deceased should be 1/3rd where the number of dependant family members are 2 to 3, 1/4th where number of dependant family members are 4 to 6 and 1/5th where the number of dependants family members are 4 to 6 and 1/5th where the number of dependants family members are more than 6. Here, the dependants are no other than the petitioners who are three in number. So, the 1/5th of the annual income of the deceased is liable to be deducted towards his personal expenditure. The annual income of the deceased comes to Rs. 3,52,520/- .

By virtue of the Judgment in Pranay Sethi’s case, after adding future prospects, the annual income of the deceased comes to (Rs.3,52,520/- + Rs.1,41,008/-) =

Rs.4,93,528/-. Hence the compensation payable to the petitioners under the head of loss of future earnings comes to Rs.1,23,382/- and 1/4th of the income shall be deducted towards personal expenditure of the deceased and 1/4th of the same shall be taken as the contribution of the family, therefore Rs.3,70,146/- to the family of the deceased, hence the compensation payable to the petitioners 1 to 4 under the head of loss of future earning and dependnacy Rs.3,70,146/- x 15 =

Rs.55,52,190/-, therefore the said amount can be awarded to the petitioners 1 and under the head of Loss of Future earnings.

23. This Tribunal is of view that the following amounts under convention heads; loss to estate, loss of consortium and funeral expenses can be awarded

Rs.15,000/-, Rs.40,000/- and Rs.15,000/- respectively. This Court is also view that an amount of Rs.15,000/- can be awarded under the head of loss of love and affection towards her children and husband this Court finds that an amount of

Rs.10,000/- can be awarded towards Transportation Charges.

24. In view of the reasons stated above, the entitlement of the petitioners for compensation under various heads can be calculated as follows;

i) Loss of Earnings :Rs.55,52,190-00 ii) Loss of estate : Rs. 15,000-00 iv) Loss of consortium: Rs. 40,000-00

v) Funeral expenses:Rs. 15,000-00 vi) Loss of love and affection : Rs. 15,000-00 vi) Transportation Charges: Rs. 10,000-00 ---------------------- Total: Rs.56,47,190-00 ---------------------- 12

25. It is settled law that the rate of interest prevailing in Nationalized Banks shall be taken into consideration. The rate of interest on fixed deposits vary depending on the period of deposit. Therefore, on an average, 7.5% of interest can be taken as appropriate in the present case. Therefore, the petitioners 1 to 3 are entitled to interest amount @ 7.5% per annum on the principal amount of compensation from the date of petition till the date of realization.

ISSUE No.4:

26. In the result, the petition is allowed against Petitioners Nos. 1 to 4 in awarding compensation amount of Rs.56,47,190/- (Rupees Fifty Six Lakhs forty seven thousand and one hundred and ninety only) with proportionate costs to the petitioners 1 to 4 with interest at 7.5% per annum from the date of filing of the petition till the date of realization.

(a) The respondents 1 to 4 are jointly and severally liable to pay the said compensation amount to the petitioners.

(b) The petitioners 1 to 4 shall submit their bank account details within 10 days from the date of this Order before this court

(c) The 3rd respondent being the insurer directed to deposit the said compensation amount proportionately within two months directly payable to the respective Bank accounts of the petitioners 1 to 4 .

(d) On such deposit, the 1st petitioner is entitled for Rs.16,47,190/- and petitioners 2 and 3 are entitled for Rs.16,00,000/- each and 4th petitioner is entitled for 8,00,000/- with proportionate interest and entire costs of this litigation.

(e) The 1st petitioner is permitted to withdraw an amount of Rs.12,47,190/- with proportionate interest and costs and the balance of Rs.4,00,000/- shall be 13 kept in the fixed deposit in her Bank account for a period of one year and proof (FDR) of the same shall be filed before this court;

(f) The petitioners 2 and 3 being minors, the amount awarded to them shall be kept in the fixed deposit in their Bank account till they attain majority.

(f) The 4th petitioner is permitted to withdraw an amount of Rs.6,00,000/- with proportionate interest and the balance of Rs.2,00,000/- shall be kept in the fixed deposit in her Bank account for a period of one year and proof (FDR) of the same shall be filed before this court;

(h) The petitioners are directed to pay court fee for the amount granted by this Tribunal.

(i) The decree will be supplied to the petitioners after verification by Office as to payment of Court fee and exemption if any, sought at the time of filing of this case and on clearance of Court fee dues if any and also filed bank account particulars of petitioners.

(j) The Advocate fee is fixed at Rs.50,000/-.

Dictated to the Stenographer Grade-I, typed by her directly on computer,

corrected and pronounced by me in the open Court, this the 10th day of April, 2026.

Special Judge for Speedy Trial of

Offences under POSSO Act, 2012, Bhimavaram,

CHAIRMAN,

MOTOR ACCIDENTS CLAIMS TRIBUNAL-

CUM- III ADDITIONAL DISTRICT JUDGE,

WEST GODAVARI, BHIMAVARAM

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

WITNESS EXAMINED

FOR PETITIONERS: FOR RESPONDENTS:

P.W.1 : Chinimilli Usha Rani R.W.1: Munganda Subba Rao

P.W.2 : K.Gireesha R.W.2 : Yarramsetti Jaya Nagu

P.W.3 : Chinthapalli Krishna Mohan R.W.3 : Jaggurothu Rajesh 14

P.W.4 : Mamillapalli Srikanth

P.W.5 : M.Girish

P.W.6 : Kavuru Venkateswara Rao

DOCUMENTS MARKED

FOR PETITIONER:

Ex.A1/dt.--Attested copy of FI.R.

Ex.A2/dt.--Attested copy of postmortem report

Ex.A3/dt.--Attested copy of inquest report

Ex.A4/dt.--Certified copy of M.V.I. report

Ex.A5/dt.--Attested copy of charge sheet

Ex.A6/dt.--Certificate of membership of RMP of deceased

Ex.A7/dt.--Original Aadhar card of the deceased

Ex.A8/dt.--Copy of the IT returns A4 2014-2015

Ex.A9/dt.--Copy of the IT returns A4 2015-2016

Ex.A.10/dt.--Copy of the IT returns A4 2016-2017

Ex.A.11/dt.-- Original Death Certificate of deceased.

FOR RESPONDENTS:

Ex.B1/dt.-- Attested True copy Policy issued by the 1st respondent in favour of 2nd respndent bearing Policy No.39010231186201117379 Ex.B2/dt.-- Letter submitted by District Transport Officer.

Ex.X-1/dt.--Authorization letter given by Income Tax Officer

Ex.X-2/dt.--Summons Received from the court.

Ex.X-3/dt.--Income Tax returns for the year

Ex.X-3/dt.--Income Tax returns for the financial year 2015-2016

Ex.X-4/dt.--Income Tax returns for the financial year 2016-2017

Ex.X-5/dt.-- Income Tax returns for the financial year2017-2018

Ex.X-6/dt.--Income Tax returns for the financial year 2018-2019 15

Ex.X-7/dt.-- Authorization letter

Ex.X-8/dt.--Attested Transport Certificate

Ex.X-9/dt.-- Authorisation letter from RTO, Bhimavaram.

Ex.X-10/dt.--B-Extract of Tractor bearing NO.AP37CU 9754

Ex.X-11/dt.--Loan Agreement copy.

Ex.X-12/dt.-- Account copy of deceased Chinimilli Krishna.

Special Judge for Speedy Trial of

Offences under POSSO Act, 2012, Bhimavaram,

CHAIRMAN,

FAC.MOTOR ACCIDENTS CLAIMS

TRIBUNAL-CUM-III ADDITIONAL DISTRICT

JUDGE, WEST GODAVARI, BHIMAVARAM

16

1

IN THE COURT OF THE III ADDITIONAL DISTRICT JUDGE

WEST GODAVARI: AT BHIMAVARAM

Present: Dr.B.Lakshmi Narayana,

Special Judge for Speedy Trial of Offences

Under POCSO Act, 2012, Bhimavaram FAC.III Additional District Judge, Bhimavaram

Tuesday, the 25th day March of 2025

O.S.No.No.88/2015

Between:

1. Tirumalasetti Vijaya Saradhi, S/o.Satyanarayana, Male, Aged 56 years, Business, resident of D.No.19-22-4, Bank colony, Bhimavaram Municipal area, Bhimavaram.

