Sri.Ch.Panchakshari
Additional Family Court, L.B.Nagar
Rangareddy, PDJ Court Complex · Rangareddy · Telangana
Sri.Ch.Panchakshari, Additional Family Court, L.B.Nagar, is posted at Rangareddy, PDJ Court Complex, Rangareddy, Telangana, India. 13 court orders on record since 2023. 5 judgments with full text available. Primarily handles OP, OS, AS cases.
Featured Judgments
1 of 24 OS.NO.829 of 2007 and OS NO.463 of 2008. XII ADJ., R.R.District. Dt.15.3.2023.
eIN THE COURT OF THE XII ADDITIONAL DISTRICT JUDGE, RANGAREDDY AT
L.B.Nagar.
Present:- Sri CH.PANCHAKSHARI, XII Addl., District Judge, Rangareddy at L.B.Nagar.
Dated this the 15th day March, 2023 .
COMMON JUDGMENT IN O.S.No. 829 of 2007 AND O.S.NO.463 of 2008.
Between:
B.Danaiah, S/o. B.Ramaswamy, aged 40 years, Occ:Business, R/o. Plot No.34/B, House No.11-13-190/1/2, Road No.2, Green Hills Colony, Saroornagar, Hyderabad. …. …. … Plaintiff
AND
1. V.Pratap Reddy, S/o. Yella Reddy, aged 50 years, Occ:retired employee, R/o. House No.16-10-1/3, Malakpet, Hyderabad.
2. K.Yellaiah, S/o. Rajaiah, aged 52 years, Occ:Business, R/o. K.K.Street, Pochampally, Nalgonda District.
3. Benod Chand Rajgopal Garikapati, S/o. G.V.Naidu, aged 40 years, Occ:Engineer, R/o.Plot No.49, Andhra Bank Colony, Asmanghad, Malakpet, Hyderabad.
...Defendants
Thi s suit is coming before me on 10-03-2023 for final hearing in the presence of Sri V.Ranga Reddy, Advocate for the plaintiff and Sri M.Jaya Kumar, Advocate for defendant No.3 and defendant No.1 and 2 were set exparte and upon hearing both sides and perusing the material on record and having stood over for considerati on till this day, the Court delivered the following:
:: J U D G E M E N T ::
This suit is filed by the plaintiff against the defendants praying the Court to decree the suit directing the defendants to execute the registered sale deed in respect of the suit schedule property in favour of the plaintiff by receiving the remaining sale consideration amount in terms of agreement of sale dt.27-08-1998; if the defendants fails to execute the sale deed as per the direction of the Hon’ble High Court, the
Digitally signed by CH
PANCHAKSHARI
2 of 24 OS.NO.829 of 2007 and OS NO.463 of 2008. XII ADJ., R.R.District. Dt.15.3.2023.
Hon’ble High Court may pleased to execute the sale deed in favour of the plaintiff, in
the interest of justice.
2.The avernments of the plaintiff in brief are follows as hereunder:-
(a). The second defendant approached the plaintiff representing that he is the
General Power of Attorney holder of the defendant No.1 in respect of the plot No.20 ad-measuring 361 square yards in survey No.7/C of Saroornagar Village and Mandal of
Ranga Reddy District. The defendant No.2 offered to sell at Rs.3,000/- per square yard and after negotiations the plaintiff agreed to purchase the same for the total consideration. In pursuance of the said offer and acceptance, the plaintiff has paid an amount of Rs.5,00,000/- on 27-08-1998, evidencing the same the 2nd defendant on behalf of the 1st defendant executed an agreement of sale in favour of the plaintiff.
(b). It is further contended that at the time of payment of advance amount, the plaintiff contacted the defendant No.1 about the transaction and the defendant No.1 confirmed the authority of the defendant No.2 to deal with the property and also confirmed the transaction. In terms of the agreement of sale, the remaining sale consideration amount has to be paid at the time of registration of the sale deed. Time was not the essence of contract, Since the Government stopped the registration without fixing any time. The plaintiff was ready to pay the remaining sale consideration but the defendant No.2 dodged the matter on the ground of clearance from the
Government.
(c). It is further pleaded that the Defendant No.2 requested to pay further amounts. Accordingly, the amount of Rs.5,00,000/- were paid on two occasions i.e., on 04-10-2022 and 08-11-2004. The balance sale consideration was of Rs.83,000/-. On receiving the said amount, the defendant No.2 delivered physical possession of the suit schedule property to the plaintiff and since then the plaintiff enjoying the same.
Digitally signed by CH
PANCHAKSHARI
3 of 24 OS.NO.829 of 2007 and OS NO.463 of 2008. XII ADJ., R.R.District. Dt.15.3.2023.
(d)It is further contented that, the plaintiff has paid most of the sale consideration amount believing the assurance of obtaining the clearance from the
Government. But, the plaintiff came to know the Government has no claim against this land with a malafide intention defendant No.2 dodged the matter. Many times the plaintiff approached the defendants requesting to complete the sale transaction by receiving the remaining sale consideration amount. But, for one ground or other, the defendants avoided to execute the registered sale deed and finally refused on 20-07- 2007.
(e). As the defendant refused to complete the sale transaction, the plaintiff got issued legal notice on 27-07-2007 calling upon the defendants to execute the registered sale deed within a period of 10 days from the date of receipt of this notice.
Notices were served on the defendants but neither they gave any reply nor complied the contents of the notice. As such, no other alternative except approaching the Court seeking the specific performance of agreement of sale.
(f). It is further contended that the act and activities of the defendants amounts to breach of contract. Apart from that, the defendants are interfering with the possession of the plaintiff over the suit schedule property. On 12-08-2007 the defendants along with some persons came to the suit schedule property along with land brokers tried to interfere with the possession of the plaintiff. In that circumstances, the plaintiff having no other alternative approached this Court with the suit against the defendants.
3.The defendants no.1 and 2 were set exparte. During the pendency the defendant
No.3 was impleaded as per orders in I.A.No.642/2017 dated 11-07-2017. The defendant No.3 who impleaded in the suit filed by the plaintiff, filed written statement.
Digitally signed by CH
PANCHAKSHARI
4 of 24 OS.NO.829 of 2007 and OS NO.463 of 2008. XII ADJ., R.R.District. Dt.15.3.2023.
3.(1).In the written statement, the defendant No.3 admitted that the defendant
No.1 was the absolute owner of the plot No.20 ad-measuring 361 square yards in
Sy.No.7/C situated at Saroornagar village, Hyderabad, East Taluk of Ranga Reddy
District. Further, admitted that the defendant No.2 was the General Power of Attorney holder of the defendant No.1. The defendant No.2 representing the GPA holder of defendant No.1 approached the mother of this defendant No.3 Smt. G.Prasunamba and other to sell the suit schedule property for an amount of Rs.2,00,000/-. The mother of this defendant No.3 having agreed to purchase the same paid an amount of Rs.9,000/- as advance sale consideration on 17-10-1991 to the defendant No.2. The defendant
No.1 and 2 jointly executed an agreement of sale in favour of mother of this defendant on 31-10-1991. The mother of this defendant paid an amount of RS.1,02,000/- as part of sale consideration to defendant No.2 on the same day i.e., 31-10-1991. Defendant
No.1 had knowledge and with his consent and instruction only the defendant No.2 received the part of sale consideration. The defendant No.1 expressed his no objection to pay the balance sale consideration to the defendant No.2. Accordingly, the defendant
No.2 had received the balance sale consideration from the mother of the defendant
No.3 vide receipt dated 26-05-1992 for an amount of Rs.20,000/-, receipt dated 23- 07-1992 for an amount of Rs.10,000/-, receipt dated 20-11-1992 for an amount of
Rs.10,000/-, receipt dated 04-12-1992, for an amount of Rs.18,000/-, receipt dated 05-02-199 for an amount of Rs.15,000/-, receipt dated 20-04-1994 for an amount of
Rs.16,000/-. After receiving the entire sale consideration, the defendants No.1 and 2 did not come forward to execute the registered sale deed in favour of the mother of the defendant No.3. Further, the defendant No.1 and 2 have delivered the possession of the plot to the mother of the defendant on the execution of agreement of sale dated 31-10-1991 itself. From the date of agreement of sale, mother of the defendant no.3
Digitally signed by CH
PANCHAKSHARI
5 of 24 OS.NO.829 of 2007 and OS NO.463 of 2008. XII ADJ., R.R.District. Dt.15.3.2023.
has been in peaceful possession and enjoyment of the suit schedule property without any interruption.
3.(2).It is further contended that the mother of this defendant died on 20-04-1999. On several requests made by the defendant No.3, the defendant No.1 and 2 executed registered sale deed vide document No.7942/2006 dated 24-11-2006 in favour of the defendant No.3 and since then the defendant No.3 has become the absolute owner of the property.
3(3).It is further pleaded that the plaintiff and son of the defendant No.2 i.e., one Narsimha who is author of this litigation got created alleged suit document colluding with the plaintiff and filed the present suit.
3(4). The plaintiff threatened this defendant stating that he will implicate the defendant No.3 in a false and frivolous cases. The defendant No.3 further pleaded in his written statement that when this defendant No.3 was in abroad the maternal uncle of the defendant No.3 i.e. T.Surya Chandra Rao was looking after the plot. In the year 2007, son of the defendant No.2 Narsimha tried to interfere with the possession of this defendant while constructing compound wall over the suit schedule property, the defendant No.3 lodged a complaint before the police Saroornagar. But, they did not register any case as it was civil in nature. The plaintiff along with son of defendant No.2 i.e., Narsimha once again in the year 2008 interfered with possession of the defendant
No.3 and damaged the walls of the room and compound wall and threatened the maternal uncle of the defendant with dire consequences. Immediately maternal uncle of defendant T.Surya Chandra Rao lodged a report with the police Saroornagar and registered a case in crime No.1259/2008 for the offence under Sections 447, 427 and 506 of the Indian Penal Code.
Digitally signed by CH
PANCHAKSHARI
6 of 24 OS.NO.829 of 2007 and OS NO.463 of 2008. XII ADJ., R.R.District. Dt.15.3.2023.
3(5).It is further contended that the document of the plaintiff which does not confirm any right or title interest over the suit schedule property. The suit is not maintainable in view of the agreement executed in between the mother of the defendant No.3 in between the mother of the defendant No.3 and the defendant No.1 and 2 on 31-10-1991 which was much prior to the alleged suit agreement of sale.
3(6).The defendant No.3 denied the avernments of para No.3(1), 3(2), 3(3), 4, 5, 6 of the plaint. It is further pleaded that the plaintiff was never in possession of the suit schedule property at any point of time therefore, the interference of the defendants
No.1 and 2 with the suit schedule property does not arise and the same was created for the purpose of the filing of this suit.
3(7).The plaintiff and the son of the defendant No.2 I.e. Narsimha colluded with each other and with a malafide intention created the suit document to knock away the property. Further, the defendant No.3 pleaded that suit is barred by limitation since from the date of agreement of sale. Hence the suit is barred by limitation. With the above pleadings, the defendant No.3 prayed the Court to dismiss the suit with costs.
4.Basing on the above pleadings, the following issues were settled for trial:- (I). Whether the plaintiff is entitled to decree for specific performance of Contract dt.27-08-1998 in respect of the suit property as prayed for against defendant No.1 to 3?
(ii). Whether this court has got jurisdiction to entertain the suit?
(iii). Whether the suit is barred by limitation?
(iv). Whether the Court fee is paid properly?
(v). To what relief.?.
Digitally signed by CH
PANCHAKSHARI
7 of 24 OS.NO.829 of 2007 and OS NO.463 of 2008. XII ADJ., R.R.District. Dt.15.3.2023.
O.S.No. 463 of 2008 .
Between:
B.Danaiah, S/o. B.Ramaswamy, aged 40 years, Occ:Business, R/o. Plot No.34/B, House No.11-13-190/1/2, Road No.2, Green Hills Colony, Saroornagar, Hyderabad. …. …. … Plaintiff
AND
1. V.Pratap Reddy, S/o. Yella Reddy, aged 50 years, Occ:retired employee, R/o. House No.16-10-1/3, Malakpet, Hyderabad.
2. Benod Chand Rajgopal Garikapati, S/o. G.V.Naidu, aged 40 years, Occ:Engineer, R/o.Plot No.49, Andhra Bank Colony, Asmanghad, Malakpet, Hyderabad.
...Defendants
Thi s suit is coming before me on 10-03-2023 for final hearing in the presence of Sri V.Ranga Reddy, Advocate for the plaintiff and Sri M.Jaya Kumar, Advocate for defendant No.3 and defendant No.1 and 2 were set exparte and upon hearing both sides and perusi ng the material on record and having stood over for consideration till this day, the Court deli vered the following:
5.This suit is filed by the plaintiff praying the Court to declare that the registered sale deed vide document No.7942/2006 as null and void and not binding on the plaintiff.
6. The avernments of the plaint in brief are follows hereunder:
(a). The defendant No.1 approached the plaintiff and offered to sell the plot
No.20, ad-measuring 365 square yards in Sy.No.7/C of Saroornagar Mandal of Ranga
Reddy District. After the negotiations, the plaintiff has agreed to purchase the said plot for consideration of Rs.10,83,000/-. Accordingly, the agreement was entered on 27- 08-1998 in favour of the plaintiff. By virtue of the said agreement of sale, the plaintiff paid an amount of Rs.5,00,000/- out of the total sale consideration. Defendant having received the sale consideration amount dodged the matter on the ground that there is a
Digitally signed by CH
PANCHAKSHARI
8 of 24 OS.NO.829 of 2007 and OS NO.463 of 2008. XII ADJ., R.R.District. Dt.15.3.2023.
dispute with the Urban Land Ceiling authorities finally on verification it is learnt that there is no dispute with the Urban Land Ceiling authorities.
(b). The plaintiff further contended that the defendant No.1 trying to alienate the suit schedule property to the third parties for higher consideration. On coming to know, the plaintiff got issued legal notice dated 27-07-2007 to the defendant No.1 and his GPA holder calling upon to execute the sale deed by receiving the remaining sale consideration.
(c). As they failed to comply the notice, the plaintiff filed the suit vide
O.S.No.829/2007 seeking the relief of specific performance of agreement of sale dated
27-08-1998. In the said suit, defendant No.2 filed an application to implead him as defendant No.3 alleging that he purchased the suit schedule property from the defendant No.1 under registered sale deed vide document No.7942/2006 dated 24-11- 2006. In view of the orders of the Hon’ble High Court, the defendant No.2 herein was impleaded as defendant no.3 in the said suit.
(d). The plaintiff further pleaded that the plaintiff entered into an agreement of sale with the defendant No.2 represented by his GPA holder on 27-08-1998, paid
Rs.5,00,000/- towards advance and partial sale consideration. Thereafter, the defendant
No.1 avoided to execute the sale deed inspite of offering the remaining sale consideration which resulted in filing of the suit vide O.S.No.829/2007.
(e). During the substance of the agreement of sale, defendant No.1 having received partial sale consideration have no right to deal with the property. Defendant
No.1 and 2 having colluded with each other brought the sale deed in to existence to defeat the right and claim of the plaintiff over the suit schedule property. The sale deed
dated 24-11-2006 is sham and collusive document. Now, basing on the said
document, the defendant No.1 is trying to deal with the property if he succeed in his
Digitally signed by CH
PANCHAKSHARI
9 of 24 OS.NO.829 of 2007 and OS NO.463 of 2008. XII ADJ., R.R.District. Dt.15.3.2023.
attempts, the plaintiff will be put to irreparable loss and injury which cannot be compensated. Hence, the plaintiff approached this Court with a prayer to declare the sale deed No.7942/2006 dated 24-11-2006 as null and void and not binding on the plaintiff.
7. The defendant No.1 was set exparte and defendant No.2 filed written statement.
8.(a).The defendant No.2 contended that the defendant No.2 is a bonafide purchaser purchased the suit schedule property for consideration without notice of the claim of the plaintiff. The defendant No.2 herein executed an agreement of sale in favour of the this defendant’s mother on 31-10-1991 but postponed the registration on one pretext or other. An agreement of sale was executed in favour of the mother of the defendant
No.2 and she died in the year 1999. The Yellaiah GPA holder requested the defendant
No.1 to execute the registered sale deed in faovur of defendant no.3 having received entire sale consideration. Accordingly, the defendant No.1 executed registered sale deed vide document No.7942/2006 dt.24-11-2006 conveying the right title and interest in the suit schedule property to this defendant.
