Sri C.B.Satyanarayana, B.com.,B.L.,

BEFORE THE CHAIRMAN, MOTOR ACCIDENTS CLAIMS TRIBUNAL : CUM:

XIV ADDL. DISTRICT JUDGE , VIJAYAWADA.

PRESENT:- SRI. C B SATYANARAYANA, B.Com., B.L.,

XIV Additional District Judge, Vijayawada

Wednesday, this the 29 th day of April, 2015

MVOP NO.621 of 2011

Between:

1. Noonavathu alias Banavathu Sakkubai.

2. Banavathu Balaji Naik. (The 2nd Petitioner died during the pendency of this claim application and the 1st Petitioner is his only Legal representative).

.. Petitioners.

And.

1. R. Srinivasa Rao.

2. Raparla Satyanarayana.

3. The Oriental Insurance Company Limited, Represented its Divisional Manager, Divisional Office, Vijayawada.

…Respondents.

This petition came for final hearing before me on 27.4.2015 in the presence of Sri D. Seshagiri Rao, Advocate for the Petitioners 1 and 2 and of Sri K. Venkateswara Rao, Advocate for the 3rd Respondent, the Respondents 1 and 2 remained exparte and upon perusing the material on record, and considering the connected material papers and submissions of both side counsel and the mater having stood over till this day for consideration, this tribunal delivered the following:

J U D G M E N T

The Petitioners 1 and 2 filed this claim application under section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act claiming an amount of Rs.20,00,000/- as compensation in view the death of one Banavathu Suresh Kumar Naik in a motor vehicle accident, which took place on 27.3.2011.

2. The contention of the Petitioners 1 and 2 in brief is as follows:

The Petitioners 1 and 2 are residents of Rayanapadu Village of

Ibrahimpatnam Mandal in Krishna District and they are wife and husband. One

Banavathu Suresh Kumar Naik, who will be hereinafter referred to as “the

Deceased” was the only son of the Petitioners 1 and 2. On 27.3.2011 at about 6.00 p.m. the Deceased stopped his motor cycle on the left side road margin of 2

NH-9 road near Nallakunta Centre in Vijayawada and was talking with his friend on his mobile phone and in the meanwhile the 1st Respondent who was the driver of the Tipper lorry bearing No. AP 16 W 2258 drove the said lorry in a rash and negligent manner and at high speed and gave dash to the Deceased who stood at the left side margin of the NH-9 road, due to which the Deceased sustained multiple grievous injuries and succumbed to those injuries on the spot. The Deceased was running a Shamiyana shop and he was earning

Rs.10,000/- per month as on the date of the said accident. The Petitioners 1 and 2 due to their old age depended on the earnings of the Deceased and the

Deceased was the sole bread winner to the Petitioners 1 and 2. Due to the sudden demise of the Deceased in a motor vehicle accident on 27.3.2011, the

Petitioners 1 and 2 lost their sole earning bread winner and they have been suffering from starvation since then. In addition to that the Petitioners 1 and 2 have been suffering much pain and mental agony as they lost their only son in a motor vehicle accident. The 1st Respondent was the driver, the 2nd

Respondent was the owner and the 3rd Respondent was the insurer of the

Tipper lorry bearing No. AP 16 W 2258 which gave dash to the Deceased on 27.3.2011 at 6.00 p.m. due to which the Deceased sustained severe injuries and succumbed to those injuries. So all the Respondents 1 to 3 are jointly and severally liable to pay compensation to the Petitioners 1 and 2 as claimed by him in their claim application. Hence the claim application of the Petitioners 1 and 2 may be allowed and compensation may be awarded to the Petitioners 1 and 2 as claimed by them in their claim application.

3. After receiving the notices of this claim application, the Respondents 1 and 2 did not choose to contest this claim application and they remained exparte. The 3rd Respondent alone put its appearance through its counsel and got filed its counter through its counsel.

4. The contentions of the 3rd Respondent in brief as per its counter are as follows:

3

It is absolutely false to allege that on 27.3.2011 at about 6.00 p.m.

the 1st Respondent drove the Tipper lorry bearing No. AP 16 W 2258 in a rash and negligent manner and at high speed and gave dash to the Deceased on the NH-9 road near Nallakunta Centre in Vijayawada, due to which the

Deceased sustained severe injuries succumbed to those injuries. In fact the said accident took place on 27.3.2011 as the Deceased acted in a negligent manner on the NH-9 road without observing the vehicular traffic and there was no rashness or negligence on the part of the 1st Respondent to occur the said accident. Thus the Deceased died in a motor vehicle accident on 27.3.2011 due to his self-negligence and the Petitioners 1 and 2 are not entitled to claim any compensation from the 3rd Respondent and Petitioners 1 and 2 have no cause of action to file this claim application against the 3rd Respondent. The

Petitioners 1 and 2 have to prove the age, avocation and earnings of the

Deceased as on the date of the said accident. The Petitioners 1 and 2 have to further prove that they are the dependants on the income of the Deceased as on the date of the said accident. The Petitioners 1 and 2 have to further prove that the 1st Respondent who was the driver of the Tipper lorry bearing No. AP 16 W 2258 at the time of the said accident possessed a valid and effective driving license to drive the said lorry at the time of the accident and the said

Tipper lorry bearing No. AP 16 W 2258 possessed a valid fitness and permit to ply as on the date of the said accident. The Petitioners 1 and 2 have to further prove that the said Tipper lorry bearing No. AP 16 W 2258 validly insured with the 3rd Respondent and the said insurance policy was inforce and was subsisting as on the date of the said accident. The amount of compensation and the rate of interest claimed by the Petitioners are highly excessive and they are not entitled to claim the same. As the death of the Deceased occurred in a motor vehicle accident due to the rash and negligent driving of the Tipper lorry bearing No. AP 16 W 2258 by the 1st Respondent, the

Petitioners 1 and 2 have no cause of action to file this claim application 4 against the 3rd Respondent. Hence the claim application of the Petitioners 1 and 2 may be dismissed against the 3rd Respondent.

5. After perusing the averments in the claim application of the

Petitioners 1 and 2 and the averments in the counter of the 3rd Respondent and after hearing both side counsel, the following issues 1 to 4 were framed for trial:

1.Whether the Deceased Banavathu Suresh Kumar Naik died in a motor vehicle accident on 27.3.2011 at about 6.00 p.m. on the NH-9 near Nallakunata Centre, Vijayawada due to the rash and negligent driving of the Tipper lorry bearing No. AP 16 W 2258 by the 1st Respondent ?

2. What was the correct age and income of the Deceased by the date of accident ?

3. Whether the Petitioners 1 and 2 are entitled to the compensation as prayed for ? If so, from whom ?

4. To what relief?

6. During the time of trial of the claim application on behalf of the

Petitioners 1 and 2, P.w.1 and P.w.2 were examined and Ex.A.1 to Ex.A.6 documents were marked. On behalf of the 3rd Respondent no oral evidence was adduced but Ex.B.1 document was marked with the consent of the learned counsel for the Petitioners 1 and 2.

7. As per the orders of this Tribunal in IA.472/2014 the 3rd Respondent was permitted under Section 170 of the Motor Vehicles Act to contest this claim application on all grounds which are available to the 2nd Respondent who was the owner of the crime vehicle ie., Tipper lorry bearing No. AP 16 W 2258 as on the date of the said accident.

8. While this claim application coming for trial on 18.12.2014 the learned counsel for the Petitioners 1 and 2 filed a petition stating that the 2nd

Petitioner died on 15.8.2014 and the 1st Petitioner is the only legal representative of the Deceased. After hearing the learned counsel for the

Petitioners 1 and 2 and the learned counsel for the 3rd Respondent, the said memo was recorded.

5

9. The learned counsel for the Petitioners 1 and 2 and the learned counsel for the 3rd Respondent submitted their arguments when this Tribunal took this claim application for final hearing.

10.ISSUE NO.1:

The contention of the Petitioners 1 and 2 is that the Deceased died in a motor vehicle accident on 27.3.2011 due to the rash and negligent driving of the Tipper lorry bearing No. AP 16 W 2258 by the 1st Respondent. Inorder to prove their contentions, the Petitioners 1 and 2 relied on the oral evidence of

P.w.1 and P.w.2 and on Ex.A.1 to Ex.A.4 and Ex.A.6 documents. P.w.1 B.

