Smt.B.Manjari

1 Dt.27.12.2018 Fair - A.S.No.53 of 2015

IN THE COURT OF THE FAMILY COURT -CUM- VI ADDITIONAL DISTRICT

JUDGE : KADAPA.

PRESENT: Smt. B.Manjari,

JUDGE, FAMILY COURT -CUM- VI ADDL. DISTRICT JUDGE : KADAPA.

Thursday, this the 27th day of December, 2018.

Appeal Suit No.53 of 2015

Kadasani Bala Kullai Reddy. ….Appellant/Defendant.

Vs.

Yengisetty Ramesh.

...Respondent/Plaintiff.

On the Appeal against the Decree and Judgment made in

O.S.No.361 of 2013, dt.10.12.2014 on the file of

IV Additional Junior Civil Judge Court, Kadapa.

Between Yengisetty Ramesh. …. Plaintiff.

And

Kadasani Bala Kullai Reddy. … Defendant. This appeal suit is coming on 20.11.2018 for final hearing before me in the presence of Sri P.Raghunath Reddy, counsel for the Appellant/ Defendant and of

Sri M.Rama Krishna, counsel for the Respondent / Plaintiff, and the matter having stood over for consideration till this day, this court delivered the following:-

J U D G M E N T

This appeal is preferred by the appellant/defendant aggrieved with the

Judgment and Decree that was passed in O.S.No.361/2013 on the file of IV Addl.

Junior Civil Judge’s Court, Kadapa on 10.12.2014.

2. After filtering the unnecessary details, the case of the plaintiff in

O.S.No.361/2013 on the file of IV Additional Junior Civil Judge’s Court, Kadapa in

brief are that the plaintiff is the absolute owner of the property shown as ABCD in the plaint plan for an extent of Ac.0.04 ¾ cents out of Ac.0.09 ½ cents out of

Ac.0.23 cents in survey No.703/4 of Chinnachowk village fields, Municipal

Corporation, Kadapa, that the plaintiff purchased an extent of Ac.0.03 ¼ cents of 2 Dt.27.12.2018 Fair - A.S.No.53 of 2015 land under registered sale deed dt.12.3.1998 and again he purchased an extent of Ac.0.03 cents under a registered sale deed dt.23.7.2001 from the defendant and his two brothers, therefore the plaintiff purchased total extent of Ac.0.06 ¼ cents under above said two documents, that later the plaintiff noticed that there was a mistake in mentioning of the survey number, then the defendant and his two brothers executed rectification deed on 25.7.2001 by mentioning correct survey number. Thereafter the plaintiff sold Ac.0.01 ½ cents out of Ac.0.06 ¼ cents on the southern side to his relative K.Ramappa who had already purchased an extent of Ac.0.03 ¼ cents, therefore the plaintiff and the said K.Ramappa got sites with extents of Ac.0.03 ¾ cents each with measurements 100 x 47.5 links with specific boundaries. Since the date of purchase, the plaintiff has been in possession and enjoyment of the A schedule property shown in the plaint plan with absolute rights.

It is also the case of the plaintiff that he is working as Deputy Manager in

India Cements, Chilamakur village, Yerraguntla mandal and he is always busy with his duty, that taking advantage of the absence of the plaintiff, the defendant who is neighbour on the northern side of the plaintiff’s property constructed a building by encroaching two links on the eastern side and three links on the western side in A schedule property, that the defendant encroached portion shown as plaint B schedule and constructed compound wall, that recently the plaintiff found encroachment made by the defendant, then he immediately applied for surveying the land through the Mandal surveyor and to fix up the boundaries, accordingly the Mandal Surveyor visited the plaint schedule property on 16.3.2013 and measured the property and gave his report, that during the survey it was found that the defendant has encroached over a part of A schedule property with measurements 2.5 links aggregately into 100 links more fully described in the plaint B schedule, then the plaintiff approached the defendant for removal of the encroachments and the defendant promised to remove the same within a week.

Later on the defendant did not keep the words and denied to remove the compound wall, that the defendant has no right and title over the B schedule 3 Dt.27.12.2018 Fair - A.S.No.53 of 2015 property which is part and parcel to A schedule property. Therefore, the plaintiff sought for declaration of his right and title over B schedule property and for grant of mandatory injunction for removal of the compound wall constructed by the defendant in encroached area shown as AEBF in the plaint plan.