2. Tirumalasetty Hemambharadhara Rao, S/o.Satyanarayana, Male, Aged 50 years, Business, resident of D.No.19-17-4/1, Bank Colony, Bhimavaram Municipal area, …Plaintiffs Bhimavaram

and

Chintha Srinivasa Reddy, S/o.Veereddy, Male, Aged 40 years, Business, resident of D.No.35-54-3, Kodavalli Building, Near Montessori school road, ……Defendant Tanuku.

This suit has come on 11-03-2025 before me for hearing in the presence of Sri A.Venkateswara Raju, learned Advocate for plaintiff and of Sri B.Srinivasa Rao; upon perusing the material on record and the matter having stood over for consideration till this day, upon perusing the material on record and the matter having stood over for consideration till this day, this Court delivered the following:

J U D G M E N T

1. This suit is filed by the plaintiffs for recovery of an amount of Rs.23,45,520/- with subsequent interest at 24% p.a. and for costs.

2

2. The averments of the plaint, in brief, are as follows:-

(a). The plaintiffs and defendant. The defendant sold the plaint schedule property to the plaintiffs for his family expenses and to discharge his sundry debts representing that it is his absolute property acquired it under registered sale deed dated 08-05-2013 vide

Doc.No.2805/2013 registered in Sub-Registrar Office, Bhimavaram executed by Ungarala Surya Sudha Renuka Rani, represented by

G.P.A. Holder and agent Salsar Developers, Bhimavaram, represented by its Managing Partner Vikesh Kumar Agarwal and Salsar Developers,

Bhimavaram represented by its Managing Partner Vikesh Kumar

Agarwal and it is free from encumbrances among other things for sale consideration of Rs.16,51,000/-

(b). The defendant received the sale consideration o fRs.16,51,000/- from the plaintiffs and executed a registered possessory agreement and General Power of Attorney dated 14-03-2014 vide

Doc.No.1542/2014 registered in Sub-Registrar Office, Bhimavaram in respect of the plaint schedule property and delivered connected title deeds to the plaintiffs. The plaintiffs purchased the schedule property from the defendant believing the representation of the defendant that he had a valid title over the said property.

(c). The plaintiff sold the plaint schedule property to one

Vegesna Venkata Narasimha Raju for a sale consideration of

Rs.7,18,000/- under a registered sale deed dated 27-08-2014 under

Doc.No.6309/2014 of S.R.O., Bhimavaram and to his wife Vegesna

Eswaramma for a sale consideration of Rs.7,05,000/- under a registered sale deed dated 27-08-2014 under Doc.No.6310/2014 of

Sub-Registrar, Bhimavaram by virtue of possessory agreement and

General Power of Attorney dated 14-03-2014.

3

(d). The vendees of the plaintiffs Vegesna Venkata Narasimha

Raju and Eswaramma filed a petition in PLC No.757/2015 before the

Mandal Legal Services Authorities, Bhimavaram complaining against the plaintiffs that they have no valid title over the plaint schedule property, hence the plaintiffs have no right to sell the property to them and sought for return of the sale consideration of Rs.14,23,000/- which was received by the plaintiffs under two registered sale deeds. On receipt of the notices in P.L.C.No.757/2015 from Mandal Legal Services and in due negotiations, the plaintiff pad an amount of Rs.14,23,000/- and obtained Award on 10-10-2015 and the vendees of the plaintiff returned the above said two sale deeds dated 27-08-2014 along with the record of the schedule property.

(e). The plaintiffs known that over the plaint schedule property, there has been a mortgage by one Thota Krishna Murthy with IDBI Bnk who obtained a registered sale deed dated 28-09-2010 vide

Doc.No.4758/2010 of Sub-Registrar, Bhimavaram from Ungarala Surya

Sudha Renuka Rani, represented by General Power of Attorney holder and possessory agreement holder vide registered possessory agreement dated 31-07-2010 vide Doc.No.3900/2010 of Sub-Registrar

Office, Bhimavaram and there is no valid and legal title to the defendant under the registered sale deed dated 08-05-2013 and his alleged vendees under the said registered possessory agreement of sale-cum-

General Power of Attorney holder dated 31-07-2010 over the schedule property. Thus, the alleged registered possessory agreement of sale cum General Power of Attorney dated 14-03-2014 executed in favour of the plaintiffs and the sale registered sale deed dated 08-05-2013 obtained in the name of the defendant are null and void and non-est in the eye of law and the same do not confirm any valid title nor create any ownership over the schedule property.

4

(f). The 1st plaintiff along with one Gadamsetti Prakasa Rao questioned the defendant as to his fraudulent misrepresentation made by him to the plaintiffs in receiving the sale consideration of

Rs.16,51,000/- under the registered possessory agreement of sale and

General Power of Attorney in respect of the plaint schedule property which has no valid and legal title passed, on that the plaintiffs stated that he would repay the sale consideration of Rs.16,51,000/- with interest and sought time till 24-09-2015, but he failed repay the said amount.

(g). As the defendant committed fraud upon him, gave a report to the Sub-Inspector of Police, Bhimavaram I Town police station for the criminal act of the defendant nad others, where a case was registered in

Cr.No.294/2015, hence the suit.

3. (a). The defendant filed his written statement, denying the contentions in the plaint and submitted that there is no proper cause of action for the plaintiffs in filing the suit, as the plaintiffs ought to have prayed this Court for cancellation of the two registered sale deeds

dated 27-08-2014 vide Doc.Nos.6309/014 and 6310/2014 executed in

favour of Vegesna Venkata Narasimha Raju and Vegesna Eswaramma.

The plaintiffs instead of filing the suit for cancellation of the above mentioned registered sale deed, basing on the Lok Adalat Award passed between them, filed the present suit. In the said Lok Adalat

Award of P.L.C.No.757/2015, the defendant was not party to the proceedings, hence the Award will not bind over him and to any claim much less the suit claim.

(b). The above suit is not maintainable for non-impleading of necessary parties shown under Doc.No.1542/2014, dated 14-03-2014.

The Lok Adalat Award vide P.L.C.No.757/2015 does not disclose the registered sale deed dated 27-08-2014 under Doc.Nos.6309/2014 and 6310/2014 are cancelled by way of Lok Adalat as it is only dealt with 5 pecuniary reliefs between the plaintiffs and Vegesna Venkata

Narasimha Raju and Vegesna Eswaramma.

(c). The plaintiffs 1 and 2 cannot claim the amounts prayed unless the registered sale deeds dated 27-08-2014 under

Doc.No.6309/2014 and 6310/2010 are declared as null and void. The defendant challenging the Lok Adalat Award dated 10-10-2015 in

P.L.C.No.757/2015 filed writ petition W.P. S.R.No.10072/2016 on the file of Hon’ble High Court of Judicature at Hyderabad for the State of

Telangana and State of Andhra Pradesh.

(d). The suit is barred by law on the ground of improper cause of action and the relief claimed by the plaintiffs is not maintainable on the ground of lack of locus standee. The Lok Adalat award does not bind on him, hence prayed to dismiss the suit.

4. On the strength of the pleadings, the following issues are settled for trial:-

1. Whether the plaintiffs are entitled to recovery Rs.23,45,520/- from the defendant?

2. To what relief?

5. During trial, on behalf of plaintiffs, P.Ws.1 to 2 were examined and Ex.A1 to Ex.A11 documents were marked. On behalf of defendants D.W.1 is examined and no documents are marked.

6. Heard counsel for plaintiffs and defendants filed written arguments. Perused the entire material on record.

Issue No.1

7. The plaintiff filed this suit for recovery of an amount of

Rs.23,45,520/-, it is just and necessary to observe the valuation shown by the plaintiff in his plaint which is as follows:

6

Refund of the amount collected by the def by Rs. Ps. way of sale consideration under registered possessory agreement of sale-cum-General Power of attorney dated 14-03-201416,51,0000-00

Add: Interest @ 24% p.a. by way of damages from 14-03-2014 to 15-12-2015 on 6,94,520-00 Rs.16,51,000/- ------------------ 23,45,520-00 ------------------

8. When we consider the valuation of the suit, plaintiff seeking refund of sale consideration amount of Rs.16,51,000/- under agreement of sale-cum-General Power of Attorney dated 14-03-2014, thereafter he claiming interest at 24% p.a. on the above said amount from the date of such registered possessory agreement-cum- General Power of Attorney to till the date of filing of the suit.

