Smt.C.Rama Devi

A.S.No. 63 of 2016 1 II A.D.J.,

Dated 20-09-2018 W.G., Eluru

IN THE COURT OF II ADDITIONAL DISTRICT JUDGE,

 WEST GODAVARI DISTRICT, ELURU.

Present: Smt. C.RAMA DEVI, II Additional District Judge, West Godavari, Eluru.

Friday, the 20th day of September, 2018.

A.S.No.63/2016

Between:

1. Kunaparaju Rangaraju

2. Kunaparaju Venkata Sivarama Raju

3. Smt.Kunaparaju Subbalakshmi … Appellants/Defendants..

And

Kunaparaju Venkata Rama Krishnam Raju

...Respondent/Defendant..

On Appeal against the Decree and Judgment dated 14­03­2016, passed in O.S.No.127/2010 on the file of the Senior Civil Judge’s Court,

Tadepalligudem made in 

Between:

Kunaparaju Venkata Rama Krishnam Raju … Plaintiff...

And

1. Kunaparaju Rangaraju

2. Kunaparaju Venkata Sivarama Raju

3. Smt.Kunaparaju Subbalakshmi

...Defendants...

The Appeal is coming on 28­08­2018, for final hearing before me in the presence of Sri C.A.P.S.Acharyulu, Advocate for the

Appellants/Defendants and of Sri.D.S.V.Manikyala Rao, Advocate for the Respondent/Plaintiff and after perusing the material papers on record, and the matter having stood over for consideration till this day, this Court delivered the following:

A.S.No. 63 of 2016 2 II A.D.J.,

Dated 20-09-2018 W.G., Eluru

J U D G M E N T

1.This appeal is filed challenging the judgment and decree in

O.S.No.127/2010 on the file of Senior Civil Judge's Court,

Tadepalligudem, dt. 14­03­2016. 

2.The brief averments in grounds of appeal are as follows:

The decree and judgment of the lower court are contrary to law.

The Lower Court by seeing the evidence ought to have dismissed the suit and it ought to have given credit to the plea of the appellants that the suit promissory note is a rank forgery. The court ought to have given an opportunity to send the document for handwriting expert. The court ought to have dismissed the suit as per the evidence of PW2, D3 was not present at the time of execution of the document. The plaintiff had given wrong particulars of defendant to obtain exparte decree. The plaintiff also failed to give proper notice demanding the defendants to pay the suit amount or promissory note amount. The lower court ought to have dismissed the suit by observing that the two promissory notes were executed on same place, on same date with same pen. The court has recorded common evidence, passed common judgment though suits are filed on different dates. The court ought to have seen that the plaintiff had no capacity to lend the amount. The court did not consider the documents filed by the appellants. The court ought to have seen that defendants are agriculturists Act 4/38 is applicable to them. The court ought to have seen the enemity between the parties which gave cause of action for the plaintiff to file the present suit to take vengeance. The court wrongly has observed that DW2 worked as a coolie under 1st

A.S.No. 63 of 2016 3 II A.D.J.,

Dated 20-09-2018 W.G., Eluru

defendant without any evidence. The court ought to have given importance to the evidence of PW2. For better understanding the pleadings of the parties are narrated as follows: 

3.The averments in the plaint in nutshell are as follows:

Defendants 1 and 2 are the sons of Late Kunaparaju Venkata

Rayapa Raju. 3rd defendant is his wife. Plaintiff is the younger brother of Rayapa Raju. Defendant Nos. 1 to 3 for the purpose of their family expenses and to discharge sundry debts jointly borrowed an amount of

Rs.1,50,000/­ from the plaintiff on 21­04­2007. Evidencing the said transaction all the three defendants executed a demand promissory note on the even date in favour of the plaintiff agreeing to repay the principal amount with interest @ 18% per annum either to the plaintiff or to his order on demand. Subsequently, in spite of repeated demands the defendants did not make any payment. In view of the close relationship the plaintiff kept quiet. But, the defendants to defeat the interest of debtors brought into existence two collusive registered sale deeds in favour of D1's daughter. On that, the plaintiff filed creditor IP No.5/2010 on the file of Senior Civil Judge's Court, Tadepalligudem. Hence, filed the present suit. 

4.The averments in the written statement of the defendant

Nos.1 to 3 in brief are as follows:

Defendant Nos. 1 to 3 refuted all the averments in the plaint by extracting sentence by sentence in the plaint. Further contended that they never borrowed any amount from anyone including the plaintiff.

The plaintiff has no capacity to lend the amount. The defendants have no necessity to borrow the amount. They did not receive any amount

A.S.No. 63 of 2016 4 II A.D.J.,

Dated 20-09-2018 W.G., Eluru

from the plaintiff under the suit promissory note. The signatures on the suit promissory note are not that of the defendants. As such, the suit is not maintainable.

5.Basing on the above pleadings the Lower Court has framed the following issues: 

(i) Whether the plaintiff is entitled to the suit amount as prayed for?

(ii) Whether the suit promissory note is true valid and binding on the defendants?

(iii) To what relief?

6.Before the Trial Court, the plaintiff examined himself as PW1 and attestors of Ex.A1 as P.Ws. 2 and 3 and relied upon Exs.A1 to A6.

The 1st defendant examined himself as DW1 and third party was examined as DW2 and relied upon Exs.B1 and B2.

7.Basing on the material on record, the Trial Court came to the conclusion that the defendants executed the promissory note and they are liable to pay the suit amount and accordingly, decreed the suit.

Challenging the said judgment, the present appeal is filed.

8.Counsel appearing for the appellants and counsel for the respondent submitted their arguments orally.

9.In view of the submission of counsels, pleadings of the parties and material on record, the following points have to be determined by this court.

(i) Whether the plaintiff has proved that defendant Nos. 1 to 3 have executed Ex.A1 in his favour? if so, 

A.S.No. 63 of 2016 5 II A.D.J.,

Dated 20-09-2018 W.G., Eluru

(ii) Whether defendant Nos. 1 to 3 have succeeded in proving that

Ex.A1 is a forged document and there was no passing of consideration?

(iii) Whether there are any grounds to interfere in the impugned judgment of the lower court?

 (iv) To what relief?

10.The parties will be referred as they are arrayed in the lower court for convenience sake.

11. Point No.1: In view of the defence of the defendants and also in view of the observations of the Hon'ble High Court relied upon by the counsel for the plaintiff in Lower Court in Bonala Raju and another

Vs. Saruturu Srinvasalu 2006(2) ALT 202, the initial burden will be on the plaintiff to prove that the defendants have executed the suit promissory note in favour of the plaintiff. 

12.In order to buttress the point, the plaintiff examined himself as PW1. The evidence of PW1, the averments in the plaint, written statement, evidence of DW1 discloses that it is an undisputed fact that plaintiff is the Junior Paternal uncle of D1 and D2. It is also an undisputed fact that the father of D1 and D2 by name Kunaparaju

Venkata Rayaparaju was deaf and dumb by birth. The plaintiff used to look after the affairs of the family members of Kunaparaju Venkata

Rayaparaju i.e., D1 to D3 during the life time of the said person. 

13.PW1 in his chief­examination deposed that on 21­04­2007 for their family expenses and to discharge their debts all the three defendants jointly borrowed an amount of Rs.1,50,000/­ from him. He further deposed that one K.V.Malleswara Rao was the scribe. Naidu Anil

Babu and S.Venkateswara Rao are witness to the said transaction.

A.S.No. 63 of 2016 6 II A.D.J.,

Dated 20-09-2018 W.G., Eluru

During cross­examination, he admitted that he filed two suits one in the month of February and another is in the month of April, 2010. As per his evidence, there is a gap of two months in execution of these two promissory notes. 

14.The counsel appearing for the defendants vehemently argued that PW1 during cross­examination admitted that 1st defendant is residing in Vishakapatnam since, 2001. 2nd defendant worked in

Vishakapatnam from the year, 1995 to 2010. 3rd defendant is residing with her sons. Amount was borrowed for medical expenses and he does not know for whom the said amount was spent. He did not demand defendant Nos. 1 and 2 to scribe the promissory notes. He has no knowledge of the particulars of the denomination, which shows that the very execution of the promissory note is not correct. 

15.PW1 during his cross­examination deposed that 1st defendant is residing in Vishakapatnam since, 2001. 2nd defendant worked in a Cement factory from the year, 1995 to 2010. 3rd defendant is residing along with her sons. He had denied the suggestion that they are residing at Vishakapatnam permanently. There is no bar in coming to Eluru from Vishakapatnam even if the version of defendants is correct to come and borrow the amount from the plaintiff. Merely on the ground that they are residing at Vishakapatnam, the entire case of the plaintiff cannot be thrown out. 

16.PW1 further in his evidence deposed that they spend the amount for medical expenses and but he does not know to whom it was spent. He cannot say the particulars of denomination of payments. As on the date of giving deposition the age of PW1 was 69 years. He was

A.S.No. 63 of 2016 7 II A.D.J.,

Dated 20-09-2018 W.G., Eluru

cross­examined in the year, 2014. The suit transaction as per the evidence of PW1 took place on 21­04­2007. That means approximately seven years after the said transaction, PW1 was examined in the court.

In view of the age and the gap between the date of execution and giving deposition will probably make PW1 to forget about the denominations of consideration. So, it is not a ground to discard the evidence of PW1. 

17.PW1 further deposed he did not demand D1 and D2 to scribe the promissory notes. But, he deposed during cross­examination that he got acquaintance with the scribe for the past 20 years and attestors for the past 30 years. Generally at the time of execution of promissory note, the known persons will be called. Merely because the promissory note was not scribed by D1 and D2, Ex.A1 cannot be thrown out. During cross­examination it was elicited that Chebrole Police registered a case against this witness on a complaint given by watchman of 1st defendant

U/Sec. 352, 427 and 379 of IPC., in Cr.No.28/2010. The contention of the counsel for the defendants is that in view of the enemity the present suit promissory note was created. This contention appears to be not correct. 

18.As per Ex.A1 the suit promissory note was executed 21­04­2007. Ex.B2 ­complaint was registered on 23­01­2010. So, there is no basis to contend that in view of the lodging of criminal complaint

Ex.A1 was fabricated. On the other hand, DW1 during his cross­ examination deposed that during life time of their mother, they have cordial relationship with the plaintiff. It shows that there are no enimical terms with the plaintiff and defendants. As it is adverted above, even the plaintiff had looked after the family affairs of the defendant during the

A.S.No. 63 of 2016 8 II A.D.J.,

Dated 20-09-2018 W.G., Eluru

life time of Kunaparaju Venkata Rayaparaju. The averments in the written statement of the defendants shows that they did not give any reason for plaintiff to forge the signatures of these defendants and file a false case against them for recovery of amount. 

19.The cross­examination of PW1 also reveals that they have not assigned any reason for forging the signatures of the defendants and filing false case against them. It was suggested that due to filing of the case by the plaintiff, D1's son­in­law gave divorce to his daughter.

Except that there is no reason assigned for forging the signatures. 

20.The counsel appearing for the defendants vehemently argued that all the promissory notes were written on the same date and same place and the attestors are also one and the same. PW1 admitted the said fact. This contention of the counsel is untenable. PW1 during his cross­examination stated he filed two promissory notes within gap of two months. The attestors and scribe in both the promissory notes are one and the same. The attestors are residents of Nidamarru and scribe is resident of Bhimavaram. Both the promissory notes are executed at his house on different dates and time is at 1.00 p.m. Basing on this statement, the counsel has submitted the arguments as stated above.

There is no admission from PW1 that both the promissory notes were executed or prepared on the same date. 

21.The evidence of PW1 shows that he stood to the cross­ examination. Nothing was elicited to show that he has forged the signatures of D1 to D3 and there is no reason assigned for forging the signatures by the plaintiff. As the present suit is civil in nature, the probabilities of the case have to be considered. So, the evidence of PW1

A.S.No. 63 of 2016 9 II A.D.J.,

Dated 20-09-2018 W.G., Eluru

probably shows that D1 to D3 have executed Ex.A1 in his favour. 

22.To support his oral evidence PW1 examined one of the attestor of Ex.A1 as PW2. PW2 in his chief­affidavit in the same lines of evidence of PW1 deposed that on 21­04­2007 the defendants by executing Ex.A1­promissory note borrowed a sum of Rs.1,50,000/­. 

23.The counsel appearing for the defendants vehemently argued that PW2 in his cross­examination admitted that both the promissory notes were scribed by same person and at same time. D1 was present along with D2. He did not state about the presence of D3. He further stated that he does not know to whom the amount was paid. D1 and D2 told him that they received the amount. Both the promissory notes were signed on the same day.

24.PW2 during cross­examination stated that he had acquaintance with PW1 for the past 20 years. Ex.A1 was scribed in the varandha of PW1's house. Both the promissory notes were scribed by the same scribe at the same place. He did not depose that at the same time. It is the case of PW1 that both the promissory notes were executed at his house,. The scribe and attestors are one and the same. Both the transactions took place after 1.00 p.m. If PW2 deposed that at the same time these promissory notes are executed, then it will give suspicion about execution of either this promissory notice or other promissory note basing on which another suit was filed by the plaintiff.

25.PW1 further deposed that after scribing the promissory notes he signed with the same pen and the time of transaction is after 2.00 p.m. This also does not know show that on the same dates two promissory notes were executed. The defendant's counsel did not

A.S.No. 63 of 2016 10 II A.D.J.,

Dated 20-09-2018 W.G., Eluru

properly elicited the point from the evidence of this witness that two promissory notes were scribed and attested on the same date and place.

So, the contention of the counsel is untenable. 

26.PW2 further deposed that at that time, 1st defendant was present. Along with him D2 was also present. He does not know who received the amount. Further stated defendant Nos. 1 to 3 were present. 