3. The averments of the written statement filed by the defendant in brief are that the defendant admitted the sale transactions took place between the plaintiff, the defendant and his two brothers, that he is not aware of the other transactions entered by the plaintiff and Ramappa, that the defendant pleaded that he never encroached any property as contended by the plaintiff to an extent of 2 links on the eastern side and 3 links on the western side in A schedule property, that the defendant constructed compound wall within his property and never encroached any property, that he was not aware of visit of the mandal surveyor and localizing the property and no notice was served on him by the

Mandal surveyor, that the report filed by the Mandal Surveyor is created for the purpose of this suit, that long before institution of this suit, there was a boundary separating the two properties of the plaintiff and the defendant and he applied to the local authority to get permission to put up construction, that after the permission was granted with the knowledge of the plaintiff alone, the defendant constructed his house and compound wall by spending lakhs of rupees, that since the plaintiff did not object for construction, he is estopped from contending that he has no knowledge about the alleged construction, that there is no cause of action for filing of this suit and that the suit is to be dismissed with costs.

4. From the above said pleadings, the trial Court framed the following issues :-

1. Whether the plaintiff is entitled for declaration of his right and title over the plaint B schedule property, as prayed for ?

2. Whether the plaintiff is entitled for delivery of vacant site of plaint B schedule property ?

3. Whether the plaintiff is entitled for mandatory injunction as prayed for ?

4. To what relief ?

4 Dt.27.12.2018 Fair - A.S.No.53 of 2015

5. To substantiate his respective contentions, the plaintiff examined himself as PW.1, supportive witnesses PWs.2 to 4 are examined and got marked

Ex.A.1 to A.7 and Ex.X.1 and X.2 on behalf of the plaintiff. On behalf of the defendant side, the defendant examined himself as DW.1 and no documents are got marked.

6. On due appreciation of the oral and documentary evidence led by both parties to the suit, the trial Judge finally decreed the suit with costs declaring the right and title of the plaintiff over the plaint B schedule property and directing the defendant to remove the compound wall in B schedule property shown as AEBF in the plaint plan and to deliver the vacant possession of it to the plaintiff, within 60 days from the date of this Judgment, else, the plaintiff is at liberty to get the compound wall removed and to get the property delivered to him through process of law.

7. Aggrieved with the Judgment, decree and the findings of the learned

Junior Civil Judge, the defendant preferred this appeal on the grounds that the evidence of the defendant was not appreciated by the trial Judge on the alleged encroachment of the plaint schedule property by the defendant, that the evidence of PW.2 clearly goes to show that unless he surveyed the total extent of land, he cannot say that the defendant had encroached the schedule mentioned property, as such there is no encroachment of the plaint schedule property, that the defendant never encroached the property and the evidence of PWs.2 and 3 made it clear that the defendant constructed the building in his Ac.0.05 cents, as such the question of encroachment by the defendant shall not arise, therefore the decree and Judgment dt.10.12.2014 in O.S.No.361/2013 is to be set aside.

8. As there was no representation for both the parties in this appeal, the arguments on both sides were treated as heard. No additional evidence is found adduced by either of the parties to this appeal 5 Dt.27.12.2018 Fair - A.S.No.53 of 2015

9. In the light of the grounds of appeal and the pleadings of both the parties in the suit, the points for consideration are that :-

1. Whether the plaintiff is entitled for declaration of his right, title and interest over the plaint B schedule property and for consequential delivery of vacant possession with a direction to remove the compound wall in the plaint B schedule property by way of mandatory injunction as prayed for in the suit ?

2. Whether the Judgment and decree passed in O.S.No.361/2013 dt.10.12.2014 is liable to be set aside ?

3. To what relief ?

10. POINT No.1:- It is significant to note that the admitted facts in this case are that the respondent/plaintiff had purchased the property in question from the appellant/defendant by way of registered sale deed and that originally the property belongs to appellant and his brothers that have sold the property in an extent of Ac.0.06 ¼ cents in favour of the plaintiff and there is no dispute as to the said fact. When it is the contention of the plaintiff that the defendant encroached an extent of 100 links on east to west and 2.5 links on north to south and constructed a compound wall shown as AEBF in the plaint plan, the defendant pleaded that he had not occupied any property, but constructed his house within his site and to the knowledge of the plaintiff. As such, it is essential burden to cast upon the plaintiff to establish the fact that there was encroachment to the extent of the above said claim put-forth by the plaintiff by leading cogent and convincing evidence on his side.