8(b).It is further contended that the son of Yellaiah i.e., one Narsimha who is author of this litigation, he got created the suit document and got instituted the suit vide O.S.No.829/2007. It is further pleaded that the present suit is devoid of merits and plaintiff has no equities in his favour and seeking for the relief of declaration of prior existing right over and above this defendant or his mother.
8(c).It is further denied the contents of para No.1 of the plaint which follows so also para No.2, 3, 4 and 5. The defendant No.2 is a bonafide purchaser of the suit schedule property and the document dated 24-11-2006 is legally valid in the eye of law and did not suffer from any legal infirmities. Further, the title to the suit schedule
Digitally signed by CH
PANCHAKSHARI
10 of 24 OS.NO.829 of 2007 and OS NO.463 of 2008. XII ADJ., R.R.District. Dt.15.3.2023.
property was transferred in favour of this defendant and it is a perfectly legal, valid, clear and marketable. At no stretch of imagination, it could be called to be defective or suffer from any pre-existing claims. It is further pleaded that as on today the defendant had no intention to sell the property and defendant has constructed two rooms and compound wall which was got demolished by the plaintiff illegally resulting which the case in the crime No.1259/2008 dated 16-10-2008 against the plaintiff the plaintiff.
The defendant claims an amount of Rs.1,50,000/- from the plaintiff towards the cost of construction of wall and damages.
8.(d).It is further contended that the document No.7942/2006 dated 24-11- 2006 in favour of this defendant is legal, valid and cannot be declared as null and void and is not binding upon the plaintiff. As such the suit of the plaintiff is not maintainable and liable to be dismissed.
9.Basing on the above pleadings, the following issue were settled for trial:
(i). Whether the plaintiff is entitled for declaration as prayed for ?.
(ii) To what relief ?.
10. As the plaintiff in both the suits filed against the defendants seeking the relief of specific performance of agreement of sale in O.S.No.829/2007 and declaration to declare that the registered sale deed No.7942/2006 dated 24-11-2006 is null and void and not binding on the plaintiff in OS.NO.463 of 2018 in respect of the same schedule property.
Both the suits were tried together and the evidence was recorded in
O.S.No.879/2007.
11. In the suits, the defendant no.1 and his GPA holder i.e. the defendant No.2 were set exparte in O.S.NO.829 of 2007 and the defendant No.1 in O.S.No.463/2008 was
Digitally signed by CH
PANCHAKSHARI
11 of 24 OS.NO.829 of 2007 and OS NO.463 of 2008. XII ADJ., R.R.District. Dt.15.3.2023.
set exparte. Only the defendant No.2 in O.S.No.463/2008 and defendant No.3 in
O.S.No.829/2007 is contesting the suits filed by the plaintiff.
12. The plaintiff in both the suits is examined as Pw1 and through his evidence
Ex.A1 to A10 were marked. In support of the evidence of Pw1, the plaintiff got examined one of the attestor of agreement of sale as PW2. With that the plaintiff closed his evidence.
The defendant No.3 in O.S.No.829/2007 and defendant No.2 in
O.S.No.463/2008 who is contesting the suit got examined his wife as DW1 and
through her evidence Ex.B1 to B18 were marked.
13. Heard the learned Counsel for the plaintiff and treated heard for the learned counsel for the defendant no.3 in OS.NO.829 of 2007 and defendant no.2 in
OS.NO.463 of 2008. Perused the written arguments filed for the parties to the suits.
14.The learned counsels for the plaintiff and defendant No.3 (D2) filed their written arguments in support of their respective contentions. The learned counsel for plaintiff submits that the defendant No.2 who is the GPA holder of defendant No.1 entered in to an agreement of sale agreeing to sell the suit schedule property at Rs.3,000/- per square yard and received an amount of Rs.10,00,000/- and failed to execute the regular registered sale deed complying the conditions of agreement of sale dated 27-08-1998.
Hence, prayed the Court to allow the suit filed by him by directing the defendants to execute the registered sale deed for the suit schedule property. It is further argued that while subsisting of the agreement of sale, in order to defeat the rights of the plaintiff, defendant No.1 and 2 brought the registered sale deed No.7942/2006 into existence for the suit schedule property. Hence prayed the Court to declare the registered sale deed as null and void and not binding on the plaintiff. The learned counsel for the plaintiff relied on a decision in a case of P.Purushotham Reddy vs. Pratp Steels Limited,
Digitally signed by CH
PANCHAKSHARI
12 of 24 OS.NO.829 of 2007 and OS NO.463 of 2008. XII ADJ., R.R.District. Dt.15.3.2023.
reported in 2000(1) ALD 592; Malamma vs. Permanand, reported in LAWS (AAH) 2003 9 80; Janki Vashdeo Bhojwani and another vs. Indusind Bank Limited and others(SC); an another case in between A.C.Narayanan vs. State of Maharashtra and another (SC).
Whereas, the learned counsel for the defendant No.3 who is purchaser of the suit schedule property argued that the plaintiff filed this suits with an intention to harass the defendant No.3 who purchased the suit schedule property under the valid registered document. Hence the plaintiff is not entitled to the relief as claimed In both the suits.
With that prayed the Court to dismiss the suit.
15. The plaintiff is examined as PW1. In the chief examination affidavit of the PW1 reiterated the avernments of the plaint. In the plaint, the plaintiff contended that he contacted the defendant No.1 and confirmed the authority of the second defendant to deal with the property and confirmed the transaction. When coming to the cross examination conducted for defendant No.3, the PW1 have deposed categorically and the same is extracted as below:
“I do not know one Prathap Reddy who is executant of Ex.A1. I know the GPA
holder of the executant by name Yellaiah. I do not know about the executant of
agreement of sale in favour of defendant No.3 in respect of the suit land. I do not know whether such Yellaiah delivered the possession of the suit schedule property in favour of the mother of the defendant No.3”.
16. In support of the evidence of Pw1 and to prove the execution of the Ex.A1 the plaintiff got examined one witness as PW2 before this court. PW2 deposed in his chief examination stating that while entering in to the transaction, the plaintiff enquired with the defendant No.1 about the authority of defendant No.2 to deal with the above said plot. In the course of the cross examination of the PW2, the Pw2 deposed and the same is extracted as below:
Digitally signed Digitally signedby CH by CHPANCHAKSHARI
PANCHAKSHARI
13 of 24 OS.NO.829 of 2007 and OS NO.463 of 2008. XII ADJ., R.R.District. Dt.15.3.2023.
“Dhanaiah informed him that, Yellaiah (D2) approached the plaintiff for the sale of the suit schedule property. I do not now whether said Danaiah enquired about prior sale of the suit land by the defendant No.1 and 2. He came to know through
plaintiff recently that defendant No.1 and 2 together executed the sale deed in
favour of the defendant No.3 after death of the mother of the defendant No.3 i.e., in the year 2006. I do not know whether the plaintiff along with his henchmen enquired with the possession of the defendant No.2 and on that defendant No.3 lodged police complaint before the police Saroornagar and also did not know whether criminal case was registered against plaintiffs”.
17. It is a cordial principle that pleading must be supported by evidence oral and documentary. In this case, in one way the plaintiff pleads that he approached the defendant No.1 before entering in to the transaction and the defendant No.1 confirmed the authority of the 2nd defendant to deal with the property and also confirmed the transaction. When coming to the cross examination the PW1 clearly deposed that he does not know the person by name Prathap Reddy who is executant of Ex.A1 but, at the same time the PW1 deposed that he knows the GPA holder of Ex.A1 document by name
Yellaiah. It is an admitted fact that defendant No.2 i.e., Yellaiah is the GPA holder of the defendant No.1. When the plaintiff does not know the defendant No.1 as deposed by him in his cross examination, it is very difficult to make an avernment in the plaint and in his evidence that he contacted the defendant No.1 before entering into an agreement with the defendant No.2 and confirmed the authority of the defendant No.2 to deal with the property and further it also creates a doubt as to the execution of Ex.A1 agreement of sale by the defendant No.2 and the same was in the knowledge of the defendant No.1. In view of the evidence of Pw1, the execution of Ex.A1 itself by the defendant No.2 is very doubtful.
Digitally signed by CH
PANCHAKSHARI
14 of 24 OS.NO.829 of 2007 and OS NO.463 of 2008. XII ADJ., R.R.District. Dt.15.3.2023.
18. ISSUE No.2: Whether this court has got jurisdiction to entertain the suit ?.
The plaintiff herein filed the suit for specific performance of contract dt.27-08- 1998 under which the plaintiff agreed to purchase the suit schedule property situated
Saroornagar Village and Mandal, Ranga Reddy District. As the property is situated at
Margardarshi Colony, Saroornagar Mandal of Ranga Reddy District. As the defendant no.3 has not placed any material to show that this court has no jurisdiction to entertain the suit. As such, I am of the view that this Court has got territorial jurisdiction to entertain the suit as the property is situated within the local jurisdiction of this court.
Accordingly, this issue is answered.
19. ISSUE No.4:- Whether the Court fee is paid properly ?.
In a suit for specific performance of contract, the suit has to be valued as per sec.39(a) of the A.P.C.F. and Suit valuation Act, basing on the value at which the schedule property is agreed to purchase. As it can be seen from the contents of the avernments of the plaint, the plaintiff valued, the suit under Section 39 (a) of A.P.C.F and suit valuation Act, for RS.10,83,000/- and paid the Court fee by the plaintiff on the said valuation. In a suit for specific performance, the Court fee has to be computed on the value of the property agreed to purchase. In this suit, the plaintiff agreed to purchase the suit schedule property for Rs.10,80,000/- on which the plaintiff paid the
Court fee which is sufficient as the Court fee is valued or computed on the value of the sale consideration. Accordingly, the issue is answered in favour of the plaintiff.
20. ISSUE No.1 :- Whether the plaintiff is entitled to decree for specific
performance of contract dated 27-08-1998 in respect of the suit schedule
property as prayed for ? and ISSUE No.3:- Whether the suit is barred by limitation ?.
“In the suit for specific performance of contract of sale, the plainti ff must plead and prove the following points in order to decree the suit. They are:
Digitally signed by CH
PANCHAKSHARI
15 of 24 OS.NO.829 of 2007 and OS NO.463 of 2008. XII ADJ., R.R.District. Dt.15.3.2023.
(I). Whether there exists the valid and concluded contract between the parties for sale/purchase of the suit property ?. (2) Whether the plaintiff has been ready and willing to perform his part of contract and whether he is still ready and willing to perform his part as mentioned i n the contract ?. (3). Whether the plaintiff has infact performed his part of contract and i f so how and to what extent and in what manner he has performed and whether such performance was in conformity with the terms of the contract ?. (4). Whether it will be equitable to grant relief of specific performance to the plai nti ff against the defendant in relation to the suit property or it will cause any ki nd of hardship to the defendant and if so how and in what manner and extent i s such reli ef i s eventually granted to the plaintiff ?. (5). Whether the plaintiff is entitled to grant of any other alternative relief namely refund of earnest money etc and if so on what ground ? Further stated that thi s requirements have to be properly pleaded by the parti es in the respective pleadings and proved with aid of evidence in accordance wi th the law. It is only then the Court is entitled to exercise its discreti on and accordingly the grant or refuse the relief of the specific performance dependi ng upon the case made out by the parties on facts as held in Kamal Kumar vs Premalatha Joshi and others”.
21. In this case, the defendant No.1 and 2 in O.S.No.829/2007 were set exparte and the person who purchased the suit schedule property under registered sale deed was impleaded as defendant No.3 in O.S.No.829/2007 and defendant No.2 in
O.S.No.463/2008. Mere because the defendant No.1 and 2 were set exparte, it is not
automatic to decree suit filed by the plaintiff granting the relief of specific performance which is discretionary relief and discretion is with the Court and Court exercises the said discretion in judicious manner when the plaintiff makes out the points that were stated supra. In view of the evidence elicited through cross examination of Pw1 and 2, it creates doubt whether really the defendant No.2 executed the Ex.A1 agreement of sale in favour of the plaintiff and that execution of Ex.A1 was in the knowledge of the original owner i.e., defendant No.1 V.Prathap Reddy whom the plaintiff does not know at the time of entering in to the contract under Ex.A1 as deposed by the PW1.
22. In view of the pleadings of the plaintiff and the evidence elicited through the cross examination goes to show that the Ex.A1 was brought into the existence with the
Digitally signed by CH
PANCHAKSHARI
16 of 24 OS.NO.829 of 2007 and OS NO.463 of 2008. XII ADJ., R.R.District. Dt.15.3.2023.
active collusion of the plaintiff and son of the defendant No.2/K.Yellaiah. Even the oral evidence of the PW2 also doubtful as he does not anything but he only knows through the PW1 only on the information furnished by the PW1.
23. Here it is evidence of PW1 and case of the plaintiff that the possession over the suit schedule property was delivered to the plaintiff after receiving an amount of
S.5,00,000/- on 04-10-2002 and 08-11-2004. But, it is not specific contention of the plaintiff that on which date the possession over the suit schedule property was handed over to the plaintiff by the defendant No.1 and 2 and same is silent in O.S.No.829/2007 and not pleaded the same in his plaint in OS.NO.463 of 2008. Further, it is not deposed in his evidence stating on what date the plaintiff was inducted into possession of the suit schedule property. On the other hand, defendant No.3 who is contesting the suit filed by the plaintiff clearly pleaded and proved that possession was delivered to the defendant No.3 under Ex.B1 registered sale deed on 24-11-2006 executed by the defendant No.1/V.Prathap Reddy. It is the evidence of DW1 that in the suit schedule property, they have constructed wall and also two rooms after its purchase under
Ex.B1. PW1 in his cross examination categorically admitted that “it is true on 16-08- 2008 father-in-law of defendant No.3 T.Surya Chandra Rao lodged a complaint before the police against the PW1, Bala Narsimha and Dayanand under Section 447, 427, 506 of the Indian Penal Code”. This part of the evidence goes to show that the possession over the suit schedule property was not delivered to the plaintiff herein but it was delivered to the Defendant no.3(Defendant No.2 in OS.NO.463 of 2008). As such, the question of delivering possession over suit schedule property to the plaintiff by the defendant No.2 is not supported by any evidence except the evidence of PW1. None were examined to prove that the defendant No.1 and 2 delivered possession of the suit schedule property to the plaintiff and plaintiff was in possession as on the date of filing
Digitally signed by CH
PANCHAKSHARI
17 of 24 OS.NO.829 of 2007 and OS NO.463 of 2008. XII ADJ., R.R.District. Dt.15.3.2023.
of the suit. The registration of the criminal case which is supported by the Ex.B13 attested copy of FIR in crime No.148/2013 dated 05-05-2013 of Malakpet Police
Station and Ex.B3 notice issued by SHO, Saroornagar under Section 91 Cr.P.C to
T.Surya Chandra Rao demanding him to submit the documents. Ex.B2 is the original registered sale deed dated 1104-1979 executed in favour of the defendant No.1. Ex.B1 the original registered sale deed under which the defendant No.3 purchased the suit schedule property and eX.B2 is the original registered sale deed dated 11-04-1979 executed in favour of the defendant No.1 under which he purchased the suit schedule property. Ex.B2 the link document handed over to the defendant No.3 as his purchase is valid one.
24. As per the documentary evidence adduced through the evidence of the DW1, it could seen from the Ex.B1, the original owner of the suit schedule poperty, executed and registered document infavour of the defendant no.3 in accordance with the law.
Hence, it can be said that it is validly executed and therefore, primafaice the registered document would be valid in law. In this case, though the plaintiff claiming the relief that the registered sale deed is a sham and created document and not binding on the plaintiff but as the original owner i.e., the defendant No.1 herein executed the Ex.B1 with the Registration authority as it is a valid document and presumption can be drawn that the document is executed validly.
25. Though, the learned counsel for the plaintiffs argues that Ex.B1 was brought into existence to defeat the agreement of sale Ex.A1 executed by the defendant No.2. But the execution of Ex.A1, itself creates a doubt in view of the evidence elicited through the cross examination of PW1 and 2. Hence, it can be said that the plaintiff has not approached this Court with clean hands and his evidence is not supported by oral and documentary evidence. As per the contents of the agreement, the plaintiff has to pay
Digitally signed by CH
PANCHAKSHARI
18 of 24 OS.NO.829 of 2007 and OS NO.463 of 2008. XII ADJ., R.R.District. Dt.15.3.2023.
an amount of Rs.83,000/- as on 08-11-2004. The agreement of sale said to have executed by defendant No.2 on 27-08-1998 by receiving an amount of Rs.5,00,000/- and paid another Rs.5,00,000/- in two installments i.e., on 04-10-2002 and 08-11- 2004. In the agreement of sale the remaining amount of sale consideration has to be paid at the time of registration of the sale deed in favour of the vendee or his nominee.