27.The counsel for the defendants by reading first two sentences submitted that D1 and D2 alone present at the time of execution of the promissory note. The evidence of the witness has to be read in total and cannot pick and the sentences which are favourable to one of the parties. The reading of entire evidence of PW2 reveals that he had categorically stated that D.Ws. 1 to 3 were present at the time of transaction. Merely because he does not know who received the amount the passing of consideration cannot be ruled out. 

28.Further in his evidence stated that he signed on the promissory notes after satisfying that the defendants received the amount. D1 and D2 told him that they received. The counsel has interpreted the said statement that no consideration was passed in the presence of this witness. But, prior to that this witness has categorically stated at that time D1 was present and amount was paid. If these sentences and above sentence of satisfaction read together, it gives an impression that PW2 after seeing passing of consideration he once again ascertained the fact of receiving of amount and then put signature on the promissory note. 

29.It is not elicited from the evidence of this witness that there was no passing of consideration in his presence and in the absence of

A.S.No. 63 of 2016 11 II A.D.J.,

Dated 20-09-2018 W.G., Eluru

some of the defendants he put signature on Ex.A1. So, there is no reason to disbelieve the evidence of this witness. 

30.The plaintiff to further prove his case examined another attestor as PW3. In the same lines of P.Ws. 1 and 2 he too deposed about the execution of ExA1­promissory note and passing of consideration. During cross­examination, he deposed that scribe was

Malleswara Rao. Plaintiff and defendants requested the scribe to draft the promissory note. Initially, the 1st attestor, Naidu, Anil Babu, signed. Later, he signed in the both the promissory notes. Since, the cash was covered in the paper, he cannot say the denominations. The defendants have stated that they have received the amount. 1st defendant told that he received the amount. The evidence of this witness shows D1 to D3 have executed Ex.A1 in favour of PW1. It is pertinent to note that the cross­examination of PW1 and cross­examination of PW2 shows that the defendants though they put a suggestion that they are speaking false hood they did not even put a suggestion to PW1 and 2 that the signatures on Ex.A1 are not that of the defendants. 

31.The evidence of PW3 also reveals that suggestion was made that defendants did not present at that time. But, there is no suggestion that the said signatures are not that of the defendants and this witness has no acquaintance with the defendants. There is no reason assigned to discard the evidence of this witness. The evidence of these witnesses probably show that defendant Nos. 1 to 3 executed Ex.A1­promissory note in favour of the plaintiff on 21­04­2007.

32.The plaintiff also relied upon Ex.A2­office copy of legal notice

dt. 26­12­2009. Ex.A3 copy of petition in IP No.5/2010. Admittedly, the

A.S.No. 63 of 2016 12 II A.D.J.,

Dated 20-09-2018 W.G., Eluru

plaintiff had filed I.P. against the defendants when they have executed a document in favour of daughter of 1st defendant. The evidence discloses that during the time of their evidence the said creditor IP was pending.

The result is not known. So, filing of the creditor IP also supports the contention of plaintiff. Perusal of Ex.A2­legal notice shows that he demanded the defendants to discharge the debt due to the plaintiff under Ex.A1 and so also under document dt.28­02­2007. Cross­ examination of PW1 shows that there is no denial of receiving of the said notice. At no point the defendants contended that they gave reply notice to the said notice. Keeping quiet after receipt of the said notice supports the contention of the plaintiff. So, the plaintiff had succeeded in proving execution of Ex.A1. Hence, this point is decided in favour of the plaintiff.

33. Point No.2:

When once the execution of promissory note is proved the burden shifts on to the defendants to prove that the said promissory note is a forged document and they have to rebut the presumption that there was passing of consideration. The defendants in order to substantiate their case, examined the 1st defendant as DW1. 

34.During his chief­examination DW1 deposed that they never borrowed any amount. The plaintiff filed the above suit to harass the defendants. He falsely filed IP and the suit promissory note is a forged document and the plaintiff has no capacity to lend such huge amount. He denied the signatures on Ex.A1. First time he stated that he does not know the attestors of Ex.A1. Denied the suggestion that he borrowed the amount under Ex.A1. He filed Ex.B2 ­copy of FIR wherein it is alleged of commission of theft of scooter and TV by the plaintiff. 

A.S.No. 63 of 2016 13 II A.D.J.,

Dated 20-09-2018 W.G., Eluru

35.As it is discussed above this FIR was lodged in the year, 2010. The Ex.A1­promissory note of Ex.A1 was executed in the year, 2007. So, this document has no relevancy to the present facts.

36.To prove their contention of forgery of signatures of defendants on Ex.A1, they examined DW2. DW2 in his chief­affidavit stated that he knows both the parties. Plaintiff used to look after the affairs of defendant's family. P.Ws. 2 and 3 are close associates of plaintiff along with him. With the help of these two witnesses plaintiff forged the two promissory notes. The plaintiff asked this witness to sign on those two promissory notes at Nidamarru Village in the house of Anil Babu

before filing of the suits in the year, 2010, to take revenge against the

defendant's family then he refused to do so. The defendants never borrowed any amount under two promissory notes. 

37.During cross­examination he deposed that P.Ws. 2 and 3 are residents of Nidamarru. These two witnesses signed on both the promissory notes in his presence. At that time the plaintiff was also present. All the transactions took place in the house of Naidu Anil babu.

At the request of plaintiff he went there. In his presence there was no passing of consideration. He attended Nallamadu as coolie under 1st defendant. The plaintiff requested the defendant to sign on the promissory note and he refused. He did not give any police report. He did not give any report that plaintiff obtained signatures without paying any amount to the defendants. At the time of execution of promissory notes both creditor, debtors and attestors are present. At the time of re­ examination he has stated that D1 to D3 were not present. It is not clear whether a general question was put to him or he admitted about

A.S.No. 63 of 2016 14 II A.D.J.,

Dated 20-09-2018 W.G., Eluru

the presence of D1 to D3. But, the evidence of this witness gives some suspicion about his trustworthiness. If really, the plaintiff demanded this witness to sign on the filled promissory notes being known to the defendants he might have informed them about the acts of the plaintiff.

At no point, D1 to D3 or this witness has stated about the same. So, the evidence of this witness, appears to be a planted one. 

38.Further, the contention of the defendants is that the plaintiff has no capacity to lend the amount. The counsel appearing for the defendants vehemently argued that PW1 admitted during his cross­ examination that he has no properties and basing on the white ration card he underwent operation, so also his wife. PW1 during his cross­ examination stated that he has no properties in his name so also in the name of his wife. He denied that he underwent treatment in KIMS hospital, Hyderabad on the basis of a household card. But, admitted his wife got treatment in Osmaniya Hospital, basing on white ration card.

Subsequently, he re­examined and filed Exs.A4 to A6 ­tax receipts. 

39.Perusal of Ex.A4 shows that it is a registration extract of settlement deed executed on 26­05­1957 in favour of Venkata

Ramanamma. Ex.A5 is the death certificate of Venkata Ramanamma.

PW1 during his evidence deposed that her mother got property in the year, 1957. After the death of his mother, they filed O.S.No.227/2006 on the file of Senior Civil Judge's Court, Tadepalligudem, for partition of the properties. In the preliminary decree he got a share of Ac.2.29 1/2 cents each and they filed petition for passing of final decree. He denied the suggestion that he is not deriving any income from the said property.

Ex.A6­notice issued to one Madda Sarjana Rao, through SHO., Chebrole.,

A.S.No. 63 of 2016 15 II A.D.J.,

Dated 20-09-2018 W.G., Eluru

P.S., by the 1st Additional Judicial Magistrate of First Class,

Tadepalligudem, to file objections with regard to referring the case in

Cr.No.28/2010 is fale. As it is discussed above there is no evidence to show that in view of the said criminal case, the plaintiff bore grudge and foisted false cases against the defendant. 

40.The evidence of PW1 shows that he used to look after the affairs of the family of the defendants. Merely because he possessed household card that does not mean that he has no means to lend the amount. So, this contention of the defendants is also untenable. 

41.The Defendants have also taken a plea that they are agriculturists and as such, the interest has to be scaled down. During cross­examination of PW1 they have suggested the 2nd defendant worked in Cement factory from the year, 1995 to 2010 this disproves their contention. So, this court is of considered view that the defendants have failed to rebut the presumption drawn against them and they have also failed to prove that there was no passing of consideration under the promissory note. Hence, this point is also decided against the defendants.

Point No.3:

42.Perusal of the judgment of the Lower Court shows that after perusing the material on record, the Court has right decreed the suit, as such there are no grounds to interfere in the findings and judgment of the Trial court. Hence, this point is also decided against the plaintiff.

Point No.4:

43.In view of the above discussion it is clear that the appeal is devoid of any merits.

A.S.No. 63 of 2016 16 II A.D.J.,

Dated 20-09-2018 W.G., Eluru

In the result, appeal is dismissed confirming the decree and judgment dt.14­03­2016 passed in O.S.No. 127/2010 on the file of

Senior Civil Judge’s Court, Tadepalligudem. 

Typed to my dictation by the Stenographer, corrected and pronounced by

me in the open Court on this the 20th day of September, 2018.

Sd/­ C.Ramadevi II Additional District Judge, West Godavari, Eluru.

No oral or documentary evidence is adduced on either side Id/­ CRD

II ADJ, 

W.G., Eluru. Copy to: The Senior Civil Judge’s Court, Tadepalligudem, along with entire record in O.S.No. 127/2010.

A.S.No. 63 of 2016 17 II A.D.J.,

Dated 20-09-2018 W.G., Eluru

Appeal presented on:05­07­2016, 29­07­2016, 09­08­2016

Appeal filed on: 18­08­2016

IN THE COURT OF II ADDITIONAL DISTRICT JUDGE,

 WEST GODAVARI DISTRICT, ELURU.

Present: Smt. C.RAMA DEVI, II Additional District Judge, West Godavari, Eluru.

Thursday, the 20th day of September, 2018.

A.S.No.63/2016

Between:

1. Kunaparaju Rangaraju S/o. Venkata Rayapuraju, Hindu, Male, aged 53 years, Cultivation, R/o. Door No.16­58, Visakhapatnam, Vijag PJCJ

2. Kunaparaju Venkata Sivarama Raju S/o. Venkata Rayapuraju, Hindu, Male, aged 55 years, Cultivation, R/o. Door No.16­58, Visakhapatnam, Vijag PJCJ 3.Smt.Kunaparaju Subbalakshmi w/o. Venkata Rayapuraju, Hindu, female, aged 72 years, housewife, R/o. Door No.16­58, Visakhapatnam, Vijag PJCJ … Appellants/Defendants...

And

Kunaparaju Venkata Rama Krishnam Raju S/o. Rama Raju, Hindu, Male, aged 74 years, Cultivation, R/o. Door No.6­74, Pedanidrakolanu, Nidamarru Mandal, West Godavari District, TPG PJCJ

...Respondent/Plaintiff..

On Appeal against the Decree and Judgment dated 14­03­2016, passed in O.S.No.127/2010 on the file of the Senior Civil Judge’s Court,

Tadepalligudem made in 

Between:

Kunaparaju Venkata Rama Krishnam Raju … Plaintiff...

And

1. Kunaparaju Rangaraju

2. Kunaparaju Venkata Sivarama Raju

3. Smt.Kunaparaju Subbalakshmi

...Defendants...

A.S.No. 63 of 2016 18 II A.D.J.,

Dated 20-09-2018 W.G., Eluru

This appeal is preferred against the decree and judgment dt.14­03­2016 in O.S.127/2010 on the file of Senior Civil Judge’s Court,

Tadepalligudem. 

2. Value of the suit in Lower Court:

Value of the suit in the Lower Court is:Rs.2,30,850­00

On which a court fee of Rs.4,826/­ was paid U/Sec.20 Sch.I, art.I(b) and (c) of APCF and SVAct

Value of the appeal:

Decree amount in the Lower Court is:Rs.2,30,850­00

Add:Interest on Rs.1,50,000/­ from 30­04­2010 to 15­03­2016: Rs.2,10,000­00 ­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­

Total:Rs.4,40,850­00 ­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­

On which a court fee of Rs.6,926/­ was paid U/Sec. 20 sch.I, Art.I(b) and (c) of APCF and SV Act.

The Appeal is coming on 28­08­2018, for final hearing before me in the presence of Sri C.A.P.S.Acharyulu, Advocate for the

Appellants/Defendants and of Sri.D.S.V.Manikyala Rao, Advocate for the Respondent/Plaintiff; and this Court DOTH ORDER AND DECREE as follows:

(i) That the appeal be and the same is hereby dismissed confirming the judgment in O.S.No.127/2010 on the file of

Senior Civil Judge’s Court, Tadepalligudem, dt. 14­03­2016;

(ii) That there is no order as to costs;

(iii) That appellants/defendants do bear their own costs of Rs.Nil;

(iv) That respondent/plaintiff do bear his own costs of Rs.5,002/­

Given under my hand and the seal of the Court, this the 20th day

of September, 2018.

II ADDL.DISTRICT JUDGE, 

WEST GODAVARI, ELURU.

A.S.No. 63 of 2016 19 II A.D.J.,

Dated 20-09-2018 W.G., Eluru

MEMORANDUM OF COSTS

FOR APPELLANTS: FOR RESPONDENT:

No memo of costs is filed1. Stamp on Vakalat: 2­00

2. Advocate fees: 5,000­00 

Total costs Taxed: 5,002­00

II A.D.J.,

W.G., Eluru.

A.S.No. 56 of 2016 II A.D.J.,

Dated 20-09-2018 W.G., Eluru

IN THE COURT OF II ADDITIONAL DISTRICT JUDGE,

 WEST GODAVARI DISTRICT, ELURU.

Present: Smt. C.RAMA DEVI, II Additional District Judge, West Godavari, Eluru.

Friday, the 20th day of September, 2018.

A.S.No.56/2016

Between:

1. Kunaparaju Rangaraju

2. Kunaparaju Venkata Sivarama Raju

3. Smt.Kunaparaju Subbalakshmi … Appellants/Defendants..

And

Kunaparaju Venkata Rama Krishnam Raju

...Respondent/Defendant..