11. To discharge the said burden cast upon him, the plaintiff who examined himself as PW.1 filed and marked Ex.A.1 original registered sale deed dt.12.3.1998 executed by the defendant along with others, Ex.A.2 Original registered sale deed dt.23.7.2001 executed by the defendant along with others in favour of the plaintiff, Ex.A.3 Original rectification deed dt.25.7.2001 executed by the defendant along with others in favour of the plaintiff, Ex.A.4 Encumbrance certificate, Ex.A.5 plaint plan, Ex.A.6 certified copy of sale deed dt.12.3.1998 and 6 Dt.27.12.2018 Fair - A.S.No.53 of 2015 Ex.A.7 certified copy of rectification deed dt.25.7.2001. PW.1 is subjected for cross examination, a perusal of the cross examination of PW.1 discloses that nothing substantial is found elicited contrary to the contentions of the plaintiff. Since it is an admitted fact that the plaintiff had purchased the property from the defendant and his brothers and that there was also correction of the mistake as to noting the survey number in the document in respect of which Ex.A.3 rectification deed was also obtained in all probability the oral evidence of PW.1 has all the support of document filed and marked by him to establish the fact that he had purchased in total an extent of Ac.0.06 ¼ cents from the defendant and his brothers from out of which he sold an extent of Ac.0.03 ¼ cents.

12. Added to oral and documentary evidence led by the plaintiff himself, the plaintiff got examined two supportive witnesses as PWs.2 and 3 from the office of surveyor and land record and through whom he got marked Ex.X.1 and

X.2. Ex.X.1 is the statement of the plaintiff and K.Ramappa and Ex.X.2 is the survey report dt.16.3.2013. According to PW.3, the surveyor who actually conducted survey categorically deposed that he issued notice to both parties for conducting survey and he measured the total extent of Ac.0.23 cents in survey

No.703/4 and found that there is deficit of Ac.0.00 ¼ cents of land in the property of the plaintiff, whereas the defendant is in occupation of Ac.0.05 cents of land and to that effect he issued his report to the R.D.O., Kadapa. In his cross examination, PW.3 categorically explained the measurements of the property and he deposed to the effect that the property of the plaintiff must be 47 ½ links and the deficit of 2 links and 3 links on the western side. He also deposed that the defendant did not file any document to show that he owned an extent of Ac.0.05 cents of land to the north of the property of the plaintiff. As rightly observed by the trial Judge, the oral and documentary evidence of the plaintiff has all the support of the independent reliable and authentic statements of PWs.2 and 3 the official witnesses. There is no reason not to believe the oral evidence of PWs.1 to 3 coupled with the documents filed and marked by them. In clear and cogent terms PW.3 deposed the service of notice on the defendant as to the survey 7 Dt.27.12.2018 Fair - A.S.No.53 of 2015 conducted by him and also the presence and participation of the defendant at the time of the said survey. In other-words, the evidence led by the plaintiff is trustworthy and is acceptable leaving no room for any manipulation or correction.

13. When once it is observed that the plaintiff is able to prove his contentions by leading cogent and convincing evidence both oral and documentary in nature, burden shifts to the defendant to discredit the evidence led by the plaintiff. On the face of it, the defendant that examined himself as

DW.1 has not filed any document in support of his case. It is not expected that there would be any documents for encroachment of land, but atleast there would be a document to prove his entitlement for an extent of Ac.0.05 cents of land which is in his occupation and in which he raised structures. When it is the specific case of the plaintiff that the defendant constructed a compound wall with an encroachment of 2 links on north side and 3 links on western side, it is for the defendant to rule out the said encroachment. It is not out of place as to the suggestions put to PW.1 which are extracted by the trial Judge in the Judgment to the effect that it was to the knowledge of the plaintiff only the defendant had encroached 2 links on the eastern side and 3 links on the western side and constructed compound wall in the B schedule property. In other-words, it is made clear that the defendant had constructed the compound wall by encroaching into the site of the plaintiff that established the case of the plaintiff that the defendant occupied the property of the plaintiff. Admittedly, the plaintiff is an employee in

