Smt.b.manjari

I Addl Chief Judge

SEC-BAD, CCC-CSCC-MSJ Court Complex · Hyderabad · Telangana

SMT.B.MANJARI, I Addl Chief Judge, is posted at SEC-BAD, CCC-CSCC-MSJ Court Complex, Hyderabad, Telangana, India. 714 court orders on record since 2010. 16 judgments with full text available. Primarily handles CC, MVOP, OS cases.

714

Total Orders

Judgments

Orders/Month

Postings

Featured Judgments

OP/766/2015

DODDE NARASIMHULU vs ESA BIN AHMED

18 Aug 2023

// FAIR //

BEFORE THE MOTOR ACCIDENTS CLAIMS TRIBUNAL–CUM–

I ADDITIONAL CHIEF JUDGE, CITY CIVIL COURT, AT SECUNDERABAD.

DATED THIS THE 18th DAY OF AUGUST, 2023.

PRESENT : SMT. B.MANJARI

I ADDL. CHIEF JUDGE

V.O.P. NO 766 OF 2015 M.

Between :-

1. Dodde Narasimhulu S/o D. Ramanna, Aged 28 years, Occ: Driver ,

2. Dodde Sravani W/o Late D.Narasimhulu, Aged 22 years, Occ: Household,

3. Dodde Yogendra S/o Late D.Narasimhulu, Aged 2 years, Occ: Nil, (Minor rep. By his Mother & Natural Guardian i.e. Petitioner No.2)

4. Dodde Ramanjinamma W/o D.Ramanna, Aged 50 years, Occ: Household,

5. Dodde Ramanna S/o D.Durgappa, Aged 58 years, Occ: Labour,

6. Dodde Narendara S/o late D.Narsimulu, Aged about 5 years, Occ: Nil, (All LRs impleaded as per Orders in I.A.No. 1385/2021 dated 1.12.2021).

R/o H.No. 5-3-390/1/2, Hyderbasti, Secunderabad. --Petitioners

AND

1.Esa Bin Ahmed S/o Ahmed Bin Sayeed, Aged : Major, Occ : Owner of TATA ACE Vehicle bearing No. AP 21 TW 8076 R/o H.No. 1-8-9, Near Fire Station, T.D. Gutta, Mahabubnagar, 509001.

2. Bajaj Allianz General Insurance Co. Ltd., rep. By its Legal Manager, # 4th Floor, North-East Plaza, Beside BMW Showroom, Opp. RTA Office, Erramanzil, Hyderabad 500 082.

3.M.Rambabu S/o M.Hanmanthu, Aged : Major, Occ : Driver of the Crime Vehicles R/o Chinnaiahpally, Sankarpet, Gandeed, Rangareddy District. -- Respondents

This petition is coming before me for final hearing in the presence of Sri D.Vilas, Advocate for the Petitioners and Sri

Rajkumar Grandhi, Advocate for Respondent No.2 and Respondent

Nos.1 and 3 remained exparte and the matter having been heard and stood over for consideration till this day, the Court passed the following :-

O R D E R

1.The petition in O.P.No. 766/2015 was initially filed by the sole petitioner being the injured under Sec. 166 of the MV Act claiming compensation of Rs4,00,000/- on account of the injuries sustained by him against the Respondents 1 to 3.

2.Pending the petition, the injured since died, petitioners 2 to 4 that came on record as his legal heirs and got amended the pleadings claiming enhancement of compensation to the tune of

Rs.10 Lakhs against the same respondents 1 to 3.

3.The initial claim petition filed with the averments that on 9.3.2015 at about 7.45 am, when the petitioner No.1 as driver of the vehicle TATA ACE bearing No. AP 02 TB 9125 towards Kodangal and when he reached near Parsapur Village on Kodangal to Kosgi

Road in Mahaboobnagar District another TATA ACE vehicle bearing

AP 21 TW 8076 driven by its driver in high speed and in a rash and negligent manner dashed the vehicle of the petitioner No.1 from opposite direction due to which, he fell down and received fracture injuries, that initially, he was shifted to Area Hospital, Kodangal for treatment, later he was shifted to Gandhi Hospital, Secunderabad where he was treated as inpatient from 10.3.2015 till 6.4.2015 and operation was done later, he was discharged from the hospital and he also attended for periodical followup treatment, that prior to the accident, he was working as driver of TATA ACE bearing No. AP 02

TB 9125 and used to earn a sum of Rs. 12,000/- per month, that after the accident, he became permanently disabled and lost his employment and has been facing financial crisis, that he had spent huge amount towards medical expenses. After the death of the petitioner No.1, petitioners No.2 to 4 enhanced the claim to the tune of Rs.15,00,000/- contending that the death of the deceased was the outcome of the accident that occurred on 9.3.2015.

4.Respondent No.1 is the owner of the offending vehicle and

Respondent No.3 is its driver and they both remained ex parte and did not contest the petition.

5.The Respondent No.2/Insurance Company filed its counter denying the contention of the petitioners, the method and manner of the accident, age, income and other aspects and challenged the petitioners to strict proof and that there is no nexus between the death of the initial claim petitioner and to the accident that took place on 9.3.2015. Further averred that the driver, who alleged to have driven the crime vehicle TATA ACE bearing No. AP 21 TW 8076 was not holding a valid and effective driving license to drove the said vehicle thereby contravened the provisions of the MV Act as well as MV Rules, that the accident occurred due the entire negligence of the driver of the TATA ACE goods auto bearing No. AP 02 TB 9125 but, the owner and insurer of the said vehicle are not pleaded as parties to this petition as such, the Respondent No.2 company is not liable to pay compensation, that the claimed amount is excess, exorbitant, that the petitioners 2 to 4 the LRs of the deceased are taking undue advantage of the beneficial legislation and are trying to convert the injury case to a death case. That the petition is to be dismissed.

6.Initially, basing on the initial pleadings, the following issues are settled for trial on 15.12.2017 and even after amendment of the petition and enhancement of the claim, again issues were settled on 21.8.2019 as follows:-

1. Whether the pleaded accident occurred resulting in injured the victim Late Dodde Narasimhululu S/o D.Ramanna due to rash and negligent driving of the driver of TATA ACE Vehicle bearing No. AP 21 TW 8076?

2. Whether the petitioners are entitled to any compensation and if so, to what amount and from whom?

3. To what relief ?

7.It may be noted that the issues dated 15.12.2017 and the issues dated 21.8.2019 are one and the same though there was change of facts and circumstances, and change of pleadings filed by way of amended pleading and additional counter. However, the contentions of both the parties are to be considered based on the amended pleadings filed by both parties and the evidence is to be appreciated in this petition filed for compensation under the MV Act where the scope is limited.

8.To substantiate their respective contentions on the petitioners’ side, PWs 1 to 3 are examined, Ex.A1 to Ex.A12 and

Ex.X1 are marked. On behalf of Respondent No.2, RW1 is examined, Ex.B1 to Ex.B7 are marked.

9.Oral submissions were made on the petitioner side. Whereas, written arguments are filed for the Respondent No.2/Insurance

Company.

10. ISSUE NO.1 :-

It is the case born out from the petition filed initially by petitioner No.1 as extracted by me above that on 9.3.2015, at about 7.45 AM, while the injured/deceased was proceeding in TATA ACE

Vehicle bearing No. AP 02 TB 9125 as driver another TATA ACE bearing No. AP 21 TW 8076 driven in high speed in a rash and negligent manner came in a opposite direction and dashed the deceased vehicle. As a result of which, he sustained fracture injuries and was admitted in the Hospital for treatment. The contesting Respondent No.2 denied the manner in which the accident was occurred as pleaded in the petition.

11.In order to prove their case, after the death of the 1st petitioner and among the petitioners No.2 to 4, the petitioner No.2 examined herself as PW1 and reiterated the very same contentions in lieu of the chief affidavit filed by her. Apart from her oral statement, she also marked Ex.A1/FIR, Ex.A2/Wound Certificate,

Ex.A3/Crime Details Form, Ex.A4/Charge Sheet, Ex.A5/Discharge

Card and Ex.A6/OP Tickets. During her cross-examination, she deposed that she is not an eye witness to the accident, that the FIR

dated 9.3.2015 was given by her husband himself at Kodangal

Hospital, that no Disability Certificate of her husband is filed in this petition.

12.PW2, a supportive witness an Orthopedic Surgeon got examined through the Advocate Commissioner who deposed to the effect that the patient admitted with RTA and admitted at Gandhi

Hospital vide IP number 11817 on 10.3.2015 and operation was conducted on 25.3.2015 and discharged on 6.4.2015. He is giving evidence as per Hospital records, the patient having 1. Grade III open fracture of olicrane on process of ulna (RT), 2. Grade II Shaft femur fracture middle III, 3. Closed communited fracture patella (RT) and closed fracture distan end of the radious (Lt.). During the course of his cross-examination, he admitted that in discharge summary i.e. Ex.A5 not mentioned about the RTA. He showed the case sheet and mentioned as the patient came to causality alleged

RTA on 9.3.2015. He does knot know the patient died or not that the treatment at Gandhi Hospital is free of cost. He denied the suggestion that Ex.A5 and Ex.A6 are issued by Gandhi Hospital to help the patient.

13.As against the above said oral and documentary evidence lead by the petitioners though the Respondent No.2/Insurance

Company got examined its Senior Executive as RW1, nothing substantive statements are found in his chief-affidavit as to the manner of accident that took place in this case. Most of his statements in lieu of the chief are against the lapses on the part of the driver of the crime vehicle and with regard to cause of the death of the deceased at a later point of time. Confining the discussion under this issue to the extent of fixing up the rash and negligence on the part of the driver of the crime vehicle in causing the accident, I am of the considered view that the said evidence of

RW1 on this point is irrelevant. On the other hand, the oral and documentary evidence lead by the petitioners on their behalf in all probability is sufficient to make this Court believe and accept that the accident occurred due the rash and negligent driving of the

TATA ACE bearing No. AP 21 TW 8076.

14. ISSUE NO.2 :-

Initially, this petition was filed by the injured as the sole petitioner claiming compensation of Rs.4,00,000/- for sustaining injuries in the accident that occurred involving the crime vehicle i.e. TATA ACE bearing No. AP 21 TW 8076. The Respondents 1 to 3 are the owner, insurer and driver of the said crime vehicle. It is the contention of the Respondent No.2 that the vehicle AP 21 TW 8076 is a goods carrying public vehicle as such, the vehicle driver shall possess a driving license of light motor vehicle with badge/transport endorsement, but in this case, the driver was not holding such driving license and the owner knowingly handed over the vehicle to the driver not having valid and effective driving license, thereby contravened the provisions of the MV Act and violated the terms of the policy.

15.By examining RW1, the Insurance Company got marked attested copy of policy as Ex.B1, Driving License Extract related to the Respondent No.3 driver as Ex.B2, RC Extract of the Vehicle bearing No. AP 21 TW 8076 as Ex.B3, Office copy of notice sent to

R1 and R3 as Ex.B4, Original Postal Receipts as Ex.B5, Returned envelop of Respondent No.1 as Ex.B6, lastly acknowledgment card of Respondent No.3 as Ex.B7. During his cross-examination, RW1 admitted that by the date of accident, the policy was in force and that the said policy covers third party claims and that the internal investigation was done and documents were collected in connection with the accident and the said investigation report is not filed and there is no reference of the name of the investigator in his chief-affidavit, that other than the documents filed and marked by the petitioner, he had not filed any documents pertaining to the accident in this case.