On Appeal against the Decree and Judgment dated 15­03­2016, passed in O.S.No.119/2010 on the file of the Senior Civil Judge’s Court,

Tadepalligudem made in 

Between:

Kunaparaju Venkata Rama Krishnam Raju … Plaintiff...

And

1. Kunaparaju Rangaraju

2. Kunaparaju Venkata Sivarama Raju

3. Smt.Kunaparaju Subbalakshmi

...Defendants...

The Appeal is coming on 28­08­2018, for final hearing before me in the presence of Sri C.A.P.S.Acharyulu, Advocate for the

Appellants/Defendants and of Sri.D.S.V.Manikyala Rao, Advocate for the Respondent/Plaintiff and after perusing the material papers on record, and the matter having stood over for consideration till this day, this Court delivered the following:

J U D G M E N T

1.This appeal is filed challenging the judgment and decree in

O.S.No.119/2010 on the file of Senior Civil Judge's Court,

Tadepalligudem, dt. 15­03­2016. 

A.S.No. 56 of 2016 II A.D.J.,

Dated 20-09-2018 W.G., Eluru

2.The brief averments in grounds of appeal are as follows:

The decree and judgment of the lower court are contrary to law.

The Lower Court by seeing the evidence ought to have dismissed the suit and it ought to have given credit to the plea of the appellants that the suit promissory note is a rank forgery. The court ought to have given an opportunity to send the document for handwriting expert. The court ought to have dismissed the suit as per the evidence of PW2, D3 was not present at the time of execution of the document. The plaintiff had given wrong particulars of defendant to obtain exparte decree. The plaintiff also failed to give proper notice demanding the defendants to pay the suit amount or promissory note amount. The lower court ought to have dismissed the suit by observing that the two promissory notes were executed on same place, on same date with same pen. The court has recorded common evidence, passed common judgment though suits are filed on different dates. The court ought to have seen that the plaintiff had no capacity to lend the amount. The court did not consider the documents filed by the appellants. The court ought to have seen that defendants are agriculturists Act 4/38 is applicable to them. The court ought to have seen the enemity between the parties which gave cause of action for the plaintiff to file the present suit to take vengeance. The court wrongly has observed that DW2 worked as a coolie under 1st defendant without any evidence. The court ought to have given importance to the evidence of PW2. For better understanding the pleadings of the parties are narrated as follows: 

3.The averments in the plaint in nutshell are as follows:

Defendants 1 and 2 are the sons of Late Kunaparaju Venkata

Rayapa Raju. 3rd defendant is his wife. Plaintiff is the younger brother of Rayapa Raju. Defendant Nos. 1 to 3 for the purpose of their family expenses and to discharge sundry debts jointly borrowed an amount of

A.S.No. 56 of 2016 II A.D.J.,

Dated 20-09-2018 W.G., Eluru

Rs.2,00,000/­ from the plaintiff on 28­02­2007. Evidencing the said transaction all the three defendants executed a demand promissory note on the even date in favour of the plaintiff agreeing to repay the principal amount with interest @ 18% per annum either to the plaintiff or to his order on demand. Subsequently, in spite of repeated demands the defendants did not make any payment. In view of the close relationship the plaintiff kept quiet. But, the defendants to defeat the interest of debtors brought into existence two collusive registered sale deeds in favour of D1's daughter. On that, the plaintiff filed creditor IP No.5/2010 on the file of Senior Civil Judge's Court, Tadepalligudem. Hence, filed the present suit. 

4.The averments in the written statement of the defendant

Nos.1 to 3 in brief are as follows:

Defendant Nos. 1 to 3 refuted all the averments in the plaint by extracting sentence by sentence in the plaint. Further contended that they never borrowed any amount from anyone including the plaintiff.

The plaintiff has no capacity to lend the amount. The defendants have no necessity to borrow the amount. They did not receive any amount from the plaintiff under the suit promissory note. The signatures on the suit promissory note are not that of the defendants. As such, the suit is not maintainable.

5.Basing on the above pleadings the Lower Court has framed the following issues: 

(i) Whether the plaintiff is entitled to the suit claim as prayed for?

(ii) Whether the suit promissory note is not supported by consideration?

(iii) To what relief?

A.S.No. 56 of 2016 II A.D.J.,

Dated 20-09-2018 W.G., Eluru

6.Before the Trial Court, the plaintiff examined himself as PW1 and attestors of Ex.A1 as P.Ws. 2 and 3 and relied upon Exs.A1 and A2.

The 1st defendant examined himself as DW1 and third party was examined as DW2 and relied upon Exs.B1 and B2.

7.Basing on the material on record, the Trial Court came to the conclusion that the defendants executed the promissory note and they are liable to pay the suit amount and accordingly, decreed the suit.

Challenging the said judgment, the present appeal is filed.

8.Counsel appearing for the appellants and counsel for the respondent submitted their arguments orally.

9.In view of the submission of counsels, pleadings of the parties and material on record, the following points have to be determined by this court.

(i) Whether the plaintiff has proved that defendant Nos. 1 to 3 have executed Ex.A1 in his favour? if so, 

(ii) Whether defendant Nos. 1 to 3 have succeeded in proving that

Ex.A1 is a forged document and there was no passing of consideration?

(iii) Whether there are any grounds to interfere in the impugned judgment of the lower court?

 (iv) To what relief?

10.The parties will be referred as they are arrayed in the lower court for convenience sake.

11. Point No.1: In view of the defence of the defendants and also in view of the observations of the Hon'ble High Court relied upon by the counsel for the plaintiff in Lower Court in Bonala Raju and another

Vs. Saruturu Srinvasalu 2006(2) ALT 202, the initial burden will be on the plaintiff to prove that the defendants have executed the suit promissory note in favour of the plaintiff. 

A.S.No. 56 of 2016 II A.D.J.,

Dated 20-09-2018 W.G., Eluru

12.In order to buttress the point, the plaintiff examined himself as PW1. The evidence of PW1, the averments in the plaint, written statement, evidence of DW1 discloses that it is an undisputed fact that plaintiff is the Junior Paternal uncle of D1 and D2. It is also an undisputed fact that the father of D1 and D2 by name Kunaparaju

Venkata Rayaparaju was deaf and dumb by birth. The plaintiff used to look after the affairs of the family members of Kunaparaju Venkata

Rayaparaju i.e., D1 to D3 during the life time of the said person. 

13.PW1 in his chief­examination deposed that on 28­02­2007 for their family expenses and to discharge their debts all the three defendants jointly borrowed an amount of Rs.2,00,000/­ from him. He further deposed that one K.V.Malleswara Rao was the scribe. Naidu Anil

Babu and S.Venkateswara Rao are witness to the said transaction.

During cross­examination, he admitted that he filed two suits one in the month of February and another is in the month of April, 2010. As per his evidence, there is a gap of two months in execution of these two promissory notes. 

14.The counsel appearing for the defendants vehemently argued that PW1 during cross­examination admitted that 1st defendant is residing in Vishakapatnam since, 2001. 2nd defendant worked in

Vishakapatnam from the year, 1995 to 2010. 3rd defendant is residing with her sons. Amount was borrowed for medical expenses and he does not know for whom the said amount was spent. He did not demand defendant Nos. 1 and 2 to scribe the promissory notes. He has no knowledge of the particulars of the denomination, which shows that the very execution of the promissory note is not correct. 

15.PW1 during his cross­examination deposed that 1st defendant is residing in Vishakapatnam since, 2001. 2nd defendant worked in a Cement factory from the year, 1995 to 2010. 3rd defendant

A.S.No. 56 of 2016 II A.D.J.,

Dated 20-09-2018 W.G., Eluru

is residing along with her sons. He had denied the suggestion that they are residing at Vishakapatnam permanently. There is no bar in coming to Eluru from Vishakapatnam even if the version of defendants is correct to come and borrow the amount from the plaintiff. Merely on the ground that they are residing at Vishakapatnam, the entire case of the plaintiff cannot be thrown out. 

16.PW1 further in his evidence deposed that they spend the amount for medical expenses and but he does not know to whom it was spent. He cannot say the particulars of denomination of payments. As on the date of giving deposition the age of PW1 was 70 years. He was cross­examined in the year, 2014. The suit transaction as per the evidence of PW1 took place on 28­02­2007. That means approximately seven years after the said transaction, PW1 was examined in the court.

In view of the age and the gap between the date of execution and giving deposition will probably make PW1 to forget about the denominations of consideration. So, it is not a ground to discard the evidence of PW1. 

17.PW1 further deposed he did not demand D1 and D2 to scribe the promissory notes. But, he deposed during cross­examination that he got acquaintance with the scribe for the past 20 years and attestors for the past 30 years. Generally at the time of execution of promissory note, the known persons will be called. Merely because the promissory note was not scribed by D1 and D2, Ex.A1 cannot be thrown out. During cross­examination it was elicited that Chebrole Police registered a case against this witness on a complaint given by watchman of 1st defendant

U/Sec. 352, 427 and 379 of IPC., in Cr.No.28/2010. The contention of the counsel for the defendants is that in view of the enemity the present suit promissory note was created. This contention appears to be not correct. 

A.S.No. 56 of 2016 II A.D.J.,

Dated 20-09-2018 W.G., Eluru

18.As per Ex.A1 the suit promissory note was executed 28­02­ 2007. Ex.B2 ­complaint was registered on 23­01­2010. So, there is no basis to contend that in view of the lodging of criminal complaint Ex.A1 was fabricated. On the other hand, DW1 during his cross­examination deposed that during life time of their mother, they have cordial relationship with the plaintiff. It shows that there are no enimical terms with the plaintiff and defendants. As it is adverted above, even the plaintiff had looked after the family affairs of the defendant during the life time of Kunaparaju Venkata Rayaparaju. The averments in the written statement of the defendants shows that they did not give any reason for plaintiff to forge the signatures of these defendants and file a false case against them for recovery of amount. 

19.The cross­examination of PW1 also reveals that they have not assigned any reason for forging the signatures of the defendants and filing false case against them. It was suggested that due to filing of the case by the plaintiff, D1's son­in­law gave divorce to his daughter.

Except that there is no reason assigned for forging the signatures. 

20.The counsel appearing for the defendants vehemently argued that all the promissory notes were written on the same date and same place and the attestors are also one and the same. PW1 admitted the said fact. This contention of the counsel is untenable. PW1 during his cross­examination stated he filed two promissory notes within gap of two months. The attestors and scribe in both the promissory notes are one and the same. The attestors are residents of Nidamarru and scribe is resident of Bhimavaram. Both the promissory notes are executed at his house on different dates and time is at 1.00 p.m. Basing on this statement, the counsel has submitted the arguments as stated above.

There is no admission from PW1 that both the promissory notes were executed or prepared on the same date. 

A.S.No. 56 of 2016 II A.D.J.,

Dated 20-09-2018 W.G., Eluru

21.The evidence of PW1 shows that he stood to the cross­ examination. Nothing has elicited to show that he has forged the signatures of D1 to D3 and there is no reason assigned for forging the signatures by the plaintiff. As the present suit is civil in nature, the probabilities of the case have to be considered. So, the evidence of PW1 probably shows that D1 to D3 have executed Ex.A1 in his favour. 

22.To support his oral evidence PW1 examined one of the attestor of Ex.A1 as PW2. PW2 in his chief­affidavit in the same lines of evidence of PW1 deposed that on 28­02­2007 the defendants by executing Ex.A1­promissory note borrowed a sum of Rs.2,00,000/­. 

23.The counsel appearing for the defendants vehemently argued that PW2 in his cross­examination admitted that both the promissory notes were scribed by same person and at same time. D1 was present along with D2. He did not state about the presence of D3. He further stated that he does not know to whom the amount was paid. D1 and D2 told him that they received the amount. Both the promissory notes were signed on the same day.

24.PW2 during cross­examination stated that he had acquaintance with PW1 for the past 20 years. Ex.A1 was scribed in the varandha of PW1's house. Both the promissory notes were scribed by the same scribe at the same place. He did not depose that at the same time. It is the case of PW1 that both the promissory notes were executed at his house,. The scribe and attestors are one and the same. Both the transactions took place after 1.00 p.m. If PW2 deposed that at the same time these promissory notes are executed, then it will give suspicion about execution of either this promissory notice or other promissory note basing on which another suit was filed by the plaintiff.

25.PW1 further deposed that after scribing the promissory notes

A.S.No. 56 of 2016 II A.D.J.,

Dated 20-09-2018 W.G., Eluru

he signed with the same pen and the time of transaction is after 2.00 p.m. This also does not know show that on the same dates two promissory notes were executed. The defendant's counsel did not properly elicited the point from the evidence of this witness that two promissory notes were scribed and attested on the same date and place.

So, the contention of the counsel is untenable. 

26.PW2 further deposed that at that time, 1st defendant was present. Along with him D2 was also present. He does not know who received the amount. Further stated defendant Nos. 1 to 3 were present. 

27.The counsel for the defendants by reading first two sentences submitted that D1 and D2 alone present at the time of execution of the promissory note. The evidence of the witness has to be read in total and cannot pick the sentences which are favourable to one of the parties.

The reading of entire evidence of PW2 reveals that he had categorically stated that D.Ws. 1 to 3 were present at the time of transaction. Merely because he does not know who received the amount the passing of consideration cannot be ruled out. 

28.Further in his evidence stated that he signed on the promissory notes after satisfying that the defendants received the amount. D1 and D2 told him that they received. The counsel has interpreted the said statement that no consideration was passed in the presence of this witness. But, prior to that this witness has categorically stated at that time D1 was present and amount was paid. If these sentences and above sentence of satisfaction read together, it gives an impression that PW2 after seeing passing of consideration he once again ascertained the fact of receiving of amount and then put signature on the promissory note. 