India Cements that was working as Deputy Manager and was residing in

Chilamakuru of Yerraguntla mandal. Since the plaintiff is residing away from the suit schedule property and at the place of his employment the probability of his knowledge and consent as to the construction of the compound wall by encroaching into the site of the plaintiff by the defendant is not at all acceptable.

Had there been any consent or knowledge, the plaintiff would not have filed the suit against the defendant. Even otherwise, having purchased the property for valuable consideration by the plaintiff from the defendant himself, it cannot be 8 Dt.27.12.2018 Fair - A.S.No.53 of 2015 said that the plaintiff had forgone and had consented for the encroachment of the property by the defendant to raise construction of the compound wall in the B schedule property. Except the oral statement and suggestion put to PW.1, there is no substantive piece of evidence to prove that there was consent on the part of the plaintiff either to encroach or to raise construction of compound wall in the B schedule property by the defendant. In other-words, the contentions of the defendant are baseless perhaps invented to overcome the ground reality that he had raised compound wall by encroaching into the site of the plaintiff to an extent of Ac.0.00 ¼ cents. In other-words, the plaintiff is the absolute owner of the plaint

A and B schedule properties in respect of which he has got right and title, as such he is entitled for the relief of the declaration as prayed for in the suit. Since it is brought out that the defendant constructed the compound wall by encroaching into the land of the plaintiff, the said encroachment is liable to be removed by the defendant by demolishing the compound wall which is found shown as B schedule property in the plaint plan, more clearly shown as AEBF and to deliver the vacant possession of the plaintiff. In other-words, the defendant is liable to remove the compound wall and to deliver the vacant site to the plaintiff in consequence failing which the plaintiff is at liberty to get the same done through process of law.

Accordingly, this point is decided.

14. ISSUE No.2:- The trial Judge in his Judgment dt.10.12.2014 decreed the suit with costs declaring the right and title of the plaintiff over the plaint B schedule property and also directed the defendant to remove the compound wall in B schedule property and ordered to deliver the vacant possession to the plaintiff within 60 days from the date of Judgment and for any failure the plaintiff was given liberty to get the same done through process of law. In lieu of my above said discussion under point No.1, wherein it is held that the plaintiff is entitled to all the reliefs sought in the suit and that the resistance on the part of the defendant is not valid, the Judgment and decree passed by the trial Judge and the directions given by the trial Judge holds good and are liable to be confirmed 9 Dt.27.12.2018 Fair - A.S.No.53 of 2015 without any interference. In other-words, the Judgment and decree passed by the trial Judge need not be set aside and is to be confirmed and the present appeal is to be dismissed. Accordingly, this point is decided.

15. ISSUE No.3:- In the result, appeal is dismissed with costs, directing the appellant to remove the compound wall within two months from this date and to deliver the vacant possession of the B schedule property to the respondent/ plaintiff, failing which the respondent/ plaintiff is at liberty to get the same done through process of law.

Dictated to the Stenographer Grade-II, transcribed by him corrected and

pronounced by me in the open Court, this the 27th day of December, 2018.

Sd/- B.Manjari.

VI ADDITIONAL DISTRICT JUDGE,

KADAPA.

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

No oral or documentary evidence adduced in this appeal.

Sd/- B.Manjari.

VI A.D.J., Kdp.

1

Dt : 19.12.2018.

Fair - MVOP No.94 of 2017

BEFORE THE MOTOR ACCIDENTS CLAIMS TRIBUNAL -CUM- FAMILY

COURT- CUM- VI ADDITIONAL DISTRICT JUDGE :: KADAPA.

Present: Smt B.Manjari, Chairperson Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal -Cum-

Judge, Family Court- Cum- VI Additional District Judge, Kadapa.

Wednesday, this the 19th day of December, 2018.

M.V.O.P. No.94 of 2017

Singam Gangi Reddy natural guardian and father represented on behalf of his minor son S.Vasundhar Reddy. ... Claimant / Petitioner.