16.It is significant to note that in the limited scope of enquiry to award compensation under the Motor Vehicles Act, it is only the preponderance of probability that should be the basis but not strict proof as required in the criminal cases. On the face of it, RW1 admitted that except the documents filed by the petitioners pertaining to the accident that occurred in this case, no other documents are filed by him. The petitioners herein marked Ex.A1 to Ex.A4/Crime Record, whereunder the police on due investigation laid charge sheet against the driver of the TATA ACE bearing No. AP 21 TW 8076 as the accused that had committed the offence and caused the accident. Assuming for a moment that the driving license of Respondent No.3 was not valid to drive the crime vehicle, thereby the Respondent No.1/Owner of the vehicle had violated the terms of the policy, it was between the insurer and the insured, that has no bearing on the claims of the third parties.

More so, RW1 admitted that the policy covers third party claims.

Therefore, it can be said that the Respondent No.1 being the owner, Respondent No.2 being the Insurer and Respondent No.3 being the Driver are jointly and severally liable to pay compensation in lieu of the accident that occurred in this case.

17.Coming to the quantum of compensation, there is a serious turn that had taken place during the pendency of this claim petition, whereunder the Injured/1st Petitioner, who sustained injuries in the accident that occurred in this case later died on 11.5.2016 in the bathroom of Railway Station of Anantapuramu. It is the contention of the petitioners 2 to 4, who came on record after the death of the Petitioner No.1 as his legal heirs, that the deceased died in consequence to the accidental injuries, since he was not recovered from the said injuries. On the other hand, the contesting Respondent No.2/Insurance Company denied that there was no nexus between the accident and the death caused after lapse of 15 months.

18.The Petitioners No.2 to 4 are the wife and two sons of the deceased. The Petitioner No.2 as PW1 reiterated their case and affirmed that the death of the deceased was in consequence to the injuries caused in the accident. Apart from her oral statement, PW1 also marked Ex.A7 to Ex.A11. During her cross-examination, she deposed that her 2nd son was borne after five months after the death of her husband, that the complaint under Ex.A7 dated 11.5.2016 in crime No.69/2016 was given by her with

Anantapuramu III Town Police Station. She admitted that as per her complaint, her husband died in Anantapuram Railway Station

Bathroom due to heart-attack or some other reason. She admitted that as per Ex.A9/PME Report and Ex.A10/Forensic Report, the cause of death of her husband was due to cardiac arrest and as per the SHO Report, dated 5.3.2017 submitted to the Sub Divisional

Police Officer Anantapur, the deceased appears died to cardio respiratory failure as a result of acute coronary insufficiency (heart attack). She denied the suggestion that there is no nexus to the accident with the death of her husband.

19.PW3, the Doctor, who conducted post mortem examination is got examined by the petitioners by taking an Advocate

Commissioner. It is the statement of PW3 that he has conducted the post mortem examination over the dead body of Dodde

Narasimhulu, aged about 31 years, Sex : Male in Crime

No.69/2016 of Anantapuramu-III Town Police Station on 12.5.2016, that he has opined cause of death due to cardio-respiratory failure as a result of acute coronary insufficiency. As suggested by the counsel as heart attach/acute coronary insufficiency could have resulted from Trauma faced by the deceased because of the previous surgeries for the injuries sustained in RTA. Accordingly, he has issued PME and Final Opinion in the case Ex.A9 and Ex.A10 which was signed by him. He has mentioned in Ex.A9 in External appearance column that an old postoperative scars measuring 18 cms and 12 cms is present over the outer aspect of right thigh and also another scar of 4 cms over the right knee and also a postoperative scar of 8 cms from back of right elbow. During the course of his cross-examination, PW3 admitted that the cardio respiratory insufficiency means lack of blood circumstances to the heart, that there may be existence of remote relation between the post operative period (injuries) for cause of death. He denied the suggestion that there is no nexus to the death of deceased due to accidentally injuries.

20.It is argued for the contesting Respondent No.2 that the death of the initial claim petitioner is not related to the accident occurred on 9.3.2015 and that there is no nexus between the alleged death of the deceased with the accident occurred on 9.3.2015, that in order to get unlawful gain from the Respondent

No.2/Insurance Company, the petitioners approached with unclean hands, that the cause of action for the claim petition arose due to the death of the 1st Petitioner on account of the alleged injuries sustained through his person and with the death of the said person, the action dies, that the deceased was not in continuous treatment till his death and the recitals of Ex.A9 and Ex.A10 are that the death of the deceased was purely due to the cardio respiratory failure as a result of acute coronary insufficient (heart- attack) but not due to the alleged road traffic accident.

21.It is significant to note that it is the fact that from the admitted documentary evidence marked as Ex.A1 to Ex.A6, the deceased in this case sustained injuries more particularly fracture injuries for which he took treatment and undergone surgeries in

Gandhi Hospital, Secunderabad. The document Ex.A5/Discharge

Card issued by Gandhi Hospital disclose the fact that the deceased had even attended for followup treatment and for the last time in the month of November, 2015. In the complaint, Ex.A7 given by

PW2, there is a clear mention that after the accident and treatment the deceased was suffering with ulcer and was complaining of chest pain, that whenever, he was taken to the doctor for some days he was well and again, he used to complain chest pain and he was taken to Government Hospital at Anantapur. She did not complain in Ex.A7 that her husband found dead with any reason and expressed suspicion whether it was due to cardiac arrest or for any other reason. The best piece of evidence to clarify on the subject is the evidence of the expert i.e. PW3, who conducted PME examination on the dead body of the deceased. The opinion of

PW3 is crucial rather than any other witness statements. It is the statement of PW3 during his cross-examination for the specific question that there is no nexus for the injuries sustained by the petitioner on 9.3.2015 to his death on 11.5.2016, which is after more than 14 months, he answered that there may be existence of remote relation between the post operative period (injuries for cause of death). While admitting his opinion in Ex.A10 that the deceased appears to have died due to cardio respiratory failure, he denied the suggestion that there is no nexus between the death of the deceased and accidental injuries sustained by him. Therefore, it can be said that the expert has not ruled out the nexus between the injuries and the subsequent death of the deceased.

Considering the above said evidence of the Expert/PW3, there is no other thought but to accept that the deceased died even due to the failure cardio respiratory the cause/reason behind was due to the injuries sustained by him for which he had undergone surgeries. Taking the totality of the oral and documentary evidence lead from both sides, it can be said that the petitioners are entitled to compensation not only for the injuries caused to the petitioner but also for the consequential death caused to the petitioner No.1.

22.When it comes to the computation of the compensation, the deceased by the time of the accident was aged 30 years. It is not in dispute that the deceased met with accident while driving TATA ACE bearing No. AP 02 TB 9125, as such, the occupation of the deceased was “driver”. There is no documentary proof to show the earnings of the deceased by the time of his death. However, considering the age of the deceased and his occupation as driver on an assumption with reasonable criteria, his income per month is taken at

Rs.10,000/- and the multiplier applicable for his age group is 17 and in addition, 40% is to be awarded as future prospects and after deducting 1/3rd towards his life and personal expenses, the compensation towards loss of earning and disability is to be determined. Further, the petitioner No.2 is the widow of the deceased and the petitioners No.2 and 3 are the tender children of the deceased as such, they both are entitled for spouse consortium and parental consortium as per the decision rendered in by the

Hon'ble Supreme Court in Pranay Sethi Case. In addition, the

petitioners are also entitled to compensation under the conventional heads such as loss of estate and funeral expenses.

23.It is significant to note that initially the petition was filed claiming compensation for the injuries suffered by the petitioner

No.1. ON the face of it, there is no document, as to any expenditure incurred for the treatment by the petitioner No.1. It is the statement of PW2 that the treatment was taken by the petitioner

No.1 at Gandhi Hospital free of cost. However, the incidental medical expenses, transport and attendant charges, pain and sufferance, loss of comfort and extra nourishment are some of the heads of compensation under which the petitioner No.1 was entitled and for passing of the award under the said heads of compensation.

To sum up the petitioners are entitled for the following amounts of compensation under the following heads and as follows :- 1Towards loss of income and loss ofRs.19,03,932=00 dependency (Rs.10,000/- x 40% = Rs.4,000/- + Rs.10,000/- = Rs.14,000/- Rs.14,000/- x 1/3 = Rs.4,667/- - Rs.14,000/- = Rs.9,333/- Rs.9,333/- x 12 x 17 = Rs.19,03,932/- 2Spouse Consortium: Rs.44,000=00 3Parental Consortium: Rs.88,000=00 4Compensation towards funeral expenses: Rs.16,500=00 5Compensation towards loss of estate.: Rs.16,500=00 6Towards misc. and medical expenses: Rs.5,000=00 7Towards transportation: Rs.5,000=00 8Towards Attendant Charges: Rs.5,000=00 9Towards Pain and Sufferance: Rs.5,000=00 10 Towards Loss of Comfort: Rs.5,000=00 11 Towards Extra nourishment: Rs.5,000=00

Total : Rs. 20,98,932=00

24.Therefore, the petitioners can be awarded an amount of

Rs.20,98,932/- as compensation payable by the Respondents No.1 to 3 jointly and severally. However, the Respondent No.2 is vicariously liable to pay the awarded compensation amount to the petitioners. Accordingly this issue is decided.

25. ISSUE NO.3:-

In the result, this petition is allowed awarding compensation of Rs.20,98,932/- with proportionate costs and interest @ 6% per annum from the date of filing of the petition till the date of deposit of the amount.

The Respondent No.2 is directed to deposit the above said compensation amount into the Court with costs and interest within a period of two months from the date of this award.

Out of the above said compensation amount of

Rs.20,98,932/-,a sum of Rs.10,98,932/- together with total costs and proportionate interest is apportioned towards the share of the petitioner No.2 and she is permitted to withdraw the said amount forthwith; a sum of Rs.5,00,000/- each together with proportionate interest is apportionedtowards the share of the petitioners No.3 and 4 and the said amount shall be kept in fixed deposit in a

Nationalized bank till they attain the age of majority.

Advocate fee is fixed at Rs.5,000/-.

Decree shall be prepared on payment of deficit court fee on the excess compensation of Rs.10,98,932/-.

Partly typed and partly dictated to the Personal Assistant, transcribed by her, corrected and pronounced by me in open court on this the 18th day of August, 2023.

CHAIRMAN,

MACT-CUM-I ADDL. CHIEF JUDGE,

CITY CIVIL COURT, SECUNDERABAD.

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

Witnesses Examined

FOR PETITIONER S :-

PW1 : D.Sravani

PW2 : N.Ravinder Kumar

PW3 : Dr. G. Mahesh

FOR RESPONDENT NO.2 :-

RW1 : A.Karthik

DOCUMENTS MARKED

FOR PETITIONERS :-

Ex.A1 -CC of FIR with complaint

Ex.A2 -CC of Wound Certificate

Ex.A3 -CC of Crime Details Form and Scene of offence

Ex.A4 -CC of Charge Sheet

Ex.A5 -Discharge Card issued by Gandhi Hospital

Ex.A6 -OP Tickets (2 Nos.)