Sakku Bai is the 1st Petitioner in this claim application. In her chief examination, she almost all reiterated the entire averments of the claim application. Though the oral evidence of P.w.1 in her chief examination was subjected to extensive cross examination on behalf of the 3rd Respondent nothing was elicited either to discredit or to shatter the testimony of P.w.1 and nothing was elicited to prove that the Petitioner died in a motor vehicle accident on 27.3.2011 due to his self-negligence and nothing was elicited to prove that there was no rashness or negligence on the part of the 1st

Respondent to occur the said accident. P.w.2 P. Ramulu also deposed in the similar lines as deposed by P.w1 and the same also remained un-shattered and consistent though the same was subjected to extensive cross examination on behalf of the 3rd Respondent.

11. Further a perusal of Ex.A.1 to Ex.A.4 and Ex.A.6 documents goes to show that the Sub-Inspector of Police of L &O I Town police Station,

Vijayawada launched prosecution against the 1st Respondent in Crime

No.190/2011 of L&O I Town Police station, Vijayawada alleging that on 27.3.2011 at about 6.00 p.m. the 1st Respondent drove the Tipper lorry bearing No. AP 16 W 2258 in a rash and negligent manner and at high speed and gave dash to the Deceased due to which the Deceased sustained severe injuries and succumbed to those injuries on the spot and thereby the 1st

Respondent has committed the offences punishable under Section 304-A of 6 the Indian Penal Code. Though the contents in Ex.A.1 to Ex.A.4 and Ex.A.6 documents were also subjected to extensive cross examination on behalf of the 3rd Respondent, the same remains un-shattered consistent and nothing was eleicited to prove that the Deceased died in a motor vehicle accident on 27.3.2011 due to his self-negligence. Thus the oral and documentary evidence adduced on behalf of the Petitioner categorically goes to show that the deceased died in a motor vehicle accident on 27.3.2011 due to the rash and negligent driving of the Tipper lorry bearing No. AP 16 W 2258 by the 1st

Respondent.

12. But the learned counsel for the 3rd Respondent vehemently contended that the Petitioners 1 and 2 in their application admitted that the

Deceased met with a motor vehicle accident while he was talking on his mobile phone on the NH-9 road which amounts to gross negligence on the part of the Deceased and thus there was contributory negligence on the part of the

Deceased to occur the said accident and such contributory negligence on the part of the Deceased has to be taken into consideration while awarding compensation to the Petitioners 1 and 2. But this Tribunal is unable to agree with the above submissions of the learned counsel for the 3rd Respondent because the entire oral and documentary evidence placed before this Tribunal categorically goes to show that the Deceased died in a motor vehicle accident on 27.3.2011 due to the rash and negligent driving of the Tipper lorry bearing

No. AP 16 W 2258 by the 1st Respondent and the 3rd Respondent did not let in any iota of evidence either oral or documentary to prove that there was contributory negligence on the part of the Deceased to occur the said accident. Hence after considering the un-shattered testimony of P.w.1 and

P.w.2 coupled with the contents in Ex.A.1 to Ex.A.4 and Ex.A.6 documents, this

Tribunal holds that the Deceased died in a motor vehicle accident on 27.3.2011 at about 6.00 p.m. due to the rash and negligent driving of the

Tipper lorry bearing No. AP 16 W 2258 by the 1st Respondent. Issue No.1 is answered accordingly.

7 13.ISSUE NO.2:

The 1st Petitioner who was examined as P.w.1, in her evidence deposed that the age of the Deceased was aged about 27 years as on the date of the said accident. In Ex.A.2 document which is the copy of inquest report and Ex.A.3 which is the postmortem examination report of the Deceased, the age of the Deceased was mentioned as 28 years. Admittedly the originals of

Ex.A.2 and Ex.A.3 documents were prepared by the public servants during the course of discharging their official duties. So this Tribunal is of the view that the contents in Ex.A.2 and Ex.A.3 documents can be taken into consideration and there is no reason to disbelieve the contents in Ex.A.2 and Ex.A.3 documents. Hence after considering the oral evidence of P.w.1 and the contents in Ex.A.2 and Ex.A.3 documents, this Tribunal holds that the age of the Deceased was 28 years as on the date of the said accident.

14. The contention of the Petitioners 1 and 2 is that the Deceased was running a Shamiyana Shop and he was earning Rs.10,000/- per month as on the date of the said accident. The 1st Petitioner who was examined as P.w.1 deposed the same facts on oath in her evidence. A perusal of Ex.A.5 document goes to show that the Deceased purchased a Shamiyana Shop from one Vemula Murali Krishna on 3.10.2010. As rightly contended by the learned counsel for the 3rd Respondent, the said Vemula Murali Krishna was not examined as a witness on behalf of the Petitioners 1 and 2 and Ex.A.5 letter was not proved by the Petitioners 1 and 2. As there was no documentary evidence to prove the avocation of the Deceased as on the date of the said accident, this Tribunal is of the view that the income of the Deceased can be assessed notionally as Rs.3,000/- per month at the rate of Rs.100/- per day because even an unskilled agricultural labourer could earn not less than

Rs.3,000/- per month during the year 2011 in which year the said accident took place. So, this Tribunal holds that the income of the Deceased was

Rs.3,000/- per month as on the date of the said accident.

8

15. The learned counsel for the Petitioners 1 and 2 vehemently contended that though the Deceased was not an employee, considering the age of the Deceased future prospects may be added to the annual income of the Deceased. In support of his contention the learned counsel for the

Petitioners 1 and 2 relied on the following Judgments:

1.Santosh Devi v. National Insurance Company Limited and others (2012 (5) ALD 35 (SC):

2.Savitha v. Bindar Singh & others (http://indiankanoon.org/doc/77976328)

In Santosh Devi’s Case and Savitha Case, the Hon’ ble Supreme

Court categorically held that “it would be reasonable to add 30% of the income towards future prospects if the Deceased or injured self-employed or got fixed salary without any increments”. Considering the principles of law laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the above cited Santosh Devi’s case and Savith’s Case, this Court is of the view that it is just and reasonable to add 30% to the annual income of the Deceased towards his future prospects. If 30% is added to the annual income of the Deceased (36,000 + 10,800) it comes to Rs.46,800/-. Hence this Tribunal holds that the annual income of the Deceased including his future profit as on the date of the said accident was Rs.46,800/-.

16. In view of the foregoing reasons, this Tribunal holds that the age of the Deceased was 28 years and his annual income was Rs.46,800/- as on the date of the said accident. Issue No.2 is answered accordingly.

17.Issue No.3:

The Petitioners 1 and 2 claimed an amount of Rs.20,00,000/- as compensation; under various heads in view of the death of the Deceased in a motor vehicle accident. In Sarla Verma and others Vs. Delhi Transport

Corporation and another (2009 ACJ 1298) the Hon’ble Supreme Court held that if the Deceased was a bachelor, 50% of his annual earnings have to be deducted towards his personal and living expenses had he been alive. This 9

Tribunal already held that the annual earnings of the Deceased as on the date of the said accident was Rs.46,800/-. If 50% is deducted from the annual income of the Deceased, it comes to (Rs.46,800 – 23,400) Rs.23,400/-. So this

Tribunal holds that the net contribution of the Deceased to his family as on the date of the said accident was Rs.23,400/- per annum.

18. The learned counsel for the 3rd Respondent contended that as the

Deceased died as bachelor, the age of the 1st Petitioner who is the mother of the Deceased has to be taken into consideration to decide the appropriate multiplier to compute compensation payable to the Petitioner. But in a recent

Judgment of the Hon’ ble Supreme Court which was reported in “Amrit

Bhanu Shali and another v. National Insurance Company Limited and

others (2012 (2) An.W.R.291-SC)” the Hon’ble Supreme Court held that when the Deceased died as a bachelor the age of the mother of the Deceased is not relevant to decide the appropriate multiplier to compute the compensation and the age of the Deceased alone has to be taken into consideration to decide the appropriate multiplier to compute compensation payable to the legal representatives of the Deceased.