Versus

1. Lingala Saibaba.

2. Mudhivedu Latha Bai.

3. Shriram General Insurance Company Limited, Represented by its Divisional Manager, Kadapa.

... Respondents.

This petition is coming on 10.12.2018 for final hearing before me in the presence of Sri G.Ramesh Reddy, Counselfor the Claimant/petitioner and of Sri

P.Goutham Kumar, Counsel for the Respondent No.3 and the Respondent No.1 and 2 remained exparte and having stood over for consideration till this day, this

Court made the following:

O R D E R

This petition is filed by the petitioner against the respondents No.1 to 3

Under Sec.166 of Motor Vehicle Act, r/w. Rule.455 of Andhra Pradesh Motor

Vehicle Rules, claiming compensation for the injuries of the minor son of the petitioner in a motor vehicle accident, together with interest and for costs.

2. The case of the petitioner in brief is that the petitioner’s minor son is studying VII class as a student in respondent No.2 school i.e. Kanaka mahalakshmi Vidya Mandir High School in the year 2015-16, that on 04.1.2016 at 5.00 p.m., due to rash and negligent driving of the driver of the school van

Mahindra and Mahindra bearing No.AP22 X 0141 committed an accident, due to which his son right leg femur bone is fractured and his son was shifted to treatment in various hospitals more than three months, that till now the said leg injury is not cured fully and his son is getting pain and was suffering a lot and that he required medical treatment etc., that the school bus is not possessed 2

Dt : 19.12.2018.

Fair - MVOP No.94 of 2017 conductor, with that his son fell down from the foot board steps and sustained injuries, that on the date of accident the school management i.e. 2nd respondent promised him that they will pay compensation for Rs.2,00,000/- for causing accident, sustained injuries, pain, mental agony, medical treatment, partial disability etc., but still so far they have not paid any compensation. Subsequently the said case was charged by the police and charge sheet was filed in I Addl.

Judicial Magistrate of I Class, Kadapa and the same was numbered in

C.C.No.476/2015, that on full fledged trial the Hon’ble Court sentenced the accused i.e. 1st respondent to pay fine of Rs.1,250/-. The 2nd respondent is the owner of the school bus bearing No.AP22 X 0141 and was insured with 3rd respondent insurance company and the policy was in force and cover the risk for inmates of the vehicle as well as third parties at the time of accident, hence the respondent No.3 to indemnify respondent No.2 and both the respondents are jointly and severally liable to pay the compensation to the petitioner.

3. The respondent No.1 and 2 remained exparte and respondent No.3 filed written statement and contested the petition. The averments of the written statement filed by the respondent No.3 in brief are that the petitioner who is the father of injured minor son has to prove the manner of the accident and his son sustained injuries in a motor vehicle accident and the treatment said to be underwent to various hospitals and also the treatment expenditure incurred by him by producing authenticated documentary evidence, that that as per Sec.134

(c) of Motor Vehicle Act, it is mandatory duty of insured / owner of the vehicle to furnish the particulars of the policy, date, time, place of accident and particulars of injured and also valid driving licence, but the insured / owner of the vehicle has not complied with the statutory demand and that the petition is liable to be dismissed, that as per the terms and conditions of the policy, the 1st respondent who is the driver of the crime Mahindra and Mahindra school bus bearing No.AP22

X 0141 should possessed valid and effective driving licence at the time of accident, otherwise this respondent is not liable to indemnify the owner of the lorry and that the 2nd respondent alone is liable to pay the compensation, that the petitioners have to prove the registered owner i.e. 2nd respondent used the 3

Dt : 19.12.2018.

Fair - MVOP No.94 of 2017 vehicle without any breach of permit and traffic rules, that the offending vehicle possessed valid fitness certificate at the time of accident and that there was no violation of any section of Motor Vehicle Act.