9. It is to observe that whether the plaintiff is entitled to the said amount or not. Apart from all the plaint pleadings, it is just and necessary to reiterate para 10 of the plaint which is read as follows:

In the circumstances submitted supra, among other things, as it is evident that the defendant committed act of fraud and made misrepresentation against the plaintiffs and fraudulently and willfully collected Rs.16,51,000/- by way of sale consideration under the registered possessory agreement and General Power of Attorney dated 14-04- 2014 executed in favour of the plaintiff knowing fully well that he has no title over the said schedule property and the said property does not belong to him and he had no title to the said property to sell the same to the plaintiffs under the said registered possessory agreement and General Power of Attorney dated 14-03-2014, the plaintiffs gave a police report to the Sub-Inspector of Police, I Town, Bhimavaram 7 for the criminal acts committed by the defendant and others. The police registered a case in Cr.No.294/2015 against the defendant and others.

10. On considering the above said pleadings, plaintiff contended that the defendant committed an act of fraud and made misrepresentation against the plaintiff and fraudulently and willfully collected an amount of Rs.16,51,000/- i.e., the sale consideration under the agreement of possessory agreement-cum-General Power of

Attorney dated 14-03-2014 which is marked as Ex.A3. But, when the entire pleadings of the plaint is considered, particularly the relief plaintiff not claiming any cancellation of the possessory agreement of sale cum

General Power of Attorney i.e., Ex.A3. In this regard, generally we have a doubt that whether the plaintiff is entitled for recovery of an amount passed under Ex.A3 i.e., possessory agreement-cum-General Power of

Attorney dated 14-03-2015. In this regard, when the evidence of P.W.1 in his cross-examination, he clearly and categorically admitted that the defendant herein purchased the plaint schedule property under Ex.A3 from Vikesh Kumar Agarwal and thereafter except in his favour, his vendor did not sell the schedule property to anybody. He further admitted that they took possession of the plaint schedule property on the date of Ex.A3.

11. When we consider the admission of plaintiff under Ex.A3 possession transferred from the defendant to him. It is no doubt, the defendant also admitted about this plaintiff executed Exs.A4 and A5 and subsequently, on filing of Pre-Litigation case as P.L.C.No.757/2015 this plaintiff executed Ex.A10 and A11 i.e., cancellation of Ex.A4 and Ex.A5 as such again, the possession rest with plaintiff only as per the document. What-so-ever, in entire plaint pleadings, there is no pleading whether his possession was disturbed by any other person particularly by Vikesh Kumar Agarwal i.e., nothing but vendor of defendant or any 8 other person like Ungarala Surya Sudha Renuka Rani. As per plaint pleadings, prior to execution of document in favour of the defendant, there is a mortgage deed by Thota Krishna Murthy and Vikesh Kumar

Agarwal in favour of IDBI Bank Limited, as such either Thota Krishna

Murthy or Vikesh Kumar Agarwal or IDBI Bank not disturbed the possession and enjoyment of the plaintiff so far. What-so-ever the plea of the plaintiff is defendant executed Ex.A3 under act of fraud and misrepresentation, if that being either true or wrong, without questioning the document i.e, Ex.A3 how plaintiff is entitled for refund of consideration passed under Ex.A3 is not explained. Moreover, even if it is accepted the claim of the plaintiff, granted refund of said amount what is the fate of Ex.A3, this Court has no scope to cancel the document because the plaintiff not questioned Ex.A3 particularly for cancellation.

The claim of the plaintiff Ex.A3 if accepted, possession of schedule property also with plaintiff. In such a way, when we consider the entire pleadings, it is vague in nature.

12. It is already observed the plaintiffs claimed 24% interest over the consideration passed under Ex.A3 from the date of Ex.A3 till filing of the suit. There is no whisper in Ex.A3 whether the plaintiff is entitled for refund of the consideration of any condition. If so, under what condition, he is claiming 24% interest is not explained properly.

What-so-ever without questioning Ex.A3 plaintiff not entitled for any claim in this suit as he prayed.

13. Now it is to observe whether plaintiff filed this suit without adding proper and necessary parties as defence raised by the defendants. We have already observed whether plaintiff nowhere in the entire plaint pleadings not questioned the validity or seeking cancellation of Ex.A3. When there is no question of validity or cancellation of Ex.A3, there is no question of necessary parties because the plaintiff purely claimed under this suit only for refund of 9 consideration passed under Ex.A3, hence there is no question of necessary parties as pleaded by the defendant.

14. Coming to the cause of action para pleaded by the plaintiff which read as follows:

Cause of action for the suit arose when the defendant made believed the plaintiffs that he had valid and legal title to the schedule property under the registered sale deed

dated 08-05-2013 and on making the said representation,

the defendant collected sale consideration of

Rs.16,51,000/- from the plaintiffs; when later, the schedule property was sold by the plaintiffs to Vegesna Venkata

Narasimha Raju and his wife Smt. Vegesna Eswaramma under two registered sale deeds dated 27-08-2014 and collected sale consideration in total Rs.14,23,000/- from them; when subsequently the vendees under the registered sale deeds dated 27-08-2014 found that the plaintiffs and his predecessors have no valid and legal title over the schedule property, filed PLC No.757/2015 before the Hon’ble Lok Adalath Bench at Bhimavaram after conciliation passed award in PLC No.757/2015 on 10-10- 2015 where under the sale consideration of Rs.14,23,000/- was repaid to the vendes of the plaintiffs; when the plaintiffs demanded the defendant to refund the sale consideration of Rs.16,51,000/- collected from them under the registered Possessory Agreement of Sale-cum-General

Power of Attorney dated 14-03-2014; when the plaintiffs gave a police report to one town police, Bhimavaram which was registered as Cr.No.294/2014; when the plaintiffs demanded the defendant to refund the said sale consideration of Rs.16,51,000/- collected by him with 10 interest at the rate of 24% p.a. and when the defendant failed to pay the said amount having consented to repay the same and started procrastinating the matter at Rayalam village of Bhimavaram Mandal where the plaint schedule property is situated at Bhimavaram where the sale transaction under the said registered possessory agreement of sale-cum-General Power of Attorney dated 14-03-214 where under the defendant collected

Rs.16,51,000/- from the plaintiffs is within the jurisdiction of this Hon’ble Court.

15. When the documents filed by the plaintiff is considered, plaintiff filed Ex.A1 i.e., document taken on 31-07-2010 i.e,. Ex.A1, but plaintiff nowhere pleaded that the plaintiff in his cause of action regarding the fact taken on 31-07-2010.

16. On considering the above observation, the issue is answered against the plaintiff.

Issue No.2:

17. In the result, the suit is dismissed with costs.

Dictated to the Stenographer Grade I, transcribed by him,

corrected and pronounced by me in open Court this the 25th day of March, 2025.