19. In view of the principles of law laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme

Court in Amrit Bhanu Shali and another v. National Insurance Company

Limited and others (2012 (2) An.W.R.291-SC)” this Tribunal is unable to agree with the above submissions of the learned counsel for the 3rd

Respondent and this Tribunal holds that the age of the Deceased alone has tobe taken into consideration to decide the appropriate multiplier to compute compensation payable to the Petitioners 1 and 2. This Tribunal while answering the Issue No.2 already held that the age of the Deceased was 28 years as on the date of his death. In Sarla Verma and others Vs. Delhi

Transport Corporation and another (2009 ACJ 1298) the Hon’ble

Supreme Court held that the relevant multiplier to the persons in the age group of 26 to 30 years is “17”. If the net contribution of the Deceased to his 10 family per annum ie., Rs.23,400/- is multiplied with the relevant multiplier “17” (23,400 X 17) it comes to Rs.3,97,800/-. Hence this Tribunal holds that the Petitioners 1 and 2 are entitled to a sum of Rs.3,97,800/- as compensation under the head of loss of dependency in view of the death of the Deceased in a motor vehicle accident.

20. In Rajesh and another v. Rajbir Sing and others (2013 (4)

APLJ 35–SC) the Hon’ ble Supreme Court held that awarding an amount of

Rs.25,000/- towards funeral expenses, awarding an amount of Rs.1,00,000/- towards loss of estate and awarding an amount of Rs.1,00,000/- towards consortium is just and reasonable. So in view of the principle of law laid down by the Supreme Court in Rajesh and another v. Rajbir Sing and others (2013 (4) APLJ 35 –SC) this Tribunal is of the view that the Petitioners 1 and 2 are entitled to a sum of Rs.25,000/- under the head of funeral expenses of the Deceased and they are further entitled to a sum of Rs.1,00,000/- under the head of loss to the estate of the Deceased in addition to the above said compensation amount of Rs.3,97,800/- which was awarded under the head of loss of dependency. Hence this Tribunal holds that the Petitioners 1 and 2 are entitled to a sum of Rs.5,22,800/- in total as compensation in view of the death of the deceased in a motor vehicle accident which took place on 27.3.2011.

21. The contention of the Petitioners 1 and 2 is that the 1st

Respondent was the driver, the 2nd Respondent was the owner and the 3rd

Respondent was the insurer of the said Tipper lorry bearing No. AP 16 W 2258 as on the date of the said accident and as the Deceased died in a motor vehicle accident due to the rash and negligent driving of the said Tipper lorry bearing No. AP 16 W 2258 by the 1st Respondent, all the Respondents 1 to 3 are jointly and severally liable to pay compensation to them as claimed by them in this claim application. The 1st Petitioner who was examined as P.w.1 deposed the same facts on oath in her evidence. A perusal of Ex.A.1 to Ex.A.4 and Ex.A.6 documents goes to show that the 1st Respondent was the driver 11 and the 2nd Respondent was the owner of the said Tipper lorry bearing No. AP 16 W 2258 at the time of the said accident. A perusal of Ex.B.1 document goes to show that the said Tipper lorry bearing No. AP 16 W 2258 was insured with the 3rd Respondent and the said insurance policy was in force and was subsisting as on the date of the said accident. Admittedly the 3rd Respondent did not let in any iota of evidence either oral or documentary to prove that there are any violation to the terms and conditions of the insurance policy on the part of the 2nd Respondent who was the owner of the said Tipper lorry bearing No. AP 16 W 2258 as on the date of the said accident. So this Tribunal is of the view that the 1st Respondent being the driver and the 2nd Respondent being the owner of the said Tipper lorry bearing No. AP 16 W 2258 are jointly and severally liable to pay the said compensation amount of Rs.5,22,800/- to the Petitioners 1 and 2 and the 3rd Respondent being the insurer of the said

Tipper lorry bearing No. AP 16 W 2258 is liable to indemnify the 2nd

Respondent in payment of the said compensation amount of Rs.5,22,800/- to the Petitioners 1 and 2.

22. In view of the foregoing reasons this Tribunal holds that the 1st

Petitioner is entitled to a sum of Rs.5,22,800/- as compensation in view of the death of the deceased in a motor vehicle accident and the Respondents 1 to 3 are jointly and severally are liable to pay the said amount of Rs.5,22,800/- as compensation to the Petitioners 1 and 2. The Issue No.3 is answered accordingly.

23.ISSUE NO.4:

In View of the findings of this Tribunal on issues 1 to 3, this Tribunal holds that the claim application of the Petitioners 1 and 2 is deserved to be allowed partly with proportionate costs.

In the result, the claim application of the petitioners 1 and 2 is partly allowed with proportionate costs as follows:

12

i)An amount of Rs.5,22,800/- is awarded as compensation to the petitioners 1 and 2 in view of the death of the Deceased in a motor vehicle accident, which took place on 27.3.2011.

ii)The Respondents 1 to 3 are directed to pay the said compensation amount of Rs.5,22,800/- with interest at the rate of 8% per annum from the date of the filing of the claim application ie., from 18.8.2011 till the date of the realization.

iii)The Respondents 1 to 3 are directed to deposit the said compensation amount of Rs.5,22,800/- accrued interest thereon and costs of the claim application within 30 days from the date of the Judgment.

iv)On such deposit, as the 2nd Petitioner died during the course of the pendency of the claim application, the entire compensation amount of

Rs.5,22,800/- accrued interest thereon and costs of the claim application are apportioned to the 1st Petitioner as she is the only legal representative of the

Deceased.

v)Considering the age of the 1st Petitioner and considering the fact that she lost her only son and her husband within a short span of time, the 1st

Petitioner is permitted to withdraw the entire compensation amount of

Rs.5,22,800/- interest accrued thereon and costs of the claim application immediately.

vi)Rest of the claim of the Petitioners 1 and 2 is dismissed without costs; vii)Advocate fee is fixed at Rs.5,000/-.

Dictated to the Personal Assistant, transcribed by him, corrected and

pronounced by me in the open Court, this the 29th day of April, 2015.

Chairman, Motor Accident Claims Tribunal,

Cum - XIV Addl. District Judge,

VIJAYAWADA.

13

Appendix of Evidence:

Witnesses examined:

For Petitioner:

PW1 – Banavathu Sakkubai.

P.w.2: P. Ramulu.

For Respondents: …NIL..

Exhibits Marked

For Petitioner:

Ex.A.1: Copy of the FIR in Cr.No.190/2011 of I Town Police Station. Ex.A.2: Copy of the inquest report on the dead body of the Deceased. Ex.A.3: Copy of the Postmortem report on the dead body of the Deceased. Ex.A.4: Copy of the MVI report in Cr.No.190/2011 of I Town Police Station. Ex.A.5: Letter dated 3.10.2010 which was executed by one V. Murali Krishna in favour of the Deceased. Ex.A.6: Copy of the charge sheet in Cr.No.190/2011 of I Town Police Station.

Document marked for the Respondents:

Ex.B.1: Copy of the insurance policy of the Tipper lorry bearing No. AP 16 W 2258.

Chairman, MACT-Cum-

XIV A.D.J, VJA.

BEFORE THE CHAIRMAN, MOTOR ACCIDENTS CLAIMS TRIBUNAL :

CUM: XIV ADDL. DISTRICT JUDGE , VIJAYAWADA.

PRESENT:- SRI. C B SATYANARAYANA, B.Com., B.L.,

XIV Additional District Judge, Vijayawada

Thursday, this the 30 th day of April, 2015

MVOP NO. 835 of 2011

Between:

1. Gajjarapu Satya Prasanna.

2. Gajjarapu Hariyanth.

3. Gajjarapu Bhumika.

4. Gajjarapu Vijaya Kumari.

5. Gajjarapu Venkata Ramana.

(Petitioners 2 and 3 are being minors represented by their mother and natural guardian ie., 1st Petitioner)

.. Petitioners.

And

1. Vasa Samuelu Jaya Kumar.

2. The New India Assurance Company Limited Represented by its Divisional Manager, Vijayawada.

…Respondents.

This petition came for final hearing before me on 22.4.2015 in the presence of Sri S. Durga Srinivasa Rao, Advocate for the Petitioners 1 to 5 and of Sri B.V.S.R. Prasad, Advocate for the 2nd Respondent and 1st Respondent remained exparte and upon perusing the material on record, and considering the connected material papers and submissions of both side counsel and the mater having stood over till this day for consideration, this tribunal delivered the following:

J U D G M E N T

The Petitioners 1 to 5 filed this claim application under section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act claiming an amount of Rs.10,00,000/- as compensation in view the death one G. Venkateswara Rao @ Srinivasa Rao in a motor vehicle accident, which took place on the intervening night of 26/27.4.2010 at about 1.15 A.M.