It is also the contention of the respondent No.3 that the minor son of the petitioner sustained injuries in some other incident, but to gain unlawful compensation, a false case has been foisted against the driver i.e. 1st respondent though there is no involvement of the vehicle of the 2nd respondent, that the root cause in giving complaint with a delay of five months which clearly proves that there is active connivance of the police in lodging a false F.I.R. against the 1st respondent, that the injuries occurred due to the fault of the injured only in some other incident, that the police people have not investigated the case on proper lines and did purely a table investigation to help the petitioners for unlawful gain, therefore the petitioner is not entitle to claim any compensation from this respondent, that the injured sustained fracture of right thigh femur and same was healed and that the injured is attending the school and continuing his studies, as such there is no question of disability much less functional disability, but the injured has filed disability certificate showing that he is suffering 60% disability which is highly ineffable, that the claim of the petitioner under various heads are highly excessive and against to law and that the petition is to be dismissed with costs.

4. From the above said pleadings, my learned predecessor in office has framed the following issues for trial :

1. Whether the accident occurred due to rash and negligent driving of the driver of school bus bearing No.AP22 X 0141 that resulted in causing injuries to the Singam Vasundhar Reddy ?

2. Whether the petitioner is entitled for compensation, if so, to what amount and from whom ? and

3. To what relief ?

5. To substantiate the case of the petitioner who is the natural father and guardian of the injured is examined himself as PW.1 and marked Exs.A.1 to A.7. A supportive eye witness is examined as PW.2 on the petitioner side. The 4

Dt : 19.12.2018.

Fair - MVOP No.94 of 2017 contesting respondent No.3 insurance company got examined its Legal Officer as

RW.1 and through him got marked Ex.B.1 copy of insurance policy.

6. Heard both sides and perused the record.

7. I SSUE No.1 :- The main petition filed by the petitioner is silent as to the manner of the accident. It is only in lieu of the chief affidavit filed by the PW.1 it is mentioned that due to the rash and negligent driving of the school van bearing No.AP22 X 0141 driver, the accident had occurred on 04.1.2016 when his son fell down from the foot door steps and sustained injuries, that the accident happened due to the negligence of the school bus driver and the school management that had not provided the conductor. The contesting respondent

No.3 challenged the petitioner to prove by way of documentary evidence that the accident occurred due to the rash and negligent driving of the driver of the school bus, that resulted in causing injuries to the minor son of the petitioner. As PW.1 the father of the injured reiterated the claims of the petitioner in total and in support of his oral evidence, he also marked Ex.A.1 certified copy of F.I.R., Ex.A.2 certified copy of charge sheet, Ex.A.3 Certified copy of MLC wound certificate,

Ex.A.4 Certified copy of Judgment in C.C.No.476/2016, Ex.A.5 attested copy of

Shriram General Insurance Company Policy related to crime vehicle, Ex.A.6 attested copy of Government of A.P. Transport Depatment of R.C. and Form-38 of fitness certificate and Ex.A.8 Original medical disability certificate of the injured.

8. PW.2 a supportive witness is examined as an eye witness that more or less deposed on similar lines to that of PW.1. During the course of cross examination, PW.1 admitted that the accident occurred on 04.1.2016 and the complaint was lodged on 15.5.2016. He also deposed that the owner of the crime vehicle gave assurance that he would pay the compensation and that he did not lodge the complaint to the police about the accident. He admitted that he did not mention the said fact in the police complaint. PW.2 in his cross examination deposed that he witnessed the accident and the subsequent information was given to him by the father of the injured, that he did not give report to the police as to the accident, that he was not examined by the police and he was not cited 5

Dt : 19.12.2018.

Fair - MVOP No.94 of 2017 as a witness in the charge sheet filed by the police. Lastly he denied the suggestion that as the complaint was given five months after the occurrence to cover up the delay he was pressed into service.

9. As against the above said evidence, the insurance company respondent

No.3 got examined RW.1 that had stated in his chief affidavit that there was no involvement of the vehicle of respondent No.2 in causing the accident, that the delay in lodging the complaint after five months clearly proves that there is active connivance of the police in lodging the false F.I.R. against the 1st respondent and that the injuries caused to the petitioner are in some other incident, that the charge sheet is filed without proper investigation by the police. In his cross examination, RW.1 deposed that by the time of accident, the policy was in force and denied the suggestion that since PW.1 was hospitalized that there was delay in lodging the complaint.