29.It is not elicited from the evidence of this witness that there

A.S.No. 56 of 2016 II A.D.J.,

Dated 20-09-2018 W.G., Eluru

was no passing of consideration in his presence and in the absence of some of the defendants he put signature on Ex.A1. So, there is no reason to disbelieve the evidence of this witness. 

30.The plaintiff to further prove his case examined another attestor as PW3. In the same lines of P.Ws. 1 and 2 he too deposed about the execution of ExA1­promissory note and passing of consideration. During cross­examination, he deposed that scribe was

Malleswara Rao. Plaintiff and defendants requested the scribe to draft the promissory note. Initially, the 1st attestor, Naidu, Anil Babu, signed. Later, he signed in the both the promissory notes. Since, the cash was covered in the paper, he cannot say the denominations. The defendants have stated that they have received the amount. 1st defendant told that he received the amount. The evidence of this witness shows D1 to D3 have executed Ex.A1 in favour of PW1. It is pertinent to note that the cross­examination of PW1 and cross­examination of PW2 shows that the defendants though they put a suggestion that they are speaking false hood they did not even put a suggestion to PWs.1 and 2 that the signatures on Ex.A1 are not that of the defendants. 

31.The evidence of PW3 also reveals that suggestion was made that defendants did not present at that time. But, there is no suggestion that the said signatures are not that of the defendants and this witness has no acquaintance with the defendants. There is no reason assigned to discard the evidence of this witness. the evidence of these witnesses probably show that defendant Nos. 1 to 3 executed Ex.A1­promissory note in favour of the plaintiff on 28­02­2007. The plaintiff had succeeded in proving execution of Ex.A1. Hence, this point is decided in favour of the plaintiff.

A.S.No. 56 of 2016 II A.D.J.,

Dated 20-09-2018 W.G., Eluru

32. Point No.2:

When once the execution of promissory note is proved the burden shifts on to the defendants to prove that the said promissory note is a forged document and they have to rebut the presumption that there was passing of consideration. The defendants in order to substantiate their case, examined the 1st defendant as DW1. 

33.During his chief­examination DW1 deposed that they never borrowed any amount. The plaintiff filed the above suit to harass the defendants. He falsely filed IP and the suit promissory note is a forged document and the plaintiff has no capacity to lend such huge amount. He denied the signatures on Ex.A1. First time he stated that he does not know the attestors of Ex.A1. Denied the suggestion that he borrowed the amount under Ex.A1. He filed Ex.B2 ­copy of FIR wherein it is alleged of commission of theft of scooter and TV by the plaintiff. 

34.As it is discussed above this FIR was lodged in the year, 2010. The Ex.A1­promissory note of Ex.A1 was executed in the year, 2007. So, this document has no relevancy to the present facts.

35.To prove their contention of forgery of signatures of defendants on Ex.A1, they examined DW2. DW2 in his chief­affidavit stated that he knows both the parties. Plaintiff used to look after the affairs of defendant's family. P.Ws. 2 and 3 are close associates of plaintiff along with him. With the help of these two witnesses plaintiff forged the two promissory notes. The plaintiff asked this witness to sign on those two promissory notes at Nidamarru Village in the house of Anil Babu

before filing of the suits in the year, 2010, to take revenge against the

defendant's family then he refused to do so. The defendants never borrowed any amount under two promissory notes. 

A.S.No. 56 of 2016 II A.D.J.,

Dated 20-09-2018 W.G., Eluru

36.During cross­examination he deposed that P.Ws. 2 and 3 are residents of Nidamarru. These two witnesses signed on both the promissory notes in his presence. At that time the plaintiff was also present. All the transactions took place in the house of Naidu Anil babu.

At the request of plaintiff he went there. In his presence there was no passing of consideration. He attended Nallamadu as coolie under 1st defendant. The plaintiff requested the defendant to sign on the promissory note and he refused. He did not give any police report. He did not give any report that plaintiff obtained signatures without paying any amount to the defendants. At the time of execution of promissory notes both creditor, debtors and attestors are present. At the time of re­ examination he has stated that D1 to D3 were not present. It is not clear whether a general question was put to him or he admitted about the presence of D1 to D3. But, the evidence of this witness gives some suspicion about his trustworthiness. If really, the plaintiff demanded this witness to sign on the filled promissory notes being known to the defendants he might have informed them about the acts of the plaintiff.

At no point, D1 to D3 or this witness has stated about the same. So, the evidence of this witness, appears to be a planted one. 

37.Further, the contention of the defendants is that the plaintiff has no capacity to lend the amount. The counsel appearing for the defendants vehemently argued that PW1 admitted during his cross­ examination that he has no properties and basing on the white ration card he underwent operation, so also his wife. PW1 during his cross­ examination stated that he has no properties in his name so also in the name of his wife. He denied that he underwent treatment in KIMS hospital, Hyderabad on the basis of a household card, but admitted his wife got treatment in Osmaniya Hospital, basing on white ration card.

Subsequently, he re­examined and filed Ex.A2 ­tax receipts. 

A.S.No. 56 of 2016 II A.D.J.,

Dated 20-09-2018 W.G., Eluru

38.Perusal of Ex.A2­tax receipts reveal that property tax was paid to Gram Panchayat, Pedanindrakolanu. During cross­examination he stated these tax receipts were beyond the year, 2007. But, first document is of the year, 2004 and it is also elicited that the house for which Ex.A2­tax paid is a building and there are 8 legal heirs for the said building and the house fell to his share was divided between him and his son. He got four rooms to his share. He is not deriving any income from the said house. Basing on this witness the counsel for the defendants contended that the plaintiff has no source of income and also filed Ex.B1­ household card of the plaintiff. 

39.The evidence of PW1 shows that he used to look after the affairs of the family of the defendants. Merely because he possessed household card that does not mean that he has no means to lend the amount. So, this contention of the defendants is also untenable. 

40.The Defendants have also taken a plea that they are agriculturists and as such, the interest has to be scaled down. During cross­examination of PW1 they have suggested the 2nd defendant worked in Cement factory from the year, 1995 to 2010 this disproves their contention. So, this court is of considered view that the defendants have failed to rebut the presumption drawn against them and they have also failed to prove that there was no passing of consideration under the promissory note. Hence, this point is also decided against the defendants.

Point No.3:

41.Perusal of the judgment of the Lower Court shows that after perusing the material on record, the Court has right decreed the suit, as such there are no grounds to interfere in the findings and judgment of the Trial court. Hence, this point is also decided against the plaintiff.

A.S.No. 56 of 2016 II A.D.J.,

Dated 20-09-2018 W.G., Eluru

Point No.4:

42.In view of the above discussion it is clear that the appeal is devoid of any merits.

In the result, appeal is dismissed confirming the decree and judgment dt.15­03­2016 passed in O.S.No. 119/2010 on the file of

Senior Civil Judge’s Court, Tadepalligudem. 

Typed to my dictation by the Stenographer, corrected and pronounced by

me in the open Court on this the 20th day of September, 2018.

Sd/­C.Rama Devi

II Additional District Judge, West Godavari, Eluru.

No oral or documentary evidence is adduced on either side

Id/­ C.R.D.

II ADJ, 

W.G., Eluru. Copy to: The Senior Civil Judge’s Court, Tadepalligudem, along with entire record in O.S.No. 119/2010.

//True copy//

 II Additional District Judge, West Godavari, Eluru.

A.S.No. 56 of 2016 II A.D.J.,

Dated 20-09-2018 W.G., Eluru

Appeal presented on:05­07­2016

Appeal filed on: 14­07­2016

IN THE COURT OF II ADDITIONAL DISTRICT JUDGE,

 WEST GODAVARI DISTRICT, ELURU.

Present: Smt. C.RAMA DEVI, II Additional District Judge, West Godavari, Eluru.

Thursday, the 20th day of September, 2018.

A.S.No.56/2016

Between:

1. Kunaparaju Rangaraju S/o. Venkata Rayapuraju, Hindu, Male, aged 53 years, Cultivation, R/o. Door No.16­58, Visakhapatnam, Vijag PJCJ

2. Kunaparaju Venkata Sivarama Raju S/o. Venkata Rayapuraju, Hindu, Male, aged 55 years, Cultivation, R/o. Door No.16­58, Visakhapatnam, Vijag PJCJ 3.Smt.Kunaparaju Subbalakshmi w/o. Venkata Rayapuraju, Hindu, female, aged 72 years, housewife, R/o. Door No.16­58, Visakhapatnam, Vijag PJCJ … Appellants/Defendants...

And

Kunaparaju Venkata Rama Krishnam Raju S/o. Rama Raju, Hindu, Male, aged 74 years, Cultivation, R/o. Door No.6­74, Pedanidrakolanu, Nidamarru Mandal, West Godavari District, TPG PJCJ

...Respondent/Plaintiff..

On Appeal against the Decree and Judgment dated 15­03­2016, passed in O.S.No.119/2010 on the file of the Senior Civil Judge’s Court,

Tadepalligudem made in 

Between:

Kunaparaju Venkata Rama Krishnam Raju … Plaintiff...

And

1. Kunaparaju Rangaraju

2. Kunaparaju Venkata Sivarama Raju

3. Smt.Kunaparaju Subbalakshmi

...Defendants...

This appeal is preferred against the decree and judgment dt.15­03­2016 in O.S.119/2010 on the file of Senior Civil Judge’s Court,

Tadepalligudem. 

A.S.No. 56 of 2016 II A.D.J.,

Dated 20-09-2018 W.G., Eluru

2. Value of the suit in Lower Court:

Value of the suit in the Lower Court is:Rs.3,07,800­00

On which a court fee of Rs.5,526/­ was paid U/Sec.20 Sch.3(b) and (c) of APCF and SVAct

Value of the appeal:

Decree amount in the Lower Court is:Rs.3,07,800­00

Add:Interest on Rs.2,00,000/­ from 29­04­2010 to 15­03­2016 at 18% p.a.: Rs.2,11,600­00

Add:Interest from 16­03­2016 to 04­07­2016 at 6% per annum is:Rs. 3,600­00 ­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­

Total:Rs.5,23,000­00 ­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­

On which a court fee of Rs.7,726/­ was paid U/Sec. 20 sch.I, Art.I (c) of APCF and SV Act.

The Appeal is coming on 28­08­2018, for final hearing before me in the presence of Sri C.A.P.S.Acharyulu, Advocate for the

Appellants/Defendants and of Sri.D.S.V.Manikyala Rao, Advocate for the Respondent/Plaintiff; and this Court DOTH ORDER AND DECREE as follows:

(i) That the appeal be and the same is hereby dismissed confirming the judgment in O.S.No.119/2010 on the file of

Senior Civil Judge’s Court, Tadepalligudem, dt. 15­03­2016;

(ii) That there is no order as to costs;

(iii) That appellants/defendants do bear their own costs of Rs.Nil;

(iv) That respondent/plaintiff do bear his own costs of Rs.12,002/­

Given under my hand and the seal of the Court, this the 20th day

of September, 2018.

II ADDL.DISTRICT JUDGE, 

WEST GODAVARI, ELURU.

A.S.No. 56 of 2016 II A.D.J.,

Dated 20-09-2018 W.G., Eluru

MEMORANDUM OF COSTS

FOR APPELLANTS: FOR RESPONDENT:

No memo of costs is filed1. Stamp on Vakalat: 2­00

2. Advocate fees: 12,000­00 

Total costs Taxed: 12,002­00

II A.D.J.,

W.G., Eluru.

M.V.O.P.No. 212 of 2014 1 II A.D.J.,

Dated 24-09-2018 W.G., Eluru

BEFORE THE MOTOR ACCIDENTS CLAIMS TRIBUNAL­CUM­II

ADDITIONAL DISTRICT COURT :: WEST GODAVARI :: ELURU.

Present : Smt. C.Rama Devi Chairman, Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal­cum II Additional District Judge, West Godavari, Eluru.

Monday, the 24th day of September, 2018.

M.V.O.P. No.212/2014

Between: 1.Smt.Gondi Marthamma

2. Gondi Sekhar

3. Gondi Lakshmi

4. Smt.Vemu Sailaja(died)

5. Vemu Sundara Rao (5th petitioner who is sole Legal representative of 4th petitioner is added as party to the proceedings as per the orders in I.A.No.715/2017

dt. 21­07­2017)

...Petitioners

Versus

1. Shri Ram Durwe

2. Jagjeet Singh Chhabra

3. The New India Assurance Company Ltd., rep. By its Divisional Manager, Raipur, Chattisgarh State.

4. Gullapalli Srinivasa Rao

5. Baja Allianz General Insurance Company Ltd., Eluru (Respondents 4 and 5 are added as per the orders in I.A.No.1088/2015 dt.08­10­2015) ­­Respondents. This petition is coming on 13­08­2018 before me for final hearing in the presence of Sri N.V.Satyanarayana, Advocate for the petitioners; and of Sri B.Sambhuprasad, Advocate for 3 rd respondent and of Sri.H.Venu, Advocate for 4th respondent and of Sri. R.Udaya Bhaskar, Advocate for 5th respondent and respondents 1 and 2 are remained exparte and upon perusing the petition and other material papers on record and upon hearing the arguments, this Tribunal made the following:

A W A R D

1. This petition is filed U/Sec. 163A, 166 r/w Sec. 455 of MV rules claiming compensation of Rs.5,00,000/­ for the death of deceased­Gundi

Sundaram @ Lazar in a road accident that took place on 29­11­2013 near NTR statue Allipalli Village. .