2. The contention of the Petitioners 1 to 5 in brief is as follows:

The Petitioners 1 to 5 are residents of Mallikharjunapet area in

Vijayawada City. One G. Venkateswara Rao @ Srinivasa Rao, who will be hereinafter referred to as the “Deceased” was the husband of the 1st Petitioner.

The Petitioners 2 and 3 are the minor children of the Deceased through the 1st 2

Petitioner. The Petitioners 4 and 5 are the parents of the Deceased. On the intervening night of 26/27.4.2010 at about 1.15 A.M. while the Deceased and some other persons were going to Eluru from Vijayawada in an Auto bearing

No. AP 37 TB 1357 and when the said Auto bearing No. AP 37 TB 4357 reached near Narasannapalem Cross road on the NH-5 road, the 1st Respondent who was the driver-cum-owner of the said Auto bearing No. AP 27 TB 1357 drove it in a rash and negligent manner and at high speed and tried to overtake a lorry which was going in front of the said Auto due to which the 1st Respondent lost control over the said Auto and the said Auto turned turtle and the Deceased and another person who were travelling in the said Auto sustained multiple grievous injuries and died on the spot and the other persons who were travelling along with the Deceased in the said Auto also sustained grievous injuries. The Deceased was aged about 35 years and he was doing business in spices and he was earning Rs.10,000/- per month as on the date of the said accident. The Petitioners 1 to 5 are the dependants on the income of the

Deceased and due to the sudden demise of the Deceased in a motor vehicle accident, the Petitioners 1 to 5 were put to much hardship and they have been suffering from starvation since the date of the death of the Deceased. The 1st

Respondent was the driver-cum-owner and the 2nd Respondent was the insurer of the said Auto bearing No. AP 37 TB 1357 as on the date of the said accident.

So the Respondents 1 and 2 are jointly and severally liable to pay compensation to the Petitioners 1 to 5 as claimed by them in this claim application in view of the death of the deceased in a motor vehicle accident.

Hence the claim application of the Petitioners 1 to 5 may be allowed and compensation may be awarded to the Petitioners 1 to 5 as claimed by them in their claim application.

3. After receiving the notice of this claim application, the 1st Respondent did not choose to contest this claim application and he remained exparte. The 2nd Respondent put its appearance through its counsel and got filed its written statement through its counsel.

3

4. The contention of the 2nd Respondent in brief as per its written statement is as follows:

It is absolutely false to allege that on the intervening night of 26/27.4.2010 at about 1.15 A.M. the 1st Respondent drove the Auto bearing

No. AP 37 TB 1357 in a rash and negligent manner and at high speed due to which the said Auto bearing No. AP 37 TB 1357 met with a motor vehicle accident and the Deceased died in the said motor vehicle accident. In fact at the time of the said accident more than seven members were travelling in the said Auto bearing No. AP 37 TB 1357 and the said accident took place due to overload of the passengers in the said Auto and there was no rashness or negligence on the part of the 1st Respondent to occur the said accident. So the Petitioners 1 to 5 are not at all entitled to claim any compensation from the 2nd Respondent as claimed by them in this claim application and the

Petitioners 1 to 5 have no cause of action to file this claim application against the 2nd Respondent. The Petitioners 1 to 5 have to prove the age, avocation and earnings of the Deceased as on the date of the said accident. The

Petitioners 1 to 5 have to further prove that the 1st Respondent possessed a valid and effective driving license to drive the said Auto bearing No. AP 37 TB 1357 as on the date of the said accident and they have to further prove that said Auto bearing No. AP 37 TB 1357 possessed a valid permit and valid fitness certificate to ply as on the date of the said accident and the said Auto bearing No. AP 37 TB 1357 was insured with the 2nd Respondent and the said insurance policy was in force and was subsisting as on the date of the said accident. The amount of compensation and rate of interest claimed by the

Petitioners 1 to 5 are highly excessive. Hence the claim application of the

Petitioners 1 to 5 may be dismissed against the 2nd Respondent.

5. After perusing the averments in the claim application of the

Petitioners 1 to 5 and the averments in the written statement of the 2nd

Respondent and after hearing both side counsel, the following issues 1 to 4 were framed for trial:

4 1.Whether the Deceased Gajjarapu Venkateswara Rao died in a motor vehicle accident on the intervening night of 26/27.4.2010 at about 1.15 A.M. near Narasannapalem cross road on the NH-5 road due to the rash and negligent driving of the Auto bearing No. AP 37 TB 1357 by 1st Respondent ?

2. What is the correct age and income of the Deceased by the date of accident ?

3. Whether the Petitioners 1 to 5 are entitled to the compensation as prayed for ? If so, from whom ?

4. To what relief?

6. During the time of trial of the claim application on behalf of the

Petitioners 1 to 5, P.w.1 and P.w.2 were examined and Ex.A.1 to Ex.A.7 documents were marked. On behalf of the 2nd Respondent, R.w.1 and R.w.2 were examined and exhibited Ex.B.1 to Ex.B.4, Ex.X.1 and Ex.X.2 documents were marked.

7. The learned counsel for the Petitioners 1 to 5 and the learned counsel for the Respondents 1 and 2 submitted their arguments when this

Tribunal took this claim application for final hearing.

8. As per the orders of this Tribunal in IA.581/2015 the 2nd Respondent was permitted under Section 170 of the Motor Vehicles Act to contest this claim application on all grounds which are available to the 1st Respondent who was the owner of the crime vehicle ie., Auto bearing No. AP 37 TB 1357 as on the date of the said accident.

9. ISSUE NO.1:

The contention of the Petitioners 1 to 5 is that the Deceased died in a motor vehicle accident on the intervening night of 26/27.4.2010 at about 1.15

A.M. due to the rash and negligent driving of the Auto bearing No. AP 37 TB 1357 by the 1st Respondent. Inorder to prove their contention the Petitioners relied on the oral evidence of P.w.1 and P.w.2 and on the contents in Ex.A.1 to

Ex.A.7 documents. P.w.1 G. Satya Prasanna is the 1st Petitioner in this claim application. P.w.2 M. Srinivasarao is said to be one of the direct witnesses to the said accident. P.w.1 and P.w.2 in their chief examination categorically deposed on oath that on the intervening night of 26/27.4.2010 at about 1.15

A.M. the 1st Respondent drove the said Auto bearing No. AP 37 TB 1357 in a 5 rash and negligent manner and at high speed due to which the said Auto turned turtle and the Deceased who was travelling in the said Auto sustained severe injuries and succumbed to those injuries. Though the oral evidence of

P.w.1 and P.w.2 in their chief examination was subjected to extensive cross examination ion behalf of the 2nd Respondent, nothing was elicited to prove that there was no rashness or negligence on the part of the 1st Respondent to occur the said accident and nothing was elicited to prove that the said accident took place due to overload of the passengers in the said Auto bearing

No. AP 37 TB 1357 as on the date of the said accident.

10. Further a perusal of Ex.A.1, Ex.A.3 and Ex.A.4 documents goes to show that the Sub Inspector of Police of Hanuman Junction Police Station launched prosecution against the 1st Respondent alleging that on the intervening night of 26/27.4.2010 at about 1.15 A.M. the 1st Respondent drove the said Auto bearing No. AP 37 TB 1357 in a rash and negligent manner and at high speed due to which the said Auto turned turtle and the Deceased and other persons who were travelling the in said Auto sustained severe injuries and the Deceased and another passengers in the said Auto succumbed to those injuries and thereby the 1st Respondent has committed an offence punishable under Section 304-A and 338 of the Indian Penal Code. Though the contents in Ex.A.1, Ex.A.3 and Ex.A.4 documents were subjected to extensive cross examination on behalf of the 2nd Respondent nothing was elicited either to shatter or discredit the same and nothing was elicited to prove that the

Deceased died in a motor vehicle accident on the intervening night of 26/27.4.2010 at about 1.15 A.M. due to the overload of the passengers in the said Auto at the time of the said accident.

11. But the learned counsel for the 2nd Respondent vehemently contended that there was no rashness or negligence on the part of the 1st

Respondent to occur the said accident and the said accident occurred due to overload of the passengers in the said Auto at the time of the accident and the 6 contents in the claim application of the Petitioners 1 to 5 and the evidence adduced on behalf of the Petitioners 1 to 5 categorically goes to show that more than seven persons were travelling in the said Auto bearing No. AP 37 TB 1357 at the time of the accident and the seating capacity of the Auto is only for four passengers including driver and there was no rashness or negligence on the part of the 1st Respondent to occur the said accident and the Petitioners 1 to 5 have no cause of action file this claim application against the 2nd

Respondent.