But, the plaintiff paid an amount of Rs.5,00,000/- as stated above on two installment from the date of execution of Ex.A1 to 04-10-2022. The plaintiff had not taken any steps to show his bonafide ness so also to show his readiness and willingness to perform his part of contract. Neither the plaintiff paid the amount at an earliest point of time nor issued any legal notice to the defendant No.1 and 2 with a demand to execute the registered sale deed by receiving the remaining part of sale consideration.
PW1 though he deposed that he was also ready to pay the remaining sale consideration but the defendant No.2 dodged the matter on clearance from the Government. The plaintiff has failed to show as to what type of clearance has to be obtained from the the
Government has not been mentioned in his pleadings and also not deposed in the evidence. The plaintiff has failed to plead and prove that he was always ready and willing to perform his part of contract by showing his readiness. The pleading of readiness as per provisions of 16 of the Act, the person asking for enforcement of contract of sale is required not only to plead but also to prove his/her part of contract.
It is also stated preposition of law that the relief of specific performance is equitable relief and need not to be granted for mere asking. If the plaintiff really paid amount to purchase the property under an agreement of Sale Dt.27-8-1998, he ought to have paid the remaining amount with in reasonable time. But he had not paid the remaining amount and had not issued any notice to the defendant no.1 or the defendant no.2.
Digitally signed by CH
PANCHAKSHARI
19 of 24 OS.NO.829 of 2007 and OS NO.463 of 2008. XII ADJ., R.R.District. Dt.15.3.2023.
Once it is found that the readiness on the part of the plaintiff had not been established, the plaintiff is not entitled to the decree of the specific performance.
26. Originally Sec.54 of Limitation Act which prescribes the limitation period for the specific performance of contract and the limitation is three years. The date fixed for the performance of the contract, where no such date is fixed for performance of contract, when the plaintiff has notice that the performance is refused. In a suit for specific performance of an immovable property, the time is not essence of the contract it has to be performed within a reasonable time. The learned counsel for the defendant
No.3 relied on a decision in a case of Suryagandhi vs Lourduswamy, reported in MANU/
TN/1767/2002 = AIR 2004 Madras 8 it was held at para No.26, 27, 28 that “26. Examining the plea, evidence oral and documentary evidence of the present appeal, even if time is not the essence of the contract, the Court may infer that it has to be performed within a reasonable time. In the present case the learned counsel for the defendant strongly contended that time is the essence of the contract as a condi tion has been sti pulated in Ex.A2 sale agreement viz., the plaintiff has to forfeit the advance i n case i f there i s a breach on his part and defendant has to refund double the advance amount i n case of hi s committing breach. However, this Court is not persuaded to sustai n the contenti on that the time is the essence of the contract in the light of the law laid down by the Apex Court in the recent reported decision”.
“27. One another aspect the learned counsel for the defendant highlighted i s that the plai nti ff has not acted within a reasonable time and nine years and above is not a reasonable ti me at all for the plainti ff to awake from the deep sleep and demand for sale.
In Vdyanandam vs Vairavan reported in MANU/SC/0404/1997, the Apex Court has lai d down thus:- “Even where time is not of the essence of the contract, the plaintiff must perform his part of contract within a reasonable time and reasonable time should be determi ned by looki ng at all the surrounding circumstances including the express terms of the contract and nature of the property”.
Digitally signed by CH
PANCHAKSHARI
20 of 24 OS.NO.829 of 2007 and OS NO.463 of 2008. XII ADJ., R.R.District. Dt.15.3.2023.
“28. In Veerayee Ammal vs. Seeni Ammal reported in 2002 (1) SCC 136, whi le exami ni ng the word “reasonable” in the context of specific performance of sale agreement, the Apex Court held thus:-
13. The word ”reasonable” has in law prima facie meaning of reasonable in regard to those ci rcumstances of which the person concerned is called upon to act reasonably knows or ought to know as to what was reasonable./ It may be unreasonable to gi ve an exact definition of the word “reasonable”. The reason varies in its conclusion accordi ng to i di osyncrasy of the individual and the time and circumstances in which he thinks. The di cti onary meaning of the “reasonable time” is to be so much time as is necessary, under the ci rcumstances, to do conveniently what the contract or duty requires should be done i n a parti cular case. In other words it means, as soon as circumstances permi t. In
P.Ramanath Aiyar’ s The law Lexicon it is defined to mean:
“A reasonable time, looking at all the circumstances of the case: as reasonable ti me under ordi nary circumstances: as soon as circumstances will permit: so much time as it i s necessary under the circumstances, conveniently to do what the contract requires should be done: some more protracted space than ‘ directly’ : such length of time as may fai rly, and properly, and reasonably be allowed or required, having regard to the nature of the act or duty and to the attending circumstances: all these convey more or less the same idea”.
27. In the case on hand before this Court as stated supra, the plaintiff has failed to take steps immediately on making the payment of Rs.5,00,000/- on 27-08-1998; conveniently paid another amount of Rs.5,00,000/- on two occasions i.e. on 4-10-2002 and 8-11-2004. But waited till 20-07-2007 and then issued the legal notice Ex.A4 calling the defendants No.1 and 2 to execute the registered sale deed for the suit schedule property. The plaintiff had taken near about 9 years for issuance of legal notice to defendant No.1 and 2. This itself shows that the plaintiff has failed to show his readiness and willingness to perform his part of contract within a reasonable time period. Hence, as stated above, the three years period of limitation has already been expired as the plaintiff failed to take steps by issuing legal notice to the defendant No.1 and 2 expressing his readiness to perform his part of contract.
Digitally signed by CH
PANCHAKSHARI
21 of 24 OS.NO.829 of 2007 and OS NO.463 of 2008. XII ADJ., R.R.District. Dt.15.3.2023.
28. The learned counsel for the defendant no.3 relied on a decision in a case of
Venkappa Gurappa Hosur vs. Kasawwa, reported in AIR 1997 SC 2630; Ramzan vs.
Hussaini, reported in AIR 1990 SC 529; Ashar Sultana vs. B.Rajamani and others, reported in (2009) 17 Supreme Court Cases 27 (SC),
On considering the same, this Court is of the view that the suit of the plaintiff is barred by limitation as such he is not entitled to seek the relief of specific performance of contract.
29 ISSUE No.1: Whether the plaintiff is entitled for declaration as prayed for ?.( In
OS NO.463 of 2008).
As stated in the presiding paragraphs, the defendant No.2 in O.S.No.463/2008 purchased the suit schedule property under Ex.B1 registered sale deed from its original owner who handed over the document i.e. Ex.B2 under which he purchased the suit schedule property. As stated supra, since the document is registered one had some value in the eye of law as it was executed by the person having capacity or right to transfer the property to its purchaser. Hence, the document Ex.B1 is validly executed, as such the same cannot be declared as null and void and not binding on the plaintiff since the plaintiff had not got any right over the suit schedule property as on the date of execution of the Ex.B1. Though the plaintiff claimed that possession was delivered to him but he failed to substantiate the same, whereas the defendant no.2 had pleaded and proved before this court through the Ex.B13 to B18. Though the DW1 was cross examined at lengthy, nothing is elicited to prove that the Ex.B1 was brought into existence to defeat the rights of the plaintiff over the suit schedule property. On the other hand, the defendant no.2 have proved that the plaintiff herein along with others have tried or attempted to encroach on to the suit schedule property. As such, the plaintiff is not entitled to the relief of declaration that the registered sale deed is null
Digitally signed by CH
PANCHAKSHARI
22 of 24 OS.NO.829 of 2007 and OS NO.463 of 2008. XII ADJ., R.R.District. Dt.15.3.2023.
and void and not binding on the plaintiff, since the plaintiff have failed to show his right over the suit schedule property.
30. In a suit for declaration, the plaintiff must prove its case by adducing material, cogent evidence in support of its contention. But the plaintiff can not stand on the weaknesses of the defendant. In this suit, the defendant no.3 got examined the DW1 who is the wife and she was the GPA holder of the defendant no.3 and she gave in the capacity of a GPA holder of the Defendant no.3. It is settled law that the GPA holdeer can not depose for the defendant no.3. But she can appear as a witness and depose on oath as to the facts which were there in the knowledge of the GPA holder only, as held in the decisions relied on by the learned counsel for the plaintiff as referred above in
Janki Vashdeo Bhojwani and another vs. Indusind Bank Limited and others and
A.C.Narayanan vs. State of Maharashtra and another.
40. This court having considering the evidence adduced by the plaintiff is of the view that the plaintiff has not at all adduced any evidence to hold that the plaintiff is entitled to the relief of declaration that the registered sale deed is null and void and not binding on the plaintiff as the said document was executed by the original owner of the suit schedule property and further as stated in the preceding paragraphs, this court answered the issue that the plaintiff is not entitled to the relief of specific performance of contract. Accordingly, the issue is answered against the plaintiff.
41. Issue No.5:- To what relief ?.
In view of the findings given on all the issues that were settled basing on the pleadings, this court holds that the plaintiff has failed to prove its case since the relief of specific performance of contract is an equitable relief as such the plaintiff is not entitled to any of the reliefs as claimed in both the suits. Accordingly, the issue is answered.
Digitally signed by CH
PANCHAKSHARI
23 of 24 OS.NO.829 of 2007 and OS NO.463 of 2008. XII ADJ., R.R.District. Dt.15.3.2023.
In the result, the suits of the plaintiff is dismissed with costs.
Di ctated to Stenographer, transcribed by her, corrected and pronounced by me on 15 th day of March, 2023.
Digitally signed by CH
PANCHAKSHARI
XII Addl., District Judge, Rangareddy at L.B.Nagar.
APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE
Witnesses examined
For plaintiff: For defendants: PW1 : B.Danaiah DW1 G.Aparna Raj
PW2 : T.Venkateshwarlu
:: EXHIBITS MARKED::
For plaintiff: Ex.A1Original agreement sale deed dated 27-08-1998 between plaintiff and defendants.
Ex.A2Original receipt for Rs.3,00,000/- on 04-10-2002.
Ex.A3Original reciept for Rs.2,00,000/- on 08-11-2004
Ex.A4Office copy of legal notice on 27-07-2007
Ex.A5Postal receipt on 27-07-2007
Ex.A6Postal acknowledgment card to D2 on 02-08-2007
Ex.A7Postal acknowledgment card to D1 on 02-08-2007
Ex.A8Postal returned cover D1 on 31-07-2007
Ex.A9Plaintiff vendor and his apurchaser C.C of sale deed of
OS.No.463/2008
Ex.A10Original valuation certificate issued by the Sub-Registrar dated 15- 04-2008 in OS 463/2008
For defendant NO.3 in OS.NO.827 of 2007 & Defendant no.2 in OS.NO.463 of
2008.:
Ex.B1Original registered sale deed dated 24-11-2006 executed in favour of the defendant No.3 by defendant No.1
Ex.B2Original registered sale deed dated 11-04-1979 executed in favour of the defendant No.1
Ex.B3Notice dated 16-10-2018 issued by the SHO, Saroornagar police station under Section 91 Cr.P.c to T.Surya Chandra Rao
Digitally signed by CH
PANCHAKSHARI
24 of 24 OS.NO.829 of 2007 and OS NO.463 of 2008. XII ADJ., R.R.District. Dt.15.3.2023.
Ex.B4Letter dated 03-10-2018 issued by the District Registrar, Hyderabad (South) to the defendant No.3
Ex.B5Extract of the sale register of the stamp vendor dated 26-08-1998 issued by the District Registrar, Hyderabad (South)
Ex.B6Original GPA dated 03-07-2019 executed in defendant No.1 favour by defendant No.3
Ex.B7Receipt dated 17-10-1991 issued by the defendant No.7
Ex.B8Receipt dated 26-05-1992 issued by the defendant No.2
Ex.B9 Receipt dated 23-07-1992 issued by the defendant No.2
Ex.B10Receipt dated 20-11-1992 issued by the defendant No.2
Ex.B11Receipt dated 04-12-1992 issued by the defendant No.2
Ex.B12Receipt dated 05-02-1993 issued by the defendant No.1
Ex.B13Attested coy of the FIR in Crime No.148/2013 dated 05-05-2013 of Malakpet Police Station.
Ex.B14Certified copy of the report, dt.16-10-2008.
Ex.B15Certified copy of the First Information Report, dt.16-10-2008 of PS.Saroornagar.
Ex.B16Certified copy of Charge sheet in crime no.1259 of 2008.
Ex.B17Certified copy of the Scene of offence panchanama.
Ex.B18Certified copy of the Statement of Smt.B.Amrutha.
Digitally signed by CH
PANCHAKSHARI
XII Addl., District Judge, Rangareddy at L.B.Nagar. ****
1 of 18 XII ADJ, R.R.Dist M.V.O.P.No.618 of 2014. Dt.16-03-2023
IN THE COURT OF THE MOTOR ACCIDENT CLAIMS TRIBUNAL -CUM- XII
ADDITIONAL METROPOLITAN SESSIONS JUDGE, RANGA REDDY AT
L.B.Nagar.
Present:- Sri CH.PANCHAKSHARI, XII Addl., Metropolitan Sessions Judge, Rangareddy at L.B.Nagar.
Dated this the 16th day March, 2023
M.V.O.P No.618 of 2014
Between:
1. Kalluri Narsiah, S/o. Laxmaiah, aged 50 years, Occ:Agriculture
2. Kalluri Rambabu, S/o. Narsaiah, aged 20 years, Occ:Nil
3. Kalluri Laxmaiah, S/o. Narsaiah, aged 20 years, Occ:Nil
All are presently residng at R/o. H.No.9-A/551, R.K.Nagar, Hyath Nagar Mandal, Ranga Reddy District.
...Petitioners
AND
1. Punem Sriramulu, S/o. Lingaiah, aged Major, Occ:Business, R/o. Gangolu Village, Dummugudem Mandal, Khammam District – 507137.
2. M/s. Bajaj Allianz General Insurance Co.Ltd. Represented by its Manager, 4th floor, North East Plaza, Erramanjil Circle, Beside BMW Showroom, Hyderabad – 500 082 (Policy No. OG-14-1813-1803-00000503 valid from 06-12-2013 to 05– 12-2014, pertaining to Auto bearing No. AP 20 TB 9516)
...Respondents
This petition is coming before me on 13-03-2023 for final hearing in the presence of C.Yadaiah, Advocate for the petitioner and Sri P.Raghupathi, Advocate for respondent No.2, respondent No.1 remained exparte, and upon hearing both sides and perusing the material on record and having stood over for consideration till this day, the Court delivered the following:
::O R D E R::
The claim petition is filed claiming compensation against the respondents, under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicle Act 1983 and Rules
Digitally signed by CH
PANCHAKSHARI
2 of 18 XII ADJ, R.R.Dist M.V.O.P.No.618 of 2014. Dt.16-03-2023 455 of A.P.M.V.Rules 1989 for an amount of Rs.6,00,000/- with costs and interest @ 18 % per annum from the date of petition till date of realization on account of death of K.Bhadramma who died in an accident, as they are jointly and severally liable..
2.The avernments of the petition as contended by the petitioners is follows as hereunder:-
(a). On 04-05-2015 at about 08:00 A.M., deceased was proceeding in an auto bearing No.AP 20 TC 0186 along with other passengers from
Kothamaredubaka village towards Anjubaka village. The driver of the said auto was proceeding on the extreme left side of road with great care and caution, when reached near to Laxminagaram R & B, BT Road,
Dummugudem Mandal of Khammam District, suddenly one auto bearing No.
AP 20 TB 9516 driven by its driver in a rash and negligent manner at high speed and applied breaks suddenly without giving any signal and without following traffic rules, turned it towards right side. Thereby, this accident occurred. Then, the auto in which the deceased was traveling was turned turtle. As a result, the deceased fell down on the road received severe head injuries. Immediately, the injured was shifted to Government Area Hospital,
Bhadrachallam, succumbed to injuries in the hospital on the same day.
(b). It is further averred by the petitioners that deceased was hale and healthy earlier to the accident. Due to sudden death of the deceased, the petitioners were put to mental shock and agony. It is further contended that the deceased was aged about 45 years, attending to agricultural labour
Digitally signed by CH
PANCHAKSHARI
3 of 18 XII ADJ, R.R.Dist M.V.O.P.No.618 of 2014. Dt.16-03-2023 work and was earning Rs.7,500/- per month and she was only earning member in the entire family and her earnings were spent for the benefit of the petitioners.