Sd/- Dr.B.Lakshmi Narayana,

Special Judge for Speedy Trial of Offences

Under POCSO Act, 2012, Bhimavaram. FAC.III Additional District Judge, Bhimavaram 11

Appendix of Evidence

Witnesses Examined

For Plaintiff:

P.W.1:Tirumalasetty Vijaya Saradhi

P.W.2:Gadamsetti Prakasa Rao

For Defendant:

D.W.1 : Chinta Srinivasa Reddy

Exhibits Marked

For Plaintiff:

Ex.A1:31-07-2010:Registered possessory sale agreement-cum- General Power of Attorney deed vide Doc.No.3900/2010 executed by Vungarala Surya Sudha Renuka Rani in favour of Vikesh Kumar Agarwal Ex.A2:08-05-2013:Registered sale deed in favour of Chinta Srinivasa Reddy by Vikesh Kumar Agarwal, G.P.A. Holder of Vungarala Surya Sudha Renuka Rani vide Doc.No.2805/2013. Ex.A3:14-03-2014:Registered possessory sale agreement cum General Power of Attorney executed by Chinta Srinivasa Reddy in favour of the plaintiff under Doc.No.1542/2014 Ex.A4:27-08-2014Registered sale deed in favour of Vegesna Venkata Nrasimha Raju under Doc.No.6309/2014 Ex.A5:27-08-2014Registered sale deed in favour of Vegesna Eswaramma under Doc.No.6310/2014 Ex.A6:28-09-2010:Registered sale deed in favour of Thota Krishna Murthy under Doc.No.4758/2010 Ex.A7:10-10-2015:Award passed in P.L.C.No.757/2015

Ex.A8:14-03-2014:F.I.R. in Cr.No.294/2015 under Sections 467, 420, 120(b) IPC against the defendant and others Ex.A9:20-10-2010:Registered mortgage deed vide 12

Doc.No.381/2011

Ex.A10:08-02-2019Cancellation of registered sale deed dated 27- 08-2014 vide Doc.No.6309/2014 under Doc.No.894/2019 Ex.A11:08-02-2019Cancellation of registered sale deed dated 08- 02-2014 vide Doc.No.6310/2014 under Doc.No.895/2019

For Defendants: NIL

Sd/- Dr.B.Lakshmi Narayana,

Special Judge for Speedy Trial of Offences

Under POCSO Act, 2012, Bhimavaram. FAC.III Additional District Judge, Bhimavaram 13

Plaint presented on : 16-12-2015 Plaint registered on :

IN THE COURT OF THE III ADDITIONAL DISTRICT JUDGE

WEST GODAVARI: AT BHIMAVARAM

Present: Dr.B.Lakshmi Narayana,

Special Judge for Speedy Trial of Offences

Under POCSO Act, 2012, Bhimavaram FAC.III Additional District Judge, Bhimavaram

Tuesday, the 25th day March of 2025

O.S.No.No.88/2015

Between:

1. Tirumalasetti Vijaya Saradhi, S/o.Satyanarayana, Male, Aged 56 years, Business, resident of D.No.19-22-4, Bank colony, Bhimavaram Municipal area, Bhimavaram.

2. Tirumalasetty Hemambharadhara Rao, S/o.Satyanarayana, Male, Aged 50 years, Business, resident of D.No.19-17-4/1, Bank Colony, Bhimavaram Municipal area, …Plaintiffs Bhimavaram

and

Chintha Srinivasa Reddy, S/o.Veereddy, Male, Aged 40 years, Business, resident of D.No.35-54-3, Kodavalli Building, Near Montisorry school road, ……Defendant Tanuku.

This suit is filed under by the plaintiff for recovery of an amount of

Rs.23,45,520/- with subsequent interest at 24% p.a. and for costs.

Valuation for the purpose of Court fee and jurisdiction, the plaintiff valued the suit for Rs.23,45,520/- on which a court fee of Rs.25,926/- is paid under Section 20, r/w Schedule I, Art.1(b)(c) of A.P.CF. & S.V.

Act.

Cause of action for the suit arose on 27-06-2011, when the defendant collected sale consideration of Rs.16,51,000/- from the 14 plaintiff; on 27-08-2014 when the schedule property was sold by the plaintiff to Vegesna Narasimha Raju and his wife Eswaramma and collected sale consideration; when the vendees found that the plaintiff and his predecessors have no valid and legal title over the schedule property filed PLC No.757/2015 before Mandal Legal Services

Authorities, Bhimavaram recovery of sale consideration; when the Lok

Adalat Bench at Bhimavaram after conciliation passed Award

Rs.14,23,000/- was repaid to the vendees of plaintiffs; when the plaintiffs demanded the defendant for refund of sale consideration of

Rs.16,51,000/- under the registered possessory agreement of sale- cum-General Power of Attorney dated 14-03-2014; when the plaintiff gave police report before I Town police, Bhimavaram in

Cr.No.294/2015; when the plaintiff demanded for refund of sale consideration and when the defendant failed to repay the amount and at

Rayalam village of Bhimavaram where the plaint schedule property is situated which is within the jurisdiction of this Court.

This suit has come on 08-01-2025 before me for hearing in the presence of Sri A.Venkateswara Raju, learned Advocate for plaintiff and of Sri B.Srinivasa Rao; upon perusing the material on record and the matter having stood over for consideration till this day, this Court DOTH

ORDER AND DECREE as follows:

(a) that the suit of the plaintiff be and is hereby dismissed;

(b) that the defendant do pay a sum of Rs. /- towards costs of the suit.

Given under my hand and the seal of this Court, on this the 25th day of March, 2025.

III Additional District Judge, Bhimavaram

MEMORANDUM OF COSTS

15

For Plaintiffs (institutional costs)For Defendants

C.F. on Vakalat2-00

Court Fee25,296-00No memo of costs filed

Process-

Advocate Fee (Senior)-

TOTAL: 58,528-00

IV ADJ, TNK

FAC/III ADJ, BVRM

1

IN THE COURT OF THE III ADDITIONAL DISTRICT AND SESSIONS JUDGE ::

BHIMAVARAM

Present: Dr.B.Lakshmi Narayana,

Special Judge for Speedy Trial of Offences under POSSO Act, 2012,

Bhimavaram, FAC.III Additional District Judge, Bhimavaram

Friday the 21st day of March, 2025

APPEAL SUIT No.48 of 2024

Between:

1. Patchipala Peddintlu, W/o.Ramu, female, Aged 55 years, resident of D.No.3-5-14/4, 37th ward, Chekkavari Street, Opp: Kishore Theater, Bhimavaram – 2, West Godavari District.

2. Patchipala Durga Devi, W/o.Vijaya Kumar, female, Aged 41 years, D.No.3-5-14/4, 37th ward, Chekkavari Street, Opp: Kishore Theater, Bhimavaram – 2, West Godavari District.

…Appellants

and

Thota Nagamani, W/o.Rama Narasimha Vara Prasad, Female, Aged 61 years, Stridhana, D.NO.2-11-45, RamarajuThota, 36th ward, Bhimavfaram – 2 West Godavari District. ……Respondent

On appeal filed against the Judgment and Decree dated 20-06-2024 passed in O.S.No.415/2019 on the file of I Additional Civil Judge (Junior

Division) Bhimavaram, and made in:

Between:

Thota Nagamani …Plaintiff.

and

2

1. Patchipala Peddintlu

2. Patchipala Durga Devi … Defendants.

This appeal coming on 20-03-2025 for final hearing in the presence of Sri A.Venkateswara Raju, advocate for the appellants/defendants and of Sri V.Satyanarayana Murthy, Advocate for respondent/plaintiff and the matter having stood over for consideration till this day, the Court delivered the following:-

J U D G M E N T

1. This is an appeal have been filed under Order 41, Rule 1 of Code of Civil Procedure against the Judgment and Decree passed in O.S.No.415 of 2019 on the file of learned I Additional Civil Judge (Junior Division),

Bhimavaram, dated 20-06-2024.

2. The parties are being referred to as ‘the plaintiff’ and ‘the defendants’ as referred in the trial Court for convenience and clarity.

3. The brief averments of the plaintiff’s case in the trial Court are that:

The defendants jointly borrowed an amount of Rs.5,00,000/- from the plaintiff and executed a suit promissory note on 14-01-2017 in favour of her, agreeing to repay the same with interest at the rate of 24% either to her or to her order. In spite of repeated demands made by the plaintiff, the defendants failed to discharge the debt. The plaintiff issued registered notice on 22-10-2019, but the defendants evaded to receive the notice.

4. The defendant filed the written statement, denied the averments in the plaint submitting that they did not borrow any amount of

Rs.6,00,000/- from the plaintiff and he never executed promissory note in favour of the plaintiff. In the year 2016, the defendants approached the plaintiff through one Deepika and borrowed an amount of Rs.4,00,000/-, at 3 that time, the plaintiff obtained 4 blank signed promissory notes and blank singed cheques from the defendants. Later, the defendants paid an amount of Rs.2,00,000/- on different occasions and the plaintiff got issued a receipt dated 22-06-2018 to that effect and the said receipt was scribed by

K.Deepika. Later the defendants paid an amount of Rs.82,000/- to the plaintiff towards interest. Thus, in total, the defendants paid Rs.2,82,000/- to the plaintiff towards part payment and they have to pay an amount of

Rs.2,00,000/- and interest thereon. Thereafter, the defendants failed to pay the balance amount as the 1st defendant fell sick. But, the plaintiff taking advantage of blank signed promissory notes available with her and by using one of them, got filed the present suit in order to get wrongful gain. The alleged promissory note is not true, valid and not supported by any consideration. The defendants do not have any acquaintance with the attestors and scribe of the promissory note and prayed to dismiss the suit.