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

(i) Gundi Sundaram @ Lazar was working as loading and unloading

M.V.O.P.No. 212 of 2014 2 II A.D.J.,

Dated 24-09-2018 W.G., Eluru

coolie and was also attending other coolie works. On 29­11­2013 he along with other villagers Vanam Yesu, Alla Nageswara Rao, N.Ramu,

Bollarapu Viswaveswara Rao went on AP 16W 1056 lorry for loading and unloading work. They went to Rajapuram of Chandragundla Mandalam,

Khamam District. They loaded Bamboo logs and they started at 6.00 p.m., towards Jangareddigudem. At about 11.30 p.m., when the lorry reached near NTR statue Allipalli village, at that time lorry bearing No.CG 04 JC 8393 came from Mandapalli side driven by 1st respondent in a rash and negligent manner and dashed lorry of the deceased at the left side cabin. Gundi Sundaram @ Lazar and Vanam Yesu who sat in the cabin they fell down and sustained severe injuries. They were shifted to

Community Health Center, Chintalapudi. After giving first aid they were referred to Eluru District Government Hospital, but when they were about to take him to District Hospital, Eluru, he succumbed to the injuries.On the complaint given by Vanam Yesu case was registered against the 1st respondent. 

1St respondent was the driver, 2nd respondent was the owner and 3rd respondent was insurer of the crime vehicle. The 4th is the driver cum owner of lorry bearing No.AP 16W 1056, in which the deceased was traveled. The 5th respondent was the insurer of the said vehicle. 1St petitioner is the wife, 2nd and 3rd petitioners are unmarried son and daughter, 4th petitioner is the married daughter. 5th petitioner is husband of 4th respondent.

At the time of accident, the deceased was hale and healthy, aged 50 years and used to earn not less than Rs.10,000/­ per month. The petitioners are depending on the earnings of the deceased.

3. The averments in the written statement of 3rd respondent in brief are as follows: This respondent has refuted all the averments in the petition by mentioning sentence by sentence. 4Th petitioner is married daughter. 2Nd

M.V.O.P.No. 212 of 2014 3 II A.D.J.,

Dated 24-09-2018 W.G., Eluru

and 3rd petitioners are majors and they are self­earning persons and they are not depending upon the deceased. The accident was occurred due to the negligence of the driver of lorry bearing No.AP 16W 1056. This respondent denies that the said crime vehicle was having valid registration certificate, permit and fitness and it is validly insured with this respondent. The 1st respondent is not having valid driving license. As per the police record, the driver of lorry bearing No.AP 16W 1056 was negligent and there was no negligence on part of the 1st respondent. The compensation claimed by the petitioners is excessive, so also the rate of interest. As per Sec.158(6) of M.V.Act., it is the duty of the police to supply documents immediately after the accident. They did not do so. As per Sec.134(c) of MVAct, it is the duty of the owner to inform about the alleged accident. He did not do so. As such, he had violated the terms and conditions of the policy.

4. The averments in the written statement of 4th respondent are as follows:

There is no negligence on part of this respondent. The accident is occurred solely due to rash and negligent driving of the 1st respondent.

The crime vehicle was duly insured with the 3rd respondent. The 4th respondent was not the driver of the lorry, in which deceased was travelled. He had valid driving license. His vehicle was insured with the 5th respondent. 

5. The averments in the written statement of 5th respondent are as follows:

This respondent admits that 4th respondent vehicle was covered with policy at the material point of time. As per the criminal case record, the alleged accident was occurred due to rash and negligent driving of the 1st respondent, same was insured with the 3rd respondent. The concerned

SHO., filed charge sheet against the 1st respondent. No charge was framed against the driver of insured vehicle. The driver of vehicle bearing

No.AP 16W 1056 was not holding any driving license at the time of

M.V.O.P.No. 212 of 2014 4 II A.D.J.,

Dated 24-09-2018 W.G., Eluru

accident. The 4th respondent has willfully handed over possession of the vehicle to the said driver and thereby violated the terms and conditions of the policy. This respondent also contended the provisions of Sec.

134(c), 158(6) are violated. This respondent also in the same lines of 3rd respondent contended that the petitioners 2 to 4 are not depending on the deceased and also denied the age of the deceased as on the date of accident and the amount claimed by the petitioners as excessive. Prayed for dismissal of the petition against this respondent.

6. Basing on the above pleadings the following issues are framed.

1. Whether the pleaded accident dt. 29­11­2013 has occurred due to rash and negligent driving of lorry bearing No. CG 04 JC 8393 by 1st respondent and whether deceased Gondi Sundaram @ Lazar died in the said accident?

2. Whether the crime vehicle lorry bearing No. CG 04 JC 8393 was owned by 2nd respondent and insured with the 3rd respondent as on the date of accident?

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

4. Whether petitioners are entitled for compensation? If so, to what quantum and what is the liability of the respondent?

5. To what relief?

Additional Issue framed on 18­07­2016:

1. Whether the 4th respondent is driver cum owner of the lorry bearing NO. AP 16W 1056 and insured with 5th respondent as on the date of accident?

Additional issues framed on 16­11­2016

1. Whether the deceased was travelled as an unauthorized passenger in Goods Carriage vehicle as on the date of the accident as contended by the 5th respondent?

2. Whether the compensation and interest claimed are excessive?

7. The petitioners in order to prove their case examined the 1st petitioner as

PW1, 2nd petitioner as PW2 and also examined four independent witness as P.W.3 and they relied upon Exs.A1 to A36. The respondents did not

M.V.O.P.No. 212 of 2014 5 II A.D.J.,

Dated 24-09-2018 W.G., Eluru

adduce any oral evidence on their behalf and got marked Ex.B1 and

Ex.B1(A) ­Policies by consent.

8. Heard counsel for the petitioners and respondents. The counsel appearing for the petitioners and the respondents submitted arguments orally. 

ISSUE NO.1:

9. The petitioners to prove their contention examined PW1. The case of the petitioners is that Gondi Sundaram @ Lazar died in a motor vehicle accident that took place on 29­11­2013. The averments in the written statement of respondent Nos.3 to 5 discloses that they are not denying the very occurrence of the accident, sustaining of fatal injuries by Gondi

Sundaram. On the other hand, Ex.A1 FIR, Ex.A2­Post Mortem

Certificate, Ex.A4­inquest report support the case of the petitioners that

Gondi Sundaram died in a motor vehicle accident. 

10.Further the case of the petitioners is that the 1st respondent was the driver of lorry bearing No. CG 04 JC 8393. The 1st respondent and 2nd respondent though they have received summons, they did not appear and context the matter. The 3rd respondent, who is admittedly the insurer of the above said vehicle in the written statement in para No.9 he contended that the 1st respondent who is the driver of truck No. CG 04

JC 8393 was not having valid license. This shows that the 3rd respondent is not denying the fact that the 1st respondent was the driver of the crime vehicle at the time of accident. 

11. Perusal of Ex.A3­MVI report, Ex.A8­remand report shows that the 1st respondent was shown as driver of the crime vehicle and the police have arrested the 1st respondent and send him to judicial remand. So, these documents also supports the case of the petitioners that the 1st respondent was the driver of the crime vehicle at the time of accident. 

M.V.O.P.No. 212 of 2014 6 II A.D.J.,

Dated 24-09-2018 W.G., Eluru

12. The crucial point for determination in this issue is on whose fault the accident was occurred. The contention of the petitioners is that due to the fault of the 1st respondent the accident was occurred. The contention of the 3rd respondent is that due to the fault of the 4th respondent, who is the driver of the lorry in which deceased was travelled. The 4th respondent in the written statement was contended that he was not the driver at the material point of time. But, he did not state who was the driver at that particular point. Admittedly, he was the owner of the said vehicle. 

13. Coming to the point of negligence PW1 in her deposition stated that while her husband was traveling in the vehicle bearing No.AP 16W 1056 in the cabin, the truck auto bearing No.CG 04 JC 8393 hit the lorry, due to that her husband sustained fatal injuries. During cross­examination, she denied the suggestion that there was collision of two vehicles and the accident was occurred due to the negligence of 4th respondent and there was no negligence on the part of the 1st respondent. 

14. The petitioners also examined PW2. PW2 in the same lines of PW1 deposed that due to the rash and negligent driving of the 1st respondent, the accident was occurred. But, during cross­examination he stated that he is not an eyewitness to the accident. 

15. The petitioners to prove their contention examined PW3. PW3 in his evidence deposed that deceased­Sundaram @ Lazar used to attend loading and unloading work along with them. On 29­11­2013 himself and the deceased and other workers Vanam Yesu and Ramu, Bollarapu

Visveswara Rao and others went on AP 16W 1056 for loading and unloading work. After loading Mango logs they are returning towards

Jangareddigudem. At about 11.30 p.m., when they reached near NTR statue Allipalli Village, the 1st respondent drove his vehicle CG 04 JC 8393 in a rash and negligent manner and dashed their vehicle. Due to

M.V.O.P.No. 212 of 2014 7 II A.D.J.,

Dated 24-09-2018 W.G., Eluru

which, the deceased and Yesu fell down and sustained injuries. During cross­examination he stated that he did not give complaint to the police about the accident. The accident was occurred in the center of the

Allipalli Village. Denied the suggestion that deceased was traveling on the load of logs when 4th respondent applied sudden breaks he fell down from the lorry and sustained injuries and there is no dashing of their lorry by 1st respondent. So, the evidence of this witness shows that solely due to negligent driving of 1st respondent, the accident was occurred. 

16. Perusal Ex.A1­FIR shows that another injured in this accident had mentioned that the driver of lorry bearing No.CG 04 JC 8393 came in a rash and negligent manner and dashed their lorry on the left side and himself and Gondi Lazar who were sitting in the cabin fell down from the lorry. So, the complaint which was given immediately after the accident supports the case of the petitioners that due to rash and negligent driving of the 1st respondent the accident was occurred. Admittedly, the police registered case against the 1st respondent alone and charge sheet was filed against him. So, all these facts supports the contention of the petitioners that due to rash and negligent driving of the 1st respondent the accident was occurred.

17. The 3rd respondent to rebut the said evidence and to prove that the accident was occurred due to the negligence of the 4th respondent or the lorry bearing No. AP 16W 1056 driver did not examine the 1st respondent, who is the better person to say about the manner of the accident. Hence, the present issue is decided in favour of the petitioners.

Issue No.2:

18. Admittedly, the 2nd respondent was the owner of the crime vehicle. As per

Ex.B1 the said vehicle was insured with the 3rd respondent and the policy was in force as on the date of the accident. Hence, both the issues are decided in favour of the petitioner.

M.V.O.P.No. 212 of 2014 8 II A.D.J.,

Dated 24-09-2018 W.G., Eluru

Issue No.3:

19. The 3rd respondent in the written statement had taken a plea that the vehicle has no permit and valid documents. The 1st respondent had no driving license. The initial burden will be on the 3rd respondent to prove the same. The 3rd respondent neither examined any witness nor marked any documents in support of the said contention. So, absolutely there is no iota of evidence to prove that the 1st respondent has no valid driving license, 2Nd respondent had no valid permit and documents for his vehicle. Hence, this issue is also decided against the respondent Nos. 1 to 3.

Additional issues dt:18­07­2016 and additional issue No.1 dt.16­11­

2016 

20.The contention of the 4th respondent is that he was not the driver of the vehicle bearing No. AAP 16W 1056 at the time of accident. But, he did not place any material before the court to show the same. Ex.B1(A) filed by the 5th respondent shows that the vehicle was insured with the 5th respondent and it was in force as on the date of accident. 

21. Further the contention of the 5th respondent is that deceased was travelling as an unauthorized passenger in a goods carriage vehicle.

When PW3 had stated that deceased was travelling as a loading and unloading coolie, there is no cross­examination to the said witness. The 5th respondent did not place any material to show that deceased was travelled as an unauhtorized passenger. Hence, both the issues are decided accordingly.

Issue No.4 and additional issue No.2 dt.16­11­2016: 

22. Initially the petitioners have filed petition against respondent Nos. 1 to 3.

After filing of written statement, respondent Nos. 4 and 5 were added.

But, the petitioners have claimed compensation against respondent Nos.

1 to 3 only. In view of the discussion made above, the accident was

M.V.O.P.No. 212 of 2014 9 II A.D.J.,

Dated 24-09-2018 W.G., Eluru

occurred solely due to negligence of 1st respondent. Being driver 1st respondent, being owner 2nd respondent, being insurer­3rd respondent are alone liable to pay compensation to the petitioners.

23. The petitioners have claimed compensation under the following heads.

Funeral Expenses:

24. Under this head, the petitioners claimed an amount of Rs.10,000/­. In

National Insurance Company Vs. Prany Sethi 1the Hon’ble Apex

Court observed the reasonable figures on conventional head funeral expenses should be Rs. 15,000/­. As such an amount of Rs. 15,000/­ is awarded.

25. In Rajesh and others Vs. Rajbir Singh 2 , the Hon’ble Apex Court observed that  ‘the Tribunal court has a duty, irrespective of the claims made in the application, if any, to properly award a just, equitable, fair and reasonable compensation, if necessary, ignoring the claim made in the application for compensation. 

Loss of Consortium:

26. Under this head, the 1st petitioner claimed an amount of Rs.1,00,000/­.

In the above 1st cited case law, the Hon’ble Apex Court has observed that the reasonable figures on conventional head of consortium should be Rs.40,000/­. As such an amount of Rs.40,000/­ is awarded under this head.

Transport:

27. Under this head, the petitioners claimed an amount of Rs.2,000/­.

Taking into consideration of the date of accident and other circumstances, this Tribunal is of opinion that Rs.1,000/­ will meet the ends of justice.

­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­

1.  2017 ACJ 1700

2. 2013 (9) SCC 54

M.V.O.P.No. 212 of 2014 10 II A.D.J.,

Dated 24-09-2018 W.G., Eluru

Loss of Love and Affection:

28. The petitioners included this head under the head of loss of consortium.

1St petitioner is entitled for loss of consortium. Petitioners 2 to 4 are entitled for loss of love and affection. The 1st petitioner is the wife, petitioners 2 to 4 are the children of deceased . So, they lost support, guidance, love and affection of the deceased. As such Rs.10,000/­ each is awarded under this head. In total Rs.40,000/­ was awarded under this head.