(c). It is further contended that on the report, police Dummugudem of Khammam District registered a case in crime No.51 of 2014 against the driver of the offending vehicle bearing No.AP 20 TB 9516 (hereinafter referred as “offending vehicle”) for the offences under Sections 304-A, 337 of Indian Penal Code. Further pleaded that the respondent No.1 is the owner of offending vehicle, respondent No.2 is the insurer of the offending vehicle. As such, respondents are jointly and severally liable to pay the compensation to petitioners. Hence, this petition, praying the tribunal to award compensation of Rs.6,00,000/- with cost and interest.
3.The respondent No.1 was set exparte.
4.The respondent No.2 filed its counter in which the respondent No.2 denied the manner and occurrence of accident with the “Offending vehicle”.
Further pleaded that, the liability of respondent No.2 is subject to terms and conditions of insurance policy. Further pleaded that driver of the offending vehicle was not hold, valid and effective driving license to drive offending vehicle and he was not a qualified driver. Hence, there is violation of rule
No.3 of Motor Vehicles Rules. As such, the respondent No.2 is not liable to pay the compensation.
5.Further, the respondent No.2 have pleaded that the respondent No.1 failed to comply the mandatory provisions under Section 134 (c) and 158
Digitally signed by CH
PANCHAKSHARI
4 of 18 XII ADJ, R.R.Dist M.V.O.P.No.618 of 2014. Dt.16-03-2023 (6) of the Motor Vehicles Act. It is further contended by the respondent
No.2 that the accident was not occurred due to rash and negligent driving of the driver of the “offending vehicle”.
6.Further the respondent No.2 denied the age, occupation and earnings of the deceased at Rs.7,500/- per month and pleaded that the petitioners are put to strict proof of the same. The respondent No.2 further pleaded that the deceased received fatal injuries due to rash and negligent driving of the driver of the auto bearing No.AP 20 TC 0186 in which the deceased was traveling. Further, the said auto had not covered with third party insurance as such the “offending vehicle” was planted in collusion with the respondent
No.1 as it had valid insurance policy in existence.
7.It is further pleaded that, there is a delay in lodging the report with the police about the accident as such, the petitioners are not entitled to any compensation. Further, compensation of Rs.6,00,000/- is more excessive, exorbitant and and petitioners are not entitled for the said amount.
8.Basing on the above pleadings the following issues are settled for trial:-
(1). Whether the pleaded accident that took place on 04-05-2014
at about 08:00 A.M near Laxminagaram R & B Bt Road,
Dummugudem Mandal of Khammam District driven by the driver of
auto bearing No. AP 20 TB 9516 resulting death of K.Badramma
who was traveling in an auto bearing No. AP 20 TC 0186 ?.
(2). Whether the petitioners are entitled for the compensation ?. If
so, to what quantum and from which of the respondents ?.
(3). To what relief ?.
Digitally signed by CH
PANCHAKSHARI
5 of 18 XII ADJ, R.R.Dist M.V.O.P.No.618 of 2014. Dt.16-03-2023
9.The petitioners who knocked the doors of this tribunal with this petition claiming compensation of Rs.6,00,000/- against the respondents
No.1 and 2, the petitioner No.1 is examined as PW1 through his evidence
Ex.A1 to A5 and Ex.B1 and B2 were marked. One of the eye witness to the accident is examined as PW2. With that the petitioners closed their evidence.
The respondent No.2 who denied claim of the petitioners got examined its Authorized Officer as RW1. Through RW1, Ex.B3 to B5 were marked. Junior Assistant of RTA is examined as RW2 through him Ex.B6 and
B7 were marked. With that the respondent No.2 closed its evidence.
10. ISSUE No.1:- As this petition is moved under Section 166 of Motor
Vehicles Act claiming compensation for the death of K.Badramma who died in a motor vehicle accident caused by the driver of the “offending vehicle”.
As such the petitioners must plead and prove that the driver of “offending vehicle” was rash and negligent and thereby caused this accident.
11. ORAL EVIDENCE:- As stated supra, to support the claim of the petitioners, the petitioner No.1 is examined as PW1 and one of the witness to the accident is examined as PW2. On behalf of the respondent No.2 its
Authorized Officer is examined as RW1 and Junior Assistant of the RTA is examined as RW2 to prove that the driver of the offending vehicle was not having valid driving license to drive the “offending vehicle” as on the date of this accident.
Digitally signed by CH
PANCHAKSHARI
6 of 18 XII ADJ, R.R.Dist M.V.O.P.No.618 of 2014. Dt.16-03-2023
12. DOCUMENTARY EVIDENCE:- As stated supra, Ex.A1 to Ex.A5 are marked for the petitioners in support of their case. Ex.A1 is the certified copy of the First Information Report issued by the police Dummugudem in crime No.51 of 2014 for the offences under Sections 304-A and 337 of
Indian Penal Code on the report lodged by K.Narsaiah against the driver of “offending vehicle”. The Ex.A2 is the charge sheet filed by the Investigating
Officer who investigated in to the case in crime No.51/2014 and concluded that driver of the “offending vehicle” was only at rash and negligent and thereby caused the death of K.Badramma. The oral evidence of Pw1 and 2 is corroborated by the Ex.A1 and Ex.A2. Ex.A3 is the certified copy of the inquest held over the dead boy of K.Badramma. As per Ex.A3 also the reason for death was due to injuries received in a motor vehicle accident.
Ex.A4 is the postpartum examination report. Ex.A3 and Ex.A4 fairly supports the testimony of PW1 and 2. Ex.A5 is the Motor Vehicle Inspector report issued by the Motor Vehicle Inspector on inspecting the offending vehicle and he too concluded that there were no mechanical defects of the vehicle.
That means, the accident was occurred only due to negligence of human error i.e., the driver of the offending vehicle.
13. The PW1 deposed consistently stating that K.Bhadramma died in a motor vehicle accident while she was driving in an auto. It can be seen from the evidence elicited through the cross examination of Pw1 that the Pw1 was not an eye witness to the accident. The PW1 denied the suggestion given by the learned counsel for the respondent No.2 that the “Offending
Digitally signed by CH
PANCHAKSHARI
7 of 18 XII ADJ, R.R.Dist M.V.O.P.No.618 of 2014. Dt.16-03-2023 vehicle” was never involved in the accident and the driver of the auto in which the deceased was driving is only responsible. But, the PW1 denied the suggestion given by learned counsel for the petitioner.
14. The eye witness to the accident also have deposed categorically stating that driver of the “Offending vehicle” suddenly applied breaks without observing or without giving any signal and have turned the vehicle towards right side, as a result the accident occurred. The PW2 is none other then driver of auto in which deceased was traveling. Though, the learned counsel for respondent No.2 cross examined the witnesses nothing has been elicited to disprove the case of the petitioners and to prove that there was no fault on the part of the driver of the “Offending vehicle”.
15. This tribunal after having close scrutiny of the oral and documentary evidence i.e., document collected by the Investigating Officer is of the view that there was an accident on 04-05-2014 near Laxminagaram village and the “Offending vehicle” was driven by its driver in a rash and negligent manner. As a result, the auto in which K.Badramma was traveling turned turtle when the driver of the “Offending vehicle” have taken turn towards its right side.
16. Though the learned counsel for respondent No.2 argued that there is contributory negligence on the part of the auto in which the deceased was traveling and he ought to have taken care to avert the accident but he failed.
Hence, the driver of the auto in which the deceased was travelling is also responsible and as the owner and the driver and insurance company and the
Digitally signed by CH
PANCHAKSHARI
8 of 18 XII ADJ, R.R.Dist M.V.O.P.No.618 of 2014. Dt.16-03-2023 same are not made as party to this petition, prayed the tribunal to dismiss the petition. This tribunal is not inclined to accept the contention of the learned counsel for the respondent No.2, for the reason that the driver of the “Offending vehicle” suddenly applied its breaks and have taken a right turn in a negligent manner without giving any signal to the vehicles coming on its back side. When a person applies breaks suddenly, it is not possible to control the speed of the vehicle which is coming on its back side. Hence this tribunal is of the view that there is no contributory negligence in this case as argued by the learned counsel for the respondent no.2.
17. Having considering the oral evidence, as there is no material placed by the respondent No.2, this tribunal answered the issue No.1 accordingly in favour of the petitioners and against the respondents.
18. ISSUE No.2:- Since this tribunal answered the issue No.1 in favour of the petitioners and against respondents, it can be said that the petitioners are entitled to claim compensation against the respondents. Further, the respondent no.1 is the owner and respondent no.2 is the insurere of the “Offending Vehicle”, they are liable to pay the compensation to petitioners.
19. Deceased Age Determination:- The deceased K.Bhadramma was aged about 45 years. The same has been disputed by the learned counsel for the respondent No.2. The learned counsel for the respondent No.2 have argued that the deceased was aged about 51 years as per the Ex.B1 aadhar card.
Hence prayed to consider the age of the deceased as 51 years instead of 45 years as mentioned in Ex.B2 and Ex.A3 and Ex.A4. The PW1 during the
Digitally signed by CH
PANCHAKSHARI
9 of 18 XII ADJ, R.R.Dist M.V.O.P.No.618 of 2014. Dt.16-03-2023 course of cross examination have admitted that Ex.B1 and Ex.B2 belongs to
K.Badramma. Since PW1 admitted that the age of deceased is mentioned in
Ex.B1 aadhar card as 51 years. The Ex.A3 and Ex.A4, age of the deceased was mentioned as 45 years. Since no authenticated document produced
before this tribunal to prove the age of deceased exactly and on what basis,
age of the deceased was mentioned as 51 years in Ex.B1 has not been placed before this tribunal. The age of the deceased was mentioned in
Ex.B1 as 51 years as per the information furnished by the applicant while taking the aadhar card. Since the respondent No.2 had not disputed the genuineness of Ex.A3 and Ex.A4 in which the age of deceased is mentioned
as 45 years. Even according to Ex.B2 ration card also, the deceased was
aged about 45 years since the respondent No.2 had not disputed the genuineness of Ex.A3 and Ex.A4, this tribunal is inclined to consider that the deceased was aged about 45 years as on the date of the accident.
20. INCOME OF THE DECEASED :- Though, the petitioners have claimed that the deceased was earning Rs.7,500/- per month by attending to agricultural work. The respondent no.2 have disputed the earnings of the deceased. As there is no evidence produced by petitioners substantiating the earning of deceased at Rs.7,500/- per month as on the date of this accident. In the absence of any documentary evidence, on considering the age of the deceased, this tribunal deems it appropriate to fix monthly income of deceased at Rs.4,000/- per month, which comes to Rs.48,000/- per annum (Rs.4,000/- x 12 = Rs.48,000/-).
Digitally signed by CH
PANCHAKSHARI
10 of 18 XII ADJ, R.R.Dist M.V.O.P.No.618 of 2014. Dt.16-03-2023
21. FUTURE PROSPECTS:- The deceased who was aged about 45 years as on the date of this accident and she was working as a agricultural labour.
Hence in view of the decision of the National Insurance Company Limited vs Pranay Sethi reported in (2017) 16 SCC 680, the person who is aged in between 40 to 50 years and who is under self employment, the additional income has to be considered at 25% which comes to Rs.12,000/- The total income of the deceased comes to Rs.60,000/- per annum(Rs.48,000/- +
Rs.12,000/- = Rs.60,000/-).
22. Personal and family expenses:- As per the contents of the petition the petitioners are three persons depending on the earning of the deceased.
In this case, the petitioner no.1 can be said that he is not a dependent on the earnings of the deceased since he is husband of the deceased. Hence, for all practical purposes, the petitioners No.2 and 3 are the sons who are aged about 22 and 20 years respectively and they can be said that they are dependents on the deceased. Hence, 1/3rd of the income shall be deducted from the earnings of deceased. Which comes to Rs.20,000/- (Rs.60,000/- -
Rs.20,000/- = Rs.40,000/-. The total loss of contribution of the deceased towards the family members is Rs.40,000/-
23. MULTIPLIER applicable in this case:- The age of the deceased as on the date of death has to be considered in deciding the relevant multiplier applicable in this case. This tribunal decides and arrived at a conclusion that the deceased was aged about 45 years as on the date of the accident. The relevant multiplier applicable in this case is “14” years as per the decision of
Digitally signed by CH
PANCHAKSHARI
11 of 18 XII ADJ, R.R.Dist M.V.O.P.No.618 of 2014. Dt.16-03-2023 the Hon’ble Apex Court in a case of Sarla Vani Vs Delhi Transport
Corporation, reported i n (2009) 6 SCC 121. On application of multiplier “14” the amount comes to Rs.5,60,000/- the loss of dependency.
24. CONVENTIONAL HEADS:- The petitioners are entitled to the following compensation under the conventional heads.
The petitioners are entitled to Rs.15,000/- towards funeral expenses.
The petitioners are entitled to Rs.15,000/- towards loss of estates.
The petitioner no.1 is entitled to Rs.40,000/- towards loss of Spousal consortium and the petitioners no.2 and 3 are entitled to Rs.80,000/- towards parental consortium i.e. Rs.40,000/- each, as per the decision in a case of Magma General Insurance Co. Ltd vs Nanu Ram Alias Chuhru Ram, reported in (2018) 18 SCC 130.
Thus in all the petitioners are entitled to the total compensation arrived by this tribunal is Rs.7,10,000/-
25. LIABILITY:- The learned counsel for the respondent No.2 strenuously argued that the driver of the “Offending vehicle” was not holding valid driving license as on the date of this accident, as such the respondent No.2 is not liable to pay the compensation if any awarded to the petitioners. The learned counsel for the petitioners have submitted that though there is no specific endorsement on the driving license held by the driver of the “Offending vehicle”, the insurance company cannot absolve its liability to pay the compensation merely on the ground that there was no endorsement on the driving license as “Transport”.
Digitally signed by CH
PANCHAKSHARI
12 of 18 XII ADJ, R.R.Dist M.V.O.P.No.618 of 2014. Dt.16-03-2023
26. In order to prove that the driver of the offending vehicle had no valid driving license, the respondent No.2 examined its Authorized Officer as
RW1 though his evidence B3 to B5 were marked as stated supra. In the course of the cross examination, RW1 admitted that Ex.B3 insurance company issued to the “Offending vehicle” was in force as on the date of the accident and it belongs to the “Offending vehicle” and the deceased is a third party.
27. In support of the respondent No.2, the Authorized Officer of RTA
Khammam is examined as RW2 to prove that the driver of “Offending vehicle” had no valid driving license to drive the passengers vehicle. RW2 is deposed in his evidence stating that Ex.B7 is attested copy of the driving license issued to the Ramudu Soyam from the office of the RTA Khammam and it is a light motor vehicle non transport and he is not authorized to drive a passenger vehicle. It is a specific evidence of RW2 that to drive a passengers vehicle and person must possess driving license to drive the transport vehicle.
28. Considering the evidence of RW2, the learned counsel for the respondent No.2 have contended in its written statement that as the driver of the “Offending vehicle” had no necessary driving license to drive the light motor vehicle (transport) and though he is having light motor vehicle, Non- transport is not authorized to drive the light motor vehicle (transport).
Hence, the respondent No.2 company is not liable to pay the compensation and prayed to dismiss the petition. Here the learned counsel for the
Digitally signed by CH
PANCHAKSHARI
13 of 18 XII ADJ, R.R.Dist M.V.O.P.No.618 of 2014. Dt.16-03-2023 petitioners relied on the decision reported in National Insurance Company
Limited vs Satyam Harishbhai Marvadi and another reported in 2022 ACJ 621, Oriental Insurance Company Limited vs Munesh Adiwashi and others reported in 2022 ACJ 264 and another National Insurance Company
Limited vs Swaran Singh and another reported in 2004 ACJ 1. These decisions are not applicable to the present case on hand. Further, the learned counsel for the petitioners relied on decision in Laxman Nebwani vs
Narendra Singhi and others reported in 2022 ACJ 601 (High Court of
Rajasthan at Jodhpur) wherein it was hold that “a person holds a license to drive light motor vehicle i s authorized to drive a transport vehicle of the same class without any endorsement to that effect and insurance company is li able to pay the decisi on”. Another decision in a case of Mahesh Lumar Maurya
and another vs HDFC Ergo General Insurance Company Limited and
another (High Court of Delhi at New Delhi) reported in 2022 ACJ 550 wherein the Lordship held that “the person holding license to drive a li ght motor vehi cle is competent to drive transport vehicle and light motor vehi cle class”. Another decision in a case of S.Iyyapan vs United India Insurance
Company Limited and another, reported in 2013 ACJ 1944 (Supreme Court of India) wherein the Lordship held that “the insurance company cannot disown its li abili ty on the ground that the driver though duly authorized the driving li ght motor vehicle but there was no endorsement in the license to drive light motor vehi cle used as commercial vehicle”. In a case of HDFC Ergo
General Insurance Company Limited vs. Gantasala Vimla, Eluru, dt.21-6-
Digitally signed by CH
PANCHAKSHARI
14 of 18 XII ADJ, R.R.Dist M.V.O.P.No.618 of 2014. Dt.16-03-2023 2021, MACMA NO.652/2017 (APHC), further in a case of Chitluru
Sreelakshmi and others vs N.Vijay Kumar and another, reported in 2022 (6) ALT 716 (APHC) wherein lordship held that “the person holding license to drive light motor vehi cle (non-transport) can drive light motor vehi cle (Transport), there i s no necessity to specific endorsement on the dri vi ng license”. All these decisions would goes to show that the person who is possessing a driving license to drive a light motor vehicle (non-transport) can also drive a light motor vehicle of the same class (Transport) even though there is no specific endorsement on the driving license as LMV-
Transport.