12. In support of his contention, the learned counsel for the 2nd

Respondent relied on the oral evidence of R.w.1 and R.w.2 and Ex.B.1 to

Ex.B.4 and Ex.X.1 and Ex.X.2 documents. R.w.1 I.J. Ramesh Kumar is working as Assistant Manager in the office of the 2nd Respondent. R.w.2 B.S.K.

Prabhakara Lingam is working as Senior Assistant in the office of the Deputy

Transport Commissioner in Eluru. R.w.1 I.J. Ramesh Kumar deposed in his evidence that the said accident took place due to over load of the passengers in the Auto bearing No. AP 37 TB 1357 at the time of the accident. Admittedly

R.w.1 is not a direct witness to the said accident and he gave his evidence as per the records available in the office of the 2nd Respondent. Likewise R.w.2

Prabhakara Limgam deposed in his evidence regarding the seating capacity of the said Auto bearing No. AP 37 TB 1357 and he did not depose anything regarding the manner of the said accident and he is not a direct witness to the said accident. So this Tribunal is of the view that the 2nd Respondent did not adduce cogent evidence to prove that the said accident took place due to overload of the passengers and the overload of the passengers is the only cause to occur the said accident. Hence this Tribunal is unable to agree with the above submissions of the learned counsel for the 2nd Respondent regarding the manner of the said accident. Hence after considering the entire oral and documentary evidence adduced on behalf of the both parties and considering the submissions of both side counsel, this Tribunal holds that the

Deceased died in a motor vehicle accident on the intervening night of 7 26/27.4.2010 at about 1.15 A.M. due to the rash and negligent driving of the

Auto bearing No. AP 37 TB 1357 by the 1st Respondent. Issue No.1 is answered accordingly.

13.ISSUE NO.2:

The Petitioners 1 to 5 claimed an amount Rs.10,00,000/- as compensation in view of the death of the Deceased in a motor vehicle accident, which took place on the intervening night of 26/27.4.2010 at about 1.15 A.M.. The contention of the Petitioners 1 to 5 is that the Deceased was aged about 35 years and he was earning Rs.10,000/- per month by “doing business in Spices” as on the date of the said accident. P.w.1 and P.w.2 deposed the same facts on oath in their evidence. As rightly contended by the learned counsel for the 2nd Respondent, the Petitioners 1 to 5 did not choose to let in any iota of evidence either oral or documentary to prove the avocation and earnings of the Deceased as on the date of the said accident. So this

Tribunal is of the view that the income of the Deceased can be assessed notionally as Rs.3,000/- per month at the rate of Rs.100/- per day because even an un-skilled agricultural labourer could earn not less than Rs.100/- per day during the year, 2011 in which year the said accident took place. Hence this Tribunal holds that the monthly income of the petitioner as on the date of the said accident was Rs.3,000/- and his annual income was Rs.36,000/-.

14. In Ex.A.2 copy of the Postmortem report of the Deceased the age of the Deceased was mentioned as 35 years and in Ex.A.4 copy of the inquest report of the Deceased, the age of the Deceased was mentioned as 35 years as on the date of the said accident. Admittedly the originals of Ex.A.2 and

Ex.A.4 documents were prepared by the Public Servants during the course of discharging of their official duties. So this Tribunal is of the view that reliance can be placed on the contents in Ex.A.2 and Ex.A.4 documents. Hence after considering the contents in Ex.A.2 and Ex.A.4 documents, this tribunal is of the 8 view that the age of the Deceased was 35 years as on the date of the said accident. Issue No.2 is answered accordingly.

15. In Sarla Verma and others Vs. Delhi Transport Corporation and another (2009 ACJ 1298) the Hon’ble Supreme Court held that when the number of the dependant family members of the Deceased is 2 to 5, 1/4th income of the Deceased has to be deducted towards his personal and living expenses had he been alive. If 1/4th income is deducted from the annual income of the Deceased towards the personal and living expenses of the

Deceased (Rs.36,000 – 9,000/-) it comes to Rs.27,000/-. Hence this Tribunal holds that the net contribution of the Deceased to his family members as on the date of the said accident was Rs.27,000/- per annum.

16. In Sarla Verma and others Vs. Delhi Transport Corporation and another (2009 ACJ 1298), the Hon’ble Supreme Court held that the relevant multiplier to the persons in the age group of 30 to 35 years is “16”. If the net contribution of the Deceased to his family members per annum ie.,

Rs.27,000/- is multiplied with the relevant multiplier “16” it comes to (27,000/-

X 16) to Rs.4,32,000/-. Hence this Tribunal holds that the Petitioners 1 to 5 are entitled to a sum of Rs.4,32,000/- as compensation in view of the death of the Deceased in a motor vehicle accident, which took place on the intervening night of 26/27.4.2010 at about 1.15 A.M under the head of loss of dependency.

In addition to the above said amount of Rs.4,32,000/-, this Tribunal holds that the Petitioners 1 to 5 are entitled to a sum of Rs.5,000/- towards funeral expenses of the Deceased, they are further entitled to a sum of Rs.5,000/- towards loss to the estate of the Deceased and the 1st Petitioner is entitled to a sum of Rs.10,000/- towards loss of consortium as laid down by the Hon’ble

Supreme Court in Sarla Verma and others Vs. Delhi Transport

Corporation and another (2009 ACJ 1298). Hence this Tribunal holds that the Petitioners 1 to 5 are entitled to a sum of Rs.4,52,000/- in total as compensation in view of the death of the Deceased in a motor vehicle 9 accident which took place on the intervening night of 26/27.4.2010 at about 1.15 A.M.

17. The contention of the Petitioners 1 to 5 is that the 1st Respondent was the driver-cum-owner and the 2nd Respondent was the insurer of the said

Auto bearing No. AP 37 TB 1357 which involved in the said accident and the

Respondents 1 and 2 are jointly and severally liable to pay compensation to them as claimed by them in their claim application. The 1st Petitioner who was examined as P.w.1 deposed the same facts on oath in her evidence. A perusal of Ex.A.5 document goes to show that the 1st Respondent was the owner of the said Auto bearing No. AP 37 TB 1357 and the said Auto bearing No. AP 37 TB 1357 was insured with the 2nd Respondent and the said insurance policy was inforce and was subsisting as on the date of the said accident. A perusal of

Ex.A.5 document goes to show that the driver of the said Auto bearing No. AP 37 TB 1357 possessed a valid and effective driving license as on the date of the said accident. So after considering the entire oral and documentary evidence available on record, this Tribunal holds that the 1st Respondent being the owner of the said Auto bearing No. AP 37 TB 1357 is liable to pay the said amount of Rs.4,52,000/- as compensation to the Petitioners 1 to 5 in view of the death of the Deceased in a motor vehicle accident and the 2nd Respondent being the insurer of the said Auto bearing No. AP 37 TB 1357 is liable to indemnify the 1st Respondent in payment of said amount of Rs.4,52,000/- as compensation to the Petitioners 1 to 5.

18. In view of the foregoing reasons this Tribunal holds that the

Petitioners 1 to 5 are entitled to a sum of Rs.4,52,000/- as compensation in view of the death of the deceased in a motor vehicle accident and the

Respondents 1 and 2 are liable to pay the said amount of Rs.4,52,000/- as compensation to the Petitioners 1 to 5. The Issue No.3 is answered accordingly.

10 19.ISSUE NO.4:

In View of the findings of this Tribunal on issues 1 to 3, this Tribunal holds that the claim application of the Petitioners 1 and 2 is deserved to be allowed partly with proportionate costs.