Ex.A7 -Copy of FIR with complaint PS Anantapur

Ex.A8 -Copy of Inquest Report

Ex.A9 -PME Report

Ex.A10 -Forensic Department Report

Ex.A11 -Death Certificate

Ex.A12 - Copy of Aadhaar Card of the petitioner No.2

Ex.X1 -Copy of Case Sheet (Marked through PW2)

FOR RESPONDENT NO.2 :-

Ex.B1 -Attested office copy of Policy alongwith terms and conditions

Ex.B2 -Driving License extract related to Driver Respondent No.3

Ex.B3 -RC Extract related to insured vehicle AP 21 TW 8076

Ex.B4 -Office copy of notice sent to Respondents No.1 and 3

Ex.B5 -Original Postal Receipts

Ex.B6 -Original Returned envelope of Respondent No.1

Ex.B7 -Acknowledgment Card of Respondent No.3

CHAIRMAN,

MACT-CUM-I ADDL. CHIEF JUDGE,

CITY CIVIL COURT, SECUNDERABAD.

OP/766/2015

DODDE NARASIMHULU vs ESA BIN AHMED

18 Aug 2023

// FAIR //

BEFORE THE MOTOR ACCIDENTS CLAIMS TRIBUNAL–CUM–

I ADDITIONAL CHIEF JUDGE, CITY CIVIL COURT, AT SECUNDERABAD.

DATED THIS THE 18th DAY OF AUGUST, 2023.

PRESENT : SMT. B.MANJARI

I ADDL. CHIEF JUDGE

V.O.P. NO 766 OF 2015 M.

Between :-

1. Dodde Narasimhulu S/o D. Ramanna, Aged 28 years, Occ: Driver ,

2. Dodde Sravani W/o Late D.Narasimhulu, Aged 22 years, Occ: Household,

3. Dodde Yogendra S/o Late D.Narasimhulu, Aged 2 years, Occ: Nil, (Minor rep. By his Mother & Natural Guardian i.e. Petitioner No.2)

4. Dodde Ramanjinamma W/o D.Ramanna, Aged 50 years, Occ: Household,

5. Dodde Ramanna S/o D.Durgappa, Aged 58 years, Occ: Labour,

6. Dodde Narendara S/o late D.Narsimulu, Aged about 5 years, Occ: Nil, (All LRs impleaded as per Orders in I.A.No. 1385/2021 dated 1.12.2021).

R/o H.No. 5-3-390/1/2, Hyderbasti, Secunderabad. --Petitioners

AND

1.Esa Bin Ahmed S/o Ahmed Bin Sayeed, Aged : Major, Occ : Owner of TATA ACE Vehicle bearing No. AP 21 TW 8076 R/o H.No. 1-8-9, Near Fire Station, T.D. Gutta, Mahabubnagar, 509001.

2. Bajaj Allianz General Insurance Co. Ltd., rep. By its Legal Manager, # 4th Floor, North-East Plaza, Beside BMW Showroom, Opp. RTA Office, Erramanzil, Hyderabad 500 082.

3.M.Rambabu S/o M.Hanmanthu, Aged : Major, Occ : Driver of the Crime Vehicles R/o Chinnaiahpally, Sankarpet, Gandeed, Rangareddy District. -- Respondents

This petition is coming before me for final hearing in the presence of Sri D.Vilas, Advocate for the Petitioners and Sri

Rajkumar Grandhi, Advocate for Respondent No.2 and Respondent

Nos.1 and 3 remained exparte and the matter having been heard and stood over for consideration till this day, the Court passed the following :-

O R D E R

2.Pending the petition, the injured since died, petitioners 2 to 4 that came on record as his legal heirs and got amended the pleadings claiming enhancement of compensation to the tune of

Rs.10 Lakhs against the same respondents 1 to 3.

Road in Mahaboobnagar District another TATA ACE vehicle bearing

4.Respondent No.1 is the owner of the offending vehicle and

Respondent No.3 is its driver and they both remained ex parte and did not contest the petition.

2. Whether the petitioners are entitled to any compensation and if so, to what amount and from whom?

3. To what relief ?

8.To substantiate their respective contentions on the petitioners’ side, PWs 1 to 3 are examined, Ex.A1 to Ex.A12 and

Ex.X1 are marked. On behalf of Respondent No.2, RW1 is examined, Ex.B1 to Ex.B7 are marked.

9.Oral submissions were made on the petitioner side. Whereas, written arguments are filed for the Respondent No.2/Insurance

Company.

10. ISSUE NO.1 :-

It is the case born out from the petition filed initially by petitioner No.1 as extracted by me above that on 9.3.2015, at about 7.45 AM, while the injured/deceased was proceeding in TATA ACE

Ex.A3/Crime Details Form, Ex.A4/Charge Sheet, Ex.A5/Discharge

Card and Ex.A6/OP Tickets. During her cross-examination, she deposed that she is not an eye witness to the accident, that the FIR

dated 9.3.2015 was given by her husband himself at Kodangal

Hospital, that no Disability Certificate of her husband is filed in this petition.

12.PW2, a supportive witness an Orthopedic Surgeon got examined through the Advocate Commissioner who deposed to the effect that the patient admitted with RTA and admitted at Gandhi

13.As against the above said oral and documentary evidence lead by the petitioners though the Respondent No.2/Insurance

TATA ACE bearing No. AP 21 TW 8076.

14. ISSUE NO.2 :-

More so, RW1 admitted that the policy covers third party claims.

Anantapuramu III Town Police Station. She admitted that as per her complaint, her husband died in Anantapuram Railway Station

19.PW3, the Doctor, who conducted post mortem examination is got examined by the petitioners by taking an Advocate

Commissioner. It is the statement of PW3 that he has conducted the post mortem examination over the dead body of Dodde

Narasimhulu, aged about 31 years, Sex : Male in Crime

Gandhi Hospital, Secunderabad. The document Ex.A5/Discharge

Card issued by Gandhi Hospital disclose the fact that the deceased had even attended for followup treatment and for the last time in the month of November, 2015. In the complaint, Ex.A7 given by

Hon'ble Supreme Court in Pranay Sethi Case. In addition, the

petitioners are also entitled to compensation under the conventional heads such as loss of estate and funeral expenses.

23.It is significant to note that initially the petition was filed claiming compensation for the injuries suffered by the petitioner

No.1. ON the face of it, there is no document, as to any expenditure incurred for the treatment by the petitioner No.1. It is the statement of PW2 that the treatment was taken by the petitioner

Total : Rs. 20,98,932=00

24.Therefore, the petitioners can be awarded an amount of

25. ISSUE NO.3:-

The Respondent No.2 is directed to deposit the above said compensation amount into the Court with costs and interest within a period of two months from the date of this award.

Out of the above said compensation amount of

Nationalized bank till they attain the age of majority.

Advocate fee is fixed at Rs.5,000/-.

Decree shall be prepared on payment of deficit court fee on the excess compensation of Rs.10,98,932/-.

Partly typed and partly dictated to the Personal Assistant, transcribed by her, corrected and pronounced by me in open court on this the 18th day of August, 2023.

CHAIRMAN,

MACT-CUM-I ADDL. CHIEF JUDGE,

CITY CIVIL COURT, SECUNDERABAD.

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

Witnesses Examined

FOR PETITIONER S :-

PW1 : D.Sravani

PW2 : N.Ravinder Kumar

PW3 : Dr. G. Mahesh

FOR RESPONDENT NO.2 :-

RW1 : A.Karthik

DOCUMENTS MARKED

FOR PETITIONERS :-

Ex.A1 -CC of FIR with complaint

Ex.A2 -CC of Wound Certificate

Ex.A3 -CC of Crime Details Form and Scene of offence

Ex.A4 -CC of Charge Sheet

Ex.A5 -Discharge Card issued by Gandhi Hospital

Ex.A6 -OP Tickets (2 Nos.)

Ex.A7 -Copy of FIR with complaint PS Anantapur

Ex.A8 -Copy of Inquest Report

Ex.A9 -PME Report

Ex.A10 -Forensic Department Report

Ex.A11 -Death Certificate

Ex.A12 - Copy of Aadhaar Card of the petitioner No.2

Ex.X1 -Copy of Case Sheet (Marked through PW2)

FOR RESPONDENT NO.2 :-

Ex.B1 -Attested office copy of Policy alongwith terms and conditions

Ex.B2 -Driving License extract related to Driver Respondent No.3

Ex.B3 -RC Extract related to insured vehicle AP 21 TW 8076

Ex.B4 -Office copy of notice sent to Respondents No.1 and 3

Ex.B5 -Original Postal Receipts

Ex.B6 -Original Returned envelope of Respondent No.1

Ex.B7 -Acknowledgment Card of Respondent No.3

CHAIRMAN,

MACT-CUM-I ADDL. CHIEF JUDGE,

CITY CIVIL COURT, SECUNDERABAD.

MVOP/615/2019

B MAMATHA vs NAVATA ROAD TRANSPORT

18 Aug 2023

// FAIR //

BEFORE THE MOTOR ACCIDENTS CLAIMS TRIBUNAL–CUM–

I ADDITIONAL CHIEF JUDGE, CITY CIVIL COURT, AT SECUNDERABAD.

DATED THIS THE 18th DAY OF AUGUST, 2023.

PRESENT : SMT. B.MANJARI

I ADDL. CHIEF JUDGE

V.O.P. NO 615 OF 2019 M.

Between :-

1. B.Mamatha W/o Mallesh, Aged about 38 years, Occ: House wife,

2. B.Mallesh S/o Ilaiah, Aged about 42 years, Occ: Agriculture,

3. B. Shiva Kumar S/o Mallesh, Aged about 17 years, Occ: Student,

4. B. Nirmala W/o. Kumaraswamy, Aged about 43 years, Occ: House wife,

2. B. Kumaraswamy S/o. Lingaiah, Aged about 46 years, Occ: Driver,

Petitioner No.3 being minor, rep. by his mother, guardian, petitioner No.1 herein

Petitioners No.1 to 3 are R/o Kesaram Village, Bhongir Mandal, Yadadri-Bhongir District now R/o 302/B/12, Mettuguda, Secunderabad.

Petitioners 4 and 5 are R/o. Brahmanapally Village, Gundala Mandal, Yadadri-Bhongiri District, Presently resident of H.No.301/A/3, Mettuguda, Secunderabad. --Petitioners AND

1. Navata Road Transport, Reptd. by P. Ravi Kumar, R/o. Plot No.1, Block-1, Auto Nagar, Vanasthalipuram, Hayathnagar, Rangareddy District. (Owner of the Lorry bearing No. AP16TC-1511)

2. M/s The National Insurance Company Limited, Reptd. by its Regional Manager. D.O-111, 323 and 375-A, Chenoy Trade Center, Park Lane, Opp: CTC Center, Secunderabad.