5. Basing on the rival contentions of both the parties, the learned trial

Judge framed the following issues for trial:

i) Whether the suit promissory note is true, correct and binding on the defendant Nos.1 and 2?

ii) Whether the defendant discharged the amount of

Rs.2,82,000/- to the plaintiff as averred in written statement?

iii) Whether the plaintiff is entitled to get decree of suit amount as prayed for?

iv) To what relief?

6. Before the trial Court, to substantiate of their respective pleadings, on behalf of the plaintiff, P.Ws.1 to 3 were examined and got marked 4

Exs.A1 to A3 on behalf of the defendant, D.W.1 is examined and Exs.B1 to

B3 are marked.

7. After hearing both the counsels and after evaluating the evidence let in by both the parties, the learned trial Judge gave a finding by holding that the plaintiff proved his case and decreed with costs.

8. Aggrieved by the said Judgment and Decree, the appeal is preferred by the appellant/defendant basing on the below mentioned appeal grounds:

 That the decree and judgment of the Trial Court is contrary to law, weight of evidence and probabilities of the case.

 The Court below erred in appreciating the actual facts involved in the suit and failed to appreciate the contents or averments in the written statement and decided the suit basing on unconnected pleadings under misconception.

 The trial Court ought to have held that the plaintiff failed to prove his case.

 The trial Court ought to have believed that the appellants never borrowed any amount of Rs.6,00,000/- from the respondent on the alleged date and never executed the alleged promissory note in her favour.

 The trial Court ought to have believed that there are financial transactions in between the appellants and respondent in the year 2016, at that time the respondent obtained four blank signed promissory notes and blank signed cheques from the appellants.

5  The trial court ought to have believed by using the said blank signed promissory note available with the respondent and brought into existence the suit pronote and filed the suit with false allegations.

 The trial Court failed to observe and consider and gave weightage to Ex.B1 and dismissed the suit.

 The trial Court failed to take into consideration the admission made by P.W.1 during the course of her cross-examination in respect of Ex.B1.

 The trial court failed to observe the respondent admitted her signature and other contents of Ex.B1 during the course of cross- examination of D.W.1 by giving suggestions through her counsel.

 The trial Court failed to take into consideration of filing petition by appellants in I.A.456/2022 under Sectio 45 of Indian Evidence

Act to send the suit pronote to handwriting expert to compare the signature of the res on the suit pronote with the signatures available on the part and other documents in the suit, but the petition was dismissed as the appellants could not secure the admitted signatures of respondent.

 The trial Court failed to take into consideration why the respondent was silent on Ex.B1 receipt though the same was brought to her notice by the defendants in their reply notice, written statement during the course of cross-examination of

P.W.1 so also original of said Ex.B1 was filed along with their written statement.

 The trial court failed to take into consideration the suggestions given by the counsel for the respondent to D.W.1 during her 6 cross-examination in respect of Ex.B1 receipt and on other material facts.

 The trial court failed to take into consideration admissions made by P.Ws.1 to 3 in respect of their acquaintance with the respondent at the time of execution of alleged pronote, conditions mentioned therein and on other material aspects.

 The trial Court thoroughly failed to appreciate the evidnec eon record both on facts and under law and decreed the suit.

 The trial court ought to have believed the evidence of appellants and Ex.B1.

 The trial Court failed to appreciate the evience both oral and documentary evidence on record and thoroughly and meticulously.

 In and among the other reasons argued at the time of arguments, the learned Counsel for the plaintiff prayed the Court to allow the appeal by setting aside the Judgment and Decree passed by the trial Court, in the interest of justice.

9. Now the points for consideration arises are:

i. Whether the suit promissory note dated 14-01- 2017 is true, valid and binding on the defendant? ii. Whether Judgment and Decree dated 20-06-2024 passed in O.S.No.415 of 2019 on the file of I Additional

Civil Judge (Junior Division), Bhimavarm, is liable to be

set aside or not?

10. POINT No.i:-

The plaintiff filed this suit i.e., O.S.No.415/2019 based on the pronote

dated 14-01-2017 with allegations that defendants jointly borrowed an

amount and executed the pronote for an amount of RS.6,00,000/- agreeing 7 to repay the same with interest at the rate of 24% p.a. with interest at the rate of 24% p.a. and thereafter did not comeforward to discharge the debt, hence issued a notice on 22-10-2019 and filed the suit.

11. On the other hand, the defendants by denying the plaint averments taken a defence that they borrowed an amount of Rs.4,00,000/- in the year 2016 has approached the plaintiff through K.Deepa, subsequently paid an amount of Rs.2,00,000/- on different occasions.

Plaintiff issued receipt on 22-06-2018. Subsequently also they have paid an amount of Rs.82,000/- as such out of Rs.4,00,000/-, paid an amount of

Rs.2,82,000/-, later not paid the amount.

12. To substantiate the rival allegations, plaintiff examined three witnesses and 1st defendant examined himself as D.W.1.

13. The plaintiff has to establish the suit pronote as true and correct as well as binding on the defendants or not. In this regard, PWs.1 to 3 examined, out of that P.W.1 is the plaintiff, P.W.2 is the 1st attestor,

P.W.3 is the 2nd attestor. P.Ws.2 and 3 are attestors. When we consider the evidence of P.Ws.1 to 3, their evidence is corroborating with each other as the defendants 1 and 2 borrowed an amount of Rs.6,00,000/- by executing a pronote dated 14-04-2017, but contradictions taken regarding time of Ex.A1 transaction at the house of P.W.1, whereas P.W.1 testified that at about 11:00 a.m., to 12 noon, the transaction took place, whereas

P.Ws.2 and 3 testified that the transaction taken at about 2:00 p.m and 4 p.m. respectively. What-so-ever, the suit pronote transaction taken in the year 2017 and they were examined in the year 2019, some contradictions may arise because human memory is not a Computer chip to reproduce what has been taken place earlier.

8

14. In this regard, the trial Court made its observation at para 7 as follows:

It is the case of plaintiff that the defendants jointly borrowed an amount of Rs.6,00,000/- from her on 14.01.2017 agreeing to repay the same with interest @24% p.a., either to plaintiff or to her order and executed promissory note on even date in favour of her in the presence of attestors and scribe. In spite of several demands made by the plaintiff and after issuance of legal notice dt.22.10.2019, the defendants failed to discharge the debt. To prove her case, the plaintiff herself is examined as PW1 and got marked Ex.A1 to A3. Ex.A1 is the original promissory note dt.14.01.2017 for Rs.6,00,000/- executed by defendant. Ex. A2 is the office copy of legal notice dt. 22.10.2019. Ex.A is the postal receipts (2 nos) dt. 22.10.2019. The chief examination evidence of Pw1 is in the lines of plaint. The cross-examination evidence of

P.W.1 show that PW1 does not know K. Deepika and PW1 has no objection to send her signature along with that of alleged her signature on receipt for expert opinion and the defendants themselves brought the scribe. PW1 also stated in cross examination that the transaction under Ex.A1 took place at her house at about 11 a.m. to 12 noon. The plaintiff also examined the attestors of suit promissory note as PW2 & PW3 who stated in their chief examination that the suit promissory note executed by the defendants was attested by them and it was scribed by

Ramnath and entire transaction took place in their presence only.