20. In the result, the claim application of the petitioners 1 to 5 is partly allowed with proportionate costs as follows:

i)An amount of Rs.4,52,000/- is awarded as compensation to the petitioners 1 to 5 in view of the death of the Deceased in a motor vehicle accident, which took place on the intervening night of 26/27.4.2010.

ii)The Respondents 1 and 2 are directed to pay the said compensation amount of Rs.4,52,000/- to the Petitioners 1 to 5 with interest at the rate of 8% per annum from the date of the filing of the claim application ie., from 14.11.2011 till the date of the realization.

iii)The Respondents 1 and 2 are directed to deposit the said compensation amount of Rs.4,52,000/- accrued interest thereon and costs of the claim application within 30 days from the date of the Judgment.

iv)On such deposit out of the total compensation amount of Rs.4,52,000/- an amount of Rs.2,02,000/- interest accrued on the entire compensation amount of Rs.4,52,000/- and costs of the claim application are apportioned to the 1st Petitioner. An amount of Rs.50,000/- is apportioned to the 2nd

Petitioner, an amount of Rs.50,000/- is apportioned to the 3rd Petitioner, an amount of Rs.75,000/- is apportioned to the 4th Petitioner and an amount of

Rs.75,000/- is apportioned to the 5th Petitioner.

v)The 1st Petitioner is entitled to withdraw the amount of Rs.2,02,000/-, interest accrued on the total compensation amount of Rs.4,52,000/- and costs of the claim application immediately. Likewise the Petitioners 4 and 5 are entitled to withdraw Rs.75,000/- each which the compensation amount apportioned to each of them immediately.

11 vi)An amount of Rs.50,000/- which is apportioned to the 2nd Petitioner and an amount of Rs.50,000/- which is apportioned to the 3rd Petitioner shall be invested in fixed deposits in any Nationalized Bank till they attain majority.

The 1st Petitioner is at liberty to withdraw the interests of the above said amount of the Petitioners 2 and 3 once in a three months and she shall spend the said interest amount for the education and welfare of the Petitioners 2 and 3.

vii)The rest of the claim of the Petitioners 1 to 5 is dismissed without costs;

and

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

Dictated to the Personal Assistant, transcribed by him, corrected and

pronounced by me in the open Court, this the 30th day of April, 2015.

Chairman, Motor Accident Claims Tribunal,

Cum - XIV Addl. District Judge,

VIJAYAWADA.

Appendix of Evidence:

Witnesses examined:

For Petitioner:

P.w.1: G. Satya Prasanna. P.w.2: M. Srinivasa Rao.

For Respondents:

R.w.1: I.J. Ramesh Kumar.

R.w.2: B.S.K. Prabhakara Lingam.

Exhibits Marked

For Petitioner:

Ex.A.1: Attested copy of the FIR in Crime No.66/2010 of Hanuman Junction police station, Krishna District. Ex.A.2: Attested copy of the postmortem report of the Deceased. Ex.A.3: Attested copy of the M.V.I. report. Ex.A.4: Attested copy of Inquest report of the Deceased. Ex.A.5: Copy of the driving license of the 1st Respondent. Ex.A.6: Copy of the insurance policy of the Auto bearing No. AP 37 TB 1357. Ex.A.7: Xerox copy of the R.C. book of the Auto bearing No. AP 37 TB 1357.

12

Document marked for the Respondents:

Ex.B.1: Election card of the P.w.1. Ex.B.2: Copy of the insurance policy of the Auto bearing No. AP 37 TB 1357. Ex.B.3: Copy of the driving license particulars of one Samuyelu Jay Kumar Vasa. Ex.B.4: Copy of the Form No.24 under “B” Register of the Auto bearing No. AP 37 TB 1357.

Ex.X.1: Authorization letter which was issued to R.w.2 by Deputy Transport Commissioner, Eluru. Ex.X.2: Extract of the ‘B’ Register of the Auto bearing No. AP 37 TB 1357.

Chairman, MACT-Cum-

XIV A.D.J,VJA.

IN THE COURT OF THE XIV ADDITIONAL DISTRICT JUDGE,

VIJAYAWADA

Present:- Sri C.B.SATYANARAYANA, B.Com,B.L,

XIV Additional District Judge, Vijayawada.

Thursday this the 30 th day of April 2015

O.S.No.417/2014

Between:

Kodali Naga Sujatha, W/o. Raju, ::Plaintiff.

Hindu, Aged 37 years, R/o.Postal

Colony, Seetharamanagar, Kurnool.

And

1SukavasiHemalatha,W/o.late ::Defendants.

Gangadhar, Age 45 years, R/o.

Gollapudi , Krishna District.

2Sukavasi Himanth Sai Nadh, S/o. late

Gangadhar, Age 23 years, R/o.

Gollapudi, Krishna District.

3Sukavasi Leela Srinivas, S/o. late

Gangadhar, Age 22 years, R/o.

Gollapudi, Krishna District.

4Sukavasi Revathi, D/o.late Gangadhar

Age 21 years, R/o. Gollapudi, Krishna

District.

This suit came before me for final hearing on 24-4-2015 in the presence of Sri B. Nageswara Rao, Advocate for the Plaintiff and the right of the Defendants 1 to 4 to file their written statement in this suit was forfeited and the Defendants 1 to 4 did not choose to contest this suit and remained exparte and upon perusing the entire material on record and upon hearing the learned counsel for the Plaintiff and this suit having stood over for consideration till this day, this Court delivered the following:

J U D G M E N T

(1)The Plaintiff filed this suit against the Defendants 1 to 4 for Specific Performance of Agreement of sale dated 19-6-2014. The contention of the plaintiff in brief as follows:

(2)The 1st Defendant is the wife and the Defendants 2 to 4 are the children of one late Sukavasi Gangadhar. The said Sukavasi 2

Gangadhar was the absolute owner of the plaint schedule property which is an extent of 292.72 square yards of vacant house site and which is situated at Door No.41-20/10-25 at Krishnalanka in Vijayawada which will be herein after referred to as the “suit property” for the sake of convenience. The above said Sukavasi Gangadhar died intestate on 2-6-2010 leaving behind him the Defendants 1 to 4 as his only legal heirs. Thus the Defendants 1 to 4 succeeded in the entire estate of Sukavasi Gangadhar including the suit property and they have been in possession and enjoyment of the same.

(B)The Defendants 1 to 4 offered to sell the suit property toi the plaintiff to meet their family necessities. The plaintiff also agreed to purchase the suit property from the Defendants 1 to 4 for a valuable consideration of Rs.80,00,000/-. On 19-6-2014 the plaintiff and the

Defendants 1 to 4 entered into an agreement of sale regarding the suit property and the Defendants 1 to 4 agreed to sell the suit property to the plaintiff for a valuble consideration of Rs.80,00,000/- and on the same day i.e. on 19-6-2014 they received an amount of Rs.20,00,000/-as advance from the plaintiff and they executed an agreement of sale in favour of the plaintiff on 19-6-2014.

(C) As per the terms and conditions of the said agreement of sale dated 19-6-2014 the plaintiff has to get ready with the balance of consideration of Rs.60,00,000/- within 90 days from the date of the said agreement of sale and the Defendants after receiving the said balance of sale consideration of Rs.60,00,000/- from the plaintiff has to execute a sale deed in respect of the suit property either in favour of the plaintiff or in favour his nominee at the expenses of the plaintiff and has to get register the same at the expenses of the plaintiff within 90 days from the date of the agreement of sale. The plaintiff on 17-9-2014 approached the

Defendants 1 to 4 and expressed her readiness and willingness to perform her part of contract and requested the Defendants 1 to 4 to receive the 3 balance of sale consideration of Rs.60,00,000/- and to execute a sale deed in respect of the suit property in her favour and to get register the same.

The Defendants 1 to 4 requested the plaintiff to give 10 days time to them to execute sale deed in respect of the suit property and to get it register due to their personal difficulties and made an endorsement to that effect on the agreement of sale deed dated 19-6-2014.

(D)After expiry of said ten days period, the plaintiff again approached the Defendants 1 to 4 and requested them to receive the balance of sale consideration of Rs.60,00,000/- and to perform their part of contract. But the Defendants 1 to 4 did not come forward to perform their part of contract and they postponed the same on one pretext or other. On enquiries the plaintiff reliably learnt that the Defendants 1 to 4 are trying to alienate the suit property to some third parties for some higher price by suppressing the agreement of sale dated 19-6-2014 which was executed by them in favour of the plaintiff in view of the escalation of prices of immovable properties in and around at Vijayawada. So the plaintiff got issued a notice in Sakshi Telugu Daily news paper dated 24-9-2014 informing the general public about the agreement of sale dated 19-6-2014 in between her and the Defendants 1 to 4 in respect of the suit property and calling upon the Defendants 1 to 4 to perform their part of contract in pursuance of the agreement of sale dated 19-6-2014. Even after issue of the said notice by way of publication in Sakshi Telugu Daily dated 24-9-2014 the Defendants 1 to 4 did not come forward to perform their part of contract. So the plaintiff filed this suit for specific performance of agreement of sale dated 19-6-2014.