29. The learned counsel for the respondent No.2 have relied on a decisions MACMA 1505/2013 vide Bajaj Alliaz General Insurance Company
Limited vs Gandam Somulamma; United India Insurance Company Limited vs. Gian Chand, reported in 1997 AIR S.C. 3824 ; Surina Durvasulu vs Bhava
Narayana Murthy and others, reported in 2008 ACJ 654 (AP) = 2007 (2)
ALD 277 ; Bontu Venkata Rao and another vs. Kalla Venkataramanna and another, 2003 (2) ALT 572 ; United India Insurance Co. Ltd., vs K.Narsimlu and others, 2011 (2) ALT 478; Sardari and others vs. Susheel Kumar and others, reported in 2008 (3) A.L.T. 26 (SC); Kashiram Yadav Vs. Oriental fire and General Insurance company limited, reported in 1989 AIR SC 2002;
New India Assurance Co. Ltd. v. Mandar Madhavtambe and others, reported in AIR 1996 SC 1150. The decisions relied on by the learned counsel for the
Digitally signed by CH
PANCHAKSHARI
15 of 18 XII ADJ, R.R.Dist M.V.O.P.No.618 of 2014. Dt.16-03-2023 respondent No.2 which are not applicable to the facts of the present case on hand.
30. In view of the above discussion, as the respondent No.1 who is the owner of the offending vehicle and who insured the offending vehicle with the respondent No.2 who issued Ex.B1 insurance policy which was in force as on the date of this accident and there are no violations proved by the learned counsel for the respondent No.3. This tribunal is of the view that the respondent No.1 and 2 are liable to pay compensation to the petitioners as decided by this tribunal. Since the insurance policy was in force, the respondent No.2 agreed to indemnify the respondent No.1. As such, respondent No.2 is liable to pay just compensation to the petitioners.
31. The petitioners claimed an amount of Rs.6,00,000/- for the death of
K.Badramma who died in an motor vehicle accident. But as decided by this
Court, the petitioners are entitled to an amount of RS.7,10,000/-, which this
Court felt that it is a just compensation to which the petitioners are entitled.
In view of the decision of Aadhan Inder Muthamma vs Rathod Reddia and others, reported in 2015 (4) ALT 775 and also another decision in a case of
National Insurance company limited rep by its Branch Manager, Branch office,
Moginaghat road, Nanded, Maharastra state vs. Sangem Hanumandlu and
others, in MACMA NO.1526 of 2007 and 2644 of 2014, dt.17-02-2022, i t was held that “In vi ew of the Judgments of the Apex Court referred to above, the claimants are enti tled to get more amount than what has been claimed.
Further, the Motor Vehi cles Act being a beneficial piece of legislation, where
Digitally signed by CH
PANCHAKSHARI
16 of 18 XII ADJ, R.R.Dist M.V.O.P.No.618 of 2014. Dt.16-03-2023 the interest of the clai mants i s a paramount consideration the court should always endeavour to extend the benefit to the claimants to a j ust and reasonable extent”. Considering that the compensation under the Motor vehicle act is a benefecial one, as such, this tribunal is inclined to award an amount Rs.7,10,000/- to the petitioners as this tribunal thinks that it is a just compensation. Accordingly, the issue No.2 is answered in favour of the petitioners and against the respondents.
31. ISSUE No.3:- In view of the findings given on issue No.1 and 2 this tribunal is inclined to allow the petition as prayed for by the petitioners.
In the result, the petition is allowed awarding an amount of
Rs.7,10,000/- against the respondents No.1 and 2 with proportionate costs and interest at Rs.7.5 % per annum from the date of petition to till the date of realization.
The petitioners are directed to pay the Court fee on the amount of
Rs.1,10,000/-. Office is directed to prepare decree on payment of deficit
Court fee.
The respondent No.2 is hereby directed to deposit the awarded compensation amount with proportionate costs and interest within one month from the date of passing of an award.
Digitally signed by CH
PANCHAKSHARI
17 of 18 XII ADJ, R.R.Dist M.V.O.P.No.618 of 2014. Dt.16-03-2023
Apportionment of compensation is made as follow:
Petitioner No.1 : (Husband) : Rs.2,10,000/-
Petitioner No.2 : (Son) : Rs.2,10,000/-
Petitioner No.3 : (Son) : Rs.2,10,000/-
Advocate fee is fixed at Rs.2,500/-
Di ctated to Stenographer, transcribed by her, corrected and pronounced by me on this the 16 th day of March, 2023.
Digitally signed by CH
PANCHAKSHARI
Chairman, Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal cum-XII Addl., Metropolitan Sessions Judge, Rangareddy at L.B.Nagar.
APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE
:WITNESSES EXAMINED:
FOR PETITIONER FOR RESPONDENT No.2.
PW1: Kalluri NarsaiahRW1: Duggu Sandeep Kumar. PW2: G.Rajukumar.RW2: R.S.R.Vamshi.
::EXHIBITS MARKED FOR PETITIONERS::
Ex.A1Certified copy of FIR along with complaint in Cr.No.51/2014 of P.S.Dummagudem, Khammam District.
Ex.A2Certified copy of charge sheet
Ex.A3Certified copy of inquest panchanama
Ex.A4Certified copy of postmortem report
Ex.A5Certified copy of M.V.I report.
::EXHIBITS MARKED FOR RESPONDENTS::
Ex,B1Aadhar card
Ex.B2Ration card
Ex.B3Copy of policy with terms and conditions
Ex.B4D.L Extract of accused driver, issued by Additional Licensing Authority, Khammam District.
Ex.B5Notice sent to insured for production of DL with acknowledgment
Digitally signed by CH
PANCHAKSHARI
18 of 18 XII ADJ, R.R.Dist M.V.O.P.No.618 of 2014. Dt.16-03-2023
Ex.B6Authorization letter dated 09-08-2019
Ex.B7Driving license issued to Ramudu Soyam
Digitally signed by CH
PANCHAKSHARI
Chairman, Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal cum-XII Addl., Metropolitan Sessions Judge, Rangareddy at L.B.Nagar.
1 of 15 XII ADJ, R.R.Dist M.V.O.P.No.853 of 2013. Dt.16-03-2023.
IN THE COURT OF THE MOTOR ACCIDENT CLAIMS TRIBUNAL -CUM- XII
ADDITIONAL METROPOLITAN SESSIONS JUDGE, RANGA REDDY AT
L.B.Nagar.
Present:- Sri CH.PANCHAKSHARI, XII Addl., Metropolitan Sessions Judge, Rangareddy at L.B.Nagar.
Dated this the 16th day March, 2023
M.V.O.P No.853 of 2013
Between:
1. Pichakuntla Yadamma, W/o. Late Krishnaiah, aged 30 years, Occ:Household,
2. Pichakuntla Chandipriya, D/o. Late Krishnaiah, aged 14 years, Occ:Student, Minor
3. Pichakuntla Harshavardhan, S/o.Late Krishnaiah, aged 10 years, Occ:Student, Minor
The petitioners No.2 and 3 are minors under the guardianship of this natural mother petitioner No.1.
4. Pichakuntla Venkatamma, W/o. Late Venkataiah, aged 56 years, Occ:Household,
All are R/o. Seripally village, H/o. Hasnapur village, Bhoothpur Mandal, Mahabubnagar District.
Presently residing at H.No.2-3-936, Arunodayanagar Colony, Nagole, Ranga Reddy District.
...Petitioners/Claimants
AND
1. Vanam Venkatesh, S/o. V.Chandrayudu, aged 40 years, Owner of mini lorry No. AP 22 TA 2902, R/o. H.No.3-57/1, Komireddypalli village, Addakal Mandal, Mahabubnagar District.
2. Shriram General Insurance Co.Ltd., represented by its Branch Manager, Hayathnagar, Ranga Reddy District Cover note No.3778416 valid from 22-03-2013 to 21-04-2014.
Digitally signed by CH
PANCHAKSHARI
2 of 15 XII ADJ, R.R.Dist M.V.O.P.No.853 of 2013. Dt.16-03-2023.
3. Rati Lalsingh, S/o. Venkatram Singh, Major, R/o. H.No.1-14, Gopalapoor village, Bhoothpur Mandal, Mahabubnagar District. Owner of auto No. AP 22 Y 4841.
4. Cholamandalam MS General Insurance Company Limited, Represented by its Branch Manager, Secunderabad Branch, Policy No.3368/00518621/000/00; Valid from 19-07-2012 to 18-07- 2013.
… ….. Respondents.
Thi s petition is coming before me on 16-03-2023 for final hearing in the presence of M.Achuta Reddy, Advocate for the petitioner and Sri P.Vijaya Bhaskar Reddy, Advocate for respondent No.2, A.Padma Reddy, Advocate for respondent No.4, respondents No.1 and 3 remained exparte, and upon heari ng both sides and perusing the material on record and having stood over for consideration till thi s day, the Court delivered the following:
::O R D E R::
The petitioners who are the claimants in this petition filed petition claiming compensation u/Sec.166 of the M.V.Act, and Rules 455 of the
A.P.M.V Rules 1989 read with Section 163-A, 140 (c) of A.P.M.V.Act against the respondents No.1 to 4 claiming compensation of Rs.24,45,500/- as they are jointly and severally liable to pay the compensation of the death of
P.Krishnaiah who died in an accident.
2.The facts of the case in brief as stated by the petitioners is follows as hereunder:-
(a). The petitioner No.1 is wife, petitioner No.2 and 3 are the children and petitioner No.4 is the mother of the deceased P.Krishnaiah.
(b). On 06-05-2013, in the night hours while the deceased
P.Krishnaiah and his friend Muddanur Srinivasulu were proceeding in an auto bearing No.AP 22 Y 4841 from Bhoothpur to Sheripally-H village. As the auto of the deceased was seized by the RTA authorities when they reached near to Sheripally-H village turning on the national highway at about 10:45
Digitally signed by CH
PANCHAKSHARI
3 of 15 XII ADJ, R.R.Dist M.V.O.P.No.853 of 2013. Dt.16-03-2023.
one sand loaded mini van bearing No.AP 22 TA 2902 proceeding towards
Bhoothpur driven by its driver at high speed in a rash and negligent manner and dashed to the auto. As a result, the deceased Krishnaiah and Srinivasulu sustained several injuries and the auto was also damaged in said accident.
(c). Immediately, injured were shifted to Government Headquarters
Hospital, Mahabubnagar in an ambulance where the Doctors examined
P.Krishnaiah and declared him as died.
(d).It is further pleaded that accident had taken place due to rash and negligent driving of mini van/tipper No. AP 22 TA 2902 (hereinafter referred in short as the “offending vehicle”). Basing on the report, the police Annasagar registered a case in crime No.91/2013 for the offence under Section 304-A and Section 337 of Indian Penal Code against the driver of the offending vehicle. The petitioners further pleaded that as on the date of accident, the deceased was aged about 35 years was working as a driver of the auto bearing No.AP 22 Y 2859 and was earning Rs.15,000/- per month. The deceased P.Krishnaiah contributed his earnings to the welfare of the family. It is further contended that due to untimely death of
P.Krishnaiah the petitioners lost their livelihood and they are all leading their miserable life and the petitioner No.1 lost her husband and conjugal life and petitioner No.2 and 3 lost their affectionate father.
(e).It is further contended that the respondent No.1 is son of the offending vehicle and respondent No.2 insurer of the offending vehicle.
Digitally signed by CH
PANCHAKSHARI
4 of 15 XII ADJ, R.R.Dist M.V.O.P.No.853 of 2013. Dt.16-03-2023.
The offending vehicle was insured with the respondent No.2 and insurance policy was in force from 22-03-2013 to 21-04-2014.
(f). As the accident was occurred due to the negligence of the offending vehicle, the respondent No.1 and 2 are jointly and severally liable to pay the compensation. It is further pleaded that the respondents No.3 and 4 are arrayed as a precautionary measures as the deceased was traveling in an auto as respondent No.1. With the above contention the petitioners prayed the tribunal to award an amount of Rs.24,45,000/-, with interest @ 18% per annum from the date of decree against the respondents
No.1 and 2 as they are jointly and severally liable to pay the compensation.
Hence this petition.
3.The respondent No.1 and 3 remained exparte. The respondent No.2 filed its coutner vehemently denying the avernments of the petition. The respondent No.2 contended that the driver of the offending vehicle i.e., the respondent No.1 was not holding valid and effective valid driving license as such the respondent No.2 is not liable to pay any compensation. As it was breach of terms and conditions of the insurance policy. The respondent
No.2 have pleaded that respondent No.1 failed to comply mandatory provisions under Section 134(c) and 158 (6) of the Motor Vehicles Act.
It is further contended that the petitioner have to prove that the owner of the offending vehicle did not violate the provisions of the Motor
Vehicle Act. It is further contended that the interest claimed by the petitioners is excessive.
Digitally signed by CH
PANCHAKSHARI
5 of 15 XII ADJ, R.R.Dist M.V.O.P.No.853 of 2013. Dt.16-03-2023.
The respondent No.2 pleaded in its counter that the accident was not occurred due to rash and negligent driving of the offending vehicle; further denied the age, avocation, earning capacity of the deceased P.Krishnaiah.
The respondent No.2 further denied the manner of the accident as pleaded by the petitioners. Further the respondent No.2 contended that the accident was occurred due to rash and negligent driving of the driver of the auto bearing No. AP 22 Y 4841 and the owner and insurer of the said vehicle are jointly and severally liable but not the respondent No.2. With the above contention the respondent No.2 prayed the Court to dismiss the petition with costs.
4.The respondent No.4 filed counter. The respondent No.4 denied the occurrence of the accident and also denied that the deceased was the owner of the auto bearing No.AP 22 Y 2859. Further, the respondent No.4 have pleaded that the respondent No.4 is not aware about the registration of the case by the police Annasagar. The liability of the respondent No.4 is subject to the terms and conditions of the insurance policy only. The respondent No.4 further have taken a defence that the driver of the crime vehicle was not having valid driving license at the time of accident as such the respondent No.4 is not liable to pay the compensation in view of his violation under Section 3 of Motor Vehicles Act.
4.1.The respondent No.4 further have taken all the defences to which the respondent No.4 is entitled to plead as per the provisions of the Motor
Vehicles Act and rules.
Digitally signed by CH
PANCHAKSHARI
6 of 15 XII ADJ, R.R.Dist M.V.O.P.No.853 of 2013. Dt.16-03-2023.
5.Basing on the above pleadings the following issues are settled for trial:
(1). Whether the deceased P.Krishnaiah died in an accident caused by the dri ver of the offendi ng vehicle beari ng No.AP 22 TA 2902 driven by i ts driver i n a rash and negli gent manner ?.
(2) Whether the peti ti oners are entitled to the claim compensation i f so to what quantum and from which of the respondents ?.
(3) To what reli ef ?.
6.In this petition, the petitioner No.1 is examined as PW1 and trough her evidence Ex.P1 to Ex.P7 were marked. The petitioners got examined the driver of the auto as PW2. With that the petitioners closed their evidence.
The respondent No.2 and 4 who are contesting the petition, the respondent
No.4 examined its Authorized Officer as RW3 and through his evidence
Ex.B1 is marked. The respondent No.2 got examined its Authorized Officer as RW4 and through his evidence Ex.B2 is marked. With that the respondents No.2 and 4 closed their evidence.
7.Heard the learned counsel for the petitioners and respondents No.2 and 4/ The respondent No.4 filed written arguments.
8. POINT: The petitioners knocked the doors of this tribunal with this petition under Section 166 of Motor Vehicles Act claiming compensation of
Rs.24,45,000/- on account of death of P.Krishnaiah who died in an accident occurred with the offending vehicle of 06-05-2013.