3. S. Siva Reddy S/o. Abura Reddy. Aged: Major, Occ: Driver, R/o. D.No.61-15-2, Ramalingeswara Nagar, Vijayawada Urban, Krishna District – 620013. (Driver of the Lorry bearing No. AP16TC-1511) -- Respondents

This petition is coming before me for final hearing in the presence of Sri L.R. Prakash, Advocate for the Petitioners and Sri

P.V.R. Mohana Rao, Advocate for Respondent No.2 and Respondent

Nos.1 and 3 remained exparte and the matter having been heard and stood over for consideration till this day, the Court passed the following :-

O R D E R

1.This claim petition is filed by the petitioners under Section 166 of Motor Vehicles Act, claiming a compensation of Rs.15,00,000/- under different heads for the death of “Poojitha @ Divya”, who died in a motor vehicle accident that took place on 11.3.2013.

2.Averments of the petition in brief are that, on 11.3.2019 at about 8 am, the deceased Poojitha was pillion rider alongwith her husband B.Naresh were proceeding on Bullet Motor Cycle bearing

No.TS 08 BB TR 3538 from Hyderabad towards Parupally side slowly on the extreme left side of the road and when they reached near

Yadadri Function Hall on Bhongir, Mothkur Road, the driver of the

Lorry bearing No. AP 16 TC 1511 has stationed the lorry in the middle of the road without any signal, indicators, parking lights nor keeping any stones or leaves, on without following the traffic rules, in a zig- zag manner, the husband of the deceased could not notice the stationed lorry due to darkness and light focus of opposite vehicles, came into contact with the stationed lorry. As a result, the husband of the deceased and the deceased (pillion rider) fell down from the motor cycle and sustained fatal injuries and both of them died on the spot, that the accident occurred due to the negligent parking of the driver of the Lorry bearing No. AP 16 TC 1511.

It is further the case of the petitioners that the deceased was aged 21 years and was doing ladies tailoring work and embroidery work, that he used to earn a sum of Rs. 20,000/- per month, which she used to contribute for the maintenance of the family, that she being a housewife used to do all household works and look after the total family by rendering her services to the family, that her services can easily be estimated at Rs.10,000/- per month. Hence, the petition for granting compensation of Rs.15,00,000/- and interest at 18% per annum from the date of the accident till the realization of the amount.

3.Respondents No.1 and 3 remained exparte.

TC 1511 as such, the Respondent No.2 is not liable to pay any compensation to the petitioners, that driver of the lorry bearing No.

AP 16 TC 1511 was not holding valid and effective driving license to drive the crime vehicle as on the date of the accident and vehicle was not having fitness certificate and permit as on the date of the accident, that the insurance company is liable to pay the compensation, that the compensation claimed by the petitioner and the interest are excessive that the petition is to be dismissed with costs.

5.On the above rival pleadings, the following issues have been settled for trial by my learned Predecessor :-

1. Whether the pleaded accident occurred resulting in death of the victim viz. Poojitha @ Divya due to rash and negligent driving of the driver of Lorry bearing No.AP 16 TC 1511?

2. Whether the petitioners are entitled to any compensation and if so, to what amount and from whom?

3. To what relief ?

6.To substantiate their case, on the petitioners side, PWs 1 and 2 are examined and Ex.A1 to Ex.A5 are marked. No oral or documentary evidence adduced by contesting Respondent No.2.

7.Heard both sides and perused the record.

8. ISSUE NO.1 :-

As extracted by me above, the accident occurred in this case on 11.3.2019 at about 8 am and the deceased as pillion rider was proceeding alongwith her husband on Bullet motor cycle bearing

No. TS 08 BB TR 3538 that had hit the stationed lorry bearing

No.AP 16 TC 1511. As a result, the deceased and her husband sustained grievous injuries and died on the spot. As extracted by me above, the Insurance Company/Respondent No.2 countered the petition stating that the accident occurred due to the self-neglience of the husband of the deceased (rider of motor cycle) himself that dashed the stationed lorry from backside.

9.When it comes to the evidence, the petitioner No.2 examined himself as PW2 that reiterated the averments of the petition in total in lieu of the chief affidavit filed by him. Apart from his oral statement, he also marked Exs.A1 to A5. During his cross- examination, he admitted that as per the crime record/Ex.A1 and

Ex.A2, it was the deceased that dashed the stationed lorry on its backside. However, he added that the lorry was stationed without any precautions and the deceased lost control of the vehicle and dashed the crime vehicle.

10.PW2 a supportive witness is examined as an eye witness to the accident that filed his chief-affidavit stating that at the material time of the accident on 11.3.2019, at about 8 am the couple viz.

B.Naresh and Pujitha @ Divya were proceeding on a Bullet bearing

No. TS 08 BB TR 3538 towards Parupally side slowly on extreme left side on the road, that when they reached near Yadadri Function Hall on Bhongir to Mothkur road, the driver of the lorry bearing No. AP 16 TC 1511 stationed the lorry in the middle of the road without any signal, indicators, parking lights, not keeping any signals and leaves and without following the traffic rules and in a zig zag manner. Due to which, the rider of the Bullet Bike could not notice the stationed lorry due to darkness and light focus of the opposite vehicle and came into contract with the stationed lorry. As a result, the coupled fell down from the motor cycle sustained grievous injuries and died on the spot.

11.During his cross-examination, PW2 stated that he is doing agriculture at Chandupatla Village and added that as on the date of the accident, he was working as a watchman in Yadadri Function

Hall at Bhongir, Mothkur Road, that the accident spot is a double road, that the accident spot is opposite to their function hall, that the husband of the deceased that was driving the bullet dashed the crime vehicle on its back due to fog. He denied the suggestion that the accident occurred due to the negligence and rash driving of the husband of the deceased, that he is not a eye witness to the occurrence and that he is deposing false to support the case of the petitioners.

12.It is argued for the Insurance Company/Respondent No.2 that the accident that occurred in this case is not in dispute, that the

Bullet that dashed the standing vehicle during morning hours and in day light. As such, the rash and negligence of the husband of the deceased that resulted in causing the accident. It is true it is an admitted fact that the husband of the deceased, who was the rider of the bullet bike himself that dashed the stationed lorry from its back side. The pleadings of the petitioners as well as the statement of PW2 and even the crime record that reveals that the accident occurred on 11.3.2019 at about 8 am. It is admitted by PW2 that the accident spot is a double road. It is not acceptable for the driver of a lorry to park the lorry during day light by switching on the parking lights or by keeping any indicators and signals. It is not understood what does it mean for parking the lorry in a zig zag manner. Taking into consideration, that the accident occurred on 11.3.2019 by which time, the summer season was commenced and by 8 am there would be sun light. The statements of PWs 1 and 2 that due to darkness and light focus of the opposite vehicle, the husband of the deceased could not notice the stationed lorry cannot be believed. It is not expected from the driver of the lorry to keep any signals of parking the vehicle by the side of the road, during day light. Taking the totality of the oral and documentary evidence lead by the petitioners themselves, there is no hesitation to hold that the accident occurred due to the rash and negligent driving of the rider of the motor cycle himself that had hit the stationed lorry in high speed on its backside resulting in instantaneous death of the deceased and her husband. It is also not brought out whether the deceased and her husband were wearing helmets while proceeding on the Bullet Motor Cycle by the time of the accident. It can be inferred that there were violations committed by the rider of motor cycle himself in not following the traffic rules. Merely because the crime was registered against the driver of the lorry, it cannot be said that it was the driver of the lorry i.e. Respondent No.3 who is totally responsible in cause the accident. Accordingly, this issue is decided.

13. ISSUE NO.2 :-

The petitioners herein being the parents, brother and in-laws of the deceased Poojitha @ Divya filed this petition claiming compensation in lieu of the death of the deceased in the accident that took place involving both the vehicle bullet bearing No.TS 08

BB 3538 and the Lorry bearing No. AP 16 TC 1511. The respondent

No.1 herein is the owner, Respondent No.2 is the insurer and the

Respondent No.3 is the driver of the lorry bearing No. AP 16 TC 1511. In lieu of my observation under Issue No.1, wherein it is held that the accident occurred due to the contribution by the rider of the bullet himself, who has hit the bullet motor cycle with the stationed lorry bearing No. AP 16 TC 1511. Neither the owner nor the Insurer of the Bullet Bike made party to this petition. The petitioners filed claiming compensation only against the owner, insurer and driver of the lorry. Since there is contribution on the part of the rider of the motor cycle, the owner, insurer and driver of the lorry alone are not totally liable to pay the compensation to the petitioner. At the most, they are liable to pay 50% of the compensation and the rest of the liability rests upon the rider, owner and insurer of the Bullet Bike. Since the the husband of the deceased, who is the rider of the bike the petitioners since not brought the owner and insurer of the Bullet Bike, the liability of the

Respondents No.1 to 3 is limited to the extent of 50% to pay compensation to the petitioners.

14.When it comes to the quantum of compensation, according to the petitioners the deceased was doing ladies tailoring work and embroidery work and she used to earn a sum of Rs. 20,000/- per month and that the deceased was aged about 21 years by the time of her death. It is also the case of the petitioners that the deceased was rendering service to the family as a wife and her services can easily be estimated at Rs. 10,000/- per month and her total earnings were contributed to the family of the deceased.

Admittedly, no documentary evidence is adduced to establish the earnings and income of the deceased. PW1 father of the deceased during his cross-examination deposed that he had not filed any proof or certificate that the deceased was qualified to do tailoring and that they are not depending upon the income of the deceased, a married daughter and that the deceased was only a housewife and that his statement is false. There is no dispute with regard to the age of the deceased as 21 years. The crime record filed and marked as Ex.A1 to Ex.A4 also disclose the fact that the deceased was aged 21 years. When it comes to her occupation, in Ex.A1/FIR and in Ex.A3/Inquest Report, the occupation of the deceased is found mentioned as “housewife”. In the absence of any direct evidence to prove the education and earnings of the deceased basing on the crime record information, the deceased can be considered only as a housewife. On an assumption with reasonable criteria, the income of the deceased is considered at Rs.5,000/- per month, future prospects at 40% to be added. The deduction is to be made at 1/4th towards the personal and life expenses of the deceased since the petition is filed by five persons. The multiplier applicable for the age group of the deceased at 21 is 18. The petitioners are also entitled for compensation under the conventional head such as loss of estate and funeral expenses.

Therefore, compensation under this petition can be awarded to the petitioners under the following heads and as follows :- 1Towards loss of income and loss ofRs.11,34,000=00 dependency (Rs.5,000/- x 40% = Rs.2,000/- + Rs.5,000/- = Rs.7,000/- Rs.7,000/- x 1/4 = Rs.1,750/- - Rs.7,000/- = Rs.5,250/- Rs.5,250 /- x 12 x 18 = Rs.11,34,000/- 2Compensation towards funeral expenses: Rs.16,500=00 3Compensation towards loss of estate.: Rs.16,500=00

Total : Rs. 11,67,000=00

It is no doubt true that the petitioners No.1 to 5 herein are the parents, the in-laws and the brother of the deceased. Though it is argued for the Insurance Company that it was only the in-laws and the mother that are entitled but not the father and brother of the deceased. Since there is no conflict of interest among the petitioners, the compensation arrived at in this petition to the extent of entitlement of the petitioners at only 50% the same can be equally apportioned to the petitioners No.1 to 5.