10. It is significant to note that the petition filed by the petitioner who is the father of the injured is for compensation U/sec.166 of Motor Vehicle Act for the injuries that were caused to his minor son in the accident that took place on 04.1.2016. Admittedly, the complaint was lodged on 15.5.2016 upon which the police registered a case, investigated and filed charge sheet. In addition to Ex.A.1 certified copy of F.I.R. and Ex.A.2 certified copy of charge sheet, there is authentic and reliable evidence as Ex.A.3 certified copy of wound certificate filed by the petitioner, wherein it is found mentioned that the petitioner sustained injuries on 04.1.2016 that was admitted in Sai Sudha Multi Specialty Hospital, Tirupathi.

Ex.A.3 also borne out the fact that the injuries were caused due to accidental fall from the four wheeler at Kadapa. The investigation done by the police that filed charge sheet under Ex.A.2 against the driver of the vehicle bearing No.AP22 X 0141 that belonged to Kanakamahalakshmi Vidya Mandir High School and it was a school bus. Ex.A.4 is a certified copy of Judgment, wherein the accident occurred due to the driver of the school bus bearing No.AP22 X 0141 that was found guilty for the offence punishable U/sec.338 of IPC and also Sec.134 (a) and (b) r/w.187 of Motor Vehicle Act, that was convicted and was sentenced by the Court. The 6

Dt : 19.12.2018.

Fair - MVOP No.94 of 2017 oral statements of PWs.1 and 2 with all the support of above said documents are sufficient to consider and conclude that the minor son of the petitioner had sustained injuries with the involvement of school bus bearing No.AP22 X 0141. It is for the driver of the school bus or its owner and lastly by the insurance company to discredit the cogent and convincing evidence led by the petitioner side. In the absence of any suspicious circumstances brought out against the evidence of the petitioner side, delay is not a ground to reject the claim of the petitioner as the provisions of Limitation Act are not applicable to lay a claim under the Motor Vehicle Act. In other-words, the evidence on hand is sufficient to establish the fact that the accident was caused due to the rash and negligent driving of the driver of the school van bearing No.AP22 X 0141 that resulted in causing injuries to the minor son of the petitioner. Accordingly, this issue is decided.

11. ISSUE No.2:- The petitioner herein filed this petition claiming compensation of Rs.5,00,000/- against the respondents 1 to 3 U/sec.166 of Motor

Vehicle Act. Respondent No.1 is the driver of the vehicle, respondent No.2 is the owner of the vehicle and respondent No.3 is the insurance company. Respondent

No.2 being the owner is vicariously liable to pay the compensation on behalf of the respondent No.1 and the respondent No.3 being the insurance company and that the policy for the vehicle bearing No.AP22 X 0141 for the school van was in force by the date of the occurrence is liable to indemnify the respondent No.2 and to pay the compensation to the petitioner.

12. Coming to the quantum of compensation, the injured who is a minor son of the petitioner is aged about 13 years and was school going child. As rightly argued for the insurance company, no medical bills are found filed by the petitioner in support of the medical expenses claimed by him. It is admitted by

PW.1 that his minor son was treated in Sai Sudha Hospital, Tirupathi under the

Government Arogyasree scheme free of cost. However the incidental medical expenses for the treatment of the boy cannot be ruled out. For the injured Ex.A.7 disability certificate is found filed and marked through PW.1. Admittedly, Ex.A.7 7

Dt : 19.12.2018.

Fair - MVOP No.94 of 2017 disability certificate was not issued either by the doctors in Sai Sudha Multi

Specialty Hospital, Tirupathi or by the medical board. In the absence of any supportive evidence, Ex.A.7 disability certificate as rightly pointed out by the respondent No.3 is found prepared for the purpose of claiming excess compensation and it can be held that the disability of the injured boy is not proved. At the same time, the fact that the injured boy sustained grievous injuries which is borne out from the wound certificate Ex.A.3, for which he is entitled for compensation for pain and sufferance, loss of enjoyment of life and amenities of life, in addition to loss of his education career cannot be ruled out.