Digitally signed by CH
PANCHAKSHARI
7 of 15 XII ADJ, R.R.Dist M.V.O.P.No.853 of 2013. Dt.16-03-2023.
As the petitioners moved this petition under Section 166 of the Motor
Vehicles Act the petitioners must plead and prove that the accident was the result of rash and negligent driving of the driver of the offending vehicle i.e., mini van.
9. Oral evidence for the petitioners:- As stated supra, the petitioner
No.1 is examined as PW1 to support the claim of the petitioners. The PW1 is not other then the wife of the deceased P.Krishnaiah. The oral evidence of the PW1 before this tribunal is consistent that her husband died in an accident and the same is supported by documents. In the course of cross examination, PW1 deposed that she had not filed any document showing the deceased has got an auto. The learned counsel for the respondents
No.2 and 4 suggested that the accident was occurred due to the negligence of the auto driver but not due to the negligence of the driver of the “Offending Vehicle” as he was in drunken condition. But, the PW1 denied the suggestion given by the learned counsel for the respondent No.2. The suggestion itself goes to show that there was an accident on 06-05-2013 in which the husband of the PW1 sustained injuries and died due to the said injuries.
10. In support of the testimony of the PW1 another person is examined as
PW2. As per the evidence of PW2, he witnessed the accident as he was traveling in the same auto of husband of PW1 and in that auto PW2,
Adivaiah and Krishnaiah were traveling at the time of the accident. The
Adivaiah was the driver of the auto. As per the evidence elicited from the
Digitally signed by CH
PANCHAKSHARI
8 of 15 XII ADJ, R.R.Dist M.V.O.P.No.853 of 2013. Dt.16-03-2023.
cross examination of Pw2 Adavaiah was not in a drunken condition at the time of the accident. The testimony of PW2 before this tribunal also fortifies that there was an accident on 06-05-2013 in which the husband of
PW1 P.Krishnaiah died and the accident was caused by the driver of the “offending vehicle” i.e. mini goods van bearing No. AP 22 TA 2902.
11. Documentary Evidence:- In support of the oral evidence, the petitioners relied on Ex.P1 to Ex.P7 which are marked through the evidence of PW1. Ex.P1 is the certified copy of the First Information report in crime
No.91 of 2013 issued by Police Bhoothpur for the offence under Section 304-A and 337 of the Indian Penal Code against the driver of the “offending vehicle” bearing No. AP 22 TA 2902. Ex.P2 is the First Information report in crime No.91/2013 of P.S. Annasagar issued against the driver of the offending vehicle on the report lodged by P.Chandra Shekar. Ex.P3 is the certified copy of the inquest report conducted by the police Bhoothpur over the dead body of the deceased P.Krishnaiah. As per the Ex.P3 the deceased
P.Krishnaiah died due to the injuries received in an accident caused by the offending vehicle. Ex.P4 is the crime details form. Ex.P5 is the postmertum examination report conducted over dead body of the deceased P.Krishnaiah.
Ex.P6 is the certified copy of the Motor Vehicle Inspector report. Ex.P7 is the Electricity Department notice. As the Ex.P1 to P6 are admitted documents and they are the certified copies as such their genuineness is not disputed by the learned counsels for the respondents No.2 and 6. Hence,
This tribunal is inclined to place reliance on Ex.P1 to P6.
Digitally signed by CH
PANCHAKSHARI
9 of 15 XII ADJ, R.R.Dist M.V.O.P.No.853 of 2013. Dt.16-03-2023.
12. On considering the oral and documentary evidence, since nothing has been elicited by the learned counsel for the respondents, the oral evidence is well supported by the documentary evidence i.e., Ex.P1 to Ex.P6. This tribunal holds that the deceased P.Krishnaiah died in an accident caused by the driver of the “offending vehicle” when it was driven in a rash and negligent manner. The issue No.1 is answered accordingly.
13. ISSUE No.2:- In view of the findings given on issue No.1 which is answered in favour of the petitioners and against the respondents No.1 to 4 and further the respondents failed to prove that death was not due to the rash and negligent driving of the driver of the “Offending Vehicle”. As the petitioners have proved with the oral and documentary evidence that the deceased i.e. P.Krishnaiah died in a motor vehicle accident caused by the driver of the “Offending vehicle”. As such, the petitioners are entitled to claim compensation for untimely death of P.Krishnaiah.
14. Age of the deceased:- The petitioners herein claiming compensation of Rs.24,45,000/- against the respondents for the death of the deceased
P.Krishnaiah who was aged about 35 years, who was earning an amount of
Rs.15,000/- per month by attending to the driving work. Further the deceased P.Krishnaiah was the owner of the auto bearing No. AP 22 Y 2859.
The respondents No.2 and 4 have strongly opposed the claim and contention of the petitioners on the ground that the petitioners have not produced any document to prove the age, avocation and earnings of the deceased. The petitioners herein relied on Ex.P1 to Ex.P6 i.e. documents
Digitally signed by CH
PANCHAKSHARI
10 of 15 XII ADJ, R.R.Dist M.V.O.P.No.853 of 2013. Dt.16-03-2023.
which are collected by the Investigating Officer in the course of the investigation of the case as their genuineness is not disputed by the learned counsels for the respondents No.2, 4. This tribunal also proceeds to consider the contents of Ex.P1 to Ex.P6. In Ex.P3 certified copy of the inquest panchanama held over dead body of deceased in which the age of the deceased was mentioned as 35 years so also in Ex.P5 postmortem examination report. Since petitioners and respondents have not produced documentary evidence as stated supra, this Court proceeds to rely on the contents of Ex.P1 to Ex.P6 and inclined to fix the age of the deceased at 35 years as on the date of the accident.
15. INCOME OF THE DECEASED:- The petitioners pleaded in their petition stating that the deceased was earning an amount of Rs.15,000/- per month by attending to the auto driving work. This was seriously disputed by the respondent No.2 and 3. The learned counsel for the respondent No.2 submitted that the petitioners have admitted in their evidence stating that in the Ex.R1, the income of the deceased was shown as Rs.12,000/- per annum. But this tribunal is not inclined to consider the same in view of the age of the deceased which is considered as 35 years.
Hence, this Court is inclined to consider the income of the deceased at
Rs.7,000/- per month. Which comes to Rs.84,000/- per annum. Income of
Rs.7,000/- per month is appropriate considering the age of the deceased at the time of the accident.
Digitally signed by CH
PANCHAKSHARI
11 of 15 XII ADJ, R.R.Dist M.V.O.P.No.853 of 2013. Dt.16-03-2023.
16. FUTURE PROSPECTS:- The deceased was an auto driver as such he is under self employment. In view of the decision in a case in National
Insurance Company Limited vs Pranay Sethi and others, reported in
(2017) SCC 680 . A person in self employment who is aged below 40 years, his future prospects can be calculated at 40% on the annual income of the deceased which comes to Rs.1,17,600/- (Rs.84,000/- + Rs.33,600/- =
Rs.1,17,600/-)
17. DEDUCTION TOWARDS FAMILY AND PERSONAL EXPENSES:- As it can be seen from the avernments of the petition, there are four persons depending on the deceased P.Krishnaiah who died in an accident they are petitioners No.1 is wife, petitioners No.2 and 3 are children and petitioner
No.4 is the mother of the deceased P.Krishnaiah. Hence 1/4th of the income of the deceased has to be deducted towards personal and living expenses which comes to Rs.29,400/- (Rs.1,17,600/- - Rs.29,400/- =
Rs.88,200/-). The contribution of the deceased towards family was
Rs.88,200/-.
18. APPLICATION OF THE MULTIPLIER:- As per the decision of the
Hon’ ble Apex Court Sarala Verma and others Vs Delhi Transportation
Corporation and another, the multiplier has to be considered basing on the age of the deceased as on the date of the accident. Herein this case as stated supra this tribunal considered that the deceased was aged about 35 years on the date of the accident. Hence, the relevant multiplier applicable in this case is “16”. On application of the multiplier “16” the loss of
Digitally signed by CH
PANCHAKSHARI
12 of 15 XII ADJ, R.R.Dist M.V.O.P.No.853 of 2013. Dt.16-03-2023.
dependency comes to Rs.14,11,200/-, to which the petitioners are entitled towards compensation.
19. CONVENTIONAL AMOUNTS:- The petitioners are entitled to an amount of Rs.15,000/- towards loss of estate; funeral expenses
Rs.15,000/-; loss of spousal consortium at Rs.40,000/-. The petitioners
No.2 and 3 are the children who are dependent on the deceased as they lost their affectionate father and future guidance, as such they are entitled for an amount of Rs.40,000/- each towards parental consortium; further the petitioners No.4 is mother of the deceased i.e. P.Krishnaiah, she also entitled to filial consortium since she lost her son who is looking after her during her lifetime. As such she is also entitled to Rs.40,000/- towards filial consortium.
Thus in all the petitioners are entitled to Rs.16,01,200/- towards the compensation for the death of the deceased P.Krishnaiah in an accident.
20. LIABILITY:- The accident was occurred with the offending vehicle bearing No. AP 22 TA 2902 which was insured with the respondent No.2 who issued the insurance policy covering the period from 22-03-2013 to 21-04-2014. In this case the accident was occurred on 06-05-2013, the insurance policy was in force as on the date of accident and the police filed the charge sheet under Ex.P1 filed against the driver of the offending vehicle bearing No. AP 22 TA 2902. As no material is placed before this tribunal to hold that the driver of the offending vehicle was not at fault, as
Digitally signed by CH
PANCHAKSHARI
13 of 15 XII ADJ, R.R.Dist M.V.O.P.No.853 of 2013. Dt.16-03-2023.
such the respondent No.2 is liable to pay the compensation as awarded to the petitioners.
21. In this case, it is the contention of the learned counsel for the respondents that though the learned counsel for the respondents No.2 argued that the accident was occurred when the driver of the auto have taken U-Turn and there was contributory negligence on the part of the driver of auto. Hence the respondent No.2 is not liable to pay the compensation. Bt there is no evidence brought on to the record through the cross examination of the PW1 and 2 who consistently deposed that the accident was occurred due to negligence of driver of “offending vehicle”. In view of the evidence of PWs 1 and 2 and the documentary evidence, this tribunal holds that the respondent No.2 is liable to pay the compensation.
Accordingly issue No.2 is answered in favour of the petitioners and against the respondents.
In the result, the petition is allowed awarding compensation of
RS.16,01,200/- in favour of the petitioners against the respondent No.2 with proportionate costs and interest with interest @ 7.5% from the date of petition to till date of realisation. The remaining relief is hereby rejected.
The respondent No.2 is directed to deposit the awarded compensation amount with accrued rate of interest and costs within one month from the date of this award.
Apportionment of compensation:- (I). Petitioner No.1 Wife : Rs.6,01,200/-,
Digitally signed by CH
PANCHAKSHARI
14 of 15 XII ADJ, R.R.Dist M.V.O.P.No.853 of 2013. Dt.16-03-2023.
(ii) Petitioner No.2 Daughter: Rs.4,00,000/-,
(iii) Petitioner No.3. Son: : Rs.4,00,000/-,
(iv) Petitioner No.4 Mother: Rs.2,00,000/-.
The compensation amount awarded to the petitioner No.2 and 3 shall be kept in FDR in any nationalized bank till they attain majority. The petitioner No.1 and 4 are directed to withdraw their respective shares along with proportionate costs and interest on deposit of the amount.
Advocate fee is fixed at Rs.2,500/-.
Di ctated to Stenographer, transcribed by her, corrected and pronounced by me on this the 16th day of March, 2023.
Digitally signed by CH
PANCHAKSHARI
Chairman, Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal cum-XII Addl., Metropolitan Sessions Judge, Rangareddy at L.B.Nagar.
APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE
:WITNESSES EXAMINED:
FOR PETITIONERS FOR RESPONDENTS.
PW1: P.YadammaRW3: SK Ismail
PW2: S.SrinivasuluRW4: N.Sarath Kumar
::EXHIBITS MARKED FOR PETITIONERS::
Ex.P1Certified copy ofthe charge sheet in crime No.91/2013
Ex.P2Certified copy of the FIR in Cr.No.91/2013
Ex.P3Certified copy of inquest report
Ex.P4Certified copy of the CDF
Ex.P5Certified copy of the Postmortem Examination
Ex.P6Certified copy of the Motor Vehicle Inspector Report
Ex.P7Original Electricity bill No.2251
Digitally signed by CH
PANCHAKSHARI
15 of 15 XII ADJ, R.R.Dist M.V.O.P.No.853 of 2013. Dt.16-03-2023.
::EXHIBITS MARKED FOR RESPONDENTS::
Ex.B1Copy of insurance policy.
Ex.B2Copy of insurance policy.
Digitally signed by CH
PANCHAKSHARI
Chairman, Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal cum-XII Addl., Metropolitan Sessions Judge, Rangareddy at L.B.Nagar. ****
1 of 10 XII ADJ, Rangareddy, at L.B.Nagar. Dt.16.03.2023.A.S.No.201 of 2018.
IN THE COURT OF XII ADDITIONAL DISTRICT JUDGE, RANGA REDDY
DISTRICT AT L.B.NAGAR
PRESENT: Sri.CH.PANCHAKSHARI, XII Additional District Judge at L.B.Nagar.
Dated this the 16th day of March, 2023.
Appeal Suit No. 201 of 2018. Between: P.Padma, W/o.Brahmaiah, aged 41 years, Occ:Private Sector Employee, R/o. H.No.2-3-676/3, Plot No.18, Sai Nagar Colony, Road No.2, Nagole, Hyderabad – 500 068. ……. ……. ... … Appellant AND
T.Adilaxmi, W/o. T.Madhava Rao, aged:Major, Occ:Private Sector Employee, R/o. H.No.2-4-607, Plot No.16, Road No.9/A, New Nagole Colony, Hyderabad. …………...…... …. Respondent
On appeal from the judgment and decree dated 27-06-2017 in O.S.No.302 of 2016 on the fi le of I Addi ti onal Junior Civil Judge, Ranga Reddy District at L.B.Nagar.
T.Adilaxmi, W/o. T.Madhava Rao, aged:Major, Occ:Private Sector Employee, R/o. H.No.2-4-607, Plot No.16, Road No.9/A, New Nagole Colony, Hyderabad. … ….. ……… Plaintiff
AND P.Padma, W/o.Brahmaiah, aged 41 years, Occ:Private Sector Employee, R/o. H.No.2-3-676/3, Plot No.18, Sai Nagar Colony, Road No.2, Nagole, Hyderabad – 500 068.
… ….. ….. Defendant
This appeal suit coming before me for final hearing on 24-02-2023 in the presence of Sri M.Devender Reddy, Counsel for Appellant, and respondent remained exparte and upon perusal of the material papers on record having stood over for consideration till this day, this court delivered the following:
: O R D E R :
This appeal is preferred, under Order 41 Rule 1 read with Section 96 of Civil
Procedure Code by the appellant who is the defendant before the trial Court,
Digitally signed by CH
PANCHAKSHARI
2 of 10 XII ADJ, Rangareddy, at L.B.Nagar. Dt.16.03.2023.A.S.No.201 of 2018.
against the decree and judgment dt.27-06-2017 in O.S.No.302 of 2016 passed by the I Additional Junior Civil Judge, Ranga Reddy District, wherein the trial
Court decreed the suit against this appellant and in favour of the respondent/plaintiff.
2.For the sake of convenience and for better understanding of the facts, the parties to this appeal will be hereinafter to be referred to as arrayed in the pleadings before the trial Court.
3.The case of the plaintiff as averred in the plaint filed before the trial Court briefly stated as follows:-
(a). The plaintiff has lent an amount of Rs.1,00,000/- as hand loan on 20- 11-2009 since the defendant happened to be a relative of the plaintiff. The defendant after taking hand loan assured the plaintiff that he would return the hand loan amount within six months. But, the defendant instead of paying the loan amount started avoiding the payment. On repeated demands made by the plaintiff, the defendant had paid interest in the year 2010 and renewed the promissory note. Thereafter, the defendant started paying only small amounts as interest and used to renew the promissory note from time to time.
(b).It is further pleaded by the plaintiff that the defendant on 11- 04-2014 issued a cheque bearing No.215321 drawn on ICICI Bank for a sum of
Rs.1,00,000/- by renewing the promissory note. The plaintiff presented the said cheque for encashment in the bank of the plaintiff but the same was dishonoured.
After returning of the said cheque, the plaintiff got issued a legal notice dt.10-03- 2016 calling the defendant to pay the amount. The defendant having received
Digitally signed by CH
PANCHAKSHARI
3 of 10 XII ADJ, Rangareddy, at L.B.Nagar. Dt.16.03.2023.A.S.No.201 of 2018.
the legal notice got issued reply notice admitting that the defendant has renewed the promissory note.