Loss of dependancy:

29.Under this head the petitioners have claimed an amount of

Rs.4,00,000/­. The counsel appearing for the petitioners contended that the age of the deceased was 54 years as per Post Mortem Certificate and the contention of the respondents is that he was more than 60. There was no evidence to that effect. Persual of Ex.A2 Post Mortem certificate shows that the age of the deceased was mentioned as 54 years. Ex.A1­

FIR shows that the age of the deceased is mentioned as 60 years. As post mortem certificate is the authenticated certificate, his age can be taken

as 54 years. The counsel appearing for the petitioners contended that 2nd

and 3rd petitioners have completed B.Ed., if the deceased was alive they might have secured better jobs as he could give training to them. So, they are depending on the earnings of the deceased.

30. PW2 to support his evidence, he filed Exs.A9 to A36 the attested copies of his study and conduct certificates and provisional certificates. All these documents are not relevant. As per the averments in the petition, the 2nd petitioners is aged 25 years and 3rd petitioner is aged about 22 years. PW2 during cross­examination admitted that in the inquest it is mentioned that he is working as an agricultural coolie. So, it shows that these two petitioners are not depending upon the earnings of the deceased. 

M.V.O.P.No. 212 of 2014 11 II A.D.J.,

Dated 24-09-2018 W.G., Eluru

31. As per the contention of the petitioners, the deceased used to earn

Rs.5,000/­ to Rs.10,000/­. As it is contended by the counsel for the respondent there is no iota of evidence placed before the court to show that he was earning Rs.10,000/­ per month.

32. PW3 is the co­worker. In his chief­examination he mentioned that the deceased used to earn not less than Rs.400/ ­ per month. He did not specifically state the actual earnings of the deceased. Being co­worker he will have first hand knowledge of the earnings of the deceased. He did not specifically state the same. As such, the daily wages of worker during the said period can be taken into consideration and it can be Rs.4,500/­ per month.

33. In the above cited case National Insurance Company Vs. Prany

Sethi 1, Hon’ble Apex Court observed that in case the deceased was self­ employed or fixed salary an addition of 10% be given where the deceased was between the age of 50­60 years. In Sarla Varma and others Vs.

Delhi Transport Corporation and another 3observed that if number of

Dependants of family members is 2 to 3 1/3rd of the earnings has to be deducted towards his living and personal expenses. Even the contention of the petitioners is taken into consideration 1/3rd of the earnings has to be deducted. Hence, the salary of the deceased can be worked out to be:

Rs.4,500/­ + 10%= Rs.4,950/­(Rs.4,500/­ + Rs.450/­). Rs.4,950/­ ­ 1/3rd =Rs.3,300/­ ( Rs.4,950/­ ­ Rs.1,650/­). As per Sarla Varma case, the multiplier applicable is '11' when the age group of the deceased is between 51­55 years. The loss of dependancy can be Rs.4,950/­ x 12 x 11 =Rs.4,35,600/­. In the considered opinion of this court, the income of the deceased is within income tax limit. 

34. In view of the discussion made above, total compensation awarded to the claimants under various heads is concluded as follows: ­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­

3. 2009 Law Suit SC 613

M.V.O.P.No. 212 of 2014 12 II A.D.J.,

Dated 24-09-2018 W.G., Eluru

Sl.Name of the headAmount No.

1 Funeral Expenses: Rs. 15,000­00 2 Loss of Consortium: Rs. 40,000­00 3Transport: Rs. 1,000­00 4 Loss of Love and affection : Rs. 40,000­00 5Loss of dependancy: Rs.4,35,600­00

Total: Rs.5,31,600­00

In the result, the claim application of the petitioners is allowed with costs as follows:­

1. An amount of Rs. 5,31,600/­ (Rupees Five Lakhs Thirty One

Thousand Six Hundred only) is awarded as compensation to the

Petitioners 1 to 4 in view of death of gundi Sundaram @ Lazar in a

Motor Vehicle Accident which took place on 29­11­2013;

2. The respondent Nos. 1 to 3 are jointly and severally liable to pay the said compensation amount of Rs. 5,31,600/­ (Rupees Five Lakhs

Thirty One Thousand Six Hundred only) to the petitioners with interest at the rate of 7.5% per annum from the date of filing of this petition i.e. from 22­03­2014 till the date of deposit of amount;

3. The Respondents 1 to 3 are directed to deposit the said compensation amount within 30 days from the date of this award;

4. The claim against respondents 4 and 5 is dismissed;

5. The 1st Petitioner is awarded an amount of Rs.3,25,000/­ with costs and interest on total amount of Rs.5,31,600/­, 2nd petitioner is awarded an amount of Rs.75,000/­ and 3rd petitioner is awarded an amount of Rs.1,00,000/­ and an amount of Rs.31,600/­ is awarded to 5th petitioner being legal heir of 4th petitioner;

6. After deposit the 1st petitioner is permitted to withdraw an amount of

Rs. 1,25,000/­ (Rupees One Lakh Twenty Five Thousand only). The remaining amount of Rs.2,00,000/­ with interest and costs are ordered to be kept in F.D.R for a period of two years. The petitioners 2,3 and 5 are permitted to withdraw the amounts which are awarded to them;

M.V.O.P.No. 212 of 2014 13 II A.D.J.,

Dated 24-09-2018 W.G., Eluru

7. Petitioners are directed to pay the court fee on the excess awarded amount within one week;

8. Advocate fee is fixed at Rs. 2,000/­ (Rupees Two Thousand only)

Typed to my dictation by the Stenographer, corrected and pronounced by me in the open Court on this the 24th day of September, 2018.

Chairman,

Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal­cum­

II Additional District Judge, West Godavari, Eluru.

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE:

WITNESS EXAMINED:

FOR PETITIONERS: 

P.W.1 – Gondi Marthamma P.W.2 – Gondi Sekhar P.W.3­Alla Nageswara Rao

FOR RESPONDENTS:­NIL

DOCUMENTS MARKED:

FOR PETITIONERS:

Ex.A1/­­:Attested photostat copy of FIR

Ex.A2/­­:Attested photostat copy of Post Mortem Certificate

Ex.A3/­­:Attested photostat copy of MV Inspectors report

Ex.A4/­­:Attested photostat copy of Inquest report

Ex.A5/­­:Attested copy of C­book

Ex.A6/­­:Attested copy of DL

Ex.A7/­­:Attested copy of Insurance Policy of R3

Ex.A8/­­:Attested copy of Remand report

Ex.A9/­­:Attested copy of B.Ed.Provisional certificate dt.11­06­2016

Ex.A10/­­:Attested copy of B.Ed., Memorandum of Marks

dt. 16­06­2016

Ex.A11/­­: Attested copy of B.Sc., provisional certificate dt.08­09­2004 

Ex.A12/­­ : Attested copy of English Methodlogy study and conduct certificate dt. 12­04­2006

Ex.A13/­­ :Attested copy of consolidated Memorandum of Marks pertains to B.Sc.

Ex.A14/­­ : Attested copy of study and conduct certificate of B.Sc.

M.V.O.P.No. 212 of 2014 14 II A.D.J.,

Dated 24-09-2018 W.G., Eluru

Ex.A.15/­­ :Attested copy of Migration certificate

dt. 29­10­2004

Ex.A.16/­:Attested copy of State Board of Technical education and training certificate dt. 28­02­2002

Ex.A.17/­ :Attested copy of State Board of Technical Education and training(1 year) dt. 30­09­2000

Ex.A.18/­ :Attested copy of State Board of Technical Education and training (2nd year) dt. 16­08­2001

Ex.A.19/­ :Attested copy ofstudy and conduct certificate of diploma in Pharmacy dt. 03­10­2001

Ex.A.20/­:Attested copy of Intermediate Marks Memorandum 

dt. 07­08­1999

Ex.A.21/­­ :Attested copy of Study certificate issued by Government Junior College, Chintalapudi

Ex.A.22/­­ ;Attested copy of secondary school certificate issued byBoardofsecondaryeducation dt.26­05­1997 

Ex.A.23/­­ :Attested copy of study and conduct certificate issued by Z.P. High School, Chintalapudi dt.07­10­1999

Ex.A.24/­­ :Attested copy of study certificate issued by CSI Elementary school, Yarraguntapalli 

Ex.A.25/­­ :Attested copy of B.Ed., Provisional Certificate

dt. 09­12­2004

Ex.A.26/­­:ATtested copy of B.Ed., statement of marks

dt. 21­06­2008

Ex.A.27/­­:Attested copy of B.A.provisional certificate

dt. 21­06­2008

Ex.A.28/­:Attested copy of study and conduct certificate issued by Nova College

Ex.A.29/­:Attested copy of T.C.issued by Nova College

Ex.A.30/­:Attested copy of consolidated Memorandum of Marks of BA

Ex.A.31/­:Attested copy of study and conduct certificate issued by Jalagam Vengala Rao Government College

Ex.A.32/­:Attested copy of Memorandum of marks issued by Board of Intermediate Education.

Ex.A.33/­:Attested copy of study and conduct certificate issued by Chaitanya Bharathi Junior College, Chintalapudi

Ex.A.34/­:Attested copy of SSC issued by Board of Secondary Education

Ex.A.35/­:Attested copy of study and conduct certificate issued by Z.P.High School, Yarrampalli

Ex.A.36/­­:Attested copy of study and conduct certificate issued by CSI Elementary School, Yarraguntapalli

M.V.O.P.No. 212 of 2014 15 II A.D.J.,

Dated 24-09-2018 W.G., Eluru

FOR RESPONDENTS: 

Ex.B1/­­:Attested copy of Policy of R3

Ex.B1(A)/­­:Attested copy of Policy of R5

Chairman.

MACT­II ADJ

W.G.Eluru.

1

Crl.A.No. 1 of 2016 II A.D.J.,

Dated 26-09-2018 W.G., Eluru

IN THE COURT OF II ADDITIONAL DISTRICT & SESSIONS JUDGE,

WEST GODAVARI :: ELURU.

Present: Smt.C.Rama Devi

II Additional Sessions Judge, West Godavari, Eluru.

Wednesday, the 26th day of September, 2018

CRIMINAL APPEAL No.1/2016

From what Court the:The Special Mobile Court, W.G., Eluru. appeal is preferred Number of the case in:D.V.C.No.22/2014 that Court Number of the Appeal:Crl. Appeal No. 1/2016

Name and description ofBalusu Kishore S/o. Venkateswara Rao, the AppellantsIndian, male, aged 36 years, R/o. Pedakadimini Village, Pedavegi Mandal, EJCJC Name and description of:1. Smt.Balusu Bhavani W/o. Kishore, the respondentsHindu, female, aged 26 years, Lingapalem Mandal, Ch.JCJC.

2. The State rep. By the Public Prosecutor, West Godard District, Eluru. The finding of the:In the result, the complainant succeeds and Lower Court accordingly, the first respondent is directed to pay monthly maintenance of Rs.5,000/­ to the complainant from the date of this order and he is further directed to pay compensation of Rs.5,00,000/­ to the complainant within six months from the date of this order and failing which the complainant has a every right to get the order executed by due process of law and the respondents 2 to 5 are directed not to interfere in to the personal freedom and space of complainant and if they fail to obey the order of the Court that they are liable for penal consequences under Sec. 31 of

DVC Act Whetherconfirmed,:In the result, appeal is dismissed modified or reversed,confirming the judgment of the Lower and if modified theCourt in DVC No. 22/2014 dt. 05­12­ modification2015 on the file of Judicial Magistrate of

First Class, Special Mobile Court, W.G.,

Eluru. .

2

Crl.A.No. 1 of 2016 II A.D.J.,

Dated 26-09-2018 W.G., Eluru

Date of presentation:04­01­2016

Date of filing:05­01­2016 Date of notice issued:05­01­2016 Date of Bail Bond:­­ Date of appearance:17­08­2016

Date of hearing:04­09­2018

Date of Judgment :26­09­2018

This Criminal Appeal came on 04­09­2018 for final hearing before me in the presence of Sri A.Jagan Mohana Rao, Advocate for the

Appellant and of Sri.K.N.Ch.Suresh Babu, Advocate for 1st respondent; and the Additional Public Prosecutor appearing for the state/2nd respondent and upon perusal of the grounds of Appeal and the record of evidence and having stood over for consideration till this day, this Court delivered the following:­

J U D G E M E N T

1.

This appeal is filed U/Sec. 29 of Protection of Women from

Domestic Violence Act., challenging the judgment in DVC No.22/2014 dt.

05­12­2015 on the file of Special Mobile Court, W.G., Eluru.

2.

The grounds of appeal in brief are as follows:

The lower court is wrong in directing the appellant to pay monthly maintenance of Rs.5,000/­, compensation of Rs.5,00,000/­ to 1st respondent within six months. The evidence of PW1 is inconsistent with her allegations. The appellant is deaf and dumb and is depending on his parents. He has no indenpendent source of income. The evidence was not properly scrutinized. The complainant had failed to prove the grounds of allegations. The court ought to have seen that the complainant herself deserted and neglected this appellant. The present complaint is filed to harass the appellant. The complainant has extra marital relationship with one Korsa Badram and the same was proved by filing documents Exs.R2 to R6. RW4 clearly stated 1st respondent informed her husband name as Korsa Badram. RW1 has clearly stated 3

Crl.A.No. 1 of 2016 II A.D.J.,

Dated 26-09-2018 W.G., Eluru

Korsa Bhadram was with 1st respondent in her house at the time of her visit. PW1 has stated her unwillingness to live with the appeallant.

3.

For better understanding the averments in the complaint and counter are narrated as follows:

The averments in the complaint in brief are as follows:

The complainant is the legally wedded wife of the 1st respondent.

Respondent Nos. 2 and 3 are his parents. 4th respondent is his brother.

5th respondent is 4th respondent's wife. The marriage between the complainant and 1st respondent took place on 17­06­2011 at Sri

Venkateswaraswamy Devastanam, Dwaraka Tirumala, as per Hindu

Rites and Caste customs. The sister of the respondent No.2 arranged the marriage, though the parties belongs to different castes. For about one year the complainant and 1st respondent lead their marital life happily.