During cross examination, PW2 stated that the transaction under

Ex.A1 took place at the house of PW1 at 3 p.m. and he knows 9 plaintiff for the last 10 years and also the defendants for the last 10 years. PW3 also stated in her cross examination that she knows PW1 for the last 10 years and the entire transaction under

Ex.A1 took place at 02.00 p.m. to 04.00 p.m. Though there are some contradictions in the evidence of PW1 to 3 as to the time of execution of Ex.A1 in the house of PW1 but, as the defendants themselves admitted clearly in their pleading itself and also in cross examination of DW1 as to the execution of Ex.A1 promissory note by them, such contradictions are not taken into consideration by this court. As they clearly admitted their signatures on Ex.A1 promissory note, the presumption as to passing of consideration under Sec. 118 (1) of NI Act is raised in favour of plaintiff. Thus, the plaintiff by placing the evidence of

PW1 to 3 coupled with Ex.A1 to A3, is able to prove to the satisfaction of this court that the defendants borrowed an amount of Rs.6,00,000/- from her and got executed Ex.A1 promissory note in the presence of PW2 & 3 and later she got issued Ex.A2 legal notice but, the defendants failed to discharge the debt. Now, the burden shifts on the defendants to prove their contentions raised in written statement and also to rebutt the presumption raised in favour of plaintiff.”

15. But, the controversy between the parties regarding Issue No.2 i.e, the defendants pleaded that they discharged an amount of

Rs.2,82,000/- whereas they borrowed only an amount of Rs.4,00,000/-. In this regard, defendant in his evidence clearly admitted that he handed over the signed pronotes, cheques at the time of transactions in the year 2016.

When Ex.A1 stands for an amount of Rs.6,00,000/- and defendants not 10 denying their signatures, whereas P.Ws.2 and 3 testified in their presence transaction had taken place and an amount of Rs.6,00,000/- and the defendants executed Ex.A1 suit promissory note.

16. Now the burden shifts upon the defendants to establish that he discharged an amount of Rs.2,82,000/- or not. In this regard, the defendants exhibited Ex.B1. The learned counsel for the defendants argued that plaintiff issued a legal notice on 22-10-2019 and filed the suit on 23-10- 2019, whereas this defendants issued reply notice on 26-10-2019 under

Ex.B2 its postal acknowledgment is Ex.B3.

17. Moreover, the defendants filed written statement in this suit on 19-11-2019, in that written statement also taken specific plea about Ex.B1 receipt for an amount of Rs.2,00,000/- dated 22-06-2018. It is no doubt on perusal of the record, whatever pleaded by the defendants is corroborating with the pleadings and documents on record. It is also acceptable argument from the defendants that after filing written statement on 19-11- 2019, plaintiff not filed any rejoinder. Moreover, by the time of defendants filed written statement on 19-11-2019, the plaintiff is having reply notice issued by the defendants i.e, Ex.B2, in spite of that not taken any steps to file any additional rejoinder in this regard, accepting or denying the contention raised by the defendants regarding Ex.B1 transaction.

Moreover, plaintiff either not accepted or denied Ex.B1 transaction in his entire evidence. But strangely when defendants filed I.A.No.456/2022, this plaintiff filed counter, in that, he clearly and categorically mentioned that “after her cross (plaintiff cross-examination) she came to know that that the account copy given to one Smt.Patnala Padmavathi was intentionally given to D.W.1 in order to raise false defence even though the respondent name disappears therein”. This plaintiff in cross-examination of D.W.1 clearly 11 suggested that Patnala Padmavathi and herself belongs to members of

Dwacra group. Further suggested that Ex.A4, A5 and B1 belongs to the said Patnala Padmavathi and plaintiff and as the said Patnala Padmavathi mentioned in Exs.A4 and A5 is her friend, she gave the said document i.e.,

Ex.B1 to D.W.1 and she filed the same in Court to raise a false defence.

When this is considered, the admission of plaintiff in the counter filed in

I.A.No.456/2022 and the suggestions on D.W.1, plaintiff clearly admitting the contents of Ex.B1. But, her contention, she gave Ex.B1 as well as

Ex.A4 and A5 to one Patnala Padmavathi, but plaintiff not examined such

Padmavathi either to establish as given Ex.B1 to defendant or the contents of Ex.B1 are not way related to the transaction of defendants. What-so- ever, when the plaintiff received reply notice i.e, Ex.B2 under Ex.B3 being prudent man shall respond to the contents of Ex.B2 particularly Ex.B1 transactions or at lest file the rejoinder in the suit. But, when the defendants filed a petition under Section 45 of Indian Evidence Act, strangely brought with new story as she given Ex.B1 to Patnala

Padmavathi, if really shed gave Ex.A4, A5 and B1 to Patnala Padmavathi, how the plaintiff got Exs.A4 and A5 into her possession is not explained.

18. The learned counsel for the plaintiff argued that the defendants argued that Ex.B1 executed by one Deepika, but she is not Deepika, she is

Deepthi. May be due to uneducation or lack of social knowledge, the defendants might have spoken as Deepika, but name is not an important, but the transaction taken under Ex.B1 is true or not. The plaintiff admitted

Ex.B1 belongs to her, she has to establish that Ex.B1 has no relevancy with the suit transaction. When we consider Exs.A4 and A5 with contents of

Ex.B1, A4 is subsequent fresh written document by observing the contents of Ex.B1. What-so-ever in Exs.A4 and A5, the name of Patnala 12

Padmavathi appears, but Ex.B1 has no name of Patnala Padmavathi that itself establishing that Patnala Padmavathi has no role on Ex.B1. When

Patnala Padmavathi has no role on Ex.B1 and plaintiff not established that

Ex.B1 has no relevancy with Ex.A1 transaction, the defendants are entitled to scale down her claim by deducting Ex.B1 amount i.e, an amount of

RS.2,00,000/- which was paid on 25-05-2018 an amount of Rs.1,00,000/- and on 22-06-2018 an amount of Rs.1,00,000/-. The defendants has no cogent evidence regarding payment of Rs.82,000/-, hence they are not entitled to scale down Rs.82,000/- from the claim of plaintiff.

19. The learned counsel for the defendants further argued that plaintiff not approached with clean hands by disclosing the real facts that she is not entitled any claim from the defendants. In this regard, it is well established law that recovery of money under pronote is not an equitable relief like permanent injunction, hence this Court could separate the truth and false and by accepting the truth with some principles pass necessary orders to deems fit and proper to the circumstances.

20. On considering the fore-going discussion, this Court modifying the order of trial for the extent of Rs.2,00,000/- payment and interest.

21. POINT No.ii:-

In view of the discussion on point No.1, this Court finds that the decree and judgment passed by the trial Court is liable to be modified to the extent of Rs.2,00,000/- part payment and interest awarded by the trial Court and the judgment passed by the Trial Court needs interference and this point is answered accordingly.

22. In the result, the appeal the appeal is partly allowed by modifying the judgment of the trial Court by deducting an amount of 13

RS.2,00,000/- out of Rs.6,00,000/-, further with subsequent interest on the

principal amount of Rs.4,00,000/- (after deducting RS.2,00,000/-) with

interest at 6% p.a. from the date of suit till realization. Parties shall bear their own costs.

Dictated to the Stenographer Grade – I, transcribed by him, corrected and

pronounced by me in open Court, on this the 21 st day of March, 2024.

Sd/- Dr.B.Lakshmi Narayana,

Special Judge for Speedy Trial of Offences

Under POCSO Act, 2012, Bhimavaram. FAC.III Additional District Judge, Bhimavaram.

(No oral or documentary evidence is adduced in this appeal).

Sd/- Dr.B.Lakshmi Narayana,

Special Judge for Speedy Trial of Offences

Under POCSO Act, 2012, Bhimavaram. FAC.III Additional District Judge, Bhimavaram.

1

BEFORE THE MOTOR ACCIDENTS CLAIMS TRIBUNAL-CUM-III ADDITIONAL

DISTRICT COURT:: WEST GODAVARI :: BHMAVARAM

Present: Dr.B.Lakshmi Narayana,

Special Judge for Speedy Trial of Offences under POSSO Act, 2012,

Bhimavaram, FAC.III Additional District Judge, Bhimavaram

Monday This the 13th day of April, 2026

M.V.O.P. No.4 of 2022

Between:

1. Jyotsna Bibi

2. Ajnara Khatun

3. Sekh Aayan

4. Sekh Mabuddin (2nd and 3rd petitioners being minior rep. By their mother as natural guaridian i.e., 1st petitioner.)

…..Petitioners

And

1. Kuntella Ramana

2. Vunamati Srinivasa Rao

3. The Divisional Manager, United India Insurance Company Ltd. ….Respondents

This petition coming before me on 21.01.2026 for final hearing in the presence of Sri N.V.V.Satyanarayana and Sri Nimmala Naveen, Advocates for petitioners and of Sri A. Venkateswara Raju, Advocate for 3rd Respondent and the respondents 1 and 2 remained ex parte and the matter having stood over for consideration till this day the Tribunal made the following

O R D E R

This petition is filed by the petitioners under Section 455 of M.V. Act Rules compensation amount of Rs.17,36,000/- on account of the death of the deceased by name Sekh Ajimudin in the accident which was occurred on 16.3.2021 and for costs.