(c). As the defendant failed to make the payment, the plaintiff is constrained to file the suit for recovery of money of Rs.1,48,333/- with further interest @ 24% per annum to till the date of realisation.
4.The defendant having received summons entered into appearance filed written statement. In the written statement the defendant pleaded that the suit is not maintainable either in law or facts, there was no cause of action arose to file the present suit against this defendant. Further, pleaded that the suit claim is barred by limitation.
(a).It is further pleaded by the defendant in the written statement that the defendant had no acquaintance with the plaintiff; he never renewed the promissory note against the plaintiff admitting the claim and never issued any cheque to the plaintiff. It is further denied by the defendant that receiving of amount on 20-11-2009 from the plaintiff. With the above contention, the defendant prayed the Court to dismiss the suit with costs in the interest of justice.
5.Basing on the above pleadings, the learned trial Court settled the following issues for trial:
(1). Whether the plaintiff is entitled to recover the suit amount as
prayed for ?
(2). To what relief?
6.During the Course of the trial before the learned trial Court, the plaintiff examined herself as PW1 and got examined her husband as PW2. In support of claim, the plaintiff got marked Ex.A1 to A3 and closed her evidence.
Digitally signed by CH
PANCHAKSHARI
4 of 10 XII ADJ, Rangareddy, at L.B.Nagar. Dt.16.03.2023.A.S.No.201 of 2018.
On behalf of the defendant who denied the suit claim, execution of the promissory note and issuance of the cheque did not adduce any evidence in support of her contention. But, through the cross examination of PW1, the defendant got marked Ex.B1 to Ex.B3. With that the defendant closed her evidence.
7.On conclusion of the trial, the trial Court passed the impugned decree and judgment dated 27-06-2017 thereby decreed the suit filed by plaintiff with costs.
8.Aggrieved by the said decree and judgment dt.27-06-2017 passed by the trial Cour,t the appellant preferred this appeal with following grounds:-
(a).The trial Court had not considered the material documents letter addressed by the appellant to the plaintiff on 02-04-2016 which clarifies the total due to be paid by the appellant is Rs.25,000/- only thus the judgment against this defendant for an amount of Rs.1,48,333/- is erroneous.
(b).The trial Court ought to have observed the contents of the plaint and failed to ascertain the corrections in the substance of the pleadings to determine the question for the reason that the avernments of the plaint are far away from the logic. More specifically issuance of the cheque by the appellant on 11-04-2014 and execution of promissory note after four months on 24-08- 2014 for the alleged claim of the plaintiff.
(c).Further, the trial Court ought to have observed that the plaintiff has not come, with clean hands, before the trial Court and suppressed the real facts behind the issue and thereby mislead the Court for her illegal act to recover the excess amount, though the defendant is liable to pay an amount of
Rs.25,000/- only.
Digitally signed by CH
PANCHAKSHARI
5 of 10 XII ADJ, Rangareddy, at L.B.Nagar. Dt.16.03.2023.A.S.No.201 of 2018.
(d).With this contentions the defendant prayed the Court to allow the appeal and consequently set aside the impugned judgment and decree passed in O.S.No.302/2016 in respect of the recovery of amount basing on the promissory note.
9.During the Court of hearing of this appeal, the learned counsel for the defendant submitted his arguments and filed written arguments. The respondent herein who was plaintiff before the trial Court was set exparte. Thereafter, the appeal is posted for passing of the judgment.
10. Now the following issues arise for determination:
(1). Whether the plaintiff is entitled to the recovery of an amount
as prayed for before the trial Court?
(2). Whether the impugned decree and judgment dated 27-06-
2017 passed by the trial Court called for any interference by
this Court?
(3). To what relief?
11. POINT No.1:- The plaintiff filed the suit under Order 37 CPC for recovery of the suit amount of Rs.1,48,333/- against the defendant basing on the strength of the promissory note and cheque executed by the defendant in favour of the plaintiff. The plea of the defendant is complete denial of the suit claim and also execution of the promissory note and cheque.
12. The learned counsel for the defendant have argued that the defendant was due of an amount of Rs.25,000/- only as admitted by the plaintiff. During the course of her cross examination and the trial the Court has failed to appreciate
Ex.B1 to Ex.B3 and arrived to a wrong conclusion and thereby decreed a suit by the plaintiff. Hence, prayed the Court to set aside the decree passed against this
Digitally signed by CH
PANCHAKSHARI
6 of 10 XII ADJ, Rangareddy, at L.B.Nagar. Dt.16.03.2023.A.S.No.201 of 2018.
defendant and allow the appeal by setting aside the decree and judgment dated 27-06-2017.
13. As per the contents of the plaintiff, the plaintiff lent an amount of
Rs.1,00,000/- to the defendant on 20-11-2009, the defendant paid interest in the year 2010 and renewed the pro-note and started paying the small small amounts in the interest and renewed the promissory note. Finally the defendant issued a cheuqe on 11-04-2014 by renewing the promissory note towards the discharge of the amount of Rs.1,00,000/-.
14. In support of the suit claim, the plaintiff got marked Ex.A1 to Ex.A3. Ex.A1 is the cheque, Ex.A2 is the promissory note dated 24-08-2014, Ex.A3 is the office copy of legal notice dated 10-03-2016. In Ex.A3 legal notice got issued by the plaintiff through her advocate in which also it is mentioned that the defendant executed promissory note on 20-11-2009, paid interest in the year 2010 and renewed the promissory note; further pleaded that the defendant paid interest till the year 2013 and finally on 11-04-2014 the defendant issued a cheque for
Rs.1,00,000/-. In the Ex.A3 legal notice there is no mention as to the execution of Ex.A2 promissory note by the defendant in favour of the plaintiff for
Rs.1,00,000/-. Interestingly, the defendant who denied the claim of the plaintiff got marked Ex.B1 to Ex.B3 through the cross examination of PW1. Ex.B1 is the reply notice dated 09-11-2015. It is contended that the defendant issued a cheque bearing No.229489 dated 09-11-2014 for Rs.50,000/- and the same is
honoured and further in Ex.B2 statement of the account of the defendant also it
is clear that the said cheque was honoured. Ex.B3 is the receipt which contains the signature of the plaintiff and the plaintiff as PW1 admitted in her cross
Digitally signed by CH
PANCHAKSHARI
7 of 10 XII ADJ, Rangareddy, at L.B.Nagar. Dt.16.03.2023.A.S.No.201 of 2018.
examination that she received Rs.25,000/- from the defendant herein. Thus, in all as per the admitted evidence of Pw1 and the documents Ex.B1 to Ex.B3 it is clear that the plaintiff received an amount of Rs.75,000/- towards the discharge of the loan amount. The trial court has not appreciated the documents relied on by the defendant and admitted by the plaintiff in her cross examination.
15. The pleadings of the plaintiff shows that the defendant executed promissory note on 24-08-2014 admitting the liability. The defendant though she denied the execution of Ex.A1 and A2 and in favour of the plaintiff. But, during the course of the trial, the defendant admitted the monitory transactions with the plaintiff and also admitted that the defendant paid an amount of
Rs.,75,000/- towards discharge for her liability and only due of an amount of
Rs.25,000/-.
16. The plaintiff herself examined as PW1. In course of the cross examination the PW1 deposed categorically stated that she neither mentioned in her plaint nor in the evidence stating that she lent the amount to the defendant on 20-11- 2009 to the tune of Rs.1,00,000/- for three installments. Further, admitted that except in the year 2009 she had not lent any amount to the defendant at any point of time. Further, admitted in her cross examination and same is extracted as below:
“I have drawn the amount as mentioned by me i n Ex.A3 on 20-11- 2009 from SBH. I di d not file any pass book before the Court in respect of wi thdrawi ng amount by me on 20-11-2009. The defendant endorsed on pro-note for payment with i nterest from time to time. I did not fi le any endorsement before the Court. It is true I did not file pro-note pertai ni ng to 2013 which renewed. I did not file any cheque return memo to show i ts di shonour. It is true I got issued legal notice to the defendant from Padmaj a learned Advocate. It is true account number i n
Digitally signed by CH
PANCHAKSHARI
8 of 10 XII ADJ, Rangareddy, at L.B.Nagar. Dt.16.03.2023.A.S.No.201 of 2018.
Ex.B1 pertai n to hi m so the cheque issued by the defendant was
honoured vi de No.229489 dated 09-11-2014. It is true I di d not
menti on i n Ex.A3 about issuance of Ex.B1 by him. Ex.B2 and Ex.B3 were marked duri ng the cross examination of PW1 as the PW1 admi tted the
Ex.B2 and Ex.B3. The PW1 admitted in her cross examination stati ng that she recei ved the amount from the defendant as the husband of the defendant has to pay amount”.
17. The evidence of PW1 itself obvious that the plaintiff received an amount of
Rs.50,000/- by way of cheque issued by the defendant. Further, PW1 received an amount of Rs.25,000/- as she admitted the execution of Ex.B3/receipt during the course of her cross examination. Though, she deposed that the said amount of
Rs.25,000/- was received by her towards the discharge of the debt of the husband of defendant. But, no piece of documentary evidence is produced to strengthen that the plaintiff had lent an amount of Rs.25,000/- to the husband of defendant. The plaintiff in her pleadings suppressed as to the receiving of
Rs.75,000/- from the defendant. Though, the plaintiff averred in her plaint that the defendant paid interest in the year 2010 and thereafter, also paid small amounts as interest but the plaintiff did not give the exact amounts that was received by the plaintiff from the defendant. Though, the defendant denied the execution of Ex.A1 and Ex.A2 for Rs.1,00,000/- but, admitted that the defendant paid Rs.75,000/- and only due of Rs.25,000/-. As the defendant admitted her liability, it can be said that the admitted facts need not be proved. Though the plaintiff failed to produce the promissory note initially executed, that does not itself invalid the claim of the plaintiff.
18.In the suit the plaintiff got examined her husband as PW2. The PW2 also admitted in his evidence stating that 20-11-2009, the defendant received
Digitally signed by CH
PANCHAKSHARI
9 of 10 XII ADJ, Rangareddy, at L.B.Nagar. Dt.16.03.2023.A.S.No.201 of 2018.
only Rs.30,000/- and later the defendant received Rs.30,000/- again. But, neither the PW1 nor the PW2 gave specific dates as to on what date the plaintiff paid
Rs.1,00,000/- to the defendant. Though, PW2 admitted in his cross examination stating that on repeated demands the defendant executed promissory note in their favour. Except making an avernments in the plaint and in the evidence of
PW1 and PW2, the plaintiff failed to produce promissory note that was executed on 20-11-2009 even there is no material brought on the record to believe that this defendant renewed the promissory note executed on 20-11-2009. As argued by the learned counsel for the defendant, the defendant was due for an amount of Rs.25,000/-only but not Rs.1,00,000/- as deposed by PW1 before the trial
Court. In view of the specific admissions made by PW1 during the Course of her cross examination and the same is evident by Ex.B1 to Ex.B3, on their face value, it can be said that the defendant was due of an amount of Rs.25,000/- only. But not Rs.1,00,000/- as claimed in the plaint.
19. The trial Court has failed to appreciate the Ex.B1 to Ex.B3 and the evidence elicited through the cross examination of PW1 and thereby the trial
Court came to a wrong conclusion and held that the plaintiff is entitled to recover the suit amount with further interest and costs.
20. As discussed in the presiding paragraphs, this Court is of the view that the plaintiff is entitled to recover an amount of Rs.25,000/- only from the defendant but not the amount as claimed by the plaintiff before the trial Court. Accordingly, the point No.1 is answered.
Digitally signed by CH
PANCHAKSHARI
10 of 10 XII ADJ, Rangareddy, at L.B.Nagar. Dt.16.03.2023.A.S.No.201 of 2018.
21. POINT NO.2: In view of the findings given on point No.1, this Court is of the view that the decree and judgment passed by the trial Court is liable to be set aside. Accordingly set aside the same. The point is answered accordingly.
22. POINT No.3: Inview of the findings arrived by this court, this court holds that the appeal is allowed partly modifying the judgment and decree holding that the defendant is liable to pay an amount of Rs.25,000/- to the plaintiff. The point is answered.
In the result, the appeal is allowed partly and the plaintiff is entitled to recover an amount of Rs.25,000/- with costs and interest @ 24% per annum from the date of suit till date of decree and thereafter 6% per annum till the date of realization on principle amount of Rs.25,000/-.
Di ctated to Stenographer, transcri bed by her, corrected and pronounced by me on this the 16 th day of March, 2023.
Digitally signed by CH
PANCHAKSHARI
XII Addl., District Judge, Rangareddy at L.B.Nagar.
::APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE::
-NIL-
Digitally signed by CH
PANCHAKSHARI
XII Addl., District Judge, Rangareddy at L.B.Nagar.
*****
1 of 10 XII ADJ, R.R.Dist M.V.O.P.No.481 of 2014 Dt.16-03-2023.
IN THE COURT OF THE MOTOR ACCIDENT CLAIMS TRIBUNAL -CUM- XII
ADDITIONAL METROPOLITAN SESSIONS JUDGE, RANGA REDDY AT
L.B.Nagar.
Present:- Sri CH.PANCHAKSHARI, XII Addl., Metropolitan Sessions Judge, Rangareddy at L.B.Nagar.
Dated this the 16th day March, 2023.
M.V.O.P No.481 of 2014
Between:
P.Pushpa Kumari, W/o. Ramesh Babu, aged … years, Occ:Private Service, R/o. H.No.8-1-284/OU/521/7/9; Osmania University Colony, Hyderabad.
...Petitioner
AND
1. Mohd. Arif, S/o.Late Mohd. Yousuf, Major, R/o. No.19-8-32/13/A, N M Guda, Kishan Bagh, Bahadurpura, Hyderabad.
(Owner of tipper Ashok Leyland bearing registration No. AP 16 TW 8329)
2. A.Yadagiri, S/o. Bala Swamy, aged 23 years, Driver, R/o. Manikonda, Native of No.2-72, Mudireddyally, Mahabhbnagar. (Driver of the vehicle)
3. M/s. Shriram General Insruance Company Limited No.E-8, RIICO Industrial Area Sitapura, Jaipur, Rajasthan Represented by its Branch Manager 10-3-66/4/1/0, East Maredpally, Secunderabad. ( Policy No.0400: Policy valid from 04-02-2013 to 03-12-2014 Policy issued at Jaipur).
...Respondents.
This petition is coming before me on 13-03-2023 for final hearing in the presence of Sri R.V.Subha Rao, Advocate for the petitioner and Sri P.Vijaya Bhaskar Reddy, Advocate for respondent No.3 respondents No.1 and 2 remained exparte, and upon hearing both sides and perusing the material on record and having stood over for consi deration till this day, the Court delivered the following:
::O R D E R::
This claim petition is filed u/sec.166 of Motor Vehicles Act 1988 under
Rules 475 of A.P.M.V. Rules r/w Section 140 of Motor Vehicle Act, claiming compensation of an amount of Rs.5,38,892/- against the respondent for the damage caused to the car bearing No. AP 23 L 1111.
Digitally signed by CH
PANCHAKSHARI
2 of 10 XII ADJ, R.R.Dist M.V.O.P.No.481 of 2014 Dt.16-03-2023.
2.The avernments of the petition as contended by the petitioner in brief are follows as hereunder:
(a). On 05-11-2013 at about 05:20 A.M the driver was proceeding towards Mothinagar from Gachibowli in the car bearing No. AP 23 L 1111 on the way, when he reached near Quality Inn Junction, the respondent No.2 who is the driver of tipper bearing No.AP 16 TV 8379 (hereinafter referred as “offending vehicle”) driven it in a rash and negligent manner and came from back side and dashed against the Innova car which resulted damage to the Innova car bearing
No. AP 23 L 1111.
(b). It is further contended that, the petitioner is the owner of Innova vehicle and one P.Ramesh was working as driver of the Innova vehicle at the time of the accident. The petitioner who is owner of the Innova car insured the said vehicle with L & T Insurance company.
(c). Basing on the report by the driver of the Innova car, the police
Raidurgam registered a case in Cr.No.609/2013 against the driver of the offending vehicle on 05-11-2013.
(d). It is further averred by petitioner in her petition that respondent No.1 is the owner of the offending vehicle. The respondent No.2 is the driver of the offending vehicle and the respondent No.3 is the insurer of the offending vehicle who issued the insurance policy for the offending vehicle.