(3)After receiving the suit summons, the Defendants 1 to 4 put their appearance through their counsel and sought time to file their written statements. But the Defendants 1 to 4 did not choose to file their written statements though more than 90 days time was given to them from 4 the date of receiving the suit summons in this suit to file their written statements. So on 23-2-2015 this Court forfeited the rights of the

Defendants 1 to 4 to file their written statements in this suit.

(4)In order to prove her contention the plaintiff herself was examined as p.w-1 and exhibited Ex.A1 to Ex.A8 documents. In her evidence the plaintiff who was examined as p.w-1 almost all reiterated the entire averments in the plaint. A perusal of Ex.A1 document goes to show that the Defendants 1 to 4 entered into an agreement of sale with the plaintiff on 19-6-2014 agreeing to sell the suit property to the plaintiff for a sum of Rs.80,00,000/- and received an amount of Rs.20,00,000/- as advance from the plaintiff. Admittedly the oral evidence of p.w-1 and the contents in Ex.A1 document remains unchallenged and un-rebutted as the

Defendants 1 to 4 did not choose to get cross examined the same and did not choose to let in any iota of evidence either oral or documentary to rebut the same.

(5)So after considering the unchallenged and unrebutted testimony of p.w-1 coupled with the contents in Ex.A1 document,this court holds that the plaintiff is entitled to the relief of Specific performance of agreement of sale dated 19-6-2014 as prayed for and the plaintiff's suit is deserved to be decreed accordingly.

In the result, the plaintiff's suit is decreed with costs as follows:

(I)Specific Performance is hereby granted to the suit agreement of sale dated 19-6-2014 and the Defendants 1 to 4 are directed to execute a sale deed or sale deeds in respect of the plaint schedule property either in favour of the plaintiff or in favour of her nominees at her expenses and get register the same at the expenses of the plaintiff within two months from the date of the judgment i.e. on or before 1-7-2015; (II)If the Defendants 1 to 4 fail to execute a sale deed and to fail to get it register in respect of the plaint schedule property on or 5

before 1-7-2015 as directed by this Court, the plaintiff is entitled

to get those reliefs after 1-7-2015 through due process of Law; (III)The plaintiff is directed to deposit the balance of sale consideration of Rs.60,00,000/- within 45 days from the date of the judgment i.e. on or before 15-6-2015; (IV)The Defendants 1 to 4 are at liberty to withdraw the said balance of sale consideration of Rs.60,00,000/- after execution of the sale deed and after get it register in respect of the plaint schedule property in favour of the plaintiff or in favour of her nominees as directed by this Court;

Typed to my dictation by the Typist, corrected by me and

pronounced by me in the Open Court, this the 30th day of April 2015.

XIV ADDL.DISTRICT JUDGE,

VIJAYAWADA.

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

Witness examined for the Plaintiff: P.W-1Kodali Naga Sujatha.

Witness examined for the Defendants 1 to 4: NONE.

Documents marked for the Plaintiff. Ex.A119-6-2014Agreement of sale which was executed by the Defendants 1 to 4 in favour of the plaintiff. Ex.A224-9-2014General Notice got issued by the Plaintiff through her counsel regarding the plaint schedule property in Sakshi Telugu Daily News paper. Ex.A324-9-2014Receipt for Rs.16,200/- towards publication charges to issue Ex.A2 notice. Ex.A4--Encumbrance certificate in respect of the plaint schedule property for the period from 1-5-1995 to 15-9-2014. Ex.A5--Copy of the Caveat Petition which was lodged by the Plaintiff in the II-Additional District Judge Court, Vijayawada. Ex.A67-7-2006Registration Extract of the Registered Rectification Deed which was executed by one Sukavasi Durgamba in favour of Sukavasi Gangadhar in respect of the plaint schedule property. Ex.A720-9-2010Copy of the Death certificate of late Sukavasi Gangadhar. Ex.A817-8-2010Copy of the Family members certificate of late Sukavasi Gangadhar. Documents marked for the Defendants 1 to 4 NONE.

XIV ADDL.D.J

VIJAYAWADA.

IN THE COURT OF THE XIV ADDITIONAL DISTRICT JUDGE: VIJAYAWADA

PRESENT: SRI C.B.SATYANARAYANA, B.Com. B.L., XIV Additional District Judge, Vijayawada.

Thursday, this the 30th day of April, 2015

O.S.No.348 of 2012

Between:

Agri Gold Foods and Farm Products Limited, Seeds Division Represented by its Managing Director, Vijayawada.

….. Plaintiff.

And

1) Global Crop Care, Flat No.E-6, Vijetha Enclave Apartments ITKI Road, Ranchi, Jharkhand State.

2) Naveen Kumar.

3) M/s. New Krishi Dhan, Represented by its Proprietorix, Shop No.1, Ranchi, Jharkhand.

4) Rajendra Kumar, Partner, Global Crop Care, Ranchi, Jharkhand.

….. Defendants.

The suit came for final hearing before me on 29.4.2015 in the presence of Sri P. Nagarajan, Advocate for the Plaintiff and the Defendants 1 to 4 remained exparte and upon perusing the material on record, and considering the connected material papers and submissions of both side counsel and the matter having stood over till this day for considering, this court delivered the following:

J U D G M E N T

The Plaintiff filed this Suit for recovery of an amount of

Rs.79,41,311/- being the principal and interest due under Katha transactions.

2. The contention of the Plaintiff in brief is as follows:

The Plaintiff is a registered Company under the Companies Act and it is doing business in producing and selling different varieties of seeds to the farmers through its Marketing Distributors and Retailers throughout India.

During the process of the business of the Plaintiff, the 1st Defendant which is a

Partnership Firm in which the Defendants 2 to 4 are partners purchased various kinds of Seed products like paddy, maize, onion and vegetables from the Plaintiff’s Company on different dates under different Credit invoices. The accounts of the Defendants 1 to 4 with the Plaintiff’s Company were settled in the presence of the 2nd Defendant and the 1st Defendant indebted an amount of Rs.46,24,211/- to the Plaintiff’s Company as on 30.9.2010 and 2 acknowledged the liability of the 1st Defendant Firm by way of executing a letter in favour of the Plaintiff’s Company for a sum of Rs.46,24,211/- and promised to pay the said amount by the end of March, 2011. Thereafter the

Defendants 1 to 4 failed to pay the said amount of Rs.46,24,211/- though the officials of the Plaintiff’s Company demanded them several times. So the

Plaintiff’s Company got issued a legal notices to the Defendants 1 to 4 demanding them to pay the said amount of Rs.46,24,211/- with interest at the rate of 24% per annum. Even after issue of the said notices, the Defendants 1 to 4 did not choose to pay any amount to the Plaintiff’s Company as demanded by it. So the Plaintiff filed the suit for recovery of the above said amount of Rs.46,24,211/- with interest and costs of the Suit. Hence the

Plaintiff’s suit may be decreed with costs as prayed by the Plaintiff.

3. After receiving the suit summons the 4th Defendant did not choose to appear before this Court and he was set exparte on 22.1.2013. The suit summons of the 3rd Defendant un-served with an endorsement “not claimed”. So this Court set the 3rd Defendant were returned exparte on 13.8.2013. As the summons which were issued to the Defendants 1 and 2 were returned un-served so many times, summons were issued to the

Defendants 1 and 2 by way of Publication in Hindu English Daily News Paper,

Kolkata Edition directing the Defendants 1 and 2 to appear before this Court on 21.4.2015 to give their answer to the claim of the Plaintiff in this Suit. On 21.4.2015 the Defendants 1 and 2 did not choose to appear before this Court and the Defendants 1 and 2 were set exparte on 21.4.2015.

4. In order to prove the case of the Plaintiff, one Kaja Kishore who is the authorized person of the Plaintiff’s Company filed his proof affidavit in lieu of chief examination of P.w.1 and Ex.A.1 to Ex.A.10 documents were marked on behalf of the Plaintiff.

5. The learned counsel for the plaintiff submitted arguments when this

Court took the suit for final hearing.

3

6. A perusal of oral evidence of P.w.1 goes to show that the 1st

Defendant firm which is represented by the Defendants 2 to 4 as its Partners purchased various kinds of seeds on credit from the Plaintiff’s Company and the 1st Defendant firm is liable to pay an amount of Rs.46,24,211/- to the

Plaintiff’s Company as on 30.9.2010 and it is liable to pay the said amount of

Rs.46,24,211/- with interest at the rate of 24% per annum. The contents in

Ex.A.1 to Ex.A.10 documents render support to the oral evidence of P.w.1.