2. The averments of the petition, in brief, are as follows:

The deceased Sekh Ajimudin is aged about 27 years and he is hale and healthy person by the date of accident. He has been working as Plumber in

Godavari Gas Company at Bhimavaram Sector and Earning monthly income of 2

Rs.20,000/- per month at the time of accident. The 1st petitioner is the wife of the deceased and the Petitioners 2 and 3 are minor daughter and minor son and 4th petitioner is aged father of deceased and mother of deceased is pre-deceased to him.

On 16.3.2021 at about 11-00 A.M., the decesed started from his room on his By-cycle and proceeded towars Srinivasa Centre for his duty, when he reached near B.V.Raju Statue on Bhimavaram- Tadepalligudem Road. The 1st respondent is the driver of Lorry bearing No.AP 37 TD 2344 plying from Undi towards Tadepalligudem drove his vehicle in a rash and negligent manner and without applying brakes abd blowing horn dashed the deceased travelling bicycle in opposite direction. As a result the decesed sustained grievious injuries and immediately he was shifted to Government Hospital, Bhiamvaram in 108

Ambulance and from there whiel he was shifting to Varma Hospital, Bhiamvaram died on the way. The cause of accident is only due to the rash and negligent driving of the 1st respondent. The 1st respondent is the driver and 2nd respondent is the owner of Lorry bearing No.AP 37 TD 2344, 3rd respondent is the insurer. Hence all the respondents are severally and jointly liable to pay the compensation amount to the petitioner. Hence the petition.

3. The 3rd respondent filed Written Statement denying the allegations in the petition and contended that there was gross negligence onpart of the deceased

Sekh Ahimudin, S/o.Mobuddin without taking any precautins and without following the traffic rules cause the accident. The petitoenrs have to prove that there was no negligence on part of the deceased in the unfortunate incident. The company will indemnity the insured only in the even of death or bodily injury to any third party as per M.V.Act and this case, the deceased was neither a third party nor a workman, whose risk is not covered under thepolicy and hnce, the 3rd respondent is not liabel to pay any compensation to them. The compensation of Rs.17,36,000/- claimed under various head is not tenabel in law and the same is excessive and inflated.

Therefore prays that to dismiss the petition with costs.

4. On the strength of the above pleadings, the following issues were settled for trial:

3

1. Whether the pleaded accident, dated 16.3.2021 was occurred due to rash and negligent driving of lorry bearing No.AP 37 TD 2344 ( crime vehicle) driven by teh 1st respondent who is the driver of the crime vehicle adn whether Jakki

Chandramohan alias Bujji (Deceased ) died in the said accident?

2. Whether the crime vehicle was owned by the 2nd respondent as per insurance policy and insured with the 3rd respondent as on the date of accident?

3. Whether there are any violations of conditions of policy?

4. Whether the petitioners are entitled for compensation, if so, to what quantum and what is the liablity of respondents?

5. To what Relief?

5. On behalf of the petitioners. P.Ws.1 and 2 were examined and Ex.A1 to Ex.A5 are marked. On behalf of respondents, Ex.B1 marked.

6. Heard both sides.

7. P.W.1, who is wife of deceased . She reiterated her petition averments as her examination in chief. She deposed in her cross-examination that the decesed is her husband, who died in road accident on 16.3.2021 and he worked as Plumber under a Contractor in Godavari Gas Company, Bhimavaram Sector.

Her deceased husband used to earn monthly Rs.20,000/-. She has not filed any documentry proof to show that her deceased husband used to earn monthly

Rs.20,000/-. At the time of accident while her husband was going on bicycle the offending lorry driver hit to him due to which he died in the said accident. He was not present at the tiem of incident and as such he has not witnesses the incident personally.

8. P.W.2, who is eye Witness deposed that on 16.3.2021 at about 11-00

A.M. at B.V.Raju Statue he had witnessed while one cyclist proceeding toward

Srinivas center When reached at B.V.Raju. The 1st respondent i.e., the driver of

Lorry bearing No.AP 37 TD 2344 plying from Undi towards Tadepalligudem drove his vehicle in a rash and negligent manner and without applying brakes and blowing horn dashed the deceased travelling Bycycle in opposite direction. As a result deceased sustained grievous injuries and immediately he along with others shifted 4 him to Government Hospital, Bhimavaram in 108 Ambulance and from there while he was shifting to Varma Hospital, Bhimavaram died on the way. The cause of accident is only due to the rash and negligent driving of the 1st respondent. Upon enquire he came to know that deceased name was Sk.Ahimuddin came to

Bhimavaram for working as Plumber under Godavari Gas Company. L.W.9 in the

Charge sheet and present at the time of inquest.

P.W.2 deposed in his cross-examination that he witnessed teh accident on 16.3.2021 at about 11-00 A.M., he present at place of accident as he has shop beside the B.V.Raju Statue. He has not filed any proof of document about hsi shop because he set up a shop on road margin. The alleged place of accident is nothing but four cross road.

9.Issue Nos.1 to 4:

The cause of death of deceased Sekh Ajimudin ;

The petitioners pleaded that on 16.3.2021 at about 11-00 A.M., the deceased Sekh Ajimudin stated from his room on his bycyle and proceeded towards Srinivasa Center , when reached B.V.Raju statue 1st respondent being driver of offending lorry bearing No.AP37 TD 2344 flying from Undi to

Tadepalligudem drove his lorry in a rash and negligent manner without applying any break or blowing horn dashed the deceased on opposite side, resulted grievous injuries . Hence, shifted to Government Hospita, Bhimavaram in 108 service and there to Varma Hospital, while on the way he was died. 3rd respondent , who filed Written Statement denied the version of the petitioner but not asserted the cause fo death of deceased Sekh Ajmudin. The 1st petitioner, herself came into witness box as P.W.1 and reiterated above said facts by filing examination in chief as affidavit. In her cross-examination, she deposed that while her husband was going on bicycle the offending lorry dashed his bicycle but she was not present at the time of incident. P.W.2 is alleged eye witness, who testified that he was present and witnessed the accident. In his cross-examination, P.W.2 affirmed that she witnessed the accident on 16.3.2021 at about 11-00 A.M., as he has shock beside the B.V.Raju Statue. He further testified that he has not filed any 5 proof of document for his shock because he setup shock at road margin. When we considered the evidence of P.W.1 and 2 that respondent not elicited any contrary facts to the cause of death of deceased. Moreover, Ex.A-1 to A-5 are corroborating with the evidence of P.W.1 and 2 regarding the cause of death of deceased

Ajmudin. Hence, we can safely conclude that deceased Ajmudin died due to road accident as narrated by the petitioner /P.W.1 and P.W.2.

10.What is the age of deceased at the the time of accident?

The petitioner pleaded that at the time of alleged accident, deceased is at the age of 27 years but respondent No.3, who filed written statement denied the age of deceased but not affirmed any age of deceased at the time of accident.

As we already observed P.W.1 reiterated contents of petition affidavit as the deceased age is 27 years at the time of alleged accident. In cross-examination of

P.W.1, 3rd respondent not posed any question regarding the age of deceased.

Moreover, on perused the Ex.A-1 to A-5, the deceased age referred as 27years.

Hence we can safely conclude that the age of the deceased Ajmudin is 27 years only at the time of accident.

11.What is the income of the deceased by the time of death of deceased.

In this regard, petitioner pleaded that the deceased earning an amount of

Rs. 20,000/- per month being working as a Plumber in Godavari Gas Company at

Bhimavaram sector. In this regard, the above said facts reiterated by P.W.1 in her examination in chief. In her cross-examination, she deposed that her deceased husband used to earn an amount of Rs.20,000/- but not filed any proof of document to show the said earnings. Though petitioner pleaded that deceased worked as a plumber in Godavari Gas Company at Bhimavaram Sector for that either not filed any document nor examined any person from that Gas company to establish not only income of the deceased but also his profession. In entire petition, petitioners also not pleaded what is the qualification of deceased Ajmudin to work as Plumber.