In total the compensation arrived at in this petition is

Rs.11,67,000/-. Since the liability of the Respondents No.1 to 3 is limited only to the extent of 50% i.e. an amount of Rs.5,83,500/-, the Respondents No.1 to 3 are jointly and severally liable to pay the said amount of Rs.5,83,500/- only. Among the Respondents No.1 to 3, the Respondent No.2 being the Insurer of the Lorry bearing No.

AP 16 TC 1511 is vicariously liable to pay the said amount on behalf of respondents No.1 and 3, the owner and the driver. Accordingly this point is decided.

15. ISSUE NO.3:-

In the result, this petition is partly allowed awarding compensation of Rs.5,83,500/- with proportionate costs and interest @ 6% per annum from the date of filing of the petition till the date of deposit of the amount.

The Respondent No.2 is directed to deposit the above said compensation amount into the Court with costs and interest within a period of two months from the date of this award.

Out of the above said compensation amount of Rs.5,83,500/- a sum of Rs.1,16,700/- together with total costs and proportionate interest is apportioned towards the share of the petitioner No.1 and she is permitted to withdraw the said amount forthwith and a sum of

Rs.1,16,700/- each together with proportionate interest is apportioned towards the share of the petitioners No.2 to 4 and they are permitted to withdraw the said amount forthwith.

Advocate fee is fixed at Rs.5,000/-.

Partly typed and partly dictated to the Personal Assistant, transcribed by her, corrected and pronounced by me in open court on this the 18th day of August, 2023.

CHAIRMAN,

MACT-CUM-I ADDL. CHIEF JUDGE,

CITY CIVIL COURT, SECUNDERABAD.

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

Witnesses Examined

FOR PETITIONER S :-

PW1 : B.Mallesh

PW2 : D.Venkatesh

FOR RESPONDENT NO.2 :-

- None -

DOCUMENTS MARKED

FOR PETITIONERS :-

Ex.A1 -CC of FIR with complaint

Ex.A2 -CC of Charge Sheet

Ex.A3 -CC of Inquest Report

Ex.A4 -CC of PME Report

Ex.A5 -CC of MVI Report

FOR RESPONDENT NO.2 :-

- Nil -

CHAIRMAN,

MACT-CUM-I ADDL. CHIEF JUDGE,

CITY CIVIL COURT, SECUNDERABAD.

MVOP/614/2019

B NIRMALA vs NAVATA ROAD TRANSPORT

18 Aug 2023

// DRAFT //

BEFORE THE MOTOR ACCIDENTS CLAIMS TRIBUNAL–CUM–

I ADDITIONAL CHIEF JUDGE, CITY CIVIL COURT, AT SECUNDERABAD.

DATED THIS THE 18th DAY OF AUGUST, 2023.

PRESENT : SMT. B.MANJARI

I ADDL. CHIEF JUDGE

V.O.P. NO 614 OF 2019 M.

Between :-

1. B. Nirmala W/o. Kumaraswamy, Aged about 43 years, Occ: House wife,

2. B. Kumaraswamy S/o. Lingaiah, Aged about 46 years, Occ: Driver,

All are R/o. Brahmanapally Village, Gundala Mandal, Yadadri-Bhongiri District, Presently resident of H.No.301/A/3, Mettuguda, Secunderabad. --Petitioners

AND

1. Navata Road Transport, Reptd. by P. Ravi Kumar, R/o. Plot No.1, Block-1, Auto Nagar, Vanasthalipuram, Hayathnagar, Rangareddy District. (Owner of the Lorry bearing No. AP16TC-1511)

2. M/s The National Insurance Company Limited, Reptd. by its Regional Manager. D.O-111, 323 and 375-A, Chenoy Trade Center, Park Lane, Opp: CTC Center, Secunderabad.

This petition is coming before me for final hearing in the presence of Sri L.R. Prakash, Advocate for the Petitioners and Sri

P.V.R. Mohana Rao, Advocate for Respondent No.2 and Respondent

Nos.1 and 3 remained exparte and the matter having been heard and stood over for consideration till this day, the Court passed the following :-

O R D E R

1.This claim petition is filed by the petitioners under Section 166 of Motor Vehicles Act, claiming a compensation of Rs.20,00,000/- under different heads for the death of “B.Naresh”, who died in a motor vehicle accident that took place on 11.3.2013.

2.Averments of the petition in brief are that, on 11.3.2019 at about 8 am, the deceased Naresh alongwith his wife Pujitha @

Divya were proceeding on Bullet Motor Cycle bearing No. TS 08 BB

TR 3538 from Hyderabad towards Parupally side slowly on the extreme left side of the road and when they reached near Yadadri

Function Hall on Bhongir, Mothkur Road, the driver of the Lorry bearing No. AP 16 TC 1511 has stationed the lorry in the middle of the road without any signal, indicators, parking lights nor keeping any stones or leaves, on without following the traffic rules, in a zig- zag manner, the deceased could not notice the stationed lorry due to darkness and light focus of opposite vehicles, came into contact with the stationed lorry. As a result, the deceased and the pillion rider Pujitha @ Divya fell down from the motor cycle and sustained fatal injuries and both of them died on the spot that the accident occurred due to the negligent parking of the driver of the Lorry bearing No. AP 16 TC 1511.

It is further the case of the petitioners that the deceased was aged 29 years and was a driver of 108 Ambulance, he used to earn a sum of Rs. 20,000/- per month and would have earned a sum of

Rs.40,000/- per month in due course, that due to the sudden death of the deceased, the petitioners lost their bread winner and life supporter, Hence, the petition for granting compensation of Rs.20

Lakhs and interest at 18% per annum from the date of the accident till the realization of the amount.

3.Respondents No.1 and 3 remained exparte.

4.Respondent No.2/Insurance Company filed counter opposing the petition and challenging the petitioners to strict proof of their contention. It is further averred in the counter that it is clear from the petition averments that the alleged accident occurred only due to the self-negligence of the deceased himself as he was not holding valid and effective driving license to drove the motor cycle, that the accident occurred in the day light and the deceased himself dashed the stationed lorry from backside, that was parked on the extreme left side of the road, that there was no negligence on the part of the driver of the lorry bearing No. AP 16 TC 1511 as such, the Respondent No.2 is not liable to pay any compensation to the petitioners, that driver of the lorry bearing No. AP 16 TC 1511 was not holding valid and effective driving license to drive the crime vehicle as on the date of the accident and vehicle was not having fitness certificate and permit as on the date of the accident, that the insurance company is liable to pay the compensation, that the compensation claimed by the petitioner and the interest are excessive that the petition is to be dismissed with costs.

5.On the above rival pleadings, the following issues have been settled for trial by my learned Predecessor:

1. Whether the pleaded accident occurred resulting in death of the victim viz. B.Naresh due to rash and negligent driving of the driver of Lorry bearing No. AP 16 TC 1511?

2. Whether the petitioners are entitled to any compensation and if so, to what amount and from whom?

3. To what relief ?

6.To substantiate their case, on the petitioners side, PWs 1 and 2 are examined and Ex.A1 to Ex.A6 are marked. No oral or documentary evidence adduced by contesting Respondent No.2.

7.Heard both sides and perused the record.

8. ISSUE NO.1 :-

As extracted by me above, the accident occurred in this case on 11.3.2019 at about 8 am and the deceased was proceeding alongwith his wife on Bullet motor cycle bearing No. TS 08 BB TR 3538 that had hit the stationed lorry bearing No. AP 16 TC 1511. As a result, the deceased and his wife sustained grievous injuries and died on the spot. As extracted by me above, the Insurance

Company/Respondent No.2 countered the petition stating that the accident occurred due to the self-neglience of the deceased himself that dashed the stationed lorry from backside.

9.When it comes to the evidence, the petitioner No.2 examined himself as PW2 that reiterated the averments of the petition in total in lieu of the chief affidavit filed by him. Apart from his oral statement, he also marked Exs.A1 to A6. During his cross- examination, he admitted that as per the crime record/Ex.A1 and

B.Naresh and Pujitha @ Divya were proceeding on a Bullet bearing

11.During his cross-examination, PW2 stated that he is doing agriculture at Chandupatla Village and added that as on the date of the accident, he was working as a watchman in Yadadri Function

Hall at Bhongir, Mothkur Road, that the accident spot is a double road, that the accident spot is opposite to their function hall, that the deceased that was driving the bullet dashed the crime vehicle on its back due to fog. He denied the suggestion that the accident occurred due to the negligence and rash driving of the deceased, that he is not a eye witness to the occurrence and that he is deposing false to support the case of the petitioners.

12.It is argued for the Insurance Company/Respondent No.2 that the accident that occurred in this case is not in dispute, that the

Bullet that dashed the standing vehicle during morning hours and in day light. As such, the rash and negligence of the deceased himself that resulted in causing the accident. It is true it is an admitted fact that the deceased, who was the rider of the bullet bike himself that dashed the stationed lorry from its back side. The pleadings of the petitioners as well as the statement of PW2 and even the crime record that reveals that the accident occurred on 11.3.2019 at about 8 am. It is admitted by PW2 that the accident spot is a double road. It is not acceptable for the driver of a lorry to park the lorry during day light by switching on the parking lights or by keeping any indicators and signals. It is not understood what does it mean for parking the lorry in a zig zag manner. Taking into consideration, that the accident occurred on 11.3.2019 by which time, the summer season was commenced and by 8 am there would be sun light. The statements of PWs 1 and 2 that due to darkness and light focus of the opposite vehicle, the deceased could not notice the stationed lorry cannot be believed. It is not expected from the driver of the lorry to keep any signals of parking the vehicle by the side of the road, during day light. Taking the totality of the oral and documentary evidence lead by the petitioners themselves, there is no hesitation to hold that the accident occurred due to the rash and negligent driving of the deceased himself that had hit the stationed lorry in high speed on its backside resulting in instantaneous death of the deceased and his wife. It is also not brought out whether the deceased and his wife were wearing helmets while proceeding on the Bullet Motor

Cycle by the time of the accident. It can be inferred that there was violations committed by the deceased himself in not following the traffic rules. Merely because the crime was registered against the driver of the lorry, it cannot be said that it was the driver of the lorry i.e. Respondent No.3 who is totally responsible in cause the accident. Accordingly, this issue is decided.

13. ISSUE NO.2 :-

The petitioners herein being the parents of the deceased

B.Naresh filed this petition claiming compensation in lieu of the death of the deceased in the accident that took place involving both the vehicle bullet bearing No.TS 08 BB 3538 and the Lorry bearing

No. AP 16 TC 1511. The respondent No.1 herein is the owner,

Respondent No.2 is the insurer and the Respondent No.3 is the driver of the lorry bearing No. AP 16 TC 1511. In lieu of my observation under Issue No.1, wherein it is held that the accident occurred due the contribution by the deceased himself, who has hit the bullet motor cycle with the stationed lorry bearing No. AP 16 TC 1511. Neither the owner nor the Insurer of the Bullet Bike made party to this petition. The petitioners filed claiming compensation only against the owner, insurer and driver of the lorry. Since there is contribution on the part of the deceased himself, the owner, insurer and driver of the lorry alone are not totally liable to pay the compensation to the petitioner. At the most, they are liable to pay 50% of the compensation and the rest of the liability rests upon the rider , owner and insurer of the Bullet Bike. Since the deceased is the rider of the bike the petitioners since not brought the owner and insurer of the Bullet Bike, the liability of the Respondents No.1 to 3 is limited to the extent of 50% to pay compensation to the petitioners.