Admittedly the oral evidence of P.w.1 and the contents in Ex.A.1 to Ex.A.10 documents remain un-challenged and un-rebutted, as the Defendants 1 to 4 did not choose to get cross examine the same and they did not choose to let in any iota of evidence either oral or documentary on their behalf and they did not chose to contest the Suit and remained exparte. Hence after considering the un-challenged and un-rebutted testimony of P.w.1 coupled with the contents in Ex.A.1 to Ex.A.10 documents, this Court holds that the Plaintiff’s suit is deserved to be decreed with costs.

7. In the result, the Plaintiff’s Suit is decreed with costs for a sum of

Rs.79,41,311/- with interest at the rate of 12% per annum from the date of filing of the suit till the date of the decree and with subsequent interest at the rate of 6% per annum from the date of the decree till the date of realization on the principal sum of Rs.46,24,211/-.

Dictated to the Personal Assistant, transcribed by him, corrected and

pronounced by me in the open Court, this the 30th day of April, 2015.

XIV Addl. District Judge,

Vijayawada.

Appendix of evidence

For Plaintiffs:

P.w.1: Kaja Kishore.

For Defendant:--NIL…

Documents marked for Plaintiffs:

Ex.A.1: Copy of the certificate of incorporation of the Plaintiff’s Company.

Ex.A.2: Copy of the Authorization which was given by P.w.1 by the Board of the Directors of the Plaintiff Company.

4

Ex.A.3: Bunch of invoices 31 in number from 30.4.2008 to 12.8.2009.

Ex.A.4: Copy of the account copy of the 1st Defendant in the Plaintiff Company.

Ex.A.5: Statement of account of the 1st Defendant in the plaintiff company.

Ex.A.6: Letter of acknowledgment dated 1.10.2010 which was executed addressed to the 2nd Defendant.

Ex.A.7: Office copy of the legal notice dated 14.11.2011.

Ex.A.8: Bunch of Postal receipts 4 in number.

Ex.A.9: Office copy of the legal notice dated 29.6.2012 got issued by the Plaintiff to the Defendants 1 to 4.

Ex.A.10: Bunch of postal receipts 4 in number.

Documents marked for Defendant: … NIL…

XIV A.D.J.

VJA.

IN THE COURT OF THE XIV ADDITIONAL DISTRICT JUDGE : VIJAYAWADA

PRESENT: SRI C.B.SATYANARAYANA, B.Com., B.L.,

XIV Additional District Judge, Vijayawada.

Thursday, this the 30th day of April, 2015

A.O.P. NO.521/2014.

Between:

M/s. Shriram City Union Finance Limited,

Patamata, Vijayawada.

….. Petitioner.

AND

Sk. Chand Begum.

….. Respondent.

This petition came for final hearing before me on 29.4.2015 in the presence of Sri Dasari Rajasekhar, Advocate for the Petitioner and no representation on behalf of the Respondent and after considering the entire material available on record this Court delivered the following:

ORDER:

The Petitioner filed this petition under Section 9 of the

Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 to pass orders for conditional attachment of the petition schedule property.

2. The contention of the Petitioner in brief is as follows:

The Petitioner is a Registered Company which was incorporated under the Companies Act, 1956 and it is doing finance business. One Veerla

Ravi Teja approached the Petitioner’s Company and requested for sanction of vehicle loan to a tune of Rs.2,50,000/- to purchase TATA Safari vehicle bearing

No. AP 5A 9009. The Petitioner Company accepted the request of the said

Veerla Ravi Teja and sanctioned an amount of Rs.2,50,000/- as loan to the said

Veerla Ravi Teja to purchase the above said TATA Safari vehicle bearing No.

AP 5A 9009. The Respondent and one V. Naga Muni stood as guarantors to the above said Veerla Ravi Teja to discharge the said loan of Rs.2,50,000/- with interest at the rate of 16% per annum to the Petitioner’s company. The above said Veerla Ravi Teja and his two guarantors ie., the Respondent and 2 one V. Naga Muni executed necessary documents in favour of the Petitioner’s company with an undertaking to discharge the said debt of Rs.2,50,000/- with interest at the rate of 16% per annum. Thereafter the above said Veerla Ravi

Teja paid an amount of Rs.1,01,178/- to the Petitioner’s company towards the said loan covering 10 installments in full and a part of 11th installment and committed default in payment of further installments. So the Petitioner’s company issued notices to the said Veerla Ravi Teja and his two guarantors ie., to the Respondent herein and to one V. Naga Muni demanding them to pay remaining balance amount under the said loan. Even after issue of the said notices, the said Veerla Ravi Teja and his two guarantors did not choose to pay any amount to the Petitioner’s company to discharge the said loan. So the officials of the Petitioner’s company initiated arbitration proceedings before Sri

Dr T. Rama Raju, Retired District Judge, Vijayawada, who was appointed as sole Arbitrator to decide the dispute between the Petitioner’s company and the above said Veerla Ravi Teja and his two guarantors regarding the repayment of the said loan. Sri Dr T. Rama Raju, sole Arbitrator registered the claim of the Petitioner’s company as Arbitration Case No.10/2014 and initiated proceedings in the said Arbitration Case No.10/2014 against the said Veerla

Ravi Teja and his two guarantors. In the meanwhile the Respondent herein who is one of the guarantors to the said Veerla Ravi Teja is trying to alienate the petition schedule property with a malafide intention to cause obstruction or delay for execution of any award passed against her and against the said

Veerla Ravi Teja and V. Nagamuni in the said Arbitration Case No.10/2014.

Hence the petition schedule property may be attached before passing any award in the said Arbitration Case No.10/2014 under Section 9 of the

Arbitration and Conciliation act, 1996.

3. After receiving the notices of this petition, the Respondent put her appearance through her counsel and sought time for to file her counter but the Respondent did not choose to file her counter though several opportunities 3 were given to her. So this Court forfeited the right of the Respondent to file her counter in this petition.

4. In order to prove the contention of the Petitioner’s company, one S. Kanaka Ranga Rao, who is working as Senior Manager in the

Petitioner’s Company was examined as P.w.1 and exhibited Ex.A.1 to Ex.A.5 documents. In his evidence P.w.1 S. Kanaka Ranga Rao deposed on oath that the Respondent who is one of the guarantors to the loan of the above said

Veerla Ravi Teja, is trying to alienate the petition schedule property to obstruct the Petitioner’s company from executing any award which may be passed in Arbitration Case No.10/2014 against the Respondent and against the above said Veerla Ravi Teja and V. Nagamuni. Admittedly the oral evidence of

P.w.1 and the contents in Ex.A.1 to Ex.A.5 documents remained un-challenged and un-rebutted as the Respondent did not choose to get cross examine the same and did not choose to adduce any evidence on her behalf to rebut the oral and documentary evidence adduced on behalf of the Petitioner. So after considering the unchallenged and un-rebutted testimony of P.w.1 coupled with the contents in Ex.A.1 to Ex.A.5 documents, this Court holds that this petition is deserved to be allowed as prayed by the Petitioner.

5.In the result, this petition is allowed with costs and the petition schedule property is hereby attached subject to result of the Arbitration proceedings in the Arbitration Case No.10/2014 before sole Arbitrator Dr

T. Rama Raju, Retired District Judge, Vijayawada.

Dictated to the Personal Assistant, transcribed by him, corrected and

pronounced by me in the open court, on this the 30th day of April, 2015.

XIV ADDL.DIST. JUDGE ,

VIJAYAWADA.

Appendix of Evidence:

Witnesses examined:

Plaintiff: Defendant:

P.w.1: S. Kanaka Ranga Rao.

4

Documents marked:

Ex.A.1: Copy of the certificate of incorporation of the Petitioner’s company.

Ex.A.2: Copy of the G.P.A. which was executed by the Vice President of the

Petitioner’s Company in favour of P.w.1.

Ex.A.3: Copy of the loan cum Hypothecation agreement.

Ex.A.4: Copy of the demand promissory note date 6.1.2013.

Ex.A.5: Copy of the petition in Arbitration Claim No.10/2014 before Sri T.

Rama Raju, the Sole Arbitrator.

XIV ADJ,

VIJAYAWADA.