6

As no acceptable evidence on record regarding the profession deceased Ajmudin, we can treat him as unskilled labour and can take his daily wage at Rs.624/-

12. Whether Insurance policy with respondent No.3 is in force or liable for payment of insurance claim?

In this regard, 3rd respondent got marked copy of insurance policy on consent. As such 3rd respondent not denied as insurer of offending vehicle bearing

No. AP 37 TD 2344. Hence, 3rd respondent is having liability to pay the compensation. However, this court taken deceased is unskilled labour and fixed an amount of Rs.624/- per day, which was decided by the District Magistrate towards wages of unskilled labour. The minimum working days in a month are 25 days after excluding Sundays and Holidays etc., On considering the age and as well as selling of fish and prawns we can notionally fixed at Rs.15,600/- per month.

Considering the evidence of P.W.1 the deceased income is notionally fixed at

Rs.15,600/- p.m, Rs.1,87,200/- per year.

13. We have already observed as per the above the income of the deceased fixed at Rs.1,87,200/- per year and the deceased earned an amount of

Rs.1,87,200/- Per year. These facts clearly establishing that deceased having growth in his income. As such, the petitioners are entitled future prospects at the rate of 40% as per observation in National Insurance Company Limited Vs.

Pranay Sethi and others, reported in AIR 2017 Supreme Court 5171 which as follows:

“In case the deceased was self-employed or on a fixed salary, an addition of 40% of the established income should be the warrant where the deceased was below the age of 40 Years. An addition of 25% where the deceased was between the age of 40 to 50 years and 10% where the deceased was between the age of 50 to 60 years should be regarded as the necessary method of computation. The established income means the income minus the tax component.” 7

As per the 2nd schedule, the multiplier applicable for the age group for the deceased is 26 - 30 years is “17”. As per the record, the deceased is aged about 38 and the multiplier applicable is also ‘17’

14. The Hon’ble Supreme Court in a case of Smt. Sarala Varma and others vs. Deli Transport Corporation and another laid down certain principles as regards the deduction of personal expenses from the monthly income. The Hon’ble

Supreme Court in this regard held that deduction towards personal and living expenses of the deceased should be 1/3rd where the number of dependant family members are 2 to 3, 1/4th where number of dependant family members are 4 to 6 and 1/5th where the number of dependants family members are 4 to 6 and 1/5th where the number of dependants family members are more than 6. Here, the dependants are no other than the petitioners who are three in number. So, the 1/5th of the annual income of the deceased is liable to be deducted towards his personal expenditure. The annual income of the deceased comes to Rs.1,87,200/-.

By virtue of the Judgment in Pranay Sethi’s case, after adding future prospects, the annual income of the deceased comes to (Rs.1,87,200/- + Rs. 74,880/-) =

Rs.2,62,080/-. Hence the compensation payable to the petitioners under the head of loss of future earnings comes to Rs.65,520/- and 1/4th of the income shall be deducted towards personal expenditure of the deceased and 1/4th of the same shall be taken as the contribution of the family, therefore Rs.1,96,560/- to the family of the deceased, hence the compensation payable to the petitioners 1 to 4 under the head of loss of future earning and dependnacy Rs.1,96,560/- x 17 =

Rs.33,41,520/-, therefore the said amount can be awarded to the petitioners 1 and under the head of Loss of Future earnings.

15. This Tribunal is of view that the following amounts under convention heads; loss to estate, loss of consortium and funeral expenses can be awarded

Rs.15,000/-, Rs.40,000/- and Rs.15,000/- respectively. This Court is also view that an amount of Rs.15,000/- can be awarded under the head of loss of love and affection towards her children and husband this Court finds that an amount of

Rs.10,000/- can be awarded towards Transportation Charges.

8

16. In view of the reasons stated above, the entitlement of the petitioners for compensation under various heads can be calculated as follows;

i) Loss of Earnings :Rs.33,41,520-00 ii) Loss of estate : Rs. 15,000-00 iv) Loss of consortium: Rs. 40,000-00

v) Funeral expenses:Rs. 15,000-00 vi) Loss of love and affection : Rs. 15,000-00 vi) Transportation Charges: Rs. 10,000-00 ---------------------- Total: Rs.34,36,520-00 ----------------------

17. It is settled law that the rate of interest prevailing in Nationalized Banks shall be taken into consideration. The rate of interest on fixed deposits vary depending on the period of deposit. Therefore, on an average, 7.5% of interest can be taken as appropriate in the present case. Therefore, the petitioners 1 to 3 are entitled to interest amount @ 7.5% per annum on the principal amount of compensation from the date of petition till the date of realization.

ISSUE No.5:

18. In the result, the petition is allowed against Petitioners Nos. 1 to 4 in awarding compensation amount of Rs.34,36,520/- (Rupees Thirty Four Lakhs, thirty six thousand five hundred and twenty only) with proportionate costs to the petitioners 1 to 4 with interest at 7.5% per annum from the date of filing of the petition till the date of realization.

(a) The respondents 1 to 3 are jointly and severally liable to pay the said compensation amount to the petitioners.

(b) The petitioners 1 to 4 shall submit their bank account details within 10 days from the date of this Order before this court

(c) The 3rd respondent being the insurer directed to deposit the said compensation amount proportionately within two months directly payable to the respective Bank accounts of the petitioners 1 to 4 .

9

(d) On such deposit, the 1st petitioner is entitled for Rs.9,36,520/-/- and petitioners 2 and 3 are entitled for Rs.10,00,000/- each and 4th petitioner is entitled for 5,00,000/- with proportionate interest and entire costs of this litigation.

(e) The 1st petitioner is permitted to withdraw an amount of Rs.6,36,520/- with proportionate interest and costs and the balance of Rs.3,00,000/- shall be kept in the fixed deposit in her Bank account for a period of one year and proof (FDR) of the same shall be filed before this court;

(f) The petitioners 2 and 3 being minors, the amount awarded to them shall be kept in the fixed deposit in their Bank account till they attain majority.

(f) The 4th petitioner is permitted to withdraw an amount of Rs.3,00,000/- with proportionate interest and the balance of Rs.2,00,000/- shall be kept in the fixed deposit in her Bank account for a period of one year and proof (FDR) of the same shall be filed before this court;

(h) The petitioners are directed to pay court fee for the amount granted by this Tribunal.

(i) The decree will be supplied to the petitioners after verification by Office as to payment of Court fee and exemption if any, sought at the time of filing of this case and on clearance of Court fee dues if any and also filed bank account particulars of petitioners.

(j) The Advocate fee is fixed at Rs.35,000/-.

Dictated to the Stenographer Grade-I, typed by her directly on computer,

corrected and pronounced by me in the open Court, this the 13th day of April, 2026.

Sd/- Dr. B.Lakshminarayana

Special Judge for Speedy Trial of

Offences under POSSO Act, 2012, Bhimavaram,

CHAIRMAN,

MOTOR ACCIDENTS CLAIMS TRIBUNAL-

CUM- III ADDITIONAL DISTRICT JUDGE,

WEST GODAVARI, BHIMAVARAM

10

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

WITNESS EXAMINED

FOR PETITIONERS: FOR RESPONDENTS:

P.W.1 : Jyotsna Bibi - None-

P.W.2 : Kurukanti sudharshan Sanjay

DOCUMENTS MARKED

FOR PETITIONER:

Ex.A1/dt.--Attested copy of FI.R.

Ex.A2/dt.--Attested copy of postmortem report

Ex.A3/dt.--Attested copy of inquest report

Ex.A4/dt.--Certified copy of M.V.I. report

Ex.A5/dt.--Attested copy of charge sheet

FOR RESPONDENTS:

Ex.B1/dt.-- Attested True copy Policy

Sd/- Dr. B.Lakshminarayana

Special Judge for Speedy Trial of Offences

under POSSO Act, 2012, Bhimavaram,

CHAIRMAN,

FAC.MOTOR ACCIDENTS CLAIMS

TRIBUNAL-CUM-III ADDITIONAL DISTRICT

JUDGE, WEST GODAVARI, BHIMAVARAM

11