14.Coming to the computation of compensation, the deceased in this case was aged 29 years. Both according to the petition and the crime record, marked as Exs.A1 to A4. Petitioners claim that the deceased was working as 108 Ambulance driver. Admittedly, no document is filed to prove that the deceased was working for 108

Ambulance Service. Except filing Ex.A6/Driving License of the deceased, no other material in proof of the earnings and income of the deceased is filed before this Court. As rightly argued for the

Insurance Company, mere holding of driving license is not sufficient proof of the income of the deceased. In the absence of any document to prove the earnings of the deceased on an assumption with reasonable criteria, the deceased’s income per month is to be considered at Rs.10,000/-, future prospectus at 40%, the multiplier applicable for his age group between 26 to 30 is 17 and after deducting 1/3rdtowards his personal and life expenses compensation under the head of loss of earnings and dependency can be arrived at. Further, the petitioners are entitled for compensation under the conventional heads such as loss of estate and funeral expenses. To sum up, the petitioners are entitled for the following amounts under the following and as follows :- 1Towards loss of income and loss ofRs.19,03,932=00 dependency (Rs.10,000/- x 40% = Rs.4,000/- + Rs.10,000/- = Rs.14,000/- Rs.14,000/- x 1/3 = Rs.4,667/- - Rs.14,000/- = Rs.9,333/- Rs.9,333/- x 12 x 17 = Rs.19,03,932/- 2Compensation towards funeral expenses: Rs.16,500=00 3Compensation towards loss of estate.: Rs.16,500=00

Total : Rs. 9,68,466=00

In total the compensation arrived at in this petition is

Rs.19,36,932/-. Since the liability of the Respondents No.1 to 3 is limited only to the extent of 50% i.e. an amount of Rs.9,68,466/-, the Respondents No.1 to 3 are jointly and severally liable to pay the said amount of Rs.9,68,466/-,only. Among the Respondents No.1 to 3, the Respondent No.2 being the Insurer of the Lorry bearing No.

AP 16 TC 1511 is vicariously liable to pay the said amount on behalf of respondents no.1 and 3, the owner and the driver. Accordingly this point is decided.

15. ISSUE NO.3:-

In the result, this petition is partly allowed awarding compensation of Rs.9,68,466/- with proportionate costs and interest @ 6% per annum from the date of filing of the petition till the date of deposit of the amount.

The Respondent No.2 is directed to deposit the above said compensation amount into the Court with costs and interest within a period of two months from the date of this award.

Out of the above said compensation amount of Rs.9,68,466/-, a sum of Rs.4,84,233/- together with total costs and proportionate interest is apportioned towards the share of the petitioner No.1 and she is permitted to withdraw the said amount forthwith and a sum of

Rs.4,84,233/- together with proportionate interest is apportioned towards the share of the petitioner No.2 and he is permitted to withdraw the said amount forthwith.

Advocate fee is fixed at Rs.5,000/-.

Partly typed and partly dictated to the Personal Assistant, transcribed by her, corrected and pronounced by me in open court on this the 18th day of August, 2023.

CHAIRMAN,

MACT-CUM-I ADDL. CHIEF JUDGE,

CITY CIVIL COURT, SECUNDERABAD.

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

Witnesses Examined

FOR PETITIONER S :-

PW1 : B.Kumara Swamy

PW2 : D.Venkatesh

FOR RESPONDENT NO.2 :-

- None -

DOCUMENTS MARKED

FOR PETITIONERS :-

Ex.A1 -CC of FIR with complaint

Ex.A2 -CC of Charge Sheet

Ex.A3 -CC of Inquest Report

Ex.A4 -CC of PME Report

Ex.A5 -CC of MVI Report

Ex.A6 -Driving License of the Deceased

FOR RESPONDENT NO.2 :-

- Nil -

CHAIRMAN,

MACT-CUM-I ADDL. CHIEF JUDGE,

CITY CIVIL COURT, SECUNDERABAD.

CC/1600513/2010 Acquitted

WPS.South Zone vs Mohd. Ghouse Pasha

24 Apr 2013

IN THE COURT OF THE XV ADDL,CHIEF METROPOLITANMAGISTRATE-CUM

-SPL.COURT FOR THE TRIAL OF VIDEO PIRACY CASES ;HYDERABAD.

Present: Smt.B.MANJARI,B.A.,LL.M., XV Addl,Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Hyderabad.

Dated this the 24th day of April, 2013.

C.C.No. 513 of 2010. Between: The State through The Sub-Inspector of police, Women Police Station,

South Zone, Hyderabad. ..... Complainant.

And

1. Mohd.Ghouse Pasha, (A1), S/o. Mohd.Abdul Razzak, age 30 years, Occu: Govt.Servant.

2. Gore Begum, (A2), D/o. Mohd.Abdul Razzak, age 32 years, Occu: House wife.

3. Fahmeeda Begum, (A3), D/o. Mohd.Abdul Razzak, age 32 years, Occu: House wife.

4. Masooda Begum, (A4), W/o. Shaik Sarwar, age 36 years, Occu: House wife.

5. Shaik Sarwar, (A5), Age : 38 years, Occu: Plumber.

6. Mohd.Abdul Razzak, (A6), Age : 62 years, Occu: Agriculture.

All are R/o. Village Allur, R.R.District. ..... Accused.No:1 to 6.

This case is coming on today for the final hearing before me in the presence of Sr.APP for the State and of Sri.Khaja Ziauddin and Sri Hidya Ullah Khan and Sri.M.A.Rahman, Counsel for the accused No:1 to 6 and having stood over the matter for consideration till this day the Court delivered the following:-

J U D G M E N T

1. This is a case filed by the Sub-Inspector of police, Women Police

Station, South Zone, Hyderabad, against the accused No:1 for the offences punishable under section 498 (A) r/w 34 IPC and under section 4 and 6 of Dowry Prohibition Act. However cognizance was taken by the court against A1 to A6 . All the accused No:1 to 6 are tried before this

Court.

2. The case of prosecution in brief is that the defacto-complainant Smt.

Tasleem Begum, was married to A1 Mohd.Ghouse Pasha as per the customs and rites of the Muslims, that at the time of the marriage, her parents gave cash of Rs.50,000/- towards Jode-ki-rakham, one Hero Honda

Motor Cycle, 10 tolas of gold and all Jahez articles, that after the marriage, she joined her husband at her matrimonial home in Chevella of R.R.District and lived happily for one month only and thereafter her husband and in-laws started harassing her mentally and physically demanding her to bring

additional dowry from her parents, that they all used to abuse her and beat

her for no reason, that she was blessed with two daughter, that on the birth of the first daughter her husband and in-laws demanded her to get an amount of Rs.1 lakh as additional dowry from her parents and her parents with great difficulty arranged and paid Rs.25,000/- , that after the birth of the second daughter, her husband again demanded for Rs.75,000/- and her parents gave Rs.15,000/-, that not satisfied with the said amount her husband reiterated his demand for Rs.1 lakh, that since her husband is working as constable in Hyderabad, she was shifted to Hyderabad, that her husband and in-laws harassed her asking her to stay at Chevella along with her in-laws, that unable to bear the torture by the husband and in-laws, the complainant came back to her parents house and is taking shelter. Hence, the case.

4. Cognizance was taken on file U/S. 498(A) r/w 34 IPC and

U/S. 4 and 6 of Dowry Prohibition Act against the accused.No:1 to 6. On appearance of the accused No:1 to 6 before the court, copies of documents were furnished to them and they were examined under section 239 Cr.P.C.

They denied the offences, Charges under section 498-A r/w 34 IPC and under section 4 and 6 of Dowry Prohibition Act have been framed against the accused No:1 to 6, read over and explained to them. They denied the charges, pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried.

5. To bring home the guilt of the accused.No.1 to 6, the prosecution examined P.Ws1 to 4 and marked ExP1 and P2.

6. After the closure of the prosecution evidence, the accused

No:1 to 6 were examined under section 313 Cr.P.C, with regard to the incriminating circumstances appearing against them. They admitted about the marriage of A.1 with P.W.1, but with regard to the other incriminating evidence they denied the same.

7. No oral evidence is adduced by way of defence for the accused, but the documents ExD1 to D5, portions of the deposition of P.W.1 in the maintenance case and the orders passed in the maintenance case between

P.W.1 and A1 are got marked by the defence.

8. Heard both sides and perused the record.

9. Now the point for the determination is “Whether the prosecution is able to prove the guilt of the accused for the offence U/S.498-A r/w34 IPC and U/S.4 and 6 of Dowry Prohibition Act, beyond probable doubt” ?

10. It is significant to note that the marriage between P.W.1 and A1 is not in dispute and the fact is that P.W.1 has been residing at her parents house and is away from A1. The accused herein are charged with the offences punishable under section 498-A r/w 34 IPC and under section 4 and 6 of Dowry Prohibition Act. The witnesses that are examined are the defacto-complainant Smt.Tasleem Begum, herself as P.W.1, her father, Syed

Fareed as P.W.2, one of the neighbour and Independent supportive witness viz., Mohd.Abdul Rasheed as P.W.3, and the Investigating Officer G.N.Rani, as P.W.4. According to P.Ws1 and 2 at the time of marriage cash of

Rs.50,000/- towards Jode-ki-rakham, one Hero Honda Motor cycle, 10 tolas of gold and Jahez articles were given. It is also their evidence that after the birth of the girl children on the demand of A1 for Rs.1 lakhs, an amount of

Rs.75,000/- was given by P.W.2, father of P.W.1 to the accused No:1. During the course of cross-examination P.W.1 denied the suggestion that in her statement before the police she did not state about the payment of cash of

Rs.50,000/-, 10 tolas of gold at the time of marriage and that her father gave

Rs.75,000/- cash to her husband. Likewise P.W.2 in his cross-examination equally denied the suggestion that they have not filed any proof evidencing payment of Rs.50,000/- and other articles towards dowry. However he admitted that he has no record to show that he gave Rs.75,000/-. He also admitted that he had not stated before the police that he gave an amount of

Rs.75,000/- to A1. Coming to the complaint which was filed before the court by engaging an advocate in the form of private complaint under section 200 Cr.P.C., no where in the draft it is mentioned that an amount of

Rs.50,000/- was paid towards Jode-ki-rakham at the time of marriage. It is clearly mentioned in the complaint at page No:2 in Para No:3 that the parents of the complainant agreed to pay cash dowry of Rs.30,000/- and the gold ornaments of three (3) tolas and accordingly an amount of Rs.30,000/- was paid on the day of marriage to A1. It is also not averred in the complaint, ExP1 that after the birth of the female children an amount of

Rs.75,000/- was given by P.W.2 to A1. What all that is being shown in the complaint is at the time of Chilla Ceremony with great difficulty the father of the complainant paid an amount of Rs.25,000/- and again on the day of

Chilla ceremony for the second female child on 9th March, 2007, the father of the complainant paid Rs.15,000/- to A1. The oral statement of P.Ws1 and 2 and the complaint filed by P.W.1 herself falsifies the statements given by

P.Ws.1 and 2 before this court. There is no reliable evidence with regard to the payments made either at the time of marriage or subsequent to the marriage put forth by the prosecution herein to sustain the charges levelled against the accused for the offence punishable under the Dowry Prohibition

Act.