Respondent Nos. 2 to 4 treated her well. She was blessed with one female child on 07­05­2012. After the marriage of 4th respondent with 5th respondent, there was gradual change in the attitude of the respondents, as she came from a rich family. The 5th respondent also poisoned the minds of respondent Nos.1 to 4. All the respondents started treating her as maidservant and put her to all sorts of domestic violence. Even put her to starvation. On 01­11­2013 all the respondents made an attempt to kill the complainant. She escaped from their clutches and went to her parents house with her child. When she went to her maternal uncle's house at Srikakulam to protect herself, respondent Nos. 1 to 4 along with rowdy elements went there and tried to take away her child forcibly.

On 08­01­2014 the respondents send intimation on the pretext of negotiations. When she went there all the respondents abused her and attributed unchastity to the complainant. She gave complaint and the 4

Crl.A.No. 1 of 2016 II A.D.J.,

Dated 26-09-2018 W.G., Eluru

same was registered as Cr,No.21/2014. 1st respondent is in sound financial condition, have large extents of land and got monthly earnings of Rs.1,00,000/­. As such, she filed the present complaint. 

4.

The averments in the counter filed by the respondents 1 and 2 adopted by respondent Nos. 3 to 5 in brief are as follows:

This respondent admitted the marriage between the complainant and the 1st respondent. The complainant herself left the matrimonial home without any justifiable cause and claiming maintenance of

Rs.20,000/­, compensation of Rs.20,00,000/­ is not tenable. When the respondents tried to visit the minor the complainant and her mother threatened them in filing criminal cases. They threatened that they will detain them and send them to jail. Under the said circumstance, respondent Nos. 1 and 2 filed G.O.P.No. 199/2014 on the file of

Principal District Judge, W.G., Eluru, seeking visiting rights of

respondents with minor. 1st respondent is deaf and dumb. Respondent

Nos. 2 and 3 alone understand the gestures of the 1st respondent.

There is no physical, mental and economical abuse on part of the respondents. The complainant used to go to her parents house frequently even without informing the 1st respondent. She used to pick up quarrels with the 1st respondent for no fault of him. In the month of

July, 2013, she left the matrimonial house with minor. Since then, elders tried to unite them, but in vain. The 1st respondent developed immense love and affection towards minor child and his wife. The respondents are unable to bear the separation of minor daughter. The respondent is ready to take back the complainant. Hence, the complaint may be dismissed.

5

Crl.A.No. 1 of 2016 II A.D.J.,

Dated 26-09-2018 W.G., Eluru

5.

The complainant during enquiry complainant examined herself as PW1 and her mother as PW2 and no documents were marked.

The respondents on the other hand examined the 2nd respondent as

RW1 and also four independent witnesses were examined RW2 to RW5 and relied upon Exs.R1 to R6 and Exs.X1 to X4. 

6.

Basing on the material on record, the Lower Court directed the 1st respondent to pay Rs.5,000/­ to the complainant towards maintenance and also directed to pay compensation of Rs.5,00,000/­ to the complainant within six months from the date of the order.

Respondents 2 to 5 were directed not to interfere in the personal freedom of the complainant. Aggrieved by the said order, the present appeal is filed by the 1st respondent. 

7.

Heard the counsel appearing for the appellant and respondents. In view of the arguments and the material on record, the following points have to be determined by this court:

1. Whether the complainant is entitled for maintenance and compensation as awarded by the Lower Court?

2. Whether there are any grounds to interfere in the impugned judgment of the lower court?

3. To what relief?

Point No.1

8.

The Complainant to prove her contention filed her chief­ affidavit in the same lines of the averments in the complaint. The cross­ examination of PW1 shows that during cross­examination she stated she is not willing to join 1st respondent when 1st respondent stays along with his family members. Denied the suggestion that she is unable to understand the gestures made by 1st respondent and his parents are able to understand him. Denied the suggestion that she has taken to 6

Crl.A.No. 1 of 2016 II A.D.J.,

Dated 26-09-2018 W.G., Eluru

hospital during 2nd delivery. She further stated that she is not willing to join 1st respondent since he abused her in filthy language that she is bitch. Her 1st daughter was born on 07­05­2012 and 2nd daughter was born on 04­06­2014. She left the matrimonial home on 01­11­2013.

Denied the suggestion that she got mentioned the name of her husband as Korsa Badram and she is maintaining illegal intimacy with one Korsa

Badram. 

9.

The averments in the counter filed by respondent Nos. 1 and 2 shows that there is no allegation of illegal intimacy of PW1 or the respondents challenged the paternity of second daughter of PW1. As per the evidence of PW1, she left the matrimonial home in the month of

November, 2013 within 9 months i.e., in the month of June, 2014, she gave birth to a female child. There is no cross­examination made to PW1 that she did not left the house of respondents in the month of November, 2013. That gives a presumption U/Sec. 112 of Indian Evidence Act. At first instance, the respondents did not cross­examine PW1 on the point of unchastity. Subsequently, after recall, they questioned her about unchastity. When there is no pleading, the evidence of the respondent cannot be taken into consideration. The challenge made by the respondents subsequently, supports her contention in the petition that the respondents have abused her with unchastity. Any women if abused as unchasty women she can not bear the said mental torture. So, there is every ground for the complainant to live separately and claim maintenance and compensation.

10.

To support her evidence, she examined her mother as PW2.

PW2 deposed in the same lines of the averments in the complaint, about the ill­treatment meted to her daughter. In the cross­examination 7

Crl.A.No. 1 of 2016 II A.D.J.,

Dated 26-09-2018 W.G., Eluru

she stated she has no objection to send PW1 to the house of 1st respondent. Denied the suggestion that PW1 left the matrimonial home on her own. The suggestion made to PW2 shows that the respondents have no objection to take back the complainant to their home. In the counter also, the respondents have stated so. If really, PW1 was unchasty women and she herself gave the name of her husband as

Korsa Badram, the respondents will not agree to take her to their house for leading matrimonial life by 1st respondent. So, the cross­ examination made to P.Ws. 1 and 2 shows that to avoid consequences, the respondents are taking different pleas at different points of time. The cross­examination of PWs.1 and 2 show that they stood to the cross­ examination and nothing is elicited to show that the complainant has left the matrimonial home of respondents without any reasonable cause.

11.

The respondents to substantiate their contention examined the 2nd respondent as RW1. She denied all the averments and further she stated that the 1st respondent is ready to take back the complainant and the child and they are unable to bear the separation. During cross­ examination, she denied the suggestion that on 01­11­2013 herself and her family members assaulted and necked out PW1. Nowhere in her evidence she stated PW1 did not left the home on 01­11­2013 and in the month of June, 2013 itself she left her matrimonial home. Further, in her cross­examination, she stated she is not aware of whether PW1 begot 2nd child. They are ready to take PW1 and her kids. It shows that she is not challenging the paternity of the children. Further she was examined on recall and during that time she has stated about the delivery of the 2nd child and receiving information of changing the name of her husband. During cross­examination she stated, she is not aware 8

Crl.A.No. 1 of 2016 II A.D.J.,

Dated 26-09-2018 W.G., Eluru

whether she has filed any application for changing the name of her husband. She is acquainted with Badram and he informed her that himself and PW1 are living together. Once again stated, he called her over phone and informed the same. This statement of RW1 appears to be not trustworthy. No person can say about his illegal contact with the daughter­in­law to mother­in­law. She admitted she did not aver in her counter that PW1 developed illegal intimacy with one Badram and she stated around one month back she came to know about illegal intimacy.

All these statements of RW1 shows only to avoid consequences, she deposed so. 

12.

To support her evidence she examined a third party as RW2.

He deposed he is neighbour and himself and other elders requested the complainant to come back and join the 1st respondent. During cross­ examination, he stated that PW1 is blessed with two children. Denied the suggestion that during mediation he abused PW1 in filthy language, whereupon, PW1 lodged complaint before Women P.S. RW2 did not give reason or reasons given by PW1 in not coming to the house of the 1st respondent.

13.

RW3 is another independent witness and he deposed in the same lines of RW1. During cross­examination he stated that 2nd respondent is his sister. PW1 has two children. During marriage negotiations they agreed to give Ac.1.00 cents of land from the properties of his grandfather. He denied the suggestion that he used to threaten PW1 through followers of Chintamaneni Prabhakara Rao. As he is the brother of R2, his evidence cannot be relied upon and RW1 never stated through RW2 and RW3 they mediated the matter.

9

Crl.A.No. 1 of 2016 II A.D.J.,

Dated 26-09-2018 W.G., Eluru

14.

Examined Gynecologist as RW4. She deposed on 07­05­2012

PW1 was admitted in the hospital and she gave birth to a female child.

On 04­06­2014 she gave birth to a female child. The name of PW1 is entered in the register. The name of the husband of the complainant was mentioned as Korsa Badram. Ex.R5 is birth certificate register. PW1 furnished the details mentioned in Ex.R5. She obtained consent letter under Ex.R6. During cross­examination she stated Ex.R6 the signature of PW1 is mentioned. In the column of witness in Ex.R6 the name of

Badram is mentioned. Badram did not put his signature in her presence in Ex.R6. Whatever the information that is furnished the same will be sent to Municipal Office. Case sheet contains the name of the husband of the patient and the other details will be taken from the patient.

15.

Perusal of Ex.R4 shows that the name of the father of the child is mentioned as Balusu Kishore. There is no dispute about this document. Ex.R5 shows name of the father is mentioned as Korsa

Badram and mother as Korsa Bhavani. Whereas Ex.R6 shows that the signature of the patient is mentioned as B.Bhavani and in the witness column name of Badram is mentioned. As it is rightly mentioned he did not sign in the column of husband. Ex.R5 does not contain the signature of the complainant. So, basing on the evidence of this witness and the above documents it cannot be observed that the 2nd child was not born to 1st respondent.

16.

The respondents also examined RW5­the Municipal Health

Officer. He filed Exs.X1 to X4. Ex.X1 is birth certificate of Nithya Sree.

Ex.X2 is birth certificate of Harshita. Ex.X3 is birth intimation record wherein father name is mentioned as Korsa Badram and Ex.X4 is the birth intimation record dt. 07­05­2012. During his evidence he stated as 10

Crl.A.No. 1 of 2016 II A.D.J.,

Dated 26-09-2018 W.G., Eluru

per the record available in their office, one Korusu Badram made requisition for substituting his name in the place of Balusu Kishore.

During cross­examination he stated PW1 did not make any requisition to change the name of her husband. Ex.X1 and Ex.X2 reflects the name of the husband of the PW1 Korsa Badram. So, the evidence of this witness shows that one Korsa Badram approached them and requested to change the name of the husband. As such, they changed the name.

Ex.X1 and Ex.X2 shows that with regard to the birth of Nityasree also name of Badram was changed as husband of Bhavani. The authorities have changed the name of the husband without any application by the complainant. It is not stated that after hearing the petitioner, they made changes. When once they have entered the name in the birth register, how they are entitled to change the same, without intimation to the complainant is not stated. So, this gives suspicion about these documents.

17.

As it is stated above, respondents did not challenge the chastity of the complainant in the counter and even during the evidence,

RW1 has stated she is willing to take back the complainant and her daughters. So, this shows that they caused immense mental harassment to the complainant. As such, she is entitled to live separately and claim maintenance.

18.

Though in the counter, the respondents have contended that the 1st respondent is unable to do any work, RW2 in his cross­ examination stated 1st respondent is able to do all the works even though he is deaf and dumb. RW3 during cross­examination stated that 1st respondent is able to carry out agriculture. So, it shows 1st respondent is able to do work and only to avoid maintenance he has 11

Crl.A.No. 1 of 2016 II A.D.J.,

Dated 26-09-2018 W.G., Eluru

taken such a plea. 

19.

The respondents contended that PW1 is working, but RW1 during her cross­examination, admitted that PW1 discontinued the service and she does not own any landed properties. RW2 stated PW1 has no financial capacity to maintain herself. Her kids are depending upon her for their sustenance. Even RW3 stated they agreed to give

Ac.1.00 cents of land 1st respondent from the properties of his grandfather. This shows though the 1st respondent has sufficient means and the complainant has no means to maintain herself and her children he neglected to maintain her. So, she is entitled for maintenance. The compensation awarded by the Lower Court is also reasonable in view of the attitude of the respondents. Hence, the point is decided in favour of the complainant. 

Point No.2

20.

The order of the Lower Court shows that the Lower Court rightly decided the point in favour of the complainant. As such, there are no grounds to interfere in the impugned judgment of the lower court. 

Point No.3

21.

In the result, the appeal is dismissed, confirming the judgment of the Lower Court in DVC No. 22/2014 dt. 05­12­2015 on the file of Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Special Mobile Court, W.G.,

Eluru. 

Typed to my dictation by the Stenographer, corrected and pronounced by me in

the open Court. this the 26th day of September, 2018.

sd/­C.Ramadevi

 II Additional Sessions Judge,

West Godavari, Eluru.

12

Crl.A.No. 1 of 2016 II A.D.J.,

Dated 26-09-2018 W.G., Eluru

Copy to

1. The Register (Judicial) High Court of Andhra Pradesh, Hyderabad. (through C.D.)

2. The Special Mobile Court, W.G., Eluru, along with entire record in DVC No. 22/2014 //True copy//

 II Additional Sessions Judge,

West Godavari, Eluru.

BEFORE THE CHAIRMAN, MOTOR ACCIDENTS CLAIMS TRIBUNAL -CUM- V

ADDITIONAL DISTRICT JUDGE, (FTC), WEST GODAVARI, ELURU.

Present: Smt.C.Rama Devi, Chairman, Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal-cum- VII Additional District Judge, FAC/V Addl.District Judge, (FTC), West Godavari, Eluru.

Thursday, this the 23rd day of February, 2017.

MVOP NO.1121/2012.