Taking the totality of the circumstances under this petition, the compensation to the petitioner is to be awarded under the following heads and as follows:-

Rs.10,000-00 Towards pain and sufferance

Towards medical and MiscellenuousRs.25,000-00 expenses

Towards loss of amenities andRs.25,000-00 enjoyment of life. Towards extra diet and nourishmentRs.10,000-00 Towards transport and attendantRs.10,000-00 charges TOTAL Rs.80,000-00

In total, the petitioner can be awarded an amount of Rs.80,000/- against the respondents 1 to 3. Accordingly, this issue is decided.

13. ISSUE No.3:- (i). In the result, the petition is partly allowed awarding compensation of Rs.80,000/- (Rupees Eighty thousand only) to the petitioner against the respondents No.1 to 3 jointly and severally, together with proportionate costs and subsequent interest at 9% per annum from the date of filing of the petition, till the date of depositing of the amount.

(ii) The respondent No.3 insurance company is directed to deposit the compensation amount of Rs.80,000/- (Rupees Eighty thousand only) together with proportionate costs and interest within two months from the date of this order.

8

Dt : 19.12.2018.

Fair - MVOP No.94 of 2017

(iii) On deposit of the said compensation amount, the petitioner is permitted to withdraw the said amount of Rs.80,000/- (Rupees eighty thousand only) together with interest and costs forthwith.

(iv) Advocate fee is fixed at Rs.2,000/- (Rupees two thousand only).

Dictated to the Stenographer Grade-II, transcribed by him, corrected and

pronounced by me in the open court, this the 19th day of December, 2018.

Sd/- B.Manjari.

CHAIRPERSON

Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal – Cum- Family Court- Cum- VI Addl. District Judge, Kadapa.

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

Witnesses examined for petitioner / claimant:- P.W.1: Singam Gangi Reddy. P.W.2: K.Venkatarami Reddy. Witnesses examined for Respondent No.3:- R.W.1: D.Ramanjaneyulu. Exhibits marked for Petitioner/Claimant: Ex.A.1: Certified copy of F.I.R. in Cr.No.314/2016 of Kadapa Traffic Police station. Ex.A.2: Certified copy of Charge sheet. Ex.A.3: Certified copy of Wound certificate. Ex.A.4: Certified copy of Judgment in C.C.No.476/2016 dt.26.12.2016. Ex.A.5: Attested copy of Shriram General Insurance policy of the crime vehicle. Ex.A.6: Attested copies of registration certificate and form 38 fitness certificate. Ex.A.7: Original medical disability certificate of the injured. Exhibits marked for Respondent No.3:- Ex.B.1: Attested copy of insurance policy.

Sd/- B.Manjari.

CHAIRPERSON,

Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal

-Cum- Family Court- Cum- VI Addl.

District Judge, Kadapa.

In the Court of :Judge, Family Court-Cum-VI Addl. District Judge, Kadapa

Case No. :OS/0600009/2018 U. Bharat Raj Vs M/S Pacific Mining Products Limited, rep., by its Director Sri Sudesh Kumar Jain

Date : 27-12-2018

Business: Petition filed for advancement is allowed. Suit is advanced from 30.01.2019 and taken up today. Memo filed not pressing the suit is considered. suit is dismissed as not pressed. No costs. Nature of Disposal: DISMISSED AS NOT PRESSED Disposal Date: 27-12-2018

Judge, Family Court-Cum-VI Addl. District Judge, Kadapa

In the Court of :Judge, Family Court-Cum-VI Addl. District Judge, Kadapa

Case No. :EP/0600057/2017 C. Vishwanath Reddy Vs B. Vijaya Bhaskar Reddy

Date : 31-12-2018

Business: No representation for DHR for the last many adjournment. Hence, E.P., is dismissed for default. Nature of Disposal: DISMISSED FOR DEFAULT Disposal Date: 31-12-2018

Judge, Family Court-Cum-VI Addl. District Judge, Kadapa

In the Court of :Judge, Family Court-Cum-VI Addl. District Judge, Kadapa

Case No. :CRLRP/0600041/2018 P. Venkata Ramana Vs S.H.O., II Town P.S., Kadapa

Date : 26-12-2018

Business: Not press memo filed is considered. Petition is dismissed as not pressed. Nature of Disposal: DISMISSED AS NOT PRESSED Disposal Date: 26-12-2018

Judge, Family Court-Cum-VI Addl. District Judge, Kadapa