11. Even if it is believed that an amount of Rs.30,000/- and one

Hero Honda Passion two wheeler was given to the accused and it was by way of the customary practice prevailing in the Muslim community, the same would have been given. As such the accused cannot be found guilty that there was demand for payment of dowry and that they had received any dowry and retainedf the same.

12. Coming to the incidents of harassment and cruelty, the entire evidence of P.W.1 before this court is silent as to any incidents of harassment and cruelty. What all she has stated before this court is to the effect that after the marriage she joined her husband at her in-laws house, that after the birth of two daughters the accused started troubling her, that after the birth of the second daughter they shifted their residence to the village Allur in Chevella Mandal, that at the village there were troubles and she resided there for about 3 or 4 months that all her in-laws used to reside at the village and her husband used to attend his office in the City, that on the occasion of her sister-in-laws marriage, her parents came to the village since she and her daughters were found sick and were not taken to hospital, her parents brought them to the city for their treatment, that her husband shifted their residence to the City by taking a rented house and her sisters- in-law started visiting their house and again harassment started, that after two months her husband again proposed to go back to the village for which she did not agree, that she was sent to her parents house, that though her parents tried to convince her husband, he did not listen. Therefore, she lodged the complaint.

13. During the course of cross-examination, P.W.1 admitted that she filed maintenance case against her husband in M.C.No.279/2008 in which she gave evidence. She denied the suggestion that she deposed in the said Maintenance case to the effect that they shifted to Kishan Bagh residence one month after the marriage, which portion of the statement is marked as ExD2. She further deposed that she did not state in the maintenance case that the Mosque committee people approached her proposing compromise and that she refused the offer of the respondent and joined him , which portion in the deposition of P.W.1 have been marked as

ExD3 and D4. P.W1 also denied the suggestion that on receipt of divorce notice, as a counter blast she filed complaint, ExP1 on 10-9-2008 by making false and baseless allegations against the accused. She also denied the suggestion that it was on 7th January, 2008 finally she left the house of her husband by taking all her valuables and belongings in a planned manner of not returning back, that she was in receipt of the legal notice dated 4-3-2008 got issued by her husband, that she herself insisted for divorce from her husband and subsequently her husband gave divorce on 26-8-2008 and issued notice dated 5-9-2008 and also got published the same in the Daily

Newspaper. It is also brought out by the learned defence counsel that major portion of the statement of P.W.1 in her chief examination, does not find place in her statement before the police, ExD5, the Certified true copy of the orders passed in M.C.279/2008 is also got marked through P.W.1. Lastly

P.W.1 admitted that she had not referred to any incidents involving the other accused as to their harassment towards her.

14. The above said admissions on the part of P.W.1 with regard to her conduct in her matrimonial home while she was residing in the village and her anguish to live in the city and lead City life, for which the accused

No:1 did not agree, resulted in lodging complaint against her husband. It is admitted by her that she has no complaints against the other accused in the matters between her and her husband. P.W.2 also admitted on the same lines that he did not state anything involving the other accused before this court. The statements of P.Ws1 and 2 do not disclose specific incidents of harassment meted out by P.W.1 in the hands of A1. Refusal to continue the family in the City on the part of A1 does not by itself is no offence. By and large the grievance of P.W.1 against A1 is only that he wanted to go back to the village and to live along with his other family members. Though P.W.1 a neighbouring witness is examined by the prosecution, he catagorically deposed that he does not know the reasons for the disputes and the matters between P.W.1 and her husband. On the other hand P.W.3 deposed that after the marriage P.W.1 was at her in-laws house for about 3 or 4 years and thereafter she has been residing with her parents and that he was not examined by the police.

15. Viewed from any angle, the self serving statements of P.Ws1 and 2 and which does not contain substantive incriminating material against

A1 and no statement absolutely involving the other accused No:2 to 6 in this case. On the other hand it was brought to light that the conduct of P.W.1 herself deliberately lead the things to go before the police and the Court Of

Law but not the acts and conduct of any of the accused No:1 to 6 herein. In other words prosecution failed to prove the guilt of the accused beyond all probable doubt.

16. In the result, the accused No:1 to 6 are found not guilty for the offences punishable U/S. 498-A r/w 34 IPC and U/S.4 and 6 of

Dowry Prohibition Act. Accordingly, they are acquitted under section 248(1) Cr.P.C.

The bail bonds of the accused No:1 to 6 shall stand cancelled after expiry of six months.

Dictated to Senior Assistant, transcribed and typed by her,

corrected, pronounced and signed by me in the open Court on this the 24th day of April, 2013.

XV Addl.Chief Metropolitan Magistrate-cum- Spl.Court for the Trial of Video Piracy Cases, Hyderabad. Appendix of evidence. Witnesses examined for. Prosecution. Defence. P.W.1 Smt.Tasleem Begum, Defacto-Complainant. Nil. P.W.2 Syed Fareed, Father of P.W.1. P.W.3 Mohd.Abdul Rasheed, Neighbour of P.W.1 P.W.4 Smt.G.N.Rani, Investigating Officer.

Exhibits Marked on Behalf of Prosecution:- ExP1. Complaint filed by P.W.1. ExP2. First Information Report in Cr.No.189/2008 of Women Police Station, South Zone, Hyderabad.

Exhibits Marked on Behalf of Defence:- ExD1 Portions of the statement of P.W.1 made in to ExD4. M.C.No.279/2008. ExD5. Certified True Copy of order in M.C.No.279/2008.

M.Os.Marked Nil.

XV Addl.Chief Metropolitan Magistrate-cum- Spl.Court for the Trial of Video Piracy Cases, Hyderabad.