(e). The petitioner further pleaded in her petition that, the petitioner got repaired the Innova vehicle, at M/s. Radhakrishna Automobiles Private Limited,
Sanathnagar, Hyderabad. The total amount of Rs.5,12,967/- was incurred by the petitioner for getting the vehicle repaired to get it to a normal condition.
Digitally signed by CH
PANCHAKSHARI
3 of 10 XII ADJ, R.R.Dist M.V.O.P.No.481 of 2014 Dt.16-03-2023.
(f) . It is further contended that claim was made with the insurer of the
Innova Vehicle i.e. L & T Insurance Company out of total claim of Rs.5,12,967/- insurer of petitioner’s vehicle paid an amount of Rs.1,89,075/-. The balance amount was incurred by the petitioner. Since the accident was occurred due to rash and negligent driving of the offending vehicle i.e., respondent No.2 and caused damage to the Innova car of the petitioner. As such, the petitioner filed this petition against the respondents praying the tribunal to award an amount of
Rs.5,38,892/- Hence this petition.
3.The respondents No.1 and 2 were set exparte. The respondent No.3 filed its counter vehemently opposing contention of the petitioner. The respondent
No.3 not admitted the occurrence of the damage to Innova Car bearing No. AP 23
L 1111 and also denied manner of accident as pleaded by the petitioner and also denied incurring of an amount of Rs.5,12,967/- and payment of Rs.1,89,075/- by the insurer of the petitioner’s vehicle.
3.1.The respondent No.3 further pleaded in its counter that driver of the offending vehicle was not rash and negligent in driving the offending vehicle and the accident was occurred due to negligence of the driver of the Innova car. As such, respondent No.3 is not liable to pay the compensation. Further the liability of the respondent No.3 is subject to terms and conditions of the insurance policy.
If the respondent No.1 contravenes or violates terms and conditions of the insurance policy and provisions of motor vehicles act and rules then also the respondent No.3 is not liable to pay compensation.
3.2.The respondent No.3 further contended that, the driver of the Innova car was not having valid and effective driving license to drive the Innova car and
Digitally signed by CH
PANCHAKSHARI
4 of 10 XII ADJ, R.R.Dist M.V.O.P.No.481 of 2014 Dt.16-03-2023.
said car was not in a roadworthy condition to ply on the road on date of accident.
The respondent No.3 further pleaded that, as the accident was occurred due to involvement of two vehicles, non-joinder of owner and insurer of the Innova Car as parties to this petition, petition is not maintainable and liable to be dismissed.
3.3.It is further contended that amount claimed by petitioner is highly excessive and exorbitant and not entitled to such amount. Further, respondent
No.3 have taken all other defences to which the respondent No.3 is permitted to plead as per the provisions of the Motor Vehicles Act. With the above contention, the respondent No.3 prayed the Court to dismiss the petition with costs.
4. Basing on the above pleadings, following issues are settled for trial:- (1) Whether the Innova car bearing No. AP 23 L 1111 sustained damage in the accident alleged by the petitioner due to rash and negligent driving of the
Ti pper bearing No.AP 16 TV 8379 by its driver ?.
(2) Whether the petitioner is entitled to any compensation for the damage caused to Innova Car bearing registration No. AP 23 L 1111 and if so to what costs and from which of the respondents ?.
(3) To what relief if any, the petitioner is entitled to in the facts and ci rcumstances of the case ?.
5.The petitioner who is the owner of the Innova car which was damaged in an accident occurred with the offending vehicle entered into witness box and examined herself as PW1 and through her evidence Ex.A1 to Ex.A5 were marked.
With that the petitioner closed her evidence.
6.The respondent No.3 who denied the claim made by the petitioner have not entered into the witness box to disprove the case of the petitioner. As such, the evidence for the respondent No.3 is treated as nil.
Digitally signed by CH
PANCHAKSHARI
5 of 10 XII ADJ, R.R.Dist M.V.O.P.No.481 of 2014 Dt.16-03-2023.
7.The respondent No.3 filed petition u/Sec.170 (b) of the Motor Vehicle Act.
Heard and the same is allowed.
8.The Ex.B1/copy of the insurance policy is marked in support of contention of the learned counsel for the respondent No.3. With that, the evidence of the respondent No.3 is closed.
9. ISSUE No.1: As this is a claim petition moved u/sec.166 of the Motor
Vehicle Act claiming compensation for the damage caused to the Innova car in an accident caused by the offending vehicle as such the petitioner must plead and prove that the driver of offending vehicle was at fault and due to his negligence only the accident occurred in which the vehicle of the petitioner was damaged.
10. To substantiate the claim, the petitioner examined herself as PW1 by filing the chief examination affidavit and also the addition chief examination affidavit.
Through the evidence of PW1 Ex.A1 to A5 were marked. The evidence of PW1
before this tribunal and the pleadings of the petitioner are consistent and proves
that Innova car bearing No. AP 23 L 1111 was damaged in an accident caused by the driver of the “offending vehicle” when it was driven in a rash and negligent manner. During the course of the cross examination, the PW1 deposed that she does not know in what manner and how the accident occurred. But, the testimony of the PW1 is clear that the offending vehicle dashed to the Innova car.
The PW1 in her evidence specifically admitted that she had not filed any documents to show that she had paid an amount of Rs.5,12,967/- towards repairing charges to M/s. Radhakrishna Automobiles Private Limited and also not filed any document to show that she paid Rs.10,000/- per month to the driver towards his salary and not filed any document to show that she has spent an
Digitally signed by CH
PANCHAKSHARI
6 of 10 XII ADJ, R.R.Dist M.V.O.P.No.481 of 2014 Dt.16-03-2023.
amount of Rs.7,27,967/- towards damage, Even it is further admitted by PW1 that she had not filed any document to say that she approached the insurer of the crime vehicle i.e., offending vehicle. The PW1 denied the suggestion given by the learned counsel for the respondent No.3 that the accident was occurred due to rash and negligent driving of the driver of the Innova car without observing the movements of the vehicles on road and there was no negligence on the part of the crime vehicle i.e., offending vehicle.
11. It is not the case of the respondent No.3 that there was no accident at all on 05-11-2013 and the offending vehicle was not at all involved in the said accident, as per the suggestion given by the learned counsel for the respondent
No.3. The learned counsel for the respondent No.3 though cross examined at length, nothing has been elicited to discard the testimony of the PW1 before this tribunal.
12. As stated supra, through the evidence of Pw1, Ex.A1 to A5 were marked. In support of the oral testimony, the petitioner relied on Ex.A1 to Ex.A5 to substantiate the occurrence of the accident and causing damages to the Innova car belonging to the petitioner. The Ex.A1 is the attested copy of First Information
Report in crime No.609/2013 issued by P.S.Raidurgam, Cyberabad on the report lodged by P.Ramesh who was driver of the Innova car at the relevant time of accident. Ex.A1 was issued by the police Raidurgam against the driver of the tipper for the offence under Section 279 of Indian Penal Code. Ex.A2 is the attested copy of the charge sheet filed by the Investigating Officer of
P.S.Raidurgam on completion of investigation of the case registered in crime
No.609/2013 on the report of P.Ramesh. Ex.A2/charge sheet concludes that the
Digitally signed by CH
PANCHAKSHARI
7 of 10 XII ADJ, R.R.Dist M.V.O.P.No.481 of 2014 Dt.16-03-2023.
accident was the result of rash and negligent driving of driver of the offending vehicle but not at the fault of driver of the Innova car bearing No. AP 23 L 1111.
13. The oral testimony of PW1 and the documents Ex.A1 and Ex.A2 are supported and strengthened the case of petitioner. As stated supra through the cross examination of PW1 nothing has been elicited to hold that the offending vehicle was not at all responsible to the damage caused to the Innova car belonging to the petitioner herein.
14. Having considering the oral and documentary evidence adduced by the petitioner, this tribunal holds that Innova car bearing No.AP 23 L 1111 sustained damage in an accident caused by driver of the offending vehicle. Accordingly, point No.1 is answered in favour of the petitioner and against the respondents.
15. ISSUE No.2:- This claim petition was moved by the petitioner claiming damage of an amount of Rs.5,38,892/- which was spent by the petitioner for getting the Innova car to get said vehicle repaired for getting the vehicle to normal condition. The respondent No.3 seriously disputed the same. In the course of the evidence of PW1, the Ex.A3 to A5 were marked. Ex.A3 is computerized copy of approval letter issued by Radhakrishna toyoto for an amount of Rs.1,89,075/- issued by the Manager Motor Claims of Shriram General
Insurance Company Limited. The petitioner in her petition clearly averred that an amount of Rs. 1,89,075/- was reimbursed by the insurer of petitioners vehicle though, she submitted her claim to the tune of Rs.5,12,967/-. Ex.A4 is the attested copy of the accessories quotation dated 13-12-2013 issued by
Radhakrishna Private Limited for an amount of Rs.98,090/-. Ex.A5 is the attested copy of the invoice in No.10 issued by Radhakrishna Automobiles Private Limited
Digitally signed by CH
PANCHAKSHARI
8 of 10 XII ADJ, R.R.Dist M.V.O.P.No.481 of 2014 Dt.16-03-2023.
for an amount of Rs.4,82,295/- dt. 04-12-2013. Ex.A4 and A5, put together the amount spent by the petitioner for getting the Innova car repaired to an amount of Rs.5,80,385/- whereas the petitioner only claims Rs.5,38,892/-.
16. As the petitioner already claimed an amount of Rs.1,89,075/- from its insurer, the same has to be deducted from the claim made by the petitioner against the respondents herein. After deducting the amount received by the petitioner from her insurer, the remaining amount comes to Rs.3,91,380/-. As admitted by the PW1 during the course of her cross examination, she had not filed any document to show that she had paid an amount of Rs.5,19,967/- and also not submitted any document to show that she had spent amount of
Rs.7,27,967/- though the petitioner had not produced document to show that she had paid the amount as mentioned in Ex.A4 and Ex.A5. But, without making the payment one can be presumed that no person attends the repairing work of the vehicle damaged in an accident. Hence this tribunal is of the view that when the petitioner actually spent the amount for getting the vehicle repaired and to get it to normal condition as the accident was occurred due to negligence of the driver of the offending vehicle i.e., respondent No.2 incurred by the respondent
No.1 the insurance company is liable to pay the actual amount spent for getting the vehicle repaired. Though the respondent No.3 denied the claim made by the petitioner no material is produced to decline the awarding of compensation to the petitioner. As such this tribunal is of the view that the petitioner is entitled to a compensation of an amount of Rs.3,91,380/- from the respondents.
17. In this case though the respondent No.3 did not adduce any oral evidence in support of its contention but with consent copy of the insurance policy is
Digitally signed by CH
PANCHAKSHARI
9 of 10 XII ADJ, R.R.Dist M.V.O.P.No.481 of 2014 Dt.16-03-2023.
marked as Ex.B1. The insurance policy issued to the offending vehicle was in force as on the date of the accident. Since the period of the insurance was from 24- 05-2013 to mid night of 23-05-2014 as per the contents of Ex.P5. Hence, respondent No.3 is liable to pay the compensation for the damage caused to the vehicle of petitioner. Accordingly, issue No.2 is answered.
18. ISSUE No.3: In view of the findings given on issue No.1 and 2 which are answered in favour of the petitioner and against the respondent, the petitioner is entitled to claim the compensation. Accordingly the point is answered.
In the result the petition is allowed partly awarding compensation of an amount of Rs.3,91,380/- with proportionate costs and interest at Rs.7.5% per annum from the date of the petition till the date of the realization. The rest of the claim made by the petitioner is dismissed.
The respondent No.3 is directed to deposit the awarded compensation amount along with accrued interest and costs within one month from the date of this award. On deposit of the amount, the petitioner is directed to withdraw the entire compensation amount along with accrued interest and costs.
Advocate fee is fixed at Rs. 2,500/-
Dictated to Stenographer, transcribed by her, corrected and pronounced by me on this the 16th day
of March, 2023.
Digitally signed by CH
PANCHAKSHARI
Chairman, Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal cum-XII Addl., Metropolitan Sessions Judge, Rangareddy at L.B.Nagar.
10 of 10 XII ADJ, R.R.Dist M.V.O.P.No.481 of 2014 Dt.16-03- 2023.
APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE
:WITNESSES EXAMINED:
FOR PETITIONERS FOR RESPONDENT No.3
PW1: P.Pushpakumari - Nil -
::EXHIBITS MARKED FOR PETITIONERS::
Ex.A1Copy of FIR in crime No.609/2013 of P.S.Raidurgam, Cyberabad
Ex.A2Attested copy of charge sheet
Ex.A3Computer copy of approval letter issued by M/s. Radha Krishna Toyota Limited.
Ex.A4Attested copy of Accessories quotation dated 13-12-2013.
Ex.A5Attested copy of invoice (7 Nos) Issued by Radha Krishna Toyota Limited.
::EXHIBITS MARKED FOR RESPONDENTS::
Ex.B1Copy of insurance policy.
Digitally signedDigitally signed by CH by CH
PANCHAKSHARI
PANCHAKSHARI
Chairman, Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal cum-XII Addl., Metropolitan Sessions Judge, Rangareddy at L.B.Nagar. ****
Order Record 13 total
| Case No. | Parties | Date | Type | Outcome |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| AS/201/2018 | Smt. P. Padma W/o. Brahmaiah vs T. Adilaxmi, W/o. T. Madhava Rao | 16 Mar 2023 | Judgement | — |
| OP/481/2014 | Mrs. P Pushpa Kumari vs Mr.Mohd.Arif | 16 Mar 2023 | Judgement | — |
| OP/618/2014 | Kalluri Narsaiah vs Mr. Punem Sriramulu | 16 Mar 2023 | Judgement | — |
| OP/853/2013 | Pichakuntla Yadamma vs Vanam Venkatesh | 16 Mar 2023 | Judgement | — |
| OS/463/2008 | B. Danaiah vs Sri V.Pratap Reddy | 15 Mar 2023 | Judgement | — |
| OS/829/2007 | B. Danaiah vs V. Pratap Reddy | 15 Mar 2023 | Judgement | — |
| OP/1050/2012 | A.Bhaskar vs Ismail Shaik | 10 Mar 2023 | Judgement | — |
| CRLA.MU/74/2018 | Medi shetty Shiva Kumar vs A.Yadi Reddy | 10 Mar 2023 | Judgement | — |
| OS/947/2017 | M/s. Lohiya Edible Oils Pvt Ltd., vs Sri Sai Venkata Foods | 27 Feb 2023 | Judgement | — |
| OP/329/2013 | M.Tharun Kumar vs M.Suryanarayana | 24 Feb 2023 | Judgement | — |
| OS/1053/2013 | P.Ramchander vs G.Ram Durga Prasad and another | 24 Feb 2023 | Judgement | — |
| EP/1400216/2018 | G.Venkata Ramana Kumar vs M/s.Jain Housing and Constructions Ltd. | 23 Feb 2023 | Order | — |
| OP/191/2019 | Kashmaina Krishna S/o Kashamaina Lingaiah vs Thota Prabhakar S/o. Thota Bhuchhi Rajam, | 23 Feb 2023 | Judgement | — |
Frequently Asked Questions
How many cases has Sri.Ch.Panchakshari handled?
Sri.Ch.Panchakshari has handled 13 court orders since 2023 at Rangareddy, PDJ Court Complex. The average disposal rate is 1 orders per month.
What types of cases does Sri.Ch.Panchakshari hear?
Based on available records, Sri.Ch.Panchakshari primarily handles Civil matters (Original Petitions, Original Suits) and Criminal matters (Criminal Appeals) at Rangareddy, PDJ Court Complex.
Where is Sri.Ch.Panchakshari currently posted?
Sri.Ch.Panchakshari is posted as Additional Family Court, L.B.Nagar at Rangareddy, PDJ Court Complex, Rangareddy, Telangana.
Are judgments by Sri.Ch.Panchakshari available online?
Yes. 5 judgments by Sri.Ch.Panchakshari are available on Legistro with full text, outcome, and sections cited.
How fast does Sri.Ch.Panchakshari dispose cases?
Sri.Ch.Panchakshari disposes approximately 1 cases per month, based on 13 orders handled over their tenure at Rangareddy, PDJ Court Complex.
Since when is Sri.Ch.Panchakshari serving?
Sri.Ch.Panchakshari has been serving at Rangareddy, PDJ Court Complex since 2023.
Case Types
Posting History
-
Mar 2023 — Apr 2024Additional Family Court, L.B.Nagar
-
Feb 2023 — Mar 2023XII Addl District and Sessions Judge-cum-XII Additional Metropolitan Sessions Judge · 13 orders
Other Judges at this Court