Between:

1. Pothula Mariyamma

2. Tadikamalla Chandra Rao

3. Yesupogu Rani

4. Pathuri Lakshmi. .…Petitioners.

And

1. Geddala Sekhar.

2. Pragidimarla Madhusudhana Reddy,

3. M/s Reliance General Insurance Company Limited, Mumbai.

…Respondents.

This petition coming on 16-01-2017, for final hearing before me in the presence of Sri D.Venkateswarlu, Advocate for the Petitioners and of

Sri R.Udaya Bhaskar, Advocate for the 3rd respondent, and respondents 1 and 2 having been 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 consideration, this tribunal delivered the following:

A W A R D

1.This petition is filed under section 166 of Motor Vehicles Act read with rule 455 of MV rules claiming compensation of Rs.1,50,000/- for the demise of Thadikimalla Ramulu in a road accident that took place on 19-3-2011 at Eluru Chintalapudi road at Kandrika Gudem opposite panchayath office.

2.The brief fact as narrated in the petition are: Tahadikamalla

Ramulu was hale and healthy aged about 85 years working as part time 2 motor pump operator in Thangellamudi panchayath. On 19-3-2011 he went to his office and up to midday he discharged his duties. And while returning home to take lunch when he reached near Panchayath office

Kandrigagudem on Eluru Chintalapudi road at 1-00pm. Auto bearing no.AP 27 B 8355 proceeding from Chintalapudi towards Thangellamudi came in high speed driven in a rash and negligent manner without following traffic rules and dashed against the deceased and another person. Both of them fell on road and sustained multiple grievous injuries. Immediately he was shifted to head quarters hospital, Eluru, on 20-3-2011 he was shifted to Government general hospital, Guntur. On 25- 3-2011 at 1-30 a.m., he succumbed to injuries while under going treatment. As part time motor pump operator he use to earn Rs.3,000 per month. 1st respondent was the driver, 2nd respondent was the owner, 3rd respondent was the insurer of the crime vehicle. And petitioners 1 to 4 are 3 daughters and one son of the deceased except them there are no other legal heirs.

3. The averments in the written statement of R3 are as follows : This respondent has denied each and every allegation of the petition and contended there was no rash and negligence on the part of 1st respondent in causing the accident. The deceased being old man due to loss of eye sight and energy suddenly tried to cross the road without observing the movement of the vehicles and due to confusion state of mind he contributed the accident. The 1st respondent was not holding any valid driving license to drive the auto at the time of the accident. And there by violated the provisions of MV Act and also terms and conditions of the policy. This respondent is not liable to pay compensation. The auto has no fitness certificate according to the averments in the petition 1st petitioner is 60years, 2nd 55 3rd 51 4th 38 years all are married and majors not depending on the income of the deceased.

3

4. They are not entitled for any compensation towards loss of dependency they are not entitled on the head of loss of dependency entitled under the head of no fault of liability. As per section 134 of MV

Act it is the duty of the 2nd respondent to inform date, time, place of the accident, particulars of policy, driving license, but 2nd respondent did not comply the same. The petitioners must be put to strict proof that policy was in force by the date of accident. The interest claimed is very excessive. Petition may be dismissed against this respondent.

5.Basing on the above pleadings the following issues are settled for trial :

1.Whether the death of the deceased

Tadikimalla Ramu is the resultant of the accident due to rash and negligent driving of Auto bearing

No.AP 27-V-8355 as alleged in the petition ?

2.Whether the petitioners are entitled for compensation ? If so, to what amount and from which of the respondents ?

3.To what relief ?

6.The petitioners in order to prove their contention examined 2nd petitioner as Pw1 and also examined Pw2 and relied upon Ex.A1 to

Ex.A5. The respondent examined RTA Junior Assistant as RW1, Legal executive as RW2 and relied upon Exs.X1, Ex.X2, and Ex.B1.

7.Issue No.1 : As the petitioners have filed present petition claiming compensation for the demise of Tadikamalla Ramulu in a road accident it is incumbent on their part to prove that Tadikamalla Ramulu met with an accident and succumbed to the same and the accident was occurred due to the rash and negligent driving of R1. In order to prove their contention the 2nd petitioner who is the son of the deceased was examined. In chief examination he deposed on 19-3-2011 Ramulu went to his office discharged his duties upto mid day and while he was coming to 4 the house to take lunch when he reached opposite to panchayath office the crime vehicle which is coming form Chintalapudi towards

Tangellamudi in high speed, in rash and negligent manner dashed his father and another person. Both of them fell down.

8. His father sustained multiple fractures and injuries. He was shifted to Government head quartets hospital, Eluru. On next day he was shifted to Government general hospital, Guntur. While under going treatment he died at 1-30 am due to the injuries sustained by him in the accident. Though in the written statement the contesting respondent contended he is not admitting the allegation of the accident and other facts he cross examination of Pw1 reveals there is no denial of the very occurrence of the accident and sustaining of injuries by the deceased. The petitioners to prove their contention relied upon Ex.A1 FIR which reads that on the said date while the deceased was going on the road the accident was occurred and he sustained injuries in the accident.

Deceased himself gave statement to the police.

9.Ex.A4 is inquest report, Ex.A5 is the charge sheet which shows that the police after thorough investigation filed charge sheet alleging that the accident was occurred opposite to panchayath office in which the deceased sustained injuries. Ex.A3 PM Certificate shows that the doctor opined that the death was due to complications of multiple injuries. So, the documents which are also unchallenged by the contesting respondent reveals that deceased Ramulu met with an accident and sustained fatal injuries. The contention of the petitioners is R1 is the driver of the said crime vehicle. R1 did not contest the matter. Ex.A5 charge sheet Ex.A2- MVI report reveal that R1 is the driver of the crime

Vehicle at the time of accident.

5

10. Further the case of the petitioners is that due to rash and negligent driving of R1 the accident was occurred. To prove their contention they examined Pw2 as eye witness. In chief examination she deposed that on 19-3-2011 at 1-00 p.m., after completing his work while he was returning home and when he reached near Panchayath office the crime vehicle came in a rash and negligent manner, in high speed and dashed against the deceased and then dashed her. On that both of them fell down and sustained injuries. They were shifted to Government hospital. Perusal of Ex.A5 charge sheet shows that this witness is shown

as 1st witness who has sustained injuries in the accident.

11. During cross examination it was suggested deceased died due to his negligent crossing of the road without observing the vehicular traffic. And she did not witness the said accident. But as per

Ex.A5 this witness also sustained injuries in the accident. The said fact is not denied by the 3rd respondent. If the version of R3 is correct only the deceased might have sustained injuries in the accident and Pw2 did not sustain any injuries. It is not the case of R1 or R3 that in view of the sudden crossing of the deceased R1 dashed the deceased and then dashed Pw2.

12. So, the evidence of Pw2 and Ex.A5 clearly establishes that due to negligent driving of R1 only the accident was occurred. The 3rd respondent did not examine R1 or any passenger in the auto to prove that due to negligence of deceased the accident was occurred. So, it is clear that only due to rash and negligence of R1 the accident was occurred.

Hence, the point is decided in favour of the petitioners.

13.Issue NO.2:The petitioners filed this petition against R1 to R3 claiming compensation as 1st respondent is the driver, 2nd respondent is the owner and the 3rd respondent is the insurer are 6 jointly liable to pay compensation to the petitioners. There is no dispute about the ownership, insurance and driving of auto by R1. The contention of R3 is R1 has no valid driving license to drive the vehicle at the time of accident. To prove the same they examined RW1. Rw1 who is junior assistant, RTO Nuzividu deposed he was authorised under Ex X1 and filing

Ex.X2 extract of driving license of Geddala Sekhar who is no other than the 1st respondent herein. As per Ex.X2 he possessed valid driving license with gear LMV non transport and he was not authorised to drive auto rickshaw as he has no endorsement of AR on his driving license. He denied the suggestion that he possessed valid and effective driving license to drive auto rickshaw transport.

14.RW2 also in the same lines deposed in view of violations of policy conditions the insurance company is not liable. During cross also he denied R1 has valid driving license. The evidence of RW1 and 2 and

Ex.X2 shows that the 1st respondent has no driving license to drive auto rickshaw and he possessed driving license to drive LMV non transport. In this regard the observations of our Hon'ble High court in Bajaj Allianz insurance co. ltd vs Gujjala Ramulamma MACMA 624 /2009 dated 19-1- 2015 are relevant para No.10 in the light of above dcesission though driver possessed license for different vehicle the insurance company could not establish that was the fundamental cause for the accident and further the owner deliberately violated the terms of the policy. Hence, it is a fit case to direct the insurance co. to pay compensation at first and later recover from the insured.

15. In the above cited case law the driver of an auto caused accident and in the said accident a boy of five years sustained fatal injuries. When the insurance company has challenged its liability the 7

Hon’ble High court has observed as stated above. The facts in the above

cited case law are squarely applicable to the facts in the present case.

16. So, this contention of 3rd respondent is untenable. The other contention of 3rd respondent is all the petitioners are majors and not depending upon the earnings of the deceased they are entitled to claim under no fault liability.

The counsel for the petitioner contended that they claimed compensation for the fault of driver in this regard he relied upon united

India Insurance co. ltd and other vs.G.Sathesh kumar and others 2012 (3)

ALT (71) "From a perusal of clause (c), it becomes clear that right is conferred upon the legal representatives to claim compensation, in case the victim of the accident died. The expression "legal representative" is in fact lesser in connotation and stringency than the expression "legal heir". Any person, who is a legal representative either by virtue of succession or through other means known to la, can be a legal representative and maintain the claim petition. The provision does not insist that a claimant under it must be dependant upon the deceased. That question becomes relevant in the context of apportionment of compensation. The question as to how the compensation is to be arrived and how it is to be distributed among the legal heirs or legal representatives, is a different aspect.

He also relied upon A Maddaiah and others Vs.

Viswanathan and others “Thus, it is clear that the legal representatives of the deceased can make a claim under section 166 of the Act.

Merely because the legal representatives of eh deceased 8 have some other income or that they are not dependent on the income of the deceased, it cannot be said that they cannot make any application under section 166 of the Act.

Of course, the contribution of the deceased may be assessed basing on the independent income of the claimants.”

17.So, in view of the observations of Hon'ble High court the contention of the counsel for the 3rd respondent is untenable. The petitioners claimed compensation under the following heads

18.Compensation under the head of damages to clothing : Under this head they claimed an amount of Rs.5,000/-. It is just and reasonable to give compensation of Rs.1,000/- under this head. Accordingly same amount is awarded.

19.Compensation for loss of love and affection : Underthis head they claimed an amount of Rs.25000/-. Rs.5000 each is reasonable.

In total 20,000/- is awarded under this head.

20.Compensation under the head of funeral expenses :

Under this head they claimed an amount of Rs.10,000/-.

They are the best persons to say about the funeral expenses as such the same is awarded.

21.Loss of consortium : All are children of the deceased as such, they are not entitled to any amount under this head.

22.Loss of life, expectancy and dependency : As per the averments in the petition the deceased was aged 85 years as on the date 9 of accident. And the documents filed by them i.e., Ex.A3 PM certificate

Ex.A4 inquest report Ex.A5 charge sheet shows he was aged 85 years.

As per the contention of the petitioners he was earning Rs.3000 per month. As per Sarla Varma's case the multiplier is applicable only upto 70 years. Taking into consideration of the fact that the petitioners lost guidance from their old aged father this tribunal is of considered opinion that an amount of Rs.69,000 will meet the ends of the justice.

Accordingly the award is passed.

Compensation under the head of Rs.1,000/- damages to clothing Compensation for loss of love and Rs.20,000/- affection Compensation under the head of Rs.10,000/- funeral expenses Loss of life, expectancy and Rs.69,000/- dependency Total :: Rs.1,00,000/-

In the result, the claim application of the petitioners 1 to 4 is partly allowed with proportionate costs as follows :

1. An amount of Rs.1,00,000/- is awarded as compensation to the petitioners 1 to 4 in view of the death of deceased in a Motor vehicle accident which took place on 19-03-2011.

2. The respondents 1 to 3 are jointly and severally liable to pay the said compensation amount of Rs.1,00,000/- to the petitioners 1 to 4 with interest at the rate of 7.5% per annum from the date of filing of this petition i.e. from 18-12-2012 till the date of deposit of amount.

3. The respondents 1 to 3 are directed to deposit the said compensation amount of Rs.1,00,000/- with accrued interest there on and costs of the claim application within 30 days from the date of this award.

4. On such deposit the petitioners 1 to 4 are entitled to compensation amount of Rs.25,000/- each with proportionate 10 costs and interest and they are permitted to withdraw their respective share amount.

5. The rest of the claim of the petitioners 1 to 4 is hereby dismissed without costs.

6. After deposit of the compensation amount the 3rd respondent is at liberty to recover the same from R1 and R2.

7. Advocate fee is fixed at Rs.1,000/-.

Typed to my dictation to the stenographer on computer, corrected and pronounced by me in open Court this the 23rd day of February, 2017.

Chairman, Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal-cum- VII Additional District Judge, FAC/V Addl.District Judge, West Godavari, Eluru.

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

WITNESSES EXAMINED

For Petitioners:-

PW.1 Tadikamalla Chandra Rao. PW.2 Allada Appala Narasamma.

For Respondents:-

RW1 : Ch.Joga Rao. RW2 : D.Bhavani Sankaram.

EXHIBITS MARKED

For Petitioners:-

Ex.A1 ……Attested copy of the FIR. Ex.A2 ……Attested copy of MVI Report. Ex.A3 ……Attested copy of postmortem report. Ex.A4 ……Attested copy of Inquest report. Ex.A5 ……… Attested copy of charge sheet.

For Respondents:-

Ex.B1 : Copy of Insurance policy.

By witness: Ex.X1: Authorization letter addressed by Regional Transport Unit Officer, 11

Nuzividu Ex.X2: Attested copy of driving license of 1st respondent.

Chairman, Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal-cum- VII Additional District Judge, FAC/V Addl.District Judge, West Godavari, Eluru.