Order Record 621 total

Case No.	Parties	Date	Type	Outcome
G.W.O.P/4/2022	POGAKU LOKESH vs P. KEETHY	22 Aug 2023	Judgment	—
MVOP/451/2018	Smt.Hidme vs Vsmr.D.Narasimha Rao	21 Aug 2023	Judgment	—
MVOP/614/2019	B NIRMALA vs NAVATA ROAD TRANSPORT	18 Aug 2023	Judgment	—
MVOP/615/2019	B MAMATHA vs NAVATA ROAD TRANSPORT	18 Aug 2023	Judgment	—
OP/766/2015	DODDE NARASIMHULU vs ESA BIN AHMED	18 Aug 2023	Judgment	—
A.R.B.O.P/320/2018	B.Yella Swamy vs The Senior Divisional Commercial Manager	17 Aug 2023	Judgment	—
MVOP/362/2017	Madina Begum alias Unnasa been vs Mohd.Samad	14 Aug 2023	Judgment	—
OP/320/2013	V.Ravindra chanry and two other vs Reliance General Insurance Co. Ltd.,	14 Aug 2023	Judgment	—
MVOP/584/2019	madakam sujatha vs P KUMAR	11 Aug 2023	Judgment	—
MVOP/585/2019	madakam sammakka vs P KUMAR	11 Aug 2023	Judgment	—
MVOP/182/2020	PAITARA SHEKAMMA vs CH. SHIVA RAJU	10 Aug 2023	Judgment	—
OS/168/2014	Raja Sethupathy vs D.Sriramulu	10 Aug 2023	Judgment	—
MVOP/366/2020	PARAKALA LAVANYA vs JANNALA NAVEEN KANTH REDDY	09 Aug 2023	Judgment	—
MVOP/747/2019	U RAJU vs ABDUL ARSHAD	08 Aug 2023	Judgment	—
OS/188/2015	Smt.P.L.Manikyamma vs P.L.Srinivas Reddy	08 Aug 2023	Judgment	—
MVOP/58/2018	Mr.Kothapeta Naresh vs Mr.M.Ramesh	07 Aug 2023	Judgment	—
MVOP/177/2021	VIBUDI KALAVATHI vs MOHD ISMAIL SHAREEF	04 Aug 2023	Judgment	—
MVOP/451/2017	Velimineti Alivelu vs Nilamadhab Behara	04 Aug 2023	Order	—
OS/128/2016	Ms Somani Ispat Pvt.Ltd vs Ms SLR Metaliks ltd	04 Aug 2023	Judgment	—
MVOP/29/2019	Reddy Palli Kavitha vs Kummari Chandrashekar	03 Aug 2023	Judgment	—
A.R.B.O.P/5/2019	B SRINIVAS GOUD vs M/S Shriram city union finance Ltd	02 Aug 2023	Judgment	—
MVOP/138/2019	JARUPULA LAXMI vs SRINIVAS L	01 Aug 2023	Judgment	—
OS/6/2012	Smt. K.Ramasree vs Smt.K.Vimala	27 Jul 2023	Judgment	—
OS/117/2014	K.Jaya sree vs K.Pratap reddy and 7 others	27 Jul 2023	Judgment	—
OS/120/2016	Smt.T.Swaroopa Rani vs Smt.M.Ashritha Marata	26 Jul 2023	Judgment	—
OS/130/2022	Sunitha Mohan Kumar vs Mandal Revenue Officer	26 Jul 2023	Judgment	—
OS/32/2018	M/s IJM Concrete Products Private Limited vs Mr Vasanth Kumar	24 Jul 2023	Judgment	—
MVOP/629/2018	Smt.Moddu Nagendra vs Mr.P.Kishore Kumar	21 Jul 2023	Judgment	—
MVOP/197/2022	V. LAKSHMI vs J. BHANU PRAKASH	20 Jul 2023	Order	—
MVOP/626/2019	GORLA SUDHAKAR vs AJAY JORIGA	20 Jul 2023	Order	—
MVOP/144/2018	L Srikanth vs P Anjaneyulu	19 Jul 2023	Judgment	—
OS/86/2021	SARDAR BHAGAT SINGH vs SYED RIAZUDDIN	18 Jul 2023	Judgment	—
OS/87/2021	SARDAR BHAGAT SINGH vs SYED RIAZUDDIN	18 Jul 2023	Judgment	—
MVOP/121/2019	PUSHPA DEVI vs MD BURAN	14 Jul 2023	Order	—
MVOP/838/2022	U. SRIKANTH vs J. MADHU	13 Jul 2023	Order	—
OS/82/2017	U.Malyadri vs Sri Gundapaneni Subba Rao	13 Jul 2023	Judgment	—
OS/90/2017	U.Malyadri vs Sri Gundapaneni Subba Rao	13 Jul 2023	Judgment	—
MVOP/305/2021	B RAMULAMMA vs P MALLAIAH	12 Jul 2023	Judgment	—
MVOP/3/2023	MIRIYALA KOMURAIAH vs VENKATA RAMA RAO	11 Jul 2023	Order	—
MVOP/15/2021	NARANDAMMA vs AKULA PRABHULINGAM	11 Jul 2023	Judgment	—
OP/21/2016	Syed Ismail vs M.Ravi Kumar	11 Jul 2023	Judgment	—
MVOP/408/2017	N.Ramesh Narayana vs Mr.Munjewan Moinuddin	01 Jul 2023	Order	—
MVOP/117/2020	G NAGULU vs G THIRUPATHI	16 May 2023	Order	—
MVOP/274/2020	ALURI RANI vs MOHAMMED YOUNUS	16 May 2023	Order	—
MVOP/647/2019	PARUCHI PRASHANTI vs V SUNDAR	16 May 2023	Order	—
MVOP/239/2017	P Srilatha vs Mrs. Narsavva Pitla	15 May 2023	Order	—
MVOP/385/2020	G PENTAMMA vs GADEELA RAVI	15 May 2023	Order	—
OS/52/2021	CHITRAPU PADMAVATHI vs THE TAHSILDAR	24 Apr 2023	Judgment	—
OS/99/2014	N.Sulochana and 3 others vs Ganganaboina Mani Bai and nine others	24 Apr 2023	Judgment	—
A.R.B.O.P/15/2019	S.MUKUNDAM vs M/S Shriram city union finance Ltd	19 Apr 2023	Order	—
A.R.B.O.P/601/2018	Vamshi Mohan Thatipally vs HDFC Bank Ltd	18 Apr 2023	Order	—
AS/60/2019	N. SAILAJA vs RAVI PRASAD GOUD	17 Apr 2023	Judgment	—
MVOP/314/2020	N LAKSHMI vs A CHANDRA SHEKAR	12 Apr 2023	Order	—
OS/116/2022	SUKHBIR KAUR BAINS vs TAHSILDAR	12 Apr 2023	Judgment	—
MVOP/514/2019	GORTHI RAVI KUMAR vs N. RAJU	11 Apr 2023	Order	—
MVOP/296/2018	Dara Sai Kumar vs General manager TSRTC	10 Apr 2023	Order	—
MVOP/619/2019	B ANJAMMA vs DURGA MUDUSU	10 Apr 2023	Order	—
MVOP/552/2018	Thudum Pavani vs Srikanth	04 Apr 2023	Order	—
MVOP/612/2019	GAJULA SUJATHA vs DOMALA SRINIVAS	03 Apr 2023	Order	—
MVOP/343/2019	MOLUGU ASHWIN vs BONGUNURI VAMSHI KRISHNA REDDY	31 Mar 2023	Order	—
MVOP/407/2019	KODELA KANAKAIAH vs BHOLA PASWAN	29 Mar 2023	Order	—
MVOP/214/2017	Smt P Mamatha vs A Rama Krishnan	28 Mar 2023	Order	—
OS/172/2016	American Spring and Pressing works Pvt.Ltd vs Jayalaxmi Agro Service	28 Mar 2023	Judgment	—
MVOP/234/2017	Oggu Kistaiah rep by his wife Voggu Kamalamma vs K Suresh Babu	24 Mar 2023	Order	—
MVOP/389/2018	S.Bhimashanar vs Gouse Mohammad	24 Mar 2023	Order	—
MVOP/679/2018	Mrs.Mitta Sunitha and 2 Others vs Mr.Md.Navaz Miya	23 Mar 2023	Order	—
AS/20/2018	Saralabai Joshi since deceased per LRs vs Rooprekha Agarwala	21 Mar 2023	Judgment	—
MVOP/613/2019	Y VIJAYA vs TSRTC	20 Mar 2023	Order	—
OP/517/2016	Mareboina Balaiah vs Kummari Mahesh	20 Mar 2023	Order	—
CMA/3/2023	JAYSHREE JANI vs MEENA JAIN	17 Mar 2023	Order	—
MVOP/58/2019	PULLAGURU SRINIVAS REDDY vs V.JAGGA RAO	17 Mar 2023	Order	—
OS/151/2018	K.Rajeshwar vs Pamu Rajani Devi	17 Mar 2023	Judgment	—
MVOP/242/2020	GADDAMEEDI ANUSUJA vs BARPATI MALLESH	16 Mar 2023	Order	—
MVOP/203/2020	MD AMJAD KHAN vs APSRTC	15 Mar 2023	Order	—
OS/57/2015	S.Ramchander vs G.N.Krishna Murhty	14 Mar 2023	Judgment	—
MVOP/300/2020	NYALA SARANGAM vs MUTYALA RAMESH	09 Mar 2023	Order	—
MVOP/301/2020	LAKAVATH BALARAM vs MUTYALA RAMESH	09 Mar 2023	Order	—
MVOP/456/2018	Sri.Venkatapuram Raghu vs Mr.Shivanand	09 Mar 2023	Order	—
OS/163/2012	A.Franklin Sanjay Kumar vs Rapaka John Bilmoria	22 Feb 2023	Judgment	—
MVOP/460/2017	V.Prem Kumar vs Kokkiligadda Brusely	21 Feb 2023	Order	—
MVOP/461/2017	V.Geeta Prem Kumar vs Mr.Kokkiligadda Brusely	21 Feb 2023	Order	—
MVOP/88/2018	K Suresh vs M Nagender Reddy	20 Feb 2023	Order	—
OS/97/2016	S.Subash vs A.Shiva Shankar	07 Feb 2023	Judgment	—
MVOP/120/2019	YESAMMA.T vs GOVIND REDDY.CH	03 Feb 2023	Order	—
AS/33/2016	Md.Salaudding alias Mukhtar vs P.Bapurao died per LRs	02 Feb 2023	Judgment	—
MVOP/342/2018	Kommunuri Madhavi vs T.Vijaya Bhaskar Reddy	02 Feb 2023	Order	—
MVOP/74/2019	M.Lalitha Devi vs Hafiz Ahmad	30 Jan 2023	Order	—
MVOP/379/2016	Indrapala Shravan Kumar vs Kothi Narsa Reddy	27 Jan 2023	Order	—
A.R.B.O.P/336/2018	K.Bhaskar Rao vs M/s.Shri Ram City Union Finance Ltd	27 Jan 2023	Order	—
OS/146/2018	G.M.Enterprises vs Srinivasa Educational Academy	24 Jan 2023	Judgment	—
AS/21/2020	P RAMAKANTH vs P KAMALA DEVI	19 Jan 2023	Judgment	—
MVOP/165/2020	D MAHESHWARI vs M CHANDRA REDDY	19 Jan 2023	Order	—
CMA/4/2018	Maharashtra State Electricity Distribution Co Ltd vs M/s Rolex Meters Pvt Ltd	18 Jan 2023	Order	—
CMA/5/2018	Maharashtra State Electricity Distribution Co Ltd vs M/s Rolex Meters Pvt Ltd	18 Jan 2023	Order	—
CMA/6/2018	Maharashtra State Electricity Distribution Co Ltd vs M/s Rolex Meters Pvt Ltd	18 Jan 2023	Order	—
MVOP/385/2017	Smt.Vasakarla Vasudha vs Mohd.Yahiya	17 Jan 2023	Order	—
MVOP/277/2017	Smt Salavath Bhuli Bai vs Mr Mahendra Giri	13 Jan 2023	Order	—
MVOP/316/2019	ALGOLA KAVITHA vs JAGANNATH ABHISHEK	12 Jan 2023	Order	—
AS/5/2022	MANCHALA SRINIVASULU vs D.VIJAYALAXMI	05 Jan 2023	Judgment	—
MVOP/250/2019	VATTEM NARSIMULU vs POLE RAMBABU	03 Jan 2023	Order	—

Showing 100 of 621 orders — Log in to browse all pages.

Monthly Orders (Last 12 Months)

Aug 2023		24
Jul 2023		20
May 2023		5
Apr 2023		12
Mar 2023		19
Feb 2023		8
Jan 2023		15
Dec 2022		8
Nov 2022		13
Oct 2022		5
Sep 2022		12
Aug 2022		12

Frequently Asked Questions

How many cases has SMT.B.MANJARI handled?

SMT.B.MANJARI has handled 714 court orders since 2010 at SEC-BAD, CCC-CSCC-MSJ Court Complex. The average disposal rate is 4 orders per month.

What types of cases does SMT.B.MANJARI hear?

Based on available records, SMT.B.MANJARI primarily handles Criminal matters (Criminal Cases) and Motor Accident matters (Motor Accident Claims) and Civil matters (Original Suits, Appeal Suits) at SEC-BAD, CCC-CSCC-MSJ Court Complex.

Where is SMT.B.MANJARI currently posted?

SMT.B.MANJARI is posted as I Addl Chief Judge at SEC-BAD, CCC-CSCC-MSJ Court Complex, Hyderabad, Telangana.

Are judgments by SMT.B.MANJARI available online?

Yes. 16 judgments by SMT.B.MANJARI are available on Legistro with full text, outcome, and sections cited.

How fast does SMT.B.MANJARI dispose cases?

SMT.B.MANJARI disposes approximately 4 cases per month, based on 714 orders handled over their tenure at SEC-BAD, CCC-CSCC-MSJ Court Complex.

Since when is SMT.B.MANJARI serving?

SMT.B.MANJARI has been serving at SEC-BAD, CCC-CSCC-MSJ Court Complex since 2010.

Case Types

CC 78%

MVOP 13%

OS 5%

AS 1%

A 1%

OP 1%

CMA 1%

EP 0%

Posting History

Jun 2022 — Aug 2023

I Addl Chief Judge · 162 orders
Jan 2012 — Jan 2012

XIV Addl. Chief Metropolitan Magistrate
Jan 2012 — May 2013

XV Addl. Chief Metropolitan Magistrate · 504 orders
Apr 2010 — Jan 2012

XV Addl. Chief Metropolitan Magistrate · 48 orders

Outcomes on Record

Acquitted 10

Other Judges at this Court

Sri Ch.Chandra Kishore

I Addl Chief Judge

0 orders

Sri. K.suri Krishna

XXVII Addl Chief Judge Court Secunderabad

130 orders

Smt. Shoukath Jahan Siddique

XII Addl. Chief Judge

1,330 orders

MS.N.Saswatha

Prl. Rent Controller

34 orders

Sri. R. Rajkumar

III Senior Civil Judge

136 orders

SMT. DR.M.Shyam Sree

PRINCIPAL FAMILY COURT

0 orders

Smt.T.Madhavi

X Addl Chief Metropolitan Magistrate

1 orders

Smt. P. Padmavathi

XI Addl Chief Metropolitan Magistrate

173 orders

Smt. P. Shirisha

XIV Additional Judge cum XVIII Addl Chief Metropo...

377 orders

Smt. M. Aruna

XV Additional Judge cum XIX Addl Chief Metropolita...

275 orders

Sri. J. Upender Rao

XVI Additional Judge cum XX Addl Chief Metropolita...

197 orders

Sri.v.sanketh Mithra

XXII Addl Chief Metropolitan Magistrate

361 orders

Sri G Venu

VI Addl Metropolitan Session Judge

145 orders

Smt. B Priyanka

I Junior Civil Judge

407 orders

Ms. Shirisha Katkojwala

XI Junior Civil Judge

0 orders

← View all judges at SEC-BAD, CCC-CSCC-MSJ Court Complex